Results for the Relationship between the Principals Demographic Factors (Age, Gender and Years of Working Experience) and the Students Academic Experience
Again, there is very little in the way of significant results between a principal's age, gender, or years of working experience, and the overall academic experience that students have on campus. There are several reasons why this is probably true. Again, an additional metric that would be worth exploring with further research would be a principal's tenure on the specific campus in question, as a principal who has been on seven campuses in fourteen years, including just a year and a half on the campus involved in this survey, should have a lot less to do with the academic performance of that campus than a principal with the same level of experience who has spent all fourteen of those years on that campus would. It takes time for a principal to fully stamp a campus with his or her personality and priorities, and while principals can sometimes change some of the more affective areas of a campus' climate in the first year or two, it takes longer for academic changes to take place.
Also, there is little evidence in research to suggest that a principal's gender will affect a campus' academic performance, particularly when viewed as an isolated variable. The years when the teachers were women and the principals were men have been anachronistic for decades by this point in time; there are quality leaders (and shoddy leaders) to be found in both gender groups, which means that this is a less significant factor.
Age and administrative experience generally track one another, which means that it is rare to find significant results with one metric but not the another. While teachers who become administrators at a younger point in their career may possess outstanding leadership skills, if they move out of the classroom more quickly than other administrators, they may not have had time to build the instructional savvy to move onto a campus leadership position and affect the academics; indeed, they may rely on department heads and team leaders to provide quality both in terms of their own classroom instruction as well as their ability to coach and mentor colleagues so that their pedagogical methods improve as well.
Proof of the Existence of a Relationship between the Principals Leadership Styles and the School Climate
As is true in many different areas of education, affective factors often play a much stronger role in campus performance than quantitative ones. This makes sense, particularly in a leadership study, as the ways in which a principal guides his or her campus is much more important, in terms of effect on campus climate and learning, than the principal's particular age or length of experience – or gender.
As was mentioned earlier, we classified principal leadership in one of three ways: transactional, transformative and non-transactional. It would make sense for the transactional style to have the most stamina, as veteran teachers would quickly tire of a principal who urged transformation, year after year, instead of putting his or own smooth system into place and then setting about making that system work. Non-transactional principals tend to have the shortest tenures, as they have no real interest in making any real connections with their teachers, and instead work more like autocrats, rendering decisions that may reflect political realities or the most expedient of solutions, all the while ignoring relevant factors in the situation that a little more attention would not only have marked but would also have turned to advantage. Transactional leaders, in contrast, take the time to find out the needs of each of their teachers, building trust on an individual level as part of a long-term strategy of transforming a campus culture in order to produce optimal results for students. Transactional leadership takes time and patience, including the desire to reach understandings with individual faculty members, with an eye toward creating a cadre of dedicated professionals willing to take the time to hone their craft and build a strong academic campus.
Here are some charts that show the correlation between leadership style and campus climate:
Principal leadership styles have a great deal to do with creating a campus culture. The end result can be instrumental in also creating a culture of academic excellence, although the statistical significance was considerably greater for the correlation between leadership style and campus culture than it was for the correlation between leadership style and particular grades.
Proof of the Existence of Relationship between the Principals Leadership Styles and the Students Academic Achievement
In this area of statistical study, there was also a significant correlation between leadership style and academic achievement, but not to the degree that there was with campus climate. Part of this has to do with the affective nature of campus climate; as a group, teachers tend to be affective and emotional, and when they feel things are going well (or poorly) on their campus, they will tend to react effusively.
Test results, on the other hand, don't get happy (or sad), and they don't swell with pride. Instead, they just speak mutely, communicating information about a school's performance that does not change over time.
Even so, it appears clear that a transactional principal, when it comes to leadership style, is more effective than his transformational or non-transactional peers. While transformational principals can produce short-term results by motivating faculty members and students, the fact that these principals tend to motivate more by fiat and less by the creation of consensus, their changes are vulnerable to decay over time. Transactional leadership builds relationships that stand the test of time and create strong working relationships on a campus.
Here are some tables that show the correlation between leadership style and academic performance:
Balcerek, E.B. (1999). Principals’ effective leadership practice in high performing and
inadequately performing schools. Doctoral Dissertation. The University of
Tennessee, Knoxville. UMI ProQuest Digital Dissertations, AAT 9973430.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist,
37, 122-147.
Barnett, K., & McCormick, J. (2004). Leadership and Individual Principal Teacher Relationships in Schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(3), p406-434.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free
Press.
Bass, B. M. (1981). Stogdill's handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research. New
York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M, & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, Character, and Authentic Transformational Leadership Behavior. Leadership Quarterly 10(2): 181–217.
Bennis, W. (2007). The challenges of leadership in the modern world. American Psychologist, 62 (1) p2-5.
Bodycott, P., Walker A., & Chi Kin, J. L. (2001). More than heroes and villains: pre-service teacher beliefs about principals. Educational Research, 43, 15 – 31.
Bradford, L. P., & Lippitt, R. (1945). Building a democratic work group. Personnel, 22, 142-148.
Bulach, C. R., Boothe, D., & Pickett, W. (1998). "Should nots" for school principals: Teachers share their views. ERS SPECTRUM: Journal of School Research and Information, 16(1), 16-20.
Bulach, C. R. (2001). Reshaping School Culture to Impower its Partners. Education Digest, 67(1), p8, 4p.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper Torchbooks.
Carless, S. A. (1998). Assessing the discriminant validity of transformational leader behaviour as measured by the MLQ. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 71(4), p353-358, 6p.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cohen, J. (2007). Evaluating and improving school climate. Independent School, 67(1).
Cotton, K. (2003). Principals and student achievement: What the research says. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Cropanzano, R., James, K, and Citera, M, A. (1993). A goal hierarchy model of personality, motivation, and leadership. In L. L. Cummings, & B. M. Staw (Eds.) Research in organizational behavior 15. Greenwich, Conn; JAI Press.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). No Child Left Behind and High School Reform. Harvard Educational Review, 76(4), p642-667.
Davis, M. H., & Harden, R. M. (2002). Leadership in education and the strategy of the dolphin. Medical Teacher, 24(6), p581-584, 4p.
Deal, T. E. & Peterson, K.D. (1999). Shaping school culture: The heart of leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Deluga, R. J. (1990). The effects of transformational, transactional , and LaissezFaire leadership characteristics on subordinate influencing behavior. Basic & Applied Social Psychology, 11(2), p191-203, 13p.
Denmark, F. L. (1993). Women, Leadership and Empowerment. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 17(3), p343, 14p.
DUKE, D.L. (2008). Diagnosing School Decline. Phi Delta Kappan, , 89(9), p667-671, 5p.
Dussault, M., Payette, D., & Leroux, M. (2008). Principals’ Transformational Leadership and Teachers’ Collective Efficacy. Psychology Reports, 102 (2), p401-410.
Easton, S.E., & Ellerbruch, L.W. (1985). Update on the citizenship and social studies achievement of rural 13-year-olds. Bozeman: Montana State University. (Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED 262 946).
Edington, E.D., & Koehler, L. (1987). Rural student achievement: Elements for consideration. New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico. (Eric Document Reproduction Service No. 289 658).
Fiedler, F. E. (1989). The effective utilization of intellectual abilities and job-relevant knowledge in group performance: Cognitive resource theory and an agenda for the future. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 38, 289-304.
Fiedler, F. E., & House, R. J. (1988). Leadership theory and research: A report of progress. In C. L. Cooper & I. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 73-92). New York: John Wiley.
Firestone, W. A., & Louis, K. S. (1999). Schools as cultures. In J. Murphy & K. S. Louis (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational administration (2nd ed., p297-322). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Fitz-Gibbon, C. T. (1997). The Value Added National Project: Final Report. London: School Curriculum and Assessment Authority.
Folly, L. C. (2007). Making High School Reform Work. American School Board Journal, 194 (10), p32-34.
Friedkin, N., & Necochea, J. (1988). School system size and performance: A contingency perspective. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 10(3), 237-249.
Goldschmidt, V. (2004). Are we concerned with leadership? ASHRAE Journal, 46 (11), p51-53.
Gordon, J., & Patterson, J. (2006). School leadership in context: Narratives of practice and possibility. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 9(3), p205-228.
Grant, B. (2003). Mapping the pleasures and risks of supervision. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural
Politics of Education, 2, 175–190.
Griffith, J. (2000). School climate and group evaluation and group consensus: student and parent perceptions of the elementary school environment. The Elementary School Journal, 101, 35-61.
Gunbayi, I. (2005). Women and men teachers’ approach to leadership style. Social Behavior and Personality, 33, 685-698.
Halawah, I. (2005). The relationship between effective communication of high school principal and school climate. Education, 126(2), p334-345.
Hallinger, P. (1992). The Indiana principal leadership academy. Education & Urban Society, 24(3).
Harden, B. (2000). Death of a cardinal: the leadership being heard in a church that’s changed. New York Times, 45.
Harris, A. (2004). Editorial: school leadership and school improvement a simple and complex relationship. School Leadership & Management, 24 (1), p3-6, 4p.
Hean, L.L., & Tin, L. G. (2008). Envisioning in school leadership preparation and practice: The case of Singapore. International Studies in Educational Administration (Commonwealth Council for Educational Administration & Management (CCEAM)), Vol. 36, Issue 1, p72-80.
Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1997). The management of organizational behavior (3rd
ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hertting, M. (2008). Are we supporting new principals. American School Board Journal, 196 (6),
p36-37.
Holmes, M., & Wynne, E. A. (1989). Making the School an Effective Community: Belief, practice and theory in school administration. Education policy perspectives. Toronto, Canada: Ontario Institution for Studies in Education.
Hopkins, M. S. (2003). Why leadership is the most dangerous idea in American Business. Inc., 25 (6), p86.
Hoy, W. K. http://www.waynekhoy.com/ocdq-rs.html - retrieved March 15, 2009.
Hoy, W. K., & Clover, S. I. R. (1986). School climate: A revision of the OCDQ. Educational Administration Quarterly, 22(1), p93-100.
Hoy, W. K., Hoffman, J., Sabo, D. & Bliss, J. R. (1996). The organizational climate of schools: The development and of the OCDQ-RM. Journal of Educational Administration, 34, p41-59.
Hoy, W. K., Smith, P. A., & Sweetland, S. R. (2002). The development of the organizational climate index for high schools: Its measure and relationship to faculty trust. The High School Journal, 86(2), p38-49.
Hoy, W. K., & Sweetland. (2000). School characteristics and educational outcomes: Toward an organizational model. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36, p703-729.
Hyslop, A. (2006). Create a Positive School Culture that Stresses Personalization in Relationships. Techniques. Connecting Education & Careers, 81(8), p34-36.
Iwanicki, E. (2001). Focusing teacher evaluations on student learning. Educational Leadership,
58(5), 3p.
Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A metaanalytic
test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 755-768
Kantrowitz, J. B., & Bondy, H. (2007). The principal principle. Newsweek, 149(22).
King, M. (1989). Extraordinary leadership in education: Transformational and transactional leadership as predictors of effectiveness, satisfaction, andorganizational climate in K-J2 and higher education. (Doctoral dissertation. University of New Orleans, 1989). Dissertation Abstracts International, 50, 2329 A.
Koopman, M. V. (2006). Principal’s leadership styles and school climate as perceived by elementary teachers in four North Dakota public school districts. Doctoral Dissertation. The University of North Dakota. UMI ProQuest Digital Dissertations, AAT 3258512.
Korir, J. & Karr-Kidwell, P. J. (2000). The relationship between self esteem and effective educational leadership. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service ED 443 142).
Lashway, L. (2000). Who’s in charge: The accountability challenge? Principal Leadership, 1(3), p8-13.
Lauer, C. (2006). Listen and repeat. Modern Healthcare, 36(39), p26-26.
Levine, D. U., & Lezotte, L.W. (1990). Unusually effective schools: A review and analysis of
research and practice. Madison, WI: National Center for Effective Schools Research and
Development. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 330 032).
Long, A. (2000). Administrator shortage: Perceptions/reality/solutions. IPLA Special Edition,
13(4), 3.
Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of transfirmational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQliterature. Leadership Quarterly, 7, 385-425.
Lussier, R.N.; Achua, C.F. (2004) Leadership: Theory, Application, Skill Development (2nd Ed)
South-Western.
Marks, H., & Printy, S. (2003). Principal Leadership and School Performance: An Integration of Transformational and Instructional Leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39 (3), 38p.
Marschilok, E. S. (1993). A study of the relationship behavior of high school principals and selected areas of educational achievement. Abstract from: ProQuest File: Dissertation Abstracts International Item: 54/06.
Marshall, M. (2005). Promoting positivity, choice and reflection. Leadership, 34(5), p28-30.
McEvoy, A., & Welker, R. (2000). Antisocial behavior, academic failure, and school climate: A critical review. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 8, p130-140.
Mills, S. (2007). Adapt styles to achieve objectives. Fire Engineering, 160(8), p129-135.
Murphy, J. & Hallinger, P. (1992). The principalship in an era of transformation. Journal of Educational Administration, 30(3), 77-78.
Muse, I., Thomas, G. J., & Newbold, B, (1989). Becoming a Rural School Principal: A seven-state study. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the National Rural Education Association, Utah (ERCI Document Reproduction Service N. ED316378).
Napier, L., Willower, D. (1991). Female high school principals' perceptions of their jobs and their work interactions with males. High School Journal. 74,(2). 11822.
Nettles, S., & Herrington, C. (2007). Revisiting the importance of the direct effects of school leadership on student achievement: The implications for school improvement. PJE. Peabody Journal of Education, 82(4), p724-736.
Northouse, Peter G. (2001). Leadership Theory and Practice, second edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Otto, S. J., and Arnold, M. (2005). A study of experienced special education teachers’ perceptions of administrative support. College Student Journal 39(2) , 253-263.
Owens, R. G. (2001). Organizational behavior in education (7th ed.). Needham Heights,
MA.: Allyn and Bacon.
Ozer, D. J. (2004). Personality Out of Proportion? Journal of Personality Assessment, 83(2), p131-135.
Poon, J., & Fatt, T. (2004). Leadership Styles Between Technical and Non-Technical Superiors: Guess Who Will Give Subordinates More Freedom on the Job? Journal of Technical Writing & Communication, 34(1/2), p 91-111.
Poznanski, M. & Thagard, P. (2005). Changing personalities: towards realistic virtual characters. Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 17(3), p221-241, 21p.
Ramsden, P. (1998). Managing the effective university. Higher Education Research & Development, 17(3), 347–370.
Richards, J. (2004). What new teachers value most in principals. Principal, 83(3): 42–44.
Rooney, J. (2008). What do we believe? Educational Leadership, 65(5).
Ross, S. M., & Offermann, L. R. (1997). Transformational leaders: Measurement of personality attributes and work group performance. Personalityand Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1078–1086.
Sagie, A. (1996). Effects of Leader's Communication Style and Participative Goal Setting on Performance and Attitudes. Human Performance, 9(1).
Sahin, S. (2004). The Relationship between Transformational and Transactional Leadership Styles of School Principals and School Culture. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 4(2), p387-395.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (1990). Adding value to leadership gets extraordinary results.
Educational Leadership, 47(8), 23-27.
Silins, H. C. (1994). The relationship between transformational and transactional leadership and
Snowden, P. E., & Gorton, R. A. (2002). School leadership and administration:
Important concepts, case studies, and simulations. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Somech, A. (2005). Directive versus participative leadership: Two complementary approaches to managing school effectiveness. Educational Leadership Quarterly, 39, 1-24.
Steward, E. B. (2007). Individual and school structural effects on African American high school students’ academic achievement. High School Journal, 91(2), p16-34.
Stogdill, R. M. (1974). Handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research. New York: Free Press.
Stone, C.M. (2003). A study of the relationship between principals’ leadership behaviors
and the school culture as perceived by the teachers. Doctoral Dissertation. The
Stoner, J. A. (1982). Management. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Sweeney, J. (1988). Tips for improving school climate. Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrators.
Taylor, P.G. (2000). Academic life today: Leadership, good will and collegiality. HERDSA News, 22(3), 3–4.
Thurmond, P. (2007). Affects on ITBS math and reading results: An analysis of the effect of school type and grade level on the ITBS math and reading results over a period of four years. Retrieved from Dissertations and Theses database (AAT 3288614).
Tymms, P. (1999). Baseline assessment, value-added and the prediction of reading. Journal of Research in Reading, 22(1) Issue 1, 27.
Viadero, D. (2007). Social-skills programs found to yield gains in academic subjects. Education Week, 27(16).
Waters, T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement (Working Paper). Mid-continent Regional Educational Laboratory. Retrieved October 1, 2008.
Williams, H.S. (2000). Teachers’ perceptions of principal effectiveness. Education 121(2) 264-276.
Williamson, J.S. (2007). Defining the Relationship between Principal’s Leadership Style and School Climate as Perceived by Title I Elementary Teachers. Retrieved from Dissertations and Theses database (AAT 329558).
Young, D. J. (1998). Rural and Urban Differences in Student Achievement in Science and Mathematics: A Multilevel Analysis. School Effectiveness & School Improvement, 9(4), 386.
Yukl. G. (1994). Toward a Behavioral Theory of Leadership. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 6(4), p414-440, 27p.
Zimmerman, S. (2003). Evaluating the evaluators: Teachers’ perceptions of the principal’s role in professional evaluation. NAASP Bulletin, September, 51-62.
The Ohio Department of Education –http://www.ode.state.oh.us. – retrieved October 1, 2008.
The Department of Education - http://www.swcs.us/ReportCards - retrieved October 1, 2008.
Appendix A
Principal Demographic Survey
Completion and submission of this survey indicates consent to participate.
1. How long have you served as a principal (years and at what grade level(s)?
a. 1-5 years
b. 6-10 years
c. 11 – 15 years
d. 16-20 years
e. 21-25 years
f. 26-30 years
2. What is your gender?
a. Male
b. Female
3. What is your age:
a. 20-29
b. 30-39
c. 40-49
d. 50-59
e. 60-69
Appendix B
The Organizational Health Inventory (OHI-M)
High School Teachers
Please note: Completion and submission of this survey indicates consent to participate.
DIRECTIONS: THE FOLLOWING ARE STATEMENTS ABOUT YOUR SCHOOL. PLEASE INDICATE THE EXTENT TO WHICH EACH STATEMENT CHARACTERIZES YOUR SCHOOL BY CIRCLING THE APPROPRIATE RESPONSE.
1=RARELY OCCURS 2=SOMETIMES OCCURS 3=OFTEN OCCURS 4=VERY FREQUENTLY OCCURS
1. The principal explores all sides of topics and admits that other options exist
1 2 3 4
2. Students make provisions to acquire extra help from teachers
1 2 3 4
3. The principal gets what he or she asks for from superiors
1 2 3 4
4. The principal discusses classroom issues with teachers
1 2 3 4
5. The principal accepts questions without appearing to snub or quash the teacher
1 2 3 4
6. Extra materials are available if requested
1 2 3 4
7. Students neglect to complete homework
1 2 3 4
8. The school is vulnerable to outside pressures
1 2 3 4
9. The principal is able to influence the actions of his or her superiors
1 2 3 4
10. The principal treats all faculty members as his or her equal
1 2 3 4
11. Teachers are provided with adequate materials for their classrooms
1 2 3 4
12. Teachers in this school like each other
1 2 3 4
13. Community demands are accepted even when they are not consistent with the educational program
1 2 3 4
14. The principal lets faculty know what is expected of them
1 2 3 4
15. Teachers receive necessary classroom supplies
1 2 3 4
16. Students respect others who get good grades
1 2 3 4
17. Good grades are important to the students of this school
1 2 3 4
18. Teachers feel pressure from the community
1 2 3 4
19. The principal’s recommendations are given serious consideration by his or her superiors
1 2 3 4
20. Supplementary materials are available for classroom use
1 2 3 4
21. Teachers exhibit friendliness to each other
1 2 3 4
22. Students seek extra work so they can get good grades
1 2 3 4
23. Select citizen groups are influential with the board
1 2 3 4
24. The principals looks out for the personal welfare of faculty members
1 2 3 4
25. The school is open to the whims of the public
1 2 3 4
26. A few vocal parents can change school policy
1 2 3 4
27. Students try hard to improve on previous work
1 2 3 4
28. Teachers accomplish their jobs with enthusiasm
1 2 3 4
29. The learning environment is orderly and serious
1 2 3 4
30. The principal is friendly and approachable
1 2 3 4
31. Teachers show commitment to their students
1 2 3 4
32. Teachers are indifferent to each other
1 2 3 4
33. Teachers are protected from unreasonable community and parental demands
1 2 3 4
34. The principal is able to work well with the superintendent
1 2 3 4
35. The principal is willing to make changes
1 2 3 4
36. Teachers have access to needed instructional materials
1 2 3 4
37. Teachers in this school are cool and aloof to each other
1 2 3 4
38. Teachers in this school believe that their students have the ability to achieve academically
1 2 3 4
39. The principal is understanding when personal concerns cause teachers to arrive late or leave early
1 2 3 4
40. Our school gets its fair share of resources from the district
1 2 3 4
41. The principal is rebuffed by the superintendent
1 2 3 4
42. Teachers volunteer to help each other
1 2 3 4
43. The principal is effective in securing the superintendent’s approval for new programs or activities
1 2 3 4
44. Academically oriented students in this school are ridiculed by their peers
1 2 3 4
45. Teachers do favors for each other
1 2 3 4
Appendix C
Please note: Completion and submission of this survey indicates consent to participate.
