Support and Mistreatment by Public School Principals As Experienced by Teachers: a Statewide Survey

Home , Gary Namie, Sabotage

MIAMI UNIVERSITY

The Graduate School

Certificate for Approving the Dissertation

We hereby approve the Dissertation

Diane Sue Burnside Huffman

Candidate for the Degree:

Doctor of Philosophy

______Director Dr. Thomas S. Poetter

______Reader Dr. William J. Boone

______Reader Dr. Kathleen Knight Abowitz

______Reader Dr. Andrew M. Saultz

ABSTRACT

SUPPORT AND MISTREATMENT BY PUBLIC SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AS EXPERIENCED BY TEACHERS: A STATEWIDE SURVEY

by Diane Sue Burnside Huffman

Skillful teachers are key to developing good schools. Because of this, understanding the school as a workplace is necessary to investigate why teachers leave and what encourages them to stay. The relationship between the principal, as the boss, and the teacher, as the employee, is one under- researched component of the school workplace which is important for developing a broad understanding of teacher turnover. This cross-sectional study uses a definition of principal mistreatment behaviors from the literature in the development of an original mixed method survey and a random sample of teachers from public schools in the State of Ohio to investigate how often principal mistreatment behaviors are experienced by a random sample of teachers in K-12 public schools. Mistreatment behaviors were paired with an opposite principal support behavior using Likert-style response options and were specifically focused on the 2012-2013 school year. Open- ended questions were included which asked for more general experience with principal mistreatment behaviors, effects on the teachers health, opinions about school culture and student bullying, and the effects of principal treatment behaviors on the teachers sense of efficacy and job satisfaction. The result of the study suggests that principal mistreatment and lack of support behaviors are widely experienced by teachers in the sample; however, these behaviors occur at a low frequency. Almost half of the teacher experienced severe level principal mistreatment behaviors, as defined by past research, during the school year. Mistreatment behaviors experienced by teachers resulted in a variety of teacher’s health concerns. A majority of teachers considered the principal-teacher relationship as an important factor in their sense of efficacy and job satisfaction. It is recommended that the education of future teachers and principals include a model of administration leadership which is developed by actual teacher experience. Further research is warranted.

SUPPORT AND MISTREATMENT BY PUBLIC SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AS EXPERIENCED BY TEACHERS: A STATEWIDE SURVEY

A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of

Miami University in partial

fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

Department of Educational Leadership

Diane Sue Burnside Huffman

Miami University

Oxford, Ohio

2015

Director: Dr. Thomas S. Poetter

Diane Sue Burnside Huffman

2015

List of Tables ...... vi

List of Figures ...... vii

Dedication ...... viii

Acknowledgements ...... ix

Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 1

Chapter 2: Literature Review ...... 6

The Researchers ...... 6 Workplace Bullying: Factors ...... 7 The bully boss ...... 7

The target...... 9

The on-lookers ...... 9

Teacher Mistreatment...... 10 The Micropolitics of Educational Leadership ...... 12 Laws and Policies ...... 14 Importance of This Study...... 15 Chapter 3: Methodology and Methods ...... 17

Deweyan Pragmatism ...... 17 Deweyan pragmatism as a research discourse ...... 19

The current study ...... 21

Methods ...... 24 Research study ethics ...... 25

Population ...... 26

Sample ...... 27

Instrument ...... 28

Procedure ...... 31

Internal Validity ...... 31

iii

External validity ...... 32

Reliability ...... 36

Chapter 4: Results ...... 37

Operationalizing the Principal Support/Mistreatment Construct ...... 37 Quantitative Results ...... 39 Individual question sets...... 39

Support recoded Mistreatment scores ...... 43

Mistreatment Level Scores...... 44

Inferential statistics ...... 47

Qualitative Results ...... 50 Question 1 ...... 50

Question 2 ...... 56

Question 3 ...... 57

Question 4 ...... 58

Question 5 ...... 59

Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion ...... 61

Analysis of Quantitative Research Questions ...... 63 Research Question 1 ...... 63

Research Question 2 ...... 64

Research Questions 3 to 7 ...... 66

Analysis of Qualitative Research Questions ...... 67 Research Question 8 ...... 67

Research Question 9 ...... 68

Research Question 10 ...... 70

Research Question 11 ...... 73

Research Questions 12 and 13 ...... 74

Triangulation of Quantitative and Qualitative Data ...... 76 Limitations of the Study ...... 78 Strengths of the Study ...... 80 Discussion of General Research Findings ...... 81 Recommendations for Further Action ...... 84 Conclusion ...... 86 References ...... 88

Appendix ...... 94

List of Tables

Table 1. Teacher Demographics………………………………………..…….……………...33, 34

Table 2. Grade Levels Represented……………………………………………………………..35

Table 3. Subject Area or Area of Specialization……………………………………….….……..35

Table 4. Percentage of Responses to Quantitative Support Questions (a)……………….……...40

Table 5. Percentage of Responses to Quantitative Mistreatment Questions (b)………………...41

Table 6. Mistreatment Themes from Qualitative Questions 1 and 2 Linked to Quantitative

Statements……...………………....………………………………………..………………...52, 53

Table 7. New Mistreatment Themes from Qualitative Questions 1 and 2…………………...54, 55

List of Figures

Figure 1. Micropolitical Leadership Matrix………………………………...…………..………..13

Figure 2. Scatter Plot of Principal Support versus Principal Mistreatment………...………..…..38

Figure 3. Comparison of Average Responses to Support and Recoded Mistreatment Behavior...42

Figure 4. Frequency of Support recoded Mistreatment Scores (SrM)……………………….…..44

Figure 5. A Comparison of Mistreatment Level Scores (MLS)……………………….………....46

vii

Dedication

To the memory of my parents,

Roger and Betty Burnside, whose love and words of encouragement stay with me to this day

and

To the memory of

Dr. Dennis Carlson,

whose passion for social justice was an inspiration to us all.

viii

Acknowledgements

I wish to express the deepest appreciation to my committee chair, Dr. Thomas S. Poetter, who took a chance on me. Without his guidance and expertise, this dissertation would not have been possible. I would also owe a debt of gratitude to Dr. Michael E. Dantley who helped me get back in the game. His belief in me and his spiritual teaching style was an inspiration to my work. Many thanks to the following:  Dr. Laurence Boggess who encouraged me to believe that I could write.  Dr. Sally Lloyd without whom the statistics of this study would have been unintelligible.  Dr. William Boone who kept me on task during the development of my survey.  My committee members who balanced scholarly input with constant empathy: Dr. Thomas S. Poetter, Dr. Dennis Carlson, Dr. Sally Lloyd, Dr. William Boone, Dr. Steven Thompson, Dr. Kathleen Knight Abowitz and Dr. Andrew Saultz.

To all my friends and family who helped, either with emotional support, technical

support, or both: you mean the world to me.

Amanda Cheatham Catherine Shackson, Sara Hayes, and Susan Bartow Carol Shulman, Judy Bernheim, and Marilyn Greeson Cheryl Immel Diane Proeschel, Jan Koontz, Mary Johnson, and Sandy Taulbee Emily Ryan Errol Huffman Garry and Patsy Burnside Judy, Larry, Jeff, and Marissa Adams Julie and Walter DeBrosse Kellie Pennington Mike Dreitzler Mike Voris Rachel Radina Rhonda Bohannon Roselyn Banda Sharon Ehas Yue Li

Chapter 1: Introduction Culture and leadership, when one examines them closely, are two sides of the same coin, and neither can really be understood by itself. In fact, there is a possibility— underemphasized in leadership research—that the only thing of real importance that leaders do is to create and manage culture and that the unique talent of leaders is their ability to work with culture. (Schein, 2010, p. 2) Teachers are highly influential factors in the lives of children within the school environment (Frymier & Houser, 2000; Wright, Horn & Sanders, 1997) and the case can be made that school principals are influential factors when considering teachers’ job satisfaction (Ma & MacMillan, 1999). Keeping these relationships in mind, what effect does the relationships between teachers and principals have on teachers’ relationships with students? If there are problems within the relationships of principals and teachers, does this affect the climate in classrooms? What effect do those relationships have on the larger frame of school climate? If the principal mistreats a teacher, what are the chances of increased incidents of bullying in the school as a whole? In a worst case scenario, if the principal is bullying teachers, does this result in a bullying culture in the school which affects the relationships among students? But first, keeping in mind that this is (hopefully) not a common occurrence and assuming that in any asymmetrical power relationship there is a chance of mistreatment, what is the percentage of principals who engage in such negative behaviors? The purpose of this study is to make an early examination of the under-researched topic of how often mistreatment of teachers by principals occurs in the State of Ohio, of the development of scales to measure the concepts of “principal support” and “principal mistreatment,” and of the necessity of future research into this topic which may have major effects on the climates and cultures within K-12 public schools. It is acknowledged that principals who are perceived as abusive may have a different narrative from that of teachers. However, the goal of this study is to uncover the pervasiveness of the problem from the perspective of teachers, as well as to set the stage for possible future research. The people in the school setting who can tell us the most about perceived mistreatment of teachers are teachers themselves.

A study by Jo and Joseph Blase (2002), and another by the Blases along with Fengning Du (2007), are the only two studies specifically focused on workplace mistreatment/abuse of public school teachers. They define school administrative mistreatment as “any behavior— verbal, nonverbal, and physical (excluding physical violence)—that, in the teacher’s perception, causes psychological-emotional, physical-physiological, personal, and/or professional harm to oneself” (Blase, Blase & Du, 2007, p. 265). They comment that in their research teachers use the term “abuse” interchangeably with the term “mistreatment.” Price Spratlen (1995) describes workplace mistreatment in the university setting as “behavior or situations—without sexual or racial connotations—which the recipient perceives to be unwelcome, unwanted, unreasonable, inappropriate, excessive, or a violation of human rights” (p. 279). Both descriptions of mistreatment describe a set of behaviors which serve to make the person uncomfortable to some degree, and both are defined by the person experiencing the treatment. The range or degree of these uncomfortable situations are not defined and may therefore range from minor to severe. Also, the same behaviors may not be perceived as mistreatment by different people since it depends on the recipient’s perspective. Blase, Blase and Du (2007) discuss several other words which may be used to describe mistreatment behaviors including abusive supervision, abusive disrespect, and workplace emotional abuse. Several other terms used by researchers place mistreatment behaviors in a continuum. Cortina (2008) describes general incivility as “low-intensity conduct that lacks a clear intent to harm but nevertheless violates social norms and injures targeted employees” (p. 55). Incivility would therefore place it at the lower end of the mistreatment scale where it is less visible and possibly not as easily witnessed as other forms of mistreatment such as bullying. Interestingly, Cortina (2008) opines that incivility in the workplace may represent a covert form of discrimination of oppressed groups who are protected from more visibly forms of discrimination by law. With the rise of taboos, policies, and laws prohibiting discrimination against specific social groups, blatant intentions and efforts to alienate women and minorities from organizational life are no longer tolerated. However, one can mask discrimination (even without realizing it) behind every day acts of incivility and still maintain an unbiased image. (p. 55)

On the other extreme, Leymann (1990) describes an extreme form of mistreatment which he calls mobbing or psychic terror. “The victim is subjected to a systematic stigmatizing” (p. 119) resulting in the inability of the person to find employment in his field. These terms represent the extremes of mistreatment in which the negative treatment may occur between any two people in a workplace. Namie (2003) describes this type of relational behavior in three levels according to the amount of disruption to the organization. Consider that workplace incivility, bullying and physical violence lie on a 10-point continuum of organizational disruption. Incivilities range from 1 to 3, while bullying covers mild to severe interference with the accomplishment of legitimate business interests, reflecting scores of 4 to 9. The highest score is reserved for battery and homicide which grind work completely to a halt. (p. 1) He also considers these three behaviors from the perspective of the individual affected in each scenario, resulting in mild harm in the case of incivilities, mild or severe harm in the case of bullying, and death in the case of physical violence. It is important at this juncture to consider the difference between the terms "mistreatment" and "bullying" since both terms will be used in this study. Mistreatment is a general term defined by the person experiencing it. Although mistreatment can occur between any two players in the school setting (student/student, staff/student, student/staff, and even staff/staff), only those situations with an asymmetric power relationship in which the abuse continues repeatedly over a period of time can be labeled bullying according to Olweus (1995). Namie (2003) defines workplace bullying as “deliberate, repeated and sufficiently severe as to harm the targeted person's health or economic status. Further, it is driven by perpetrators' need to control another individual, often undermining legitimate business interests in the process” (pp. 1- 2). Note that Namie’s (2003) definition, as it applies in the workplace, includes a conscious desire to bring harm to the victim and results in tangible injury. Both describe harm that is caused by repeated actions over time, usually by someone who has power over the other. Therefore, bullying situations create a more harmful scenario than mistreatment alone since the abuse occurs repeatedly by someone with more power whereas mistreatment, whether mild or severe, may only occur once. Also, whether or not a given situation represents a bullying scenario is independent of the victim’s perspective and may be identified by an outside observer.

Although the tendency for bullying may be suspected from the data collected here, this study will not be able to distinguish between workplace mistreatment and workplace bullying. Nevertheless, bullying will be considered as a possible explanation for some of the behaviors described due to the normative hierarchical structure of public schools. Due to the tendency of public schools to maintain a bureaucratic organizational structure with the principal at the top of the power pyramid (Hoy & Sweetland, 2001), as well as the increased pressure placed on the staff by the current educational reform movement, the setting seems ripe for both general workplace mistreatment and more serious bullying scenarios. By comparison, I theorize that workplaces which have developed empowered organizational structures may produce bullying administrators because of a more horizontal power structure. Envisioning schools with a more horizontal micropower structure might result in less bullying by administrators, and a better chance of developing school cultures which promote anti-bullying sentiment. By focusing on the teacher’s perception of mistreatment by principals, my research represents a tentative first step toward the larger goal of discovering the commonality of bullying by administrators in public schools and the resulting effects of these scenarios on student-to- student bullying and student achievement in the classroom. While “bullying” and “mistreatment” are distinct terms by definition, they are often used interchangeably in the literature. In this study I do my best to distinguish the use of the terms, and to use them accurately, but I will, on occasion, use them interchangeably. Since one of my major interests concerns school bullying, I do, in fact, often favor the term “bullying.” Estimates of bullied workers in the United States workplace vary from 38 to 90 percent (Glendinning, 2001). This happens in spite of laws in place for protection from status-based harassment or discrimination by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin (Yamada, 2000). Many do not see the necessity of a status-blind law because they have a difficult time believing that such a condition could exist in our workplaces, and that it would be even less likely in schools, which are often not thought of as workplaces. However, according to some reports, teachers are at high risk for workplace mistreatment (Blase, Blase & Du, 2007). What makes workplace bullying so difficult to research? “Bullying is nearly invisible. It is non-physical, and nearly always sub-lethal workplace violence” (Namie, 2003, p. 2). Workers who are mistreated by their bosses normally keep the information to themselves due to the shame

involved and since the form of violence is primarily psychological it can be made virtually invisible. Namie (2003) goes on to explain that the individualistic culture which defines our workplaces results in placing the blame on victims for their conditions even though the punitive treatment which they endure may not be contingent on any negative actions on their part. In addition, the capitalistic nature of both our businesses and schools results in a competitive mindset, with a resulting zero-sum game of winners and losers and supporting the normative conjecture that many of the victims are simply not strong enough to compete. However, such unexamined complications can sap the energy of workers and organizations, and it is arguably especially damaging in school settings. Teachers who are mistreated repeatedly by principals over time may be left unable to provide the best learning environment for students; may not be given a leadership voice in the organization; and may often be forced to leave their jobs or even quit teaching altogether in a profession where bonding with students is paramount. Therefore, this study seeks to discover how often teachers perceive mistreatment from their principals in a randomly selected sample. This introduction will be followed in Chapter 2 by a Literature Review and in Chapter 3 by a description of the methodology to be used in this research study. The methodology is important in explaining the perspective of the researcher in an effort to be transparent in not only the method of choosing the topic to be researched, but also the reason for the choice of method. This study will be informed by the theory of knowledge known as Deweyan Pragmatism which is uniquely suited to this particular study since it is based on the perspective of the persons who experienced the mistreatment. The results of the study will be provided in Chapter 4 and in Chapter 5 the results will be interpreted and conclusions will be formed.

Chapter 2: Literature Review They sometimes are called "bullies," "tyrants," or "jerks." However, regardless of how they are described (usually) out of earshot, bosses and others who inflict psychological abuse on their coworkers constitute one of the most common and serious problems facing employees in today's workplace. (Yamada, 2000, p. 477) This literature review will focus on the research that has brought attention to the problem of workplace mistreatment as well as the factors which affect this phenomenon. Workplace settings, in general, will be examined at length, followed by a complete overview of the few research articles specifically focused on schools as workplaces in the United States. Although bosses are not the only perpetrators of negative actions in places of employment, including schools, this discussion will focus on the specific phenomenon of workers who are mistreated by supervisors and more specifically in teacher-principal relationships.

The Researchers By way of a short overview of workplace abuse, the primary researchers involved in workplace mistreatment will first be mentioned. Heinz Leymann (1990), a German psychiatrist, established the first Work Trauma clinic in Sweden in the 1980s and documented the “psychological terrorization” which resulted from what he termed “mobbing,” a systematic harassment of an employee by management or other employees which results in an inability of the victim to find work in his or her chosen profession. Andrea Adams, a British journalist, first applied the term “bullying” to such situations in the workplace (Namie, 2003). Drs. Ruth and Gary Namie, co-founders of the website entitled, “Workplace Bullying Institute,” popularized the term “workplace bullying” in the U.S. in 1998. Their website provides support for victims, business organizations and media, including research articles and links to information about legislation (Namie & Namie, 2007). David Yamada, a law professor at Suffolk University in Boston, is active in research aimed at placing the worker mistreatment topic in the context of the legal community (Namie, 2003). Finally, the study by Drs. Jo Blase and Joseph Blase in 2002, and their second completed with Fengning Du (2007), have provided the two research studies which focus on the mistreatment of public school teachers.

Principal mistreatment of teachers is surely a dark topic, one that has undoubtedly been a part of the legacy of public education in the United States for some time; it is also a problem for which there exists literally no research base. (Blase & Blase, 2003b, p. 2)

Workplace Bullying: Factors There are many similarities between the common schoolyard bullying situation and workplace bullying (Harvey, Heames, Richey, & Leonard, 2006) and therefore it may be recognized that in both situations there are three categories of actors: the bully, the victim, and the on-lookers. Dan Olweus, often referred to as the father of school bullying research (Smith, Pepler & Rigby, 2004), defines school student-to-student bullying as an exposure “repeatedly and over time, to negative actions on the part of one or more other students” (Olweus, 1994, p. 1173). Such an action is an intentional act of injury, such as physical contact, words, gestures or exclusion from a group, causing discomfort upon another individual. Namie (2003), a prominent researcher of general workplace abuse in the United States, defines employee bullying as “‘status-blind’ interpersonal hostility that is deliberate, repeated and sufficiently severe as to harm the targeted person's health or economic status” (p. 1). It is usually expressed as same-sex harassment which is easily ignored by employer policies and laws. Just as in schoolyard bullying, the action is intentional and “unilaterally controlled by the perpetrator” (Namie, 2007, p. 43). Namie uses the term “bully” or “bullying supervisor” for the boss who commits uncivil behavior in the workplace and prefers the label “target” to refer to the employee in question.

The bully boss. Why do bosses become bullies? Vega and Comer (2005) note that the United States has a large “power distance,” defined as a higher normative acceptance of the hierarchical structure of organizations, a higher expectation of being told what to do on the part of employees, and more privileges for managers. Also, this large power distance normalizes a “might makes right” philosophy, placing emphases on the role of the manager who is given free rein to use force to get the job done (Vega & Comer, 2005). Thus, those organizations with a large power difference and which promote autonomy for the boss may set the stage for workplace mistreatment. In the words of Andrea Adams, as reported by Beasley and Rayner (1997), “A good deal of bullying is based on personal envy” (p. 178) and is due in many cases to the perception of the

boss that he or she does not have the useful or admirable skills or qualities of the victim. Though many times irrational, such a person may be considered a threat to the bully’s position, authority, or legitimacy. By undermining the target’s ability to take care of business in the office or classroom through exclusion, work overload, impossible time requirements, intimidation tactics, or embarrassment, the result is less self-assurance on the part of the victim which may eventually affect his or her ability to perform on the job (Beasley & Rayner, 1997). This may in turn diminish the overall perception of the target’s legitimacy by the rest of the organization. From the perspective of the victim, the top four explanations for being targeted include refusing to be submissive, having more skill at technical jobs, being more popular with other employees, and engaging in whistle blowing activities (Namie, 2007). What makes the situation more vexing is that many times the supervisor who is responsible for the bullying will approach the human resource department, or in the case of schools the superintendent, before the target has a chance to complain (Namie, 2007). This undermines the employee’s ability to receive support because perceptions are framed in the minds of others before the complaint is filed. Namie (2007) further suggests that “the bully aims to make HR an accomplice in the constructive discharge of the targeted employee” (p. 44). By the time the victim finds the courage to approach those who may be able to ameliorate the situation, it is too late: those in control have already begun to label him or her as a troublemaker. In the specific case of schools, Blase and Blase (2003b) organized the bullying behaviors of principals into three levels: indirect or moderate behaviors, direct or escalating behaviors, and direct or severe behaviors. The first level includes discounting teachers’ needs, isolating behaviors, and withholding resources. As the behavior escalates to level two, the principal may sabotage resource materials as well as criticize the teacher both publically and privately. Level 3 actions may include explosive and nasty behavior, unwarranted reprimands, unfair evaluations, and forcing teachers out of their jobs. Interestingly, in their study they found that principals were unaware that they were causing damage to the teachers by doing such things as not investigating issues before the confrontation. When teachers attempted to speak to the principal about the problem, principals expressed denial, followed then by placing blame on the teacher along with further reprisals.

The target. As tolerance for bullying expands within an individual, a cycle of demoralization begins; the victim may feel incompetent to combat or even confront the bully. As the victim becomes less and less confident, the bully pushes more and more. This cycle often continues until the victim gives up and resigns. (Vega & Comer, 2005, pp. 105-106) Workplace trauma can be devastating to the targets. “This abuse of power or position can cause such chronic stress and anxiety that people gradually lose belief in themselves, suffering physical ill health and mental distress as a result” (Vega & Comer, 2005, p. 103). Stress related health effects due to workplace incivility include severe anxiety, disrupted sleep patterns, depression, panic attacks, and a simple lack of concentration (Namie, 2003). Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), often associated with serious psychological impairment experienced by soldiers returning from war, has been diagnosed in mistreated workers and it has been estimated that ten percent of suicides in Sweden could be traced to workplace traumatization (Namie, 2003). Though destructive aggression on the part of the perpetrator carries little risk, the targets of bullying carry a 70 percent risk of losing their jobs, either voluntarily or involuntarily. Only 13 percent of perpetrators receive punitive damages (Namie, 2003). Blase and Blase (2003b) reported several negative effects on teachers who became targets of principal mistreatment including shock and disorientation, humiliation, injured self-confidence, a feeling of being trapped, fear or anger, corruption and guilt, and less motivation, which might lead to a lack of creativity and overall job underperformance. There is some disagreement in the literature concerning the effect of gender on the number of victims of workplace mistreatment. Vega and Comer (2005) report that targets are not easily described by gender, although women more readily report abuse than do men. However, Namie (2003) reports that 80 percent of bullied people are female. Interestingly, when the target is a woman, she is bullied by another woman 63 percent of the time whereas men are bullied by men in 62 percent of the cases, thus the victim is left unable to take advantage of discrimination and harassment laws.

The on-lookers. The boss who bullies affects not only the target, but the entire organization. When other employees witness this behavior, the possible result is reduced risk- taking and less innovation at best, and terror at worst. As a result, actions may only be taken

which are known to be acceptable to the boss, and rewards may be expected only for submission. “Not only does this management style stifle creativity, it decreases employee joie de vivre in the work itself” (Glendinning, 2001, p. 274). The fear of becoming the target of the bully boss results in a conspiracy of silence, especially given the possibility of job loss (Beasley & Rayner, 1997). The result is that co-workers stay quiet, ignoring the situation and thus giving no support to the target, who becomes increasingly isolated. The public school as an environment presents a special condition due to several factors, including the lack of a human resource department, the isolation of teachers due to the compartmentalized nature of school buildings, and the tendency toward authoritarian leadership. Also, as Parsons (2005) noted, “If adult bullying stains a school, wiping out student bullying is an uphill battle” (p. 59). Logically, there may be an increased risk for student-student bullying when a bullying culture is permitted and sustained by those whose job it is to protect and guide those same students.

Teacher Mistreatment “No empirical studies have systematically examined the ‘dark side’ of school leadership, in particular principal mistreatment/abuse of teachers, and the extremely harmful consequences such forms of leadership have on life in schools” (Blase & Blase, 2002, p. 671). In a research study by Joseph Blase and Jo Blase (2002), using symbolic interactionism as the theoretical framework, empirical data were collected qualitatively with the goal of defining the behavior which teachers considered abusive and to determine the effects of this abuse. A total of 50 teachers, whose names were collected by use of a snowball sampling technique and who had experienced both significant and long-term (6 months to 9 years) mistreatment by the school principal, were contacted by telephone several times and asked open-ended questions. The results indicated that abusive principals were behaviorally similar to abusive bosses. In general, there were few opportunities for teachers to resolve the problem, and there was “substantial damage to teachers psychologically/emotionally and physically/physiologically, to classroom instruction, to relationships with colleagues, and to school wide decision making” (p. 716). Furthermore, teachers felt trapped in their job, unable to leave for a variety of reasons such as policies which prohibited transfers, the chance of damaging letters of reference, and the psychological effects of long-term abuse including depression. Veteran teachers were profiled as

accomplished, exceptional, and dedicated, as well as frequently recognized for their service at the school, district, and state levels. Early responses to principal mistreatment (e.g., shock, disorientation, confusion, humiliation, self-doubt, and lowered self-esteem) seem to increase the teachers’ vulnerability to additional mistreatment by an abusive principal by reducing her or his ability to cope with such mistreatment. These responses, in conjunction with the cumulative effects of long-term stress, tend to result in chronic fear and depression. (p. 716) In their second research study, the Blases, teaming with Fengning Du (2007), continued their research by developing a survey to be distributed on the website for the National Association for the Prevention of Teacher Abuse (www.endteacherabuse.org). Based on the empirical literature of general workplace mistreatment in both for-profit and nonprofit organizations, the survey entitled The Principal Mistreatment/Abuse Inventory (PMAI) focused on the effect, intensity, duration, and frequency of behaviors; the coping behaviors of targeted individuals; and other factors, that all contributed to the mistreatment from the point of view of the victim. A total of 172 teachers who self-reported abuse by the school principal responded to the online request for volunteers by filling out the questionnaire. The results showed that the frequency of mistreatment behaviors in school is similar to that in other workplaces. The researchers also found that passive strategies (such as avoiding the problem, rationalizing the principal’s behavior, or talking with others) to be the most common behaviors chosen to help resolve the conflict and that half of the teachers would like to leave teaching altogether because of the mistreatment. Teaching was substantively undermined according to 80% of respondents. Teachers reported that their positive knowledge and skills, creativity, popularity with students, parents, and/or colleagues, and speaking up about topics that were threatening to the principal (such as by disagreeing with administrative policies or advocating on behalf of a student) resulted in mistreatment. “Principal mistreatment significantly damaged teachers affectively, cognitively, behaviorally, and physically, and such mistreatment also resulted in considerable adverse effects on classroom teaching” (Blase, Blase & Du, 2007, p. 269). Berkovich and Eyal (2015) presented a narrative literature review on the emotional side of educational leadership from 1992 to 2012. Their research was specifically focused on peer- refereed articles which included the key words “affective” and “educational leader” and then

excluded those which were not empirical in nature. They describe three themes that emerged in the literature, including “Leaders’ behavior and their effects on followers’ emotions” (p. 134). Of the 10 articles which met their criteria, eight of the articles they placed under the sub-theme of “relationship-oriented behaviors” and two under the sub-theme of “mistreatment behaviors.” Those two studies were the two studies by Blase and Blase (2003b) and by Blase, Blase, and Du (2007). They explain that emotions are important for understanding educational leaders because they affect the resulting emotions of those with whom they interact. The emotions of followers are negative when unfavorable behaviors are displayed, and positive when favorable leadership behaviors are displayed. They found that the two articles on mistreatment “attest to the harmful effects of principals’ abusive behaviors on teachers’ emotions” (pp. 144-145).

The Micropolitics of Educational Leadership Micropolitics is the process by which members of an organization exercise power, a major consideration when discussing principal-teacher relationships which are predicated on control. Principals yield power while leading and teachers need to cope with the leadership style as exhibited by the principal. Blase and Anderson (1995) provide a compelling framework for understanding leadership from the perspective of teachers by framing it from a micropolitical position. They describe two variables which are crucial to understanding power relationships in schools. Leadership Style describes the political strategy of the principal as either open or closed according to whether the school administrator is willing to share power. Power relations are either in the bureaucratic tradition (power over), human relations tradition (power through) or in a democracy (power with). Leadership Approaches which are based on larger goals may be defined by exchange relationships (transactional) or concerned with end values (transformative). Whereas transactional relationships rely on a “kind of marketplace school culture in which material, psychic (e.g. praise) and symbolic (e.g. larger office) goods are exchanged” (p. 16), a transformative leader has a larger vision in mind. A micropolitical leadership matrix may be produced using leadership approaches and leadership style as the two axes (see Figure 1) resulting in four types of leadership. Authoritarian leaders work from a closed, transactional perspective. “Principals in such schools attempt to avoid, disable or ignore teachers, suppress dialogue, and exercise control through formal structures and the enforcement of policies and rules” (Blase & Anderson, 1995,

p. 17). Adversarial leaders are also closed in their leadership style; however, they have a more transformative approach since they have strong ideological commitments. This puts them at odds with the staff who are given no power in the organization. Facilitative leaders are open to the democratic process, but they maintain a transactional relationship with teachers. This is a common leadership style in the human resource tradition in that power may be shared, but with no real commitment to a higher moral stand. Democratic/Empowering leaders are democratic in decision making and with “its fundamental concern with goals of equity and justice within educational institutions and in the broader communities” (Blase & Anderson, 1995, p. 21). Keeping in mind that these are pure conceptual models and not rigid types, they are of use in analyzing the political landscape of school leadership and will be considered in light of the data collected for this study.

Figure 1. Micropolitical Leadership Matrix

The Micropolitical Leadership Matrix provides a useful framework for ameliorating the problem of mistreatment behaviors because it is based on empirical evidence collected from the teachers themselves. Framing the behaviors witnessed by leaders is difficult if the future teacher has never experienced the micropolitics of school life, and future administrators can more pragmatically consider, incorporate, and evaluate actions based on this lens. This will be discussed further in Chapter 5.

Laws and Policies Initiatives to implement workplace bullying laws are slow to gain support in the United States, whereas European countries, such as The United Kingdom and Sweden, are leaders in legislative attempts focused on diminishing the negative effects of working under a boss who mistreats employees. However, this is changing in the U.S. due in part to the work of several researchers who are centering their policy studies on methods of reducing the negative effects of the unethical treatment of workers on individuals and organizations. The Healthy Workplace Bill (HWB), a product of the Healthy Workplace Campaign led by Gary Namie, was first drafted by David Yamada in 2001. In part, the HWB defines an “abusive work environment, requires proof of resulting health concerns by a licensed professional, plugs the gap in current civil rights protections, provides legal redress for targets, seeks restoration of lost wages, and compels employers to make sure it doesn’t happen again” (The Healthy Workplace Campaign, 2012). Since 2001 the bill has been presented in 21 states, and “has successfully passed committee votes in Illinois, Washington, New York, and Connecticut; passed house floor votes in New York for a study-only bill; and passed both houses in Illinois as a Joint Resolution, establishing funding a 1-year Task Force on Workplace Bullying” (The Healthy Workplace Campaign, 2012), and has passed the Senates in New York and Illinois. Yamada (2008) believes that beyond workplace legislation, the onus is on the leader to make changes which assure that ethical concerns are always foremost in the collective minds of the organization. He goes on to state that leaders who send a message that bullying is unacceptable and who establish an open culture based on mutual respect will go a long way toward reducing the chances of a bullying situation. Such a leader is socially intelligent, expressing qualities such as empathy and concern (Yamada, 2008). Practices that preclude such

behavior should be a part of organizational policy, and that policy should be presented in employee education programs. Other than general suggestions for organizations to be aware of the problem and to initiate programs to reduce the chance of bullying situations, there is very little practical advice given in the literature to relieve the stress placed on targets of mistreatment in the workplace. One notable exception is the report by Vega and Comer (2005) of a “peer listening scheme,” which was implemented by Britain’s post office, the Royal Mail. Peer listeners were trained as experts who could empathize with those who had been targeted and in doing so the top management sent a signal that bullying would not be tolerated. The suggestion is made that even without such an extensive program an organization could designate a helper, such as an ombudsman or human resource officer, who would walk the victim through the process of getting support. In the school setting, such an appointment would need to be legislated since most school districts have small administrative staffs with already overworked employees. If a school principal takes the role of a bully boss, the superintendent may ignore the situation as discussed earlier and therefore such a program might not be implemented. Thus legislative action is paramount to solving the problem.

Importance of This Study Bullying steals a person's self-esteem; it undermines self-confidence, it leads to sleeplessness, to many trips to the surgery for stress-related conditions, to panic attacks and most particularly to depression. Suicidal thoughts sometimes lead to action. (Beasley & Rayner, 1997, p. 178) Although this quote was meant to describe bullying in a general work environment, it could just as easily describe the devastating condition of student-student bullying in our schools. Recently, the topic of schoolyard bullying has entered the national conversation in part due to suicides of young people who were reported to have been harassed at school. What is the possibility that the schools which these youths attended are harboring a culture of bullying in general? The educational research community has remained passive for too long, exacerbating the abuse which goes unreported, unexamined, and unacknowledged. School reform efforts must begin to unpack the culture of bullying in our schools as well as the academic culture because they go hand in hand. Empirical evidence in this field is sorely lacking and desperately needed

to restore civility as an expected norm in our schools. The research into principal mistreatment behaviors toward teachers is an early first step toward discovering the prevalence of workplace bullying in our schools. As Blase and Blase (2002) reported, the teachers they contacted “strongly believed that the problem of principal mistreatment should be made public and, as one put it, ‘This study might crack open the door of hope and eventually change the world of education’” (p. 682).

Chapter 3: Methodology and Methods If you wish to find out what subjective, objective, physical, mental, cosmic, psychic, cause, substance, purpose, activity, evil, being, quantity—any philosophic term, in short—means, go to experience and see what it is experienced as. (Dewey, 1905, p. 399) This exploratory study is best described as a use of Deweyan pragmatic discourse to examine the relationships between teachers and principals in the State of Ohio. The focus will be on current and past experiences from the teachers’ points of view. Included in this section will be a discussion of Deweyan pragmatism as it relates to this study, followed by sections which focus on methods, research ethics, and statistical analysis.

Deweyan Pragmatism Methodology…depends on ontological and epistemological assumptions about the nature of reality and the best ways of gaining access to that reality, so that knowledge about it can be formulated. (House, 1994, p. 15) House’s (1994) statement assumes a duality of mind and reality such “that the distinction between mind and matter, and between ‘inside’ and ‘outside,’ is an original and inevitable distinction, a given for all philosophy” (Biesta & Burbules, 2003, p. 9). In comparison, Dewey’s notion of reality assumes continuity between the two such that they cannot be separated. His goal was not to unite the res cogitans (consciousness) with the res extensa (the “stuff” of matter), also described as the “sphere of knowing and the sphere of action” (p. 84), but rather to announce that they were never separate to begin with. We can move beyond the concept of epistemology in Dewey’s philosophy since there is no need to question how knowledge is obtained; knowledge is not of the mind, but it is a part of the entire process of acting in the world which he and Bentley (1949) described in detail as “transactionalism,” which can be defined as the interaction of an organism with its environment. This coordinated organism-action process which underlies Dewey’s philosophy (Vanderstraeten, 2002), is mediated by culture. The most important product of culture, according to Dewey, is language (Biesta & Burbules, 2003) which is of major significance in this study. As a naturalistic philosopher who avoided supernatural explanations for a more organic approach, for Dewey life is a process of habits which may or may not lead to growth of the individual. Everything is focused on personal experience, and educational growth is defined as a

process of trial and error, a form of inquiry, that must lead to more questions and more inquiry. Children cannot be spoon fed information; Dewey would eschew the “banking concept of education” as did Paulo Freire (2009), who defined it as the process of teachers depositing information into the minds of students who must accept, memorize, and be able to parrot the words onto a test. Instead, in order to gain knowledge, there must be a temporal process of action: making changes, observing the results, experiencing the consequences, and reflecting on the results of said actions (Biesta & Burbules, 2003). Since we are acculturated organisms, the products and interactions of human culture, especially language, are an important part of this transaction. “Words are ‘sound events’ that, through a process of experimental learning, have become ‘objects’—events with meaning” (p. 49). Therefore, the words that pass between us are objects which Dewey would look at as tools to be used as part of a transactional experience. Dewey’s concept of a transactional realism does admit to knowledge construction. However, since it is contextual to the organism interfacing with the environment, it might better be termed transactional constructivism based on both human construction and what we think of as reality. Once again, we see that in Dewey’s world one cannot separate the objective and subjective. Dewey gives an example of how empirical input, with experience, can change our perspective of reality. For example, I start and am flustered by a noise heard. Empirically, that noise is fearsome; it really is, not merely phenomenally or subjectively so. That is what it is experienced as being. But, when I experience the noise as a known thing, I find it to be innocent of harm. It is the tapping of a shade against the window, owing to movements of the wind. The experience has changed; that is, the thing experienced has changed—not that an unreality has given place to a reality, nor that some transcendental (unexperienced) Reality has changed, not that truth has changed, but just and only the concrete reality experienced has changed. I now feel ashamed of my fright; and the noise as fearsome is changed to noise as a wind-curtain fact, and hence practically indifferent to my welfare. This is a change of experienced reality effected through the medium of cognition. The content of the latter experience cognitively regarded is doubtless truer than the content of the earlier; but it is in no sense more real. (Dewey, 1905, p. 395) Thus, from a Deweyan perspective, the words of teachers who experience mistreatment at the hands of their principal must be accepted at face value as descriptions of experienced reality.

The example Dewey (1905) gives for an example of multiple realities is that of a horse. If a horse trader, a family man, a paleontologist, and a zoologist discuss what a horse “is,” a multiple set of realities will be envisioned. One cannot assume that the horse trader gives a more “real” account of a horse than a family man. There will be differences and similarities in their descriptions, “and the principle varies not a whit if we bring in the psychologist’s horse, the logician’s horse or the metaphysician’s horse” (p. 394). Similarly, if one teacher describes the realities of working with a principal as intolerable due to mistreatment, and another describes the realities of working with the same principal as stressful but not inappropriate, both teachers are, in Dewey’s estimation, speaking of a real experience; each has his or her own reality based on experiences with the principal. All that is needed, “is to find out what sort of an experience knowing is—or, concretely how things are experienced when they are experienced as known things” (p. 394). This research study is an early attempt to discover how common such empirical realities are for public school teachers in the State of Ohio, as well as to learn more about their experiences. As described by Dewey (1905), the nub of the question is, what sort of experience is meant or indicated: a concrete and determinate experience, varying, when it varies, in specific real elements, and agreeing, when it agrees, in specific real elements, so that we have a contrast, not between a Reality, and various approximations to, or phenomenal representations of Reality, but between different reals of experience. (p. 394)

Deweyan pragmatism as a research discourse. “Dewey…stressed the significance of the experimental method of modern science as a model of human problem solving and the acquisition of knowledge” (Biesta & Burbules, 2003, p. 5). Phillips and Burbules (2000) opine that “Postpositivistic philosophy of science is the theoretical framework that offers the best hope for achieving Dewey’s goal” (p. 4), which was defined not by a belief in an absolute truth or knowledge, but instead a search for warranted assertability. Thus, educational research should be a search for beliefs that are warranted—beliefs that can be confidently acted upon because of their strong support in the research community by what Dewey describes as “competent and controlled inquiry” (Dewey, 1998a, p. 161). The goal is to find a method of finding useful beliefs which can move research in education forward by identifying warranted assertions.

Assertions are always only warranted in relation to concrete inquiries. Whether they retain their value in other inquiries is something that cannot be known beforehand, but which has to be established again and again in every new inquiry. (Phillips & Burbules, 2000, p. 67). Phillips and Burbules (2000) go on to claim that Dewey’s concept of taking a problem and turning it into a warranted assertion can be accomplished by anyone, but it also can be a part of a systematic inquiry by those who make it their profession, such as researchers or scientists. “Dewey presented knowledge—scientific knowledge, knowledge that has been produced by educational research(ers)—as an instrument that can help us to find out what the meaning of our immediate (problematic) experience is or might be” (p. 88) so that coordinated action may be applied toward resolution. From Dewey’s (1903) perspective, however, the scientific method is simply that: a method. He does not propose that it should hold a position of universal primacy, but that the investigative process of science should “be interpreted in the sense of the manufacturing and employing of intellectual tools for the express purpose of facilitating our individual experiences” (pp. 119-120). And although Dewey did not develop a specific program which would guide educational research, his philosophical view would demand that it be undergirded by a transactional framework in which knowledge is gained by a specific process which by definition must include human action in a practical context. “Experience for Dewey was simply what happened when human beings actively participated in transactions with other natural existences. It was not something we have by being passive positivistic spectators of nature” (Garrison, 1994, p. 9). Some might argue that a quantitative study with generalizable results does not fit into the pragmatic discourse due to ontological and epistemological conflicts. For example, Biesta and Burbules (2003) describe pragmatic research as follows: “When a process of inquiry results in a warranted assertion, this assertion is not a description about how the world out there is, but is always a description of a relationship between our actions and their consequences” (p. 71). They go on to state that this understanding conflicts with the basic ontological understandings of postpositivist research, defined here as a belief in one reality only within certain probabilities (Mertens, 1998) since the pragmatic philosophy does not align with the standard belief in an external reality and an epistemic focus on the senses. On the other hand, Phillips and Burbules

(2000) do envision postpositivist educational research as a method to determine warranted assertions, a term Dewey preferred over the words belief and knowledge. However, referring to postpositivist research, they state that, “Accepting this pursuit of knowledge does not necessitate a commitment to a claim of ‘absolute truth’ or its attainability” (p. 3). Noting the inconsistency of Dewey’s dogmatic beliefs in the scientific method with his non-foundational description of how knowledge is gained, Fott (1991) points out that nonetheless “at bottom his metaphysics rests…on the dogmatic conviction that the experimental method is the method of successful inquiry” (p. 39). Therefore, this study is best described as a pragmatic study which does not attempt to investigate one reality (postpositivism), nor evaluate actions (a purist definition of pragmatic research), but instead investigates experiences, which Dewey called the “transactions of living organisms and their environment” (Biesta & Burbules, 2003 p. 28) as recounted by teachers whose lives are directly affected by the occurrences of principal mistreatment. Due to the nature of the main research question which aims at a statistical generalization for the practical goal of providing the description of a problem that might affect legislation, data will be collected both quantitatively and qualitatively. This research may be considered a step in Dewey’s concept of the reflective process, “a careful survey (examination, inspection, exploration, analysis) of all attainable consideration which will define and clarify the problem in hand” (Dewey, 1916b, p. 175) which may be followed by a hypothesis and a consequent stand in the form of a plan of action to be evaluated in future research, in whatever form that might take.

The current study. Some researchers believe that pragmatism, if it may be considered as a research discourse, must be by definition an interpretive venture to investigate the actions of participants, since warranted assertions (truths) are based on reflections (thinking) after actions are taken to resolve a problematic situation. Dewey’s term for any social exchange which occurs between teacher and principal would simply be an event; neither party would be right or wrong since truth comes only after action. Therefore, this study will not in a Deweyan sense produce knowledge (Fenstermacher & Sanger, 1998). It will instead represent an early step toward the process of gaining knowledge by collecting similar empirical experiences in preparation for future action. Biesta and Burbules (2003) make note of the sequential nature of Dewey’s process of inquiry which starts with the acknowledgement of a problem, followed by an attempt to learn more about the problem, and which must result in future suggestions for solutions, and

experimentation (actions to resolve the problem). Therefore, my research represents an attempt to learn more about the problem so that future action may be considered and employed. “Deferred action is present exploratory action” (Dewey, 1929a, p. 223) It should be noted that since the research methodology focus is on Dewey’s Pragmatism, the use of inferential statistics will be used to answer the research questions without an in-depth attempt to define the concept of “mistreatment” in any quantifiable way. In other words, there will be no attempt to define the specific constructs underlying the general term, which might happen in a logical positivist study. Mistreatment is defined according to the perspective of the teacher, and would vary according to the experiences that the teacher has undergone to that point in time. In this case, the survey will depend on the experiences of past teachers in an attempt to find commonality between the teachers who represent the sample. This perspective, in my opinion, reflects the truly democratic vision of John Dewey who would respect the standpoint of each individual participant. The aim of the study is to gain more information about the problem rather than focusing on specific attempts at resolving problems in specific educational settings. It also does not aim at encouraging interaction between researcher and participants, nor does it use action research or other purely qualitative methods which might be expected of such a pragmatic research project (Allender, 1986). It does, on the other hand, represent an early step in the collection of information which may result in future actions to create more human working conditions for teachers and possibly more effective classroom experiences for students. Pragmatically, it might be considered an attempt to uncover how often public school teachers run into “hard and painful stones” as a step in the process of developing a hypothesis for alleviating the problem: To run against a hard and painful stone is not of itself, I should say, an act of knowing; but if running into a hard and painful thing is an outcome predicted after inspection of data and elaboration of a hypothesis, then the hardness and the painful bruise which define the thing as a stone also constitute it emphatically an object of knowledge. (Dewey, 1916a, p. 15) The “warranted assertability” that I strive to attain in this study is a list of principal behaviors experienced by in-service teachers sampled for this study which come close to “something like truth; that is, it approximates the traditional notion of truth” (Noddings, 1995, p. 31). Such a

notion of “truth” will evolve as new studies are completed and new information is incorporated into the old. Another concept of Dewey’s which is useful to this study is that of the principle of continuity of experience which “means that every experience both takes up something from those which have gone before and modifies in some way the quality of those which come after” (Dewey, 1998a, p. 27). Growth is given as an example of this continuity, and only when this leads to more growth can this be considered growing. Thus, using Dewey’s pragmatism as a part of a research project must include the past, the present, and the future. This might lead us to consider that there are at least two ways to think about Dewey’s philosophy as it relates to educational research. On the one hand, if you want to apply his method of inquiry to the participants of your study, then you would need to consider the life transactions (hypothesis to action) of each person as they correlate with the topic of your study. Alternatively, if you instead apply Dewey’s philosophy to the researcher, then the process of researching becomes a form of inquiry. Since the knowledge gained is a very personal and evolving process according to Dewey, one research project may be a part of the lifelong goal of gaining knowledge as it relates to the practical growth of the researcher which may then be shared with others for the co- construction of knowledge. The latter perspective is that which will be honored in this study. At this point then it is necessary to consider my own personal reasons for choosing this topic of research in consideration of the principal of continuity of experience. As a retired educator, having experienced many years of classroom teaching and even more years as a guidance counselor in a public school setting, I came to the admittedly arbitrary conclusion that next to teacher-student relationships, the most important relationships in the system are the principal-teacher relationships. No matter how prepared, effective, or caring the educator, if the principal-teacher relationship was perceived as negative, given the resulting negative impact on the teacher, logically the process of educating children must be disrupted to some degree. Over the course of my career, I had worked with more than one principal whose actions made me uncomfortable in my job at best and, at worst, resulted in a major panic attack that made simply being in the school difficult. I have experienced working with principals who demanded personal meetings during my lunch time, gossiped and lied about me to other staff members, and tossed away my personal and work related items which I subsequently retrieved from the trash. I have experienced slamming doors, intentional embarrassment at meetings, the

withholding of information necessary for the successful fulfillment of my job duties, impossible workloads, and being forced to stay in a small room while being interrogated even though they knew I was having a panic attack. I loved working with children, and I loved every other part of my job; however, the administration made me so uncomfortable that I had to leave much earlier than I desired. It is because of such concerns that I chose to continue my education after reading a book written by Jo and Joseph Blase (2003a) entitled Breaking the Silence: Overcoming the Problem of Principal Mistreatment of Teachers which helped me through difficult times as I encountered problematic situations in the workplace in regards to my perceptions of workplace mistreatment. For this reason, the survey for this study was adapted from a section of the survey they used for their most recent study. I wish to know more about the problem as well as how often other teachers in the State of Ohio experience mistreatment at the hands of their principals.

Methods When we are trying to make out the nature of a confused and unfamiliar object, we perform various acts with a view to establishing a new relationship to it, such as will bring to light qualities which will aid in understanding it. We turn it over, bring it into a better light, rattle and shake it, thump, push and press it, and so on. (Dewey, 1929a, p. 87) Although research studies on workplace mistreatment have increased internationally over the last several decades, studies in the United States have been slow to follow. Research specifically focused on schools has been even slower to accumulate, with only two national studies reported (Blase, Blase & Du, 2007). These studies were exploratory, based on non- probability samples, which was a necessary early step in the process of itemizing principal actions which could be interpreted as mistreatment by teachers. My study may be considered descriptive in nature, based on a probability sample, which will aim to make statistical assertions about the experience of K-12 teachers in the State of Ohio. The decision was made to focus on one state because the majority of legislative decisions which focus on education and which may affect the school as a workplace occur at the state level. Also, the best chance for enacting healthy workplace legislation is at the state level. Information gained in this study will provide cross-sectional evidence of the pervasiveness of such scenarios as a next step toward the goal of

developing a positive, supportive, and affirming workplace for all of those who work in public education. Specifically, this study aims to answer the following research questions:  How frequently is principal mistreatment reported by teachers during one academic school year (2012-2013)?  How severe is the mistreatment which is reported during one academic school year?  Are demographic subgroups of teachers affected differently by principal mistreatment behaviors?  Do other teacher characteristics (union affiliation, marital status, degree attainment, years of experience and area of specialization) predict principal mistreatment behaviors?  What effects do contextual considerations including school size, school level, and school district setting have on reports of principal mistreatment?  How do the demographics of teachers and demographics of principals with whom they work interact regarding principal mistreatment?  What role do discrimination statutes play in protecting teachers from principal mistreatment based on gender?  How do teachers further describe their relationship experiences with principals, both past and present?  Do teachers witness the mistreatment of other teachers?  Do teachers describe harm to their health due to mistreatment at the hand of current or past principals?  Do teachers see a connection between student-to-student bullying and the culture of the school as influenced by the principal-to-teacher relationship?  How has the relationship affected the teacher’s sense of effectiveness?  How has the relationship affected the teacher’s sense of job satisfaction?

Research study ethics. Whenever a participant is asked to report on experiences with another person at work, there is an inherent risk. That risk is even greater when the person being evaluated in the study has the power to hire and fire. With this in mind, safeguards for this study included the following:  Participants were directed to complete the questionnaire at a site other than the workplace. 25

 The electronic consent form was included at the beginning of the Qualtrics survey and stated that the data collected will be used for research.  Information about the survey was minimal in the original email with a more direct explanation given on the survey itself so that there was no need for deception.  Risks to the participants were made clear at the start of the survey.  Every effort was made to collect information in such a manner that the participants could not be reasonably identified through the survey collection nor by any information collected on the survey. Using Qualtrics “Anonymize Response” choice, all panel information and IP addresses were removed permanently. This was applied to all responses and cannot be undone. Also, in the open ended questions, respondents were warned that they should not give personal identifying information.  Both in the original email and the survey the participants were notified that they have the choice of not answering any survey question and they may withdraw from the study at any time.  Participants were notified that Qualtrics utilizes a firewall protected server and it was stated which members of the research team would have access to the data.  Information collected was stored in the Qualtrics website.  Survey results, always reported in aggregate, will be available to any participant who wishes to see it. Certification was received from the Miami University Research Compliance office, constituting an approved, exempted review by the Institutional Review Board.

Population. The focus of this project is on the unit of study defined as principal/teacher relationships from the perspective of teachers in the state of Ohio. The target population, defined as the entire group of public school teachers, was derived from Ohio Department of Education (ODE) website data for public K-12 schools including city, exempted village, and local school districts. The population did not include educational service centers, joint vocational schools, community schools, nor state supported special schools. Also, small schools, defined as those having less than 10 teachers, were not included and attempts were made to determine the number of teachers employed in schools which do not list this information in the ODE website. Only high schools, junior high schools, middle schools, and elementary schools, or combinations

thereof serving students K-12, were included in the sampling frame. The final population included 110,597 teachers representing 3,155 schools with 804 schools and 38,390 teachers pulled for the sampling frame. Lists of those defined as teachers according to this study were obtained from the school websites. Beyond those who are normally addressed as teachers, included in the list were those listed under Pupil Services in the ODE License Application (such as School Counselor and School Nurse); however, the list did not include Administrative Specialists nor Five-Year Associates such as paraprofessionals or any other non-teacher groups. On the final sampling frame, teacher-principal relationships were clustered according to schools and consisted of two columns including the name of the school and the number of teachers in that school.

Sample. Beginning with a list of Ohio schools, the simplest method of choosing a probability sample of elements defined as principal-teacher relationships (as measured from the point of view of the teacher respondents) would be to use a multistage cluster sampling design in which a number of schools are chosen randomly and then teachers are randomly chosen in those schools from lists provided online. However, because the number of teachers employed in each school can vary widely, the chance for being chosen also varies since teachers in smaller schools would have a better chance of being chosen. Therefore, the sampling method for this study consisted of a sampling process which employs probability proportional to size (PPS) method. This ensured an equal probability sampling method (EPSEM) and the resulting sample would more closely resemble the population from which it was drawn (Johnson & Christensen, 2008), reducing the need for later weighting (Kish, 1965) and enabling statistical generalization. The sampling frame was stratified according to type of school, whether elementary, middle/junior high, high school or any combination of these grade levels, and the number of sample elements were chosen from each stratum in proportion to their number in the population. Elementary schools were defined as any that contain grade levels which range from 5th grade or lower to no higher than 8th grade. Middle/Junior High schools ranged from no lower than 5th grade to no higher than 9th grade. Senior High schools ranged from no lower than 8th grade to no higher than 12th grade. Schools which contain K-12 or 2-12 were considered separately, as were combination Elementary/Junior High schools (K to 4 through 8) and combination Junior High/Senior High schools (6 to 7 through 12). Although it is unknown whether the topic of

interest is affected by the context of students’ ages or the overall climate of each type of school, “proportional stratified sampling tends to be a little more efficient” (Johnson & Christensen, 2008, p. 232) than simple random sampling, requires fewer people, and qualifies as a method which ensures equal sampling of the population (EPSEM). Adapting the PPS method from Kalton (1983) for this study, a column was added to the sampling frame which accumulated the total such that each school was assigned the same number of teacher/principal relationship units as the number of teachers in the school. For example, if there are 20 teachers in the first school, 70 in the second and 35 in the third, the accumulation would be 20, 90 and 125. When choosing elements for a sample from the sampling frame, numbers 1-20 would be found in the first school, numbers 21-90 would be in the second school, and numbers 91-125 in the third school. Thus, a unique identifier would be assigned to each principal-teacher relationship and a representative sample can be obtained reducing the bias toward principal-teacher relationships in smaller schools. “Systematic sampling can be used to give a simple without-replacement PPS sampling method” (Kalton, 1983, p. 41). To accomplish this, the total number of teachers was divided by the sample size to give a sampling interval. A random number was chosen to determine the first selection. If, in the above example, the random number chosen is 103, the 13th teacher listed in the 3rd school will be the first sample selection. Then the sampling interval was used to determine the next selection and so forth until the entire sample is selected. Each sampling element was chosen from a different school so that the same principal (as part of the teacher- principal unit) was not included in the sample twice. Every attempt was made to collect the minimum sample needed to report results at a 95% confidence level and a 5% margin of error. A large sample size is important for increasing the power of statistical tests during analysis (Johnson & Christensen, 2008). Gray, Williamson, Karp and Dalphin (2007) suggest a sample size of 375 to meet this goal. However, although 806 schools were on the original sampling frame, and 729 emails were not bounced back, only 91 teachers responded to the survey resulting in a 12.5% response rate.

Instrument. As a cross-sectional study, the main focus was on current relationships (in the quantitative portion of the study); however, the teachers were also given the option to choose one or more past principal-teacher relationships on which to report as well as any mistreatment

that has been witnessed in the qualitative portion of the study. Additional open ended questions were asked about the perceived health effects resulting from principal mistreatment, opinions about the effect of principal mistreatment on school culture (and especially student bullying), and the effect of the principal-teacher relationship on the teacher’s sense of efficacy and job satisfaction. Demographics of the teacher were collected at the end of the survey. Information collected about the principal, as described by the teacher, was limited to gender and an estimated number of years working as a principal with the teacher. Mistreatment was operationally defined by the 2007 quantitative research study by Joseph Blase, Jo Blase, and Fengning Du and focused on the behaviors of principals entirely from teachers’ experiences. A convenience sample for that study was employed by offering the Principal Mistreatment/Abuse Inventory (PMAI) on the web site of the National Association for the Prevention of Teacher Abuse (www.endteacherabuse.org) which was “based on an exhaustive examination of the empirical and methodological literature on mistreatment/abuse” (p. 121) and their previous qualitative study of principal mistreatment (Blase & Blase, 2002, 2003a, b) based on teachers’ experiences. The PMAI contained sections designed to collect information about the effects of mistreatment, level of harm, behaviors used in attempts to cope, and mistreatment behaviors of principals. The object of my study is a survey, titled the Principal Treatment Inventory (PTI), which is adapted from one section of the PMAI instrument (see Appendix). The survey takes a more general approach to the consideration of mistreatment in the experience of teachers by focusing on both positive and negative treatments of teachers by principals. The section which described mistreatment behaviors of principals adapted for the PTI included an opposite and positive treatment for each mistreatment mentioned in the PMAI. For example, on the original inventory, the principal mistreatment “Makes unreasonable demands” was changed to “Makes reasonable demands.” Both comments became a part of the PTI inventory with the positive treatment statement first, followed by the negative statement. Several other adaptations were made to the PMAI principal mistreatment behaviors. The PMAI statements were shortened and attempts were made to reduce the statement to describe one principal behavior in each. Also, a new behavior was added, that of physical intimidation, to align with my own experience.

There are several reasons for writing an opposing support behavior for each mistreatment behavior. On one hand, since the PTI is prepared for the general population of teachers rather than teachers who have been mistreated, the negative statements may have been disturbing to the participant and may have lead them to believe there was an agenda on the part of the researcher that might bias the respondent to think negatively against the principal. Presenting positive principal behaviors may have softened the negative and gives some depth to the concept of principal treatment compared to mistreatment. It is possible that a teacher may feel that he or she is treated both well and poorly by the principal, or not treated at all, if the principal is exhibiting passive behavior. It is for these reasons that both positive and negative treatments were included in the PTI. Babbie (1990) notes that the order of questions on an inventory can affect the responses as well as the data collection activity. Randomized questions may “strike the respondent as chaotic and worthless” (p. 141) and therefore the items are organized with the two opposite principal behaviors (support and mistreatment) listed on separate pages. The introduction of each treatment in a positive way (a support behavior) followed immediately with a negative one (a mistreatment behavior) on each page, as well as directions which request that respondents read both, encouraged the participant to consider options before responding, and thereby perhaps not lead the respondent to consider the principal in a completely positive or negative light. Demographic data questions were placed at the end of the questionnaire in order to avoid the appearance of a dull and routine form which may have possibly affected motivation to complete the questionnaire. The teacher will be prompted to answer the treatment couplets while considering her/his current principal given the response options of always, very often, often, sometimes, seldom or never. After completing all 18 of the paired positive/negative treatments, the survey offered five questions with open text boxes for responses. Those questions include options to discuss the teacher’s relationship with the current principal in more detail, describe past relationships with different principals, describe any information about mistreatment of other teachers which have been witnessed, describe health concerns due to past or present principal mistreatment, and ask for opinions on the principals’ effect on the teachers’ sense of efficacy and job satisfaction. At the end of the survey, demographic questions were included to obtain information for consideration of gender, age, ethnicity, race, union membership, degree attainment, years of

experience (both in general and at the specific workplace), and area of specialization of the teacher, as well as the gender of the principal and the number of years that the teacher worked with the principal. Ethnicity and Race categories follow the 1997 guidelines of the 1997 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) standard classification scheme (Aud, et al., 2012). Contextual considerations include the approximate number of students in the school, the grade levels represented in the building, and the school district setting (urban, suburban, rural), all as reported by the teacher.

Procedure. Participants selected for the study were contacted by email with a link to the Qualtrics website where they obtained access to the survey. The original mailing described the instrument as a workplace survey and noted that it should be completed at home if at all possible due to the sensitive nature of some of the questions. The participant was able to log off and on without losing data already entered if the same cookie—enabled computer was used. In order to increase response rates, three mailings (two plus the original) separated by two or three weeks are suggested by Babbie (1990). Also suggested is that graphs of the response rate be prepared in order to determine whether the consistency of return rates is comparable to the same population in different research studies which will be useful when considering sample bias. Due to the large number of mailings required for this study, only two emails were delivered, with the second one delivered anywhere from two weeks to two months after the original email. The response rate is useful when determining the representativeness of the sample. Leslie (1972) notes that “there is simply no way to determine whether the answers of respondents differ from those of non-respondents; hence, the representativeness of the views of respondents is uncertain and bias cannot be ruled out…unless 100% returns are achieved” (p. 323-324). Babbie (1990) suggests the accepted practice is to remove those that couldn’t be delivered and then divide the number of completed questionnaires by the net sample size to produce the response rate. The goal is to achieve a high response rate which reduces the chance of a significant response bias.

Internal Validity. Internal validity is the consideration of whether the survey gives a valid assessment of what it is purported to measure (Gray, Williamson, Karp, & Dalphin, 2007).

The Principal Treatment Survey was adapted from a piloted, validated survey, the Principal Mistreatment/Abuse Inventory (Blase, Blase & Du, 2007) which was “based on an exhaustive examination of the empirical and methodological literature on mistreatment/abuse” (Blase, Blase & Du, 2007) and on their previous qualitative study of principal mistreatment (Blase & Blase, 2002, 2003a, b). This provides evidence of face validity and content validity which is defined by “how much a measure covers the entire range of meanings associated with the concept” (Grey et al., 2007, p. 67).

External validity. External validation is an important consideration to this study because of the research question which seeks to extrapolate the details to the entire population of Ohio teachers. Both the method by which the sample was collected and a comparison of demographics between the sample and the larger population may limit the usefulness of the study to generalize (Babbie, 1990; Gray, Williamson, Karp, & Dalphin, 2007). The PPS method of choosing the sample “provides for the selection of more clusters, ensures the representation of elements contained in large clusters, and gives each element in the population an equal chance of selection” (Babbie, 1990, p. 92). The demographics table includes Ohio data to compare with the demographics from the sample. However, it was collected during the 2011-2012 school year which is a year before this study was conducted (U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences [IES], 2013a, 2013b, 2013c). (See Table 1.) The sample contained fewer males than the actual population (by 4%), fewer teachers ages 29 or younger (by 9%), fewer African Americans (by 3%), fewer teachers with a Bachelor Degree (by 7%), and fewer teachers who had more years of experience in teaching (by 18%). The percentage of each grade level represented and the subject areas represented are shown in Table 2 and Table 3.

(continued)

Reliability. According to Babbie (1990), “the methods for maximizing reliability are pretty straight forward. Ask people only questions they are likely to know the answers to, ask about things relevant to them, and be clear in what you’re asking” (p. 133). The best person to ask whether a teacher feels mistreated would be a teacher. Since the quantitative survey on which this survey is based was developed from past qualitative research designed to explore teachers’ concept of mistreatment, there would be a reasonable assumption that the questions are relevant. The items for this study were also streamlined from the original survey in order to ask about only one behavior at a time, thus clarifying what information was being requested. The determination of Cronbach’s Alpha by item analysis may be considered a reliability measure since it gives an indication of how well each item correlates with the construct under consideration (George & Mallery, 2010). Therefore, an item analysis was performed to determine if the two sections of the survey (support and mistreatment) each reliably measured one construct with this particular set of teachers (George & Mallery, 2010). Four questions of principal support were found to have low correlation (.380 or below) with the other support questions. Three of these questions matched with those found to have low correlation on the mistreatment set with correlations of .303 or below. All four sets of questions (respectful/explosive behavior, non-racist/racist, no sexual harassment/sexual harassment, no physical intimidation/physical intimidation) were removed which resulted in a final Cronbach Alpha of .958 when the support questions were compared. A similar process resulted in a Cronbach Alpha of .938 when the mistreatment questions were compared. A Cronbach Alpha of above .9 is considered to show an excellent internal consistency (Gliem & Gliem, 2003). In summary, a review of the methodology which will inform this research, as well as the concrete methods which will be used to answer the research questions, were discussed here. In the next chapter the results of the study will be presented, including both the operationalization of the principal support and mistreatment concepts, descriptive statistics, quantitative results and qualitative results.

Chapter 4: Results The sources of educational science are any portions of ascertained knowledge that enter into the heart, head and hands of educators, and which, by entering in, render performance of the educational function more enlightened, more humane, more truly educational than it was before. (Dewey, 1929b, p. 76) The purpose of this descriptive, cross-sectional, mixed methods study was to use past research on the topic of workplace mistreatment of teachers by principals in schools to prepare an original principal support/mistreatment survey as a tool to consider how often such behaviors occur according to a randomly collected sample of teachers, and to further describe the frequency, health consequences, and other effects on the population of teachers in the State of Ohio. A total of 806 teachers were randomly selected using a probability proportional to size method from a list of traditional public schools and lists of teachers who worked in those schools during the 2012-2013 school year which were obtained from the Ohio Department of Education. Of those teachers, 729 emails were found available by searching individual district websites, the emails were sent, and delivered. Email addresses which were obtained online but returned with a message that the delivery failed were not considered as part of the response rate. The final sample consisted of 91 public school teachers chosen randomly from grade levels pre-K to grade 12 who responded to at least 34 of the 36 Likert-type response items. The email contained a link to the survey which included 18 Likert-style response statements as well as 5 open ended and 16 demographic questions. Missing data were replaced by finding the mean of the total responses to the question (Raaijmakers, 1999). The response rate of 12.5% was found to be similar to other surveys which were delivered by e-mail to teachers with no prior contact (Mertler, 2003). Included in this chapter will be a description of the operationalization of the constructs of principal support and mistreatment, descriptive statistics, quantitative data from the Likert-type response items, and the open ended qualitative questions.

Operationalizing the Principal Support/Mistreatment Construct The quantitative part of the PTI survey consisted of statements in the form of principal behaviors, delivered electronically, with two questions on each page. The first statement of each pair was developed as a positive restatement of a principal’s mistreatment behavior that

represented a principal’s supportive behavior. The second question on each page was a mistreatment statement modified from the Blase & Blase survey (2007) entitled the Principal Mistreatment/Abuse Inventory (PMAI) to represent a mistreatment action by a principal as described by a teacher. The respondent was directed to choose a response which best described principal behaviors experienced specifically during the 2012-2013 school year. The principal support and mistreatment responses were originally numbered 1 for “always” and 6 for “never.” The principal mistreatment questions were later recoded so that as responses increased in number there was an increase in perceived mistreatment. The resulting principal mistreatment responses were numbered 1 for “never” and 6 for “always.” A linear regression analysis was conducted to evaluate the prediction of principal mistreatment from principal support. The scatterplot for the two variables, as shown in Figure 2, displays that the two variables have an inverse relationship such that as principal support increases principal mistreatment (before recoding) decreases. The correlation between the two variables indicated a strong relationship such that they may converge on the same construct, r(89) = .90, p < .001. Principal mistreatment (M) could be predicted from principal support (S) by the following formula: M = -0.63 S + 94.33. An R2 value of .814 indicates that 81.4% of the variance of the principal mistreatment variable is accounted for by its linear relationship with the principal support variable.

Support vs Mistreatment 90 80 70 60 50

40 y = -0.6337x + 94.327 30 R² = 0.8135 20

10 Principal Principal Mistreatment 0

(high number=low mistreatment)(high 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Principal Support (high number=low support)

Figure 2. Scatter Plot of Principal Support versus Principal Mistreatment

Quantitative Results In this section the data will be described in three ways. An overview of the single question results will first be described. Then, based on the 14 highly correlated sets of questions, the scores will be analyzed in two ways. First, the totals of the Likert responses representing principal support and recoded principal mistreatment for each participant were added to give an overall frequency of mistreatment, called the Support recoded Mistreatment (SrM) scores. Second, the questions were separated according to levels of severity, averaged, and then listed in a three digit code with the most severe level listed first resulting in a three digit overview of the severity of mistreatment. These results, termed the Mistreatment Level Scores (MLS), will be followed by the results of the inferential statistics tests.

Individual question sets. An overview of the percentage of responses to the support questions and mistreatment questions are shown in Table 4 and Table 5. The final 14 sets of Likert-type response items were totaled and averaged separately for each respondent. (See Figure 3.) All averages were less than three, which puts them in the Support categories of “Often” (3), “Very Often” (2) or “Always” (1) and in the recoded Mistreatment categories of “Sometimes” (3), “Seldom” (2), or “Never” (1). Lack of support was reported more often than mistreatment in all questions except question set #1: “my principal listens to my opinions/my principal ignores my opinions.” They are separated by level according to the severity of the mistreatment as defined by Blase and Blase (2002) with the third level defined as the most severe. A paired-samples t test was conducted to evaluate whether Principal Support scores were significantly different from Principal Mistreatment scores. The results indicated that the mean Support scores (M = 30.60, SD = 14.60) was significantly greater than the mean Principal Mistreatment scores (M = 23.07, SD = 10.26), t(90) = 10.35, p < .001.

Table 4

Percentage of Responses to Support Questions (a) Always Very Often Often Sometimes Seldom Never Level 1 Listens (1) 28 28 19 18 4 2 Gives credit (5) 33 27 14 13 8 4 Provides resources (8) 13 43 22 8 10 3 Gives approval (9) 24 38 19 11 4 3 Fair (11) 46 31 12 6 3 2 Collaboration (12) 43 22 16 7 10 2 Level 2 Respects privacy (2) 52 25 15 3 4 0 Gathers facts (6) 32 28 19 11 9 1 Reasonable workload (10) 21 39 14 16 8 2 Refrains from gossip (13) 52 27 9 8 1 2 Respected (14) 41 27 13 3 9 7 Level 3 Tells truth (3) 51 28 15 6 1 0 Respectful behavior (4) 50 20 11 6 6 7 Fair eval (7) 46 31 12 7 2 2 Keep in job (15) 60 17 13 6 2 2 Not racist (16) 88 7 1 0 0 4 No sexual harass (17) 94 5 1 0 0 0 No phys intimidation (18) 94 1 0 0 1 3

Table 5

Percentage of Responses to Mistreatment Questions (b) Always Very Often Often Sometimes Seldom Never Level 1 Ignores opinion (1) 3 8 9 24 39 17 Takes credit (5) 0 1 4 10 23 61 Withholds resources (8) 1 3 2 7 29 58 Denies approval (9) 1 4 0 14 52 28 Unfair treatment (11) 2 3 2 7 28 58 Isolates (12) 0 0 2 3 3 91 Level 2 Spies (2) 1 1 1 4 22 71 Criticizes unfairly (6) 0 6 0 12 18 64 Large workloads (10) 1 8 4 18 32 37 Gossips (13) 2 0 0 13 28 57 Public ridicule (14) 1 3 0 1 6 89 Level 3 Lies (3) 0 2 0 8 20 70 Explosive (4) 0 3 2 0 14 81 Unfair eval (7) 1 1 2 6 24 66 Attempt to force out (15) 1 0 1 4 4 89 Racist (16) 0 0 0 0 2 98 Sexual harassment (17) 0 0 0 0 1 99 Physical intimidation (18) 0 0 0 0 1 99

Figure 3. Comparison of Average Responses to Support and Recoded Mistreatment Behavior

Of the 14 sets of questions which were included in the final quantitative survey, the support behaviors which were observed the least were that of “providing resources” with an average response of 2.67, “reasonable workloads” (2.55), and “gives me credit” (2.47). Support behaviors most often observed included “tells the truth” with an average response of 1.78 and “keeps me in my job” (1.79). Eight of the 14 questions averaged in the “Often” to “Very Often” range. The rest were in the “Very Often” to “Always” range. All of the averages for responses to the recoded Mistreatment behavior questions were within the range of “Never” to “Sometimes.” The most often observed mistreatment behaviors were “ignores my opinion” with an average response of 2.55, “large and unmanageable workloads” (2.16), and “denies approval” (2.03). The least observed mistreatment behaviors included “encourages colleagues to isolate me” (1.16), “attempts to force me out of my job (1.22) and “publically ridicules or humiliates me” (1.26). Eleven sets of the mistreatment

questions averaged in the “Seldom” to “Never” categories with only three sets in the “Sometimes” to “Seldom” categories.

Support recoded Mistreatment scores. Each participant’s Likert-type response was added to make a total Support recoded Mistreatment (SrM) score for each participant (Babbie, 1990). A Likert response for a Support behavior would range from 1 (“Always”) to 6 (“Never”) and that of a recoded Mistreatment behavior would range from 1 (“Never”) to 6 (“Always”). Thus, the higher the total score the more mistreatment and less support is recorded. Since the resulting score depends upon the Likert response as a measure of frequency of behavior, the highest possible score would indicate both a large variety of mistreatment behaviors and a high frequency. The lowest possible score would represent a response of “Never” to each question. The range of possible scores would be between 28 (high support and low mistreatment since all 28 answers equaled 1) and 168 (low support and high mistreatment since all 28 answers equaled 6). The actual range was 28-140. The resulting histogram (see Figure 4) was highly skewed to the right with a mean of 53.67, a mode of 41, a median of 45 and a standard deviation of 24.27. The skewness value was calculated to be 1.61 (a symmetric graph would have a value of zero) and the kurtosis value was 2.33 indicating a distribution flatter than a normal curve.

Figure 4. Frequency of Support recoded Mistreatment Scores (SrM)

Mistreatment Level Scores. Adding the Likert-style response items to make an SrM score made it possible to combine both the types of abuse experienced by teachers and the frequency that mistreatment was experienced. In this summed score, however, it was not possible to discriminate between levels of high, medium, and low mistreatment based on the levels assigned behaviors in the Blase and Blase (2002) research. Therefore, an alternative score was assigned to each participant based on the average of the responses to each level of mistreatment separately. In this process, the mistreatment scores were considered only. Using the individual responses for each respondent, each of the three level questions were averaged separately. Therefore, to produce Mistreatment Level Scores (MLS), level 3 questions (3, 7 and

15) were averaged, level 2 questions (2, 6, 10, 13, and 14) were averaged, and level 1 questions (1, 5, 8, 9, 11, and 12) were averaged separately for each participant. Averages of 1 represented no mistreatment as defined by the recoded mistreatment responses (1 = “Never”). Any average which was more than 1 but less than 1.5 represented mistreatment occurring seldom. For example, an average of 1.2 was rounded up to 2. This was necessary to assure that “Never” truly meant that there was no mistreatment. The rest of the averages were rounded up or down to represent the closest mistreatment response (for example, 2.67 was rounded to 3 and represented “sometimes”). The resulting MLS scores were thus assigned three digits. The first number represents the average level 3 (most severe) responses, the second number represents the average level 2 responses, and the last number represents the level one (least severe) responses (see Figure 5). With these scores, it is possible to make inferences about the level of mistreatment experienced as well as the average frequency.

Figure 5. A Comparison of Mistreatment Level Scores (MLS) Note. Each principal mistreatment behavior as experienced by the teachers was separated into three levels of severity according to Blase and Blase (2002). The first number in each score represents the average Likert-style response of all level 3 or direct and severely aggressive mistreatment behaviors. The second number represents average responses of level 2 or direct, escalating aggression. The third number represents level 1 or indirect, moderately aggressive behaviors. Therefore, the first number represents the most severe level of aggression and on the right is the least aggressive. For the most part, as you go down the figure, there is an increase in aggressive behaviors.

As shown in Figure 5, for the most part, when the lower level scores were compared with level 3, the scores were cumulative. In other words, the average responses for level 1 scores increased first, then usually level 2, and finally level 3. This information may be useful if a shorter survey is desired since responding positively that level 3 behaviors have been witnessed will indicate the probability that the first two levels were also witnessed.

Inferential statistics. Using the total PMI SrM scores, each of the 16 sets of differentiated demographic groups was compared in an attempt to find statistical significance. Due to the highly right-skewed nature of the histogram, nonparametric analysis of variance (ANOVA) procedures were employed, including the Mann-Whitney U test (for those with only two groups) and the Kruskal-Wallis test (for those with three or more groups). These tests depend on a comparison of rank-ordered data rather than means. Since there was only one Hispanic or Latino respondent, no test was applied to ethnicity.

Gender. Ranks for the (n = 66) Females were compared with the (n = 20) Males. No statistically significant differences were found, U = 583, p = .43, with the sum of the ranks equal to 2794 for the Females and 947 for the Males.

Age. Categories included (n = 7) 60 or Older, (n = 24) 50-59, (n = 26) 40-49, (n = 24) 30-39 and (n = 5) 29 or younger. No statistically significant differences were found between scores, 2(4, N = 86) = 6.48, p = .17.

Marital status. There were no respondents reporting in the category of Widowed. Therefore, only the categories of (n = 69) Married, (n = 8) Divorced, and (n = 9) Never Married were considered. No statistically significant differences were found between scores, 2 (2, N = 86) = 1.197, p = .55.

Race. Since the groupings of Black or African American contained only two respondents and the grouping of Asians contained only one, the two groups were combined to make a Non- white group. Ranks for the (n = 83) White group were compared with the (n = 3) Non-white

group. No statistically significant systematic differences were found, U = 65, p = .16, with the sum of the ranks equal to 3670 for the Whites and 71 for the Non-whites.

Teacher union. Ranks for the (n = 83) Union members were compared with the (n = 3) Non Union members. No statistically significant systematic differences were found, U = 73, p = .23, with the sum of the ranks equal to 3662 for the Union members and 79 for the Non-Union members.

Highest degree earned. There were no respondents who reported the degrees of Vocational or Doctorate. Therefore, the categories considered included (n = 15) Bachelor, Master (n = 66), and (n = 5) Specialist. The difference in SrM scores was found to be marginally significant, 2(2, N = 86) = 4.74, p = .09.

Years of experience. Categories included (n = 35) Over 20, (n = 37) 10-19, (n = 10) 4-9, and (n = 4) 1-3. No respondents reported experience less than one year. No statistically significant differences were found between scores, 2(3, N = 86) = .1.44, p = .695.

Years at current school. Categories included (n = 15) Over 20, (n = 35) 10-19, (n = 26) 4-9, and (n = 10) 1-3. No respondents reported number of full years teaching at current school as less than 1 year. No statistically significant differences were found between scores, 2(3, N = 86) = 1.90, p = .59.

Subject taught. The subjects which were described by the respondents were placed into categories for analysis. They included (n = 7) Counseling, (n = 12) Special Education and Gifted, (n = 14) Science and/or Math, (n = 6) Social Studies, (n = 6) English and/or Reading, (n = 17) More than one subject, and (n = 13) Other including Foreign Language, Health/PE and Music/Fine Arts. No statistically significant differences were found between scores, 2(2, N = 83) = .973, p = .615.

Gender of principal. Ranks for the (n = 41) Females were compared with the (n = 45) Males. No statistically significant systematic differences were found, U = 806, p = .31, with the sum of the ranks equal to 1901 for the Female members and 1841 for the Male members.

Years the teacher has worked with the principal. Categories included (n = 4) 10-19, (n = 31) 4-9, (n = 43) 1-3, and (n = 7) less than one year. No respondent reported in the category of 20 or more years. No statistically significant differences were found between scores, 2(3, N = 86) = .1.391, p = .71.

Years of experience of the principal. Categories included (n = 8) Unknown, (n = 9) 20 or more, (n = 19) 10-19, (n = 34) 4-9, (n = 13) 1-3 and (n = 3) Less than 1 year. No statistically significant differences were found between scores, 2(5, N = 86) = 2.80, p = .73.

Number of students in the school. Categories included (n = 3) More than 2,000, (n = 23) 1,000 to 2,000, (n = 38) 500 – 1,000, and (n = 21) less than 500. No statistically significant differences were found between scores, 2(3, N = 85) = .36, p = .95.

Grade levels. Categories included (n = 35) Elementary, defined as including grades no higher than 6th; (n = 7) Middle/Junior High including grades 6 through 9; (n = 29) High School including grades 9 through 12 which included one 9th grade school; and (n = 15) non-traditional or combined schools with any other combination of grade levels. No statistically significant differences were found between scores, 2(3, N = 86) = 1.015, p = .798.

Developed environment. Categories included (n = 21) Urban, (n = 41) Suburban, and (n = 24) Rural. No statistically significant differences were found between scores, 2(2, N = 86) = 1.023, p = .60.

Qualitative Results Included in this section are the results of the 5 open-ended qualitative questions.

Question 1. Admittedly, it is difficult to clearly define all behaviors which describe those which may affect your relationship with principals. Please add any further information you feel compelled to discuss. Feel free to write as much as you wish about whatever is on your mind as it relates to this survey. You may also wish to include information about personal mistreatment by past principals and mistreatment of other teachers that you have witnessed as well as mistreatment by your current principal.” Of the 49 respondents who answered the first open-ended question, 71% described experiencing, witnessing, or hearing about negative treatment. Fifty-five percent of those who chose to answer the first open ended question directly experienced negative treatment directed toward themselves. Sixty-one percent of Question 1 respondents mentioned good things about the relationships with principals. Thirty-seven percent of Question 1 respondents reported a mix of good and bad behaviors. An attempt was made to separate each of the mistreatment comments according to themes, beginning with the 14 closed question themes which constituted the final survey. Some themes of mistreatment carried over into the second open ended question. (See Table 6.) Eleven of the 14 Likert-style questions were found to correlate with responses of the first open ended question. Those themes were from closed question set 3 (lies), set 6 (uses information from others to criticize), set 7 (unfair evaluation), set 8 (unfairly holds resources), set 10 (unreasonable workloads), set 11 (unfair treatment), set 13 (gossips), set 14 (public humiliation), and set 15 (force out of job). In addition, there were 7 additional themes defined which did not align with the Likert-style question themes: general lack of support, lack of engagement with staff, lack of demonstrated appreciation, control, racist ideation, intimidation, and general mistreatment comments. (See Table 7.) Two of these themes (racist ideation and intimidation) included comments which could be labeled under three of the closed questions (explosive behavior, racist behavior, and physical intimidation), which were removed from the survey due to low internal consistency. For example, one respondent described the principal as “racist,” another discussed “tantrums” (explosive behavior) and several talked of principals who shook their finger in the face of the teacher (physical intimidation). The Likert-style mistreatment questions representing

themes which were not found in the responses of the first open-ended question were set 1 (ignores opinion), set 2 (spies on me), and set 9 (denies approval).

Question 2. Workplace mistreatment can cause harm to your health in the form of stress (which affects cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, immunological and auto-immune systems), emotional or psychological distress, social status concerns such as isolation, and economic harm such as loss of or the choice to leave a job. Has mistreatment at the hands of your most recent principal or past principal(s) caused harm to you in any of these ways? Of the 74 respondents who responded to question 2, 36% reported harm to their health due to stressful conditions with the principal. One reported harm to another teacher’s health, and 6 reported stress from sources other than the principal. The responses could be divided into 14 themes which are listed with the number of respondents who mentioned it and a quote to serve as an exemplar of each:  Stress (emotional or psychological): mentioned 40 times by 28 respondents. “I am emotionally stressed and have physical symptoms which I will not comment on.”  Gastrointestinal/stomach issues: (5) “Past principal has caused me severe anxiety which caused me to have gastrointestinal issues.”  Anxiety: (4) “I have experienced some anxiety and mistreatment that resulted in the request for a voluntary transfer.”  Insomnia/sleep disorders: (4) “I have had bouts of insomnia and severe anxiety as well as frequent illnesses over the last several years  General or unnamed physical symptoms: (3) “My past parochial school principal encouraged a high-stress environment, which affected her staff emotionally, psychologically, and physically.”  High blood pressure: (3) “High blood pressure due to stress contributed by former admin.”  Diminished self-esteem/depression: (3) “I have anxiety issues, which has led to insomnia and depression.”  Rapid heart rate/heart problems: (2) “After that year I ended up in the hospital with high blood pressure and rapid heart rate”  Migraine headaches: (2) “I suffer from migraine headaches @ least once a week from the stressful work place.”

 Panic attacks: (1) “stress related panic attacks which were only controlled be medication.”  Acne: (1) “Yes, loss of sleep, development of acne, emotional distress/ diminished self- esteem, isolation.”  Blindness: (1) “Yes, Stress led to physical blindness followed by migraines. After $6000 dollars of diagnoses that is the best answer doctors could find for my loss of eyesight.”  “All of the above”: (1) “All of the above.” (This refers to the original question.)

Beyond the information presented which covers the general health concerns, the participants continued to discuss mistreatment in open question 2, including themes of control, public humiliation, intimidation, unfair evaluations, withholding resources, unfair treatment, lack of support, gossip, use of criticism from others, attempts to force out of job, and general mistreatment.

Question 3. In your experience, do you believe that student-to-student bullying is being taken seriously by the administrations with whom you've worked? Is student-to- student bullying affected by the relationships between the teachers and the principal? Please explain. Of the 76 respondents who responded to this question, 19 (or 25%) did not feel that the administrators were taking student-to-student bullying seriously. Most did not respond to the second part of the question at all, which links the survey of principal-teacher mistreatment to student-student bullying. Those who did usually said they did not see a connection, or, having misread the question, reversed the effect, discussing instead the effect of student-student bullying on the principal-teacher relationship. A few, however, did believe there was an effect on student bullying when the principal showed mistreatment behaviors toward teachers.  “I do believe that the culture of the school promotes this feeling.”  “I believe it is affected because the relationship between the principal and staff serves as a model for the students.”  “I do believe that student behavior is affected by the adults they are surrounded by and that if staff members did a better job of modeling respectful behavior it would have a positive effect.”

 “I think students watch the actions of adults and they mimic those actions. If adults bully then students will think it is alright to bully.”

Question 4. How has the relationship between you and any of your principals affected your sense of how effective you are as a teacher? Of the 74 respondents to this question, 60 (81%) believe that their relationship with the principal affects their sense of efficacy. Some teachers discussed this from a positive perspective.  “Obviously the more supportive a Principal is the more effective a teacher feels.”  “Because of their support and confidence in me, I have been able to have more confidence and positivity in my teaching, making decisions in my classroom and finding success.”  “My experience with that principal raised my own expectations of myself and I will be forever grateful.”  “I believe that knowing I am valued and respected affects the work load I do take on and the way that I push to help kids.”  “I think I work harder for an administrative team when I feel that I am listened to---I always do my job but am willing to go above and beyond for a good principal and assistant because I know they will "have my back" when I need them later.”  “If I have the support of the principal in the area of discipline and with any problems with parents I am so much more effective.”

Others explained how their sense of efficacy was reduced due to a negative relationship with the principal.  “When I feel thrown out to the sharks, I am much more ineffective.”  “I think there are times I do not feel effective as a teacher because rarely am I told I make a difference.”  “Buildings where there is not support from the principal creates insecurity in everyone. When you are insecure it is hard to take risks or try new things in your room.”

Question 5. How has the relationship between you and any of your principals affected your job satisfaction? Of the 71 respondents to this question, 60 (or 85%) believe that the relationship of a teacher with a principal affects job satisfaction. Positive comments included:  “Knowing that my voice is heard, and that there are resources to help me has positively affected by job satisfaction.”  “Principals that work on developing a solid working relationship with his/her staff create an environment that produces job satisfaction.”  “Effective and supportive principals = effective teachers and learning environments.”  “I have been fortunate to work for three principals over the years. All of them have given me the freedom to try out my plans. This ‘permission’ to try new things to help my students has always improved my job satisfaction.”

Examples of negative comments included the following.  “The less I like my principal, the less I liked my job.”  “If I am overwhelmed and alone I am very unhappy.”  “The unreasonable demands on my time (often) and lack of respect for teachers in general has negatively affected my job satisfaction on a regular basis. I love my students and I'm hell-bent on not letting my bosses beat me down.”  “I once loved my job. Now, although I still love the kids and love the teaching part, I dread each day. I just keep my door closed and pray that no one will notice I'm there.”  “I think about how long I can continue the fight. Even though I love teaching the constant behavior problems that the principal tells you is your fault, that if you were engaging and interesting you would have no behavior problems makes teaching extremely difficult.”

Several discussed both the positive and negative effects on job satisfaction;  “I have quit one teaching position due to the unprofessional behavior of the principal. I was there 3 years and reached a breaking point because I felt that professional growth was not possible in that environment. On the other hand, with my current principal, I feel I am being pushed to try creative ideas that offer a lot of fulfillment.”

 “If I have the support I am happy at my job. If I am overwhelmed and alone I am very unhappy.”

Several made it clear that they won’t let their relationship with the principal get in the way of their job satisfaction:  “I do not let others impact my relationship nor professionalism with students or parents to be affected negatively.”  “I do what is best for students and not for our principals as they rarely last a year.”

In this chapter, the results of the two composite scores were reviewed. The Support recoded Mistreatment summed score showed us that the lack of support/mistreatment behaviors were experienced widely in a graph which skewed to the right. Most teachers have experienced low or medium level mistreatment behaviors, with almost half experiencing severe levels according Mistreatment Level scores. Inferential statistics found no statistical differences between demographic categories. The themes which emerged from the qualitative answers continued with themes derived from the quantitative questions, and resulted in several new themes. In addition, a variety of health concerns which resulted from principal mistreatment behaviors were mentioned, and the majority of teachers linked job satisfaction and their sense of efficacy to their relationships with principals. In the next chapter, the results will be analyzed so that future research may be considered and a conclusion will be drawn.

Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion For Dewey social experience was social interaction and, therefore, simply a continuation of natural experience and existence. (Garrison, 1994, p. 6) The goal of this study was to discover how often a random sample of teachers feel mistreated or unsupported by the principal in public schools. Although earlier research was built on a convenience sample of those who chose to visit a website which enlisted mistreated teachers, participants in my study were chosen using an equal probability sampling method so that the answers were not obtained from teachers who self-identified with mistreatment. Instead, participants were chosen from the population randomly and lists of teachers from the chosen schools were obtained from the Ohio Department of Education. Email addresses for the participants were obtained from the school websites. Selected teachers were sent an email explanation without any introductory notification and asked to click on the Qualtrics link to take the survey. There were 91 teachers who responded to the quantitative survey and the qualitative questions were answered by 49-76 teachers, depending on the question. The survey consisted of 18 sets of Likert-style questions on 18 pages, followed by 5 qualitative open-ended questions and 16 demographic questions. Two principal behaviors were strategically placed on each webpage with the first representing a principal “support” and the second a principal “mistreatment.” The mistreatment behaviors were adapted from the Principal Mistreatment/Abuse Inventory (Blase, Blase and Du, 2007) and were matched with an opposite statement to represent a supportive statement as a method of softening the language. Fourteen questions in the quantitative survey were found to have high internal consistency and therefore the other 4 questions were dropped from the analysis. The measurement of the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient showed high internal consistency. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient only measures the internal consistency of summed scales. As stated by Gliem and Gliem (2003), “The analysis of the data then must use these summated scales or subscales and not individual items. If one does otherwise, the reliability of the items is at best probably low and at worst unknown” (p. 88). This needs to be taken inconsideration when evaluating individual questions. They also note that a high measure of internal consistency does not mean the scale is one-dimensional, but could be made up of several separate constructs.

The quantitative section of the survey was analyzed by first determining whether the “support” responses correlated with the “mistreatment” questions by performing a linear regression analysis. It was found that they were highly negatively correlated since 81% of the principal mistreatment variable is accounted for by its relationship with the principal support variable. Thus, as principal support of teachers goes up, mistreatment goes down. It should be noted at this point that a bias might be expected resulting from the structure of the questionnaire since positive questions were listed first and on the same page as negative questions. This was strategically done to reduce a negative bias since the sample consisted of teachers who had not self-reported mistreatment; it was hoped that the first question of the pair would have the effect of softening the tone of the second. Putting the two on the same visual level might encourage the teacher to assume that the two questions, presumed opposites, are exact opposites and therefore the respondent might rate the support and/or the mistreatment differently than they would if the statements were not linked. The paired-samples t test revealed that the mean of the difference between the Support variable and the Mistreatment variables were significantly different from zero (Green & Salkind, 2011). Except for the first question (listens/ignores), lack of support was reported more often than mistreatment in all questions. It may indicate that for some reason teachers have an easier time discussing the less contentious topic of “no support” than the topic of “mistreatment.” The usefulness of further analysis of the support questions for future research will be discussed later in this chapter. The quantitative answers were evaluated in two ways. The 14 highly consistent set of questions were summed after recoding resulting in a composite score entitled the Support recoded Mistreatment (SrM) score for each of the 91 participants. This was necessary to compare the total lack of support and mistreatment behaviors experienced by all of the respondents. Then, the responses to mistreatment behavior questions only were divided into three levels and averaged, according to severity, to make a Mistreatment Level Score (MLS). This was necessary to compare the frequency of different levels of severity of mistreatment behaviors. The 5 open-ended questions were evaluated by different means, according to the question. In the first question which requested more information about principal mistreatment behaviors personally experienced or witnessed, themes were discovered which related to the

closed question set, as well as new themes which were not mentioned. Themes were also found in the second question which asked about health problems resulting in mistreatment behaviors by principals. Question 3 was written to dig deeper into the thoughts which the teacher had regarding the effect of principal mistreatment behaviors on school climate, and specifically on student-to-student behavior. This question was evaluated on the basis of whether the principal was taking student bullying seriously and whether or not the teacher-principal relationship had an effect. The last two questions, which asked whether the teacher-principal relationship had an effect on the teacher’s sense of efficacy and job satisfaction, were divided into yes and no responses, as well as positive and negative comments. The findings will be evaluated in this chapter according to the quantitative research questions, as well as the qualitative research questions. This will be followed by a triangulation of the top and bottom scores, a discussion of the limitations of the study, a discussion of its strengths, a general discussion, recommendations for future studies, and a conclusion.

Analysis of Quantitative Research Questions

Research Question 1. How frequently is principal mistreatment reported by teachers during one school year (2012-2013)? The mistreatment responses were recoded so that a large number (6 for each response, with a range of 14-84 for all 14 mistreatment responses) represented more mistreatment, while the higher the support question response (again, 6 for each response with a range of 14-84) the less support for teachers was indicated. When these two numbers were added together, the resulting summed score gave a numerical indication of the amount of lack of support/mistreatment experienced by the teacher specifically during the 2012- 2013 school year. A total of 28 would indicate no mistreatment since all of the 14 sets (28 questions) would need to be answered with a “1” which represents support always and recoded mistreatment never. Thus, a wide range of possible SrM scores are possible because they not only take into account 14 support behaviors and 14 mistreatment behaviors, but also the frequency of the behaviors as indicated by the Likert style responses (never to always). The possible range of SrM scores would be 28 to 168 and the actual range was 28 to 140. There were only 5 participants who received the most common score, or mode, of 41, which gives an indication of the large spread of scores. The skewing of the scores is also evident since

the mode is only 13 points from the lowest possible score and 99 points from the highest score obtained. This causes me to wonder if there aren’t two different constructs at work here. For example, those in the lower end of the SrM scores could represent less victimized individuals and more of a complete group who are working with an administrator who is exhibiting mistreatment behaviors. Those at the higher end of the SrM scores could represent those who are being bullied since it is evident that the behavior is occurring repeatedly in greater frequency than is common. Examining the SrM scores makes it clear that the majority of teachers in this sample have experienced principal mistreatment, as the construct is defined in this study, to some degree. Only 3 of the 91 respondents (3%) had not experienced any mistreatment or lack of support by their principal during the 2012-2013 school year. By examining the Frequency of Support recoded Mistreatment Scores table, it is evidence that the numbers are skewed to the right with the majority of respondents experiencing mistreatment at the lower end of the scale, which represents less mistreatment. (See Figure 4.) A glance at Figure 3, The Frequency of SrM scores, indicates that for the majority of teachers, lack of support or mistreatment behaviors on the part of the principal are infrequent. However, it is common for teachers to have experienced these behaviors of some type since only 3 respondents, or approximately 3%, had a score of 28 (always support/never mistreatment). It should be noted that not all teachers may recognize these behaviors as a form of mistreatment. For example, some teachers may think that the lack of materials is out of the principal’s control. They might believe that although there is not enough paper available, and the limitations on the use of paper are enforced by the principal, the principal is limited in resources by situations out of his or her hands due to budgetary constraints. Therefore, it can’t really be considered a type of mistreatment, or even lack of support from the perspective of some teachers. It must also be kept in mind that the mistreatment statements were adapted from a group of self-identified mistreated teachers and that the teachers in this study were not asked to identify principal mistreatment behaviors according to their own definitions.

Research Question 2. How severe is the mistreatment which is reported during one school year? The scores were also considered by the severity of mistreatment behavior, which is not discernable by comparing SrM scores. The mistreatment questions were separated according

to the levels discussed in the Blase and Blase (2002) study. Those labeled as “direct” and “severely aggressive” or level 3 were averaged together, as were those for “direct” and “escalating aggression” or level 2, and “indirect” or “moderately aggressive” (p. 686) or level 1. The Mistreatment Level Score is a set of three numbers, the first of which represents the most severe mistreatment (level 3), the second represents middle range mistreatment (level 2), and the final number of the set represents level 1, the least severe level. The range of possible MLS scores would be 000, or no responses of mistreatment in any level to 666 or always mistreatment in all three levels. For example, a score of 013 would represent a teacher who has experienced no level three mistreatment, seldom level two mistreatment, and sometimes level 1 mistreatment. As a reminder, the support questions were left out of this analysis. Keeping this in mind, there were a total of 6 who reported no mistreatment (7%). Thus, 3 of these are participants who acknowledged lack of support behaviors but no mistreatment behaviors by the principal to some degree since their summed SrM score was more than 28. Figure 5 visually describes the level of treatment experienced by teachers. The MLS scores were placed in order with 000 (no mistreatment) at the top and the highest severity of mistreatment (664) at the bottom. All of the teachers listed on the left column (n=48, 53%) experienced no severe mistreatment compared with those on the right side column who experienced some level of severe treatment (n=43, 47%). There were four respondents (4%) who experienced the most severe mistreatment “often” (3) to “always for all [questions] at this level” (6). Following is a review of the question results from the perspective of the MLS scores (see Figure 4). It should be kept in mind that these results consider only the mistreatment scores and not support scores. • 7% of the respondents experienced no mistreatment on any level. • 19% experienced on average level 1 mistreatment seldom or sometimes. • 28% experienced level 1 and 2 mistreatment seldom or sometimes. • 3% experienced levels 1 and 3 mistreatment seldom or sometimes. • 28% experienced mistreatment at all levels seldom or sometimes. • 7% experienced mistreatment in all levels, and often in one or two of those levels. • 7% experienced mistreatment in all levels, and very often in one or two of those levels. • One respondent experienced mistreatment always for level 1 and often for levels 2 and 3.

• One respondent experienced mistreatment very often for level 1 and always for all items on levels 2 and 3. From this data it may be inferred that many of the teachers in the sample experienced mild mistreatment (91%), and even medium level mistreatment (71%). Severe mistreatment behaviors were experienced by almost half of the teachers (46%). However, the occurrence of any type of mistreatment is only seldom or sometimes for 78% of the total number of teachers. It is concerning that almost 15% experience mistreatment in all levels, including the most severe, and that two participants experienced mistreatment “always” for at least one level. Using the definition of mistreatment operationally defined by the questions in this survey, the public school teachers in this sample widely experienced mistreatment by their principals at some level, and almost half experienced severe mistreatment. From my perspective, those who experienced mistreatment often in levels one or two up to very often in level 1 and always for levels 2 and 3 represent the most serious mistreatment and conditions. Those 14 respondents represent 15 percent of the sample.

Research Questions 3 to 7. Are demographic subgroups of teachers affected differently by principal mistreatment behaviors? Do other teacher characteristics (union affiliation, marital status, degree attainment, years of experience and area of specialization) predict principal mistreatment behaviors? What effect do contextual considerations including school size, school level, and school district setting have on reports of principal mistreatment? How do the demographics of teachers and demographics of principals with whom they work interact regarding principal mistreatment? What role do discrimination statutes play in protecting teachers from principal mistreatment based on gender? Nonparametric statistical tests were applied to these groups because of the skewed nature of the distribution of SrM scores. No statistical significance (p >. 05) was discovered when comparing independent groups using the Mann-Whitney U or the Kruskal-Wallis tests. When comparing the groups according to the highest degree earned, there was a marginally significant difference (p > .09) indicating the need for further research with a larger sample.

Analysis of Qualitative Research Questions

Research Question 8. How do teachers further describe their relationships with principals, both past and present? Nine of the 14 mistreatment statements in the quantitative part of the survey were continued as themes in the open ended answers of Question 1. Those themes were unfair treatment (n=12), unreasonable workloads (n=4), public humiliation (n=4), lies (n=3), uses unexamined criticism from others (n=3), unfairly holds resources (n=3), gossips (n=3), unfair evaluations (n=1), and forced out of job (n=1). The theme that was most common in the answers, which were comparative to those in the closed questions, was unfair treatment (n=12). Those responses can be further separated into the themes of general favoritism (n=4), classroom assignments (n=3), harassment (n=3), voice interrupted (n=1) and gender/nepotism (n=1). The general themes all used the word “favoritism” except for one respondent who spoke of those “he ‘hangs out with’ a lot” and “others he barely acknowledges.” This speaks to the need for feedback to ensure the teacher of being on the right track according to the principals’ perspective. One teacher was suspended for talking with a board member (right of free speech removed) and three teachers were picked out for negative treatment. One of the three said it was because “you do not : to put it nicely : ‘schmooze’ the principal” and the other two discussed being “singled out.” Three of the teachers mentioned concerns due to their classroom assignments, including an intervention specialist, a non-classroom teacher, and one who was overlooked for advancement. Of all the themes repeated in the open ended questions, the one that is most concerning, and would be the most easily observed, is public humiliation. Two of those responses included screaming in front of students and verbal abuse in front of other administrators or community members. All of the other behaviors, such as unfair treatment, lying, adding larger workloads, gossiping and attempting to force the respondent out of a job, would be difficult to prove because they are very private activities. Some definite trends were found in the participants’ answers, which were not matched in the closed questions. These were topics mentioned by the teachers regardless of behaviors mentioned in the closed questions. Two of these themes describe a principal who is passive in giving support or positives and not engaged with the staff. In total, these themes were mentioned 19 times. The seven who described lack of support mentioned the word “support” in their

answer. The teachers who described a lack of engagement with staff described teachers as being left alone, given unclear expectations or communications, and being ignored when guidance was requested. Four discussed never being thanked, complimented, given appreciation or even transactional rewards such as raises and other financial rewards. More concerning were the themes developed around the more serious topics of control and intimidation. Twenty teachers mentioned these themes in their answers. Descriptions of control included power hungry or abuse of power, manipulative, holds a grudge, micromanager, authoritative, and dictator. Regarding intimidation, descriptions included principals who yell or scream (n=3), physically points a finger in your face (n=2), attacks, takes it out on others, has tantrums, and bullies, or uses bullying tactics.

Research Question 9. Do teachers witness the mistreatment of other teachers? Bullying scenarios always include three actors: the bully, the victim, and the onlookers. The concept of mistreatment includes behaviors which could indicate bullying behaviors, although this study would not be able to distinguish between the two. However, teachers were encouraged to report mistreatment of other teachers as a method of understanding how they experience being an onlooker of mistreatment behaviors. Some research suggests that enlisting the aid of onlookers is an important perspective for disrupting the bullying process with students (Lodge & Frydenberg, 2005; Swearer, Espelage, Vaillancourt, & Hymel, 2010) and training teachers to support each other may be one method of ameliorating the problem. It must be kept in mind that several factors are very different between the scenario of bullying by students and bullying by a boss such as the need for the boss and worker to work together on organizational goals, the increased length of time which the actors spend together, and the possible loss of employment if push back is employed. With these differences in mind, it may still be argued that the collusion or support of coworkers may affect workplace mistreatment by an administrator to a large degree if bullying occurs, just as the collusion of other students sometimes encourages schoolyard bullying. Comments which indicate that the participants have witnessed other teachers being mistreated include the following:  “I know others in my district have not been so fortunate.”

 “Many of our best and brightest teachers have taken early retirement or have transferred to other buildings.”  “Her method and approach were so horrible that what could have been constructive was totally ineffective because of the manner in which she attacked the teachers.”  “I have heard stories of this, but have not witnessed anything against any other teachers to corroborate this information.”  “He would pick on some staff members with unreasonable demands for improvement, especially in terms of unreasonable deadlines.”  “His predecessor was a bully, gossip, manipulative liar who would take hearsay and use it against people regularly.”  “There was one intervention specialist who had so many problems with parents that he [the principal] would fill up the other 3 Intervention Specialists with 21 clients and the one teacher would have 0.”  “A principal I worked for previously often tried to intimidate the female staff members and belittled their opinions.”  “Does not allow staff to express ideas at staff meetings.”  “There are those that he hangs out with a lot seemingly & others he barely acknowledges.”  “Many of my co-workers do not feel the same and often feel that they are disrespected, yelled at and not treated fairly.”  “It was very apparent that this principal had an agenda to remove certain people from their positions and to put others in their places.”

It is important to note at this juncture that some of the mistreatment described which has been observed by other teachers may be divided into two separate categories. On one hand, some of these teachers view mistreatment by the principal from the perspective of a group. In other words, the mistreatment behaviors witnessed are experienced by all and therefore the staff may be united in condemnation of the actions taken by the principal from the teacher’s perspective. In other descriptions the mistreatment behavior is described from the perspective of one person, which might fit into the categories of harassment or even bullying, and more closely resembles the victim/bully scenario that one might encounter as a student. Future research is

needed, however it is clear that mistreatment behaviors are often witnessed by other teachers in this sample.

Research Question 10. Do teachers describe harm to their health due to mistreatment at the hand of current or past principals? Blase, Blase and Du (2007) report that 90.7% of the self-reported sample of mistreated teachers listed stress as a result of their negative relationship with principals. The description most often used by the respondents who experienced mistreatment in my study was also "stress." Collie, Shapka, and Perry (2012) note that internationally up to one third of teachers “are stressed or extremely stressed” (p. 2). From my own personal perspective, the teaching profession has its own unique set of stressors are not common in other types of jobs. This makes it very difficult for those who've never taught in a K12 classroom to understand why teaching is so stressful. For example, in what type of job could you be sued because you left your post to use the bathroom? In what job are you asked to be on your toes, keenly focused on your constantly shifting surroundings, for 6- 7 hours without the chance of having a significant amount of time to communicate with another adult? In what job are you asked to put on a creative, motivating, and interactive presentation while trying to keep your audience in their seats and to use the "eyes in the back of your head" to apprehend those who are attempting to undermine your delivery? After finishing this daily ritual producing tense muscles, sometimes forced positive attitudes, and a constant, requisite empathetic demeanor with regular negative feedback and little apparent progress, there is more work to accomplish at home: grading papers and preparing lessons. Although it is tempting to take a few hours to yourself at home, you know if you don't grade the papers, your students will not have a timely chance to learn from their mistakes and if you don't have an animated, imaginative, and relevant class activity for the following day, you will be dealing with more restless and distracted students. Oh, yes, and the lesson must follow the curriculum which is handed down from "Above" or your students will do poorly on the "Tests" and people's jobs (including yours) could be in jeopardy. What the students want to learn is not in the equation. All of this, of course, the restless and distracted students (not understanding the politics of educational reform) blame on the teacher. We must be reminded at this juncture that the principals and other administrators are experiencing stressors of their own. Giang (2014), a reporter for the Business Insider, lists

Educational Administrators as having the third most stressful job in America behind supervisors of police and mental health counselors, while receiving the lowest pay of the top five. However, there is no way of telling how much of the stress experienced by the teachers in this sample were working with principals whose behaviors were affected by their own personal stress. In the National Geographic documentary, Stress: Portrait of a Killer (Heminway, 2008), research is discussed which reveals that stress does horrific things to the biological system over time. Originally, the hormones associated with stress were necessary to prepare the body for running away from predators, or running for prey. On the other hand, humans and some other primates, have large brains that have enabled us to develop complex societies in which hierarchies are common. For example, baboons have very developed hierarchies in which, according to Sanford University neurobiologist Robert Sapolsky, "You get some big male who loses a fight, and chases a sub-adult, who bites an adult female, who slaps a juvenile, who knocks an infant out of a tree all in 15 seconds" (Ark TV, 00:08:18). His research shows that such stress results in baboons with high blood pressure, elevated levels of stress hormones, a poorly functioning immune system and brain chemistry which "bears some similarity to what you see in clinically depressed humans" (Ark TV, 00:11:20). This includes killing brain cells, according to his earlier research. Also mentioned in the documentary (Heminway, 2008) is research by Sir Michael Marmot who led the Whitehall studies that tracked the effects of stress on civil service workers in Great Britain. This research centered on workers employed as civil servants that had a very distinct hierarchical structure (Bell et al., 2004). The two studies, Whitehall (in 1967 involving 18,000 men) and Whitehall II (in 1985 involving over 10,000 men and women), "showed that the more senior you are in the employment hierarchy, the longer you might expect to live compared to people in lower employment grades" (p. 4). The conclusion was that work climate and the position of the worker in the work hierarchy affect the worker’s health. These lead to the uncomfortable (for some) finding that inequalities in health cannot be divorced from inequalities in society. The inescapable conclusion is that to address inequalities in health it is necessary both to understand how social organisation affects health and to find ways to improve the conditions in which people work and live. (p. 4) The Whitehall studies, along with research based on the hierarchical organizational social structures of other primates, dispels the myth of the stressed administrator who is at more of a

risk of heart disease than underlings because of higher stress. Being low on the hierarchy at work may result in deadly stress. In a document entitled Work Stress and Health: the Whitehall II Study published by the Public and Commercial Services Union on behalf of Council of Civil Service Unions in Great Britain, the research is reviewed and suggestions are given to make the workplace healthier for employees in the lower strata of organizations. Of interest here are the topics of control, support, effort-reward imbalance, job insecurity, and organizational change. "A way of thinking about stress at work that more closely accords with people’s experience is that it results from an imbalance between the psychological demands of work on the one hand and the degree of control over work on the other" (Bell et al., 2004, p. 6). In other words, low control at the workplace results in physical and mental health concerns. Anderson (1987) noted that teacher autonomy had decreased over the decade before and it was attributed to three factors. First, uniform staff development programmes based on research on effective teaching have become widespread. Second, classroom observations have become an integral part of imposed teacher evaluations. Third, school principals have been called on to assume

the role of “instructional leader.” (p. 357) Since pedagogy has become more standardized with the push for effective reforms and teacher evaluation has included increased scrutiny, it may be assumed that teachers continue to lose autonomy. The connection to the current study is clear: hierarchical school organizations damage the health of workers (teachers and other staff) as they have less and less control over their jobs. There were other health related concerns mentioned by participants in this study, including high blood pressure, depression, heart problems, migraine headaches, panic attacks, and blindness, all of which will affect the lives of teachers in a specific way, as well as affecting their ability to work. A major question which one might ask as a result of this data: How does principal mistreatment affect the use of sick leave (affectionately called “mental health” days by some)? Increased sick leave is costly for the district and may reduce the effectiveness of the educational system as a whole.

Research Question 11. Do teachers see a connection between student-to-student bullying and the culture of the school as influenced by the principal-to-teacher relationship? The argument can be made that K12 schools, as sedimented social institutions, cannot be separated from the larger social structure. Thompson (1984) defines a sedimented institution as “those configurations which persist in various specific forms” (p. 128) and a social structure as “a series of elements and their interrelations which conjointly define the conditions for the persistence of a social formation and the limits for the variation of its component institutions” (p. 129). From this perspective, the staff and students in a public school are inextricably connected to the larger powers as defined by the social structure and therefore will reflect this condition in their behavior and relationships. As mentioned before, student-to-student bullying has conditions similar to workplace bullying and these similarities may be explained by looking at the mechanisms of the system as a while. It is for this purpose that an open question was asked which encouraged the teachers to link student-to-student bullying with negative relationships between teachers and principals. The goal of this question was to discover how often the participants believe that the principal’s behavior with teachers affects students’ relationships. More specifically, if there is teacher mistreatment, does this translate to more student bullying in the minds of teachers? In order to introduce this change in topic, an introductory question was asked about whether bullying was being taken seriously with administrators with whom they’ve worked. Then, the question of interest was presented: “Is student-to-student bullying affected by the relationships between the teachers and principals?” A large number of the participants (72%) answered the first question and ignored the second. Since the topic of mistreatment at the hands of the principal is not often discussed or even considered in the day-to-day life of teachers, the results were not surprising. Mistreatment or bullying behaviors become a normative part of the school day; it may become acceptable behavior if you are the school administrator and unacceptable if you are one of the students. Those who did respond to the second question gave a variety of answers. Three of them misunderstood the question and believed I was asking whether the student bullying concerns affected the relationships between the principal and teachers. For example, one said, “I don’t feel like student-to student bullying is affecting teacher-principal relationships. I feel confident

that if I reported a bullying issue, my principal would handle it immediately.” Another said that “Tensions between the staff and principal occur when serious incidents are not addressed or are addressed in a manner that involves very little consequences to the bullying students involved.” Twelve respondents said they did not see a relationship between how principals treat teachers and student-to-student bullying in the school. Some simply mentioned the positive way the principal communicates with all, thus sidestepping the question entirely. Two chose to identify the problem of a lack of serious attention of student-to-student bullying as elsewhere, including one participant who said, “it’s affected most by the ridiculous obsession with testing and improving test scores which has been so heavily prioritized that there is little time, energy or staff to focus on anything else.” Another placed the blame on parents. Five participants linked the students’ behavior with the culture developed by the administration. Their statements are as follows:  “Yes, I believe it is affected because the relationship between the principal and staff serves as a model for the students.”  “It can be if the principal has an issue with the teacher.”  “Bullying is rampant in our school. Many of the things we have been told to do to prevent bullying are ignored by administration. I do believe that the culture of the school promotes this feeling.”  “I do believe that student behavior is affected by the adults they are surrounded by and that if staff members did a better job of modeling respectful behavior it would have a positive effect.”  “I think students watch the actions of adults and they mimic those actions. If adults bully then students will think it is alright to bully.”

The large number of respondents who ignored the question leads me to believe that the topic is not one that is considered often or at least openly between staff members. However, a few did see a link between the culture of the school and student bullying.

Research Questions 12 and 13. How does the relationship with principals affect the teachers’ sense of efficacy? How does the relationship with principals affect the teachers’ sense of job satisfaction? Teachers’ sense of self-efficacy and job satisfaction has been linked

to student achievement (Hoy & Woolfolk, 1993; Collie, Shapka, & Perry, 2012). Job satisfaction has been shown to be negatively associated with perceived teacher workload stress and positively associated with teaching efficacy (Collie, Shapka, & Perry, 2012). If a connection is apparent between perceived stress from a principal’s lack of support or mistreatment and teacher’s sense of efficacy or job satisfaction, this will provide a possible under researched link between student achievement and a principal’s leadership style. In this study, 57 of the 71 respondents (80%) who responded to this question agreed that their relationship with their current or past principals affect their own sense of efficacy in some manner, in either a positive or negative way and 85% agreed that their relationship with principals affected their sense of job satisfaction. To the extent that the principal is affecting job satisfaction of teachers, and the principal has the power to affect a teacher’s sense of efficacy, the entire functioning of the school may be compromised by principal mistreatment. Beyond the concern of the effect of the principal’s treatment of teachers on student achievement, Ingersoll (2001) reported that in the 1980s there was a prediction of teacher shortages due to more students and retiring teachers resulting in an initiation of efforts to recruit more teachers. However, his research showed that although it is true that teacher retirements are increasing, the overall amount of turn-over accounted for by retirement is relatively minor when compared to that associated with other factors, such as teacher job dissatisfaction and teachers pursuing better jobs or other careers. The data show that, in particular, inadequate support from the school administration, student discipline problems, limited faculty input into school decision- making, and to a lesser extent, low salaries, are all associated with higher rates of turnover, after controlling for the characteristics of both teachers and schools. (p. 501) He likened the teacher shortage problem to that of a “revolving door” implying that increasing the supply of teachers alone would not resolve the problem. There must also be a solution to the organizational concerns that cause teachers to want to leave their jobs for reasons other than simply retirement. Lack of principal support and mistreatment are important factors being ignored in research today.

Triangulation of Quantitative and Qualitative Data Seven participants who received the highest SrM scores, were compared with the three participants with the lowest scores across quantitative and qualitative results. Three of those with the highest scores were found to have MLS scores in the “sometimes” for level 3 (high) mistreatment, and “often” to “very often” for both levels 1 (low) and 2 (medium) mistreatment. Pertinent comments, taken from the open-ended questions, are as follows:  My relationship with my current principal has been, at times, a nightmare.  She has screamed at me in front of students about issues that I wasn't even involved with and has yelled at me for events beyond my control.  My current principal screams at people when she is feeling overwhelmed, often in front of students.  I find it interesting that she'll promote anti-bullying measures when she herself is a bully.  My current leader has the little man Syndrome and is never wrong no matter what.  I've been considering a career change.  Where I once loved my job and was proud to be a teacher, I have spent the last few years searching for another job.

Health concerns by this group include:  Bouts of insomnia, severe anxiety and frequent stomach illnesses.  Anxiety issues, insomnia, depression, stomach and heart problems.  Stress related panic attacks which needed to be controlled by medication.

The four others who had the highest SrM scores, also had the highest MLS scores, which placed them in the “often” to “always for all this level” for level 2 and 3, and “often” to “always” for level 1. Their comments included the following.  Harsh verbal abuse  I do not enjoy going to work.  Made me think I was a terrible teacher  I hated it. Wanted to move away.

Health concerns by this group included: 76

 Emotional stress by principal even during multiple surgeries and cancer.  Hypertension due to poor evaluations although achieved “highly effective” teacher.  Back pain due to stress, migraines.  Stress which led to physical blindness followed by migraines. “After $6000 dollars of diagnoses that is the best answer doctors could have for my loss of eyesight.”

For comparison purposes, the lowest three SrM scores (28) showed no mistreatment and complete support (and, therefore, also had an MLS of 000), provided the following comments.  She shows great respect for teachers, and serves our school as an advocate for students and teachers both.  She has expressed her appreciation for the work I do, and I feel valued as an effective teacher.  I wish I had this principal during all of my career.  It’s nice to be appreciated by our current principal.  I feel I am very fortunate to work with a principal who is a dedicated professional.  Their support made me want to be the most effective teacher I could be.  I have never felt alone in my job and know my principal’s door is open to me.

Regarding health concerns as affected by the relationship with the principal, these respondents reported:  My principal finds ways to reduce stress.  None.  My principal actually tries to help relieve some of the stress by lending a hand when possible. The comparison of qualitative and quantitative responses gives credible evidence of the reliability of the Principal Treatment Inventory. Some teachers in the sample experienced principal mistreatment behaviors with associated health concerns, and others did not experience these behaviors with no associated health concerns.

Limitations of the Study To begin, it is important to make clear what can and cannot be stated from this research. One cannot say that public school teachers in Ohio are being mistreated widely and systematically from the results of this study. Nor can one say that any of the respondents to the survey are being mistreated since they were not asked if they are being mistreated. The only statement that can be made is that a large number of the teachers who were contacted agreed that they personally have experienced some of the principal behaviors identified as mistreatment by past research. Caution must be taken whenever a sample is taken from a population and used to evaluate said population. Sampling error, which refers to the difference between the statistics obtained from a sample and the comparable population statistics is unavoidable since the only way to obtain an exact result is to give the survey to the entire population and to have a 100% response rate (Gray, Williamson, Karp & Dalphin, 2007). One way to reduce sampling error is to choose a large enough sample. “Generally it is wise to select a sample of at least 100 elements of a population” (p. 112). Although the sample of participants who submitted quantitative results was approaching 100, a larger sample would have produced less sampling error. Since the topic under consideration is underrepresented in the literature, the results are nevertheless of interest. If the topic of the research or the population being sampled is of great interest and if it has not been studied before, it is quite possible that even a study based on a small sample (and, consequently, of relatively low accuracy) will be of general interest. (p. 113) Bias refers to non-sampling errors, or those factors other than sampling errors that may cause distorted results (Gray, Williamson, Karp & Dalphin, 2007). For example, self-selection bias refers to the fact that there may be similar attributes of those teachers who responded to the survey than those who did not, which would cause the results to differ from the population. If, for example, the teachers who responded to the email by filling out the survey had more available time on their hands than those who did not, and if this was because the teachers were educational veterans with many years of successful lesson plans under their belts, they may have had more experiences with principal mistreatment over the years and this could skew the results toward a higher percent of mistreatment. There is no way to determine this; however, a larger sample size would have helped ameliorate the concern. Also, although it could be argued that

all teachers in Ohio are required to use a computer in their jobs, some have more technological savvy than others and it could be argued that another method of response, such as by mail, should have been presented to make sure that that part of the population was included in the sample. Survey research presents its own set of unique research limitations, one of which is in the construction of the survey itself. It is never possible to know how the participants interpreted the survey questions nor whether they had similar situations in mind as the other participants. Also, since teachers in this sample were asked sets of both closed and opened-ended questions about their relationships with principals, one set may have biased another. By asking the closed questions first, and by pointing out that the questions were taken from the literature on principal mistreatment, an indirect conceptualization of “principal mistreatment” was presented to the participants. For example, evidence is seen in the comments about the lack of principal support in the open-ended questions although the question specifically requested information about principal mistreatment. This bias was unavoidable since the researcher wanted to know how often the mistreatment as defined by Blase, Blase and Du (2007) was experienced by a random sample of teachers. Therefore, the open-ended responses may have been affected by the principal behaviors described in the Likert style questions. Although a definition of mistreatment was not included as part of the survey, it was made clear in the introductory Qualtrics letter that the study is based in the mistreatment literature so it makes sense that they would assume that the statements described mistreatment behaviors on the part of the principal and answer the qualitative answer accordingly. Another bias was introduced when it was attempted to include the opposite of the mistreatment statements since some of the support questions were not exact opposites of the mistreatment questions. For example, there are questions that are clear opposites. “My principal treats me fairly” is an exact opposite of “My principal treats me unfairly” and you would expect exact opposites in the Likert-style responses. However, others are not that clear and represent a larger and more complex variable. The opposite of “My principal takes credit for my accomplishments” is actually “My principal never takes credit for my accomplishments,” however the statement would not make sense with the Likert responses due to double negatives. For example, the result might be “My principal always never takes credit for my accomplishments” or “My principal never never takes credit for my accomplishments.” Also, it

is clear such a statement is biased negatively toward the principal, so instead it was written “My principal gives me credit for my accomplishment” which is not an exact opposite. Although the principal support questions were found to be highly correlated with the principal mistreatment question, this might be expected due a bias resulting from the structure of the questionnaire since positive questions were listed first and on the same page as negative questions. This was strategically done to reduce a negative bias since the sample consisted of teachers who had not self-reported mistreatment; it was hoped that the first question of the pair would have the effect of softening the tone of the second. Putting the two on the same visual level might encourage the teacher to assume that the two questions, presumed opposites, are exact opposites and therefore the respondent might rate the support and/or the mistreatment differently than they would if the statements were not linked. It should also be noted that a correlation between the principal support questions and the principal mistreatment questions does not necessarily mean that there is causation. A lack of principal support does not cause principal mistreatment, and vice versa. All that can be said is that the two variables show a positive correlation; when one goes up, so does the other. This may be useful since a given lack of principal support may predict the amount of principal mistreatment behavior in future research.

Strengths of the Study My main interest in this research was to find out how often a random sample of teachers experience principal mistreatment behaviors. The quantitative questions in this survey asked the teachers specifically about the experience they had during the 2012-2013 school year. The qualitative questions did not specify a year, but opened the discussion to any principal behavior experienced by the respondent. Therefore, the qualitative responses cannot be used to compare the data specifically oriented to one school year; however, the open-ended questions did confirm that these behaviors are being experienced by teachers providing a general type of triangulation demonstrating a type of reliability. That is, by triangulating the quantitative and qualitative data received by those respondents who were identified as experiencing the most mistreatment and the least, the study was strengthened by “seeking convergence and corroboration of results from different methods and designs studying the same phenomenon” (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004, p. 22).

The literature is lacking in documentation of the mistreatment of teachers by principals. There are many studies which consider what principals are doing right in their relationships with teachers , but Blase and Blase (2007) “published the first and only study of school principal mistreatment of teachers in the world” (p. 268). Also, the methodology of my study takes this a step further in that a random sampling procedure was used so that some degree of generalization was possible. Using the State of Ohio as a unit of study may make the results useful in policy generalization since traditionally the states create an “educational culture” of sorts by creating laws which govern public schools and by acting as an interface with pertinent legislation of the federal government. Some may suggest that just because a teacher perceives that mistreatment has occurred does not necessarily confirm that mistreatment has occurred. This not only presumes there is only one reality that we must work to define, but also from a Deweyan pragmatic perspective it subordinates the teacher’s experience to that of others. Whether or not an outside observer judges an action to be abusive, if the teacher experiences it as such is the only fact that affects that person’s life. It is this perception that will affect the subjective attitudes of teachers in their day-to-day teaching, their relationships with students, their relationships with principals, their senses of efficacy and their notions of job satisfaction. Teachers’ perceptions are an important consideration in research. Not only should teachers’ perceptions be considered in relation to their experiences of outcomes related to well-being and motivation, but their perceptions of school-based contextual variables are also important in shaping their experiences. (Collie, Shapka, & Perry, 2012, p. 12) Therefore, teachers’ perceptions of principal behaviors lend further strength to the usefulness of this study for future research.

Discussion of General Research Findings I argue that since education is foundational to the future of this country and teachers are the building blocks (Edgerson & Kritsonis, 2006) the results of this study are pivotal to the future success of P-12 schooling. Principals, by way of their leadership style, directly influence the culture of the school, which in turn affects teachers’ sense of job satisfaction and efficacy (Price, 2012). Student discipline, including bullying behaviors, and achievement are also affected

greatly by school climate which is, in turn, developed by the development of school culture as envisioned by the principal (Price, 2012). In this section, I discuss the significance of this study by mapping the link between the teacher-principal relationship and topics of interest regarding P- 12 education, including teacher retention and the effect of school climate and school culture on school bullying. As stated by Ingersoll (2001), “contemporary educational theory holds that one of the pivotal causes of inadequate school performance is the inability of schools to adequately staff classrooms with qualified teachers” (p. 499). One might easily conceptualize how the relationships between principals and teachers affect teacher retention. Teachers who feel satisfied with their jobs are less likely to look for employment elsewhere (Ingersoll, 2001). Also, as teachers experience positive relationships with their principals, their sense of efficacy is enhanced. Principals have the ability to improve teacher perceptions overall by simply attending to fundamental components inherent in quality relationships. As teachers begin to feel better about themselves and what their collective missions are as a result of significant interactions with their principals, they become more effective in the classroom. (Edgerson & Kritsonis, 2006, p. 2) Therefore, the relationship between the principal and the teacher is key in developing plans to retain teachers. My study underscores the worst type of relationship between teachers and principals which results in teachers who are stressed and feel less than positive about their own abilities and more likely to look for employment elsewhere. “The most successful teachers may be the ones inspired by the beautiful relationships developed with their principals, motivating them to do their very best” (Edgerson & Kritsonis, 2006, p. 4). Ronfeldt, Loeb and Wyckoff (2012) note that in a few cases, teacher turnover might be a good thing for student achievement. For the most part, however, teacher turnover is harmful and schools should do what they can to keep the teachers they have in the classroom. In light of my study, it is important to consider the effect of negative relationships between the teacher and principal when researching teacher retention, as well as teacher workplace satisfaction: When positive climates and cultures of family exist on school campuses across this great land of ours, synergy occurs, productivity increases, and students excel. Programs and systems are not the measure of success. Committed and dedicated individuals within

systems—engaged in healthy and systemic collaboration as a result of established relationships—that operate said programs are the true measure of success. (Edgerson & Kritsonis, 2006, p. 4) New teachers are also affected by negative principal-teacher relationships, even if they are not personally involved. Pogodzinski, Youngs, Frank & Belman (2012) found “the probability that a novice teacher reports a desire to remain teaching within her school is reduced when she perceives the quality of relations between teachers and administrators as poor” (p. 252). To the extent that it is important to retain teachers no matter how much experience they have, the principal-teacher relationship is an important factor. The effect of negative principal-teacher relationships on students’ learning and behavior in general is not as easily discerned. One path to examine such a connection might be through the lens of school climate and school culture. School climate refers to a relatively stable concept defined by a perceived feeling of a school which comes from experiencing it, including the building itself and the relationships within the building (Hoy & Sabo, 1998). School culture refers to a more nuanced evaluation of the school, which is more hidden and is situated in the beliefs of the people in the building (Hoy & Sabo, 1998). For example, a positive school climate may be witnessed easily by a visitor; however, one would need to spend time with those who work together in the building before the culture may be experienced and understood. School climate may easily be investigated with a checklist, whereas it is important to be immersed in the culture to truly understand it. Several researchers have discussed how the association of school culture, as evidenced by school climate, influences student learning (Price, 2012; Cohen, McCabe, Michelli, & Pickeral, 2009). Positive school climate has been found to be “associated with and/or predictive of academic achievement, school success, effective violence prevention, students’ healthy development, and teacher retention” (Cohen et al., 2009). The principal is in the best position to affect the culture of a school, as well as the climate of a school, due to the micropolitics of most school organizations (Blase & Anderson, 1995). Thus, it may be inferred that since the principal is in a key position to influence the development of school culture, the relationship of the principal with the teacher may prove to be a facile lens for researchers to unveil the true nature of a given school. Beyond conjecture, the possible association of school culture, principal-teacher relationships, and student bullying is a topic for future research.

Recommendations for Further Action As a pragmatic study, it is important to consider what action needs to be taken next to ameliorate a very difficult situation for some teachers that is indicated by the results of this study. It may be inferred from this study that there are teachers in the State of Ohio who are effected emotionally and physically by uncomfortable and even miserable workplace conditions due to principal behaviors. Consideration will be given to higher education curriculum for teachers and principals, as well as future research. Most important, principals and teachers need to acknowledge that mistreatment behaviors are possible. Given the extra pressures placed on principals and teachers with today’s reality of accountability, stress is a given and decisions may lead to actions which are less than optimal. These topics need to be discussed with future teachers and principals so they are no longer a “dirty secret” but an acknowledged concern that must be faced. Blase and Anderson (1995) provide perspectives on principal leadership based on empirical data collected from teachers which does not sugar coat the narrative of real principals in real schools, including the best and the worst scenarios. Future teachers who are exposed to this type of information can discuss, consider, and prepare for their future careers better by understanding the micropolitics of schools as organizations. Principals who do the same will be able to better judge their own actions, as well as acknowledge the concerns if witnessed in a co-worker. The first step is the acknowledgment that there is a problem. More research is also a must. In the pragmatic tradition, I believe when a researcher seeks to uncover a phenomenon that had not been adequately documented, it makes sense to follow a progression of methods to more completely approach a warranted definition of the problem. First, for example, when the original researchers looking at principal mistreatment wanted to shine a light on a topic which was virtually unacknowledged in the scholarly community, but one which had been very personally witnessed, they began with interviews of participants whose names were collected in the form of a snowball sample which represented those who had similar experiences. Thus they began an operationalization of the mistreatment concept. This represents exploratory research, which as Gray, Williamson, Karp and Dalphin (2007) discuss, needs nothing more than to know the topic for investigation. To move beyond

this, as demonstrated by my research, there needs to be a question, or set of questions, which may be termed descriptive research based on the exploratory research. The major question which was on my mind at the start of this project was to find out how often mistreatment at the hands of principals occurs according to a random sample of teachers in the State of Ohio. After further refinement of the Principal Mistreatment Inventory, I believe the next step would be to use a revised and shortened survey as a tool to locate schools with teachers who report a large degree of lack of support. First of all, it would be important to confirm that there is indeed a high correlation between a lack of support even with the two surveys separated. Thus, a less threatening and shorter version of the survey could be prepared. If this survey is found to be effective, and subsequently once a school is identified as having a principal who gives little support (and thus the possibility of mistreatment), ethnographic studies could be initiated as a means of painting a picture of mistreatment in schools, which would include both a focus on how the teachers experience the resulting culture and how the staff culture affects students. Van Maanen (2011) might term such ethnocentric research a “tale from the field.” I use the term quite self-consciously to highlight the presentational or, more properly, representational qualities of all fieldwork writing. It is a term meant to draw attention to the inherent story-like character of fieldwork accounts, as well as to the inevitable choices made by an author when composing an ethnographic work. (p. 8) Specifically, Van Maanen (2011) would refer to such a story as a critical tale because its goal would be “strategically situated to shed light on larger social, political, symbolic, or economic issues” (p. 127). The recognition of such a project would be an acknowledgement that care may need to be taken when choosing the groups to be studied to reveal larger issues of the school as a workplace in a capitalist society. “The mark of a critical tale is, again, the conscious selection of a strategically situated culture in which to locate one’s field work” (p. 128). Pragmatically, and in the tradition of critical theorists, context is key. “The critical tales also point to the increasing tendency of field workers to poke their heads into the disciplinary closets of economists, historians, political scientists, and psychologists, as well as their own” (p. 129).

Conclusion My suspicion is that most of the “abuse” scores represent stress on principals who sincerely want to do the best job they can do under extremely demanding conditions. There are, however those principals who have deeper, hidden problems, who are unable to stop themselves from hurting others, and who may actually enjoy hurting others. Teachers whose scores were skewed to the right may actually consider themselves to be “victims of bullying.” Education at the higher education level, where future principals can examine their own reasons for wanting to become educational leaders and how these reasons might affect the staff and students, is necessary. Also, pre-service teachers must be made aware of the possibility of mistreatment in the school setting so they are able to recognize the symptoms and plan accordingly. Above all, further research is necessary. There are those who guessed that my research project would be at risk because of the possibility of finding no evidence of principal mistreatment. This is the uninformed viewpoint which this study seeks to upend. There are highly supportive principals of whom teachers sing high praise, and there are those principals who are not supportive, doing little to support the educational process. And then there are those principals whose stories remain in locked closets due to the fear that teachers have of standing up in a system which gives them little power to fight back. Standing up for oneself is foolhardy in a system that gives principals the power to hire, fire, and write recommendations which will be taken seriously by another principal who is not ready to acknowledge the possibility of an abusive cohort. Furthermore, discussions which seek to develop learning communities, empowered teachers and projects which are designed to retain teachers cannot be taken seriously in districts which harbor abusive principals. Pragmatically, it does not matter whether the principal believes that abuse occurred; if the teacher feels mistreated, there is less chance that lines of communication will be open and a good chance that the teacher will close the classroom door rather than be caught on the administrative radar. It is clear to me that the only reason I felt comfortable doing this research is because I am retired and do not plan on returning to a public school position. I was once told by a principal that there are ways to make it clear that even though they have written a “recommendation” letter for a teacher, there may be no recommendation. On the surface such a letter written may sound positive to the lay person, however the receiving principal would recognize the underlying

“code.” In other words, there is an unspoken method of recognizing when a “good” referral is not really a positive referral and a teacher may be blackballed for any reason since there is no transparency in the process. This speaks to the ethics of some, though not all administrators who are given far too much power in the process of hiring and firing teachers and opens the door for unethical treatment in schools. An empowered workplace in which hiring and firing is placed in the hands of many would go a long way to ameliorating this situation. The mistreatment of teachers at the hands of principals to some degree is a logical outcome considering the hierarchical nature of K-12 school organizations. This study sheds light on an inevitable outcome of an unequal power structure, and initiates more questions than it answers. Since there is evidence of the mistreatment of teachers by an administrator in the workplace, and given the goal of schooling with its focus on children, what other associated outcomes may be expected? Does the academic and emotional growth of students in a classroom suffer when the teacher is mistreated by a principal? Do some concerns of students get dismissed as “kids being kids” instead of being taken seriously to the detriment of the emotional stability of the victims? If the principal is bullying a teacher, how does that same principal take student-to-student bullying seriously? Since there are laws in place which require the promotion of a district bullying policy, what are the ways that these laws may be surreptitiously avoided by those districts which harbor a culture of mistreatment? From their own perspectives, are teachers mistreated by principals? Although the sample of teachers collected for the study was small in number, they did report experiencing principal mistreatment behaviors. Although this study did not successfully obtain enough responses from a variety of demographic sources to enable sweeping generalizations, it sheds light on unfortunate and possibly disastrous situations which have not have been widely acknowledged. Keeping in mind that teachers touch the lives of students in every race, class, gender, and disability, principals’ treatment of teachers is of utmost concern.

References Allender, J. S. (1986). Educational research: A personal and social process. Review of Educational Research, 56(2), 173-193. Anderson, L. W. (1987). The decline of teacher autonomy: Tears or cheers? International Review of Education, 33(3), 357-373. Ark TV (2010, April 12). Killer stress: A National Geographic special. Retrieved from http://livedash.ark.com/transcript/killer_stress__a_national_geographic_special/1020/KT EH/Monday_April_12_2010/258324/ Aud, S., Hussar, W., Johnson, F., Kena, G., Roth, E., Manning, E., Wang, X., and Zhang, J. (2012). The Condition of Education 2012 (NCES 2012-045). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch. Babbie, E. (1990). Survey Research Methods (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Bell, R., Britton, A., Brunner, E., Chandola, T., Ferrie, J., Harris, M., . . .Stafford, M. (2004). Work stress and health: The Whitehall II study. London: Public and Commercial Services Union on behalf of Council of Civil Service Unions/Cabinet Office Berkovich, I., & Eyal, O. (2015). Educational leaders and emotions: An international review of empirical evidence 1992-2012. Review of Educational Research, 85(1), 129-167. Beasley, J., & Rayner, C. (1997). Bullying at work (after Andrea Adams). Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 7(3), 177-180. Biesta, G., & Burbules, N. (2003). Pragmatism and educational research. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Blase, J., & Anderson, G. L. (1995). The micropolitics of educational leadership: From control to empowerment. New York, NY: Teacher College Press. Blase, J., & Blase, J. (2002). The dark side of leadership: teacher perspectives of principal mistreatment. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(5), 671-727. Blase, J., & Blase, J. (2003a). Breaking the silence: Overcoming the problem of principal mistreatment of teachers (1st ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Blase, J., & Blase, J. (2003b). The phenomenology of principal mistreatment: Teacher's perspectives. Journal of Educational Administration, 41(4), 367-422.

Blase, J., Blase, J., & Du, F. (2007). The mistreated teacher: A national study. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(3), 263-301. Cohen, J., McCabe, E. M., Michelli, N. M., & Pickeral, T. (2009). School climate: Research, policy, practice, and teacher education. Teachers College Record, 111(1), 180-213. Collie, R. J., Shapka, J. D., & Perry, N. E. (2012). School climate and social-emotional learning: Predicting teacher stress, job satisfaction, and teaching efficacy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(4), 1-16. Cortina, L. M. (2008). Unseen injustice: Incivility as modern discrimination in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 33(1), 55-75. Dewey, J. (1903). Logical conditions of a scientific treatment of morality Retrieved from https://archive.org/details/logicalcondition00dewerich Dewey, J. (1905). The postulate of immediate empiricism. The Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods, 2(15), 393-399. Dewey, J. (1916a). Essays in experimental logic. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Dewey, J. (1916b). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York: Macmillan. Dewey, J. (1929a). The quest for certainty: A study of the relation of knowledge and action. New York, NY: Minton, Balch & Company. Dewey, J. (1929b). The sources of a science of education. New York, NY: Horace Liveright. Dewey, J. (1998a). Experience and education: The 60th anniversary edition (2nd ed.). Indianapolis, IN: Kappa Delta Pi. Dewey, J., & Bentley, A. F. (1949). Knowing and the known. Retrieved from https://www- google.com.proxy.lib.miamioh.edu/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad =rja&uact=8&ved=0CCEQFjAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.aier.org%2Fsites%2Fdef ault%2Ffiles%2FFiles%2FDocuments%2FStandard%2FKnowingKnownFullText.pdf&ei =MA0PVb7vGIavggTazID4BA&usg=AFQjCNGeSwbxiv0ZuPYDGSKXEP_VgTaEDQ &sig2=nsPVXcCxDdkHJCXbvlnmXg Edgerson, D. E., & Kritsonis, W. A. (2006). Analysis of the influence of principal-teacher relationships on student academic achievement: A national focus. National Journal for Publishing and Mentoring Doctoral Student Research, 1(1), 1-5.

Fenstermacher, G. D., & Sanger, M. (1998). What is the significance of John Dewey's approach to the problem of knowledge? The Elementary School Journal, 98(5), 467-478. Fott, D. (1991). John Dewey and the philosopical foundations of democracy. The Social Science Journal, 28(1), 29-44. Freire, P. (2009). Pedagogy of the oppressed (3rd ed.). New York, NY: The Continuum International Publishing Group Inc. Frymier, A. B., & Houser, M. L. (2000). The teacher-student relationship as an interpersonal relationship. Communication Education, 49(3), 207-219. Garrison, J. (1994). Realism, Deweyan pragmatism, and educational research. Educational Researcher, 23(1), 5-14. George, D., & Mallery, P. (2010). SPSS for Windows: Step by step (10th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Giang, V. (2014). The 14 Most Stressful Jobs in America. Business Insider. Retrieved from: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/the-14-most-stressful-jobs-in-america-171029957.html Glendinning, P. M. (2001). Workplace bullying: Curing the cancer of the American workplace. Public Personnel Management, 30(3), 269-286. Gliem, J. A., & Gliem, R. R. (2003). Calculating, interpreting, and reporting Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient for Likert-type scales. Paper presented at the Midwest Research to Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing, and Community Education. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1805/344 Gray, P. S., Williamson, J. B., Karp, D. A., & Dalphin, J. R. (2007). The research imagination: An introduction to qualitative and quantitative methods. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Green, S. B., & Salkind, N. J. (2011). Using SPSS for Windows and Macintosh: Analyzing and understanding data (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall. Harvey, M. G., Heames, J. T., Richey, R. G., & Leonard, N. (2006). Bullying: From the playground to the boardroom. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 12(4), 1- 11. Heminway, J. (Writer). (2008). Stress: Portrait of a killer [Documentary]. United States: National Geographic.

House, E. (1994). Integrating the quantitative and qualitative. In C. Reichardt & S. Rallis (Eds.), The qualitative-quantitative debate: New perspectives (pp. 98). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Hoy, W. K., & Sabo, D. J. (1998). Quality middle schools: Open and healthy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc. Hoy, W. K., & Sweetland, S. R. (2001). Designing better schools: The meaning and measure of enabling school structures. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(3), 296-321. Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk, A. E. (1993). Teachers' sense of efficacy and the organizational health of schools. The Elementary School Journal, 93(4), 355-372. Ingersoll, R. M. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 499-534. Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2008). Educational Research: Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Approaches (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26. Kalton, G. (1983). Introduction to Survey Sampling. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Kish, L. (1965). Survey Sampling. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Leslie, L. L. (1972). Are high response rates essential to valid surveys? Social Science Research, 1(3), 323-334. Leymann, H. (1990). Mobbing and psychological terror at workplaces. Violence and victims, 5(2), 119-126. Lodge, J., & Frydenberg, E. (2005). The role of peer bystanders in school bullying: Positive steps toward promoting peaceful schools. Theory into Practice, 44(4), 329-336. Ma, X., & MacMillan, R. (1999). Influences of workplace conditions on teachers' job satisfaction. The Journal of Educational Research, 93(1), 39-47. Mertens, D. M. (1998). Research Methods in Education and Psychology: Integrating Diversity with Quantitative & Qualitative Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Mertler, C. A. (2003). Patterns of response and nonresponse from teachers to traditional and web surveys. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 8(22). Retrieved from http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=8&n=22 Namie, G. (2003). Workplace bullying: Escalated incivility. Ivey Business Journal, 68(2), 1-6.

Namie, G. (2007). The challenge of workplace bullying. Employment Relations Today, 34(2), 43- 51. Namie, R., & Namie, G. (2007). Workplace bullying institute. Retrieved May 1, 2011, from http://www.workplacebullying.org/ Noddings, N. (1995). Philosophy of Education. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Olweus, D. (1994). Annotation: Bullying at school: Basic facts and effects of a school based intervention program. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 35(7), 1171-1190. Olweus, D. (1995). Bullying or peer abuse at school: Facts and intervention. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 4(6), 196-200. Parsons, L. (2005). Bullied teacher, bullied student: How to recognize the bullying culture in your school and what to do about it. Markham, ON: Pembroke Publishers. Phillips, D. C., & Burbules, N. C. (2000). Postpositivism and Educational Research. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Pogodzinski, B., Youngs, P., Frank, K. A., & Belman, D. (2012). Administrative climate and novices' intent to remain teaching. The Elementary School Journal, 113(2), 252-275. Price, H. E. (2012). Principal-teacher interactions: How affective relationships shape principal and teacher attitudes. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(1), 39-85. Raaijmakers, Q. A. W. (1999). Effectiveness of different missing data treatments in surveys with Likert-type data: Introducing the relative mean substitution approach. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59(5), 725-748. Ronfeldt, M., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2012). How teacher turnover harms student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 50(1), 4-36. Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Smith, P. K., Pepler, D. J., & Rigby, K. (2004). Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be? Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Spratlen, L. P. (1995). Interpersonal conflict which includes mistreatment in a university workplace. Violence and victims, 10(4), 285-297. Swearer, S. M., Espelage, D. L., Vaillancourt, T., & Hymel, S. (2010). What can be done about school bullying? Linking research to educational practice. Educational Researcher, 39(1), 38-47.

The Healthy Workplace Campaign. The healthy workplace bill - workplace bullying legislation for the U.S. Retrieved 11/08/2012, 2012, from http://www.healthyworkplacebill.org/ Thompson, J. B. (1984). Studies in the theory of ideology. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. (2013a). Average and median age of public school teachers and percentage distribution of teachers, by age category, sex, and state: 2011–12. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass/tables/sass1112_2013314_t1s_002.asp U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. (2013b). Highest degree earned, years of full-time teaching experience, and average class size for teachers in public elementary and secondary schools, by state: 2011-12. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_209.30.asp U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. (2013c). Total number of public school teachers and percentage distribution of school teachers, by race/ethnicity and state: 2011–12. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass/tables/sass1112_2013314_t1s_001.asp Vega, G., & Comer, D. R. (2005). Sticks and stones may break your bones, but words can break your spirit: Bullying in the workplace. Journal of Business Ethics, 58(1), 101-109. Vanderstraeten, R. (2002). Dewey's transactional constructivism. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 36(2), 233-246. Van Maanen, J. (2011). Tales of the field: On writing ethnography (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Wright, S. P., Horn, S. P., & Sanders, W. L. (1997). Teacher and classroom context effects on student achievement: Implications for teacher evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 11(1), 57-67. Yamada, D. (2000). The phenomenon of "workplace bullying" and the need for status-blind hostile work environment protection. The Georgetown Law Journal, 88, 475-537. Yamada, D. (2008). Workplace bulling and ethical leadership. The Journal of Values-Based Leadership, 1(2). Retrieved from: http://scholar.valpo.edu/jvbl/vol1/iss2/5

Appendix

Principal Treatment Inventory (PTI)

(Note: The following two letters were sent to participants by email.)

Dear Public K-12 Teacher, Your name has been randomly chosen to take part in an important research study which aims to improve the working conditions of Public K-12 school teachers in the State of Ohio. Since this study depends on a random sample of participants, it is very important that you consider completing the survey by clicking on the following link. You are the only teacher in your school who will be asked to take part in this research. It is important that you understand that you may refuse to participate or discontinue the survey at any time without penalty. The administration of your school and district has not been notified, nor will they be notified, of your participation or lack of participation. The survey includes 18 pairs of multiple choice questions, 5 open ended questions, and 16 demographic questions. It will take between 5 and 20 minutes of your time, depending on whether you choose to answer the five open ended questions. If you decide to be included in the study, due to the sensitivity of the questions, please wait until you are relocated at a computer away from the school in which you work to begin the survey. The link and a generic password are listed below. This will ensure your anonymity assuming that you do not give identifying information in any of the open ended questions. Note that if you need to log off and log back on, you will need to use the password as well as the same computer and browser with cookies enabled if you wish to save your work.

Thank you,

Diane Huffman Doctoral Candidate Miami University Oxford, Ohio

Password: teacher Follow this link to the Survey: Click here to take the survey. Or copy and paste the URL below into your internet browser: https://miamioh.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_0ig70weAd1suqUJ

Dear K12 Teacher or Counselor,

Within the last few months you should have received an email like the one below in which you were asked to take part in a research study with the goal of improving working conditions of teachers and counselors. If you opted out or already took the survey I apologize for sending another email, however due to security reasons there is no way for me to tell who has or hasn’t replied. As of today, 589 surveys have been delivered to randomly chosen participants and only 36 have replied. In order to have statistically significant findings, I am hoping to receive 375 replies with the ultimate goal of bringing teacher working conditions to the attention of Ohio state policy makers. As teacher evaluations become more commonly under the purview of legislators, this study and studies like it become imperative to bring difficult work conditions experienced by teachers to the attention of the public.

IF you did take the survey, thank you so much for your participation. IF you did not take the survey, please reconsider. It would take a small amount of your time, but doing so could make a difference.

Please feel free to email me directly if you have questions or concerns.

Diane

(Note: The following represents the first screen of the Qualtrics Survey.)

Thank you for considering taking part in our research.

As a reminder, it is suggested that this survey be completed at a site other than your work place. If that is not possible, it is suggested that you find a secure and private location to complete the survey. The reason for the need for privacy is that this survey will ask sensitive questions about your workplace which you may not want to share with others.

The survey, which may take on average 5 to 20 minutes, includes: · an electronic consent form · 18 pairs of multiple choice questions each on a separate page · 5 open ended questions · 16 demographic questions

Please proceed to the Informed Consent page when you are ready.

Informed Consent Form

Dear K-12 Public School Teacher,

My name is Diane Huffman and I am a doctoral candidate at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio. My scholarly interests include the examination of public K-12 schools as workplaces and how the organizational climate of those workplaces affects public education.

The goal of this study is to collect information about the relationships between principals and K- 12 public school teachers. The Principal Treatment Inventory (PTI) is adapted from The Principal Mistreatment/Abuse Inventory (PMAI) developed by Joseph Blase and Jo Blase from the University of Georgia and Fengning Du from the Defense Language Institute, Monterey, California. I wish to learn more about the treatment of teachers by principals in the State of Ohio by inventorying a sample of public K-12 teachers. This data may then be statistically generalized to the population of teachers in Ohio so that the overall teacher/principal relationships in the state may be considered in an attempt to make Ohio Schools a more positive, supportive, and affirming workplace for all. Because of the necessity of a random sample of teachers, your participation is extremely important.

The survey is distributed by Qualtrics which is a hosted software service chosen by Miami University. All personal information, including the IP address of your computer, will be removed from the survey permanently before the data is collected and will not be accessible by the researchers. Qualtrics personnel will not know who has been invited to participate. Despite these safeguards, there is always the remote possibility of hacking or other security breaches that could compromise confidentiality. Because of this, you should keep in mind that you are free to decline to answer any question that makes you uncomfortable for any reason. The data will be used as a

part of a doctoral dissertation and may be published in an academic journal as well as presented in conferences.

All data obtained from participants will be kept confidential and will only be reported in an aggregate format (by reporting only combined results and never reporting individual information). All questionnaire results will be concealed, and no one other than the researchers listed below will have access to them.

Risks are minimal for involvement in this study. However, you may feel emotionally uneasy when asked to describe the relationship with your principal. Although we do not expect any harm to come upon any participants due to electronic malfunction of the computer, it is possible though extremely rare and uncommon. There are no direct benefits for participants. However, it is hoped that through your participation, researchers will learn more about principal/teacher relationships in Ohio which may be used to relieve the distress of those who are being mistreated in the workplace.

Participation in this research study is completely voluntary. You have the right to withdraw at any time or refuse to participate entirely without fear of reprisal. If you desire to withdraw, please close your Internet browser.

If you have questions regarding this study, you may contact Diane Huffman at 513-593-9770, [email protected]. If you have questions you do not feel comfortable asking the researcher, you may contact Dr. Thomas S. Poetter at 513-529-6853, [email protected]. Or contact the Office of Advancement of Research and Scholarship at 513-529-3600, [email protected].

Thank you for your participation. We are grateful for your help and hope that this will be an interesting session for you.

______

I agree to participate in the study of teacher/principal relationships. I understand my participation is voluntary and that my name will not be associated with my responses. By agreeing to participate I acknowledge that I am 18 years or older.

○ I agree to participate ○ I do not agree to participate

______

Quantitative Questions

DIRECTIONS: The following pages each contain two multiple choice questions which describe behaviors attributed to some school administrators which you may or may not have witnessed.

Please evaluate all of them according to the behavior of your most recent principal only. If you have a new principal coming in for the new school year, consider only the principal you worked with last year.

The questions are blocked together as a positive and a negative behavior on separate pages.

Be sure to read both statements before responding to either, however keep in mind that the statements may not be exact opposites so your answers may not be exact opposites. Use the arrow to go back to past questions if you so desire. You may log out and log back in. Assuming that you use the same computer and browser, and that your computer enables cookies, you can pick up where you left off with use of your password.

Note: you can choose to not answer any question or questions, and that you may quit the survey at any time.

Response options for questions 1-36: ○ Always ○ Very often ○ Often ○ Sometimes ○ Seldom ○ Never

1. My principal listens to my opinions. 2. My principal ignores my opinions. ______

3. My principal respects my privacy when appropriate. 4. My principal spies on me (e.g., hanging out by me classroom door, listening on intercom, having other teachers or parents inform on me, etc.).

______

5. My principal tells the truth about me. 6. My principal lies about me. ______

7. My principal displays respectful behavior toward me. 8. My principal displays explosive behavior toward me (e.g., yelling, pounding fist, etc.). ______

9. My principal gives me credit for my accomplishments. 10. My principal takes credit for my accomplishments. ______

11. My principal gathers as much factual information as possible before approaching me with a concern. 12. My principal uses information from others to criticize me. ______

13. My principal evaluates me fairly. 14. My principal gives me unfair evaluations. ______

15. My principal provides resources I need. 16. My principal unfairly withholds resources I need (e.g., materials, space, funds). ______

17. My principal gives approval. 18. My principal denies approval (e.g., projects, planning time, use of telephone, field trips, conferences, workshops, etc.). ______

19. My principal gives me reasonable workloads. 20. My principal gives me large and unmanageable workloads. ______

21. My principal treats me fairly.

22. My principal treats me unfairly. ______

23. My principal encourages colleagues to work collaboratively with me. 24. My principal encourages colleagues to isolate me. ______

25. My principal refrains from gossiping about me. 26. My principal gossips about me. ______

27. My principal makes it clear to others that I am respected. 28. My principal publicly ridicules, or humiliates me. ______

29. My principal attempts to keep me in my job. 30. My principal attempts to force me out of my job (had me reassigned, had me transferred, terminated me, etc.). ______

31. My principal displays non-racist behaviors toward me. 32. My principal displays racist behaviors toward me. ______

33. In regards to sexual behavior, my principal treats me appropriately. 34. My principal sexually harasses me. ______

35. My principal does not physically intimidate me. 36. My principal physically intimidates me (e.g., invades my personal space, blocks me, shoves me, etc.).

Qualitative Questions

DIRECTIONS: The following five questions, each on a separate page, are open ended. Please write as much or as little as you would like on each of them. Keep in mind that you always have

100

the option of not answering at all. Also keep in mind that you may not wish to give any personal information which will link you to this survey. Please make it clear in your answer if you are discussing your most recent principal or if you are discussing principals in past work experiences.

Question 1: Admittedly, it is difficult to clearly define all behaviors which describe those which may affect your relationship with principals. Please add any further information you feel compelled to discuss. Feel free to write as much as you wish about whatever is on your mind as it relates to this survey. You may also wish to include information about personal mistreatment by past principals and mistreatment of other teachers that you have witnessed as well as mistreatment by your current principal.

Question 2: Workplace mistreatment can cause harm to your health in the form of stress (which affects cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, immunological and auto-immune systems), emotional or psychological distress, social status concerns such as isolation, and economic harm such as loss of or the choice to leave a job. Has mistreatment at the hands of your most recent principal or past principal(s) caused harm to you in any of these ways?

Question 3: In your experience, do you believe that student-to-student bullying is being taken seriously by the administrations with whom you've worked? Is student-to-student bullying affected by the relationships between the teachers and the principal? Please explain.

101

Question 4: How has the relationship between you and any of your principals affected your sense of how effective you are as a teacher?

Question 5: How has the relationship between you and any of your principals affected your job satisfaction?

Demographics

DIRECTIONS: Finally, please tell us a little about yourself. This information is important so that we can compare how different groups of people in different settings experience principal treatment. If you are not sure of any answer, please try to answer to the best of your knowledge.

As always, feel free to skip any question which you would rather not answer.

1. Gender: Female/Male

2. Age:

60 or older 50-59 40-49 30-39 29 or younger

3. Marital Status: Married/Divorced/Widowed/Never married

4. Ethnicity: Hispanic or Latino/Not Hispanic or Latino

5. Race (choose one or more):

White Black or African American American Indian or Alaskan Native Asian Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander

6. Teacher Union: Member of union/ Not member of union/No union available

102

7. Highest degree earned

Vocational certificate Bachelor Master Specialist Doctorate

8. Number of full years of experience in teaching:

Over 20 10-19 4-9 1-3 less than 1 year

9. Number of full years teaching at current school:

Over 20 10-19 4-9 1-3 less than 1 year

10. In what subject area or area of specialization are you currently employed?

11. Gender of the most recent principal: Female/Males

12: Number of years that the most recent principal has worked with you as a principal (approximate if necessary:

20 or more 10-19 4-9 1-3 less than 1 year

13. Number of total years that the most recent principal has worked as a principal (approximate if necessary):

unknown 20 or more 10-19 4-9 1-3 Less than 1 year

103

14: Approximately how many students are in your school?

More than 2,000 1,000 to 2,000 500 to 1,000 less than 500

15. What student grade levels are represented in your school? (Choose as many as necessary.):

12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 K P

16. How would you describe the school district of the building in which you work?

Urban Suburban Rural

104