The Impact of Principal Leadership Style, Experience, and Tenure on School Climate in Times of Instructional Reform

THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP STYLE, EXPERIENCE, AND TENURE ON SCHOOL CLIMATE IN TIMES OF INSTRUCTIONAL REFORM

by Shannon Capshew B.A. (Fresno Pacific University) 1991 M.A. (Fresno Pacific University) 2002

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctorate in Education

Doctoral Program in Educational Leadership at Fresno State Kremen School of Education and Human Development

California State University, Fresno 2015 ii Shannon Capshew May 2015 Educational Leadership

THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP STYLE, EXPERIENCE, AND TENURE ON SCHOOL CLIMATE IN TIMES OF INSTRUCTIONAL REFORM

Abstract

This study found transformative Leadership is found to have an impact on positive school climate. Transformational leaders provide support, motivation, shared leadership, and behaviors that support a collective efficacy in the school. The sample included 170 elementary teachers working in 25 schools in the Central Valley. A quantitative analysis was conducted. Several analyses were conducted: A) Correlation, B) Canonical Correlation, C) Regression, and D) MANOVA. A Google Survey was used to gather data. Data also showed principals with less than four years tenure in their schools had low means, as compared to the experienced principal with four years tenure and the inexperienced principal.

iii

California State University, Fresno Kremen School of Education and Human Development Doctoral Program in Educational Leadership

This dissertation was presented by

Shannon La Nell Capshew

It was defended on May 6, 2015 and approved by:

Susan Tracz Curriculum and Instruction

Nancy Akhavan Educational Leadership

Virginia Boris Central Valley Educational Leadership Institute

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I have to give great credit to my husband for his support in this work. Working on this dissertation has taken so much from me, and he has always been available and ready to help. I also want to recognize my parents in this process. I had never planned to get my educational doctorate, growing up in a home with no college education. Their faith and support has been incredible. Their model for me, as a daughter and growing adult, has supported my values regarding moral character and ethics. I have great passion to promote and support the use of positive character and ethics in the work that I do.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

LIST OF TABLES ...... x

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ...... 1

Background Information ...... 1

School Climate ...... 2

Trust ...... 2

Teacher Burnout ...... 4

Principal Turnover ...... 5

Definition of the Problem ...... 6

Purpose of the Study ...... 8

Research Methodology ...... 10

Research Questions ...... 10

Significance of the Study ...... 11

Definition of Key Terms ...... 12

Summary ...... 13

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ...... 15

Introduction ...... 15

School Reform ...... 15

Elementary and Secondary Education Act ...... 15

A Nation at Risk ...... 16

No Child Left Behind ...... 17

Preparing Administrative Leaders ...... 20

Principal Implementation Efforts ...... 21

vii

Leadership in All Schools ...... 22

Leadership Theories ...... 22

Distributed Leadership ...... 23

Transformative Leadership...... 34

Transactional Leadership ...... 40

School Climate ...... 42

Academic Climate ...... 45

Role of Trust ...... 48

School Climate Impact on Teacher Attrition ...... 52

Principal Turnover ...... 56

Principal Attrition Rates ...... 56

Attrition Rates in High Poverty Schools ...... 61

Conclusion ...... 66

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY ...... 67

Introduction ...... 67

Purpose ...... 68

Research Questions ...... 68

Research Design ...... 69

Participants ...... 69

Instrumentation ...... 70

New Survey ...... 88

Pilot ...... 89

Data Collection ...... 90

Analysis ...... 90

Limitations ...... 92

vii

viii

Delimitations ...... 92

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS/OUTCOMES ...... 93

Introduction ...... 93

Research Questions ...... 93

Demographic Statistics ...... 94

Teacher Descriptive Statistics ...... 94

Principal Descriptive Statistics ...... 94

Subscale Reliability ...... 95

Subscale Analysis ...... 95

Correlational Results ...... 97

Correlation Coefficients ...... 98

Canonical Correlation...... 101

Regression ...... 104

MANOVA Results ...... 110

Principal Leadership ...... 110

School Climate ...... 114

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION/SUMMARY/CONCLUSION ...... 118

Introduction ...... 118

Research Questions ...... 119

Summary of Findings ...... 120

Correlation ...... 121

Canonical Correlation...... 123

Regression ...... 124

Multivariate Analysis of Variance ...... 125

Discussion ...... 128

viii

School Leadership ...... 128

Teacher Leadership ...... 129

Principal Tenure ...... 130

Implications for Practice ...... 132

Shared Leadership ...... 134

Future Research ...... 135

Conclusion ...... 135

REFERENCES ...... 136

APPENDIX A: SUPERINTENDENT PROPOSAL ...... 145

APPENDIX B: PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP ITEMS ...... 146

APPENDIX C: SCHOOL CLIMATE ITEMS ...... 148

APPENDIX D: LETTER TO TEACHERS ...... 150

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 1 Teacher Leader Tasks as Perceived by Teachers ...... 28

Table 2 Professional Learning Communities ...... 32

Table 3 STL – Scales Represented by Subscale ...... 71

Table 4 Reliability – STL Subscales ...... 72

Table 5 Integrity Items ...... 73

Table 6 Sensible Risk Items ...... 74

Table 7 Encourages Innovation Items ...... 75

Table 8 Demonstrates Innovation Items ...... 75

Table 9 Inspirational Motivation Items ...... 77

Table 10 Supports Others Items ...... 78

Table 11 Develops Others Items ...... 78

Table 12 Task Delegation Items ...... 79

Table 13 Expects Excellence Items ...... 80

Table 14 Reliability – NCTWCS Subscales ...... 81

Table 15 Time Items ...... 82

Table 16 Facilities and Resources Items ...... 83

Table 17 Community Support and Involvement Items ...... 84

Table 18 Managing Student Conduct Items ...... 85

Table 19 Teacher Leadership Items ...... 85

Table 20 School Leadership Items ...... 86

Table 21 Professional Development Items ...... 87

Table 22 Instructional Practices and Support Items ...... 89 x

Table 23 Teacher Demographics (N = 170) ...... 94

Table 24 Principal Demographics ...... 95

Table 25 Reliability ...... 96

Table 26 Descriptive Statistics for Principal Leadership Subscales (N = 168) ... 96

Table 27 Descriptive Statistics – School Climate (N = 170) ...... 97 Table 28 Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficients Among Principal Leadership Subscales ...... 98 Table 29 Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficients Among School Climate Subscales ...... 99 Table 30 Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficients Among Principal Leadership & School Climate Subscales ...... 100

Table 31 Within Cells Regression Multivariate Tests of Significance ...... 101

Table 32 Predictors and Outcomes Variables ...... 102

Table 33 Canonical Correlation Coefficients ...... 103

Table 34 Dimension Reduction Analysis ...... 103 Table 35 Canonical Solution for Principal Leadership & School Climate – Function 1...... 104

Table 36 Regression Results for the Dependent Variable of Time ...... 105 Table 37 Regression Results for the Dependent Variable of Facilities & Resources ...... 105 Table 38 Regression Results for the Independent Variable of Community Support & Involvement ...... 106 Table 39 Regression Results for the Dependent Variable of Managing School Conduct ...... 107 Table 40 Regression Results for the Dependent Variable of Teacher Leadership ...... 108 Table 41 Regression Results for the Dependent Variable of School Leadership ...... 108 Table 42 Regression Results for the Dependent Variable of Professional Development ...... 109

xii

Table 43 Regression Results for the Dependent Variable of Instructional Practices & Support ...... 110 Table 44 Multivariate Tests for Principal Leadership Subscales by Principal Experience ...... 111 Table 45 Means and Standard Deviations on Principal Leadership Subscales by Principal Experience ...... 111 Table 46 Univariate ANOVA Summary Table Results for Principal Leadership Subscales by Principal Experience ...... 112 Table 47 Scheffe Post Hoc Test for Principal Leadership Subscales by Principal Experience ...... 113

Table 48 Multivariate Tests ...... 114 Table 49 Means and Standard Deviations on School Climate Subscales by Principal Experience ...... 115 Table 50 Univariate ANOVA Summary Table for School Climate Subscales by Principal Experience ...... 116 Table 51 Scheffe Post Hoc Test for School Climate Subscales by Principal Experience ...... 117 Table 52 Number of High Correlations Among Principal Leadership Subscales ...... 121

Table 53 Number of High Correlations Among School Climate Subscales ...... 122

Table 54 Principal Leadership and School Climate Correlations Above .70 .... 123

Table 55 Regression Results for School Climate ...... 125 Table 56 Multivariate Analysis of Variance for Principal Leadership Subscales by Principal Experience ...... 127 Table 57 Multivariate Analysis of Variance for School Climate Subscales by Principal Experience ...... 127

xii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Background Information The principal’s role as leader of the school has a profound effect on school climate (Pepper & Thomas, 2002). The effort to retain effective principals is crucial in order to sustain on-going improvements in a school (Weinstein, Jacobowitz, Ely, Landon, & Schwartz, 2009). Principals are a critical component in creating school environments that are conducive to teaching and learning. A principal’s leadership of instruction, site management, and negotiation of external and internal pressures are shown to have both indirect and direct influences on school climate. The principal’s instructional leadership behaviors affect the climate and instructional organization (Kelley, Thornton, & Daugherty, 2005). The principal creates academic climate through instructional support and through the valuing the shared vision, mission, and goals (Firestone & Martinez, 2007). Principals can create a school climate that improves the productivity of both staff and students (Kelley et al., 2005). In order to establish a positive school climate, an atmosphere of optimism is needed through frequent interaction with teachers in a manner that shows mutual respect and care. Building a productive emotional climate entails listening, appreciating, honoring feelings and ideas of teachers, and creating structures for genuine dialogue about improving instruction (Leithwood & Beatty, 2009). The study of principal leadership, in the context of climate, is important because it is through academic climate that a principal can impact student outcomes (Urick & Bowers, 2011). Principals are expected to serve as instructional leaders who facilitate high-quality instruction by fostering deep and effective collaboration around school improvement (Goddard & Miller, 2010).

Instructional leadership includes establishing goals, thinking strategically, coordinating and evaluating instructional practices, and ensuring a supportive learning environment (Liu, 2013). Leaders must also be able to correctly envision the needs of their teachers and develop a shared vision (Kelley et al., 2005). Transformative leadership includes developing and maintaining a vision of an effective school, managing a culture to support vision, providing encouragement, distributing resources, supporting the growth and development of people, monitoring instruction, and understanding the needs of the overall climate (Firestone & Martinez, 2007). With a shared vision and positive school climate, schools have been able to maintain a high standard of achievement (Weinstein et al., 2009).

School Climate Transformational leadership is positively associated with school climate (Balyer, 2012). Bass’ model of leadership is most widely used because of its focus on development. Bass’ conceptualization included four leadership factors: 1) Charisma, 2) Inspiration, 3) Intellectual Stimulation, and 4) Consideration. These factors influence teacher commitment to vision, high achievement expectations, group decision-making, and supportive leadership. Transformative leadership is the most appropriate leadership style in schools’ restructuring initiatives because it looks at the innovation of organizations and supports teachers (Sagnak, 2010). The schools led by a transformative leader are empowered as a collective unit (Balyer, 2012).

Trust Transformational leadership develops autonomy and trust, which increases employee satisfaction (Bass, 1999). Autonomy is a powerful variable related to

3 teacher commitment (Singh & Billingsley, 1998). Trust has been seen as an influence in the schools led by transformative leaders. Initial trust may be influenced by a combination of factors including reputations of the new principal and the school and by the actions of the individuals who previously held the role. Soon after a new principal’s arrival, the nuances of action become factors that determine whether or not that person is to be trusted (MacMillan, Meyer, & Northfield, 2004). Mutual trust enables conversations about practice to occur that can improve instruction. Supportive principals promote a general feeling of trust among faculty members, which is linked to school effectiveness (Anderson, 2008). Trust is not only an outcome of transformative leadership, but is the basis for its influence on performance and affective commitment (Goodwin, Whittington, Murray, & Nichols, 2011). Creating and sustaining trust is imperative for school leaders, and the awareness of the value of trust is essential for a successful experience as principal (Kutsyuruba, Walker, & Noonan, 2011). When teachers trust their principals, performance is improved (Goodwin et al., 2011). Supportive leadership, mutual respect steeped in strong professional knowledge, and a climate that invites risk taking and innovation are signs of a healthy school (Darling-Hammond & Richardson, 2009). Rewards in a transformational system are more likely to be intrinsic, such as empowerment of capacity and the achievement of instructional goals (Bass, 1997). Intrinsic motivation comes from within. In order to cultivate a system where people are intrinsically motivated, principals must acknowledge and understand the value that autonomy, mastery, and purpose has among teachers (Nordgren, 2013). Transformative principals empower and encourage their teachers to think for themselves, which instills trust (Bass, 1997). Empowerment stems from

4 teachers feeling fully engaged in decision-making and from being supported by school administration (Ndoye & Parker, 2010). There are strong links among organizational conditions and employee motivation, commitment, and teacher turnover (Greenlee & Brown, 2009). Ingersoll (2001) found that teacher participation in decision-making, administrative support, and school climate are all associated with teacher turnover. Conditions that foster teacher resiliency include care and support that links beliefs and actions, positive and high expectations that encourage engagement, and opportunities for meaningful participation in school that create a sense of community and promote personal and shared empowerment (Dallas, 2006). The odds of teachers leaving are reduced by 23% because of administrative support. Principals who demonstrate these characteristics influence teacher job satisfaction (Balyer, 2012).

Teacher Burnout Schools influence teacher attrition by improving working conditions that provide a more desirable work environment (Kukla-Acevedo, 2009). There is a demonstrated link between administrative support and teacher attrition. Teachers who receive support from their administrators experience less stress and burnout than those who receive little or no support (Singh & Billingsley, 1998). Burnout can lead to teacher attrition. Lower levels of teacher attrition and migration have consistently been found in schools with more administrative support for teachers and higher levels of faculty influence and autonomy (Greenlee & Brown, 2009). Commitment is enhanced when principals give up their need for control and trust teachers with discretionary decisions. When principals foster shared goals, values, and professional growth, a supportive learning community is likely to result. Leaders who fully understand effective leadership practices and improve their

5 ability to lead are able to reduce employee frustration and negative attitudes in the work environment (Kelley et al., 2005). Principals influence teacher commitment to the profession (Singh & Billingsley, 1998). High principal turnover can lead to decreased teacher satisfaction and tenure (Weinstein et al., 2009). Principal site tenure tends to generate greater instability among the teaching force (Beteille, Kalogrides, & Loeb, 2012). Teacher turnover is higher when a new principal takes over at a school. While new principals are learning the many roles in their position, teachers observe and determine if the principal is a trusted leader. Principal succession is examined in schools for the consequences on school personnel, programs, climate, and student achievement (Partlow, 2007). Teachers are less likely to return to the same school both when a principal is leaving and at the end of the first year of a new principal (Miller, 2009).

Principal Turnover Principals quit in response to working conditions that put pressure on systems supporting high accountability measures in the Title I schools (Miller, 2009). While some principal turnover is inevitable, too rapid turnover is widely thought to present significant challenges to districts and schools (Mascall & Leithwood, 2010). Principal turnover disrupts school processes when a leader who supports a project leaves and is replaced by a leader with different priorities. Changes in leadership, especially if unexpected, can leave the school community distrustful of a new, incoming principal (Weinstein et al., 2009). The concept of “sustainable leadership” accounts for the need to retain long-term goals and institutional strengths even after the departure of the principal. Efforts to retain effective principals are crucial in order to sustain on-going improvements in a school. Leadership changes in the lowest achieving schools sometimes result from

6 involuntary termination, but voluntary principal exits are quite common (Beteille et al., 2012). The negative effects of principal turnover are largest in Title I schools as well (Beteille et al., 2012). Poorly performing schools and those with high concentrations of poor students not only experience much higher principal turnover rates than other school, but they are also unable to attract experienced new principals when vacancies arise. The accountability measures and the achievement gap that exists in Title I schools are possible reasons why it is difficult to retain effective principals in these schools. The designation of Title I indicates that these schools qualify for and receive additional funding from the federal government based on poverty level and enrollment. If a school has a large population of students qualified for Title I services, more Title I funding is provided to the school. Schools in poverty were defined as those meeting free or reduced-price lunch criteria, which are based on household annual income levels. A Title I school must have either a percentage of students who qualify for free or reduced lunch that was at least as high as the district’s overall percentage or have a minimum of 35% of students who qualify for free or reduced-priced lunch status.

Definition of the Problem Many studies have been found on leadership style, attrition rates, and school culture (Balyer, 2010; Cullen & Mazzeo, 2008; Li, 2012; Navickaite, 2013; Papa Jr. 2007; Sagnak, 2010). But, there is no research that analyzes the relationships among principal experience, principal tenure, and leadership style with school climate. The school principal is a key leader in public education, communicating directly with many stakeholders in the school. It is very costly to have continuous principal turnover that may negatively impact teacher retention and student achievement. Although principal turnover can be due to a district

7 promotion, research shows that principal turnover is often due to working conditions (Loeb, Kalogrides, & Horng, 2010; Papa Jr., 2007; Partlow, 2007). There is greater turnover in Title I schools (Beteille et al., 2012). Title I schools are schools with greater student needs and instructional accountability measures. District leaders not only need strong instructional leaders as principals in their schools, but they need to determine ways to support principal retention in their district. It is important for district leaders and school principals to understand how leadership style and tenure in the school relate to overall climate. All stakeholders are key to instructional systems. While the principal is the instructional leader who supports and sustains positive change and instructional reform, teachers work with students to provide and support instruction (Miller, 2009). This combined collective efficacy works to support climate and sustain structures and systems that support student learning. There are different styles that promote different structures and systems within the school. While the transactional leader is more of a manager, the transformative leader develops and facilitates systems that empower leadership and change efforts (Bass, 1997). While both styles have their own strengths, it is valuable for district leaders to know which styles lend to support teacher satisfaction. Teacher satisfaction in the job, in turn, is related to teacher retention. To support teacher job satisfaction and retention, principals must know how to develop and sustain a positive working climate (Urick & Bowers, 2011). As teachers are motivated and stay in their school community, relationships can continue to develop and instructional systems and goals are sustained. Teachers need to value and trust their administrative leadership to stay motivated in their instructional growth and practice. If teachers don’t trust principal leadership, or

8 have to work under constantly changing principal leadership, the motivation to remain at the school becomes low. The need for districts to address and provide effective strategies that support the hiring and retention of high quality teachers is essential (Darling-Hammond & Richardson, 2009). As districts lose teachers at a quick rate, there is a great cost spent on induction services, professional development, and other teacher resources. Like teachers, too often, principals leave their school within a few years. While principal experience is the number of years a person has served as principal, principal turnover is the number of years a person has served as principal in their current school. Several studies have been done that reveal attrition rates of principals (Cullen & Mazzeo, 2008; Li, 2012; Papa Jr., 2007). Although the results differ on the rate of turnover, all studies show that there is high principal turnover prior to five years tenure at the school. Within the five years, principals are learning or refining their roles, developing relationships with the stakeholders in their school, analyzing and determining instructional needs, and developing ways to support instructional and achievement goals (Papa Jr., 2007). These skills and strategies take time to develop and sustain. If there is constant leadership change, teachers and incoming principals have to readjust. Leadership change can even impact current positive instructional systems because teachers wait to see what decisions will be made by the incoming principal (Li, 2012).

Purpose of the Study The purpose of the study was to examine the effects that principal leadership style, experience, and site tenure have on school climate. There has been research done on leadership styles, teacher attrition, principal attrition, and the value of trust in positive school climates. But, most studies provide

9 information on one of the variables that may correlate with school climate, not an analysis of all three. Leadership style has been linked to a positive school climate (Aypay, Tas & Boyaci, 2012; Kelly et al., 2005; Kilinc & Aydin, 2013; MacNeil, Prater, & Busch, 2009; Shouppe & Pate, 2010; Urick & Bowers, 2011). Research showed that transformative and transactional leadership are styles used by school principals. A large amount of research supports the transformative leadership style (Bass, 1997; Burns, 1978; Navickaite, 2013; Ross & Gray, 2006; Sagnak, 2010). A combination of both transformative leadership and transactional management supports and sustains instructional improvement (Bass, 1997; Dussaut, Payette, & Leroux, 2008). A variety of studies that have looked at leadership style or principal turnover as variables that correlates with school climate or student achievement. There have been studies that analyzed principal turnover as a predictor of poor student achievement (Li, 2012; Shouppe & Pate, 2010). Research was also done on leadership style as a predictor of school climate (Aypay et al., 2012; Dussaut et al., 2008; Ross & Gray, 2006; Sagnak, 2010). But, there is a need to understand how the relationship among factors that relate to the school principal impact school climate and the working conditions for teachers. Principal attrition was found to be higher in Title I schools. Many of these studies used data from the East Coast, in states such as New York, North Carolina, and Florida. These studies focused primarily on the effect of leadership style on student achievement and principal transition in longitudinal studies (Li, 2012; Loeb et al., 2010; Papa Jr., 2007). However, no studies analyzed principal experience, tenure, and leadership style on school climate in Central California.

Research Methodology This quantitative correlation study examines teacher perception of principal leadership style and school climate. Instruments used were the Survey of Transformative Leadership (STL) and the North Carolina Teacher Working Conditions Survey (NCTWCS). The STL examines transformative leadership behaviors while the NCTWCS analyzes school climate conditions. The STL and the NCTWCS, combined, have a total of 163 items. To improve response rate, an instrument was created from both instruments. The instruments were analyzed and questions, representing each construct, were put into a new instrument. The new instrument, with a total of 82 questions, will be piloted to test validity and reliability. After a successful pilot, the survey instrument will be put into an online Google Survey.

Research Questions The primary question of the study is: “What is the impact of principal leadership style, experience, and tenure on school climate?” The research questions are:  Are there relationships among teacher perception of principal leadership style, principal experience, principal tenure, and school climate?  Is there a significant difference in teacher perception of principal leadership and school climate by principal experience and principal tenure categories? The hypotheses are: A) Transformative leadership behaviors are perceived to support a positive school climate. B) Principals with at least 4 years tenure are perceived to have schools with a positive school climate.

Significance of the Study The principal is the key agent for change at the school level, holding the responsibility for improving student achievement through leading reform efforts (Daly, Der-Martirosian, Ong-Dean, Park, & Wishard-Guerra, 2011). Principals must have knowledge and skills to effectively support academic goals (Grigsby, Schumacher, Decman, & Simieou, 2010). Today, the principal responsibilities include a deeper and broader involvement in the mechanics of teaching and learning, the use of data to make decisions, and the ability to provide meaningful and innovative professional development. Principals need to know research-based strategies to improve student achievement and provide constructive feedback to teachers that support change. Corrective and specific feedback, in the form of communicating what is working and assisting teachers in making necessary changes to what is not working, provides positive support systems for teachers (Eilers & D’Amico, 2012). Analyzing data with the faculty to determine strengths and areas of concern is also a skill needed. Principals must know where to find answers about curriculum and instruction to make informed decisions based on student needs. Principal turnover that occurs every two or three years makes it unlikely that a principal will get beyond the stages of initiation and early implementation of reforms (Mascall & Leithwood, 2010). Schools with sustained success have principals who had been there for at least three years (Chrisman, 2005). Principals have the responsibility of building a climate for change, and determining the importance and sequence of stages involved in change (Eilers & D’Amico, 2012). Shifting the focus from teaching to learning and ensuring ongoing professional development focused on data-driven decisions are key tasks for principals in the 21st century (Lunenberg, 2013).

Definition of Key Terms Active Management – Transactional leaders actively monitor the work of the subordinates, watching for deviation from rule and taking action to prevent mistakes (Bass & Avolio, 2000). Attributed Influence – The attributes, or qualities, followers give to their leaders (Bass & Avolio, 2000). Behavioral Influence – The characteristics of the leader that focuses on values, beliefs, and a sense of mission (Bass & Avolio, 2000). Consortia – An association, organization, or affiliation. Contingent Reward – Transactional leaders link the goal to reward, clarify expectations, and provide various kinds of rewards for successful performance (Bass & Avolio, 2000). Distributed Leadership – Distributed leadership acknowledges those who contribute to leadership practice, whether or not they are formally designated or defined as leaders by the school community (Leithwood & Mascall, 2008; Spillane & Healey, 2010). Individualized Consideration – The degree to which the leader attends to each follower’s needs (Bass & Avolio, 2000). Individualized Influence – The degree to which the leader acts as a role model, with a high level of influence on their followers (Bass & Avolio, 2000). Inspirational Motivation – It is the degree to which the leaders articulates a vision that is appealing and inspiring to followers (Bass & Avolio, 2000). Intellectual Stimulation – Leaders encourage their followers to be cognitively innovative and creative (Bass & Avolio, 2000). Laissez-Faire – The leader abdicates responsibilities and avoids making decisions (Bass & Avolio).

Passive Management – Transactional leaders intervene only when standard performance is not as expected (Bass & Avolio, 2000). Professional Learning Community (PLC) – A group of educators who meet regularly, share expertise, and work collaboratively in improving teaching skills and the academic performance of students (Hord, 2009). Threat Rigidity – A tendency of individuals and/or organizations to behave rigidly in uncertain situations. Title I Schools – Title I federal funding is provided to local educational agencies and schools with high numbers or high percentages of children from low- income families to help ensure that all children meet challenging state academic standards. Transactional Leadership – A form of managerial leadership style that focuses on the role of supervision, organization, and group performance (Bass & Avolio, 2000). Transformative Leadership –A form of leadership that enhances motivation, morale, and job performance through a variety of mechanisms (Bass & Avolio, 2000).

Summary School reform puts pressure on districts and schools to create instructional change that affects student achievement. In the context of high principal attrition, data collected on perception of principal leadership style and school climate will provide information on how teachers perceive their principals as their instructional leaders. This study will gather data about principal experience and site tenure from four school districts in the Fresno County. Data will also be provided from teachers, gathering information on perceptions of their principal’s leadership style and school climate. Both district leaders and site administrators can learn from this

14 information to better provide and sustain positive working conditions that support a positive school climate for teachers.

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Introduction Principals, as school site leaders, are given the responsibility to implement, assess, and maintain many school functions including reform initiatives and school climate. In times of instructional reform, teachers look to the principal for leadership and direction that supports a positive learning community. However, as principals leave schools, teachers have to adjust to new leadership styles. Some styles give teachers opportunity to make more decisions than others. With the implementation of new rigorous standards, principals are expected to support teacher’s knowledge and preparation to do the work. Principal influence on instruction, relationships with the school community, and systems management have been found to influence school climate (Urick & Bowers, 2011).

School Reform Principals, as school site leaders, are given the responsibility to organize systems that affect student learning. These systems include the work of teachers to affect student achievement. Depending on existing characteristics of the environment, including school reform movements, teachers look to principals as the school leader. The principal provides and instills vision and direction around common goals. Historically, principals have seen numerous federal and state decisions change based on student achievement needs, and they must adapt.

Elementary and Secondary Education Act Focusing on various related reform movements, the federal government has played an extensive role in public education. In the 1960s, politicians and economists believed that achievement in school was directly related to later

16 economic status (McCaslin, 2006). An effort was made to better provide educational support for students in poverty and need. In 1965, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was written (Groen, 2012). ESEA channeled approximately one billion dollars to school districts and schools, supporting educational needs of poor and disadvantaged kids (Thomas & Brady, 2005). It was enacted to offer equitable educational opportunities to the nation’s disadvantaged students, providing financial resources to schools. This act transformed educational funding and introduced a new and significant role of federal government in education. In 1980, there was a significant reduction in federal education funding. While Chapter 1 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) retained its legislative purpose of funding compensatory services for educationally disadvantaged students, significant reductions in federal aid led to fewer eligible students being served.

A Nation at Risk The A Nation at Risk report changed how politicians and educational leaders see the role of the school and its leaders. In 1983, the Reagan administration communicated the overall poor academic performance in American public schools (Bracey, 2008). A Nation at Risk warned that something needed to be done to fix failing schools across the nation. In the 1990s, the Standards and Accountability Movement began in the United States, and states began writing what students were expected to know and be able to do at each grade level. Assessments were designed to measure whether students were meeting these standards. Districts were required to create Local Educational Action Plans (LEAPs) that provided district level strategies to be utilized within the district and at the school sites. These action plans were directed to principals, leaving some autonomy for principals to work with teachers on instructional decisions.

A Nation at Risk presented the problem of student achievement in terms of deficits and work (Bracey, 2008). Longer school days, more school days, and more homework were essential reform features, increasing the workload of students and teachers. Student achievement was not competitive with achievement internationally. A Nation at Risk transformed accountability systems that had been in place for years, yet the nation still faces problems with poor achievement (Dee & Jacob, 2010).

No Child Left Behind The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 put a priority on content standards to be annually tested and analyzed (Groen, 2012). NCLB was a federal attempt to reform the public schools. NCLB represented a quantum leap in both federal improvement and federal mandates to schools. It was the largest federal attempt to address the concerns set forth by A Nation at Risk (Dee & Jacob, 2010). NCLB was passed so that 100% of students would be proficient by 2014. NCLB was an attempt to reform education practices, but it has brought questionable success to learning. It differs from preceding initiatives that claimed deficiencies in students and standards. School-wide innovation that recognizes the potential of student learning, utilizing effective curriculum and instruction practices, is supported by NCLB. Research-based teaching practices were part of the NCLB formula and federally supported instructional plan. NCLB recognized that higher standards without pedagogical expertise to help students attain them are insufficient to support student achievement (Groen, 2012). No Child Left Behind Assessment. NCLB law required annual tests in reading and math (Guifoyle, 2006). The standardized test was used for states to measure their ability to meet targets set by NCLB. NCLB changed how teachers teach, what subjects are taught, and how teachers and principals are evaluated.

NCLB does not define how schools must educate students, but that schools must demonstrate they are educating children. One effect of NCLB is an atmosphere of pervasive test taking. The pressure to perform on state tests had made district benchmarks pervasive in schools (Dee & Jacob, 2010). The mandate that all students are at grade level in most urban districts is problematic. In California, the Academic Performance Index (API) is a measurement of academic performance that tracks progress of individual schools based on annual yearly progress on the state exams. Although the API does afford attention to attendance and graduation rates, the heavy emphasis had been on standardized test outcomes. Standardized tests are useful because they are measurable and comparable. Yet, the standardized test does not measure a child’s creative ability, and it does not require the child to debate, elaborate, present, or rebut a problem (Guifoyle, 2006). The demands of NCLB primarily focused on schools that receive federal support, and that serve students in poverty. Over time, annual performance increases have become impossible to attain (Barlow, 2006). Schools that did not make progress toward the goal of 100% proficiency for every group are subject to sanctions (Ravitch, 2009). The schools that failed to bring enough students to proficiency faced having to offer School of Choice services to families or be taken over by the state. The School of Choice option gives parents with children at low performing schools the choice of enrollment at another school. Low performing schools are schools that failed to meet the NCLB annual requirements (Guilfoyle, 2006). Effects of NCLB. NCLB had multiple effects. Elmore (2003) found that while accountability is important, the NCLB legislation failed to provide structure on how to effectively accomplish legislative goals and focuses little on how to support the capacity to deliver and sustain high quality instruction. The “top

19 down,” threat-rigidity model, will be ineffective in the implementation of any reform if the state and local leaders underestimate the role that teachers and principals play in making decisions in what high quality instruction looks like in their schools (Ferguson, 2013). Daly et al. (2011) examined perceived levels of threat-rigidity, efficacy, and leadership among 455 California principals in Title I schools (K-12), those that received federal funding due to low economic student population. Approximately 6% of the schools were In Need of Improvement (INI) for 6 years while 49% were INI between 3 and 5 years. Three instruments were used in the study: 1) Principal Efficacy Scale (PES), 2) Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ), and 3) Threat Rigidity Scale (TRS). The PES consisted of questions around the following subscales: 1) Management Efficacy, 2) Instructional Leadership Efficacy, and 3) Moral Leadership Efficacy. The MLQ was designed to evaluate both transformational and transactional leadership behaviors and investigate the relationship between them. The MLQ subscales included: 1) Attributed Influence, 2) Behavioral Influence, 3) Inspirational Motivation, 4) Intellectual Stimulation, 5) Individualized Consideration, 6) Contingent Reward, 7) Passive Management, 8) Active Management, and 9) Laissez-Faire. Laissez-Faire is the subscale reflecting no apparent leadership. The TRS included 20 questions with options ranging from “never” to “always”. Subscales related to transformative leadership included: 1) Idealized Attributes, 2) Idealized Behaviors, 3) Inspirational Motivation, 4) Intellectual Stimulation, and 5) Individualized Consideration. Subscales related to transactional leadership included: 1) Contingent Reward, 2) Passive Management, and 3) Active Management. Results showed that leaders who used a more transformational leadership style perceived more threat-rigidity from district leaders than those using

20 transactional strategies (Daly et al., 2011). All but one of the MLQ subscales was significantly correlated with the three self-efficacy subscales. Contingent Reward was the only subscale that significantly correlated with threat rigidity (r = .13, p < .05). Contingent Reward is defined as a reward, such as praise, given by leaders when structured tasks are completed as work is accomplished as directed. Transactional principals more likely provide threat-rigid response to teachers in their schools, making it unnecessary for the district to closely monitor leadership in the schools. Principals in the In Need of Improvement (INI) schools perceived a more threat-rigid response than those in non-INI schools. None of the transformational leadership subscales was correlated with threat rigidity. Schools with greater instructional needs are often more observed, directed, and supported by district leaders. In times of educational reform, all principals will need district leadership and support to best provide leadership at the school.

Preparing Administrative Leaders Creating a shared vision will result in an environment that is supportive and conducive to learning (Richmond & Manokore, 2011). Instructional leadership includes establishing goals, coordinating and evaluating curriculum and instruction practices, and ensuring a supportive learning environment (Lunenberg, 2013). Establishing a clear vision requires setting priorities (Eilers & D’Amico, 2012). Leadership priorities include establishing effective staffing practices, providing instructional support, and developing a culture around a common vision. The principal has many responsibilities. Instructional leadership has become more valuable to teachers, due to the high accountability measurements and rigorous standards and assessments.

Principal Implementation Efforts Instructional reform demands as much from principals as they do from teachers. The National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP) sought to learn about principal understanding, beliefs, and actions with respect to Common Core State Standards (CCSS) adopted by many states (Clifford & Mason, 2013). NAESP created and administered the Leadership for the Common Core survey to K-12 public schools in 14 states. These states included California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Utah, and Washington. The sample included schools from urban, suburban, and rural regions. There were 1,100 principal responses to the survey from a total of 32,458 eligible principals. Surveys were submitted through an online method. NAESP also conducted two focus groups with principals, to explore and understand their experiences with CCSS. The Leadership for the Common Core survey included questions about how the principals see their priorities. Principals rated their level of priority regarding the CCSS and their schools on a 4-point Likert scale. More than 64% viewed the CCSS as a high priority. Lacking specific training, principal focus group members expressed concern that they did not have enough information on implementation costs, reform strategies, professional development, and quality monitoring structures for long-term sustainability. Focus group member responses supported findings from the survey. Data showed these components as necessary to prepare teachers for Common Core State Standard (CCSS) implementation: 1) Interpret Value, 2) Supportive Climate, 3) Lesson Examples, 4) Professional Learning Communities, 5) Budget Expenditures, and 6) Monitor Instruction. Survey results showed that the lowest level of readiness was found in the areas of: 1) Integrating the CCSS

22 into learning opportunities, 2) Implementing the CCSS with struggling learners, and 3) Budgeting for CCSS implementation. A low percentage of principals used expanded learning opportunities to support the CCSS (M = 2.4) and integrated the CCSS in ways that serve the English language learners or Special Education students (M = 2.6). Researchers discovered that principals lack the necessary preparation to lead and sustain the vision of CCSS over the long term.

Leadership in All Schools Because the principal remains the predominant focal point of school leadership, approaches to school reform suggest the role of the principal be analyzed and supported. Grigsby et al. (2010) conducted qualitative research on instructional leadership in 35 K-12 schools. Data were collected through 30-min. interviews with principals, which were then transcribed and coded. The results showed that elementary and middle school principals conducted classroom observations, structured collaborative systems, and stayed informed by attending national conferences. High school principals delegated a majority of their curriculum and instruction responsibilities to others. To best provide instructional leadership, all principals need to know how to effectively lead and support teachers. Principals must be ready to focus their energy and leadership efforts, provide positive support to staff, and hold constant to the established vision and goals.

Leadership Theories Throughout this history of reforms, principals were and still are expected to serve as instructional leaders who facilitate high quality instruction by fostering effective collaboration around school improvement. Principals also need to intensify their understanding of the organizational supports, work structures, and

23 interpersonal processes associated with professional development strategies (Garrett, 2010). Principals, as instructional leaders, need to understand effective practices that engage teachers and sustain positive student achievement. Principal accountability and responsibility for student achievement is often an indicator of the quality of practices at the particular school (Firestone & Martinez, 2007). Research has been completed on types of leadership styles that exist in organizations, and the following theories have supported leadership for the 21st century: 1) Distributive Leadership, 2) Transactional Leadership, and 3) Transformative Leadership.

Distributed Leadership The instructional standards specify what student should be able to do, but school leadership is responsible for providing an effective curriculum that will lead to the accomplishment of those standards. Implementing change requires leaders to quickly identify appropriate priorities based on staff, curriculum, and student needs (Eilers & D’Amico, 2012). School leaders have the responsibility of building a climate structured for change by determining the importance and sequence of change. Allowing teachers to participate in conversations around priorities and goal setting can be valuable to the school community. Shared decision-making might help empower teachers, affecting efficacy and commitment in the workplace (Spillane & Healey, 2010). Distributed leadership is one potential contribution to positive change and transformation in school systems (Elmore, 2003; Fullan, 2002). It is the type of leadership involving collegial and facilitative participation by the principal, having the ability to participate without dominating decision-making processes (Brown & Wynn, 2009). A distributive leadership framework can suggest how teacher

24 leaders can be integrated into a district-wide change effort, moving away from the individual to the organizational systems (Fullan, 2002). Baloglu (2012) provided a study on the relationships between value-based leadership and distributed leadership behaviors of principals. Because distributed leadership brings people together, through shared work and values, value-oriented leaders support the distributed leadership efforts. The relationship between value- based leadership and distributed leadership behaviors of school principals was analyzed through the views of teachers. The Value-Based Leadership (VBL) and Distributed Leadership Inventory (DLI) were used to gather data. Both are 5-point Likert scale inventories. Value-Based Leadership is defined as the exercise of influence in relationships, teams, and organizations guided by explicit and consistently practiced values. Distributed Leadership is defined as leadership in which collaborative work is undertaken between individuals who trust and respect each other’s contribution. In this study, there were 225 elementary school teachers in the sample. Findings showed that correlations between VBL and DL wee positive (r = .75, p < .01). The regression results indicated that from 27% to 43% DL was explained by VBL. Results also revealed that VBL explained the influence of the following variables (p < .01): 1) Teamwork (r = .64), 2) Support (r = .69), 3) Vision (r = .66) and 4) Supervision (r = .51). Ensuring cooperation, solidarity, and respect to and with others is necessary for distributed leadership to be effective. Distributed leadership and collaborative learning are attributes that could serve school systems well in creating a positive school climate and culture built around common beliefs and values. Pederson, Yager, and Yager (2010) provided research that showed teacher understanding of how distributed learning affects

25 school improvement. A qualitative study used four elementary schools from a pool of 75. The criterion was based on the school’s level of implementation of Connecting Learning Assures Successful Students (CLASS). CLASS is a non- profit based organization in Indiana, founded in 1989. CLASS is grounded in the belief that the best teacher practices are based on the understanding of humans and interactions with others in the environment. In all four schools, the capacity of utilized decision-making was rated exemplary by the evaluators from CLASS. The effects of leadership teams were found to be a support systems for the teachers across the schools, working as a communication structure that allowed individuals to work collaboratively with setting direction and problem solving (Pederson et al., 2010). Interviews were conducted with eight teachers, two from each school. The ability to give teachers a voice in decision-making was labeled as the most important attribute to be implemented. Yet, all eight teachers expressed that principal leadership played a crucial role in the implementation of distributed leadership. Although teachers wanted to participate in problem-solving discussion and strategies, principal leadership and direction was needed to support and sustain that direction. Data revealed that the principal was a co-learner, always a part of the learning process. Both teachers and the principal engaged in leading and learning, which provided an environment of effective distributed leadership. Spillane and Healey (2010) completed a quantitative study on the impact of distributed leadership in one urban mid-sized district in the Southeastern part of the United States. The participants included 30 school principals and 1,210 staff members, from a sample of 30 elementary schools within the district. Both a principal and school staff questionnaire was administered. There was a 97%

26 response rate from principals and an 89% response rate from elementary teachers surveyed. Descriptive statistics were provided (Spillane & Healey, 2010). The data show approximately 30% of the respondents had a formally designated leadership role in their school, not counting the principal. A Formally Designated Leader (FDL) is defined as one who was not the primary instructor for any class during the school day, signaling that administrative duties were their primary responsibility. A principal, vice principal, resource specialist, mentor teacher, and instructional coach were defined as FDLs in the study. Aside from the principal, the vast majority of the FDLs (89%) reported engaging in activities that support classroom instruction. Approximately 40% of the FDLs were full-time leaders, and 60% were FDLs with at least one classroom teaching assignment. While one school had one FDL, designated for every 4 staff members, other schools had approximately one FDL for every 18 staff members. The levels of support differed across the 30 elementary schools. The term Informal Leader was used to describe key advice givers who did not have a formally designated leadership position, but had the opportunity to exercise leadership by providing advice and support. Using these criteria, a total of 92 informal leaders were found in the study. Across the 30 schools, the mean number of informal leaders was 2.0 for language arts and 1.8 for mathematics. The Title I School-wide Program is available to schools in which more than 40% of the students receive free or reduced-priced lunch. Data showed the ratio of FDL is significantly lower in Title I schools (Title I schools = .15, non-Title I schools = .11, p < .05). For every one FDL to six staff members (1:6), compared to non-Title I schools with one FDL to 9 staff members (1:9). Because of the needs at the

27 school, teacher leaders were given opportunities to manage in areas needed in the district and at the school. Firestone and Martinez (2007) studied distributed leadership among teachers among four schools in three districts. It was a 2-year study. Data were collected in each school through observations, interviews, and document analysis. All four schools had a high population of students in poverty, but varied in other student demographic subgroups. Teachers were selected to represent different levels of experiences and grade levels. Teacher credentials varied among schools. Approximately 16% had master degrees and 6% had emergency credentials. In each school, an average of eight teachers was interviewed. Each teacher was interviewed six times, and principals and district leaders were interviewed as well. Through interviews, it was discovered that each school had between five and 10 teacher leaders (Firestone & Martinez, 2007). A Teacher Leader is defined as one who provides informal leadership, in various departments, within the district. Through careful coding, findings revealed Teacher Leaders engaged in three tasks: 1) Provided Materials, 2) Monitored School Activities, and 3) Coaching. A Coach is defined as one who supports growth and development to teachers. Most teachers believed that providing support with instructional materials was helpful to them, while few perceived that monitoring school activities was useful. Monitoring school activities included supporting administration with student activities and programs, having no direct impact or support for teachers. Twenty-four out of 35 teachers said that coaching was one of the main tasks teacher leaders performed. Unlike providing materials, coaching influenced teaching (Firestone & Martinez, 2007). Table 1 shows Teacher Leaders perception as leaders by teachers. Based on Table 1, School #1 and School #3 believed that Coach support

28 was evident in their schools. In both schools, Teacher Leaders modeled strategies, provided time for teachers to visit classrooms, and demonstrated how to use instructional materials. Two factors affected how influential the Teacher Leaders were. These included the knowledge of what they brought to their work and the modes of interaction with teachers, both in Providing Materials and in Coaching. Data shows support for instructional coaches and time for teachers to collaborate.

Table 1

Teacher Leader Tasks as Perceived by Teachers School #1 School #2 School #3 School #4 Leadership Observed N = 10 N = 7 N = 11 N = 7 Provide Materials 8 6 10 1 Monitor Activities 1 3 4 0 Coaching 7 6 9 2 Adapted from Firestone, W. A., & Cecilia Martinez, M. (2007). Districts, teacher leaders, and distributed leadership: Changing instructional practice. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 6(1), 3-35.

Professional learning communities. The formation of the PLC supports the collaborative work of teachers. A PLC is defined as a community of colleagues who learn together around shared meaning and purpose (Hord, 2009). Effective leaders foster collaboration and create opportunities for teachers to learn from one another throughout their careers (Dufour & Mattos, 2013). The activities of productive PLCs often center on student work samples. Of equal importance to guiding a PLC is the principal’s willingness to share power and authority. In the work of the PLC, the principal removes himself or herself to become the guide, working in democratic participation with the staff (Hord, 2009). Although teachers may be given time to meet, the focus must be on student achievement and instructional planning (Dufour & Mattos, 2013). PLCs can change practice and transform learning when there are processes and structures in place that make collaborative work possible and desirable. Principals are needed

29 for training staff on the essential components of the PLC and able to model good teaching practices. Today, the principal responsibilities include a deeper and broader involvement in the mechanics of teaching and learning (Lunenberg, 2013). Forming collaborative structures for faculty to improve instruction and ensuring a focused and ongoing staff development are key tasks that principals must perform to be effective instructional leaders. Studies have shown the effectiveness of PLCs in schools. Richmond and Manokore (2011) provided a longitudinal case study used to analyze elements of a PLC that supports school reform in Michigan. The study was implemented in a large Title I urban school district, with a population of 17,500 students. Of these students, 58% were minority and 63% received a free or reduced lunch. Documentation of PLCs in the elementary schools included field notes and interview transcriptions. Data from two focus groups were analyzed, comparing PLCs in the first and fourth grades. Four identified common themes were found: 1) Teacher Learning and Collaboration, 2) Professional Community, 3) Confidence in Knowledge and Pedagogy Practices, and 4) Teacher Accountability (Richmond & Manokore, 2011). All four themes reflected an effective collective inquiry, where teachers felt free to share and support each other, while understanding how each is accountable to the others in the process. Data showed that discussions centered on agenda items, although teachers would bring other topics into discussion. Both grade level groups emphasized the value of collaboration as key to the effectiveness of a PLC. There were some transcribed differences between the two grade level PLC meetings (Richmond & Manokore, 2011). First grade teachers focused on teacher collaboration, participation accountability, and confidence to take risks in sharing

30 ideas. Fourth grade teachers communicated the importance of district accountability measures, teacher collaboration, and community vision. Findings showed that teachers valued the learning that had occurred within the PLC. Both groups, of teachers, viewed collective decision making as an influence on how they felt about their individual role and relationships with others. Analyzing student work together gives teachers opportunities to develop a common understanding of what work is good and what instructional strategies are effective (Darling-Hammond & Richardson, 2009). A qualitative analysis was completed on one PLC in a low performing urban middle school. Dallas (2006) researched the differences in teacher perceptions of a structured and systematic approach to collaborative work. The school served 703 students in grades 6-8, reflecting a mix of languages, customs, and values. Approximately 90% were minority students and 83% received a free or reduced lunch. Although the school suffered a 24% turnover annually, 35% of the teachers had been at the school for four years or more. Forty-two percent of the faculty had started teaching in the school within two years prior to the study. Teacher turnover had a significant impact on not only group collective efficacy but also on the sustainment of productive PLC. This was the first year a PLC was formed with this group of teachers. Data sources included multiple interviews with sixth grade teachers, participant observer field notes, classroom observations, curriculum implementation, and reading achievement data (Dallas, 2006). During the previous years, the Language Arts teachers did not work or plan collaboratively. The study allowed opportunity to evaluate the effectiveness of collaborative work, as compared to working in isolation. The sixth-grade Language Arts teachers

31 faced the greatest challenges for academic growth for their students, which made this opportunity more valuable. Data were triangulated for accuracy of themes. Themes that developed were: 1) Friendships, 2) Collegiality, 3) Support, 4) Collaborative Planning, and 5) Strategic Implementation (Dallas, 2006). Positive outcomes included stronger professional relationships, effective collaborative planning, increased confidence and collegial support, enhanced resilience, and effective implementation of curriculum reform. These outcomes showed the positive results of an effective PLC, in providing collective inquiry and support between and among teachers. Student scores on the mandated reading tests showed that the sixth-grade students made some improvements in reading performance, ending several years of declining scores. Average growth in reading for sixth grade continued to lag behind the rate of growth for the rest of the school. However, the collaboration among teachers was a significant step in providing teachers a voice for reforms and a means to implement those reforms. A highly effective principal may look for ways to align the collaborative process to a culture of collective responsibility for learner-focused outcomes, and is willing to confront whose who fail to honor commitments to their team (Hord, 2009). Dever and Lash (2013) examined how a team of middle school teachers used common planning time to cultivate PLC. Although teachers are often given time to meet, the work of the PLC may or may not be evident. An in-depth observational case study was completed in one middle school, located in a suburban community. The study was focused on one eighth-grade interdisciplinary team. Data collection tools included observation, field notes, and artifacts related to professional development.

The essence of a PLC did not simply occur because teachers were meeting (Dever & Lash, 2013). How teachers collaborated with one another during their common planning time became a critical factor for success of the PLC. Although teachers had daily common planning time, twice a week was committed to the work of the PLC. When the PLC was not scheduled, observation of interdisciplinary meetings showed conversations around social and behavioral issues with students. Triangulated data showed PLC centered on students (Dever & Lash, 2013). During PLC time, teachers created interdisciplinary units, discussed teaching strategies, discussed student achievement data, and shared instructional resources. Conversations centered on what teachers were doing to promote student achievement. Findings revealed several themes. First, there was an understanding that teaching should impact student learning. Second, a cohesive desire that their teaching should impact learning was evident. Third, teachers had sustained engagement in unit planning. Fourth, resources were shared among teachers. Finally, discussions were concentrated on instruction. Wells and Feun (2012) looked at how two districts structured and supported PLC. Two Michigan districts were chosen having implemented PLC concepts. The two districts were similar in terms of the number of elementary, middle, and high schools. But, each district structured time for PLC meetings differently. See Table 2, which illustrates these differences.

Table 2

Professional Learning Communities District A District B One planning period daily, 4 half-days per One planning period daily, Teacher release year, 2 hr. planning (1x month) days (site), Teacher release days (district) Note: Adapted from Dever, R., & Lash, M. J. (2013). Using common planning time to foster professional learning. Middle School Journal, 45(1), 12-17

Along with observation, the researchers used a survey to analyze teacher perception of their Professional Learning Community (Wells & Feun, 2012). The quantitative data allowed for drawing comparisons across the five dimensions associated with Shirley Hord’s definition of PLC. The survey assessed five domains of the PLC: 1) Supportive and Sustained Leadership, 2) Collective Inquiry, 3) Shared Values, 4) Supportive Conditions, and 5) Shared Personal Practice. A Likert scale survey of 15 questions, along with open-ended questions, was used to gather data. A t-test was used to determine differences between districts. There were 28 participants in both district A and district B. The participants were teachers from grades 6, 7, and 8. All participants were interviewed as well. Descriptive statistics indicated that District B teachers had a better understanding and systematic use of PLCs (Wells & Feun, 2012). For collective agreement on what a PLC should be, District A (M = 3.17) was higher compared to District B (M = 3.04). For collective agreement about plans for students who are not learning, District A (M = 2.94) was also higher than compared to District B (M = 2.78). District B indicated that they almost always examined and compared student-learning results, while District A teachers placed significance around shared materials. Findings showed that, regardless of how time is created for PLCs, the focus of the meetings must be on student learning results and instructional planning. A school will not make the transition to a collaborative and results-oriented culture without a principal who focuses on achievement (Lunenberg, 2013). To improve student achievement, principals may need to move from conceptions of collaboration as comfortable and informal to one that regards school as a trusted community where teachers have a collective commitment to student outcomes.

Principals will need to understand what a professional learning community is and what is required for a school sustain positive student achievement (DuFour & Mattos, 2013).

Transformative Leadership The concept of transformational leadership was introduced by James MacGregor Burns (Pepper, 2010). Transformative leadership is defined as a leadership approach that causes change in individuals and social systems. Transformative leadership is founded on the belief that leaders and followers can raise each other to higher levels of motivation (Burns, 1978). Transformational leadership can be seen when leaders are able to inspire followers to change expectations, perceptions, and motivations to work towards common goals. Motivating people and building capacity is what makes transformative leadership effective (Balyer, 2012). The transformative approach creates significant change in the life of people and organizations. It redesigns perceptions and values, changing expectations and aspirations of employees. The supporters of such a leader feel trust, loyalty, and respect for the leader. The outcomes occur because the transformational leader offers an inspirational vision with a sense of identity. Schools led by a transformative leader are empowered as a collective unit, fostering community by creating a vision for change (Balyer, 2012). Burns (1978) theorized that both transforming and transactional leadership were mutually exclusive styles. Transactional leaders work in the existing culture while transformative leaders try to change organizational culture. Bernard Bass (1997) added to the initial concepts of James Burns to help explain how transformational leadership could be measured. Bass expanded upon Burn’s ideas and developed what is today referred to as Bass’ Transformational Leadership Theory.

Sagnak (2010) provided quantitative research on the influence of transformative leadership. The purpose of the study was to investigate the relationship between school leadership and school climate, and whether transformative leadership was a predictor of a positive climate. During the 2008- 2009 school year, data from 764 teachers in 50 elementary schools was included in this study. The Principal Leadership Style Inventory (PLSI) and the Ethical Climate Questionnaire (ECQ) were used (Sagnak 2010). The PLSI a 40-item survey was used to analyze transformative and transactional leadership behaviors. The subscales of transformative leadership styles included: 1) Provides Vision, 2) Models Behavior, 3) Fosters Group Goals, 4) Provides Support, 5) Provides Intellectual Stimulation, and 6) Holds High Expectations. Descriptive statistics revealed teachers perceived that principals foster group goals (M = 3.99), the highest-ranking subscale among those represented by transformative leaders. The ECQ was used to analyze teacher perspective of climate. The ECQ subscales included: 1) Caring, 2) Law and Code, 3) Rules, 4) Instrumental, and 5) Independence. Caring was ranked highest by teachers (M = 4.00). Results showed that all dimensions of transformative leadership had high means. The findings showed that all dimensions of transformative leadership were positively related to a caring climate (Sagnak, 2010). There were significant positive relationships between Care and the subscales of Providing Vision, Models Behavior, Fosters Goals, Provides Support, Provides Intellectual Stimulation, and Holds High Expectations (p < .01). A regression analysis found that school transformational leadership was a significant predictor of ethical climate. Approximately 40% of the total variance in ethical climate was explained by

36 transformational leadership behaviors. Results suggested that transformational leadership has a significant effect on ethical climate. Navickaite (2013) performed a qualitative study on evaluating the transformative principal’s capacity to implement change in a school. A principal’s transformative leadership to perform changes at school is possible in all change phases, though the process of implementation of change is quite difficult. The purpose of this study was to address these questions: A) How is the principal’s transformative leadership expressed when changes at school are implemented? and B) What barriers emerge when changes at school are implemented? Semi- structured interviews were given to all principals in eight schools. The principals communicated a personal belief in the vision of the school and were determined to initiate and sustain change (Navickaite, 2013). Professional development became a priority, with the principal working as co- learner. Principals listened to teacher’s ideas and used areas of teacher knowledge and skills to build capacity among staff. There was emphasis on continual learning and analyzing the needs and values of the school community. The principals gave personal attention to others, being a means of support to the teachers, parents, and students. Results around “implementation” illustrated the principals’ continued involvement in the learning process. Balyer (2012) used a qualitative analysis to discover the transformative leadership behaviors that school principals demonstrate during their administrative practices on a daily basis. Thirty teachers were chosen from six different K-6 schools. Semi-structured interviews were used, and the interviews were recorded and analyzed for themes. After looking for characteristics of transformative leadership behaviors, three common principal behaviors were found and defined: 1) Idealized Influence, 2) Inspirational Motivation, and 3) Individualized

Consideration. First, Idealized Influence is the degree to which the leader acts as a role model for their followers. The principals listened to teachers, supporting their needs and concerns. Second, Inspirational Motivation is the degree to which the leader articulates a vision that is appealing to followers. Principals challenged teachers to take risks, communicated optimism, and gave teachers a sense of purpose. Finally, Individualized Consideration is the degree to which the leader mentors or supports the follower’s needs. Communication was open and teachers felt heard and respected. The results showed transformative leadership style in the schools. Through sustaining positive change, the principals continued to distribute leadership opportunity. This helped motivate and inspire teachers. Nash (2011) provided a quantitative analysis of the influence of transformative leadership on student achievement. It was hypothesized that transformational principals provide a creative and innovate approach to curriculum and instruction, which contributes to high performance. A large metropolitan school district in North Carolina provided a context for sampling leadership style of 15 elementary school principals. Principals volunteered to participate in the study. An analysis of principal leadership style was conducted, using the transformational subscales of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) 5X, which used a 5 point scale. The MLQ-5X evaluates three different leadership styles: 1) Transformational, 2) Transactional, and 3) Passive Avoidant. The transformational leadership subscales include: 1) Idealized Behaviors, 2) Idealized Consideration, 3) Idealized Attributes, 4) Inspirational Motivation, and 5) Intellectual Stimulation. Results from North Carolina’s summative reading and math exams, for grades 3 and 5, were used to measure student achievement from the 2006-2007 school year.

Descriptive statistics and a linear regression analysis were used to examine the variables in the study (Nash, 2011). All subscales related to transformational leadership were similar in their ranking: 1) Idealized Behaviors (M = 3.58), 2) Individualized Consideration (M = 3.27), 3) Idealized Attributes (M = 3.17), 4) Inspirational Motivation (M = 3.37), and 5) Intellectual Stimulation (M= 3.22). The stepwise regression analysis demonstrated the dimensions of Idealized Attributes, Idealized Behaviors, and Intellectual Stimulation were predictors of student achievement for third grade reading and math, as well as fifth grade math. Although data revealed a relationship between transformative leadership and student achievement in third- and fifth-grade math, it would be helpful to know why fifth-grade reading was not included. Ross and Gray (2006) used a quantitative design to analyze the influence of transformative leadership on teacher perception of their school. Researchers hypothesized that principals contribute to student achievement indirectly through teacher commitment and beliefs about their collective efficacy. Collective Efficacy is defined as a group’s shared belief in its capability to organize and execute the course of action required to produce results. Descriptive statistics and a correlation analysis were used to locate areas of strength and relationship (Ross & Gray, 2006). Twelve elementary schools in two large districts were used. There were 3,047 responses from 218 schools. A questionnaire was developed, on a 6-point scale. There were 12 questions that measured teacher perception of principal Transformative Leadership and 14 questions reflected dimensions of collective teacher efficacy. While questions related to transformative leadership were written using the framework from Bass (1996), questions on collective teacher efficacy used the following constructs: 1) Commitment to School Mission, 2) Commitment to the Professional Learning

Community, and 3) Commitment to the Community Partnerships. Descriptive statistics showed the mean for the analysis of the Transformative Leadership subscale at 4.59 (SD = .40), while Commitment to School Mission (M = 4.78), Commitment to Professional Learning Community (M = 4.74), and Commitment to Community Partnerships (M = 4.64) showed similar means. Each area showed that teachers perceived principals were strong in all subscales represented in the survey. Data showed teacher commitment to transformative leadership (Ross & Gray, 2006). Correlation analysis revealed a positive and significant correlation between collective teacher efficacy and teacher commitment to the school’s mission (r = .52, p < .01). There was also a positive and significant correlation between teacher commitment to the school mission and the work of the Professional Learning Community (r = .64, p < .01). The highest correlation was between perceived transformational leadership and teacher commitment to the school’s mission (r = .84, p < .01). The results revealed that transformative principals develop effective instructional systems (Ross & Gray, 2006). Data revealed teacher perceptions that effective systems support transformative leadership and a supportive teaching climate. Transformative leaders use effective systematic practices that support direction setting, professional development around research-based strategies, and a collaborative culture of life-long learners. By perfecting the combination of transformational and transactional leadership styles, principals allow faculty and staff to share their knowledge and expertise in making decisions which focus on improving instruction and curriculum towards a shared vision (Pepper, 2010). While transactional leaders use extrinsic motivation, transformational leaders are seen as visionaries who

40 appeal to their teachers. Transformative and transactional approaches to leadership have been identified as important for success in today’s high-stakes testing environment (Pepper, 2010). Transactional and transformational leadership can complement one another, as different situations require different approaches (Bass, 1997).

Transactional Leadership Transactional leaders focus on managing and monitoring school structures and systems. Transactional leaders are defined as those who focus more on task- oriented goals and work standards (Bass, 1997). In order to structure and sustain change, principals need to be seen as a resource provider and maintenance manager focused on school functions and systems. Leadership is the facilitation of the processes that guide organizations through significant changing circumstances, such as high-stakes testing (Pepper, 2010). Maintaining order, establishing procedures, overseeing building maintenance, and managing a budget are all valuable skills of an effective principal. Transformative and transactional leadership styles. Research supports both transformational and transactional leadership styles, yet they both focus on different aspects of the school setting (Pepper, 2010). The principal’s ability to balance both perspectives effectively supports the establishment of a positive school environment, which facilitates quality teaching and learning. There are differences in duties related to leadership management. Transformational leadership skills included curriculum, instruction, staff decision-making, and school culture. Transactional management skills included time on task, instructional climate, and safe climate. The transformational leadership and transactional leadership styles employ the necessary leadership and management skills for leading a school.

Dussaut et al. (2008) conducted a quantitative study to test the relationship of principals’ leadership style with teachers’ collective efficacy. The study calculated correlations between transactional and transformative leadership measures completed by 487 teachers in 40 high schools. The Multifactor Transformative Leadership Scale (MTLS) was used, which is closely aligned with transformative framework of Bernard Bass. The MTLS has 25 questions on the following constructs: 1) Charisma, 2) Intellectual Stimulation, and 3) Individual Consideration. Fifteen items on two constructs evaluated Transactional Leadership: 1) Contingent Reward and 2) Management by Exception. Finally, Laissez-faire Leadership was evaluated by six questions related to examples that no leaders were evident. Collective Teacher Efficacy was assessed with Goddard’s Collective Efficacy Scale, a 46-item instrument on a 6-point Likert scale. Transactional leadership made a significant contribution to transformational leadership (Dussaut et al., 2008). Data showed principals’ transactional leadership (r = .50, p < .01) and its factors of contingent reward (r = .55) and management by exception (r = .26) were positively related to teachers’ collective efficacy (p < .01). Transactional contingent reward leadership related positively to performance in that leaders clarified expectations and recognized achievements. The results revealed that principal transformative leadership (r = .63) and factors of charisma (r = .60), intellectual stimulation (r = .63), and individual consideration (r = .59) related to teachers’ collective efficacy (p < .01). Principals’ transformational leadership was related to teacher collective efficacy ( = .63, R2 = .40, p < .001). Transactional leadership was also related to collective efficacy ( = .50, R2 = .25, p < .001). Transactional leadership made a significant contribution to transformational leadership ( = .81, R2 = .65, p < .001). The results showed

42 teachers perceived that transactional and transformative leadership were both effective and positively related to teacher collective efficacy, which has implications for school climate.

School Climate School climate is a significant factor in successful school reform. Hoy, Tarter, and Kottkamp (1991) defined School Climate as the “enduring quality of the school environment that is experienced by participants, affects their behavior, and is based on their collective perception of behavior in schools” (p. 10). A positive school climate can enhance staff performance, promote high morale, and improve student achievement (Kelley et al., 2005). The relationships that shape the culture and climate of the school are influenced by the school principal, which makes the leadership style important (MacNeil et al., 2009). Shouppe and Pate (2010) used a quantitative study to analyze teacher perceptions of principal leadership, school climate, and student achievement. Georgia middle school teachers were used in the sample. Out of 450 invitations, there were 367 completed. This provided an 82% response rate. The data included a questionnaire instrument and student achievement data. The Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire (OCDQ-RML) was used and revised for the middle school. The four climate constructs were: 1) Open, 2) Engaged, 3) Disengaged, and 4) Closed. Student achievement data included scores from the eighth-grade math and reading percentiles from the Iowa Test of Basic Skills, Georgia’s required annual exam. Survey responses were analyzed using a Pearson’s product correlation and a two-sample t-test (Shouppe & Pate, 2010). For the teachers, Open behavior data ranged from 411 to 568. The mean for the 10 schools was 497. The Open behavior from principal data ranged from 377 to 535, with a mean of 476. A

Pearson’s product moment correlation was used determine if a relationship existed between middle school teachers’ perceptions of teacher/principal behaviors, school climate, and student academic achievement. No significant relationship was found between school climate and student achievement. Post hoc procedures found no difference in student achievement between open and closed school climates. A two-sample t-test for principal openness and teacher openness were conducted, using gender as the independent variable. Results showed no difference between gender, looking at principal openness (t= .50, p < .05) and teacher openness (t = .27, p < .05). Data revealed that principal openness, teacher openness, and school climate did not have a direct effect on student academic performance (Shouppe & Pate, 2010). Although the data showed no relationship between climate and academic performance, past evidence indicated that leadership has a more indirect than direct effect. There was a strong correlation between principal openness and school climate (r = .77, p < .05) and a moderate correlation between teacher openness and school climate (r = .56, p < .05). Data revealed that the principal leadership has an influence on school climate, which may indirectly effect student achievement. Aypay et al. (2012) analyzed the climate of elementary schools. The sample included 231 teachers in 17 elementary schools. Descriptive statistics and regression analysis were used to show relationships among data. Leader behaviors were independent variables and teacher behaviors were dependent variables. The Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire (OCDQ) was the instrument used, which included 42 items with a 4-point Likert scale. There were eight subscales: 1) Disengagement, 2) Hindrance, 3) Espirit, 4) Intimacy, 5) Aloofness, 6) Production, 7) Trust, and 8) Consideration.

There were several findings from this study (Aypay et al., 2012). Data communicated moderately high positive correlations between Espirit and all the leaders behaviors including Intimacy (r = .53), Production (r = .60), and Consideration (r = .62). Teachers ranked Disengagement as the lowest among all subscales (M = 2.08). This finding shows teachers desire to work an environment that is open for collaborative exchange and focused on producing results. Descriptive statistics showed teacher perception of school climate subscales. Espirit ranked highest among the school climate dimensions (M = 4.28). A series of regression analyses were calculated (Aypay et al., 2012). Leaders behaviors were independent variables and teacher behaviors were dependent variables. The only significant negative relationship with disengagement was Production Emphasis (r = -.32, p < .01). With Hindrance as the dependent variable, both Aloofness (r= .25, p < .01) and Trust (r = .25, p < .01) were significant predictors. Consideration (r = .24, p < .01) was the only significant predictor of Espirit. Consideration was also the only significant predictor of the dependent variable Intimacy (r = .28, p < .05). The results indicated that leadership plays an important role in climate. Principals may need to work on intimacy, consideration, and production to allow teachers to feel motivated and joyful in their jobs. Kilinc and Aydin (2013) examined the relationships between teacher sense of academic optimism and school climate. A sample of 302 teachers (K-6) was used in the study. Correlation research examined the relationships between teacher perceptions on academic optimism and school climate by using a survey. A quantitative survey was used around the following constructs: 1) Academic Optimism, 2) Support 3) Restriction 4) Direction, and 4) Intimacy.

Descriptive statistics, Pearson correlation coefficients, and regression analysis were used to provide research results (Kilinc & Aydin, 2013). The study sample included 96 teachers, 31.8% with 6-10 years of seniority. Over half of the participants (62.9%) worked for the present school between 1 and 5 years. There were positive and significant correlations between Support and Direction (r = .54, p < .01), Support and Intimacy (r = .13, p < .05), Direction and Intimacy (r = .58, p < .01), and Restriction and Direction (r = .13, p < .05). Teacher sense of Academic Optimism was also positively and significantly correlated with Supportiveness (r = .20, p < .01), Direction (r = .23, p < .01), and Intimacy (r = .30, p < .01). The results of the regression analysis showed Intimacy as the only significant predictor of Academic Optimism ( = .19, R2 = .10, p < .001). Support, Direction, and Restriction were not significant predictors of Academic Optimism.

Academic Climate Principals influence student outcomes through academic climate and support creative and effective teaching environment (Leithwood & Mascall, 2008). Academic Climate has been defined as the perception of academic achievement as high valued, while teachers and students are motivated to focus on learning objectives and outcomes (MacNeil et al., 2009). The principal creates academic climate through vision, mission, goals, purposes, and instructional support (Urick & Bowers, 2011). Kelly et al. (2005) evaluated the relationship among leadership and school climate. The study included 31 elementary schools, with a sample of 31 principals and 155 teachers. Two instruments were used: 1) Leader Behavior Analysis II (LBAII) and 2) Staff Development and School Climate Assessment Questionnaire (SDSCAQ). The LBAII was used to assess principal leadership styles. The LBAII analyzed: 1) Principal Flexibility, 2) Principal Effectiveness, 3) Teacher

Flexibility, and 4) Teacher Effectiveness. School climate was assessed using the SDSCAQ. The instrument provided six subscales: 1) Communication, 2) Innovation, 3) Advocacy, 4) Decision Making, 5) Evaluation, and 6) Staff Development. Principals provided a self-rating. Statistically significant positive relationships were found between teacher perceptions of their principals’ effectiveness scores and all six-climate scores (Kelly et al., 2005). Teacher perception of Principal Effectiveness and Innovation had a significant correlation (r = .41, p < .01). Another significant correlation was found between teacher perception of Principal Effectiveness and Staff Development (r = .52, p < .01). Correlations between teacher perceptions of Principal Flexibility and variables related to school climate were all negative, indicating that higher teacher perception of principal’s flexibility was associated with lower perceptions of teacher advocacy and effective communication. Too much flexibility and lack of clarity with direction may not provide structure for teachers to feel effective in the workplace. Teachers want leadership and direction from their principal. Organizational leaders have a critical role in determining an ethical climate and factors that change climate (Sagnak, 2010). Using a national sample of high schools, Urick and Bowers (2011) examined the extent to which the principal perception of their influence on instruction, management at the school, and relationships with district administrators was associated with the principal perception of the school’s academic climate. Collected from the National Center of Educational Statistics (NCES), a sample of 439 high schools was used in the study. These were schools that completed the Educational Longitudinal Study (2002). The dataset provided information on school level influence of school policy and governance on school climate. Academic Climate was measured by the

47 school administrator responses about the academic climate of teachers and students. Constructs that addressed Academic Climate included high student morale, high teacher morale, high academic expectations from teachers, and value of homework from students. Four models were used in a regression analysis, to predict Academic Climate (Urick & Bowers, 2011). Model I examined the independent effects of multiple school-level variables on the perception of Academic Climate, the dependent variable. School location and enrollment were not significant in the model, but the percentage of free lunch students ( = -.25, R2 = .16, p < .001) and social-disorder variables ( = -.28, R2 = .16, p < .001) were both negative and very significant. The significant negative effects of the percentage of free-lunch students in the school indicated that principals have a more negative view of Academic Climate in schools with more economically disadvantaged student populations. Model 2 addressed the construct of principal perception of their instructional influence as predicators of principal perception of Academic Climate. Instructional influence was positive and significant ( = .12, R2 = .18, p < .001). Model 3 used the principal’s perception of how they were evaluated on nonacademic tasks in predicting school climate (Urick & Bowers, 2011). Disciplinary Environment ( = - .10, R2 = .20, p < .05) was a negative and significant predictor of principal perception of Academic Climate, where Efficient Administration ( = .12, R2 = .20, p < .01) and Relationship with Community ( = .09, R2 = .20, p < .05) were both positive and were significant predictors of principal perception of Academic Climate. Model 4 informed principal perception of their evaluation on academic tasks in predicting school climate. Principal perceptions of the extent to which they were evaluated on test scores were both positive and significant ( = .12, R2 = .25, p < .05) predictors of principal

48 perception of Academic Climate. Findings revealed that the systems supporting student needs, instructional leadership, and test score accountability are all predictors of Academic Climate. The principal is responsible for initiating and sustaining school systems.

Role of Trust Creating, sustaining, and fostering trust is essential for the school leader because the principal role develops an environment that supports commitment in the workplace. Trust is a factor in determining whether principal-teacher working relationships are positive or negative (MacMillan et al., 2004). Leithwood and Mascall (2008) suggested that teachers’ and principals’ positive engagement in the improvement of student achievement extends beyond the classroom and the mandated direction and decisions about classroom pedagogy. For teachers to work successfully in a highly complex and often conflicted environment, trust is critical both for the stability of social relationships and a positive school environment (Hargreaves & Fink, 2003). Hodge and Ozag (2007) found employee perceptions of trust and hope as potential antecedents to their commitments to organizations. Their study explored the relationship between North Carolina business education teacher trust and hope in the organization. A quantitative analysis used a survey mailed to 2,151 teachers, with 310 returned and a 14.4% response rate. Descriptive statistics reported that 98% of the teachers worked full-time, while 96% had an undergraduate college degree. Approximately 85% reported having worked at least three years in the position, while 32% had 10 years or more in the position a their school. The questionnaire merged the Normative and Continuance Commitment Scale, Organizational Trust Inventory, State Hope Scale, and a demographic

49 instrument (Hodge & Ozag, 2007). Definitions of the distinct constructs of Affective Commitment, Continued Commitment, and Normative Commitment were used to develop a pool of items for an occupationally and organizationally heterogeneous sample. Affective Commitment was defined as the strong belief and commitment to school goals. Continued Commitment was defined as the tenure, status, or investment made to the organization. Finally, Normative Commitment was defined as the emotional attachment to the organization. Pearson correlations and multiple linear regression analysis were used to analyze the relationships between teacher perception of trust and hope and their organizational commitment (Hodge & Ozag, 2007). There were positive and significant relationships between teacher Trust and their Affective Commitment to their organization (r = .62, p < .001) and between teacher perception of Hope and their Affective Commitment (r = .56, p < .001). Another positive and statistically significant relationship was between teacher perception of Trust and Normative Commitment to the organization (r = - .58, p < .001). The results of the multiple linear regression analysis analyzed hope and trust as predictors of affective commitment (Hodge & Ozag, 2007). The results indicated that teacher perceptions of Trust ( = .26, R2 = .44, p < .01) and Hope ( = .39, R2 = .44, p < .01) emerged as significant predictors of an affective commitment. Findings showed the need to develop trust and hope in teachers in an effort to develop and sustain a climate where teachers choose to stay as members of the school community. The implication for school principals is to foster teacher forms of commitment through effective communication and shared strategic planning. Christopherson, Elstad, and Turmo (2011) provided another quantitative study on trust between teachers and the principal. The researchers wanted to know

50 more about how trust, peer collaboration, and attitude influence academic pressure on teachers. There were 11 schools in the sample. Seven were middle schools, while four were high schools. Although all teachers from the 11 schools were provided a survey, 234 responded. Of the 243 teachers, 166 taught in the middle schools, while 77 taught in the high schools. Due to missing values, the research sample was 237. Pearson correlations were used to analyze the relationship between several factors (Christopherson et al., 2011). These included: 1) Principal-Teacher Trust, 2) Teacher-Teacher Trust, 3) Peer Collaboration, 4) Positive Attitude, and 5) Academic Pressure. The relationship between Principal-Teacher Trust and Academic Pressure was the strongest (r = .74, p < .05), while the relationship between Teacher-Teacher Trust and Academic Pressure showed strength and significance (r = .57, p < .05). Findings showed the value of each construct in creating and sustaining a positive environment for teachers. A regression model was used to analyze subscales Teacher Trust ( = .57, R2 = .63, p < .05) Principal Trust ( = .74, R2 = .63, p < .05), Positive Attitude ( = .72, R2 = .63, p < .05) and Peer Collaboration ( = .60, R2 = .63, p < .05) as predictors of Academic Pressure. All subscales showed high and significant predictors of Academic Pressure. Principal Trust and Positive Attitude were significant influences on teacher motivation and work efficacy (Christopherson et al., 2011). Supportive principals promote a general feeling of trust among faculty members, which is linked to school effectiveness. An analysis was completed to understand the dynamics of trust in schools and its role in fostering a culture of positive relationships (Kutsyuruba et al., 2011). A mixed-methods analysis was used and a survey was emailed to 2,000 principals. It had a very low response rate

51 with only 177 in the sample. More than half (68%) of respondents had over five years of experiences as principal. Although the sample size was a limitation to the results, the survey findings showed that a majority of the principals felt confident in their ability to build trust in their school. A random sample of principals were interviewed and responded to open- ended questions (Kutsyuruba et al., 2011). The two questions were: A) In your experience, what key factors helped the successful resolution of low trust situations? and B) What is one piece of advice you would give to a beginning principal about repairing trust? Two major themes emerged: A) Broken Trust in Schools and B) Rebuilding Trust Resolutions. While some principals expressed some uncertainty that broken trust can be repaired, most indicated the conviction that trust can be rebuilt once it is broken. Most principals felt responsible to make sure relationships among all stakeholders are restored and confident in their ability to rebuild trust if needed. Principals strongly believed that honesty, integrity, and open communication were critical to the repair of broken trust. Principals suggested open-mindedness, fairness, appreciation, flexibility, and transparency in decision-making as characteristics for school leaders. Transformational leaders empower and encourage followers to think for themselves, which instills trust in their leader (Bass, 1997). MacMillan et al. (2004) completed a qualitative study on the relationship between principals and teachers in negotiation. The sample included 12 middle and high schools in both rural and urban settings. A random sample of principals and teachers from 9 of the 12 schools were interviewed. Trust was seen as having a crucial role in the relationship between principals and teachers (MacMillan et al., 2004). Principals trusted teachers to teach well without the necessity of close supervision, and teachers trusted the

52 principal to give them the support needed to do so. Teachers also based their sense of trust based on evidence showing the principal could be trusted, usually based on prior experiences. The process of building trust appeared to be the testing of the principal’s resolve, through discussion and challenge of decisions. Teachers clarified their understanding of principal beliefs and practices. The development of trust was also build and sustained through the affective domain. Friendship and informal conversations built an emotional connection that enabled individuals to identify with each other.

School Climate Impact on Teacher Attrition Teachers who receive support from their administrators experience less stress and burnout than those who receive little or no support. Lower levels of teacher attrition and migration have consistently been found in schools with more administrative support for teachers. Continued attrition can significantly impact school culture, teacher motivation and student achievement. Singh and Billingsley (1998) provided a study that indicated the importance of principal leadership variables in enhancing teacher commitment. Data were drawn from the public teachers’ file from the School and Staffing Survey (SASS) of 1987-1988. A sample of 9,040 schools (K-12) was selected from the Quality of Education (QED) file of public schools. A survey was created to analyze teacher perception of principal leadership, principal support, and peer support in the school. A regression analysis was used to look at a variety of construct variables that may be predictors of teacher commitment and peer support (Singh & Billingsley, 1998). These included 1) Principal Leadership 2) Shared Beliefs, 3) Cooperative Work, and 4) Peer Support. The results indicated the strong effect of principal leadership on teacher perception of cooperation and on solidarity among teachers. Peer Support had the largest direct effect as a predictor of teacher

53 commitment ( = .30, R2 = .48, p < .05). Principal Leadership was a predictor of teacher commitment ( = .20, R2 = .48, p < .05) and of Peer Support ( = .66, R2 = .32, p < .05). The results indicated that teacher perceptions are strongly influenced by the perceptions of principal leadership. Principal leadership influences commitment. Principals need to know how to support teachers. The results suggested that when principals foster shared-goals, values, and professional growth, a supportive learning community is likely to exist. Loeb, Darling-Hammond, and Luczak (2005) examined teacher, student, and organizational factors associated with high levels of teacher turnover in California schools. Data from a survey of 1,071 California teachers was used. The data represented 1,018 schools (K-12) in approximately 370 school districts across the state. Along with the survey, a random sample of teachers were chosen and interviewed. The sample represented the schools in which more than 20% were without credentials, in low-income schools, and with high minority populations. The large number of survey questions evaluated school conditions over eight subscales: 1) Professional Development, 2) Working Conditions for Teachers, 3) Job Satisfaction, 4) Student Test Quality, 5) Parent Involvement, 6) Textbooks and Instructional Materials, 7) Physical Facilities, and 8) Technology Availability. The School Conditions survey provided the choice of 0 (pessimistic) or 1 (optimistic). Descriptive statistics provided means were analyzed and compared (Loeb et al., 2005). Ratings for Optimism showed mean differences among variables related to School Conditions. The mean for Parent Involvement was the highest (M = .88), followed by Job Satisfaction (M = .86). A high percentage of teachers communicated being satisfied with their work and position. The mean for Textbook and Instructional Materials (M = .84) and Technology Availability (M =

.84) were also high, which support resources needs for instructional reform. The means for Working Conditions for Teachers (M = .66) and Physical Facilities (M = .46) were lower than others. The difference revealed some concern about the working environment components that may have influenced teacher attrition. Data revealed that the strongest predictor of teacher turnover is teacher perception of Working Conditions. These influences included racial, ethnic, poverty, and language composition of a school. Findings suggest it is important for the principal to learn what types of Working Conditions are weak in the school in an attempt to find solutions for a more positive experience. Brown and Wynn (2009) provided a qualitative analysis that studied the influence that principals have on attrition and transfer rates. The study took place in a small urban school district in a Southeast state. The district served 32,000 students in 45 schools (K-12), having diversity in student enrollment, student demographics, and school programs. The district was chosen because of its high attrition rate of beginning teachers. Interviews took place in 12 of the schools, due to their having the lowest attrition and transfer rates of teachers (Brown & Wynn, 2009). Semi-structured interviews were conducted with each of the 12 principals. Data communicated several themes, providing insight into common leadership traits and strategies: 1) Strategic Employment, 2) Whole Child, 3) Mentorship, 4) Support, and 5) Multiple Roles. All principals discussed the importance of “fit” in hiring practices. They were strategic in choosing applicants and creating grade level or department teams. The principals communicated the importance of shared values and vision supporting commitment to student learning. All principals reported the importance of communicating the value of the whole child. The principals focused on the many needs of the student, about doing what’s right for kids. A

55 shared role as a mentor and advocate for the community was valued. Teachers knew the principal would be the ones to listen and care about teacher and school needs. The 12 principals saw themselves as an umbrella of support for teachers and agreed that spending time, providing resources, and building capacity are critical components in retaining good teachers (Brown & Wynn, 2009). All principals saw themselves having many roles. All mentioned the importance of establishing relationships, building community, and instilling confidence in others. The data showed supportive leadership for the principals with low teacher attrition is about growth and development, not about evaluation or punishment. Greenlee and Brown (2009) found that working conditions and principal behaviors play an important role in recruiting and retaining teachers in challenging schools. A quantitative analysis was used to look at the greatest incentive for teacher retention. Convenience sampling was used to select teachers to participate in the survey. The teachers were students in the Educational Leadership Program at the University of South Florida. There were 97 respondents. The questionnaire was developed around key indicators, or attributes, for high performing principals. Survey data explored teacher perceptions of principal leadership behaviors that are seen as most effective to create a school environment where teachers want to stay. Findings showed that “positive school culture” is the greatest indicator of high performing principals (42%), followed by “school conditions” (35%). Evidence on principal behaviors that would be critical to teacher retention in challenging schools suggested that school principals must be able to create work environments where teachers can thrive.

Principal Turnover Besides retaining teachers, efforts to retain effective principals are crucial in order to sustain on-going improvements in a school (Papa Jr., 2007). High populations of at-risk children, difficult working conditions, and less qualified teachers impact the ability to retain principals. Because of the shortage of qualified principals, many are often unprepared and ineffective at implementing necessary changes in schools. Under conditions of regular principal turnover, teachers learn to “wait out all other principals and their change agendas in the future” (Hargreaves & Fink, 2003, p. 2). Principal succession has been examined in schools for its consequence on school personnel, programs, culture, and student achievement.

Principal Attrition Rates Li (2012) provided research on how the implementation of NCLB had affected principal mobility in the North Carolina schools and how it reshaped the distribution of high performing principals across low and high performing schools. The data sample included 214 principals from 1995-2007. The quality of principals was determined from a list of criteria creating a group of principals who had state test scores for the previous year and had moved schools at least one time as principal. Criterion was that these principals had to have worked as principal prior to 2003 (Pre-NCLB) to when NCLB testing measures were required (Post NCLB). Student assessment data were collected to determine change in student achievement over time. The pressure on principals to provide and support student achievement may affect how principals see their capacity to influence change (Li, 2012). Descriptive statistics showed that over a 10-year window, 100% of the principals switched

57 schools at least once. Approximately 30% switched schools prior to NCLB, while another 30% changed schools the year NCLB was in place. A regression analysis used principal quality as a predictor of student achievement, before and after NCLB. Using value-added measures of principal performance in pre-period student demographics to identify schools that are likely to miss performance targets, principal quality was analyzed against the effects of NCLB (Li, 2012). Prior to NCLB, principal quality was negative and significant predictor of student achievement in math ( = -.15, R2 = .35, p < .001). After NCLB, principal quality remained a negative and significant predicator of student achievement in math ( = -.10, R2 = .35, p < .001). Principal quality was also a negative and significant predictor for reading achievement prior to NCLB ( = - .09, R2 = .39, p < .001) and after NCLB ( = -.04, R2 = .39, p < .05). Principal quality was a negative and highly significant predictor of math quality ( = -.23, R2 = .47, p < .001) and reading quality ( = -.10, R2 = .51, p < .01) after NCLB, in Title I schools. The results suggested an adverse effect of NCLB. The data also showed NCLB may have decreased average principal quality at schools serving disadvantaged students by inducing more able principals to move to schools less likely to face sanctions. Title I schools are in great need of effective principals, especially in times of instructional reform. Huff et al. (2011) completed a study that examined the impact of principal tenure, principal stability, and principal experience on student achievement. Principal tenure was defined as the total number of years the principal had been in the current position. Principal stability was defined as the average number of principals per school over a 10-year period. Principal experience was defined as the total number of years a principal had worked in public education. Student achievement data and school-level data were collected from a public website, the

Governor’s Office of Student Achievement (GOSA). The sample included 401 middle schools, where the mean stability of principals was 2.91 over a 10-year period. Approximately 72.3% of principals had less than 5 years tenure. Data revealed that principal tenure, stability, and experience did not significantly impact student achievement over the 10-year span (Huff et al., 2011). To determine whether principal tenure and levels of experience and stability affected student achievement, two-way ANOVAs were conducted. Principal tenure was not found to have an influence on any of the measures of student achievement. There was no significant interaction between level of principal stability and level of principal experience on any of the student achievement measures. However, there was a significant main effect for experience (F(2,392) = 5.55, p <.01) in sixth grade reading. There was also a significant main effect for experience (F(2,392) = 7.22, p <.01) in eighth grade science. Post hoc analysis showed that there was a significant difference between schools with principals who had 0-14 years’ experience and schools with principals who had more than 25 years of experience. Over 60% of the schools had three or more principals over the 10-year period. Findings suggest that principal tenure was not found to have an influence on any of the student achievement measures because most principals had not led schools long enough to significantly impact school improvement efforts. Cullen and Mazzeo (2008) provided an analysis of principal movement from 1989 to 2006 in Texas. Data were collected from the Texas Education Agency. The dataset included employment information on a group of full-time principals from 1989-2006, with a sample of 6,254 campuses represented in the analysis sample over the 7-year span. The data provided information on 17,339 principals at various campuses. A second dataset was pulled from the Academic

Excellence Indicator System (AEIS), which provided information on student demographics and academic performance. Data showed changes made by principals (Cullen & Mazzeo, 2008). In terms of students served, the turnover rate was lowest in the elementary schools (16.7%) and higher in the middle (20.4%) and high schools (22.7%). In the analysis of transition rates, nearly 79% of campus principals stayed at the school the following year, 7.5% became principals at different schools, 2.3% went to different districts, and approximately 4.0% were promoted to district level positions in the district. Schools were categorized by accountability rating. Among the exemplary schools, approximately 80% of principals remained at the same school. This was compared to principals at low-performing schools, which was only 60%. The results suggest that the accountability measures may have a substantial impact on choice principals make in their careers. Papa Jr. (2007) analyzed several cohorts of new principals in New York. A multivariate analysis was done to examine the determinants of principal retention. Data from two New York State (NYS) Education Department data sets were used. The analysis of principal retention used principals who were hired by a NYS public school between 1991 and 1999, providing a sample of 816 principals. An inter-district analysis showed a newly hired principal was retained for at least four years, while 13% became a principal at a different school outside the district. The within-district analysis showed that 14% of newly hired principals were retained for at least 4 years or more, or became principal at a different school within the district. The results indicated that principals hired from within the district, with less than 5 years of district experience as principal are 61% less likely to be retained than are principals with at least 5 years district experience as principal (Papa Jr.,

2007). The predicted likelihood of retaining a principal with less than 5 years of experience was 85%, compared to 94% for those with at least 5 years of experience. Findings showed that the first 5 years are important for the principal to learn the position and become confident in the multiple roles involved. Results imply that novice principals may need resources and support to increase their capacity and confidence in the position. Gates et al. (2006) used a longitudinal analysis to examine principal turnover and mobility from 1987 through 2001. Data came from Illinois and North Carolina. There were 3,613 principals from Illinois and 2,167 principals from North Carolina in the sample. These states were chosen to represent variation in school demographics and enrollment size. North Carolina has a wide range of urban, suburban, and rural districts. Illinois has the city of Chicago, with an enrollment of 430,000 students in various schools. Results revealed that principal attrition is evident in both rural and urban districts (Gates et al., 2006). During the 14-year span, the number of principals increased by 10% in both states. There was a 14% attrition rate in Illinois and an 18% percent attrition rate in North Carolina. In Illinois, 47% remained principals in the same schools and 24% took a different principal position within the district. Approximately 29% left the position. In North Carolina, approximately 20% remained principals in the same schools, 9% became principals in another school within the district, and 25% became principals in another district. Findings imply that districts need to understand the concerns of the principals in their district communities to provide resources and support, in an effort to retain principals. Miller (2009) completed a study to examine the relationship between principal turnover and teacher retention in North Carolina. Data from the North Carolina Education Research Data Center (NCED), from 1994 through 2006, were

61 used. The sample included schools with reliable principal transition information. The Licensure Salary Pay Snapshots was used to provide annual employment files on teachers and principals. The data determined principal transition and teacher retention in schools with grades three through eight. Data revealed both principal and teacher transitions, over the 12-year span. All schools, over the 12-year span, experienced a small turnover rate on average (M = 1.96), or around 2 principals within a 12-year span. Some schools had a single principal, while other schools had 7. More than half of the principals left their school within 4 years. Schools experienced similar principal transitions with elementary grades (M =1.89) compared to middle school grades (M = 2.19). Teacher retention was measured by the average percentage of teachers at the school returning to teach the following year. Average teacher retention was about 79%. Research suggested that principals understand what motivates teachers to stay and what causes teachers to leave. This information may be valuable for the principal, as the school’s leader who develops and supports the school’s climate.

Attrition Rates in High Poverty Schools High poverty schools are often supported by the federal government through Title I funds. Title I schools have a high percentage of students that are eligible for and receive a free or reduced lunch. Loeb et al. (2010) conducted a longitudinal study in Florida to investigate the distribution of principals across schools. Miami-Dade County Public Schools (M-DCPS) is the largest school district in Florida, and the fourth largest in the country. The study examined how student demographics and school climate impacted the principal labor market in a large school district. The focus was on the distribution of principals across schools, attrition from the principal position, and transfers across schools. Data

62 came from administrative files on staff in students in M-DCPS, for the 2003 – 2009 school years. Data included surveys of principals and school-level information from the Florida Department of Education (FDE). Accountability grades were given to schools, based on their academic performance. Findings showed a higher attrition rate of principals in low-performing schools (Loeb et al., 2010). Schools that received a poor accountability grade had a principal with about 2.5 years of experience, compared to 5.1 years of experience for schools that received a high accountability grade. Principals in schools with the most low-achieving students had been at their school on an average of 2.2 years, compared to principals with a small population of low- achieving students at 3.6 years of tenure. Schools that enrolled the largest proportion of poor students had first-year principals in 20% of the school years, compared to 11% in schools with the fewest poor students. Principals served an average of 3 years at their school, while 81% served as principal at only one school over the observation period. Survey results showed principal preferences in their work environment. The three areas principals communicated as most important were: 1) Campus Safety (M = 3.80), 2) Available Resources (M = 3.74), and 3) School Conditions (M = 3.66). There was a negative relationship between school climate and concentration of poor minority students (r = -.30) and between school climate and concentration of low-achieving students (r = -.67). These results indicate that principals value working conditions that give them capacity to do the work. In schools where facilities are poor or students have greater needs, more resources are needed to get the job done. These resources include time, people, and money. Partlow and Ridenour (2008) completed a study that examined the frequency with which elementary principals in 100 Ohio schools changed during a

7-year period (1996-2003). The sample was limited to a 19-county region of Ohio, sorted into eight groups that represented different demographics. The sample included 15 rural schools, 68 urban schools, and 26 suburban schools. The study looked at the impact of principal attrition on large urban districts. Urban schools are located in areas with high concentrations of poverty, while suburban communities are often distinguished by high-income homes with little poverty and more educated families. Data showed a difference in principal turnover rates among urban, rural, and suburban schools (Partlow & Ridenour, 2008). The number of individual principals employed in a school over the 7-year span measured principal turnover. The average number of principals in urban schools was 2.37 and 2.44 in rural schools. Schools with one or two principals during the 7-year span were at 57% in urban schools, 80% in suburban schools, and 60% in rural schools. The difference between urban and rural schools was not significant. Urban and rural schools had a significantly higher turnover frequency than suburban schools. Findings suggest principals may need more support from district administrators in schools with greater needs. Variables of success. Although schools In Need of Improvement (INI) may have principals struggling to stay as principal at their school, a couple of New York studies suggested that there are three components that have supported principal longevity: 1) Nurturing Environment, 2) District Support and 3) Site Promotion (Jacobson, Brooks, Giles, Johnson, & Ylimaki, 2007; Weinstein et al., 2009). Nurturing Environment is defined as an environment that fosters development, training, support, and encouragement. District Support is defined as the time, personnel, and monetary support that the district administrators provide

64 for the principal. Site Promotion is defined as a promotion from Vice Principal to Principal at the same school. Jacobson et al. (2007) conducted a qualitative study used to examine the beliefs and practices of three high-poverty urban elementary schools in New York. The New York State Education Department (NYSED) school report card data and student achievement data were analyzed. Open-ended interviews were done to view perceptions of principals, teachers, parents, and students at the schools. There were three common themes found in the data transcriptions. All three principals encouraged a sense of common purpose within their school community. First, each found that the needs of children were first priority and that the staff worked together to make a difference for kids. Second, the principals made school safety a priority. Each principal created a safe and inviting environment during the day, especially when they could greet parents and students. Providing a positive and safe school environment was viewed as a support for student learning, as students felt safe and cared about by the adult staff. Third, all principals provided professional development and resources for teachers and staff to better understand how to connect with the student, provide opportunities for learning, and build relationships with families. Although site tenure was different among the principals, data showed that all three principals were clear about expected behaviors and practices at the school. Findings revealed that all principals responded to the challenges of their high-poverty community by establishing safe and nurturing environments, setting high expectations, and holding staff and parents accountable for the expectations. Weinstein et al. (2009) completed an analysis on data from cohorts of New York schools to investigate the impact of principal turnover on school culture and student performance. The focus was on how principals were successful in the

65 transition to leadership in a different school. It was a 5-year longitudinal study, which analyzed changes among principals between 1993 and 1998. The data set included information from local databases about principal turnover from 80 high schools in New York City. Student achievement data were analyzed along with principal tenure. These schools had statistically significant dropout-rates, much higher than other high schools in the city (Weinstein et al., 2009). There were significantly lower dropout rates of Caucasian and Asian students, and significantly higher percentages of Hispanic and African-American students. Teachers had less than five years of experience and less education. Data also showed an average tenure for principals was approximately three years (M=3). Approximately 38% of the schools had one change and 24% had two or more changes in principal leadership within the 5-year window. There were 13 schools that had no principal turnover. From these 13 schools, four were used as case studies (Weinstein et al., 2009). These were schools where principals had remained and sustained a positive climate, with a focus on instructional achievement. Two were in the Bronx, while another two were in Brooklyn. Some themes emerged that supported the work of the principal in the four schools chosen as case studies. First, the principals requested a targeted and sustained professional development plan. To support educational reform efforts, district leaders may need personnel or financial resources available to support principal and school needs. Second, one of the principals also had been the assistant principal at the same school. The continuity of having the knowledge of the school community and student needs was helpful for the transition to becoming principal and monitoring a positive school climate. Because principals are responsible for managing school systems and supporting a

66 positive school climate, it is valuable to come into a principal position already knowing and understanding the needs of the people in the school community.

Conclusion School climate is influenced by principal decisions. When principals leave their schools, teachers have to adjust to leadership change. When principals change schools, it takes time for teachers to know and trust the new principal leadership. Principal leadership style also has an impact on trust. Teachers want principals who distribute leadership, provide collaborative opportunities to resolve problems, and create innovative ideas for positive change. Transformative leadership and transactional management work together to allow principals the capacity to give teachers opportunity to lead, while maintaining structures and systems that support student safety and academic achievement. Knowing about teacher perception of principal leadership style, principal experience, and principal time at the school site can be beneficial to district leaders. As leaders learn how teachers’ perceptions affect the working conditions at the school, leaders can make more informed decisions about principal placement at different schools within the district. The focus is on making decisions that best support a positive academic climate in an effort to increase student learning.

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY

Introduction As instructional leaders, principals can foster an understanding of the school vision, facilitate implementation of the mission, and establish the school climate (Kelley et al., 2005). A constant change of principal leadership can be problematic to sustaining reform efforts (Miller, 2009). Change leaders must understand procedures and processes that create conditions necessary for organizational improvement (Fullan, 2002). Skilled leaders correctly envision future needs and empower others to share and implement that vision (Macmillan et al., 2004). Building principals must be able to assess and evaluate the impact and perceptions of their leadership styles (Bass & Avolio, 2000). Leaders who fully understand leadership theory and improve their ability to lead are able to reduce employee frustration and negative attitudes in the work environment (Pepper, 2010). While greater attention has been paid to teacher attrition than principal attrition, principals play a leading role in teacher retention and designing and supporting school social contexts that support professional learning (Ingersoll, 1999). Principal turnover is a common phenomenon nationwide (Cullen & Mazzeo, 2008). Approximately 22% of principals switch jobs from one year to the next. Papa Jr. (2007) followed several cohorts of new principals hired in New York and discovered that after 4 years, only 46% are still principals in the same school. In a longitudinal 6-year study, it was found that principals in Title I schools had been at their school on an average of 2.2 years, compared to principals with a small population of low-achieving students at 3.6 years of tenure (Loeb et

68 al., 2010). Gates et al. (2006) examined an Illinois cohort of principals and found that after six years, 37% of the cohort remained principals in the same school.

Purpose The purpose of the study was to analyze the relationships among perceived principal leadership style, experience, and site tenure and how these variables relate to school climate. Transformative leadership has been found to have a positive effect on the overall organization (Bass, 1999; Burns, 1978). School principals need to understand their style of leadership and its impact on leading and supporting change. Change can affect school climate and teacher motivation. As principals change schools, leadership change influences systematic reform efforts.

Research Questions The study addressed the primary research question, “What is the impact of principal leadership style, experience, and tenure on school climate?” The specific research questions were:  Are there relationships among teacher perception of principal leadership style, principal experience, principal tenure, and school climate?  Is there a significant difference in teacher perception of principal leadership and school climate by principal experience and principal tenure categories? The hypotheses were: A) Transformative leadership behaviors are perceived to support a positive school climate. B) Principals with at least 4 years tenure are perceived to support a positive school climate.

Research Design Correlational and causal comparative analyses were used in this study to analyze survey data. Creswell (2009) wrote that a survey “provides a quantitative or numeric description of trends, attitudes, or opinions of a population by studying a sample of that population” (p. 145). Using a survey allows the researcher to make generalizations from a sample to a population and to make inferences about the population behaviors, attitudes, or characteristics (Fink, 2002). Research included the use a survey modified from the Survey of Transformative Leadership (Edwards, Knight, Broome, & Flynn, 2010) and the North Carolina Teacher Working Conditions Survey (New Teacher Center, 2014). These two instruments were modified and used to analyze the relationships between perceived leadership style and school climate.

Participants Participants in this research included certificated elementary school teachers from five schools districts in California’s Central Valley. The study included were 22 schools, representing 22 principals. To request support for research in the four districts, appointments were made with Superintendents. A written proposal was provided, showing the value of the research and types of information that would be provided to the district. Appendix A shows an example of the proposal. Each of the five districts chose the IRB policies and processes through the IRB at Fresno State University. Each of the Superintendents chose to be the contact person with this study. After the researcher created the online Google Survey with an invitation for the teacher to participate, a request was made to have the email sent by the Superintendent to the elementary teachers within each district. The number of participants was the number of teachers who responded to the survey. The

70 response rate was number of teachers who responded, divided by the total number of valid emails delivered to teachers. There were 170 teacher participants in the study.

Instrumentation To improve the response rate, both the Survey of Transformative Leadership (Edwards et al., 2010) and the North Carolina Teacher Working Conditions Survey (New Teacher Center, 2014) were shortened to create two new instruments that are being used to analyze teacher perception of principal leadership style and school climate. Survey of transformative leadership. Edwards et al. (2010) developed the Survey of Transformative Leadership (STL) at Texas Christian University. It is used to measure perceived transformative leadership behaviors. The STL includes 81 items within nine subscales. These nine subscales include: A) Integrity, B) Sensible Risk, C) Encourages Innovation, D) Demonstrates Innovation, E) Inspirational Motivation, F) Develops Others, G) Supports Others, H) Task Delegation, and I) Expects Excellence. The survey is a comprehensive 5-point assessment instrument with the following choices: A) Not at All B) Once in Awhile C) Sometimes, D) Fairly Often, and E) Frequently. Due to the length of the survey, a smaller number of items were chosen, for inclusion in this study. Of the 81 items, 39 were used on the new survey instrument. The nine subscales are represented by five overarching themes, four that are traditionally conceptualized as transformative domains related to the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire by Bass and Avolio (2000). These include: A) Idealized Influence, B) Intellectual Stimulation, C) Inspirational Motivation, D) Individualized Consideration, and E) Empowerment. The fifth scale, Empowerment, was added to the STL because of the literature about how the

71 empowering leader shares power and conveys support to followers, which lends to positive organizational outcomes (Greenlee & Brown, 2009). Table 3 illustrates the subscales by theme.

Table 3

STL – Scales Represented by Subscale Subscales Scales Integrity Idealized Influence Sensible Risk Idealized Influence Encourages Innovation Intellectual Stimulation Demonstrates Innovation Intellectual Stimulation Inspirational Motivation Inspirational Motivation Supports Others Individualized Consideration Develops Others Individualized Consideration Task Delegation Empowerment Expects Excellence Empowerment Adapted from: Edwards, J. R., Knight, D. K., Broome, K. M., & Flynn, P. M. (2010). The development and validation of a transformational leadership survey for substance use treatment programs. Substance use & misuse, 45(9), 1279- 1302 STL reliability. Reliability for all STL subscales met or exceeded Groth- Marnat’s (1999) recommendations of .70 for research purposes for developed scales. Table 4 shows the reliability coefficients represented in the STL subscales. All subscales show a coefficient of .85 or higher. The high coefficients support the conclusion that the STL reliably measures transformational leadership practices. STL items. Items were chosen from each of the nine subscales, with its original 84 items. An effort was made to closely determine which questions best align with this specific research. There was a total of 39 items chosen and used to represent Principal Leadership. Appendix B shows the Principal Leadership items on the new instrument.

72 Table 4

Reliability – STL Subscales STL Subscales Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient Integrity .95 Sensible Risk .89 Encourages Innovation .92 Demonstrates Innovation .86 Inspirational Motivation .97 Respects Others .78 Develops Others .89 Task Delegation .89 Expects Excellence .95 Adapted from: Edwards, J. R., Knight, D. K., Broome, K. M., & Flynn, P. M. (2010). The development and validation of a transformational leadership survey for substance use treatment programs. Substance use & misuse, 45(9), 1279-1302.

Integrity. Five of the 13 items were chosen from this subscale. Items 2 and 3 were used because research supports the committed and trustworthy leader. Items 1, 4, and 5 were used to support how the principal is seen as trustworthy. Item 1 emphasizes the shared values, while item 4 and 5 address how the leader is seen as a role model to the school. The following items were not used. Items 7 and 8 are details of item 3, showing how being honest and approachable supports a trusted leader. Item 9 addresses “ethical values”. This item was not used, as the research does not address how “ethics” is perceived. Items 10 and 11 are items that ask more about shared value, similar to item 1. Item 12 shows respect given by the staff. A separate subscale supports the construct of respect. Items 6 and 13, analyzing leadership’s determination and self-confidence, were not used because these constructs were not emphasized in this research. Table 5 shows chosen items.

Table 5

Integrity Items

Item # Item 1* Expresses values shared by staff members 2* Keeps commitments 3* Is trustworthy 4* Is someone that staff members are proud to be associated with 5* Models behaviors other staff are asked to perform 6 Shows determination on the job 7 Displays honesty 8 Is approachable 9 Considers the ethical implications of others 10 Encourages staff behaviors consistent with shared values 11 Acts consistently with values shared by staff members 12 Behaves in ways that strengthens respect from staff members 13 Shows self-confidence Note: Items with the asterisk are chosen for the new instrument. Adapted from: Edwards, J. R., Knight, D. K., Broome, K. M., & Flynn, P. M. (2010). The development And validation of a transformational leadership survey for substance use treatment programs. Substance use & misuse, 45(9), 1279-1302.

Sensible risk. Three of the six items were chosen from this subscale, referenced in Table 6. Items 1 and 2 were used because they analyze leadership capacity to take risks when needed. Item 3 was used because it addresses leadership concern for school interests and needs. Items 4 and 5 show how leadership makes bold decisions and sacrifice for school goals. These items were not used because they are details that support Item 1, which address personal risks for school goals. Item 6 is supported in item 3, around leadership’s ability to perform tasks other than own.

74 Table 6

Sensible Risk Items

Item # Item 1* Takes appropriate personal risks in order to improve the school 2* Takes personal chances in pursuing school goals 3* Seeks school interests over personal interests 4 Is willing to personally sacrifice for the sake of the school 5 Makes bold personal decisions to improve the school 6 Performs tasks other than own to fulfill school objectives Note: Items with the asterisk are chosen for the new instrument. Adapted from: Edwards, J. R., Knight, D. K., Broome, K. M., & Flynn, P. M. (2010). The development And validation of a transformational leadership survey for substance use treatment programs. Substance use & misuse, 45(9), 1279-1302.

Encourages innovation. Three of the eight items were chosen from this subscale. Items 1, 2 and 3 were used to analyze how well leadership acknowledges staff member ideas to solve problems. Item 1, 2, and 3 show how leadership encourages staff to be creative and suggest new ideas to improve performance. The following items were not chosen. Items 6 and 7 align with question 3, addressing leadership support in the encouragement and support of new ideas. Item 4 is supported by item 1, analyzing leadership capacity to be open to new ideas. Item 8 addresses leadership’s support of new ideas, found in items 1, 2, and 3. Item 5 analyzes respect by leadership. It was not used because respect is addressed in a different subscale. Table 7 illustrates chosen items. Demonstrates innovation. Three of the seven items were chosen from this subscale, shown in Table 8. Items 1, 2, and 3 address new ways of doing things and taking bold actions to address school goals. Items 1 and 2 concentrate on new ideas, while item 3 reflects on leadership’s bold decisions and actions.

Table 7

Encourages Innovation Items Item # Item 1* Positively acknowledges creative solutions to problems 2* Encourages ideas other than own 3* Asks questions that stimulate staff members to consider ways to improve their performance 4 Attempts to improve 5 Is respectful in handling staff member mistakes 6 Encourages staff to try new ways to accomplish work 7 Suggests new ways of getting work completed 8 Does not criticize program members’ ideas Note: Items with the asterisk are chosen for the new instrument. Adapted from: Edwards, J. R., Knight, D. K., Broome, K. M., & Flynn, P. M. (2010). The development And validation of a transformational leadership survey for substance use treatment programs. Substance use & misuse, 45(9), 1279-1302.

Table 8

Demonstrates Innovation Items Item # Item 1* Tries ways of doing things that are different from the norm 2* Seeks new opportunities within the school for achieving goals 3* Takes bold actions in order to achieve school objectives 4 Accomplishes tasks in a different manner from most others 5 Identifies limitations that may hinder organizational improvement 6 Challenges staff members to reconsider how they do things 7 Searches outside the school for ways to facilitate school goals Note: Items with the asterisk are chosen for the new instrument. Adapted from: Edwards, J. R., Knight, D. K., Broome, K. M., & Flynn, P. M. (2010). The development And validation of a transformational leadership survey for substance use treatment programs. Substance use & misuse, 45(9), 1279-1302.

The following were not used. Items 4, 6, and 7 are supported in items 1 and 2. These items analyze the creative approach to solving problems, looking at new ways of doing things. Item 5 analyzes leadership’s ability to identify limitations that may hinder organizational improvement. This research did not address the construct of organizational limitations, so it was not used. Inspirational motivation. Ten of the 24 items were used from this subscale. Items 2, 7, 8, and 9 address the collective efficacy and capacity of teachers in creating and evaluating school goals with leadership. Items 1, 3, and 4 show how leadership displays hope, confidence and enthusiasm for reaching school goals. Items 5, 6, and 10 evaluate leadership’s allocation of resources, value of attainable objectives, and consistent focus of school goal needs. The following items were not used. Items 11, 12, and 13 show how leadership communicates needs with staff. These were also found in items 2, 7, and 9, as they show teacher involvement in the analysis and development of goals and objectives. Item 14 addresses staff support, which is supported in items 2, 7, and 9. Items 15, 16, 18, 19, and 22 are items that address defining and developing goals. Items 2, 5, 7, 8, and 9 support these items, illustrating staff collective planning, problem solving, and developing goals and objectives. Item 21 shows leadership’s demonstration and consistent support for school needs, which is found in item 10. Item 23 is supported by item 6, showing leadership’s use of outside resources to support goals. Items 17, 20, and 24 were not supported in this study, so these items were not used. Table 9 shows the chosen items. Supports others. All three items in the original instrument were used, provided in Table 10. Items 1, 2, and 3 analyze leadership’s treatment of staff. Item 4 analyzes how well the leadership values the individuals in the school, while items 13 and 34 show how well leadership shows respect to the staff.

Table 9

Inspirational Motivation Items Item # Item 1* Conveys hope about the future of the school 2* Encourages staff feedback in choosing new school goals 3* Displays enthusiasm about pursuing school goals 4* Displays confidence that school goals will be achieved 5* Sets attainable objectives for reaching school goals 6* Allocates resources toward school goals 7* Promotes teamwork in reaching school goals 8* Expresses confidence in the collective ability to reach goals 9* Encourages staff to share suggestions in how goals can be implemented 10* Behaves consistently with school goals 11 Makes staff aware of the need for change in the school 12 Communicates school needs 13 Identifies school weaknesses 14 Considers staff needs when setting new goals 15 Develops new school goals 16 Talks about goals for the future of the school 17 Uses metaphors and/or visuals to convey school goals 18 Expresses a clear vision for the future of the school 19 Clearly defines steps needed to reach the goals 20 Helps staff see how their goals can be reached 21 Demonstrates tasks aimed at fulfilling school goals 22 Obtains staff assistance in reaching school goals 23 Secures support from outside the school to reach school goals 24 Prepares for challenges that may result from changes in the school Note: Items with the asterisk are chosen for the new instrument. Adapted from: Edwards, J. R., Knight, D. K., Broome, K. M., & Flynn, P. M. (2010). The development And validation of a transformational leadership survey for substance use treatment programs. Substance use & misuse, 45(9), 1279-1302.

Table 10

Supports Others Items Item # Item 1* Treats staff members as individuals, rather than a group 2* Treats staff members with dignity and respect 3* Respects individual staff members’ personal feelings Note: Items with the asterisk are chosen for the new instrument. Adapted from: Edwards, J. R., Knight, D. K., Broome, K. M., & Flynn, P. M. (2010). The development And validation of a transformational leadership survey for substance use treatment programs. Substance use & misuse, 45(9), 1279-1302.

Develops others. Three of the five items were chosen from this subscale. Items 1, 2 and 3 were chosen from this subscale. These items address leadership’s support for the individual teacher’s needs. Item 4 was not used because it is supported in 3, analyzing leadership’s recognition of staff abilities. Item 5 puts a focus on leadership’s approach to coaching teachers. It was not addressed in this research, so it was not included in the instrument. Table 11 shows chosen items.

Table 11

Develops Others Items Item # Item 1* Offers individual learning opportunities to staff members 2* Recognizes individual staff members’ needs and desires 3* Assists individual staff members in developing their strengths 4 Takes into account individual abilities 5 Coaches staff members on an individual basis Note: Items with the asterisk are chosen for the new instrument. Adapted from: Edwards, J. R., Knight, D. K., Broome, K. M., & Flynn, P. M. (2010). The development And validation of a transformational leadership survey for substance use treatment programs. Substance use & misuse, 45(9), 1279-1302.

Task delegation. Six of the 14 items were chosen in this subscale, as provided in Table 12. Items 1 and 2 illustrate leadership’s capacity with shared leadership, allowing for teachers to be given opportunities to lead. Items 3, 4, and

5 support how leadership supports teachers in these duties. Item 6 shows levels of confidence portrayed by leadership in staff ability to accomplish tasks.

Table 12

Task Delegation Items Item # Item 1* Provides opportunities for staff to participate in making decisions 2* Provides opportunities for staff members to take primary responsibility over tasks 3* Follows delegation with support and encouragement 4* Provides requested support for task completion 5* Allocates adequate resources to see tasks are completed 6* Conveys confidence in staff members’ ability to complete tasks 7 Delegates tasks that provide encouragement to staff members 8 Delegates tasks that build up the organization 9 Assigns tasks based on staff members’ interests 10 Enables staff to make decisions on how they get work done 11 Sees that authority is granted to get tasks completed 12 Provides information necessary for task completion 13 Provides feedback on progress toward completing a task 14 Helps staff members set attainable goals Note: Items with the asterisk are chosen for the new instrument. Adapted from: Edwards, J. R., Knight, D. K., Broome, K. M., & Flynn, P. M. (2010). The development And validation of a transformational leadership survey for substance use treatment programs. Substance use & misuse, 45(9), 1279-1302.

The following items were not used. Items 7, 8, and 9 address the delegation of tasks, as compared to leadership opportunities. Items 12 and 13 address leadership’s ability to support teacher’s projects with information and feedback, found in items 3 and 4. Items 10 and 11 evaluate leadership’s granting of authority to teacher leaders, supported by items 3, 4, and 6. Item 14 analyzes leadership help for setting goals, found in items 3 and 4. Expects excellence. All three items were used, as shown in Table 13. Items 1, 2, and 3 addresses leadership expectations of staff. While items 2 and 3

80 address expectations on efforts and completion of tasks, item 1 addresses leadership’s overall expectation of excellence from staff.

Table 13

Expects Excellence Items Item # Item 1* Expects excellence from staff 2* Expects that staff will take initiative to complete tasks 3* Expects that staff members will make their best effort Note: Items with the asterisk are chosen for the new instrument. Adapted from: Edwards, J. R., Knight, D. K., Broome, K. M., & Flynn, P. M. (2010). The development And validation of a transformational leadership survey for substance use treatment programs. Substance use & misuse, 45(9), 1279-1302.

North Carolina Teacher Working Conditions Survey. The North Carolina Working Conditions Survey (NCTWCS) analyzes school climate conditions (New Teacher Center, 2014). The NTCWCS 5-point survey is based on past surveys developed by the North Carolina Professional Teaching Standards Commission (NCPTSC). The five choices include: A) Strongly Disagree, B) Disagree, C) Agree, D) Strongly Agree, and E) Don’t Know. The North Carolina Professional Teaching Standards Commission (NCPTSC) completed a literature review of the role of working conditions on teacher dissatisfaction and which conditions contributed to teacher mobility. The work was focused on areas that teachers identified as conditions that drove their satisfaction and employment decisions. NCPTSC created 30 state working conditions standards passed by the North Carolina State Board of Education, after analysis of state and national survey data from the National Center for Education Statistics’ School and Staffing Survey (New Teacher Center, 2014). The Teaching, Empowering, Leading, and Learning (TELL) data, used to provide information on teaching and learning

81 conditions that influence teacher retention, was one tool used in the development of the NCTWCS. Based on the findings, the NCPTSC identified the following scales for the NCTWCS: A) Time, B) Facilities and Resource, C) Community Support and Involvement, D) Managing School Conduct, E) Teacher Leadership, F) School Leadership, G) Professional Development, and H) Instructional Practices and Support. North Carolina Teacher Working Conditions Survey reliability. The internal reliability testing for the NCTWCS confirms that the survey can be generalized, producing similar results with similar populations (New Teacher Center, 2014). Reliability analysis produced Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranging from .86 to .96. All eight constructs showed reliability with scores above .80. Table 14 shows reliability coefficients for each subscale.

Table 14

Reliability – NCTWCS Subscales NCTWCS Subscales Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient Teacher Leadership .94 School Leadership .95 Instructional Practices and Support .91 Professional Development .96 Facilities and Resources .88 Community Support and Involvement .89 Managing Student Conduct .90 Time .86

Adapted from New Teacher Center (2014). 2014 North Carolina teacher working conditions survey: design, validity, and reliability. Retrieved from the New Teacher Center website: http://www.newteachercenter.org

NCTWCS items. There are eight subscales to the NCTWCS, representing 79 items. There are two added groups of items, at the end of the instrument, used to gather more information from teachers. The “Overall” and “New Teacher Support” categories include further questions on how to support working

82 conditions. These items are not included in the revised instrument because they are not included in the external and internal analysis for validity and reliability. The subscales Time, Teacher Leadership, School Leadership, and Professional Development also have items that were excluded from the new instrument for the same reason. There were a total of 39 items chosen from this instrument, used to analyze School Climate. Appendix C shows the School Climate items on the new instrument. Time. Three of the seven items were chosen from this subscale. Items 1,2, and 3 show teacher perspective of available time during the school day. These include time for PLC and instructional time. Item 4 analyzes class size. It was not provided in the research, so it is not included in the study. Items 5, 6, and 7 analyze teacher perceptions on the impact of different type of distractions and interruptions on classroom instruction. These were not used because they were not constructs emphasized in the study. Table 15 shows chosen items.

Table 15

Time Items Item # Item 1* Teachers have time available to collaborate with colleagues. 2* The non-instructional time provided for teachers is sufficient. 3* Teachers have sufficient instructional time to meet the needs of all students. 4 Class sizes are reasonable to meet the needs of all students. 5 Teachers are allowed to focus on educating students with minimal disruptions. 6 Efforts are made to minimize the amount of routine paperwork. 7 Teachers are protected from duties that interfere with their role of educating students. Note: Items with the asterisk are chosen for the new instrument. Adapted from New Teacher Center (2014). 2014 North Carolina teacher working conditions survey: design, validity, and reliability. Retrieved from the New Teacher Center website: http://www.newteachercenter.org

Facilities and resources. Five of the nine items were chosen from this subscale, shown in Table 16. Items chosen all relate to resources needed for student instruction. Items 1, 3, and 5 address the instructional materials and personnel that support instruction. Items 2 and 5 determine technology available to teachers for instructional use. Items 6 and 7 were not used because the items focus more on office needs as compared to instructional support. Items 8 and 9, which evaluate overall space and environment, were not used because the focus is not on instruction.

Table 16

Facilities and Resources Items Item # Item 1* Teachers have sufficient access to appropriate instructional materials. 2* Teachers have sufficient access to instructional technology (i.e., computers, printers, software, and internet access). 3* Teachers have sufficient access to a broad range of professional support personnel. 4* The physical environment of classrooms in this school supports teaching and learning. 5* The reliability and speed of internet connections are sufficient to support instruction. 6 Teachers have access to reliable communication technology (i.e., phones, fax machine, and email). 7 Teachers have sufficient access to office equipment and supplies. 8 The school environment is clean and well maintained. 9 Teachers have adequate space to work productively. Note: Items with the asterisk are chosen for the new instrument. Adapted from New Teacher Center (2014). 2014 North Carolina teacher working conditions survey: design, validity, and reliability. Retrieved from the New Teacher Center website: http://www.newteachercenter.org

Community support and involvement. Four of the eight items were chosen from this subscale. Items 1 and 3 show how well school staff communicates with the parent community. Items 2 and 4 illustrate teacher perception of parent

84 support and involvement. Item 6, supported by items 1 and 2, addresses parent knowledge of school goals and events. Items 5 and 7 evaluate teacher perception of parents as leaders. This was not provided in the research, so these items were not used. Item 8, analyzing community member support, is unsupported in this research and was not chosen. Table 17 illustrates the chosen items.

Table 17

Community Support and Involvement Items Item # Item 1* This school maintains clear, two-way communication with the community. 2* This school does a good job of encouraging parent/guardian involvement. 3* Teachers provide parents/guardians with useful information about student learning. 4* The community we serve is supportive of this school. 5 Parents/guardians are influential decision makers in this school. 6 Parents/guardians know what is going on in this school. 7 Parents/guardians support teachers, contributing to their success with students. 8 Community members support teachers, contributing to their success with students. Note: Items with the asterisk are chosen for the new instrument. Adapted from New Teacher Center (2014). 2014 North Carolina teacher working conditions survey: design, validity, and reliability. Retrieved from the New Teacher Center website: http://www.newteachercenter.org

Managing student conduct. Three of the seven items were used from this subscale, provided in Table 18. Items 1, 2, and 3 evaluate the knowledge and enforcement of rules, supported by teachers and administration. Item 4, addressing student knowledge and expectations, is supported by item 1. Items 5 and 6 are supported by item 2, showing leadership’s capacity to enforce discipline policies and procedures. Item 7 evaluates the overall view of a safe school, illustrated through the combination of items 1, 2, and 3.

85 Table 18

Managing Student Conduct Items Item # Item 1* Students at this school follow rules of conduct. 2* School administrators consistently enforce rules for student conduct. 3* Teachers consistently enforce rules for student conduct. 4 Students at this school understand expectations for their conduct. 5 Policies and procedures about student conduct are clearly understood by the faculty. 6 School administrators support teachers’ efforts to maintain discipline in the classroom. 7 The faculty works in a school environment that is safe. Note: Items with the asterisk are chosen for the new instrument. Adapted from New Teacher Center (2014). 2014 North Carolina teacher working conditions survey: design, validity, and reliability. Retrieved from the New Teacher Center website: http://www.newteachercenter.org

Teacher leadership. Four of the seven items were chosen in this subscale. Items 1 and 4 analyze perception of general teacher leadership in the school. Items 2 and 3 illustrate trusted support provided by leadership, as teachers work as leaders. Items 5, 6, and 7 analyze teacher capacity to solve problems. These items are supported in items 1, 2, and 4, as trusted teacher-leaders are supported and encouraged to solve-problems. Table 19 shows the items chosen.

Table 19

Teacher Leadership Items Item # Item 1* Teachers are recognized as educational experts. 2* Teachers are trusted to make sound professional decisions about instruction. 3* Teachers are encouraged to participate in school leadership roles. 4* Teachers are effective leaders in the school. 5 Teachers are relied upon to make decisions on educational issues. 6 The faculty has an effective process for making group decisions. 7 In this school, we take steps to solve problems. Note: Items with the asterisk are chosen for the new instrument. Adapted from New Teacher Center (2014). 2014 North Carolina teacher working conditions survey: design, validity, and reliability. Retrieved from the New Teacher Center website: http://www.newteachercenter.org

School leadership. Six of the 11 items were included in this subscale. Items one and two address an atmosphere of trust, supported in the research. Items 3, 5, and 6 show leadership support, with objectives and feedback on instruction. Item 4 illustrates the value of data analysis modeled and facilitated by leadership and supported by the PLC. The following were not included. Item 7 addresses shared vision, but it was isolated among others chosen. Item 8 evaluates teacher perception of leadership’s standards for instruction, supported by items 3, 4, 5, and 6. Items 9, 10, and 11 analyze evaluation procedures, leadership team effectiveness, and recognition for accomplishments. Due to items in isolation, these items were not used. Table 20 illustrates chosen items.

Table 20

School Leadership Items Item # Item 1* There is an atmosphere of trust and mutual respect in this school. 2* Teachers feel comfortable raising issues and concerns that are important to them. 3* The school leadership consistently supports teachers. 4* The school leadership facilitates using data to improve student learning. 5* Teacher performance is assessed objectively. 6* Teachers receive feedback that can help them improve teaching. 7 The faculty and staff have a shared vision. 8 Teachers are held to high professional standards for delivering instruction. 9 The procedures for teacher evaluation are consistent. 10 The school improvement team provides effective leadership at this school. 11 The faculty is recognized for accomplishments. Note: Items with the asterisk are chosen for the new instrument. Adapted from New Teacher Center (2014). 2014 North Carolina teacher working conditions survey: design, validity, and reliability. Retrieved from the New Teacher Center website: http://www.newteachercenter.org

Professional development. Six of the 13 items were chosen from this subscale, shown in Table 21. Items 2, 3, and 5 address how professional development supports the school vision, results of data-analysis, and the use of

PLC. Items 1 and 4 show leadership support of continual improvement through resources and follow up conversations. Item 6 focuses on the use of professional development to provide strategies that support student learning.

Table 21

Professional Development Items Item # Item 1* Sufficient resources are available for professional development in my school. 2* Professional development offerings are data driven. 3* Professional learning opportunities are aligned with the school plan. 4* In this school, follow up is provided from professional development. 5* Professional development provides ongoing opportunities for teachers to work with colleagues to refine teaching practices. 6* Professional development enhances teachers’ ability to implement instructional strategies that meet diverse student learning needs. 7 An appropriate amount of time is given to professional development. 8 Professional development is differentiated for teachers. 9 Professional development deepens teacher’s content knowledge. 10 Teachers have sufficient training with instructional technology. 11 Teachers are encouraged to reflect on their own practice. 12 Professional development is evaluated and results are communicated. 13 Professional development enhances teachers’ abilities to improve student learning. Note: Items with the asterisk are chosen for the new instrument. Adapted from New Teacher Center (2014). 2014 North Carolina teacher working conditions survey: design, validity, and reliability. Retrieved from the New Teacher Center website: http://www.newteachercenter.org

The following items were not used. Item 7 is supported by item 1, as it relates to time as a resource. Items 8, 9, and 10 are specific to professional development by teacher needs. These items are supported in 5 and 6, as professional development is supporting time for teachers to learn from each other and support each other’s needs. Items 11 and 13 illustrate professional development that enhances teacher reflection and development, also found in items 5 and 6. Item 12 shows professional development as an evaluated tool, which is not supported in this research.

Instructional practices and support. Eight of the 17 items were chosen from this subscale. Item 1, 2, 3, and 6 address assessment data to inform instruction, supported by the work of the PLC. Items 4 and 5 analyze teacher perception of autonomy in making decisions around instruction. Items 7 and 8 address teachers learning from each other, also supported by items reflecting the use of PLC. Table 22 illustrates items chosen. These following items were not used. Items 9, 10, 13, and 14 analyze the use of local and state assessment data, to impact instructional practices. These items are supported in item 1. Item 11 illustrates the school’s alignment with Common Core State Standards (CCSS). This research did not emphasize this implementation, so this item was not used. Item 12 emphasizes the type of class assigned to teachers. This was not in the research, and it is also not included in the instrument. Items 15, 16, and 17, which evaluate teacher views of student potential, were not used. This research did not support these constructs.

New Survey The survey instrument was a total of 81 questions. The instrument included three demographic items, 39 transformative leadership items, and 39 school climate items. The demographic items included a scroll down option for teacher years of experience, teacher tenure, and school name. Teachers scrolled to the number representing experience and site tenure, showing numbers one through 40 as choices. There was also a 40+ option for teachers with more than 40 years of experience or tenure at the school site. Because each school district had its own survey, a district item was not included in the instrument.

Pilot The survey was given a pilot sample. The researcher interviewed the pilot participants about how well they understood the survey. Revisions to the instrument were made based on this process.

Table 22

Instructional Practices and Support Items Item # Item 1* Teachers use assessment to inform their instruction. 2* Teachers work in professional learning communities to develop and align instructional practices. 3* Provided supports translate to improved instructional practices (i.e., instructional coaching and professional learning communities). 4* Teachers are encouraged to try new things to improve instruction. 5* Teachers have autonomy to make decisions about instructional delivery. 6* Teachers collaborate to achieve consistency on how student work is assessed. 7* Teachers know what students learn in their classes. 8* Teachers have knowledge of the content covered and instructional methods used by other teachers in the school. 9 State assessment data are available in time to impact instruction. 10 Local assessment data are available in time to impact instruction. 11 The curriculum taught in this school is aligned to common core standards. 12 Teachers are assigned classes that maximize their likelihood of success with students. 13 State assessments provide schools with data that can help improve teaching. 14 State assessments accurately gauge student understanding of standards. 15 Teachers believe almost every student has the potential to do well on assignments. 16 Teachers believe what is taught will make a difference in students’ lives. 17 Teachers require students to work hard. Note: Items with the asterisk are chosen for the new instrument. Adapted from New Teacher Center (2014). 2014 North Carolina teacher working conditions survey: design, validity, and reliability. Retrieved from the New Teacher Center website: http://www.newteachercenter.org

Data Collection After receiving district approval, the researcher requested a district contact to forward the email and access to the survey. Teachers in the elementary schools (K-6) received the instrument through email, as a Google Survey. The emailed instrument included information explaining the purpose for the study and an informed consent option to participate in the survey, including IRB rights and protections. As participants completed the survey, the results were electronically return to the researcher. Survey information was collected for each of the five districts. Demographic information provided the participant’s teaching experience, years of tenure at the current school site, and name of the school the teacher worked at. The researcher used the school and district information to contact the district for information on the principal’s total years of experience and experience at the current school site. This information was used to code principals by category of experience and site tenure, which was added to each teacher’s responses. In an effort to improve sample size, the five Superintendents agreed to allow an informative letter to be provided to teachers. In the letter, teachers were told that the school with the highest response rate would receive a pizza lunch party. Appendix D is an example of this letter. After the survey window had closed, and the participation rate was calculated, the Superintendent with the greatest response rate was contacted.

Analysis Descriptive statistics was calculated to provide the means and standard deviation for all survey items and for instrument subscales and totals. The first research question was addressed through canonical correlation, correlation, and

91 regression analyses. Canonical correlation was conducted to determine the overall correlation among the Principal Leadership and School Climate subscales. All Principal Leadership subscales were correlated, all School Climate subscales were correlated, and the Principal Leadership subscales were correlated with the School Climate subscales. Subsequently, a series of regression analysis was used to predict each school climate subscale from the leadership style subscales. To address the second research question, two One-Way Multivariate Analyses of Variance (MANOVAs) tests were conducted. For both MANOVA analyses, the independent variables were years of principal experience and time at the current school site. There were three levels to the independent variable. The Inexperienced/New principal has low time as a principal (0-3 years) with low school site time (0-3 years). The Experienced/New principal has high time as principal (4+ years) with low school site time (0-3 years). The Experienced/ Experienced principal has high time as principal (4+ years) with high school site time (4+ years). One MANOVA analyzed variance in Principal Leadership by principal experience and school tenure, measured by the following subscales: A) Integrity, B) Sensible Risk, C) Encourages Innovation, D) Demonstrates Innovation E) Inspirational Motivation, F) Supports Others, G) Develops Others, H) Task Delegation, and J) Expects Excellence. The other MANOVA examined variance in school climate by principal experience and site tenure, measured by the following subscales: A) Time, B) Facilities and Resources, C) Community Support and Involvement, D) Managing School Conduct, E) Teacher Leadership, F) School Leadership, G) Professional Development, and H) Instructional Practices and Support.

Statistical Package for the Social Sciences 20.0 (SPSS) was utilized and provided results for all statistical analyses. The p = .05 level of significance was used in each analysis.

Limitations There are a few limitations to the research. Only five school districts in the Central Valley were represented in the sample. The geographic location may limit the ability to generalize in the study. Two teachers did not complete the entire survey instrument. If any question is left incomplete, that teacher’s data is excluded from the study. This can impact the size of the survey sample. The survey sample is valuable to the reliability of the instrument.

Delimitations The research provided in the literature review is dominantly representative of principal leadership style, tenure, and school climate in the elementary schools. A majority of the empirical research in the literature review represented participant groups in the elementary schools. To best align the study to the research, only K-6 schools were invited to participate in the study.

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS/OUTCOMES

Introduction The primary purpose of this study was to analyze how relationships among principal leadership style behaviors, principal overall experience, and principal time in the school impact school climate. Principals must be able to assess and evaluate the impact and perceptions of their leadership styles (Kelley et al., 2005). Principals can create a school climate that improves productivity of both staff and students, or the principal leadership style can foster or restrict teacher effectiveness. As instructional leaders, principals can foster an understanding of the school vision, facilitate implementation of the mission, and establish the school climate. Only principals equipped to handle a complex, rapidly changing environment can implement instructional reforms that lead to sustained improvements in student achievement (Fullan, 2002). This quantitative study implemented a digital survey collection strategy: Google Survey. Several types of analyses were used to answer the research questions in this current study: A) Descriptive Statistics, B) Correlations, C) Canonical Correlation, D) Regression Analyses, and E) MANOVA. This chapter will present demographic information, subscale reliabilities, and subscale analysis. It will also provide correlational, canonical correlational, regression, and the MANOVA results.

Research Questions The research questions in this study are: A) Are there relationships among teacher perception of principal leadership style, principal experience, principal tenure, and school climate? and B) Is there a significant difference in teacher

94 perception of principal leadership and school climate by principal experience and principal tenure categories?

Demographic Statistics For the current study, 170 teachers responded to the survey and were included in the study. These teachers are in 22 different schools, each school with one principal (N = 22). Of those who participated, descriptive statistics are shown in Tables 23 and 24.

Teacher Descriptive Statistics Table 23 provides the means, standard deviations, and the minimum and maximum number of years that teachers have worked as teacher and have worked at their current school.

Table 23

Teacher Demographics (N = 170) Title N Minimum Maximum Mean SD Years of Experience 170 1.00 40.00 13.39 8.63 Years at Current School 170 1.00 32.00 7.91 6.92

The results show that the mean for teacher experience (M = 13.39). The table also provides the number of years at their current school site (M = 7.91). The maximum number of years of experience is 40 years. The maximum number of years teachers have worked at their current school is 32 years. The minimum for both is 1 year.

Principal Descriptive Statistics Table 24 shows the number and percentages of principals by experience and site tenure. There were 170 principals in the research sample.

95 Table 24

Principal Demographics Cumulative Principal Experience and Tenure N % % Inexperienced/New 48 28.2 28.2 Experienced/New 21 12.4 40.6 Experienced/Experienced 101 59.4 100.0

Total 170 100.0

Inexperienced/New principals represent 28.2% (N = 48) of the total sample. Experienced/New principals are 12.4% (N = 21), while Experienced/Experienced principals represent 59.4% (N = 101) of the total

Subscale Reliability Table 25 reveals the Chronbach’s Alpha coefficient reliability for each of the subscales in the study. There are a total of 17 subscales shown. Nine represent the construct of Principal Leadership and eight represent the construct related to School Climate. The range of reliabilities for Principal Leadership is .90 to .97. The range of reliabilities for School Climate is .79 to .93. All Principal Leadership and School Climate subscales meet or exceed the recommended reliability coefficient of .70 or higher (Groth-Marnat, 1999).

Subscale Analysis Tables 26 and 27 provide the mean and standard deviations for the means of Principal Leadership subscales (N = 9) and School Climate subscales (N = 8). Two items were not completed in the Principal Leadership construct (N = 168). All School Climate items were completed (N = 170).

96 Table 25

Reliability Subscale A # of Items # of Responses Principal Leadership Integrity .96 5 170 Sensible Risk .93 3 169 Encourages Innovation .90 3 170 Demonstrates Innovation .91 3 169 Inspirational Motivation .97 10 170 Supports Others .92 3 170 Develops Others .92 3 170 Task Delegation .96 6 170 Expects Excellence .91 3 170 School Climate Time .79 3 170 Facilities and Resources .79 5 170 Community Support and Involvement .89 4 170 Managing School Conduct .83 3 170 Teacher Leadership .90 4 170 School Leadership .93 6 170 Professional Development .93 6 170 Instructional Practices and Support .90 8 170

Table 26

Descriptive Statistics for Principal Leadership Subscales (N = 168) Subscale N Minimum Maximum Mean SD

Integrity 170 1.00 5.00 4.11 1.00

Sensible Risk 169 1.00 5.00 3.94 1.07

Encourage Innovation 170 1.00 5.00 3.93 1.08

Inspirational Motivation 169 1.00 5.00 4.10 .99

Supports Others 170 1.00 5.00 4.01 1.08

Develops Others 170 1.00 5.00 3.87 1.10

Task Delegation 170 1.00 5.00 3.98 .98

Expects Excellence 170 1.00 5.00 4.49 .76

97 Table 27

Descriptive Statistics – School Climate (N = 170) Subscale N Min. Max. Mean SD Time 170 1.00 5.00 3.39 1.07 Facilities & Resources 170 1.00 5.00 3.65 .87 Community Support & Innovation 170 1.00 5.00 3.94 .90 Managing School Conduct 170 1.00 5.00 4.02 .88 Teacher Leadership 170 1.00 5.00 4.03 .89 Professional Development 170 1.00 5.00 3.95 .94 School Leadership 170 1.00 5.00 3.78 .90 Instructional Practices and Support 170 1.00 5.00 4.08 .76

The means for Principal Leadership subscales range from 3.84 (Develops Others) to 4.49 (Expects Excellence). Table 26 shows that Expects Excellence (M = 4.49), Integrity (M = 4.11), Inspirational Motivation (M = 4.10), and Supports Others (M = 4.10) show the subscales with greatest means within the Principal Leadership construct. The means for School Climate subscales range from 3.39 (Time) to 4.08 (Instructional Practices and Support). Table 27 shows that Instructional Practices and Support (M = 4.03), Managing School Conduct (M = 4.02), and Teacher Leadership (M = 4.03) are the subscales with the highest means within the school climate construct.

Correlational Results To address the first research question, correlation coefficient were calculated. Correlation coefficients were used to learn about relationships among subscales. Because of the nine independent variables, a canonical correlation analysis was used to evaluate the association between the set of Principal Leadership and School Climate subscales. Finally, a regression analysis was used to look at possible predictors of school climate, which serves as the dependent variable.

Correlation Coefficients Tables 28, 29, and 30 display the Pearson product moment correlation coefficients among all Principal Leadership and School Climate subscales.

Table 28Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficients Among Principal Leadership Subscales Subscale 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1-Integrity 1.0 .86 .86 .78 .90 .87 .83 .86 .60

2-Sensible Risk 1.0 .81 .85 .85 .77 .79 .80 .56

3-Encourages Innovation 1.0 .83 .91 .88 .84 .88 .53

4-Demonstrates Innovation 1.0 .83 .76 .80 .78 .55

5-Inspirational Motivation 1.0 .88 .86 .90 .64

6-Supports Others 1.0 .86 .87 .53

7-Develops Others 1.0 .88 .51

8-Task Delegation 1.0 .61

9-Expects Excellence 1.0 Note: All correlations are significant at the p < .001.

Table 28 shows that Principal Leadership subscales have positive high correlations in all subscales. These include: Integrity, Encourages Innovation, Inspirational Motivation, Supports Others, and Task Delegation. Some of the highest correlations include Integrity and Inspirational Motivation (r = .90, p < .001), Encourages Innovation and Inspirational Motivation (r = .91, p < .001), and Inspirational Motivation and Task Delegation (r = .90, p < .001).

99 Table 29

Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficients Among School Climate Subscales Subscale 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1-Time 1.0 .63 .52 .44 .62 .60 .67 .62

2-Facility & Resources 1.0 .71 .64 .69 .71 .74 .72

3-Community Support 1.0 .76 .65 .70 .62 .71

4-Managing School Conduct 1.0 .70 .75 .70 .71

5-Teacher Leadership 1.0 .86 .74 .76

6-School Leadership 1.0 .80 .79

7-Professional Development 1.0 .84

8-Instructional Practices & Support 1.0 Note: All correlation coefficients are significant at p < .001.

Table 29 provides the correlations among the school climate subscales. All School Climate subscales have positive high correlations. High correlations include School Leadership, Professional Development, and Instructional Practices and Support. Some of the highest correlations include Teacher Leadership and School Leadership (r = .86, p < .001), School Leadership and Professional Development (r = .80, p < .001), and Professional Development and Instructional Practices and Support (r = .84, p < .001).

100 Table 30

Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficients Among Principal Leadership & School Climate Subscales Subscale Time Facility Com. Manage Teacher School Prof. Inst. & Supt. School Leader. Leader. Dev. Practice Resource Conduct & Support 1-Integrity .52 .61 .62 .70 .77 .86 .68 .69 2-Sensible Risk .46 .59 .55 .64 .73 .79 .67 .64 3-Encourages Innovation .50 .58 .57 .62 .80 .85 .68 .67 4-Demon. Innovation .51 .59 .53 .62 .74 .78 .68 .67

5-Inspir. Motivation .53 .64 .65 .69 .82 .88 .74 .75 6-Supports Others .51 .57 .60 .65 .78 .84 .64 .62 7-Develops Others .53 .64 .55 .67 .80 .85 .72 .65 8-Task Delegation .58 .65 .65 .67 .84 .89 .74 .72

9-Expects Excellence .35 .48 .53 .55 .58 .59 .53 .60 Note: All correlation coefficients are significant at p < .001.

Table 30 provides correlation coefficients among the principal leadership and school climate subscales. School climate is highly correlated with several principal leadership subscales. The highest positive correlations with principal leadership subscales are in the subscale of School Leadership. Some of these include School Leadership and Task Delegation (r = .89, p < .001), School Leadership and Inspirational Motivation (r = .88, p < .001), and School Leadership and Integrity (r = .86, p < .001). Teacher Leadership, Professional Development, and Instructional Practices and Support are other subscales showing many moderate to high correlations with principal leadership subscales. Overall, Time has low to moderate subscales, as compared to these other data. Many moderate correlations, which were low for these data, were found with the

101 subscale Time. Examples include Time and Sensible Risk ( r = .46, p < .001), Time and Encourage Innovation ( r = .50, p < .001), and Time and Expects Excellence (r = .35, p < .001).

Canonical Correlation A Canonical Correlation analysis was conducted using the nine Principal Leadership variables as predictors of the eight School Climate variables to evaluate the multivariate shared relationship between the independent variable (Principal Leadership) and the dependent variable (School Climate). There were 168 cases accepted in the analysis, having two cases rejected due to missing data. The analyses yielded 8 functions with squared canonical correlations (Rc2) of .864, .190, .160, .081, .056, .031, .028, and .000. Table 31 provides the Multivariate Tests of Significance. The overall model is significant. The three tests for multivariate significance show the significance of variance to be high (p < .001). Wilks = .076 (F(72, 926.08) = 6.795, p < .001).

Table 31

Within Cells Regression Multivariate Tests of Significance Test Name Value F df Error df p Pillai’s 1.41 3.76 72 1264.00 < .001 Hotellings 6.97 14.45 72 1194.00 < .001 Wilks .08 6.80 72 926.08 < .001

The equation for the canonical correlation is as follows. The variable “a” represents all outcome variables, while “b” represents all predictor variables:

a1 y1 + a2 y2 + a3 y3 + a4 y4 +a5 y5 +a6 y6 + a7y7 +a8 y8 =

b1x1 + b2 x2 + b3 x3 + b4 x4 + b5 x5 + b6 x6 + b7 x7 + b8 x8

102

The dimension reduction analysis allows the researcher to test the arrangement of functions for statistical significance. Table 32 shows the independent and dependent variables used in the analysis.

Table 32

Predictors and Outcomes Variables X – Predictors Y – Outcomes X1 – Integrity Y1 – Time X2 - Sensible Risk Y2 - Facilities and Resources X3 - Encourage Innovation Y3 – Community Support & Involvement X4 - Demonstrates Innovation Y4 - Managing School Conduct X5 - Inspirational Motivation Y5 - Teacher Leadership X6 - Supports Others Y6 - School Leadership X7 - Develops Others Y7 - Professional Development X8 – Task Delegation Y8 - Instructional Practices and Support X9 - Expects Excellence

The canonical correlations for the 8 functions are: .93, .44, .40, .29, .24, .18, .17, and. 00. Table 33 shows hierarchical statistical significance of the 8 functions. The first function has very high canonical correlation (.93), and there is a substantial drop in the remaining canonical correlations. This canonical correlation explains 86.4% of the variance in the eight dependent subscales for School Climate. The first three functions shown in Table 34 are significant. These include Function 1 to 8 (F(72, 926.08) = 6.80, p < .001), Function 2 to 8 (F(56, 823.86) = 1.69, p < .001), and Function 3 to 8 (F(42, 721.09) = 1.43, p < .04). However, there is a substantial increase in the Wilks Lamba from the first Root (.08) to the next one (.56), so only the first function will be interpreted.

103 Table 33

Canonical Correlation Coefficients Root No. Eigenvalue Canonical Squared Correlation Correlation 1 6.34 .93 .86 2 .24 .44 .19 3 .19 .40 .16 4 .09 .29 .08 5 .06 .24 .06 6 .03 .18 .03 7 .03 .17 .03 8 .01 .01 .01

Table 34

Dimension Reduction Analysis Roots Wilks F df Error df p 1 to 8 .08 6.80 72 926.08 < .001** 2 to 8 .56 1.69 56 823.86 .001** 3 to 8 .69 1.43 42 721.09 .039* 4 to 8 .82 1.07 30 618.00 .370 5 to 8 .89 .93 20 515.03 .554 6 to 8 .94 .79 12 413.00 .662 7 to 8 .97 .74 6 314.00 .617 8 to 8 1.00 .00 2 158.00 .999 ** p < .01; * p < .05

Table 35 represents the standardized canonical function, structured coefficients, and squared structured coefficients for Function 1. Some outcome subscales have large squared structured coefficients, including School Leadership (97.22) and Teacher Leadership (85.75). However, all subscales contributed.

104 Table 35

Canonical Solution for Principal Leadership & School Climate – Function 1 2 Variable Standardized rs rs Canonical Coefficient Time .02 -.61 37.58 Facilities and Resources .03 -.72 51.27 Community Support and Involvement .00 -.71 49.84 Managing School Conduct -.02 -.77 59.14 Teacher Leadership -.31 -.93 85.75 School Leadership -.69 -.99 97.22 Professional Development -.07 -.82 67.40 Instructional Practices and Support .01 -.81 65.12 2 R C 86.37 Integrity -.13 -.93 85.93 Sensible Risk .03 -.87 74.82 Encourages Innovation -.08 -.93 86.49 Demonstrates Innovation -.07 -.86 73.79 Inspirational Motivation -.21 -.96 92.54 Supports Others -.03 -.92 83.91 Develops Others -.19 -.93 86.49 Task Delegation -.33 -.97 93.70 Expects Excellence -.07 -.65 42.77

Regression The model for predicting the School Climate outcome Time from nine independent variables is: Time = .89 + .13 Int. - .18 SR - .27 EI+ .29 DI + .13 IM - .03 SO + .04 DO + .58 TD - .06 EE. This model is significant (F(9,158) = 9.727, p < .001, adj R2 = .32). Table 36 presents the unstandardized regression weights (B), their standard errors, Beta weights, t-tests, and probabilities for each of the independent variables. Only Demonstrates Innovation (β = .29, t = 2.03, p = .04) and Task Delegation (β = .54, t = 2.93, p = .01) are significant predictors of Time.

105 Table 36

Regression Results for the Dependent Variable of Time Model B St. Error Coefficient β t p Constant .89 .41 2.17 .03* Integrity .13 .19 .12 .70 .48 Sensible Risk -.18 .15 -.18 -1.18 .24 Encourages Innovation -.27 .18 -.28 -1.49 .14 Demonstrates Innovation .29 .14 .29 -2.03 .04* Inspirational Motivation .13 .23 .12 .58 .50 Supports Others -.03 .17 -.03 -.17 .86 Develops Others .04 .16 .04 .25 .80 Task Delegation .58 .20 .54 2.93 .01** Expects Excellence -.06 .12 -.04 -.46 .65 ** p < .01; * p < .05

The model for predicting Facilities and Resources from nine independent variables is: F&R = .98 + .07 Int. + .04 SR - .18 EI + .08 DI + .23 IM -1.34 SO + .22 DO + .23 TD + .10 EE. This model is significant (F(9,158) = 15.65, p < .001, adj R2 = .44). Table 37 shows the unstandardized regression weights (B), their standard errors, Beta weights, t-tests, and probabilities for each of the independent variables. No predictors for Facilities & Resources were found.

Table 37

Regression Results for the Dependent Variable of Facilities & Resources Model B St. Error Coefficient β t p Constant .98 .30 3.23 .001** Integrity .07 .14 .09 .54 .59 Sens. Risk .04 .11 .05 .33 .74 Encourages Innovation -.18 .13 -.22 -1.32 .19 Demonstrates Innovation .08 .10 .10 .78 .44 Inspirational Motivation .23 .17 .26 1.35 .18 Supports Others -.13 .12 -.17 -1.11 .27 Develops Others .22 .11 .28 1.95 .05 Task Delegation .23 .15 .26 1.56 .12 Expects Excellence .10 .09 .09 1.14 .26 ** p < .01; * p < .05

106 The model for predicting Community Support and Involvement from nine independent variables is: CS&I = .87 + .18 Int. - .07 SR - .20 EI + .03 DI + .28 IM + .09 SO - .16 DO + .41 TD + .18 EE.

This model is significant (F(9,158) = 16.10, p < .001, adj R2 = .45). Table 38 shows the unstandardized regression weights (B), their standard errors, Beta weights, t-tests, and probabilities for each of the independent variables. The only significant predictor of Community Support and Involvement is Task Delegation (β = .44, t = 2.68, p = .01).

Table 38

Regression Results for the Independent Variable of Community Support & Involvement Model B St. Error Coefficient β t p Constant .87 .31 2.80 .01** Integrity .18 .14 .20 1.29 .20 Sens. Risk -.07 .12 -.09 -.62 .53 Enc. Innovation -.20 .14 -.24 1.43 .16 Demonstrates Innovation .03 .11 .04 .29 .77 Inspirational Motivation .28 .18 .30 1.57 .12 Supports Others .09 .13 .11 .72 .48 Develops Others -.16 .12 -.20 -1.38 .17 Task Delegation .41 .15 .44 2.68 .01** Expects Excellence .18 .09 .15 1.91 .06 **p < .01; *p < .05

The model for predicting Managing School Conduct from nine independent variables is: ManSchCond = .89 + .24 Int. + .04 SR - .14 EI + .05 DI + .11 IM + .02 SO + .20 DO + .04 TD + .20 EE. The model is significant (F(9,158) = 20.77, p < .001, adj R2 = .52). Table 39 provides the unstandardized regression weights (B), their standard errors, Beta weights, t-tests, and probabilities for each of the independent variables. Only

107

Expects Excellence (β = .17, t = 2.35, p = .02) is the significant predictor of Managing School Conduct.

Table 39

Regression Results for the Dependent Variable of Managing School Conduct Model B St. Error Coefficients β t p Constant .89 .29 3.09 .002** Integrity .24 .13 .27 1.85 .07 Sensible Risk .04 .11 .04 .34 .74 Encourages Innovation -.14 .13 -.17 -1.11 .27 Demonstrates Innovation .05 .10 .06 .50 .62 Inspirational Motivation .11 .16 .13 .71 .48 Supports Others .02 .12 .02 .15 .88 Develops Others .20 .11 .25 1.86 .07 Task Delegation .04 .14 .05 .31 .76 Expects Excellence .20 .09 .17 2.35 .02* ** p < .01; * p < .05

The model for predicting Teacher Leadership from nine independent variables is: TachrL = .60 + .01 Int. -.06 SR + .09 EI + .10 DI + .08 IM + .02 SO + .15 DO + .34 TD + .12 EE. The model is significant (F(9,158) = 51.58, p < .001, adj R2 = .73). Table 40 provides the unstandardized regression weights (B), the standard errors, Beta weights, t-tests, and probabilities for the independent variables. Only Task Delegation (β = .37, t = 3.23, p = .001) is a significant predictor of Teacher Leadership.

108 Table 40

Regression Results for the Dependent Variable of Teacher Leadership Model B St. Error Coefficients β t p Constant .60 .22 2.78 .01** Integrity .01 .10 .01 .11 .91 Sensible Risk -.06 .08 -.07 -.68 .50 Encourages Innovation .09 .10 .11 .94 .35 Demonstrates Innovation .10 .08 .12 1.33 .18 Inspirational Motivation .08 .12 .09 .64 .52 Supports Others .02 .09 .03 .24 .81 Develops Others .15 .08 .18 1.82 .07 Task Delegation .34 .11 .37 3.23 .001 Expects Excellence .12 .06 .10 1.91 .06 **p < .01; *p < .05

The model for predicting School Leadership from nine independent variables is: SchLdr = .26 + .16 Int. - .02 SR + .05 EI + .03 DI + .21 IM + .04 SO +.13 DO + .26 TD + .05 EE. The model is significant (F(9,158) = 28.22, p < .001, adj R2 = .60). Table 41 shows the unstandardized regression weights (B), their standard errors, Beta weights, t-tests, and probabilities for the independent variables. Inspirational

Motivation (β = .22, t = 2.09, p = .04) and Task Delegation (β = .04, t = .86, p = .003) are significant predictors of School Leadership.

Table 41

Regression Results for the Dependent Variable of School Leadership Model B St. Error Coefficients β t p Constant .26 .18 1.44 .15 Integrity .16 .08 .17 2.00 .05 Sensible Risk -.02 .07 -.02 -.26 .79 Encourages Innovation .05 .08 .06 .62 .54 Demonstrates Innovation .03 .06 .04 .53 .60 Inspirational Motivation .21 .10 .22 2.09 .04* Supports Others .04 .07 .05 .56 .58 Develops Others .13 .07 .15 1.95 .05 Task Delegation .26 .09 .27 3.00 .003** Expects Excellence .05 .05 .04 .86 .39 **p < .01; *p < .05

109

The model for predicting Professional Development from nine independent variables is: ProfDev = .69 + .01 Int. - .01 SR - .08 EI + .13 DI + .35 IM - .24 SO + .24 DO + .28 TD + .90 EE. The model is significant (F(9,158) = 28.22, p < .001, adj R2=.60). Table 42 provides the unstandardized regression weights (B), their standard errors, Beta weights, t-tests, and probabilities for each of the independent variables.

Inspirational Motivation (β = .39, t = 2.34, p = .02), Supports Others (β =-.29, t = - 2.25, p = .03), Develops Others (β = .30, t = 2.41, p = .02), and Task Delegation (β = .30, t = 2.15, p = .03) are significant predictors of Professional Development.

Table 42

Regression Results for the Dependent Variable of Professional Development Model B St. Error Coefficients β t p Constant .69 .27 2.57 .001** Integrity .01 .12 .02 .11 .92 Sensible Risk -.01 .10 -.01 -.11 .92 Encourages Innovation -.08 .12 -.10 -.69 .50 Demonstrates Innovation .13 .09 .15 1.36 .18 Inspirational Motivation .35 .15 .39 2.34 .02* Supports Others -.24 .11 -.29 -2.25 .03* Develops Others .24 .11 .30 2.41 .02* Task Delegation .28 .13 .30 2.15 .03* Expects Excellence .09 .08 .08 1.13 .26 ** p < .01; * p < .05

The model for predicting Instructional Practices from nine independent variables is: IPS = 1.21 & 1.14 Int. – 1.15 SR - .05 EI + .16 DI + .41 IM - .20 SO +.00 DO + .21 TD + .17 EE. The model is significant (F(9,158) = 28.67, p < .001, adj R2 = .60). Table 43 presents the unstandardized regression weights (B), standard errors, Beta weights, t-tests, and probabilities of each of the independent variables. Demonstrates Innovation (β = .23, t = 2.12, p = .04), Supports Others (β = -.28, t =

110

-2.21, p = .003), Expects Excellence (β = .17, t = 2.51, p = .01), and Inspirational Motivation (β = .53, t = 3.24, p = .001) are significant predictors of Instructional Practices and Support.

Table 43

Regression Results for the Dependent Variable of Instructional Practices & Support Model B St. Error Coefficients β t p Constant 1.21 .22 5.41 < .001 Integrity .14 .10 .19 1.40 .17 Sens. Risk -.15 .08 -.22 -1.81 .07 Encourages Innovation -.05 .10 -.07 -.46 .65 Demonstrates Innovation .16 .08 .23 2.12 .04* Inspirational Motivation .41 .13 .53 3.24 .001** Supports Others -.20 .09 -.28 -2.21 .003** Develops Others .01 .08 .01 .04 .97 Task Delegation .21 .11 .27 1.89 .06 Expects Excellence .17 .07 .17 2.51 .01** ** p < .01; * p < .05

MANOVA Results To analyze whether there is a significant difference in teacher perception in Principal Leadership and School Climate by Principal Experience and School Site Tenure, two Multivariate Analyses of Variance (MANOVA) analyses were conducted.

Principal Leadership Table 44 shows the multivariate tests for differences in Principal Leadership subscales by principal experience. The Multivariate Analysis of Variance of testing for differences among principal experience and school tenure on mean principal leadership subscales was significant (Pillai’s Trace = .27, F(18,316) = 2.73, p < .001; Wilks’ Lambda = .74,

111

F(18, 314) = 2.77, p < .001; Hotelling’s Trace = .33, F(18, 312) = 2.82, p < .001); Roy’s Largest Root = .26, F(9, 158)= 4.49, p < .001).

Table 44

Multivariate Tests for Principal Leadership Subscales by Principal Experience Test Value F df Error df p Eta Squared Pillai’s Trace .27 2.73 18.00 316.00 < .001 .13 Wilks’ Lambda .74 2.77 18.00 314.00 < .001 .14 Hotelling’s Trace .33 2.82 18.00 312.00 < .001 .14 Roy’s Largest Root .26 4.49 9.00 158.00 < .001 .20

Table 45 shows the means and standard deviations for all principal leadership subscales by principal experience. Expects Excellence high means for all principal types: A) Inexperienced/New principal (M = 4.45), B) Experienced/New principal (M = 4.08), and C) Experienced/Experienced Principal (M = 4.59). The means for Experienced/Experienced principal are all at or above 4.0.

Table 45

Means and Standard Deviations on Principal Leadership Subscales by Principal Experience Subscale 1-Inexperienced/ 2- Experienced/ 3-Experienced/ New New Experienced N = 48 N = 21 N = 101 Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Integrity 4.01 .98 3.23 1.42 4.33 .81 Sensible Risk 3.79 1.01 3.02 1.63 4.21 .82 Encourages Innovation 3.87 1.04 3.19 1.38 4.10 .97 Demonstrates Innovation 3.56 1.09 3.06 1.49 4.04 .85 Inspirational Motivation 4.03 .95 3.29 1.31 4.28 .85 Supports Others 3.96 1.06 3.38 1.28 4.14 1.01 Develops Others 3.74 1.02 3.35 1.32 4.01 1.05 Task Delegation 3.82 .91 3.43 1.16 4.16 .92 Expects Excellence 4.45 .84 4.08 .86 4.59 .67

112

Table 46 shows significant differences for all Principal Leadership subscales including Integrity (F(2,165) = 11.90, p < .001, eta2 = .13), Sensible Risk (F(2,165) = 12.98, p < .001, eta2 = .14) Encourages Innovation (F(2,165) = 6.65, p = .002, eta2 = .08), Demonstrates Innovation (F(2,165) = 9.54, p < .001, eta2 = 10), and Inspirational Motivation (F(2,165) = 9.59, p < .001, eta2 = .10), Supports Others (F(2,165) = 4.52, p = .01, eta2 = .05), Develops Others (F(2,165) = 3.62, p =.03, eta2 = .04), Task Delegation (F(2,165) = 5.91, p =.003, eta2 = .07), and Expects Excellence (F(2,165) = 4.14, p = .02, eta2 = .05).

Table 46

Univariate ANOVA Summary Table Results for Principal Leadership Subscales by Principal Experience Subscale Sum of df Mean F p Eta Squares Square Squared Integrity 21.41 2 10.71 11.90 < .001** .13 Sensible Risk 26.22 2 13.11 12.98 < .001** .14 Encourages Innovation 14.56 2 7.28 6.65 .002** .08 Demonstrates Innovation 19.64 2 9.82 9.54 < .001** .10 Inspirational Motivation 17.03 2 8.51 9.59 < .001** .10 Supports Others 10.19 2 5.09 4.52 .01* .05 Develops Others 8.42 2 4.21 3.62 .03* .04 Task Delegation 10.71 2 5.36 5.91 .003** .07 Expects Excellence 4.63 2 2.31 4.14 .02* .05 **p < .01; *p < .05

Scheffe’s Post Hoc analysis (Table 47) was used to support difference in means. For Principal A and Principal B, these codes were used to compare results by Principal Experience and Principal Tenure: A) Inexperienced/New = 1, B) Experienced/New = 2, and C) Experienced/Experienced = 3. All Principal Leadership subscales show significant differences between the Experienced/New and Experienced/Experienced principal in all subscales (p < .05). While the means for the Experienced/Experienced Principal are highest in all

113 Table 47

Scheffe Post Hoc Test for Principal Leadership Subscales by Principal Experience Subscale Principal Principal Mean Std. Error p (A) (B) Difference Integrity 1 2 .78 .250 .01** 1 3 -.31 .17 .18 2 3 -1.10 .23 < .001**

Sensible Risk 1 2 .78 .26 .01* 1 3 -.42 .18 .07 2 3 -1.20 .24 < .001**

Encourage 1 2 .68 .28 .05 Innovation 1 3 -.23 .19 .45 2 3 -.90 .25 .002**

Demonstrates 1 2 .50 .27 .18 Innovation 1 3 -.48 .18 .03* 2 3 -.97 .24 < .001**

Inspirational 1 2 .74 .25 .01** Motivation 1 3 -.24 .17 .35 2 3 -.99 .22 < .001**

Supports 1 2 .58 .28 .12 Others 1 3 -.19 .19 .61 2 3 -.76 .26 .01**

Develops 1 2 .39 .28 .39 Others 1 3 -.27 .19 .36 2 3 -.66 .26 .04*

Task 1 2 .39 .25 .30 Delegation 1 3 -.34 .17 .14 2 3 -.73 .23 .01**

Expects 1 2 .37 .20 .18 Excellence 1 3 -.14 .13 .56 2 3 -.51 .18 .02*

** p < .01; * p < .05

114

Principal Leadership subscales. Table 47 shows the means for the Experienced/New principal are lower than the Inexperienced/New Principal in these principal leadership subscales: A) Integrity (p = .01), B) Sensible Risk (p = .01, and D) Inspirational Motivation (p = .01).

School Climate The MANOVA for all school climate subscales by principal experience was conducted. Table 48 provides Multivariate Tests for variance among all school climate subscales.

Table 48

Multivariate Tests Test Value F df Error df p Eta Squared Pillai’s Trace .25 2.89 16.00 322.00 < .001 .13 Wilks’ Lambda .76 2.88 16.00 320.00 < .001 .13 Hotelling’s Trace .28 2.87 16.00 318.00 < .001 .13 Roy’s Largest Root .17 3.49 8.00 161.00 < .001 .15

The Multivariate Analysis of Variance of testing for differences among principal experience and school tenure on mean school climate subscales was significant (Pillai’s Trace = .25, F(16,322) = 2.89, p < .001, eta2 = .13; Wilks’ Lamda = .76, F(16, 320) = 2.88, p < .001, eta2 = .13; Hotellings Trace = .28, F(16, 318) = .287, p < .001, eta2 = .13; Roy’s Largest Root = .17, F(8,161) = 3.49, p < .001, eta2 = .15). Table 49 provides the means and standard deviations for all school climate subscales. The means for Experienced/Experienced principal exceeds the mean of the Inexperienced/New and Experienced/New principal in all school climate subscales. The means for Inexperienced principal exceed the means of Experienced/New principal in all subscales except for Time.

115 Table 49

Means and Standard Deviations on School Climate Subscales by Principal Experience Subscale 1-Inexperienced/ 2-Experienced/ 3-Experienced/ New New Experienced N = 48 N = 21 N = 101 Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Time 2.86 .94 3.29 1.32 3.67 .98 Facility and Resources 3.43 .80 3.14 1.16 3.86 .76 Community Support 3.85 .84 3.50 1.05 4.07 .87 Managing School Conduct 4.03 .77 3.48 1.20 4.13 .82 Teacher Leadership 3.91 .81 3.52 1.12 4.13 .84 School Leadership 3.82 .85 3.33 1.31 4.14 .82 Professional Development 3.47 .81 3.40 1.16 4.01 .82 Instructional Practices & Support 3.92 .71 3.75 .96 4.23 .70

Table 50 shows all school climate subscales have significant differences by principal leadership experience and tenure. Some of the subscales with highest significant difference in subscales include Time (F(2,167) = 10.21, p < .001, eta2 = .11), Facilities and Resources (F(2,167) = 9.02, p < .001, eta2 = .10), School Leadership (F(2,167) = 7.87, p < .001, eta2 = .09), and Professional Development (F(2,167) = 8.62, p < .001, eta2 = .10). Other School Climate subscales showing significant differences by principal leadership and principal tenure include: A) Community Support and Involvement (F(2,167) = 9.02, p = .02, eta2= .05), B) Managing School Conduct (F(2,167) = 4.99, p = .01, eta2 = .06), C) Teacher Leadership (F(2,167) = 5.84, p = .004, eta2 = .07), and D) Instructional Practices and Support (F(2,167) = 5.26, p = .01, eta2 = .06).

116 Table 50

Univariate ANOVA Summary Table for School Climate Subscales by Principal Experience Subscale Sum of df Mean F p Eta Squares Square Squared Time 21.03 2 10.52 10.21 < .001** .11 Facilities & Resources 12.34 2 6.17 9.02 < .001** .10 Community Support 6.22 2 3.11 3.99 .02* .05 Managing School Conduct 7.41 2 3.70 4.99 .01** .06 Teacher Leadership 8.80 2 4.40 5.84 .004** .07 School Leadership 12.78 2 6.39 7.87 < .001** .09 Professional Development 12.88 2 6.42 8.62 < .001** .09 Instructional Practices & 5.73 2 2.86 5.26 .01** .06 Support ** p < .01; * p < .05

Table 51 provides the Scheffe’s Post Hoc analysis used to support difference in means for School Climate. For Principal A and Principal B, these codes were used to compare results by Principal Experience and Principal Tenure: A) Inexperienced/New = 1, B) Experienced/New = 2, and C) Experienced /Experienced = 3. There is a significant difference between the Experienced/New and Experienced/Experienced principal among all subscales, except Time. In all subscales, the Experienced/Experienced principal has the highest means. These subscales include: A) Facilities and Resources (p = .002), Community Support (p = .03), Managing School Conduct (p = .01), Teacher Leadership (p = .01), School Leadership (p = .01), and Professional Development (p = .02). There is also a significant difference in means between the Inexperienced/New and Experienced/Experienced principal in these subscales: A) Time (p < .001), B) Facilities and Resources (p = .01), and C) Professional Development (p = .002). In all School Climate subscales, the Experienced/Experienced principal has the highest mean.

117 Table 51

Scheffe Post Hoc Test for School Climate Subscales by Principal Experience Subscale Principal Principal Mean Std. Error p (A) (B) Difference Time 1 2 -.42 .27 .29 1 3 -.80 .18 < .001 2 3 -.38 .24 .30

Facility & 1 2 .29 .22 .42 Resources 1 3 -.43 .15 .01** 2 3 -.72 .20 .002**

Community 1 2 .35 .23 .32 Support 1 3 -.22 .16 .36 2 3 -.57 .21 .03*

Managing 1 2 .55 .23 .05* School 1 3 -.10 .15 .80 Conduct 2 3 -.65 .21 .01**

1 2 .38 .23 .25 Teacher 1 3 -.29 .15 .17 Leadership 2 3 -.67 .21 .01**

1 2 .49 .24 .12 School 1 3 -.33 .16 .12 Leadership 2 3 -.82 .22 .01**

Professional 1 2 .07 .23 .95 Development 1 3 -.54 .15 .002** 2 3 -.61 .21 .02*

Instructional 1 2 .17 .19 .67 Practices & 1 3 -.31 .13 .06 Support 2 3 -.48 .18 .03*

** p < .01; * p < .05

118 CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION/SUMMARY/CONCLUSION

Introduction Many of today’s schools are facing different types of change. School climate is the relatively enduring quality of the school environment that is experienced by staff. As Kelley et al. (2005) discovered if principals are blind to critical information about their schools, they could make erroneous decisions that may affect school climate. Leaders must be able to correctly envision the needs of the teachers, empower them to share the vision, and create an effective school climate. The environment in which we work and learn has a tremendous effect on how successful and productive we are. The school climate has an affect on the adults who work there, and can influence the academic success of the students as well. A professional culture of teaching promotes a climate of collaboration among teachers in which they work together by providing mutual support and developing common goals around a common vision (Kilinc & Aydin, 2013). A school setting characterized by mutual respect, high standards, and a caring attitude is more favorable for motivating teaching and learning. Principal support influences how teachers feel about themselves, which increases motivation and productivity. Principals have the capacity to guide the positive progress of the school to develop and nurture relationships within the school community that impact the overall climate (Aypay et al., 2012; Kelley et al., 2005; Kilinc & Aydin, 2013). The concept of transformative leadership views the purpose of leadership as motivating others to work collectively towards common goals (Burns, 1978). Studies have provided information on leadership behaviors related to

119 transformative leadership in schools. These behaviors include: A) Empowering Others (Balyer, 2012; Dallas, 2006; Richmond & Manokore, 2011; Pederson et al., 2010), B) Collective Work (Dallas, 2006; Dussaut et al., 2008; Richmond & Manokore, 2011; Ross & Gray, 2006; Wells & Feun, 2012), C) Trust (Hodge & Ozag, 2007; Kutsyuruba et al., 2011; Singh & Billingsley, 1998), and D) Care (Aypay et al., 2012; Kilinc & Aydin, 2013; Navickaite, 2013; Sagnak, 2010). This study supports the work of these researchers. Principals lead the vision and mission of the school. While principal turnover is inevitable in every school, too rapid turnover can present significant challenges to districts and schools (Mascall & Leithwood, 2010). Schools experiencing exceptionally rapid principal turnover often suffer from lack of shared purpose, cynicism among staff about principal commitment, and an inability to maintain a school-improvement implementation plan long enough to actually accomplish any meaningful change. Research was provided that showed the factors related to principal turnover: A) Teacher Turnover (Brown & Wynn, 2009; Kukla-Acevedo, 2009; Loeb et al., 2005; Singh & Billingsley, 1998), B) School Demographics (Cullen & Mazzeo, 2008; Loeb et al., 2010; Partlow & Ridenour, 2008), and C) District Support (Cullen & Mazzeo, 2008; Gates et al., 2006; Jacobson et al., 2007; Papa Jr., 2007). Although this study did not analyze the causes for principal turnover, information was provided on how teachers perceive their school’s leadership. Differences were found among principal types: A) Inexperienced/New, B) Experienced/New, and C) Experienced/Experienced.

Research Questions This study analyzed the constructs of Principal Leadership and how they relate to School Climate. The study also addressed perceived differences of

120 principal experience and current school site tenure, by classroom teachers. The specific research questions include:  Are there relationships among teacher perception of principal leadership style, principal experience, principal tenure, and school climate?  Is there a significant difference in teacher perception of principal leadership and school climate by principal experience and principal tenure categories? The hypotheses were: A) Transformative leadership behaviors are perceived to support a positive school climate. B) Principals with at least 4 years tenure are perceived to have schools with a positive school climate.

Summary of Findings The quantitative study analyzed data on teacher perception of Principal Leadership and School Climate. The survey for this study was created from two original instruments: A) Survey of Transformative Leadership (Edwards et al., 2010) and B) North Carolina Teacher Working Conditions Survey (New Teacher Center, 2014). To provide a survey that supports completion for teachers, items were analyzed and chosen for this specific study. Each construct had the same number of items: A) Principal Leadership (N = 39) and B) School Climate (N = 39). Three demographic questions were included, to support the statistical analyses. A Google Survey (N= 81) was given to the elementary teachers in the five participating districts at 22 schools. The number of participants included 170 teachers. The study used several analyses to provide information on the two research questions. These analyses include: A) Correlation, B) Canonical Correlation, C) Regression, and D) MANOVA.

121

Correlation Correlational analyses were conducted to analyze relationships among Principal Leadership subscales and School Climate subscales. Three tables are provided, showing subscales with significance in correlation. Principal leadership. The Principal Leadership subscales items align with transformative behaviors. The nine subscales were analyzed. These subscales include: A) Integrity, B) Sensible Risk, C) Encourage Innovation, D) Inspirational Motivation, E) Supports Others, F) Develops Others, G) Task Delegation, and H) Expects Excellence. All Principal Leadership subscales had significant inter- correlations. Table 52 shows the Principal Leadership subscales with the number of very strong positive correlations (r = .70) with other Principal Leadership subscales.

Table 52

Number of High Correlations Among Principal Leadership Subscales Subscales # of Correlations Integrity 7 Sensible Risk 6 Encourages Innovation 7 Demonstrates Innovation 7 Inspirational Motivation 7 Supports Others 7 Develops Others 7 Task Delegation 7 Expects Excellence 0

These Principal Leadership subscales have many strong positive correlations. Integrity, Sensible Risk, Encourages Innovation, Demonstrates Innovation, Inspirational Motivation, Supports Others, Develops Others, and Task

122

Delegation have high significance in correlation. Expects Excellence has no strong correlations with other Principal Leadership subscales. School climate. School Climate subscales are used to gain teacher perspectives in their school by examining many different components. Table 53 shows the eight School Climate subscales: A) Time, B) Facilities and Resources, C) Community Support and Involvement, D) Managing School Conduct, E) Teacher Leadership, F) School Leadership, G) Professional Development, and H) Instructional Practices and Support. All School Climate subscales had significant inter-correlations. Subscales with greatest significance include: A) Facilities and Resources, B) Managing School Conduct, C) Teacher Leadership, D) School Leadership, E) Professional Development, and F) Instructional Practices and Support. The subscale Time had no very strong positive correlations with other School Climate subscales.

Table 53

Number of High Correlations Among School Climate Subscales Subscales # of Correlations Time 0 Facilities and Resources 4 Community Support & Involvement 3 Managing School Conduct 5 Teacher Leadership 4 School Leadership 5 Professional Development 5 Instructional Practices & Support 6

Principal leadership and school climate. To better understand how the Principal Leadership and School Climate subscales relate to each other, another correlational analysis was conducted. All Principal Leadership and School

123

Climate subscales had positive significant correlations. Table 54 provides the strong positive correlations between Principal Leadership and School Climate. Although all Principal Leadership and School Climate subscales were shown to have positive and significant correlations (see Table 30, p. 100), Table 54 shows that many positive and significant correlations were found with Teacher Leadership, School Leadership, Inspirational Motivation, and Task Delegation. Integrity and Managing School Conduct is also shown to have a positive and high correlation.

Table 54

Principal Leadership and School Climate Correlations Above .70 Subscales: Integrity Sensible Encour. Demon. Insp. Supports Develops Task Risk Innov. Innov. Motiv. Others Others Deleg. Managing .70 School Conduct

Teacher .77 .73 .80 .74 .82 .78 .80 .84 Leadership

School .86 .79 .85 .78 .88 .84 .85 .89 Leadership

Professional .74 .72 .74 Development

Instructional .75 .72 Practices & Support

Canonical Correlation This study uses the construct of Principal Leadership as the independent variable and School Climate as the dependent variable. The Principal Leadership construct was analyzed using nine subscales, while eight subscales analyzed School Climate. The canonical correlation seeks to find the correlation between multiple independent and dependent variables.

124

The canonical correlation analysis provided eight functions and corresponding canonical coefficients. Each functions shows hierarchical statistical significance in correlation. Roots 1 to 8, 2 to 8 and 3 to 8 provided highest significance in variance. But, the first function, with a very high canonical correlation coefficient (.93), explains 86.37% of the variance in the dependent variable School Climate. School Climate subscales with high squared correlation coefficients include: A) School Leadership, B) Teacher Leadership, C) Professional Development, D) and Instructional Practices and Support (see Table 35, p. 104).

Regression For each of the dependent variables, a regression analysis was conducted. These analyses determine which of the independent variables show significance as possible predictors of the overall construct of School Climate. Table 55 provides the results of these analyses, showing those with statistical significance and those that did not have statistical significance. The results from the regression analyses show statistical significance in several Principal Leadership subscales as predictors of some of the eight dependent variables that represent School Climate. Task Delegation is a predictor of many of the School Climate subscales. These include: A) Time, B) Community Support & Involvement, C) Teacher Leadership, D) School Leadership, and Professional Development. Some Principal Leadership subscales, as independent variables, were found as possible predictors of specific School Climate subscales, the dependent variables. School Climate subscale Instructional Practices and Support was found to have Principal Leadership subscales as significant predictors. These include A) Expects Excellence, B) Demonstrates Innovation, C) Inspirational Motivation, and

125 Table 55

Regression Results for School Climate DV/IV Integ. Sensible Encour. Demon. Insp. Supports Develops Task Exp. Risk Innov. Innov. Motiv. Others Others Deleg. Excel.

Time NS NS NS .04 NS NS NS .01 NS

Facilities & NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS Resources

Community NS NS NS NS NS NS NS .01 NS Support & Involvement

Managing NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS .02 School Conduct

Teacher NS NS NS NS NS NS NS .001 NS Leadership

School NS NS NS NS .04 NS NS .003 NS Leadership

Professional NS NS NS NS .02 .03 .02 .03 NS Development

Instructional NS NS NS .04 .001 .03 NS NS .01 Practices & Support

Note: NS = No Significance; p < .05

D) Supports others. Results show School Leadership predicted by Inspirational Motivation. School climate subscales Professional Development and School Leadership were also found to have Inspirational Motivation as a significant possible predictor.

Multivariate Analysis of Variance The Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) was used to analyze and determine differences in Principal Leadership and School Climate subscales, when analyzed against principal experience and principal tenure. Scheffe’s Post Hoc analysis was used to clarify significance in mean differences among the types

126 of principals. The Inexperienced/New principal has less than 4 years of principal experience and principal tenure in the current school. The Experienced/New principal has 4 or more years of experience, but less than 4 years principal tenure in the current school, while the Experienced/ Experienced principal has at least 4 years experience as principal and at least 4 years principal tenure in the current school. Principal leadership. The MANOVA results, shown in Table 56, illustrate that all Principal Leadership subscales are significantly different by principal experience and tenure. Subscales with very high significance in differences among principal type include Integrity, Sensible Risk, Demonstrates Innovation, and Inspirational Motivation. Sheffe’s Post Hoc analysis of Principal Leadership subscales, in Table 47, shows the significant differences between teacher perceptions of the Inexperienced/New, Experienced/New and Experienced/Experienced principals with all Principal Leadership Subscales. The Experienced/Experienced principal has the highest means. In subscales Integrity, Sensible Risk, and Inspirational Motivation, there is significance in difference between the Inexperienced/New principal and the Experienced/New principal. The means are higher for the Inexperienced/New principal in all three subscales. School climate. Table 57 illustrates the School Climate subscales and their significance by differences in variance, by principal experience and principal tenure. Results in Table 57 show that all School Climate subscales are significant in variance, analyzed against principal experience and principal tenure. The subscales with highest significance are Time, Facilities and Resources, and Professional Development. The Scheffe’s Post Hoc test for School Climate Subscales (Table 51) provided the significance levels for differences between the means of principal type. In all School Climate subscales, the Experienced/

127

Experienced principal has the highest means. The significance for Time is between the Inexperienced/New and Experienced/Experienced principal. There was also significant difference between the means of the Inexperienced/New and the Experienced/New principal in the subscale Professional Development.

Table 56

Multivariate Analysis of Variance for Principal Leadership Subscales by Principal Experience Subscale p Integrity < .001 Sensible Risk < .001 Encourages Innovation .002 Demonstrates Innovation < .001 Inspirational Motivation < .001 Supports Others .01 Develops Others .03 Task Delegation .003 Expects Excellence .02 ** p < .01; * p < .05

Table 57

Multivariate Analysis of Variance for School Climate Subscales by Principal Experience Subscale p Time < .001 Facilities & Resources < .001 Community Support & Involvement .02 Managing School Conduct .01 Teacher Leadership .004 School Leadership .001 Professional Development < .001 Instructional Practices & Support .006 ** p < .01; * p < .05

128

Discussion The results of this study found Principal Leadership and School Climate positively correlated by subscale. The significance in correlations and number of Principal Leadership predictors show the value of transformative leadership in the school. The data showed Inspirational Motivation and Task Delegation to be examples of how transformative leaders support positive structures and systems in their schools.

School Leadership This study has found that principal leadership decisions can have a profound affect on school climate. Significant and positive correlations among principal leadership and school climate found that the principal’s approach to the teaching community is very important. There are several characteristics of a transformative leader that were found in this study, confirmed in other research. Integrity. This study found high correlations among Integrity and Support and all Principal Leadership and School Climate subscales. The subscale Integrity had many high and significant correlations with other Principal Leadership subscale characteristics. Integrity is defined as honest, moral, truthful, and sincere. A principal with integrity will listen to the school community and care about the needs of the teachers. Having integrity includes showing support. Teachers are looking for principal support. This study found Support Others as a predictor of Professional Development and Instructional Practices and Support. Sagnak (2010) found that the subscale Care correlated with school climate variables Vision and Group Goals. As principals show Care to their teachers, teachers feel supported. The teacher’s desire for open communication was also found in other research (Balyer, 2012; Nash, 2011; Richmond & Manokore, 2011). Open communication allows

129 for teachers to feel valued and supported as equal partners in the work of the school, which supports a positive school climate. Instructional support. Effective professional development and instructional support includes the transformative leadership direction of the principal. Demonstrates Innovation and Inspiration Motivation were also found to be predictors of Professional Development and Instructional Practices and Support. As teachers are encouraged and motivated by their leader to try new things, confidence and hope is conveyed. Richmond and Manokore (2011) found confidence in teachers as they engaged in collaboration, shared knowledge and pedagogy, and held each other accountable to student achievement goals. Singh and Billingsley (1998) found the value for principal leadership that directs and facilitates cooperative learning and peer. Although teachers may want the opportunity to collaborate and plan together, it is up to the principal to structure and support these conditions. Wells and Feun (2012) also found value in how teachers were collaborating around common vision and goals, regardless of how the time was structured for the Professional Learning Community (PLC).

Teacher Leadership Teachers who view themselves as leaders can improve teaching-learning practices, manage their classrooms effectively, and build overall school improvement. Many Principal Leadership subscales were positively and significantly correlated with Teacher Leadership and School Leadership. School Leadership can be greatly influenced by transformative leadership behaviors, impacting a positive climate for teachers. Teacher leadership can bring that dynamism that is essential for shifting from the teaching profession from a passive role to an empowerment of leadership around shared vision. Teacher Leadership

130 showed a high and significant correlation with Instructional Support. The principal, as the instructional leader, determines how Instructional Support is given to teachers. Task Delegation showed a positive and significant correlation with all Principal Leadership and School Climate subscales. Task Delegation was also found to predict many other school climate subscale variables. Principal Leadership subscales support the work of collective efficacy, through shared leadership opportunities. Collective efficacy empowers teachers and values distributed leadership practices. The high and significant correlations found among Inspirational Motivation, Sensible Risk, Encouraging Innovation, Developing Others, and Task Delegation all support value of a collective work in the school. Transformative leaders provide opportunity for teachers to lead in different ways. As teachers are delegated or given responsibility to lead, they feel supported in the collective work and valued as another leader in the school. Other researchers have found that teachers value leadership opportunity, given the ability to work as informal leaders in the school (Pederson et al., 2010; Spillane & Healey, 2010). Firestone and Martinez (2007) researched the type and amount of informal teacher leadership in schools and found that teachers valued their peers leading and supporting them with instructional strategies and resources.

Principal Tenure The study analyzed teacher perception of Principal Leadership and School Climate by type of principal. The Experienced/Experienced principal had the highest means in all Principal Leadership and School Climate subscales. The experienced principals with four or more years in their school have a greater understanding of not only what needs to get done but also know the better way to do it.

131

Although a principal may come into a school with experience, results showed more positive results with principals with less experience. In all Principal Leadership and School Climate Subscales, except for Time, the Inexperienced/New principal had higher means than the Experienced/New principal. Transformative principal leaders know how to engage teachers, through trusted relationships. As the collective trust is developed, school climate conditions are much more positive. Although a principal may have experience with school structures and systems, an understanding and value for the of the existing needs and beliefs of the teachers in the school community is important to lead and sustain change. Value of both. Transactional leadership supports the ability to reach school goals. Transactional leaders are greatly attentive to managing school deadlines, procedures, and systems. Schools need principal leaders that know how to manage. Transactional leaders support transformative leadership in different ways. Transformative leaders are careful to monitor and mange the needs of their school. The management of school conduct requires both a practical systematic management proactive and reactive discipline strategies and techniques. Research by Dussaut et al. (2008) found that transactional leadership made a significant contribution to transformational leadership. Transformative leadership strategies that support collective efficacy require a systems perspective. This study found Expects Excellence as a predictor of Managing School Conduct. The transactional leader is likely to be one that expects excellence, through close management of all school systems and structures. Preventing discipline problems and engaging kids in school activities and lessons requires both the transformative and transactional leader.

132

This study also showed correlations with Facilities and Resources and Time, among all Principal Leadership and School Climate subscales. As the principal has time in the school and learns the needs of the school community, school facility needs may become more apparent and the strategy to meet the need more apparent. Transformational leadership supports the management and delegation of work to be accomplished in the school. Transactional skills are needed to help maintain a positive working environment, providing appropriate facilities and resources for teachers. The blend of both transformational and transactional skills supports a positive working environment.

Implications for Practice This study provided information on how to better support our principals, as they are continually challenged by change. Like teachers, principals need support to provide transformative leadership behaviors and strategies in their school (Loeb et al., 2010; Papa Jr., 2007; Partlow & Ridenour, 2008). Principals need to know how to effectively address the many duties they hold, understanding how decisions made may affect school climate. This study found several strategies that support and predict a more positive school climate for teachers. Professional Development is developed through several transformative behaviors. These include Inspirational Motivation, Supports Others, Develops Others, and Task Delegation. These factors illustrate a principal that conveys hope, displays enthusiasm, promotes teamwork, and expresses confidence in the teacher’s ability to reach goals. This principal also recognizes the individual, respecting feelings and needs. Support and opportunity is given to help teachers improve in their area of need. While the principal recognizes and supports the individual teachers, principals delegate tasks with support and encouragement.

133

Instructional Practices and Support are found in Inspirational Motivation, Demonstrates Innovation, Supports Others, and Expects Excellence. Implementing effective instructional practices includes the principal’s support and enthusiasm supporting teamwork, providing time and resources for teachers to work together around a common vision. Teachers view the principal as hopeful and confident in the school vision. Teachers are shown respect and heard, as individual needs or concerns may develop. In the overall work, the principal conveys an attitude of excellence. Teachers believe their principal expects the best effort from teachers, believing that teachers will take initiative to complete tasks. School Leadership is developed through Inspirational Motivation and Task Delegation. Leading a school includes an atmosphere of mutual respect and trust. Teachers feel comfortable raising issues and concerns, feeling supported. Decisions are data-driven. Teachers receive feedback that can help them improve teaching. The principal that sets attainable objectives for reaching school goals, while encouraging staff to share suggestions, promotes hope and confidence that school goals will be achieved. Tasks delegated to the teacher open opportunity for teachers to be empowered and support confidence in their ability to accomplish goals. Teacher Leadership is found when teachers are given opportunity to lead, through Task Delegation by the principal. When teachers are provided opportunities to participate in making decisions that affect the program, shared leadership opportunities begin to exist in the school. Both formal and informal leaders exist. When the principal delegates a task, support and resources are provided. This enables the teacher to feel more effective in accomplishing the assigned or initiated task.

134

The principal that values Excellence also applies effective practices that support the Managing of School Conduct. This principal conveys the expectation for excellent work from all stakeholders. Students know and follow the rules of conduct, while teachers consistently enforce the rules. The principal is diligent to support the consistent structure and expectation communicated to the school community. The transformative principal seeks Community Support and Involvement. When there is clear communication consistently provided by the teachers, parents feel informed and supported. Tasks Delegated allow the teachers opportunity to support the communication and parent involvement, empowering and giving value to both the teachers and the parents. The transformative principal gives support and adequate resources for teachers to support parent communication and involvement.

Shared Leadership Knowing how to effectively structure the use of Time for teachers can be difficult for principals. This study shows Task Delegation and Demonstrating Innovation supports the capacity to better determine how time is allotted for teachers. Teachers want opportunity to help determine effective ways to provide instructional time for collaboration, sufficient time to meet the needs of their students, while also having non-instructional time for instructional planning. Teachers may be given opportunity to brainstorm ways to create time that supports valued goals and objectives, shared by the principal and teachers. This opportunity supports a collective work around common goals.

135

Future Research This study analyzed the impact of principal leadership on school climate, using a small sample from the Central Valley, which leads to three other ideas for future research. First, extending the opportunity for principals in the middle schools and high schools to participate would provide districts more information on transformative behaviors and differences by school type. This study analyzed only the elementary school system. Second, along with a study of teacher perceptions of behaviors supporting a positive school climate, research can be done on the perception of principals as well. When the data is collected from both the principal and teacher, the results can be compared to determine similarities and differences among perceptions of the existing school climate. This information could provide valuable data for collaborative discussion and school goal-setting procedures. Third, a qualitative study can be done that analyzes district procedures and practices that support the hiring and retention of effective transformative principals. Although principals may leave a school for a promotion or retirement, it is important for districts to understand not only what makes principals choose to leave their positions but also ways to retain them.

Conclusion Principal leadership is valuable to an effective learning environment. Change leaders must understand procedures and processes that create the conditions necessary for organizational improvement. Skilled leaders correctly envision future needs and empower others to share and implement that vision. Empowering teachers through shared leadership opportunities supports many components of school working conditions for teachers, which reinforces a more positive school climate.

136

REFERENCES

Anderson, J.B. (2008). Principals’ role and public primary schools’ effectiveness in four Latin American cities. Elementary School Journal 109(1), 36-60. Aypay, A., Tas, A., & Boyaci, A. (2012). Teacher perceptions of school climate in elementary schools. The New Educational Review, 1, 227-238. Baloglu, N. (2012). Relations between value-based leadership and distributed leadership: A causal research on school principals’ behaviors. Education Sciences: Theory and Practices, 12(2), 1375-1378. 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. Barlow, D. (2006). The teachers’ lounge. Education Digest 71(8), 65-70. Bass, B.M. (1997). Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries? American Psychologist, 52(2), 130. Bass, B.M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(1), 9-32. Bass, B.M., & Avolio, B.J. (2000). Multifactor leadership questionnaire. Menlo Park, CA: Mind Garden. Beteille, T., Kalogrides, D., & Loeb, S. (2012). Stepping stones: Principal career paths and school outcomes. Social Science Research, 41(4), 904-919. Bracey, G.W. (2008). Disastrous legacy: Aftermath of a nation at risk. Dissent, 55(4), 80-83.

137

Brown, W.K., & Wynn. R.S. (2009). Finding, supporting, and keeping: The role of the principal in teacher retention issues. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 8(1), 37-63. doi: 10.1080/15700760701817371 Burns, J.M. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Chrisman, V. (2005). How schools sustain success. Educational Leadership, 62(5), 16-20. Christopherson, K.A., Elstad, E., & Turmo, A. (2011). The nature of social practice among school professionals: Consequences of the academic pressure exerted by teachers in teaching. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 55(6), 639-654. doi: 10.1080/00313831.2011.594605 Clifford, M., & Mason, C. (2013). Leadership for the common core report. Alexandria, VA: National Association of Elementary School Principals. Creswell, J. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Cullen, J.B. & Mazzeo, M.J. (2008). Implicit performance awards: An empirical analysis of the labor market for public school administrators (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu Dallas, F. (2006). Enhancing the 3R’s of resilience, retention, and reform through middle school faculty professional learning communities. Middle Grades Research Journal, 1(1), 67-92. Daly, A.J., Der-Martirosian, C., Ong-Dean, C. Park, V. & Wishard-Guerra, A. (2011). Leading under sanction: Principals’ perceptions of threat rigidity, efficacy, and leadership in underperforming schools. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 10(2), 171-206. doi: 10.1080/15700763.2011.557517#

138

Darling-Hammond, L. & Richardson, N. (2009). Teacher learning: What matters. Education Leadership, 66(5), 46-53. Dever, R., & Lash, M.J. (2013). Using common planning time to foster professional learning. Middle School Journal, 45(1), 12-17. Dufour, R. & Mattos, M. (2013). How do principals really improve schools? Education Leadership, 70(7), 34-40. Dussaut, M., Payette, D., & Leroux, M. (2008). Principal transformational leadership and collective efficacy. Psychological Reports, 102(2), 401-410. Edwards, J.R., Knight, D.K., Broome, K.M., & Flynn, P.M. (2010). The development and validation of a transformational leadership survey for substance use treatment programs. Substance Use & Misuse, 45(9), 1279- 1302. Eilers, L.H. & D’Amico, M. (2012). Essential leadership elements in implementing common core state standards. The Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 78(4), 46-50. Elmore, R.F. (2003). A plea for strong practice. Education Leadership, 61(3), 6- 10. Ferguson, M. (2013). When the (education) revolution comes. Phi Delta Kappan, 95(2), 68-69. Fink, A. (2002). How to ask survey questions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Firestone, W.A. & Martinez, C. (2007). Districts, teacher leaders, and distributed leadership: Changing instructional practice. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 6(1), 3-35. doi: 10.1080/15700760601091234 Fullan, M. (2002). The change. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 16-20.

139

Garrett, K. (2010). Professional learning communities allow a transformational culture to take root. Education Digest: Essential Readings Condensed for Quick Review, 76(2), 4-9. Gates, S.M., Ringel, J.S., Santibanez, L., Guarino, C., Ghosh-Dastidar, B., & Brown, A. (2006). Mobility and turnover among school principals. Economics of Education Review, 25(3). doi: 10.1016/j.econedurev.2005.01.008 Goddard, R.D., & Miller, R.J. (2010). The conceptualization, measurement, and effects of school leadership: Introduction to the special issue. The Elementary School Journal, 11(2), 219-225. Goodwin, V.L., Whittington, J.L., Murray, B., & Nichols, T. (2011). Moderator or mediator: Examining the role of trust in the transformational leadership paradigm. Journal of Managerial Issues, 23(4), 409-425. Greenlee, B., & Brown Jr. (2009). Retaining teachers in challenging schools. Education, 130(1), 96-109. Grigsby, B., Schumacher, G., Decman, J., & Simieou, F. (2010). A principal’s dilemma: Instructional leader or manager. Academic leadership, 8(3), 1-8. Groen, M. (2012). NCLB – The educational accountability paradigm in historical perspective. American Education History Journal, 39(1), 1-14. Groth-Marnat, G. (2009). Handbook of psychological assessment. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Guilfoyle, C. (2006). NCLB: Is there life beyond testing? Educational Leadership, 64(3), 8. Hargreaves, A. & Fink, D. (2003). Sustaining leadership. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(9), 693-700.

140

Hodge, E.M., & Ozag, D. (2007). The relationship between North Carolina teachers’ trust and hope and their organizational commitment. Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 49(2), 128-139. Hord, S. (2009). Professional learning communities: Educators work together toward a shared purpose – improved student learning. National Staff Development Council, 30(1), 40-43. Hoy, W.K., Tarter, C.J., & Kottkamp, R.B. (1991). Open schools, healthy schools: Measuring organizational climate. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Huff, T.S., Brockmeier, L., Leech, D., Martin, E., Pate, J., & Siegrist, G. (2011). Principal and school-level effects on student achievement. National Teacher Education Journal, 4(2), 67-79. Ingersoll, R.M. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages. An organizational analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 499- 534. Jacobson, S.L., Brooks, S., Giles, C., Johnson, L., & Ylimaki, R. (2007). Successful leadership in three high-poverty urban elementary schools. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 6(4), 291-317. doi: 10.1080/15700760701431553 Kelley, R.C., Thornton, B., & Daugherty, R. (2005). Relationships between measures of leadership and school climate. Education, 126(1), 17-25. Kilinc, A., & Aydin, A. (2013). Turkish student science teachers’ conceptions of sustainable development: A phenomenography. International Journal of Science Education, 35(5), 731-752. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2011.574822 Kukla-Acevedo, S. (2009). Leavers, movers, and stayers: The role of workplace conditions in teacher mobility decisions. The Journal of Educational Research, 102(6), 443-452. doi: 10.3200/JOER.102.6.443-452

141

Kutsyuruba, B., Walker, K., & Noonan, B. (2011). Restoring broken trust in the work of school principals. International Studies in Educational Administration, 39(2), 81-95. Leithwood, K., & Beatty, B. (2009). Leadership for emotionally hot climates. International Studies in Educational Administration, 37(1), 91-103. Leithwood, K., & Mascall, B. (2008). Collective leadership effects on student achievement. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(4), 529-561. Li, D. (2012). School accountability and principal mobility: How No Child Left Behind affects the allocation of school leaders (Doctoral Dissertation).

Mimeo, MIT. Liu, P. (2013). A transformational school leadership in urban upper secondary schools. International Studies in Educational Administration, 41(3), 73-94. Loeb, S., Darling-Hammond, L., & Luczak, J. (2005). How teaching conditions predict teacher turnover in California schools. Peabody Journal of Education, 80(3), 44-70. doi: 10.1207/s15327930pje8003_4 Loeb, S., Kalogrides, D., & Horng, E.L. (2010). Principal preferences and the uneven distribution of principals across schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 32(2), 205-229. doi: 10.3102/0162373710369833 Lunenberg, F. (2013). The principal as an instructional leader. National Forum of Educational Administration & Supervision Journal, 30(2), 30-41. McCaslin, M. (2006). Student motivational dynamics in the era of school reform. Elementary School Journal, 106(5), 479-490. MacMillan, R.B., Meyer, M.J., & Northfield, S. (2004). Trust and its role in principal succession: A preliminary examination of a continuum of trust. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 3(4), 275-294.

142

MacNeil, A.J., Prater, D.L., & Busch, S. (2009). The effects of school culture and climate on student achievement. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 12(1), 73-84. doi: 10.1080/13603120701576241 Mascall, B., & Leithwood, K. (2010). Investing in leadership: The district’s role in managing principal turnover. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 9(4), 367- 383. doi: 10.1080/15700763.2010.493633 Miller, A. (2009). Principal turnover, student achievement, and teacher retention. (Doctoral dissertation). doi: 10.1016/j.econedurev.2013.05.004 Ndoye, A., & Parker, M.A. (2010). Creating and sustaining a culture of assessment. Planning for Higher Education, 38(2), 28-39. Nash, W. (2011). Transformational school leadership and student achievement: A case study. National Teacher Education Journal, 4(2), 9-18. Navickaite, J. (2013). The expression of principal transformational leadership during the organizational change process: A case study of general education schools. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 51(1), 52-64. New Teacher Center (2014). 2014 North Carolina working conditions survey: Design, validity, and reliability. Retrieved from http://www.newteachercenter.org Nordgren, R.D. (2013). Pink’s motivation 3.0 and student-centered schooling: Creating life-long learners for the 21st century. Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching, 6(1), 3-11. Papa Jr., F. (2007). Why do principals change schools? A multivariate analysis of principal attrition. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 6(3), 267-290. doi: 10.1080/15700760701263725 Partlow, M.C. (2007). Contextual factors related to elementary principal turnover. Planning and Changing, 38(1), 60-76.

143

Partlow, M.C., & Ridenour, C.S. (2008). Frequency of principal turnover in Ohio’s elementary schools. Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 21(2), 15- 23. Pederson, J., Yager, S., & Yager, R.E. (2010). Distributed leadership influence on professional development initiatives: Conversations with eight teachers. Academic Leadership Journal, 8(3), 234-239. Pepper, K., & Thomas, L. H. (2002). Making a change: The effects of the leadership role on school climate. Learning Environments Research, 5(2),

155-166. Pepper, K. (2010). Effective principals skillfully balance leadership styles to facilitate student success: A focus for the reauthorization of ESEA. Planning and Changing, 41(1), 42-56. Ravitch, D. (2009). Time to kill ‘no child left behind’. Education Digest, 75(1), 4-6. Richmond, G., & Manokore, V. (2011). Identifying elements critical for functional and sustainable professional learning communities. Science Education, 95(3), 543-570. doi: 10.1002/sce.20430 Ross, J.A., & Gray, P. (2006). Transformational leadership and teacher commitment to organizational values. The mediating effects of collective teacher efficacy. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17(2), 179- 199. Sagnak, M. (2010). The relationship between transformational school leadership and ethical climate. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 10(2), 1135- 1152.

144

Shouppe, G. & Pate, J.L. (2010). Teachers’ perceptions of school climate, principal leadership style, and teacher behaviors on student academic achievement. National Teacher Education Journal, 3(2), 87-98. Singh, K., & Billingsley, B.S. (1998). Professional support and its effect on teachers’ commitment. The Journal of Educational Research, 91(4), 229- 239. Spillane, J.P. & Healey, K. (2010). Conceptualizing school leadership and management from the distributive perspective: An exploration of some study operations and measures. The Elementary School Journal, 111(2), 258-281. Thomas, J.Y., & Brady, K.P. (2005). The elementary and secondary education act at 40: Equity, accountability, and the evolving federal role in public education. Review of Research in Education, 29(1), 51-67. Urick, A. & Bowers, A.J. (2011). What influences principals’ perceptions of academic climate? A nationally representative study of the direct effects of perception on climate. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 10(3), 322-348. doi: 10.1080/15700763.2011.577925 Weinstein, M., Jacobowitz, R., Ely, T., Landon, K., & Schwartz, A. E. (2009). New schools, new leaders: A study of principal turnover and academic achievement at new high schools in New York City. New York, NY: The Institute for Education and Social Policy, New York University. Wells, C. M., & Feun, L. (2013). Educational change and professional learning communities: A study of two districts. Journal of Educational Change, 14(2), 233-257.

145

APPENDIX A: SUPERINTENDENT PROPOSAL

January 12, 15’

Dear Superintendent:

I am a doctoral student at CSU Fresno conducting research on the impact of transformative leadership, experience, and site tenure on school reform. It would be great for teachers to participate in my research survey. It is an online Google survey format.

Results of this research will give us valuable insight on how to better serve the needs of our Valley's children. As a result of your districts' participation, you will receive information on how teachers perceive their principal’s leadership behaviors and how they perceive school working conditions. This information could be used to support district and site leader decisions on leadership training, types of resources are needed in each school, and how to address differences among groups of principals. Knowing how to best support site leadership and school climate can greatly impact student achievement within the schools.

You will be contacted on procedures for IRB approval. You may accept the IRB process through Fresno State University, or you may have you own district IRB process. Please confirm your endorsement of my research by sending me a contact person through whom I can distribute the required information.

Thank you,

Shannon Capshew Education Leadership Fresno State University [email protected]

146

APPENDIX B: PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP ITEMS

Integrity

Expresses values shared by staff members Is trustworthy Is someone that staff members are proud to be associated with Keeps commitments Models behaviors that other staff members are asked to perform

Sensible Risk

Takes appropriate personal risks in order to improve the school Seeks school interests over personal interests Takes personal chances in pursuing school goals

Encourages Innovation

Positively acknowledges creative solutions to problems Encourages ideas other than own Asks questions that stimulate staff members to consider ways to improve their work performance Demonstrates Innovation

Tries ways of doing things that are different from the norm Seeks new opportunities within the school for achieving organizational objectives Takes bold actions in order to achieve school objectives

Inspirational Motivation

Encourages staff feedback in choosing new program goals Conveys hope about the future of the school Displays enthusiasm about pursuing school goals Displays confidence that school goals will be achieved Sets attainable objectives for reaching school goals Allocates resources towards school goals Promotes teamwork in reaching school goals Expresses confidence in staff members’ collective ability to reach goals Behaves consistently with school goals Encourages staff to share suggestions in how new school goals will be implemented

147

Supports Others

Treats individual staff members with dignity and respect Does not respect individual staff members’ personal feelings Treats staff members as individuals, rather than as a collective group

Develops Others

Offers individual learning opportunities to staff members for professional growth Recognizes individual staff members’ needs and desires Assists individual staff members in developing their strengths

Task Delegation

Provides opportunities for staff to participate in making decisions that affect the program Provides opportunities for staff members to take primary responsibility over tasks Follows delegation of a task with support and encouragement Provides requested support for task completion Allows adequate resources to see tasks are completed Conveys confidence in staff members’ ability to accomplish tasks

Expects Excellence

Expects excellence from staff Expects that staff members will give tasks their best effort Expects that members of the staff will take initiative on completing tasks

148

APPENDIX C: SCHOOL CLIMATE ITEMS

Time

Teachers have time to collaborate with colleagues. The non-instructional time for teachers in my school is sufficient. Teachers have sufficient instructional time to meet the needs of all students.

Facilities and Resources

Teachers have sufficient access to appropriate instructional materials. Teachers have sufficient access to a broad range of professional support personnel (i.e. counselors, nurses, psychologists, or librarians). The physical environment of classrooms in this school supports teaching and learning. Teachers have sufficient access to instructional technology, including computers, printers, software, and internet access. The reliability and speed of Internet connections in this school are sufficient to support instructional practices.

Community Support and Involvement

This school maintains clear two-way communication with the community. Teachers provide parents/guardians with useful information about student learning. The school does a good job of encouraging parent/guardian involvement. The community we serve is supportive of this school.

Managing School Conduct

Students follow rules of conduct. Teachers consistently enforce rules for student conduct. School administrators consistently enforce rules for student conduct.

Teacher Leadership

Teachers are recognized as educational experts. Teachers are trusted to make sound professional decisions about instruction. Teachers are encouraged to participate in school leadership roles. Teachers are effective leaders in this school.

149 School Leadership

There is an atmosphere of trust and mutual respect in this school. Teachers feel comfortable raising issues and concerns that are important to them. The school leadership consistently supports teachers. The school leadership facilitates using data to improve student learning. Teacher performance is assessed objectively. Teachers receive feedback that can help them improve teaching.

Professional Development

Sufficient resources and time are available for professional development in my school. Professional learning opportunities are aligned with the school plan. Professional development provides ongoing opportunities for teachers to work with colleagues to refine teaching practices. Professional development offerings are data driven. In this school, follow up is provided from professional development. Professional development enhances teachers’ ability to implement instructional strategies that meet diverse student learning needs.

Instructional Practices and Support

Teachers use assessment data to inform instruction. Teachers work in professional learning communities to develop and align instructional practices. Provided supports translate to improvements in instruction (i.e. instructional coaching, professional learning communities, etc.). Teachers have autonomy to make decisions about instructional delivery. Teachers are encouraged to try new things to improve instruction. Teachers collaborate to achieve consistency on how student work is assessed. Teachers have knowledge of the content covered and instructional methods used by other teachers at this school. Teachers know what students learn in their classes.

150

APPENDIX D: LETTER TO TEACHERS

2/10/15’

Elementary Teachers:

I am a doctoral student at CSU Fresno conducting research on how principal leadership style, experience, and site tenure impact their effectiveness to reform schools. Critical to my work is a teacher survey.

I am requesting that teachers in the K-•‐ 6/K-•‐ 8 schools participate in this survey that will be administered online, using Google Survey. It is in Likert scale format, and it takes approximately 6-•‐ 7 minutes to complete. The “informed consent” is in the survey, explaining confidentiality.

As s result of your district’s participation, the district will receive information on how teachers perceive their principal’s leadership behaviors and how they perceive school working conditions. The data may be used to support Local Control Action Plan (LCAP) revision and Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) budget decisions.

When participating districts have been contacted and the surveys have reached all schools, the school with the greatest percentage of participation will receive a pizza lunch for a reward. It is important for site and district leaders to understand the strengths and needs that exist in your school. 

Thank you,

Shannon Capshew Educational Leadership Fresno State University [email protected]

Fresno State

Non-Exclusive Distribution License (to archive your thesis/dissertation electronically via the library’s eCollections database)

By submitting this license, you (the author or copyright holder) grant to Fresno State Digital Scholar the non-exclusive right to reproduce, translate (as defined in the next paragraph), and/or distribute your submission (including the abstract) worldwide in print and electronic format and in any medium, including but not limited to audio or video.

You agree that Fresno State may, without changing the content, translate the submission to any medium or format for the purpose of preservation.

You also agree that the submission is your original work, and that you have the right to grant the rights contained in this license. You also represent that your submission does not, to the best of your knowledge, infringe upon anyone’s copyright.

If the submission reproduces material for which you do not hold copyright and that would not be considered fair use outside the copyright law, you represent that you have obtained the unrestricted permission of the copyright owner to grant Fresno State the rights required by this license, and that such third-party material is clearly identified and acknowledged within the text or content of the submission.

If the submission is based upon work that has been sponsored or supported by an agency or organization other than Fresno State, you represent that you have fulfilled any right of review or other obligations required by such contract or agreement.

Fresno State will clearly identify your name as the author or owner of the submission and will not make any alteration, other than as allowed by this license, to your submission. By typing your name and date in the fields below, you indicate your agreement to the terms of this distribution license.

Embargo options (fill box with an X).

Make my thesis or dissertation available to eCollections immediately upon X submission.

Embargo my thesis or dissertation for a period of 2 years from date of graduation.

Embargo my thesis or dissertation for a period of 5 years from date of graduation.

Shannon La Nell Capshew

Type full name as it appears on submission

May 24, 2015

Date