A MODEL OF SCHOOL SUCCESS Instructional Leadership PDF
A MODEL OF SCHOOL SUCCESS Instructional Leadership PDF
DISSERTATION
By
*****
Dissertation Committee:
Approved by
Dr. Wayne Hoy, Adviser
pressure on school administrators to raise the achievement levels of their students. The
purpose of this inquiry was to develop a path model to explain the connections among
predicting student achievement is that the socioeconomic status generally overwhelms all
school properties that can explain student achievement controlling for socioeconomic
instructional leadership of the principal and academic press of the school defined in terms
to the extent to which school climate emphasizes high student expectations and
intellectual accomplishments.
framework and measure of instructional leadership was developed and tested. Three
monitoring and providing feedback on the teaching and learning process, and developing
Then a theoretical path mode to explain achievement was developed with instructional
leadership, academic press, and socioeconomic status as the key variables. Using
ii
structural equation modeling the hypothesized relationships were tested with data
collected from 146 elementary schools in Ohio, as well as student achievement and
The findings provided substantial support for the model. Although the
instructional leadership of the principal was not directly related to student achievement, it
did have an indirect positive effect on achievement through the academic press of the
school, which had a direct effect on student achievement in both mathematics and
reading, controlling for socioeconomic status. Socioeconomic status had both a direct
In sum, this study adds to the understanding of the social dynamics within the
school that influence student achievement. Principals can affect the student achievement
iii
Dedicated to my loving husband, David,
and our supportive family
iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Undertaking this wonderful, life-alternating journey would not have been possible
without the encouragement of many people. In this regard, I want to acknowledge those
who have had an impact on my studies and have provided multitudes of support in
completing my journey.
First and foremost, I would like to thank my husband, David. Without his constant
encouragement and love, completion of this degree would not have been possible. Thank
you, David, so very much for supporting my dreams and goals and helping me achieve
Thank you, David, Hanna, Mom, Dad, Jenny, Dave, Julie, Dreama, Mark, Kim, Dea,
Brian, Anne, Bob, Sarah, Larry, Missy, Maritza, and Laura. I truly appreciate you all.
dedicated adviser like Dr. Wayne Hoy. Without his direction, support and
encouragement, I would not have completed this task. Dr. Hoy has pushed me to work
long and hard in my studies. I am deeply indebted to him for “taking me in” two years
ago and becoming my adviser. Thank you, Dr. Hoy. You are deeply admired and
respected.
v
I would also like to thank and acknowledge Dr. Anita Woolfolk Hoy, Dr. Franklin
Walter, and Dr. Scott Sweetland. Each of them has provided me a unique perspective on
education. Dr. Woolfolk Hoy’s expertise in educational psychology has greatly enhanced
my knowledge of learning theory and application within the school organization. Dr.
understanding of how the educational system really works in Ohio. Dr. Sweetland’s vast
wisdom in school finance and data-based decision making demonstrated the importance
of practicing data-driven educational leadership. Thank you all for your time and
I must also thank two fellow doctorate cohorts: Tim Cybulski and Mike
Nicholson. Without these two gentlemen, my experience would not have been as
meaningful and constructive. Tim, thank you for our many conversations and your
endless encouragement, they have helped me stay focused and inspired. Mike, thank you
for your many hours of computer support and organization of our research study without
your expertise, it would have taken me much longer to complete this work.
I also wish to thank many people in the School of Educational Policy and
Leadership who make it a better place to work and study. Thank you, Diane Baugher for
your countless attributes. You have helped make my experience at The Ohio State
University a pleasant one. Thank you, Deb Zabloudil, Nadine Denton, Karmella Spears,
and Carol Norris for guidance and service in navigating the demands of a large
bureaucratic institution.
vi
The Ohio Center for Essential School Reform has been extremely supportive of
my work. Dr. Dan Hoffman has allowed me to have a flexible schedule, so I could attend
classes and work on my research. Barb Levak has taken her own time to proofread many
of these pages. Ed James and Elizabeth Moore have given me constant encouragement
vii
VITA
FIELDS OF STUDY
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Abstract ………………………………………………………………………………. ii
Dedication ……………………………………………………………………………. iv
Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………… v
Chapters:
1. Introduction ……………………………………………………………………… 1
Instructional Leadership………………………………………………………..… 12
Leadership Theory………………………………………………………………… 14
Trait Theory…………………………………………………………………… 14
Leadership Behavior Theory…………………………………………………. 17
Contingency Theories of Effective Leadership………………………………. 20
Path-Goal Theory ………………………………………………………… 20
Charismatic Leadership………………………………………………………. 22
House’s Charismatic Leadership…………………………………………. 22
Self-Concept Theory of Charismatic Leadership…………………………. 23
Transformational and Transactional Leadership…………………………. 24
Instructional Leadership and School Effectiveness………………………………. 29
Instructional Leadership and Teaching and Learning ………………….… 35
ix
Instructional Leadership Models…………………………………………………. 37
Hallinger and Murphy’s Model (1985) …………………………………... 38
Murphy’s Model (1990)……………………………………………….…. 40
Weber’s Model (1996) ……………………………………………………….. 44
Hypothesized Framework of Instructional Leadership ………………………. 47
Organizational Climate and Academic Press …………………………………….. 49
Academic Press, School Effectiveness and Teaching and Learning…………. 59
Student Achievement and the Standards Movement …………………………….. 61
Educational Standards and Assessments: Historical Review………………… 61
Fourth Grade Proficiency Assessments as a Measure
Of Student Achievement……………………………………………………… 69
Rationale for Hypothesis………………………………………………………… 72
3. Methodology …………………………………………………………………….. 75
Sample……………………………………………………………………………. 75
Research Instrument………………………………………………………………. 75
The Development of the Instructional Leadership Instrument ………………. 76
Preliminary Review………………………………………………………………. 78
The Pilot Test …………………………………………………………………….. 78
Results of the Pilot Study …………………………………………………….. 78
Academic Press Construct ……………………………………………………….. 83
Socioeconomic Status Construct…………………………………………………. 84
Student Achievement Construct………………………………………………….. 84
Data Collection…………………………………………………………………… 85
Data Analysis …………………………………………………………………….. 85
x
Socioeconomic Status and Instructional Leadership………………………….123
Socioeconomic Status and Student Achievement …………………………….124
Implications……………………………………………………………………… 125
Theoretical Implications……………………………………………............... 125
Practical Implications…………………………………………………………127
Research Implications ………………………………………………………129
Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………..131
References ………………………………………………………………………….132
Appendices……………………………………………………………………………141
A: Research Prospectus …………………………………………………….141
B: Directions for Administration of Survey…………………………………..145
C: Instructional Leadership Inventory Items…………………………….........146
xi
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
2.1 Framework of Instructional Management ………………………………….. 39
2.5 Grade 4 Summary Statistics: Source 2002 Technical Report ODE ……….. 70
xii
5.1 Comparison of Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale and the
Instructional Leadership Inventory Developed in this Research …………………..119
xiii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
xiv
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
for all students. The reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Educational Act in
January, 2002 puts profound emphasis on student achievement and provides for
ramifications, such as school choice for students, for schools that do not obtain high
success for all students (ESEA, 2002). We look to our educational leaders to build the
school’s capacity for changes and improvements. Administrators will need to work
policymakers) to create structures, policies and procedures that will facilitate schools to
be places where all individuals learn and reach their full potential (Purpel, 1989). Leaders
can set the foundation to foster growth in our schools by practicing strong instructional
leadership.
Coleman’s research (1966) and Jencks’s (1972) follow-up study posed that
success in school, and that the school’s characteristics had little to no effect on student
achievement. This research spawned others to determine what factors, under the school’s
control, would contribute to high student achievement. Weber (1971) studied four
achievement. He concluded that all four effective schools had strong leadership that
1
focused decisions around instruction, set high expectations for all students, had a safe,
Other researchers broadened the school effectiveness research with similar results.
Purkey & Smith’s (1983) extensive review of more than 100 studies and research into
effective schools strengthens these findings. Their review found nine structure variables
academic success, maximized learning time, and district support. They also clearly
articulated that these nine variables must be enveloped in a school culture and climate
that foster collegial relationships, provides for a sense of community, has clear goals and
2
commonly shared high expectations, and is orderly and disciplined. The effective school
research provides schools with clear goals that should lead improvement efforts.
strong, instructional leadership (Edmonds, 1979ab, 1982; Purkey & Smith, 1983; Weber,
contingency, and charismatic, provide a theoretical framework for viewing the historic
definitions and models that conceptualize it starting from the early 1900’s. The current
study synthesizes the many definitions and models of instructional leadership using
in terms of principal behaviors that lead a school to educate all students to high student
which define and communicate shared goals, monitor and provide feedback on the
attention to the technical core of schools. These goals increase the effort exerted by
school members, increase persistence, and increase the development of strategies (Locke
and Latham, 1990). Instructional leaders consistently make decisions with these goals in
mind. The shared goals of a school foster group unity and help provide for a climate
encompass behaviors that evolve around the academic curriculum. Principal activities
may include being visible throughout the school, providing praise and feedback to
teachers about classroom and professional growth activities, providing praise and
uninterrupted instructional time. Instructional leaders that monitor the teaching and
learning process do so for the purpose of professional growth for the teacher and
leaders focus on ways of improvement to obtain the shared goals of the school.
encourage life-long learning. The educational field consistently evolves and changes as
continue to learn and keep abreast of advances and issues in education. Instructional
leaders play an essential role, as they can either stifle or enhance professional
workshops or conferences, and providing resources and in-services that cultivate teacher
development goals and efforts enhances the likelihood that life-long learning will
continue.
schools. Research shows that principals who demonstrate instructional behaviors extract
4
more commitment and satisfaction from teachers, as well as establish a climate that
encourages trust, risk, and collaboration (Larson-Knight, 2000; Blasé & Blasé, 1999a,
1999b, 1998; Sheppard, 1996; and Chrispeels, 1992). These influences culminate into a
classroom where students experience lessons designed around learning theory and diverse
learning strategies.
the teaching learning process and promoting school-wide professional development are
described above from each of these dimensions. Instructional leadership offers schools a
process to become more effective at the teaching and learning process. The current
(Weber, 1996; Murphy, 1990; Hallinger & Murphy, 1985; Hallinger & Heck, 1996) of
the last ten years, and encompasses current research to propose a model of instructional
leadership that meets the needs, expectations and government mandates for the next
generation.
Croft, 1962). Climate is the feel or enduring quality of an environment that affects the
5
Poole (1985) summarizes the basic characteristics of organizational climates:
Factors extracted from the school effectiveness research, such as high expectations,
emphasis on academics, an orderly and safe environment, and clearly articulate goals,
form the conceptualization for this study’s variable of academic press (Edmonds, 1979ab,
1982; Purkey & Smith, 1983; Weber, 1971; Brookover& Lezotte, 1979, Halpin & Croft,
1962; Tagiuri & Litwin, 1968; Hoy, Tarter, & Kottkamp, 1991). Academic press
level and depicts the school’s emphasis on goals and mission, high expectations for all
students, academics, and an orderly and safe environment (Hoy, Tarter, & Kottkamp,
School climates associated with high levels of academic press benefit the teaching
and learning process. Teachers that work in high academic press schools are more likely
to use a variety of instructional strategies, collaborate with colleagues, attend to their own
(Goddard, Sweetland & Hoy, 2000; Blasé & Blasé, 1998; McEwan, 1998; Chrispeels,
1992). As a result, students that attend schools with an emphasis on academic press are
6
The current study will begin with a review of the research about instructional
leadership and academic press. A theoretical model of instructional leadership based both
on conceptual and empirical considerations will be developed and tested in the form of a
Problem Statement
A review of the empirical research of the past twenty years indicates that
principal leadership can make a difference in student learning (Hallinger & Heck, 1996).
A research question that guides this study is whether instructional leadership behaviors
normally work directly with students; hence the question: how does the instructional
climate factors that influence student achievement at the middle and high school levels
and the academic press of a building is one key factor (Hoy & Tarter, 1997; Hoy & Sabo,
1998). Thus, the question arises; does the academic press of an elementary school affect
leadership and academic press have direct, independent relationships with student
achievement, or does instructional leadership work through academic press? These are
the two major questions that will be guiding the empirical phase of this study.
7
Research Hypotheses
indirectly. It will also examine whether academic press has a significant effect on student
achievement at the elementary level. The guiding hypotheses for the research are as
follows:
goals, monitors and provides feedback on the teaching and learning process, and
These hypotheses will be developed into a theoretical path model in the next chapter.
8
Definitions of Terms
Terms used throughout the current study are defined below for clarity and understanding.
Academic Press: refers to “the extent to which the school is driven by a quest for
academic excellence. High but achievable academic goals are set for students, the
ability to achieve, and students work hard and respect those who do well
academically” (Hoy & Hannum, 1997, p. 294). Other terms used in literature as
synonyms for academic press have been achievement press, environmental press,
1990; Hallinger & Murphy, 1985; Hallinger & Heck, 1996) and a pilot study of an
Defines and Communicates Shared Goals: means that the leader works
driven shared goals of the school. Goals are used in making organizational
and providing targets for progress. These goals focus the staff around a
9
Monitors and Provides Feedback on the Teaching and Learning
school, talking with students and teachers, providing praise and feedback
performances, and ensuring that the instructional time of the school is not
interrupted.
behaviors of the leader that are consistent with life-long learning. The
Test. This test is used due to its standardized use across all elementary schools.
The current research examines fourth grade proficiency data regarding student
distinguishes one school from another and influences the behaviors of its
members. In more specific terms, “school climate is the relatively stable property
10
of the school environment that is experienced by participants, affects their
The current study is limited to the selection of elementary schools with building
configurations of K-4, K-5 or K-6 grades. Participation in the study was voluntary. The
scheduled staff meetings. Hence, schools that participate may have principals that have
measuring schools of diverse size and socioeconomic status. The sample contains schools
from urban, suburban, and rural areas. Although many forms of measuring student
achievement exist, this research uses the achievement assessment data given to fourth
graders in the state of Ohio. This data is used for consistency of measurement and
11
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
achievement. The first section will detail the historical and conceptual development of
instructional leadership and will propose a model of instructional leadership that will be
used in this study. The next section reviews the theoretical underpinnings and
of the student achievement measure used in this research will be presented. Finally, the
chapter closes with a rationale for the research hypotheses, as well as the proposed
Instructional Leadership
The definition of leadership in literature has been very diverse. Generally, leadership
perspectives and the aspects of the phenomenon of most interest to them” (p.2).
Yukl’s syntheses of definitions, “reflect [s] the assumption that [leadership] involves
a process whereby intentional influence is exerted by one person over other people to
organization”(p.3). Said in another way, Hoy & Miskel (2000) assert that “leadership
12
should be defined broadly as a social process in which a member of a group or
organization influences the interpretation of internal and external events, the choice of
climate, and to stimulate and supervise teachers in such a way that the latter may
behaviors that set high expectations and clear goals for student and teacher
performance, monitor and provide feedback regarding the technical core (teaching
and learning) of schools, provide and promote professional growth for all staff
members, and help create and maintain a school climate of high academic press
(Edmonds, 1979; Bossert, Dwyer, Rowan & Lee, 1982; Hallinger & Murphy, 1985;
Murphy, 1990; Weber, 1997; Blasé & Blasé, 1999). Furthermore, Hoy & Hoy (2003)
tell us “Above all, the principal must communicate a clear vision on instructional
excellence and continuous professional development consistent with the goal of the
13
Leadership Theory
Educational leadership theory has evolved during the last fifty years (Griffiths,
1988 for an extensive review). Several eras of leadership have emerged and are reviewed
Trait Theory
The trait approach may be categorized into two phases: early and modern. The
early phase of trait theory professed that leadership capacity could be determined by a
motives, temperament, and skills. This early development of the theory focused on
comparing leaders to non-leaders. This theory dominated the research until Stogdill’s
review demonstrated that certain personal traits were associated with leadership. The five
and
14
However, Stogdill (1948) concluded that although traits could differentiate between
leaders and non-leaders, they alone do not produce reliable empirical results. He
Stogdill suggested that leadership researchers abandon their research about traits of
conduct trait research to improve the managerial selection process. As the research
continued, the emphasis of trait theory waned from identifying leaders from non-leaders.
The new focus was on managerial effectiveness. This switch in focus distinguishes the
The modern phase of trait theory produced more consistent results about the
relationship between traits and leadership effectiveness. Stogdill’s follow-up study (1974)
reviewed 163 trait studies conducted between 1949 -1970. He determined that many of
the leadership traits that distinguished leaders from non-leaders were consistent with
leadership effectiveness.
15
frustration and delay, ability to influence other persons’ behavior, and capacity to
structure social interaction systems to the purpose at hand” (Stogill, 1974, p. 81).
However, these findings are not the sine qua non for leadership effectiveness. Yukl
asserts, “Possession of particular traits increases the likelihood that a leader will be
effective, but they do not guarantee effectiveness. A leader with certain traits could be
leadership. Hoy and Miskel (2000) have categorized these traits into three groups:
integrity, energy, stress tolerance, and emotional maturity. Motivation traits include a
person’s level of expectations, power, drive, and intensity. Skills associated with
effective leadership encompass relevant task knowledge and skills needed to accomplish
Hoy & Miskel (2000) discuss four distinct categories of skills: technical,
about methods, processes and procedures for completing tasks efficiently and effectively.
involve cognitive abilities to solve complex problems. It entails good judgment, intuition,
creative thinking, and the ability to work through cumbersome and ambiguous situations.
16
Administrative skills comprise the integration of the technical, interpersonal, and
Trait theory and research have provided researchers and practitioners with useful
information about leadership traits and effectiveness. It is important that when selecting
an educational leader for a particular district or building, a balance and fit are made
between the person’s personal traits and the environmental situations that are involved.
Trait theory in practice should lead to an effective selection and goodness of fit for both
effective leader from an ineffective leader. Research during the last fifty years has been
leadership behaviors has centered around two main characteristics: interpersonal relations
production, and structure (Hoy& Forsyth, 1986, Yukl, 1998; Hoy & Miskel, 2000).
Hemphill and Coons (1950) developed one of the most influential leadership
behavior questionnaire instruments at The Ohio State University. This instrument, the
17
tests, 1,800 items were narrowed to 150. Factor analysis of responses pointed toward two
the LBDQ studies yielded that effective leaders demonstrate frequent behaviors on both
perception of the leader’s behavior by the subordinates and the leader himself (Halpin,
1966).
studies. A well-known correlation study by Fleishman and Harris (1962) about the
employee grievances and turnover, indicated that supervisors who were very considerate
had fewer grievances and turnover in their work units than supervisors who were low on
the consideration scale. Supervisors who were high on structure had more turnover and
grievances than supervisors who scored low on the structure scale. A statistical analysis
18
1962). Although other studies have shown mixed results, a consistent finding is a positive
relationship between consideration and subordinate satisfaction (Kunz & Hoy, 1976; Hoy
& Brown,1988). Yukl (1998) contends that it is important to conclude that the same
taxonomy includes three factors that are closely aligned with “consideration” and
and change-oriented behaviors. Yukl (1998) provides a brief description of each factor:
Leaders need to use all three categories of behaviors depending on their situations and
organizational environments. Hoy and Miskel (2000) contend that, “In sum, appropriately
distinguish a leader’s behavior across situations. This type of theory embraces leadership
traits, characteristics of a situation, and how these factors impact leader effectiveness.
Path-Goal Theory
The original path-goal theory postulated that a leader’s behaviors influence the
evolved around a causal relation among the leader’s behavior, situation, and
directing the type of leadership behaviors that need to be exhibited depending upon the
and to keep pace with the changing nature of organizations. The propositions of the
theory have been broadened to include the effects of the leader on subordinates’ abilities
dyadic relationships. Leadership behaviors have been increased from four to ten: path-
oriented decision process, representation, networking, value based, and shared leadership.
21
House modernized the conceptions of subordinates’ motivation and abilities and task
tested empirically. However, House (1996) supported this theory by integrating current
Charismatic Leadership
work with charisma. Weber (1947) defined charisma as a leader’s influence based on the
follower’s perception that the leader possesses endowed exceptional qualities. According
to Weber (1947), charisma appears during a crisis when a leader, who is perceived to
have exceptional characteristics, emerges and provides a vision for the future. Followers
are drawn to the leader and profound loyalty develops. If taken to extremes, such as with
Hitler, charisma may be used to skew followers into negative consequences. Several
theories of charismatic leadership exist (Yukl, 1998). We will examine House’s original
theory (1977) of charismatic leadership and its revision by Shamir, House, and Arthur
(1993).
House’s charismatic leadership theory addressed the personal traits and conditions
under which charismatic leadership is likely to emerge. House (1977) provided a set of
22
observable, personal characteristics of a leader and descriptions of environmental
conditions. According to House (1977), charismatic leaders have a strong need for power,
communication skills, and the skill to arouse high degrees of motivation in followers.
Charismatic behaviors that build leader influence consist of providing a vision for
1998, Hoy & Miskel, 2000). Conditions that foster charismatic leadership include times
of crisis, need for change, work environments that provide for the defining of task roles
in ideological terms that appeal to the followers (House, 1977; Yukl, 1998).
for the theory. Studies have shown that behaviors, such as high expectations and
conclusions.
charismatic leadership theory in 1993. The revised theory attempts to explain why
charismatic leaders are able to influence followers to rise above their own self-interests
for the good of the organization. Shamir et. al. drew on developed theories of motivation
identification occurs when the leader makes self-sacrifices to demonstrate courage and
leadership. Followers perceive the leader as one who wants the best for them and will do
Social identification arises as the leader provides a sense of unit for a group. This
could be achieved through the use of symbols, rituals, and ceremonies. The leader fosters
group unity through the use of shared values, beliefs, and norms among the group. The
work. Followers’ values are defined in terms of task objectives. Intrinsic motivation
becomes more apparent in effort and completion of tasks. Charismatic leaders raise levels
of self and collective efficacy by setting high expectations and espousing high levels of
group, can accomplish and obtain goals and objectives set forth.
leadership is a process in which “leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels
motivate followers by exchanging services or rewards for certain acts of behavior (Burns,
1978).
24
Burns posed that transformational leadership and transactional leadership are on a
continuum. Bass (1985) expanded on Burn’s theory, however distinctly breaking up the
A transformational leader is one who motivates the follower to do more than they
would ordinarily not do (Bass, 1985). Transformational leadership can be achieved in any
2. By getting us to transcend our own self-interest for the sake of the team,
Transformational leadership goes beyond the basic needs of the organization and
its members to foster higher level needs for change and potential. The leader transcends
the everyday routine into a shared, long-range vision for the organization. Burns (1978,
p.4) contends, “The transforming leader looks for potential motives in followers, seeks to
satisfy higher needs, and engages the full person of the follower.” The object of
transformational leadership is “to turn individuals’ attention toward larger causes, thereby
purpose of leaders and followers “which might have started out as separate but related, as
in the case with transactional leadership, become fused” (Burns 1978, p.20).
25
Transformational leadership includes four dimensions in its definition. They are
individual consideration (the 4 I’s) (Bass and Avolio, 1994). Let’s examine each of these
four dimensions.
Bass and Avolio (1994) characterize idealized influence or charisma as the way
leaders behave resulting in the leader becoming a role model for the members of the
organization. Principals that are leading school reform efforts need to affect every aspect
of the school environment. Conger and Kanuago (1988) identify three steps in
establishing idealized influence. First, the leader identifies deficiencies in the status quo.
Second, he or she formulates and articulates a vision of ideal goals that highlight
deficiencies. Finally, the leader devises innovative means of achieving the vision.
around them by providing meaning and challenge to their followers’ work (Bass
&Avolio, 1994). Leaders become the team cheerleaders for team spirit. The leader
displays positive praise, enthusiasm, and optimism towards all followers. The leader
clear expectations the followers want to meet and also reveals a strong commitment to
members to think outside of the box without fear of criticism. The leader engages in non-
26
directive behaviors when dealing with problem solving and decision-making.
ways” (Bass & Avolio, 1994, p3). The transformational leader embraces conflict and uses
it as a productive tool for innovative problem solving and decision-making. The leader
models this behavior and demonstrates to other members of the organization to use
conflict as a tool for broadening possibilities and gaining opportunities for growth. The
leader holds members of the organization in high esteem. The leader respects the
members’ professionalism and values ideas and opinions that may conflict with hers.
they become mentors and coaches for members of their organization. This dimension of
transformational leadership incorporates multiple practices. They include, but are not
limited to, the leader: promoting learning opportunities for individual members;
develop followers (Bass & Avolio, 1994). Leaders employ these practices as they interact
with members of the organization. Examples include giving some members more
autonomy, providing others more encouragement and support, and extending firmer
exception and laissez-faire leadership. Contingent reward behaviors include the leader
specifying what needs to be accomplished for the follower to obtain the reward (Bass,
correcting action to make certain work is done effectively (Bass, 1996). Passive
leadership, describes behaviors that show indirect behaviors and passive indifference
predominantly lead by transactional leadership foster the status quo, instead of striving
action that satisfies the immediate, separate purposes of both leaders and followers”
28
The above leadership theories provide a framework for the historical evolution of
political climate influence the organization. Thus, the instructional leadership construct
Strong instructional leaders possess specific traits and behaviors, such as charisma, which
leadership is to lead teachers and students to reach their full potentials by creating
climates characterized by high academic press, defining and communicating shared goals,
monitoring the teaching and learning process, and promoting life-long learning of
characteristic of an effective school (Edmonds, 1979; Purkey & Smith, 1983; Hallinger &
Heck, 1996). Barth (1990) stipulates, “The principal is the key to a good school. The
quality of the educational program depends on the school principal. The principal is the
most important reason why teachers grow—or are stifled on the job. The principal is the
most potent factor in determining school climate. Show me a good school, and I’ll show
you a good principal” (p.64). The school effectiveness research reinforces these
opportunity demonstrated that socioeconomic factors and family background were central
29
in determining a student’s success in school and the school’s characteristics had little to
no effect on student achievement. This dismal outlook of education did not explain how
Educators and other educational researchers believed that the school and characteristics
within the school could affect students in reaching high levels of achievement. This
hypothesis led to the school effectiveness research which hoped to determine which
factors under the school’s control would attribute to high student achievement regardless
Weber’s (1971) studies of four effective inner city schools directly opposes
Coleman (1966) and Jencks’ (1972) findings. Weber defined an effective school by its
ability to educate poor children as well as middle class children. All four of the schools
His findings delineate seven factors that were crucial to the effectiveness of the schools:
strong leadership, where the principal was influential in setting the tone of the school,
high expectations for students, an orderly and quiet atmosphere, emphasis on reading
skills and phonic awareness, frequent evaluation of skills to guide instruction, additional
examined. Six of the schools were deemed to be improving and effective by annual,
of Education in the fourth and seventh grades. Two of the schools were deem to be
30
declining or ineffective by the same pupil performance measure. These schools were then
observed and interviewed by trained researchers and the school personnel were asked to
objectives;
• held the belief that all students could learn regardless of factors outside of
• had higher levels of efficacy in teaching the basic reading and mathematic
skills;
These results showed that there were considerable differences between schools that
31
Edmonds (1979) and his colleagues began a search for effective schools educating
poor children in Detroit. The search started in September, 1974 with the analysis of the
Stanford Achievement Test and the Iowa Test of Basic Skills school data from 20 schools
that comprise the Model Cities Neighborhood. To be deemed an effective school, schools
earned at or above the city average grade equivalent in mathematics and reading. An
ineffective school was defined as below the city average. Of the 20 schools, five schools
Next, the schools were analyzed for commonalties in family background and
socioeconomic status. Two schools were determined to be similar in social factors. One
of the schools was four months above the city average in reading and mathematics and
the other school was nearly three months below the city’s average in reading and one and
half months below the city math average. Hence, Edmonds and his colleagues inferred
that “pupil family background neither causes nor precludes elementary school
Edmonds widened his study by broadening his sample to include effective schools
with different social backgrounds. Fifty-five more schools were identified for analysis.
After analysis of the first schools from Detroit’s Model Cities neighborhood and the fifty-
Schools that were effective created a climate where all children could learn.
Teachers were held accountable for all students within their classroom to achieve,
without exception. Teachers were not excused from the responsibility of teaching and
32
students’ learning. Excuses about family background or characteristics did not carry
much weight. All teachers were held accountable to teach and all students were held
accountable to learn.
Schools that were effective avoided actions and activities that did not work and
were committed to implementing teaching strategies that did. Teachers were continuously
Schools that were effective had strong leadership. “One of the most tangible and
without which the disparate elements of good schooling can be neither brought together
Schools that were effective had a climate of expectation that all children would
succeed to high levels. Teachers provided support and instilled confidence in students’
Schools that were effective had atmospheres that were orderly, serious, quiet, and
technical core of teaching and learning. Instructional time took precedence above other
school activities. Decision-making by the principal, teachers, and students was made
frequent evaluation of student learning was monitored. In turn, this created constant data
33
The data was used to make instructional decisions by building, grade level, classroom,
background and socioeconomic factors, schools could and should be educating all
Purkey & Smith (1983) conducted an extensive review of more than 100 school
effectiveness studies. Their review was limited to studies that determined or examined
school-level factors associated with school effectiveness. The review differed from other
reviews of the school effectiveness literature in three ways: their orientation was
skeptical; evidence gathering was extended to include outlier studies, case studies,
They concluded that an “academically effective school was distinguished by its culture: a
structure, process and climate of values and norms that emphasize successful teaching
and learning” (p. 442). Purkey & Smith (1983) delineated specific characteristics
district support (Purkey & Smith, 1983). These organizational factors do not ensure that
a school will be an academically effective school; however, if these factors are in place it
34
is more likely that a school will be more effective in educating all students regardless of
The four process variables that defined the school culture and climate include
collaborative planning and collegial relationships, a sense of community, clear goals and
commonly shared high expectations, and order and discipline (Purkey & Smith, 1983).
These factors alone do not ensure a culture and climate that yields a productive school,
but, “a school’s culture, or more specifically its climate, seems to be the determining
factor in its success or failure as a place of learning” (Purkey & Smith, 1983, p. 444).
Purkey & Smith’s review (1983), as well as the other studies discussed (Weber,
1971; Brookover and Lezotte, 1977; Edmonds, 1979), provide significant evidence that
instructional leadership impacts the technical core of schools. The influence that an
instructional leader has on the teaching and learning is extensive. Researchers have
studied this influence with positive results as described in the next section.
influence teachers’ classroom instruction have concluded that the behaviors associated
2000; Blasé & Blasé, 1999a, 1999b, 1998; Sheppard, 1996; Chrispeels, 1992).
Specifically, Blasé & Blasé’s (1998, 1999a) findings indicate that when instructional
leaders monitor and provide feedback on the teaching and learning process, there were
likely to take risks and had more focus on the instructional process, and teachers used
Conversely, principals that did not engage in monitoring and providing feedback
of the teaching and learning process had a negative effect on teachers and classroom
practice (Blasé & Blasé, 1998). Teachers with non-instructional leaders felt a sense of
abandonment, anger, and futility, as well as lower levels of trust and respect for the
and staff development yield positive effects for classroom practice (Larson-Knight, 2000;
Blasé & Blasé, 1998, 1999a, 1999b; Sheppard, 1996; Chrispeels, 1992). In particular,
leaders that engage in behaviors that inform staff about current trends and issues,
collaboration and learning, promote coaching, use inquiry to drive staff development, set
professional growth goals with teachers, and provide resources foster teacher innovation
technology in the classroom. This, in turn, increases the likelihood of increased student
Locke and Latham (1990) assert that goal setting is an effective way to increase
motivation and performance. They postulate that goals increase attention to obtainment of
the task, increase the effort expended on goal relevant activities, increase persistence to
36
achieve, and increase the development of strategies to obtain the goal. This is true even in
a sense of personal ownership and instructional improvements. Principals that define and
communicate shared goals with teachers provide organizational structures that guide the
school toward a common focus. This common focus on academic press influences
teachers’ behaviors within the classroom, which leads to more effective schools
(Bookbinder, 1992; Smith & Piele, 1997; Blasé & Blasé, 1998, 1999a).
Hallinger & Heck’s (1996) extensive review of the empirical research about the
principal’s role in school effectiveness reveals that of the 22 original studies testing the
relationship; 7 indicate a mixed effect and 9 demonstrate no direct effect. Their review of
19 studies modeling a mediated variable between the principal and student achievement
indicate 15 studies show a positive effect by the principal, 2 demonstrate mixed effect
and 2 signify no effect. These findings support the need for a model of instructional
leadership that works through a mediating variable, such as academic press, to effect
student achievement.
models that demonstrate instructional leadership exist. This section will review three
37
prevailing conceptualizations of instructional leadership and introduce a new
school district and a review of the school effectiveness literature. They collected
information from principals, school staffs and central administration supervisors, via a
activities the principal engaged in to support the curriculum and instruction in their
dimensions and eleven job descriptors. Hallinger and Murphy (1985) used the eleven job
38
Manages
Promotes School
Defines the Mission Instructional
Climate
Program
• Framing school goals • Supervising and • Protecting instructional
• Communicating school evaluating instruction time
goals • Coordinating • Promoting professional
curriculum development
• Monitoring student • Maintaining high
progress visibility
• Providing incentives
for teachers
• Enforcing academic
standards
• Providing incentives
for students
demonstrate framing school goals by working with parents and staff to identify the areas
of improvement within the school and developing performance goals to these areas
(Hallinger & Murphy, 1985). The function of communicating school goals refers to the
ways the principal expresses the importance of the school goals to staff, parents, and
students. This can be achieved through the use of formal or informal communication
(e.g., handbooks, staff meetings, school assemblies, conversations with staff or students,
teachers in areas related to curriculum and instruction (Hallinger & Murphy, 1985). Job
coordinating the curriculum, and monitoring student progress. Supervising and evaluating
39
instruction comprises activities that provide instructional support to teachers, monitor
classroom instruction through informal classroom visits, and aligning classroom practice
with school goals (Hallinger & Murphy, 1985). Coordinating the curriculum refers to
function of monitoring student progress refers to the principal’s use of test results for
setting goals, assessing the curriculum, evaluating instruction, and measuring progress
high visibility, provide incentives for teachers, develop and enforce academic standards,
and provide incentives for learning (Hallinger & Murphy, 1985). The principal’s job
functions consist of mostly indirect activities that help create a positive learning
“Principals can influence student and teacher attitudes through the creation of a
through clear, explicit standards embodying what the school expects from
students; through the careful use of school time; and through the selection and
The job descriptors in this dimension embody the activities necessary to influence the
leadership in his synthesis of research findings from the effective schools, school
improvement, staff development and organizational change literature. Using this review,
The framework consists of four dimensions of instructional leadership broken down into
sixteen different roles or behaviors. The four dimensions of the instructional leader,
developing mission and goals; managing the educational production function; promoting
describe below and indicate the different instructional leader roles or behaviors that make
up that dimension.
purpose and linking efforts within the school around a common vision (Murphy, 1990).
Murphy broke down this dimension into two major roles or behaviors of the principal:
framing school goals and communicating school goals. Framing school goals
encompasses setting goals that emphasize student achievement for all students,
incorporating data on past and current student performance and including staff
responsibilities for achieving the goals. Communicating goals frequently, and formally
and informally, to students, parents, and teachers stresses the importance that school
suggestions and feedback on the teaching and learning process, and determining teacher
assignments in the best interest of student learning (Murphy, 1990; Teddlie &Stringfield,
1985). Additionally, the principal allocates and protects instructional time with school
policies and procedures. The principal works with teachers to coordinate the curriculum
through aligning school goals and objectives with state standards, assessments and
district curriculum. The instructional leader monitors the progress of students frequently.
An instructional leader models how to use assessment data to set goals and evaluate
that influences the norms, beliefs, and attitudes of the teachers, students, and parents of a
school (Murphy, 1990). “Principals foster the development of a school learning climate
promoting professional development” (p.174). This dimension deals directly with the
structures and processes that support the teaching and learning process. The principal that
exemplifies this dimension creates a safe and orderly learning environment, provides
42
cohesion, secures outside resources in support of school goals, and forges links between
framework, developed through a synthesis of the literature, has not been empirically
tested. It is not apparent that a leader who exhibits behaviors from all dimensions has an
has powerful appeal, but a large group of professionals still needs a single point of
contact and an active advocate for teaching and learning” (1996, p.254). Weber’s point is
cooperation and reflective thinking to create a mission that is clear and honest. The
mission of the school should bind the staff, student and parents to a common vision. The
instructional leader offers the stakeholders the opportunity to discuss values and
expectations for the school. Together they work to create a shared mission for the school.
Managing curriculum and instruction must be consistent with the mission of the
school (Weber, 1996). The instructional leader’s repertoire of instructional practices and
classroom supervision offers teachers the needed resources to provide students with
44
opportunities to succeed. The leader helps teachers use current research in best practices
the whole school community. “Indeed, of all the important factors that appear to affect
students’ learning, perhaps having the greatest influence is the set of beliefs, values, and
attitudes that administration, teachers, and students hold about learning” (Weber, 1996,
Observing and improving instruction starts with the principal establishing trusting
and respectful relationships with the school staff. Weber (1996) proposed that
professional development opportunities for both the observer and one being observed. In
other words, a reciprocal relationship develops where both people involved gain valuable
program, is essential for improvement of the instructional program (Weber, 1996). The
and analysis of assessments that evaluate the effectiveness of the curriculum. This
45
continuous scrutiny of the instructional program enables teachers to effectively meet
underscores the emphasis of academics and student achievement for all students.
However, this model, like Murphy’s (1990) model, has not been empirically tested. It is
not clear that if a principal demonstrates behaviors from Weber’s model, high levels of
46
Hypothesized Framework of Instructional Leadership:
Synthesizing the three predominate models (Hallinger & Murphy, 1985; Murphy,
similarities emerged. All three models indicated the importance of instructional leaders
defining and communicating goals, monitoring and providing feedback on the teaching
and learning process, and promoting and emphasizing the importance of professional
development. The three similarities parallel Locke and Latham’s goal setting theory.
Locke and Latham’s goal setting theory (1984, 1990) postulate that setting
defined challenging goals help motivate individuals to increase performance toward the
goals. Feedback is important to maximize the motivating force of the goals. Additionally,
development of specific task strategies to accomplish the goals. The three dimensions of
setting. An instructional leader needs to work collaboratively with staff to define shared
goals for the school year. The leader needs to monitor and provide feedback of the
teaching and learning process as it relates to the specified, shared goals. Finally, it is the
Table 2.4 illustrates the three dimensions of instructional leadership that will be
47
Instructional Leadership
Table 2.4 Instructional Leadership Model Created for the Current Study
48
Organizational Climate and Academic Press
Organizational climate originated in the late 1950’s to early 1960’s as social scientists
the individual what climate is to the organization” (1962, p. 1). Thus, school climate is “a
affects their behavior, and is based on their collective perceptions of behavior in schools”
(Hoy & Miskel, 2000). While various definitions of climate exist, there is consensus
about the basic properties of climate. Poole (1985) encapsulated these basic tenets as
follows:
beliefs;
• Organizational climate grows out of the daily routine and practices of its
members; and
School effectiveness research denotes that a school climate focused around high
positive impact on student learning (Weber, 1971; Brookover & Lezotte, 1977; Edmonds,
49
These characteristics of a school climate juxtapose to become the construct of academic
Academic press refers to “the extent to which the school is driven by a quest for
academic excellence. High but achievable academic goals are set for students, the
learning environment is orderly and serious, teachers believe in their students’ abilities to
achieve, and students work hard and respect those who do well academically” (Hoy &
Hannum, 1997, p. 294). Murphy and colleagues (1982) define academic press in terms of
the environmental forces that press for student achievement throughout the school. They
affirm that the concept is broader than high expectations for students. Academic press
students. This specifically presses the participants in the school to strive to do well in
school. Other terms in literature synonymous for academic press are achievement press,
suggests that the potential of academic press rejuvenating itself is great when the school
academic press and student achievement. As academic press increases, so will student
achievement and vice versa. Hence, instructional leaders that promote academic press
will provide a systematic plan for increasing the effectiveness of their buildings.
50
Academic press has been an overarching characteristic of an effective school
throughout the school effectiveness research (Weber, 1971; Brookover & Lezotte, 1977;
Edmonds, 1979; Purkey & Smith, 1983). Researchers have shown that schools with high
academic press have positive effects on student achievement (Hoy & Sabo, 1998; Hoy,
Tarter, & Kottkamp, 1991; Weber, 1971; Brookover & Lezotte, 1977; Edmonds, 1979;
Purkey & Smith, 1983). Hence, the emphasis that administrators, teachers and students
place on students’ academic success shapes the climate of a school. Hoy and Miskel
(2000) contend, “The atmosphere of a school has a major impact on the organizational
behavior, and because administrators can have a significant, positive influence of the
questionnaire was created to identify aspects of teacher to teacher and teacher to principal
interaction that shaped the school’s climate. Eight subtests were created to describe the
characteristics of the group and the behavior of the leader. The characteristics of the
group subtest include disengagement, hindrance, esprit, and intimacy. The subtests of the
behaviors of the leader include aloofness, production emphasis, thrust, and consideration.
Halpin & Croft’s (1962) initial study consisted of mapping climate profiles for each of
the 71 elementary schools in the sample. Through this mapping process, they were able to
identify six basic school climates that demonstrated a continuum from open to closed
climates.
51
This pioneer work had limitations. The conceptual underpinnings lacked clarity
and logic. Halpin and Croft (1962) themselves identified conceptual problems about the
adequacy of their subscale of consideration. Hoy and his colleagues addressed these
limitations in their revision of the OCDQ. In fact, they created three, simplified versions
schools (OCDQ-E) is a 42 item descriptive questionnaire with six subtests that describe
the behaviors of teachers and principals (Hoy & Tarter, 1997; Hoy, Tarter, & Kottkamp,
1991). The six subtests are divided into two components: teacher behaviors—collegial,
restrictive. The two components, teacher behaviors and principal behaviors, range on a
continuum from closed to open. A factor analysis of the subtests indicated two underlying
general factors. The first factor was typified by teacher interactions with low
disengagement, high intimacy and high collegial relations. These subtests can be added
and low supportive behaviors. These subtests scores can be combined to indicate a degree
of openness in principal behaviors. Figure 2.2 below displays the cross between the
teacher behaviors and the principal behaviors to chart the climate of the school.
52
Principal Behavior
Behavior
Teacher
Open Closed
Open Open climate Engaged Climate
Figure 2.2 Windows for Observing Elementary School Climate (Hoy &Tarter, 1997 p.17)
Research findings from the revised OCDQ-E have shown reliable and valid
measures of important aspects of school climate (Hoy, Tarter, Kottkamp, 1991). This
instrument is useful in providing principals with information about their schools that can
help guide change. Hoy and Forsyth (1987) contend principals who develop an open and
teachers, and administration in a school (Hoy & Sabo, 1998). Matthew Miles (1969)
defines a healthy organization as one that continues to strive, cope and evolve over the
long haul. Hence, “ A healthy school is one in which the institutional, administrative,
and teacher levels are in harmony, and the school is meeting functional needs as it
successfully copes with disruptive external forces and directs its energies toward its
Parsons and colleagues asserted that all social systems need to solve problems of
adaptation, goal attainment, integration, and latency for the organization to continue to
grow and develop (Parsons, Bales, & Shils, 1953). Parsons (1967) proposed that formal
53
organizations are divided into three distinct levels of responsibility and control over
activities to solve their basic problems and meet their needs. These distinct levels are
The technical level concerns the technical core of schools—teaching and learning.
effective teaching and learning. This level includes the dimensions of morale and
academic press. Morale refers to the collective sense of the staff around openness, trust,
accomplishments, and job satisfaction. Academic press describes the extent to which the
The managerial level controls the internal efforts of the school. This responsibility
falls to the principals and other administrators of the school who create ways to develop
teacher trust, loyalty, commitment, and motivation. They also need to allocate and
consideration, initiating structure, and resource support define the dimensions within the
managerial level. Principal influence explains the principal’s capacity to affect the actions
of superiors. Consideration, which encompasses the principal’s concern for the overall
welfare of the teachers, depicts the principal’s attitudes and personality such as
describes principal behaviors that are task and achievement oriented. Resource support
applies to the degree to which a teacher has access to needed classroom supplies and
instructional materials.
54
The third level, institutional level, connects the school with the larger community.
Schools need support and backing from the community, free from undue pressures and
level. The school’s ability to shield and protect the school programs and teachers from
defining and measuring school health. Hoy and colleagues, (Hoy & Feldman, 1987; Hoy,
Tarter, & Kottkamp, 1991; Hoy & Tarter, 1997; Hoy & Sabo, 1998) using the Parsonian
Organizational Health Inventory for Secondary Schools (OHI-S) ( Hoy & Feldman,
1987;Hoy, Tarter, &Kottkamp, 1991), the Organizational Health for Middle Schools
(OHI-M) (Hoy & Sabo, 1998) and the Organizational Health for Elementary Schools
(OHI-E) ( Hoy & Tarter, 1997; Hoy, Tarter, & Kottkamp, 1991).
As the current study concerns the organizational health of elementary schools, the
instrument to measure elementary school health was created. Through factor analysis of
pilot studies, a collapse of some dimensions into broader factors occurred. Hoy and
colleagues (Hoy & Tarter, 1997; Hoy, Tarter, & Kottkamp, 1991) interpreted this
collapse due to the differences between secondary and elementary schools’ structure,
55
complexity, and climate. Hence, the OHI-E has five elements of health: institutional
integrity, collegial leadership, resource influence, teacher affiliation, and academic press.
dimensions as well as resource influence, which combine resource support and principal
influence. The morale dimension has been broadened and renamed as “teacher
affiliation”. Teacher affiliation encompasses morale and includes the teacher’s perception
of his/her identification with the school, job, students, and colleagues. The questionnaire
Research findings on the three OHI instruments have been very promising
(Goddard, Sweetland, & Hoy, 2000; Hoy & Sabo, 1998; Hoy & Hannum, 1997; Hoy &
Tarter, 1997 & Hoy, Tarter, & Kottkamp, 1991). They have shown that organizational
health is positively related to student performance, faculty trust, and school effectiveness.
“Moreover, sound interpersonal dynamics in school life are not only important as
ends in themselves but are predictive of school effectiveness, student
achievement, organizational commitment, humanism in teacher attitudes, and
faculty trust in colleagues and in principal. Healthy schools are likely to have
committed teachers who trust the principal, who hold high academic standards,
who are open, and who have students who achieve at high levels” (2000, p. 203).
Most of the research completed with the OHI instruments has been conducted in
secondary and middle schools. More research is needed at the elementary level using the
OHI-E.
56
Overall, the OCDQ and the OHI instruments are reliable and valid instruments in
determining school health and climate. Even though the instruments are alternate
measures of school climate, they complement each other and each has its own benefits.
The OHI instruments are best used as predictors of variables linked to such functional
factors such as goal attainment, loyalty, commitment, and academic press (Hoy, Tarter, &
Kottkamp, 1991). The OCDQ instruments are best used as predictors of variables likened
variables that leadership may affect. Bossert and colleagues (1982) contend that grounded
conceptualizations of the principal’s effect on student learning center on the leader’s role
1971; Brookover & Lezotte, 1977; Edmonds, 1979; Purkey & Smith, 1983). Hence, a
school climate with a high academic press helps shape the behaviors of administrators,
Stringfield and Teddlie (1991) asserted that effective schools are focused on
academic plans, academic tasks, and a state of academic push. School effectiveness
research describes a school climate that promotes an academic focus as a key to creating
an effective school (Weber, 1971; Brookover & Lezotte, 1977; Edmonds, 1979; Purkey
57
& Smith, 1983; Stringfield &Teddlie (1991). The instructional leader bears the
press.
and communicating shared goals that assert high expectations of students, monitoring and
providing feedback on the teaching and learning process, and promoting professional
development aligned with the faculty’s needs and school goals. McEwan (1998)
delineates specific tasks that instructional leaders may employ to build a climate that
presses for an academic focus. They incorporate, but are not limited too:
• establishing inclusive classrooms that send the message that all students
can learn;
classroom;
Establishing a climate that promotes academic press has many benefits to the teaching
and learning process. Chrispeels (1992) qualitative study of eight elementary schools
58
indicate that schools, which focus climate around high expectations, high, achievable
instruction. Teachers who work in a school with high academic press are more likely to
use a variety of instructional strategies, plan diverse lessons to attend to different learning
styles, monitor and provide feedback on student progress more frequently, collaborate
with colleagues, demonstrate collegial behaviors, and attend to their own professional
learning (Chrispeels, 1992; McEwan, 1998; Blasé & Blasé, 1998; Goddard, Sweetland, &
Hoy, 2000).
educators, and parents have sought to reform and restructure the educational system in
the United States. Achievement for all students, regardless of socioeconomic status,
gender, race, and ethnicity, has become a focal point for advancement. Since A Nation At
The standards movement of the last twenty years has led to federal and state
legislation that created challenging standards for all students and assessments to test
three core features: content and performance standards for each discipline, assessments
aligned to the standards, and accountability for meeting standards on the assessment
59
Educational Standards and Assessments: Historical review
Federal legislative and political initiatives have been the catalyst for the standards
movement in the United States. In 1983, A Nation at Risk by The National Commission
on Excellence in Education brought to light the “rising tide of mediocrity” (1983, p.5) in
the educational system. The commission had several recommendations for Department of
expectations, started the flurry of legislation and restructuring known as the standards
“That schools, colleges and universities adopt more rigorous and measurable
standards, and higher expectations for academic performance and student
conduct, and that four-year colleges and universities raise their requirements for
admission. This will help students do their best educationally with challenging
materials in an environment that supports learning and authentic accomplishment
(1983, p. 19).”
This recommendation led the state of California to embark on a decade-long
revision of curriculum to content standards (Kendell & Marzano, 2000). During the next
several years (1983-89), many professional national councils started to develop teams for
the creation of content standards around their disciplines (e.g., The National Council of
which was comprised of federal representation from the Department of Education and
state governors. The Summit addressed the need for a national response to education
60
1. The creation of the National Education Goals provides a national framework,
but gives states and communities flexibility, to design their own strategies to
achieve them.
raising the achievement levels of all student, in all schools—rather than simply
3. A broad consensus among state leaders, business leaders, parents and the
and school performance against those standards; providing schools and educators
with the tools, skills, and resources needed to prepare students to reach the
Education, The Center for Civic Education, The Committee for National Health
Standards in Foreign Language Project, and the National Council for Social Studies all
wrote and published content standards for curriculum frameworks in public education.
Also during this time, the federal government established the National Council on
Education Standards and Testing (NCEST) and the National Education Goals Panel
61
(NEGP). These federal organizations were founded to lead a bipartisan consensus on
reform by signing the Goals 2000: Educate America Act and the 1994 reauthorization of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Both of these federal legislations
cleared the road for the standards movement to move forward with incredible speed. “The
passage of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act and the reauthorization of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act in 1994 represented a fundamental shift in the
character of federal aid to education and demanded new roles and responsibilities for
Education Summit, allowed for the partnership of federal and state governments to
support communities in an effort to improve student achievement for all students (Dept.
of Ed. 2001). “At the heart of the Goals 2000 Act is a grant program designed to help
states and communities develop and implement their own education reforms focused on
This Act put into law many of the recommendations that evolved from the
Improvement Council (NESIC). This council’s purpose was to certify national and state
content and performance standards and state assessments (Kendell & Marzano, 2000).
Goals 2000 also encouraged states to create educational standards and aligned
assessments by offering federal grants to support the work. “The standards-based reform
62
movement promoted by Goals 2000 provides the conceptual and operational undergirding
for the reforms in Title 1 and other ESEA programs as they were reauthorized in 1994”
1994, also known as Improving America’s Schools Act, provided for greater flexibility in
federal funds to support state-led reform efforts. Originally established in 1965, ESEA
was intended to address inequities in financial matters among school districts. For
instance, Title 1 of the ESEA addressed the need for remediation of skills for students
from low–income communities (U.S. Dept. of Ed. 2001). The reauthorization of ESEA
then changed the emphasis of Title 1 from one of remediation to the promoting of high
The reauthorized ESEA also introduced new accountability provisions in that, “It
required the states to develop high content and performance standards for students in
federal programs and that the assessment system that tracks the progress of students in
federal programs be the same as for all students. It also required, under Title 1, that the
states and districts establish criteria for ‘adequate yearly progress’ for schools and
provide technical assistance to those districts and schools not making adequate progress.
In addition, it established reporting requirements…” (p. I-1). These two federal laws
pushed standards-based education to the forefront of school districts that were receiving
federal funds. Goals 2000 and the reauthorized ESEA of 1994 demonstrated the federal
63
Between 1994-99, the standards movement continued to press into the fabric and
culture of American schools. National councils were revising and publishing standards;
states and school districts were working intently to meet the federal legislative
requirements to establish standards and assessments; and state educational standards were
enacted in all states, except Iowa. Iowa choose to leave standards up to local education
agencies.
In 1999, Congress and President Clinton reauthorized ESEA yet again; and re-
titled it as the Educational Excellence for All Children Act of 1999 (EEAC). This act
“reaffirm [s] and strengthen [s] the federal government’s role in promoting academic
excellence and equal educational opportunity for every American child” (Dept. of Ed.
1999, p 1). The EEAC builds on the principles set forth in the Improving America’s
Schools Act of 1994. The guiding principles of the EEAC are to “hold high standards in
development, strengthen accountability, and ensure that all children can learn in an
environment that is safe, disciplined, and drug-free” (p.4). EEAC continued to stress high
plan, No Child Left Behind (NCLB). This plan, which reauthorized ESEA, was signed
into law on January 8, 2002. NCLB shifted the primary focus of the standards movement
methods. Provisions of NCLB call for annual administration and reporting of assessments
by states in reading and mathematics for grades three through eight by the 2004-2005
school year. Schools that fail to sustain progress for all students must provide school
choice for parents and students and pay for the transportation to and from the school of
their choice.
expectations of our public schools and holding them accountable for student achievement
and the use of standardized assessments provides the vehicle for accountability. The
State of Ohio
As federal legislation passed and was signed into law, the states worked diligently
to create education standards and assessments. Ohio was no exception. In August 1997,
the Governor signed Senate Bill 55 into law. This law’s main foci were the creation of
annual state assessments for grades four, six, nine, and twelve; academic accountability
measures for Ohio’s public schools; and setting a tone of high academic standards for
• a 12th grade scholarship for any student who passed all five potions of the
proficiency test;
65
• providing for the Department of Education to make previous proficiency test
State Model Competencies as performance standards. The Learning Outcomes and the
Ohio.
Senate Bill 1, signed into law on June 12, 2001, extended the assessment and
accountability movement in Ohio. This bill called for the creation of new standards in the
areas of reading, mathematics, writing, science, and citizenship for grades K-12. For each
of the new standards, grade level indicators and benchmark performance standards must
be delineated and passed by the State School Board. All students in grades K-8 and tenth
progress toward the new standards. The new achievement and diagnostic assessments
Until then, all students in fourth, sixth, and ninth grades are required to continue
to complete the Ohio Proficiency Tests in all five subject areas. The Ohio General
66
Assembly and the Ohio State Board of Education consider the Ohio Proficiency Test
scores as reliable and valid measures of student achievement (ODE, 2001). This current
study uses the percentage of students passing either the fourth-grade reading proficiency
The Ohio fourth grade proficiency assessments were developed through multiple
stages. Through a bidding process, a vendor was chosen to develop the assessments. The
proficiency tests were aligned with the learning outcomes and state model competencies
that go along with the state courses of study. After the drafts were developed, they were
presented to the review committee from the Ohio Department of Education (ODE) and a
committee of practicing educators who screened each item through a multi-step process.
The process included a check for gender and ethnic bias, content review, field test
of items, bias review of field test results, and content review of field test results.
According to Max Xu (2002), Associate Director of Assessment for ODE, only items that
successfully went through and passed all steps are included in the test bank for the
proficiency assessments. Xu (2002) asserts that this process validates the test both
because the items are aligned to the learning outcomes, state competencies, and state
courses of study, as well as the multi-step screening and field test procedures of the
items. Statistics and an alpha reliability coefficient are calculated each year for the items
on the assessment. The Table 2.5 summarizes the data for the 2001-2002 school year.
67
Reading Mathematics Citizenship Science Writing
N-Count 72062 125720 125949 125877 120959
Reliability .84 .86 .87 .82 .54*
Raw Score
Mean 36.96 35.60 42.59 35.56 5.63
Raw Score
Standard
Deviation 7.55 9.38 8.50 7.91 1.13
SEM 3.02 3.51 3.06 3.36 0.77
Scale Score
Mean 210.53 224.47 228.83 224.61 NA
Scale Score
Standard
Deviation 17.33 26.63 25.97 36.46 NA
SEM 6.93 9.96 9.36 15.47 NA
Table 2.5 Grade 4 Summary Statistics: Source 2002 Technical Report ODE
The reliability coefficients in the reading and mathematic subtest are .84 and .86
respectfully and are sufficient to determine that the reading and mathematic subtests are
reliable instruments.
procedures based on the information provided by The Ohio Rangefinder Committee and
during the SAT and ACT. Proctors of the assessments read a script to the students that
clearly define the directions and process for taking the assessments. Proctors are not
allowed to assist students in anyway in completing the assessment, and students are not
allowed to use dictionaries or other reference materials during the assessment. The
68
assessments are untimed, so the students may complete the test at their own speed, and
then students turn in tests to the proctors when they are finished. The proctors are not
allowed to read through the completed assessments and must turn in all assessment books
to testing coordinator each day. When all assessments are turned in, the testing
The Ohio Department of Education contracts with a vendor for the scoring of the
assessments. The scoring procedures for the short answer and extended response
rubrics and anchor papers to ensure continuity and inter-rater reliability. A senior reader
and table leaders monitor the scoring and check for consistency of readers throughout the
scoring process. Random papers are flagged to be used for inter-rater reliability tests.
achievement for students in Ohio. Every Ohio public elementary school with fourth
graders administers the proficiency exam during the same week in March and follows the
standardized administration procedures described above. Thus, the fourth grade reading
achievement. The availability of this common assessment and the strict standardization
procedures provides clear evidence why the fourth grade proficiency assessments can be
used as a measure of student achievement. It assures that the schools in this study are
measured for reading and mathematic achievement in a uniformed and consistent way.
69
Rationale for Hypothesis
demonstrated that socioeconomic status does affect student achievement (Coleman, 1966;
Jencks, 1972). Thus, socioeconomic status will be a control variable in this study. This
multivariate analysis, where the strengths of each variable’s influence on each other can
be estimated.
Although the direct effects of principals on student achievement have been mixed
(Hallinger & Heck, 1996), the conceptualization of instructional leadership in this study
lends itself to direct involvement with students. There are several questions on the
instructional leadership measurement instrument used in this study that demonstrate this
aligns with school goals; provides private feedback to student effort; works with students
around the school and talks with students and teachers; and sets high but achievable
standards for all students. Instructional leaders that work, talk, and provide feedback
Elementary schools are also smaller organizations where the principal may impact
students more directly than in larger middle or secondary schools. Elementary schools
70
have smaller student populations than do middle or secondary schools. These smaller
organizations may allow the instructional leader to become more involved in individual
student’s progress. Hoy and colleagues (Hoy & Tarter, 1997; Hoy, Tarter, & Kottkamp,
academic emphasis) collapsed into five broader subtests (teacher affiliation, collegial
demonstrates that leadership in elementary schools may have different roles. Leaders in
the elementary school may be more directly involve in student progress. Hence, it is
hypothesized that:
student achievement.
monitoring and providing feedback on the teaching and learning process; and promoting
and learning. Each of the dimensions describes roles and behaviors of the instructional
leader that guide the creation of a school climate that promotes an emphasis on academic
rigor (Blasé & Blasé, 1999, Sheppard, 1996; Murphy, Weil, Hallinger, Mitman, 1985;
The school effectiveness research shows evidence that schools with high
academic press have positive effects on student achievement (Weber, 1971; Brookover &
Lezotte, 1977; Edmonds, 1979; Purkey & Smith, 1983). School environments that are
characterized by safe, orderly atmospheres, high, attainable goals, high expectations for
staff and students, and an emphasis on academics have higher levels of academic press
(Hoy & Sabo, 1998; Hoy & Hannum, 1997; Hoy & Tarter, 1997 & Hoy, Tarter, &
Kottkamp, 1991). Academic press of a school helps create a learning climate that
associated with increases in student achievement (Goddard, Sweetland, & Hoy, 2000;
Hoy & Sabo, 1998; Hoy & Hannum, 1997; Hoy & Tarter, 1997 & Hoy, Tarter, &
analysis that a 1-unit increase in an urban elementary school’s academic press score was
associated with a 16.53 point average gain in student mathematics achievement and an
achievement.
72
H3. Academic press of a school has a positive effect on student
Hallinger and Heck’s (1996) extensive review of empirical research about the principal’s
role in school effectiveness reveals evidence that leaders may affect student achievement
through an intervening variable. Hallinger and Heck (1996) reviewed 19 studies that
student outcomes, and 17 out of the 19 studies showed positive to mixed effects of the
principal on student achievement. Hallinger & Heck assert, “Well-designed studies must
use theoretical models that allow for the likelihood that the relationship between principal
actions and school outcomes is indirect rather than direct” (1996, p. 24).
(Goddard, R.; Sweetland, S.; & Hoy, W.,2000; Sweetland, S. & Hoy, W. 2000; Griffith,
J. 1999; Hoy, W. & Sabo, D.,1998; Hoy, W. & Hannum, J.,1997; Bossert, S.; Dwyer,D,
Rowan, B, & Lee, G, 1982; Edmonds, R., 1979;Brookover, W.B. & Lezotte, L.,1979;
Halpin, A. & Croft, D.,1962). Bossert, et. al. (1982) contend that the principal’s
instructional management behaviors affects the school’s climate which, in turn, shapes
teachers’ behaviors and students’ learning experiences that produce student learning.
73
Path Model:
academic press, and student achievement come together to form a theoretical path model.
SES
The two-way arrows in the path diagram denote a reciprocal relationship among
constructs. The diagram demonstrates the relationships within the previously stated
hypotheses. For example, instructional leadership has a direct and indirect relationship
with student achievement. It is hypothesized that the relationship is reciprocal. The more
frequent the instructional leadership behaviors, the higher the academic press and student
achievement at a school. The higher the school’s academic press, the more likelihood of
instructional leadership behaviors and higher student achievement. The higher the
school’s student achievement, the higher the academic press and the more likelihood of
74
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
To test the hypotheses and theoretical model of this study, data were collected
from 146 elementary schools in Ohio. The sampling, instrumentation, data collection
Sample
attention was taken to gain participation of urban, rural and suburban schools. A
included those which had at least twenty-one certified teachers and had building grade
configurations that contain fourth grade. Using information gathered from the Ohio
qualified for this study. A standardized protocol was constructed to solicit participation.
Research Instruments
achievement were measured in this study. Each of the variables had a distinct
75
The Development of the Instructional Leadership Instrument
research. The model of instructional leadership used in the current study was a synthesis
of Hallinger & Murphy (1985), Murphy (1990) and Weber’s (1996) work. A
The framework for the pilot instrument consisted of 27 items representing three
monitoring and providing feedback on the teaching and learning process, and promoting
2. Develops school goals that promote high standards and expectations for all
students
4. Develops school goals that are well defined (e.g., responsibilities, time frames,
76
11. Monitors the classroom curriculum for alignment to State Standards
12. Uses data on student achievement to guide faculty discussions on the instructional
program
17. Walks around the school and talks with students and teachers
23. Encourages teachers to attend professional development activities that are aligned
best practices
discipline, etc.).
77
Respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which their principal demonstrated the
specific behaviors. A five-point Likert scale was employed for a response system: 0 (Not
Preliminary Review
Before field testing the instrument with a sample of practicing teachers, the
instrument was reviewed by a panel of researchers. This panel included three experts: an
The review panel scrutinized the instrument for format, dimension representation, item
The preliminary instrument was field tested by 145 teachers enrolled in graduate level
classes at The Ohio State University and the College of William and Mary as well as by
practicing teachers throughout western New York State. Since the unit of analysis is a
school, particular efforts were made to have only one respondent per building complete
the survey. Teachers were from elementary and secondary buildings as well as from
private and public schools. Three returned surveys were eliminated due to lack of
Utilizing the SPSS statistical computer program, data analysis was completed. In all,
three factor analyses were done employing principal axis extraction and varimax rotation.
An initial factor analysis resulted in the fitting of 23 of the 27 items into four factors with
78
loadings above .50. A second factor analysis, using only the 23 items that loaded in the
initial factor analysis, resulted in the emergence of three factors with loadings at or above
.55 fitting 22 of the 23 items. The third factor analysis excluded the one item that did not
load above .50 on only one factor, so 22 items were analyzed. Again, three factors were
identified. All of the 22 items loaded on the appropriate factors and had factor loadings of
.50 or higher. Alpha reliability coefficients were computed for each of the three factors:
developing and communicating shared goals (alpha .94); monitoring and providing
feedback on the teaching and learning process (alpha .90); and promoting school-wide
professional development (alpha .89). Table 3.1 shows each dimension’s items, alpha
79
Item Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3
*Coefficients with absolute values below .3 have be Goals Teach. & Prof. Dev.
suppressed. (MG) Learn (TL) (PD)
Promotes the school’s academic goals to students .754
Develops school goals that promote high standards and expectations
.795
for all students
Visits the classroom to ensure classroom instruction aligns with school
.502 .469
goals
Communicates the school’s academic goals to faculty .735
Ensures that curricular materials are consistent with the school goals .560 .395 .378
Uses school goals when making academic decisions .681 .398
Develops school goals that are well defined (e.g., responsibilities, time
.517 .373 .510
frames, and evaluation criteria
Uses data on student achievement to guide faculty discussion on the
.585 .500
instructional program
Sets high but achievable standards for all students .642 .407 .375
Provides private feedback to student effort .379 .576
Works with students on academic tasks .356 .631
Provides data on school’s progress to school community .614 .384
Provides private feedback to teacher effort .401 .570 .436
Ensures that instructional time is not interrupted .598
Provides public praise of outstanding student performance .491
Provides public praise of outstanding teacher performance .673 .388
Walks around the school and talks with students and teachers .615
Develops data-driven academic school goals in collaboration with
.484 .568
teachers
Encourages teachers to use data analysis of student academic progress .480 .603
Provides for in-house professional development opportunities around
.688
instructional best practices
Encourages teachers to attend professional development activities that
.387 .651
are aligned with school goals
Furnishes useful professional materials and resources to teachers .482 .623
Eigenvalues 12.58 1.53 1.07
Cumulative Variance 53.05 58.13 61.01
Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
Rotation converged in 7 iterations
A closer examination of the items defining the third factor led the researchers to
capture the factor then “Promoting a Learning Environment”. Some further revisions of
80
the instrument were necessary. Working from theoretical underpinnings, a total of nine
items were added to the instrument to ensure a balance of items in each factor. More
specifically, six items were added to broaden the measurement of the third dimension
(promoting school-wide professional development), and three items were added to the
second dimension (monitoring and providing feedback of the teaching and learning
the Teaching and Learning Process. The organization of the instructional leadership
81
Defining and Monitoring and Promoting School-
Communicating Providing Feedback Wide Professional
School Goals on the Teaching and Development
Learning Process
• Encourages teachers to
• Promotes the school’s
• Provides private use data analysis of
academic goals to
feedback to student effort student academic
students
progress
• Provides for in-house
• Develops school goals
professional
which promote high
• Works with students on development
standards and
academic tasks opportunities around
expectations for all
instructional best
students
practices
• Encourages teachers to
• Visits the classroom to
• Provides data on school’s attend professional
ensure classroom
progress to school development activities
instruction aligns with
community that are aligned with
school goals
school goals
• Furnishes useful
• Communicates the
• Provides private professional materials
school’s academic goals
feedback to teacher effort and resources to
to faculty
teachers
• Schedules time on in-
• Ensures that curricular
• Ensures that instructional service days for
materials are consistent
time is not interrupted collaboration among
with the school goals
teachers
• Uses school goals when • Provides public praise of • Schedules the school
making academic outstanding student day for common
decisions performance planning time
• Develops school goals
• Observes teachers for
that are well defined • Provides public praise of
professional
(e.g., responsibilities, outstanding teacher
development instead of
time frames, and performance
evaluation
evaluation criteria)
• Uses data on student
• Stays in the office all
achievement to guide • Plans professional
day*
faculty discussion development around
regarding the teacher needs and wants
*Reversed score
instructional program
• Evaluates teachers to • Supports individualized
• Sets high but achievable
improve instructional professional
standards for all students
practice development plans
• Develops data-driven • Works with teachers to
• Plans professional
academic school goals in interpret assessment data
development in-services
collaboration with for instructional
for teachers
teachers implications
• Monitors classroom
practices for alignment to
district curriculum
82
Academic Press Construct
operationalize academic press (Hoy, Tarter & Kottkamp, 1991; Hoy & Tarter, 1997). The
three subtests are resource support, principal influence and academic emphasis. An
earlier factor analytic study of the Organizational Health Inventory for middle schools
showed that the subtests of academic emphasis, resource support, and principal influence
1998). Reliability scores were computed for each subtests: academic emphasis
(alpha=.93), resource support (alpha = .95), and principal influence (alpha = .87)
(Hoy, Tarter & Kottkamp, 1991). Construct validity of the scales is reported in Hoy,
describe the extent to which students, teachers and administrators work together to
develop a strong academic orientation within the school. Sample items include the
following: “Students try hard to improve on previous work;” “Students seek extra work
so they can get good grades;” “The principal is able to influence the actions of his or her
superiors;” and “Teachers are provided with adequate materials for their classrooms”.
Teachers respond to all items along a five-point scale from “never” to “always”.
83
Socioeconomic Status Construct
A consistent measure for socioeconomic status in all Ohio schools is the participation
rate in the federal free and reduced lunch program. This measure approximates a
their household income. Working on a sliding scale, students may qualify for free or
reduced lunch. Therefore, the proportion of students who met the criteria for free and
reduced lunch determined the school aggregate socioeconomic status. Schools, in turn,
reported this information to the Ohio Department of Education, which allowed for a
standardized measure across schools as well as one which are easy to obtain. One
assumption in using this measure was that most students who qualified for the free or
The State of Ohio’s fourth grade reading and mathematic assessments provided
the measure of student achievement. The reading and mathematic assessments went
of .84 for reading and .86 for mathematics indicated that the instruments were reliable.
The reading assessment contained at least three reading selections: a fiction piece,
a non-fiction piece and a poem. Students are asked to answer multiple choice questions
for one point; short answer questions worth two points; and extended response items for
four points. The items were scored and added to indicate the student’s raw score, which
84
then was converted to a scaled score. The scaled score was compared to a set passage
score. This determines if the student established proficiency status on the assessment.
Data Collection
Data for instructional leadership and academic press were collected from the
teachers of each school during a regularly scheduled faculty meeting. A trained, skilled
a random alternating fashion. One set of teachers completed the instructional leadership
survey, and a separate, independent group responded to the academic press items. This
unit of analysis being the school, all data were aggregated to the school level, making the
confidentiality and anonymity. Socioeconomic status and student achievement data were
Data Analysis
The unit of analysis for the current research was the school. Teacher responses
collected for the instructional leadership and academic press constructs were aggregated
to the school level. The unit of analysis for student achievement and socioeconomic
status were the school. Using SPSS, descriptive statistics were calculated for the
instructional leadership and academic press scales. The bivariate correlations of the
variables were tested using correlation analysis, and then the model was tested using
multivariate statistics. A principal axis factor analysis with varimax rotation was
software. This software was used to estimate the direct effects of instructional leadership
the observed variables and enabled researchers to study both the direct and indirect
Hallinger and Heck’s (1996) extensive review of empirical research about the
principal’s role in school effectiveness suggests that structural modeling provides for the
greatest progress in determining the principal’s role in school effectiveness. Hallinger and
Heck conclude,
“The most theoretically and empirically robust models that have been used to
study leadership effects tell us that principal leadership that makes a difference is
aimed toward influencing internal school processes that are directly linked to
student learning. These internal processes range from school policies and norms
Hallinger and Heck contend that methodological advancements, such as the use of
structural equation modeling, will yield the most headway in addressing issues of the role
86
CHAPTER 4
This chapter presents the data results for the current study. It begins with a
description of the demographic information for the sample. Next, the instructional
leadership and academic press constructs are verified using factor analysis. Finally, the
research hypotheses are first tested using bivariate correlations and then refined using
Description of Sample
The sample of the study involves responses from 4,069 teachers representing 146
Ohio elementary schools. The participating schools represent 33 of the 88 Ohio counties.
Education, 44%, 33%, and 23% of all elementary schools are designated as urban, rural
and suburban, respectively. The current sample for the study is comprised of 36% of
urban schools, 27% of rural schools, and 37% of suburban schools. Building-level grade
configuration was marked as a parameter for the study. Although only 65% of Ohio
elementary schools are configured as K-5 or K-6 buildings, about 90% of the study
sample was K-5 or K-6.This discrepancy was due to the criterion of having fourth grade
87
The teaching staff comparisons are similar. On average, an Ohio elementary
school staffs 27 teachers with 13.28 years of teaching experience. The study elementary
Even though the demographic makeup of the research sample set parallels that of
the state of Ohio, generalizations of the results should be circumspectly applied to Ohio
elementary schools.
The instructional leadership instrument used in this study came from the pilot
into three subtests; professional development, goals, and teaching and learning. Principal
axis factoring with varimax rotation was performed on the 31 items to verify the
construct of the three factors. Coefficients with absolute values below .3 have been
89
As theorized the factors are highly correlated with one another. Hence, the items
often loaded strongly on more than one factor. Steps were taken to reduce the number of
items loading strongly on more than one factor by eliminating the items with loadings
below .5. Working from theoretical underpinnings and empirical reasoning, two criterion
were established for reducing the number of items: eliminate items that did not load
above .5 on any factor and eliminate items with multiple high loadings unless such items
could be justified theoretically (Bryman and Cramer, 2001). Eight items were eliminated
using these criteria. Items that were removed due to loadings below .5 were items 18, 19,
22. Five items were removed for high multiple loadings, and which could not be
supported theoretically. These items include 1, 10, 17, 25, and 48.
A second principal axis factoring with varimax rotation was conducted on the
remaining 23 items. Three factors were identified with Eigenvalues above one. The three
factors explain 72.63% of the variance. Factor one, professional development, consists of
seven items with all items loading above .50. Factor two, shared goals, consists of eight
items with all items loading greater than .50. Factor three, teaching and learning, consists
of eight items with items loading above .50. Table 4.3 presents all 23 items and their
The seven items that make up the first factor, professional development, were all
school-wide professional development. The loadings range from .59 to .77. These strong
loadings and the conceptualization of the questions based on leadership theory supports
90
Crobach’s alpha coefficient for inter-item reliability was computed for the seven items.
The alpha coefficient was .94. This indicates a strong reliability among the items.
The second factor, goals, consists of eight items. Six of the items were directly
related to goals. Two items, 41 and 39, also loaded very high in this factor. Item 41,
encourages teachers to use data analysis of student academic progress, and item 39,
works with teachers to interpret assessment data for instructional implications, both use
The second factor, goals, was conceptualized as the instructional leader develops
and communicates shared goals with the staff. Examining the items that load in this
develops goals. The instructional leader uses data and data analysis to make decisions and
school goals emphasizing student achievement for all students by incorporating data on
past and current student performance. Empirically and theoretically included these items
into this factor provides for a better fit. Crobach’s alpha was computed on the eight items
The third factor, teaching and learning, contains eight items, six of which were
concerned with teaching and learning, in particular, monitoring and providing feedback
on the teaching and learning process and monitoring the academic curriculum the
students’ experience. Two additional items, also fitted the teaching and learning
classification. Item 9, the principal visits the classroom to ensure classroom instruction
aligns with school goals, and item 23, the principal observes teachers for professional
development instead of evaluation, both describe principal activities that monitor the
91
academic curriculum within the classroom. Principals promote quality instruction by
visiting classrooms and conducting teacher conferences and evaluation (Weber, 1996;
Murphy, 1990; Teddlie & Stringfiled, 1985). The Crobach’s alpha reliability coefficient
92
Item (item number, theorized dimension) Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3
Prof. Dev. Goals Teach. & Learn
* Coefficients with absolute values below .3 have be suppressed. (PD) (MG) (TL)
Encourages teachers to attend professional development activities
.769 .371
that are aligned to school goals (7,PD)
Provides for in-house professional development opportunities
.734 .354
around instructional best practices(3,PD)
Plans professional development around teacher needs and wants
.732 .301 .376
(27,PD)
Supports individualized professional development plan (31,PD) .715 .430
Plans professional development in-service with teachers(35,PD) .689 .347 .347
Furnishes useful professional materials and resources to teachers
.615 .45
(11,PD)
Schedules time on in-service for collaboration among
.582 .311 .334
teachers(15,PD)
Uses data on student achievement to guide faculty discussions on
.348 .828
the instructional program (33,MG)
Encourages teachers to use data analysis of student academic
.754
progress (41,PD)
Develops data-driven academic goals in collaboration with
.482 .728
teachers (29,MG)
Communicates the school’s academic goals to faculty (13,MG) .448 .721 .343
Works with teachers to interpret assessment data for instructional
.431 .683 .393
implications(39,TL)
Uses school goals when making academic decisions (21,MG) .563 .623 .332
Develops school goals that promote high standards and
.514 .600 .363
expectations for all students (5,MG)
Sets high but achievable standards for all students(37,MG) .523 .567 .475
Visits the classroom to ensure classroom instruction aligns with
.867
school goals (9,MG)
Monitors classroom practices for alignment to district curriculum
.309 .509 .695
(40,TL)
Works with students on academic tasks (6,TL) .336 .630
Stays in the office all day {Reversed score}(26,TL) .589
Observes teachers for professional development instead of
.508 .335 .565
evaluation (23,PD)
Evaluates teachers to improve instructional practice (34,TL) .442 .409 .563
Provides private feedback of teacher effort (14,TL) .534 .558
Provides private feedback of student effort (2,TL) .456 .402 .547
Eigenvalues 14.94 1.55 1.03
Reliability Alpha .94 .97 .93
Cumulative Variance 63.84 69.27 72.68
Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
Rotation converged in 5 iterations
93
Most of the items cross load among the different factors. These dual loadings
suggest correlation among items. An analysis of the bivariate correlations between factors
shows that the factors are highly correlated significant at the .01 level (2-tailed). Table
Professional
Variable Teaching & Learning Goals Development
Teaching and Pearson Correlation
1
Learning
Goals Pearson Correlation .837(**) 1
Professional Pearson Correlation
.766(**) .854(**) 1
Development
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
However, all three factors are important for understanding the construct of instructional
(Kerlinger,1986; Kerlinger & Lee,2000). The second-order factor analysis revealed that
the three dimensions strongly load on one factor. Hence, all three dimensions were
94
Dimensions of Instructional Leadership Factor
1
Promotes School wide Professional
.884
Development
Develops and Communicates Shared
.965
School Goals
Monitors and Provides Feedback on the
.867
Teaching and Learning Process
leadership index was created by summing the average scores for each factor. The
Academic Press
Hoy and Tarter’s (1997) Organizational Health Inventory (OHI) was used to
measure the academic press variable. Three subtests of the OHI; resource support,
press (Hoy, Hannum, & Tschannen-Moran, 1998). The academic press construct is
In past research, when the OHI has been administered in elementary schools
researchers have found the collapse of two factors: resource support and principal
influence into one factor; resource influence (Hoy, Tarter & Kottkamp, 1991; Hoy &
Tarter, 1997) In the current study, this was not the case. Principal axis factor analysis of
the 18 items identified the three factors with Eigenvalues above one. Table 4.6 displays
95
each item and the corresponding loadings. All items loaded on hypothesized factors with
loadings ranging from.52. to 87. The cumulative variance explained was 64.2%. The
Crobach’s Alpha coefficients were .89, .97 and .88 for resource support, principal
96
ITEM (item number and theorized dimension) Factor
Resource Academic Principal
* Coefficients with absolute values below .3 have been suppressed Support (RS) Emphasis (AE) Influence (PI)
Teachers are provided with adequate materials for their classrooms
.879
(53,RS)
Teachers have access to needed instructional materials (81,RS) .876
Teachers receive necessary classroom supplies
.869
(60,RS)
Supplementary materials are available for classroom use (69,RS) .862
Extra materials are available if requested (71,RS) .830
Students try hard to improve on previous work (15,AE) .814
The school sets high standards for academic performance (5,AE) .737
Teachers in this school believe that their students have the ability to
.726
achieve academically (59,AE)
Students in this school can achieve the goals that have been set for
.696
them (61,AE)
Students respect others who get good grades (6,AE) .658
Students seek extra work so they can get good grades (22,AE) .625
The learning environment is orderly and serious (21,AE) .594
Academic achievement is recognized and acknowledged by the school
.544
(14,AE)
The principal’s recommendations are given serous consideration by his
.820
or her superiors (57,PI)
The principal gets what he or she asks for from his superiors (66,PI) .306 .815
The principal is able to work well with the superintendent (56,PI) .768
The principal is able to influence the actions of his or her superiors
.668
(68,PI)
The principal is impeded by superiors (70,PI) reversed scored .653
Eigenvalues 7.96 2.81 1.93
Reliability Alpha .97 .88 .89
Cummative Variance 42.65 56.00 65.18
Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a Rotation converged in 5 iterations.
A second-order factor analysis supports that the three subtests are underlying
dimensions of one more general construct, academic press (Kerlinger,1986; Kerlinger &
Lee, 2000). Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient for the construct of academic press is .71.
Table 4.7 presents the data from the second-order factor analysis. Coefficients with
97
Academic Press Dimensions Factor
1
Resource Support .762
Academic Emphasis .697
Principal Influence .591
.
Means, minimums, maximums, and standard deviations were calculated for each
Table 4.9 presents the zero-order correlation matrix of all variables. The
correlations showed initial support for all four hypotheses that guided this research.
98
Coleman (1966) and Jencks (1972) research has clearly substantiated the effect of
Table 4.10 presents a matrix of partial correlations controlling for socioeconomic status.
positively related to mathematics (partial r =.25, p< .01) and reading achievement (partial
r =.19, p<.05). Developing and communicating shared schools goals behaviors were
positively and significantly related to mathematics achievement (partial r = .24, p< .01).
Monitoring the teaching and learning process was significantly and positively related to
mathematics (partial r = .18, p< .05). Although developing and communicating shared
schools and monitoring the teaching and learning process were not significant with
reading achievement, they were still positively correlated with each other. The general
mathematics and reading, but analysis of the partial correlation matrix, controlling for
99
Prof.
Variable Dev. Goals T&L IL Acpress SES Math Read
Professional a
.94
Development
Goals .85** .97a
Teaching and
.77** .80** .93a
Learning
Instructional
Leadership .93** .95** .92** .92a
Index
Academic
.54** .45** .55** .92a
Press .56**
b
SES .15 .14 .03 .11 .39**
Mathematics .28** .26** .14 .24** .49** .76** .86a
Reading .24** .21* .09 .19* .45** .79** .90** .84a
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
a
Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient
b
Construct measured with single-item indicator, thus alpha can not be calculated.
were positively related to the academic press of a school. The correlations supported this
relationship with the academic press of a school (r = .56, p<.01). Developing and
communicating shared goals also had a strong relationship with academic press (r = .54,
p<.01). Monitoring and providing feedback on the teaching and learning process had a
leadership and academic press have a positive, strong relationship ( partial r = .55, p<.05)
100
Prof.
Variable Dev. Goals T&L IL Acpress Math Reading
Professional
1.00
Development
Goals .85** 1.00
Teaching and
.77** .80** 1.00
Learning
Instructional
Leadership .93** .95** .92** 1.00
Index
Academic
.55** .53** .47** .55** 1.00
Press
Mathematics .25** .24** .18* .24** .33** 1.00
Reading .19* .16 .11 .16 .25** .75** 1.00
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
The third hypothesis suggests that academic press has a positive effect on student
the zero-order correlations. Academic press has a positive, strong relationship with
mathematics (r = .49, p<.01) and reading (r = .45, p<.01) achievement. When controlling
for SES, academic press and mathematics (partial r =.33, p<.01) and reading (partial r =
Hypothesis one and four propose that there are indirect and direct effects on
models where constructed using structural equation modeling software, AMOS 4.0
(Arbuckle, 1999).
Mathematics Achievement
leadership showed initial support for the direct effect of instructional leadership on
students not participating in the federal free and reduced lunch program was included as a
control variable. Because the bivariate correlations did not indicate that SES and
instructional leadership were significantly related (r=.11, p>.05) that relationship was not
considered in the path model. A path model analysis was conducted on instructional
leadership having a direct effect on math achievement. Figure 4.1 presents this model.
The standardized estimate when denoting a direct effect was not statistically, significant
press was analyzed. Figure 4.2 presents this model. A chi-square difference test (see
Table 4.10) determined that the nested model was a better fitting model. Thus, the most
parsimonious model did not include the direct effect of the instructional leadership on
math school achievement. Hence, hypothesis one was only partially supported i.e.,
102
SES (Proportion of students
not participating in the
federal free and reduce
lunch program) .69
.34
Academic Press
.20 School Achievement in
Mathematics
.52
.06
Instructional Leadership
(Professional Development, Goals, Explained Variance of Math
Teaching and Learning)
Achievement = .62
Explained Variance of Academic
Press = .39
Chi-Square = 1.871 Degrees of Freedom = 1 P=.17 Fail to reject the null hypothesis Σ=ΣΘ
103
SES (Proportion of students
not participating in the
federal free and reduce
lunch program) .68
.34
Academic Press
.23 School Achievement
Mathematics
.52
Chi-Square = 2.691 Degrees of Freedom = 2 P=.26 Fail to reject the null hypothesis Σ=ΣΘ
104
Reading Achievement
The partial bivariate correlations controlling for SES did not show initial support
Hence, only the path model denoting an indirect relationship between instructional
leadership and reading achievement will be discussed. Figure 4.3 illustrates this path
in the federal free and reduced lunch program was included as a control variable. Since
the bivariate correlations did not indicate that SES and instructional leadership were
significantly related (r=.11 p>.05) that relationship was not considered in the path model.
SES
.52
Instructional Leadership
Professional Development Explained Variance of Reading
Goals Achievement = .64
Explained Variance of Academic
Teaching and Learning Process
Press = .39
Chi-Square = 2.o2 Degrees of Freedom = 2 P=.36 Fail to reject the null hypothesis Σ=ΣΘ
105
Examinations of the component fit of the models were good. The parameter
values estimated were all positive and significant at the p<.01 level (one-tailed test). The
Nested Math Achievement model explained 62% of the variance in math achievement.
Table 4.11 provides a summary of the measure of model fit and goodness of fit
statistics for each of the models. Both the nested mathematics and reading path models
satisfied all criteria across the different families of model fit indices. Non-significant chi-
squares were calculated for each model indicating that the data fit well with the proposed
model.
press of the school. The path models’ component fit statistics showed support for this
hypothesis. In both the reading and math models all parameters were significant. The
standardized estimate between instructional leadership and academic press was high and
significant (beta=.52, p<.01). The standardized estimate between academic press and
math achievement was significant (beta=.23, p<.01). The standardized estimate between
academic press and reading achievement was also significant (beta=.16, p<.01).
106
Measures of Model Model for Nested Model for Model for Reading
Fit Mathematics School Mathematics School School
Achievement (with Achievement (only Achievement
direct and indirect indirect relationship
relationship between IL and
between IL and Math Achievement)
Math Achievement)
Chi-Square χ2 =1.871 DF 1 P χ2 =2.691 DF 2 P=.26 χ2 =2.03 DF 2 P=.36
H0 Σ =ΣΘ =.171 Fail to reject Fail to reject null Fail to reject null
the null hypothesis hypothesis hypothesis
Chi-Square χ2 difference: 2.691-1.871= .820
Difference Test Degrees of Freedom 2-1=1
Critical Value: χ2 , df (1) = 3.84
RMSEA (Root mean
square error of
.078 .049 .010
approximation)
Parsimony test of fit
AGFI (Adjusted
Goodness of Fit .936 .954 .965
Index)
IFI (Incremental Fit
.996 .997 1.000
Index)
Hoelter Critical N
515 497 658
.01 index
Component Fit Statistics
Explained Variance
in School 62% 62% 64%
Achievement
Explained Variance
39% 39% 39%
in Academic Press
107
Conclusion
This chapter articulates the analysis of the data for this study. It shows
aligned with school goals, furnishing useful professional materials and resources to
behaviors that described how the principal defines and communicates shared goals. For
communicates the school’s academic goals to faculty, and develops school goals that
portray the principal as she monitors and provides feedback on the teaching and learning
process. Some behaviors that are include are visiting the classroom to ensure classroom
instruction aligns with school goals, working with students on academic tasks, and
Bivariate correlations and structural equation modeling were use to test the four
hypotheses. All hypotheses, but one, were supported by the data. The data supported the
108
press of a school; academic press was positively related to school achievement; and
achievement indirectly through academic press. The data did not support the propositions
109
CHAPTER 5
Discussion of Results
The results of the current research are discussed in this chapter. It begins with a
instructional leadership measurement tool and the supported relationships that form the
model of student achievement proposed in this study. The chapter concludes with the
Summary of Findings
The research of this study led to several significant findings that are summarized
1. Principal axis factor analyses performed on the sample data, in the pilot and in the
instructional leadership.
110
2. Zero-order correlations and partial correlations, controlling for socioeconomic
all three factors, were positively related to academic press as demonstrated by the
partial r = .55, p<.01), developing and communicating shared goals (r =.54, p<.01;
partial r = .53, p<.01), and monitoring and providing feedback on the teaching and
learning process (r = .45, p<.01; partial r = .47,, p<.01). The overall instructional
leadership index shares a positive significant relationship with academic press (r=
.01, partial r = .33, p<.01; reading r = .45, p<.01, partial r = .25, p<.01 ).
(mathematics r = .76, p<.01; reading r = .79, p<.01). On the contrary, SES was not
5. Zero correlations and partial correlations, controlling for SES, supported the
(r = .28, p<.01; partial r =.25, p<.01) and reading (r = .24, p<.01; partial r =.19,
111
p<.05); instructional leadership behavior characterized by developing and
.26, p< .01; partial r =.24, p<.01); and instructional leadership behavior
mathematics (beta = .23, p<.05) and reading (beta = .16, p<.05)). Socioeconomic
status was directly related to achievement in mathematics (beta = .68, p<.05) and
academic press (beta = .34, p<.05). Figure 5.1 shows the student achievement
112
SES (Proportion of students
not participating in the
federal free and reduce
lunch program)
School Achievement
Academic Press
Instructional Leadership
(Professional Development, Goals,
Teaching and Learning)
Figure 5.1 Student Achievement Path Model Supported in the Current Study
Discussion
among the variables of the study: instructional leadership, academic press, student
proposed by Hallinger and Murphy (1985), Murphy (1990) and Weber (1996), and
113
incorporating Locke and Latham’s Goal-Setting Theory (1984,1990) as a grounding
theoretical underpinning.
effectiveness literature and qualitative data collected from 10 elementary schools. The
consists of three dimensions: defines the mission, manages instructional program, and
promotes school climate. Encompassed within these three dimensions are 11 specific job
providing incentives for teachers; enforcing academic standards; and providing incentives
for students.
Murphy (1990) constructed his model from a synthesis of the effective schools,
model of instructional leadership (1990) has four dimensions: developing mission and
climate; and developing a supportive work environment. Each of these dimensions has
specific roles or behaviors; there are sixteen behaviors in all. Murphy’s model of
114
Weber (1996) proposed a model of instructional leadership that addressed the
Weber suggested that a point person in the school, either the principal or lead teacher,
needs to be an advocate for teaching and learning. Weber’s model identified five essential
The domains include: defining the school’s mission; managing curriculum and
and assessing the instructional program. Although this model incorporates research about
shared leadership and empowerment of informal leaders, the model does not have
empirical support.
Working from the premise that instructional leadership should increase the
schools performance, Locke and Latham’s Goal-Setting Theory was used to guide the
Latham (1984, 1990) postulated that defining and communicating challenging goals are a
motivational force to increase performance toward goals. They also stressed the
development of specific task strategies to accomplish the goals. Initiating the goal-setting
theory into practice aligns very well with the amalgamation of similarities extracted from
combines the similarities among the three models above, as well as, integrates Locke and
115
Thus, the instructional leadership framework used in this study has three highly,
feedback on the teaching and learning process, and promoting school-wide professional
development.
The proposed instructional leadership model of this study has empirical support.
The pilot and the full study data showed a reliable and valid conceptualization of
the three dimensions measured one general variable known as instructional leadership.
School effectiveness research supports the need for school leaders to exhibit
and Smith, 1983; Murphy, 1990; Chripeels, 1992; Weber, 1996; Sheppard, 1996; Blasé
and Blasé, 1998). However, few empirically tested measures are available to determine
school organization.
For instance, one empirically tested instrument that does exist is Hallinger and
principal job descriptors include: framing the school goals, communicating the school
116
incentives for teachers, promoting professional development, developing and enforcing
academic standards, and providing incentives and learning. However, this rating scale is
far too cumbersome to use in the current research and lacks the psychometric properties
needed.
create a reliable, valid, and parsimonious instrument. Working from Hallinger &
Muprhy’s (1985) theoretical dimensions, a new, more concise instrument was created
(see chapter 3 for a thorough description of the development process and pilot results).
The pilot and current research showed support for a reliable and valid instrument
of instructional leadership. Principal axis factoring of the sample data, both in the pilot
and full study, supported that instructional leadership was composed of three highly
developing and communicating shared goals (alpha .97), and monitoring and providing
feedback on the teaching and learning process (alpha .93). A second-order factor analysis
demonstrated that the three factors were dimensions of one underlying general factor
leadership index was created by computing an average score for each factor and then
adding the average of each factor together. The instructional leadership index provided a
Hallinger and Murphy’s (1985) 11 principal job descriptors were pared down and
117
measured by the new instrument. All but one of the job descriptors are represented in the
representing the three highly correlated dimensions instead of the 71 items representing
the 11 job descriptors. Table 5.1 shows comparisons between the two instruments.
date, the empirical tests of the instrument have been encouraging. Two separate tests of
versions of the instrument have been quite consistent. Three highly interrelated factors
have emerged in spite of attempts to force independent dimensions. Moreover, the three
dimensions of leadership are clearly aspects of the more general construct of instructional
Although the factor structure of the instrument seems reasonably stable, the
measure should be tested in other school organizations and in larger samples. Does the
factor structure hold in middle schools and high schools? These are two questions that
merit further investigation. The work on the instrument to this point has been largely
exploratory in spite of the fact that a conceptual framework guided the development of
the measure. Further work should refine and elaborate the measure and subject the
118
Job Descriptor Instructional Leadership Item(s)
Dimension
Hallinger & Murphy’s
Principal Instructional The Instructional Leadership The Instructional Leadership
Management Rating Scale Inventory (created for the Inventory
(1985) current research) (created for the current research)
• Develops data-driven academic
Framing the School Goals
Defines and Communicates goals in collaboration with
Shared Goals teachers
Table 5.1 Comparison of Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale and the
Instructional Leadership Inventory Created in This Research
119
Instructional Leadership and Student Achievement
student achievement, the data did not support this hypothesis. Hallinger and Heck suggest
that “although it is theoretically possible that principals do exert some direct effect on
students’ learning, the linkage between principal leadership and student learning (as
measured by school outcomes) is inextricably tied to the actions of others in the school”
(p.24, 1996). Principals generally do not work directly with students; with this being said
it is understandable why the data did not support a direct relationship. However, one
longitudinal study has shown that strong leadership may directly impact student
achievement (Andrews & Soders, 1987). The bivariate correlations in this study, also
indicated that instructional leadership has a significant positive relationship with student
achievement, specifically mathematics. Thus, leading to the question, does the direct
Academic press refers to “the extent to which the school is driven by a quest for
academic excellence. High but achievable academic goals are set for students, the
learning environment is orderly and serious, teachers believe in their students to achieve,
and students work hard and respect those who do well academically” (Hoy & Hannum,
1997, p.294). The findings of this research support earlier studies that climate variables,
such as academic press, have a positive significant effect on student achievement even
controlling for socioeconomic status (Goddard, Sweetland, & Hoy, 2000; Hoy and
120
significantly had a positive correlation with mathematics (partial r =.33, p<.01) and
reading achievement (partial r =.25, p<.01) controlling for SES. Using structural equation
modeling, it was also found that academic press had a positive, significant direct effect on
mathematic (beta .20, p<.05) and reading achievement (beta .16, p<.05).
It makes theoretical sense that schools that focus on academic press will have
academic press provides clearly articulated high expectations for all students and teachers
and provides an orderly and safe environment where students can concentrate on
academics and teachers have instructional time free from discipline and managerial
distractions. Additionally, the principal has considerable influence with superiors which
characteristics are consistent with the descriptions of schools that are considered to be
effective from the school effectiveness literature (Edmonds, 1979a,b; Pukey & Smith,
Bossert and colleagues (1982) argue that the principal effect on student learning is
geared toward the leader’s role in shaping the school’s instructional climate and
organization. The current research supported the conclusion that instructional leadership
provided an antecedent for academic press to affect student achievement. The path model
clear, significant strong relationship between instructional leadership and academic press
121
This linkage between instructional leadership and academic press is quite
important. Academic press has been shown to impact student achievement at middle
schools (Hoy, Hannum, & Tschannen-Moran, 1998), high schools (Hoy, Tarter,
Kottkamp, 1991), urban elementary schools (Goddard, Sweetland, Hoy, 2000) and now
elementary schools in suburban and rural areas. Ways to foster a climate of high
that instructional leadership and academic press share a strong relationship, it is essential
The partial bivariate correlations indicate that all three dimensions of instructional
leadership share a strong, positive relationship with academic press: promoting school-
wide professional development and academic press (partial r = .55, p<.01), developing
and communicating shared goals and academic press (partial r = .53, p<.01), and
monitoring and providing feedback on the teaching and learning process (partial r = .47,
p<.01). These strong correlations, controlling for SES, demonstrate that schools with
principals which actively engage in instructional leadership behaviors can create climates
with high levels of academic press and thus, affect student achievement.
relatively enduring. The influence of climate on achievement continues over time. The
climate patterns that predict high student achievement in the first year also predict school
achievement levels two years later” (1998, p.35). Said in another way, if principals want
academic press.
122
Socioeconomic Status
Coleman’s (1966) research and Jenck’s (1972) follow-up study illustrate the
significant impact socioeconomic status has on student achievement. In the current study
socioeconomic status was used as a control variable impacting the full model. A
The hypothesized path model indicated that SES directly affected instructional
leadership. This proposed relationship has been supported in research and the
instructional leadership literature (Rowan and Denk, 1984; Hallinger and Murphy, 1986;
Hallinger, Bickman, and Davis, 1996). However, analysis of the bivariate correlations
from this study did not support the relationship between socioeconomic status and
instructional leadership (r = .11, p>.05). It may be that today’s educational world is vastly
different. No Child Left Behind (ESEA, 2002) and Ohio’s Senate Bill 1 (ODE, 2001)
have legislated an assessment system that holds principals and teachers accountable for
all students, regardless of their socioeconomic status, perhaps muting the effect
Another aspect of Senate Bill 1(ODE, 2001), related to socioeconomic status and
instructional leadership, is the mandate for every school to create and implement a
continuous improvement plan (CIP). This plan helps principals both to develop and
communicate shared school goals and to align professional development plans to district
and school goals. Both, behaviors of instructional leadership, enable the CIP to become a
123
vehicle for instructional leadership to be exercised regardless of the school’s urban,
As expected, socioeconomic status had both a direct and indirect effect on student
achievement. The current research supported the argument that socioeconomic status has
a direct effect (mathematics beta = .68, p<.05; reading = beta .73, p<.05) and an indirect
effect, through academic press (beta = .34, p<.05), on student achievement. The effects of
1966; Jencks, 1972). Students who come from homes with low socioeconomic status may
not receive early literacy experiences or other experiences that establish the prior
press for academics. Academic press is comprised of three dimensions: resource support,
principal influence, and academic emphasis. Schools in communities with prevalent low
SES seem more likely to have fewer resources and materials and have less confidence
and expectations in students to succeed at high levels. Principals may have little to no
124
Implications
The last section of this chapter presents the implications of the study. Theoretical,
practical, and research implications will be discussed. The section ends with questions for
future research.
Theoretical Implications
puts into practice many of these theories into an educational organization. For instance,
through behaviors that develop and communicate shared goals with staff, students and
community. Instructional leaders provide consideration for staff as they monitor and
provide feedback on the teaching and learning process, as well as, working closely with
leaders possess specific traits and behaviors, such as charisma, which can be applied in
transform a school organization into an environment where teachers and students may
concise model of instructional leadership. The new model was developed by synthesizing
three predominate models of instructional leadership and was undergirded by sound goal-
setting theory.
125
The new instructional leadership framework consists of three, highly correlated
feedback on the teaching and learning process, and promoting school-wide professional
development.
emerge as a consistent aspect within the instructional leadership model used in the study.
This aspect was considered an important principal behavior by Hallinger and Murphy
(1985) and Murphy (1990). Protecting instructional time did not emerge because it may
For instance, an instructional leader may protect instructional time through the academic
This important finding may demonstrate the dynamic between instructional leadership
and organizational properties that effect student achievement at the elementary level. For
instance, the student achievement path model in the current research supported the
aspect that includes principal behaviors around the use of data and data analysis. The
effective leadership and instruction is taking place within the schools. The use of data-
126
Principals need to frame school goals around data, use data to provide feedback to
teachers on the teaching and learning process, and use data to develop professional
Practical Implications
In today’s educational milieu of standards and “No Child Left Behind,” there is an
increased emphasis on holding schools accountable for all students achieving at high
levels. This accountability is filtering down to the individual school and classroom levels
imperative, not an exception. Principals need concrete activities they can implement to
foster a climate for achievement to flourish. This study provides principals with several
of academic press.
develop and communicate shared goals (Murphy, 1990). These goals need to be data-
driven, demonstrate high expectations for all students and provide a focus for all
those goals. Locke and Latham (1984,1990) also suggest that feedback is crucial to
To provide this feedback, the principal needs to monitor and provide feedback
about the teaching and learning process. To accomplish this, the principal should be
visible throughout the school, should talk with students and teachers about academics and
progress toward goals, and should visit classrooms to ensure alignment of instruction to
127
the school’s academic goals. Blasé & Blasé (1998,1999a) research indicates that teachers
who have principals that monitor and provide feedback about the teaching and learning
process are more reflective, focused on the instructional process, motivated, and
confident.
Through this practice of monitoring the teaching and learning process, principals
may work with teachers to identify professional development needs. This study indicated
that principals who promote professional development impact the academic press of the
school and have a positive effect on student’s reading and mathematics achievement.
Additionally, Sheppard (1996) and Chrispeels (1992) found that leaders who promote
professional development build a culture of collaboration and learning that also fosters
foundation for creating a climate that presses for academic rigor. However, principals
will also need to provide resource support, influence with superiors, and a sustained
student achievement of high standards. Principals can foster this academic press by
providing resource support. This means ensuring, through monitoring and informal
discussions, that teachers have materials and classroom supplies to teach the curriculum
effectively. This may also mean that the principal may need to maintain or to “make
inroads” with his superiors to ensure financial support. Encompassing all these actions is
the principal’s focus on academics and raising the bar for all students.
128
A school’s academic press should be a main consideration in all decision-making and
Research Implications
The current study supported previous research about academic press. Academic
press is a climate variable that is both under the control of the school and that can be
Hannum, and Tschannen-Moran, 1998; Goddard, Sweetland, and Hoy, 2000). The
current study furthered the research about principal leadership by offering a valid,
reading) hypothesized in this study was supported through the use of structural equation
achievement. The current study gave rise to many questions for future research:
2. To what extent can leadership training programs positively affect the instructional
3. Under what conditions are instructional leadership behaviors affected by the SES
of the school?
129
4. To what extent will longitudinal studies support a positive, direct effect of
5. Do instructional leadership behaviors differ depending on the school level, that is,
bureaucracy?
7. What are other antecedent variables that are related to academic press?
8. To what extent can a new principal (to a building) affect the academic press of a
school?
9. How long does it take for a principal to establish academic press of a school that
10. What is the relationship between academic press, trust, and teacher efficacy?
11. To what extent will annual testing (mandated by No Child Left Behind) of
students grade 3-8 in reading and mathematics have an impact on the academic
12. To what extent will the adoption of state standards in reading, mathematics,
science, and social studies have on instructional leadership and academic press?
These are only a few of the questions generated by this research. The current study is
a beginning not an end. It is a modest step trying to connect the leadership behavior
130
Conclusion
Schools are under increased scrutiny to educate all students to high levels of
achievement. The call for accountability by federal and state legislation is apparent in
schools across the United States. Principals and teachers are under extreme pressure to
raise student achievement scores. Nonetheless, the findings of this research suggest that
academic press.
In sum, this study adds to the understanding of the social dynamics within the
school and its effect on student achievement. Principals do indirectly impact student
understand its effect on the academic press of a school’s climate. Only with informed
practice will we be able to meet the needs and challenges associated with leaving “no
131
REFERENCES
A nation still at risk. (1998). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED. 422
455).
Anderson, C. (1982). The search for school climate: A review of the research.
Review of Educational Research, 52 (3), 368-420.
Bass, B. & Avolio, B. (1994). Introduction. In B.M. Bass., B.J. Avolio (eds),
Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership (pp. 1-9).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bass, B.. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York:
Free Press.
132
Blasé, J & Blasé J. (1999b). Effective instructional leadership through the
teachers’ eyes. High School Magazine, 7 (1), 16-20.
Bookbinder, R. (1992). The principal: Leadership for the effective and productive
school. Springfield, IL.: Charles C Thomas Publisher.
Bossert, S.; Dwyer, D.; Rowan, B; & Lee, G. (1982). The instructional
management role of the principal. Educational Administration Quarterly, 18 (3), 34-64.
Coleman, J., Campbell, E., Hobson, C., McPartland, J., Mood, A., Weinfield, F.
& York, R. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington D.C. : Government
Printing.
Coleman, J.; Schneider, B.; Plank, S; Schiller,; Shouse, R.; & Wang, H. (1997).
Redesigning american education. Oxford: Westview Press.
Conger, J., and Kanungo, R. (1998). Charismatic Leadership. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey- Bass.
Cross, C. & Rice, R. (2000). The role of the principal as instructional leader in a
standards-driven system. NASSP, 84 (620), 61-65.
133
Deal, T. & Peterson, K. (1990). The principal’s role in shaping school culture.
Washington, D.C.: U. S. Government Printing Office.
Edmonds, R. (1979) Some schools work and more can. Social Policy, 9, 28-32.
ESEA (2002): The Elementary and Secondary Act (The No Child Left Behind Act
of 2001). PL 107-110.(115.STAT1425).
Goddard, R.; Sweetland, S.; & Hoy, W. (2000). Academic emphasis of urban
elementary schools and student achievement in reading and mathematics: A multilevel
analysis. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36 (5), 683-702.
134
Hallinger, P. & Heck, R. (1996). Reassessing the principal’s role in school
effectiveness: A review of the empirical research, 1980-1995. Educational
Administration Quartelry,32 ( 1), 5-44.
Hoy, W. & Feldman, J. (1987). Organizational health: The concept and its
measure. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 20 (4), 30-37.
Hoy, W. & Forsyth, P. (1986). Effective supervision: Theory into practice. New
York: Random House.
135
Hoy, W. & Hannum, J. (1997). Middle school climate: An empirical assessment
of organizational health and student achievement. Educational Administration Quarterly,
33 (3), 290-311.
Hoy, W. & Sabo, D. (1998). Quality middle schools: Open and healthy. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Hoy, W. & Tarter, C. (1997). The road to open and healthy schools: A handbook
for change, Elementary and Middle school edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Hoy, W..; Hoffman, J.; Sabo, D. & Bliss, R. (1996). The organizational climate of
middle schools: The development and test of the OCDQ-RM. Journal of Educational
Administration, 34(1), 41-49.
Hoy, W.; Tarter, C.; & Bliss, J. (1990). Organizational climate, school health, and
effectiveness: A comparative analysis. Educational Administration Quarterly, 26 (3),
260-279.
Hoy, W.; Tarter, C.; & Kottkamp, R. (1991). Open schools/healthy schools:
Measuring organizational climate. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Jencks, C., Smith, M., Acland, H., Bane, M., Cohen, D. Gintis, H., Heyns, B., &
Michelson, S. (1972). Inequality: A reassessment of the effect of family and schooling in
America. New York. Harper &Row.
Kerlinger, F & Lee, H. (2000). Foundations of behavioral research (4th ed). Fort
Worth, TX: Harcourt College Publishers.
136
Krug, S. (1992). Instructional leadership: A constructivist perspective.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 28 (3), 430-443.
Locke, E. & Latham, G. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance.
Englewood Cliffs: NJ: Prentice Hall.
McDill, E.; Meyers, E., & Rigsby, L. (1967). Institutional effects on the academic
behavior of high school students. Sociology of Education, 40 (3), 181-199.
Miles, M. (1969). Planned change and organizational health: Figure and ground.
In F. Carver & T. Sergiovanni (Eds.). Organizations and human behavior. (pp.375-391).
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Murphy, J.; Hallinger, P.; Weil, M.; Mitman, A. (1983). Instructional leadership:
A conceptual framework. Planning & Changing, 14 (3), 137-149.
Murphy, J.; Weil, M; Hallinger, P; & Mitman, A. (1982, Dec). Academic press:
Translating high expectations into school polices and classroom practice. Educational
Leadership, pp.22-26.
137
Ohio Department of Education (1996). Ohio fourth-grade proficiency tests: A
resource manual for teachers of fourth grade. Monterey, CA: CTB/McGraw-Hill.
Parsons, T. (1967). Sociological Theory and Modern Societies. Glencoe, IL: Free
Press.
Parsons, T.; Bales, R.; Shiles, E. (1953). Working papers in the theory of action.
Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Purpel, D. (1989). The moral and spiritual crisis in education: A curriculum for
justice and compassion in education. Granby, MA: Bergin & Garvey.
Shamir, B,; House, R.; & Arthur. M. (1993). The motivational effects of
charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science. 4, 1-17.
138
Stogdill, R. (1948) Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey of the
literature. Journal of Psychology. 25, 35-71.
The Urban Institute. (1997). Reports on reform from the field: District and state
survey results. Washington, D.C. http://www.ed.gov./pubs/edpubs.html.
139
Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organizations. In T.
Parsons (Ed.), A. Henderson, and T. Parsons (translated). New York: Free Press.
140
APPENDIX A
Research Prospectus
Wayne K. Hoy
Jana Alig-Mielcarek
Mike Nicholson
James Sinden
141
I. Problem Statement
The purpose of this research is to explore the relationships between organizational
health, school structure, principal leadership, and faculty trust. Additionally, we will
investigate the extent to which organizational climate, leadership, and structure are
related to feelings of efficacy among the faculty and student achievement. This study
makes important theoretical advances in the measurement of, and interrelationships
among, these constructs, as well as important contributions to our knowledge of school
effectiveness and equity. This study is a replication and follow-up to a research project
completed in 50 elementary schools in Columbus.
II. Procedures
A. Design: This study is a quantitative investigation using three survey instruments
that have been developed as a part of this project. In addition, principals will be asked to
respond to a principal questionnaire. Data will be collected from a diverse sample of
schools in Ohio representing urban, suburban, and rural districts throughout the state
B. Data and Collection: Once approval has been received from building principals,
we will request 15 minutes of time at a regularly scheduled faculty meeting or early
release professional development date during November through April, 2002 to
administer the surveys to faculty. The researcher administering the surveys will explain
the purpose of the study, assure confidentiality, and request that teachers complete the
surveys in as candid a manner as possible. Faculty will be advised that they do not need
to respond to any item that they are not comfortable answering. There are three
alternating forms of the questionnaire. One-third of the teachers present will respond to
each. Splitting the faculty into three groups insures that the data collection will be done in
15 minutes. The responses to the questionnaires will be anonymous; no identifying marks
will indicate which teachers have completed which questionnaires. Questions concerning
demographic information about the school, such as number of students, racial and
socioeconomic characteristics of the students (but not the school's name or address), will
be included for the principal to complete along with a principal questionnaire. A sample
of one of the questionnaires is attached.
142
C. Data Analysis: We are interested in the collective; the patterns, practices, and
processes of interpersonal relationships within a school. Data on structure, climate,
leadership, efficacy, and achievement will thus be aggregated at the school level. Our
interest is in the relationships between the constructs. Individual school scores in most
cases will not be calculated. If they were calculated, results will be kept strictly
confidential.
D. Time Schedule: We intend to begin data collection in November 2001. Faculty
questionnaires will be administered in November through April. Data analysis will begin
in May. A general report of the results will be available in September.
Ill. Reporting and Dissemination.
This research project will provide the foundation for several doctoral student
dissertations in the College of Education at The Ohio State University. The dissertations
will focus on the relationships between leadership and efficacy as well as to student
achievement. Executive summaries of the results will be provided to schools for
dissemination to the professional staff. Additionally, the data obtained in this study will
also be used to produce manuscripts for publication in scholarly journals. The findings of
these studies will also be presented at professional meetings. The Human Subjects
Institutional Review Board at The Ohio State University has reviewed the research
application and has given approval to conduct research.
IV. Personnel
This study is being conducted by Dr. Wayne K. Hoy, Fawcett Professor of
Educational Administration at The Ohio State University. Jana Alig-Mielcarek, Mike
Nicholson and Jim Sinden will assist with data collection and analysis. Dr. Hoy and the
other researchers working n this project can be reached at 614-292-4672. The study will
involve the faculty members and principals of over 100 schools in Ohio.
V. Implications and Benefits
The problems schools face are difficult and complex. This is a large study with
important implications as schools seek to adapt to changing sets of expectations in a
diverse and rapidly changing world. This research concerns the quality of the social
relationships in schools, and attempts to identify factors related to well-functioning
143
schools. This study contributes to an understanding of the dynamics of school climate,
structure, leadership, and efficacy in schools and the implications these have for student
achievement. It is hoped that greater understanding of the human dynamics in schools
will lead to better training of future administrators and the cultivation of greater
productivity in schools.
144
APPENDIX B
Please distribute the questionnaires and pencils. Give ONE questionnaire to each teacher. There
are three separate questionnaires, but each teacher should complete only one. Completing these
questionnaires should only take about ten minutes. The principal will also be asked to complete a
questionnaire while the teachers are completing theirs.
The surveys you are about to complete are part of a study of elementary schools in
Ohio. This research concerns the quality of the social relationships in schools and how they
are related to each other. The study attempts to identify factors related to well-functioning
schools. It is hoped that greater understanding of the human dynamics in schools will lead
to better training of teachers and administrators and the cultivation of greater productivity
in schools.
This research is being conducted through the School of Education at The Ohio State
University. All teachers’ responses are anonymous. Data gathered about the school will be
completely confidential. Data will be compiled at the school level and will be used for a
statistical analysis of the relationships between the variables. We are not interested in
ranking or rating individual schools.
Your participation is voluntary. You may decline to complete the survey or you
may skip any item that you feel uncomfortable answering. Your refusal to participate will
have no negative repercussion from the school. The purpose of this research is to gather
information regarding the perceptions of educators about their schools. There are no
correct or incorrect answers, the researchers are interested only in your frank opinion.
Several different forms of the questionnaire have been distributed, about a third of
the faculty have received each form. Each teacher needs to complete only one form.
Your time, insights, and perceptions are valuable resources. Thank you for sharing
them with us! If you have any questions, you may reach Dr. Wayne K. Hoy at The Ohio
State University.
When the teachers have all the completed questionnaires, please return them to us.
Thank you for your participation. Please feel free to call if you have any questions.
Jim Sinden, Mike Nicholson, and Jana Alig-Mielcarek (614-292-4672).
145
APPENDIX C
Instructional Leadership Inventory
23 Items
146