Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
ABSTRACT
THE ROLE OF THE PRINCIPAL AND SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION
MANAGER: A SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT STRATEGY
BASED ON THE FIDELITY OF IMPLEMENTATION
Michael Bregy-Wilson, Ed.D.
Department of Leadership, Educational Psychology and Foundations
Northern Illinois University, 2012
Joseph Saban, Dissertation Director
This study attempted to analyze the effectiveness of the School Administration
Manager (SAM) model in changing the school principal’s role as operations manager to
instructional leader. Principals utilizing SAM were first categorized into three groups
based on fidelity of implementation of the model. The study focuses on two primary
research questions and results are reported for each. First, principals’ perceptions of job
satisfaction were analyzed utilizing the Job Descriptive Index, an instrument developed and
rigorously researched by Bowling Green State University. Additionally, the impact of
SAM implementation on classroom practice was studied. Utilizing the results of the
Educational Consultants Research Associates School Leadership 360 Appraisal, the study
analyzed the extent to which SAM principals participated in collaborative instructional
conversations with classroom teachers and the subsequent impact on teaching practice.
The study reports evidence of a relationship between the amount of time principals
spend on instructional leadership activities, job satisfaction, and impact on teaching
practices. Results also show that the structure of this systematic support initiative of SAM
helps strengthen the relationship between principal and teacher.
As was originally hypothesized, this study found that the greater the fidelity of
implementation, the higher level at which principals reported job satisfaction, the greater
the impact on collegial conversations between principals and teachers, and the greater the
impact on changes in teaching practice.
A better understanding of the School Administration Manager model derived from
this research holds significant implications for the professional practice of school leaders.
As the role of school principal becomes more legislatively mandated toward instructional
leadership, School Administration Manager represents one whole-school strategy that can
accomplish this task. Additionally, the results of this study confirm confidence in financial
support of the SAM Project. Findings also point to the need for additional research in
several related areas, including the impact of SAM implementation on student learning,
cost-benefit analyses, and the sustainability of effects over time.
NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY
DEKALB, ILLINOIS
DECEMBER 2012
THE ROLE OF THE PRINCIPAL AND SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION
MANAGER: A SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT STRATEGY
BASED ON THE FIDELITY OF IMPLEMENTATION
BY
MICHAEL BREGY-WILSON
©2012 Michael Bregy-Wilson
A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT OF
LEADERSHIP, EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY AND FOUNDATIONS
Dissertation Director:
Joseph Saban
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Dr. Barbara Clark. I could not have had a better mentor. You provided me with
energy, direction and unwavering support throughout the entire dissertation process. Thank
you for believing in me, especially those times when I didn’t believe in myself. I would not
be able to realize this dream without you and you will forever be a part of my life.
Dr. Joseph Saban. Stepping into the role mid-project as my dissertation
chairperson, you provided direction, clarity, and encouragement that were invaluable to the
completion of this study. Thank you for instilling the importance of hard work as a
doctoral student and superintendent.
Dr. Ken Arndt. Thank you for agreeing to serve on my committee. I personally
want to thank you for bringing the SAM Project to Community Unit School District 300.
You brought many experiences and opportunities into my dissertation work and I am
eternally grateful.
Dr. Brad Hawk. Thank you for jumping in at a critical time in my study. Your
comments added to the knowledge base that not only informs changes in principal practice,
but most importantly, contributes to improved student learning.
Dr. Mark Shellinger and Bert Hendee. Thank you for assisting in the identification
of the principals recruited for this study and for personally guiding me in implementing
SAM when I was a high school principal seeking to transform my role to that of
instructional leader.
iii
STARLIGHT EXPRESS – My inspiration and guardian angel
STARLIGHT
Only you have the power within you.
Just believe in yourself - The sea will part before you,
Stop the rain, turn the tide.
If only you use the power within you
Needn’t beg the world to turn around and help you
If you draw on what you have within you
Somewhere deep inside.
RUSTY
Starlight Express, you must confess,
Are you real, yes or no?
Starlight Express, answer me yes.
I don’t want you to go.
STARLIGHT
Rusty you’re blind, look in your mind -
I’m there. Nothing’s new
The Starlight Express is no more nor less
Than you Rusty. I am you.
I’m you and
STARLIGHT / RUSTY
Only you/I am the Starlight.
Have the power within you/I can achieve
Just believe in yourself/anything
The sea will part before you
Stop the rain and turn the tide/All the things I didn’t believe.
If only you/I am the Starlight.
Use the power within you/I can see it through.
Needn’t beg the world to turn around and help you
If you draw on what is deep inside.
RUSTY
I won’t let you down.
- “I am the Starlight,” from the musical Starlight Express, words and music by Andrew
Lloyd Webber
DEDICATION
This paper is dedicated to my family,
Mom and Dad, Robert and Joyce Bregy,
sisters Donna Bregy and Karen Zagroba,
the only people in my world whom I have known a lifetime.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................... ix
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................ x
LIST OF APPENDICES ............................................................................................... xi
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY ..................................................................... 1
Statement of the Problem ........................................................................................ 4
Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................... 6
Significance of the Study ........................................................................................ 7
Research Questions ................................................................................................. 8
Definition of Terms................................................................................................. 9
Organization of the Study ....................................................................................... 10
2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE ................................................................................. 11
School Leadership ................................................................................................... 11
Historical Developments of School Leadership ............................................... 13
Situational Leadership ...................................................................................... 15
The Effective Schools Movement ..................................................................... 18
Transformational Leadership ............................................................................ 21
Instructional Leadership.................................................................................... 23
vi
Chapter Page
Shared Leadership ................................................................................................... 27
Standards for School Leadership ............................................................................ 29
Leadership and Learning......................................................................................... 34
Background on the SAM Project ...................................................................... 40
Core Elements of the SAM Project ................................................................... 43
Readiness .......................................................................................................... 45
Data Collection ................................................................................................. 46
Engagement with a SAM and Coaching ........................................................... 47
Assessment of the Project ................................................................................. 49
Summary ................................................................................................................. 50
3. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................. 51
Design of the Study ................................................................................................. 51
Selection of the Principal Subjects ................................................................... 52
Selection of the Teachers .................................................................................. 54
Research Question 1 ............................................................................................... 54
Data Collection Instrument: Job Descriptive Index (JDI) ............................... 54
Assessment Validity: JDI ................................................................................. 56
Procedures: JDI ................................................................................................. 56
Statistical Methods: JDI .................................................................................... 56
Interviews with Principals................................................................................. 57
Research Question 2 ............................................................................................... 59
Data Collection Instrument: ECRA School Leadership 360 Appraisal ............ 60
vii
Chapter Page
Assessment Validity: ECRA School Leadership 360 Appraisal ...................... 61
Procedures: ECRA School Leadership 360 Appraisal...................................... 62
Statistical Methods: ECRA School Leadership 360 Appraisal......................... 63
Limitations and Delimitations ................................................................................. 63
Summary ................................................................................................................. 66
4. DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS ................................................................... 67
Description of the Subjects ..................................................................................... 67
Analysis and Findings ............................................................................................. 69
Research Question 1: SAM’s Relationship to Job Satisfaction ........................ 70
Research Question 2: Influence on Teaching Practice ..................................... 70
Summary ................................................................................................................. 83
5. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................... 85
Summary of the Study ............................................................................................ 85
Research Questions ................................................................................................. 87
Overview of the Methodology ................................................................................ 88
Discussion of the Findings ...................................................................................... 88
Principal Job Satisfaction and the Job Descriptive Index ................................. 89
Increase of Principal’s Time on Instruction and Change in Teaching
Practices ............................................................................................................ 90
Implications and Recommendations for Practice ................................................... 92
Recommendations for Further Study ...................................................................... 93
Summary ................................................................................................................. 96
viii
Chapter Page
BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................................... Error!
Bookmark not defined.
APPENDICES .............................................................................................................. 104
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Key Leadership Responsibilities ......................................................................... 36
2. Qualities of Effective Principals .......................................................................... 39
3. Parameters for the Selection of Case Study Schools ........................................... 53
4. JDI: Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability Statistics ....................................................... 65
5. 360 Appraisal Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability Statistics ....................................... 65
6. Principal Participants ........................................................................................... 68
7. JDI Mean Scores by Level of Fidelity ................................................................. 70
8. JDI Total Score Post Hoc Bonferroni ANOVA Results by Level of
Fidelity ................................................................................................................. 72
9. T-Test Results: JDI Mean Scores by Level of Fidelity of Fidelity
Group Combined.................................................................................................. 73
10. 360 Mean Scores by Level of Fidelity ................................................................. 76
11. Correlations between Principal’s 360 Mean Scores by Category and
Level of Fidelity................................................................................................... 77
12. Instructional Focus Question Item Means ........................................................... 80
13. Correlations between 360 Instructional Focus Items and Level of
Fidelity ................................................................................................................. 80
14. Regression Analysis Coefficients: Instructional Focus and Fidelity ................... 82
15. Correlation between JDI Fidelity Total, 360 Total and
Implementation Group ......................................................................................... 83
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. JDI mean scores by level of fidelity .................................................................... 71
2. 360 mean scores by level of fidelity .................................................................... 77
3. Scatter plot of instructional focus mean principal rating by fidelity
group .................................................................................................................... 79
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX Page
A. RECRUITMENT AND COVER COMMUNICATIONS ........................ 106
B. PRINCIPAL INTERVIEW PROTOCOL................................................. 109
C. CERTIFIED STAFF SURVEY PROTOCOL .......................................... 112
D. PRINCIPAL INTERVIEW QUESTIONS ............................................... 115
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY
The primary expectation of a school principal is to serve as the instructional leader
for the purpose of creating an optimal learning environment to improve student learning.
The focus of the principal as instructional leader is supported by recent research showing
that school leadership is second only to classroom instruction in contributing to student
learning. In fact, the role of the principal as instructional leader accounts for about 25% of
the variance in student achievement (Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005). Research directs
school leaders to support the implementation of standards-based curriculum, subsequent
assessments and effective delivery of instruction. Collaboratively, principals engage
teachers in substantive conversations during which teachers discover and are guided toward
improving and changing their teaching practices for the common purpose of increasing
student achievement. The quality of education in our schools is highly dependent on the
leadership at the helm of each school and the desire to support high standards for student
learning.
Marzano et al. (2005) synthesized a meta-analysis of 69 research studies conducted
over 35 years. Additionally, they compiled the results of a survey of more than 650
principals and found that in many ways the school principal is the most important and
influential individual in any school.
2
He or she is the person responsible for all activities that occur in and around the
school building. It is the principal’s leadership that sets the tone of the school, the
climate for teaching, the level of professionalism and morale of the teachers, and the
degree of concern for what students may or may not become. If a school is a vibrant,
innovative, child-centered place, if it has a reputation for excellence in teaching, if
students are performing to the best of their ability, one can almost always point to
the principal’s leadership as the key to success. (Marzano et al., 2005, p. 56)
Although this perspective presents an exciting time for change in American
education and school leadership, this primary purpose of improving the instruction of an
entire school building is a daunting task. In addition to managing the many operational
tasks imposing on time, principals must also work to establish a common tone of high
expectations, hard work, and collaboration within the school (Bridgeland, Dilulio, &
Balfanz, 2009). Considering the increasing job expectations for school administrators,
principal performance is also compromised by diminishing resources and decreasing
financial support from the state and federal governments. In many situations, the
principal’s role is to improve the quality of an expanded curriculum as well as improve
instruction delivered by fewer teachers in classes with higher student enrollments and with
a depleting or zero-based professional development budget.
Despite potential roadblocks, the initiative to develop principals as instructional
leaders is guided by the new Illinois School Leader Performance Standards (ISLPS), which
are grounded in the 2008 Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) and
aligned with the National Board Standards for Accomplished Principals. Significant
legislation provides additional foundation for the changing role of the principal from
operations manager to instructional leader. Under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
3
(NCLB), educators are held accountable for student learning as measured by scores on
high-stakes assessments.
The NCLB legislation places the burden for improved academic achievement
squarely on the shoulders of school principals, who, along with classroom teachers,
are those “closest to the customers” [i.e., the students]. (Gentilucci & Muto, 2007, p.
219)
States across the country have expended countless resources toward developing and
implementing standardized assessments to meet the requirements of this legislation and to
avoid the consequences that befall schools failing to make Adequate Yearly Progress
(AYP). States are required to have learning outcomes, indicators, and standards for each
grade level. Principals and teachers are aware of the need to provide a rigorous curriculum
that is closely aligned with standards and effective instructional practices.
Further supporting the role of principal as instructional leader, 2010 legislation in
Illinois provides direction for developing principal evaluation models that are valid, reliable
and contribute to the development of instructional staff and improved student achievement
outcomes (Performance Evaluation Reform Act [PERA] of 2010). By September 1, 2012
the law specifically instructs principal evaluators to utilize student outcomes as a significant
factor in determining a principal’s annual performance rating (Public Act 096-0861). The
Act states that
the [principal’s evaluation] must be in writing and must do all of the following:
(1) Consider the principal’s specific duties, responsibilities, management and
competence as a principal.
(2) Specify the principal’s strengths and weaknesses, with supporting reasons.
(3) Align with research-based standards established by administrative rule.
4
On and after September 1, 2012, the evaluation must, in addition to the requirements
in items (1), (2), and (3) of this subsection, provide for the use of data and indicators
on student growth as a significant factor in rating performance. (PERA, 2010, p. 5)
Today, the principalship stands out in bold relief against a complex backdrop--a
puzzle comprised of often conflicting federal guidelines and State requirements,
skimpy funds to cover fat mandates, simplistic measurements for multifaceted goals,
a chorus of criticism and appreciation, and a world that is changing at breakneck
speed. (Schooley, 2010, p. 23)
Unfortunately, there is no backdrop, framework or prescription to guide principals in
managing these conflicting demands or providing a structure within which the principal is
able to exercise efficient use of resources and maximize the instructional leadership role.
To promote this never-ending progression in school improvement, many principals
are re-evaluating the time spent on operational management and instructional
responsibilities. The core challenge of any principalship is to balance management versus
leadership. In order to thrive as a successful principal, the issue of time has become the
critical component impacting effective instructional leadership. Time affects how the
pattern of leadership practices have been altered, thus challenging high-quality instructional
improvement opportunities.
Statement of the Problem
“It has been observed that the principal is second only to the teacher in his or her
impact on the student” (Fullan, 2010, p. 14). Although principals are frontline leaders,
many are unaware of the amount of time spent on management tasks that keep them tucked
away in their offices and far removed from the classroom.
5
Compounding the issue, attempts have been made to impose the business model
onto the education model, turning the principal position into that of a corporate manager
(Church, 2005). Consequently, the role of “principal as building manager” has been created
and much more time is devoted to working for teachers rather than working with teachers.
Separating the expectations of school principals as leaders from the fact that their
work is overwhelmingly managerial is difficult because the school administration
system in the United States and similar systems in other nations have at various
times attempted to reform their schools according to the corporate model. (Wiseman
& Alexandra, 2009, p. 5)
If principals are to become the instructional leaders they need to be, robust changes
are essential. Fortunately, there are some promising models that address the behavior,
accountability and efficacy of the school principal as instructional leader and one that
provides individualized instructional support to teachers. Developed by the Wallace
Foundation in response to high rates of administrator turnover and burn-out, the School
Administration Manager (SAM) Project was developed as a means to assist principals in
their shift from manager to instructional leader. The SAM Project began in Louisville,
Kentucky in 2002 to study conditions that prevented principals from making instructional
leadership their top priority and increase the retention rate of building principals. Policy
Studies Associates have analyzed the SAM Project since 2004 (Turnbull et al,. 2009, 2011).
After only one year of implementing SAM strategies and increasing thereafter, findings
indicate a statistically significant increase in the amount of time principals are able to spend
on instruction (Turnbull et al,. 2009, 2011).
The problem addressed in this study is a whole-school change strategy employed to
refocus the role of the principal from operations manager to instructional leader. The
6
intended result is the identification of new ways of working together to support each other’s
growth and development so that together principals and teachers are able to meet the
implicit and explicit demands of 21st-century schooling (Drago-Severson, 2009) for the
purpose of improving student learning.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to examine the SAM strategy and the fidelity of
implementation as a school improvement model. The focus of the study presents evidence
that a whole-school strategy with practical steps must be embedded in the school culture in
order to shift the principal’s focus from management tasks to instructional leadership.
Although school improvement models for instructional leadership exist, many principals do
not understand, value or incorporate these standards into their daily work. The SAM
strategy was designed and supported by the Wallace Foundation to transform the
collaboration of the principal-teacher relationship and positively impact instructional
practice inside the classroom.
In addition to identifying specific implementation components necessary to impact
change, the study will focus on two outcomes. First, the study will examine the impact of
participation in the School Administration Manager Project on the principal’s perceptions
of job satisfaction. Second, the study will examine the relationship between an increase in
the principal’s instructional leadership time and the change in teaching practices when
principals are involved in the National SAM Project.
7
Significance of the Study
Limited empirical research has been conducted on ways in which school principals
have quantified pre and post measures that track their use of professional time and change
their own leadership practices. Although principals are increasingly expected to alter their
roles in the educational setting from operations manager to instructional leader, many
principals do not possess the knowledge or skills to accomplish this change. To address
that need, this study will investigate the ways in which successful SAM principals use
individualized data to impact their leadership practices and promote continuous
instructional improvement amid imposed management responsibilities. Some of these
practices include giving feedback to teachers, modeling instruction and having
conversations that drive changes in curriculum and assessment (Holland, 2008). By
providing principals with an integration of effective school leadership standards, this study
will assist principals with redesigning their daily practices and demonstrate how a whole-
school strategy can transform the culture and learning environment of a school.
Additionally, a conceptual framework for time is needed that collects data
triangulated from a number of components to help change the collective responsibility of
increasing the overall academic achievement and professional standards for the entire
school. To that end, this study will first address the framework of the unique SAM program
and discuss the literature that supports this method as a significant means to alter a school’s
culture, impact teaching practice, and improve student learning. The study will proceed to
integrate the alignment of the ISLLC standards with the SAM program to highlight the
8
intersection of essential information needed to provide direction and data for school leaders
as they transform themselves from managers to instructional leaders.
It is essential that principals have strategies and tools for engaging teachers in
substantive conversations about the improvement of teaching and learning. For example -
(Leithwood et al., 2004) found principals who set teacher direction by tracking progress and
performance and by developing people through support systems results in improvement of
student learning. SAM is one of those tools embedded with data-influenced strategies that
hold significant promise to assist principals in the important task of instructional leadership.
Research Questions
The study was guided by the following research questions:
1. To what extent does the fidelity of implementing SAM strategies impact
principals’ job satisfaction?
a. as job satisfaction relates to people?
b. as job satisfaction relates to the general work environment?
c. as job satisfaction relates to the work at present job?
d. as job satisfaction relates to pay?
e. as job satisfaction relates to promotions?
f. as job satisfaction relates to supervision?
9
2. To what extent does the fidelity of implementing SAM strategies impact
changes in teaching practice?
a. related to value and vision?
b. related to instructional focus?
c. related to professional development?
d. related to collaboration?
e. related to culture and communication?
f. related to management?
Definition of Terms
Fidelity – The adherence and determination of how well a program is being
implemented in comparison with the original program design constructs and expectations.
Instructional Leadership - Instructional leadership are those actions that a principal
takes, or delegates to others, to promote growth in student learning (Flath, 1989).
School Administration Manager (SAM) - The School Administration Manager
Project (SAM) was established by the Wallace Foundation with three schools in Louisville,
Kentucky, in 2002 as the Alternative School Administration Study, to look at conditions
that prevented principals from making instructional leadership their top priority (Turnbull et
al., 2009) and to increase the retention rate of principals in the profession. Although the
original design depended on hiring an additional staff person to help the principal identify
and differentiate the use of time, it has since evolved to include three implementation
models.
10
Organization of the Study
Chapter 1 provides the introduction to this study and includes the problem focus.
The purpose of the study is defined in the first chapter and two questions provide the
framework for the research. Chapter 2 delivers the review of literature with in-depth
descriptions of the historical, relevant, and current research supporting the refocus of the
role of the principal from school manager to instructional leader. Chapter 2 also describes
in detail the SAM initiative and explains the school improvement model as aligned with the
ISSLC standards and recent PERA legislation. Chapter 3 describes the research
methodology and Chapter 4 analyzes the results of the responses from the teachers and
principals in relation to the research questions. Chapter 5 concludes the project and
provides an overview and summary of the study and provides recommendations for future
research.
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The purpose of this study was to explore the shifts in the principal’s time spent on
managerial versus instructional tasks when SAM is implemented. The study was guided by
two research questions that measured the extent to which the principal’s implementation of
SAM impacted their job satisfaction and contributed to changes in teaching practices. The
study was informed by a variety of perspectives that have surfaced in recent and historical
literature, including school leadership, SAM and organizational change
This chapter provides an overview of the literature related to this study, focusing
primarily on the SAM program, and its impact on principals’ roles as instructional leaders.
In order to provide a broader understanding of the primary topic, however, this literature
review will also provide an overview of several related topics, including the history of
school leadership, the distribution of leadership responsibilities, leadership and learning,
and the standards guiding principal leadership.
School Leadership
Although principals have been in American schools for more than a hundred years,
the education system was not always structured this way. As early as 1684 in Philadelphia
and predominating through the early 19th
century, students were taught in one-room schools
12
with every age group, ability level, and subject taught by one teacher (Rippa, 1988). As
populations increased and schools started to provide more services, there emerged a need to
assist teachers in carrying out teaching and management duties. By the middle of the 19th
century, the concept of the principal teacher emerged at the secondary level and eventually
at the elementary level.
Thereafter, overall responsibility for the management of the school fell to a single
individual, the principal. Through much of the last century the principal’s role was largely
defined by operational expertise.
More recently, as demands of national testing and accountability emerged, the role
of the principal shifted from an emphasis on management expertise to instructional
leadership and student learning.
The role of principals has swelled to include a staggering array of professional tasks
and competencies. Principals are expected to be educational visionaries,
instructional and curriculum leaders, assessment experts, disciplinarians, community
builders, public relations and communication experts, budget analysts, facility
managers, special program managers, as well as guardians of various legal,
contractual, and policy mandates and initiatives. (Davis 2005, p. 34)
In addition to ensuring the smooth and safe operation of the school environment,
principals are now expected to improve teaching practices. Expectations for increased
student achievement put pressure on principals who have previously been comfortable
balancing both management and instructional responsibilities.
Not only have the challenges in our public school system changed but so have the
traditional methods of leadership to address and fix these issues. Accompanying the calls
for reform in school systems is an underlying assumption that the leadership needed to
execute these changes will somehow magically emerge (Mendez-Morse, 2012). There
13
remains much to be learned, however, about how these increasing demands will influence
the use of principals’ time.
Historical Developments of School Leadership
Historical literature on school leadership suggests that principals always needed to
possess extensive knowledge and skills to perform a myriad of managerial, instructional,
and relational tasks. During the colonial period, educational leadership evolved to provide
an organized structure in schools that were usually independently operated, often by
religious leaders in the community. Schoolhouses were extensions of the knowledge of a
particular community and were often operated with a lack of administrative skill.
As schools grew from one-room schoolhouses into buildings with several grades
and classrooms, someone needed to supervise a new system with connected parts. Initially,
this role was assumed by principal teachers, who continued to teach while also handling the
responsibilities of operating the school. As schools continued to grow and the demands of
management responsibilities increased, principal teachers became full-time administrators.
Principals assumed responsibility for financial operations, building maintenance, student
scheduling, personnel, public relations, school policy regarding discipline, coordination of
the instructional program, and other overall school matters (Rippa, 1988).
School districts began to formally organize into in the 1800s. Each year districts
held a town meeting to elect a school agent, who had the responsibility to keep the
schoolhouse outfitted with supplies and in good repair, hire teachers, and return once a year
to report to the town’s assessors (Rippa, 1988). Additionally, every town nominated a
14
Superintending School Committee comprised of at least three people. One school officer
oversaw each county, and all of those county school officers composed the state’s Board of
Education (Rippa, 1988). This organizational structure evolved into the role of the
superintendent who often served in the capacity of principal and superintendent. As the
complexities and magnitude of the position increased, the role of superintendent separated
from that of principal. The superintendent assumed responsibilities and oversight of
multiple schools in a district or county, whereas the principal’s responsibilities focused on
that of a single school (Rippa, 1988).
In 1826, a breakthrough in school leadership occurred when Massachusetts
authorized city and town councils to appoint a superintendent of public schools. Under the
direction of an executive public body, the superintendent supervised the schools in a district
as his full-time job. By the late 1800’s, William H. Payne of the University of Michigan
designed the nation’s first groundbreaking teacher-training curriculum, including the first
program dedicated to educational administration (Rippa, 1988).
As the role of the principal became more prominent, researchers attempted to isolate
the characteristics that made good leaders. A detailed examination of leadership in the
1900s attempted to identify the differences between leaders and followers. The studies
investigated traits such as intelligence, birth order, socioeconomic status, and child-rearing
practices and identified six categories of personal factors associated with leadership:
capacity, achievement, responsibility, participation, status, and situation (Bass, 1960).
Unfortunately, attempts to isolate specific individual traits led to the conclusion that no
single characteristic distinguishes leaders from non-leaders (Mendez-Morse, 2012).
15
The principalship received increased attention following two reports, A Nation at
Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform (National Commission on Excellence in
Education, 1983) and the Carnegie report, A Nation Prepared: Teachers for the Twenty-
First Century (Task Force on Teaching as a Profession, 1986). These reports challenged
principals to become strong leaders for school reform. The challenge called for principals
to become change agents, to affect the culture and climate of a school, to empower others,
and to motivate staff and students. Since then, a variety of theoretical frameworks for
school leadership have defined the role of the school principal.
Situational Leadership
Studies surrounding situational leadership concluded that leadership is determined
not by the characters of the individuals but by the requirements of the situation (Mendez-
Morse, 2012). Situational leadership contained the cause or basis that assumed different
situations require different types and styles of leadership.
The most well-known model is the Hersey-Blanchard situational leadership theory
(Blanchard & Johnson, 1982; Hersey, Blanchard, & Johnson, 2007), which states that
successful leaders change their style based on two continuums: the maturity of the
followers and the details of the task.
16
According to Hersey et al. (2007), there are four leadership styles:
1. Telling (Style 1): Leaders tell their people exactly what to do, and how
to do it.
2. Selling (Style 2): Leaders still provide information and direction, but
there’s more communication with followers. Leaders “sell” their message to get the
team on board.
3. Participating (Style 3): Leaders focus more on the relationship and less
on direction. The leader works with the team, and shares decision-making
responsibilities.
4. Delegating (Style 4): Leaders pass most of the responsibility to the
follower or group. The leaders still monitor progress, but they’re less involved in
decisions.
Additionally, the maturity of a person or group of people should be a prime
consideration in selecting the appropriate style of leadership. Hersey et al. (2007) break the
level of maturity into four categories:
1. Maturity Level 1: Followers at this maturity level are positioned at the
foot of the scale. They lack any technical know-how, skills or self-confidence to do
a task and need to be encouraged.
2. Maturity Level 2: In this level, followers start to develop their
willingness to work but still need the supervision of a leader in order to finish a task.
3. Maturity Level 3: Here, followers are already prepared to do or help
complete a task, they have gained the skills but still need confidence in themselves.
17
4. Maturity Level 4: This is the final stage where followers become
ready, willing, and able to work. They have reached an appropriate level of
confidence and upgraded skills and have the commitment to complete the task.
Contingency models enhance the situational perspective by attempting to specify the
environmental variables that might determine which style of leadership best fits a particular
situation. The effectiveness of leadership behavior has a direct relationship with the
demands imposed by the situation. Like situational models, contingency theories stress the
selection of different styles of leadership depending on different situations. No single
leadership style is considered the best for all situations (Lunnenberg & Ornstein, 2012).
Fiedler and Garcia’s (1987) contingency theory is the earliest and most extensively
researched. Their approach asserts that the effectiveness of a leader in achieving high
group performance is contingent on the leader’s motivational system and the degree to
which the leader controls and influences the situation. Additionally, group performance is
contingent on three contextual factors: leader-member relations, task structure and the
leader’s position power.
Elaborating on these contextual factors, Fiedler and Garcia write:
The relationship between the leaders and followers. If leaders are
liked and respected they are more likely to have the support of others.
The structure of the task. If the task is clearly spelled out as to goals,
methods and standards of performance then it is more likely that
leaders will be able to exert influence on task completion.
Position power. If an organization or group confers powers on the
leader for the purpose of getting the job done, this will increase the
influence of the leader. (p. 51)
18
Combining these three variables with a leadership measurement called the Least
Preferred Co-worker (LPC) scale, Fiedler and Garcia were able to construct a theoretical
model to predict the situational favorableness for the leader. Unlike situational leadership
models that encourage leaders to adapt their leadership style to particular situations, their
model suggests that leaders tend to adopt one style or another. Assigning leaders to
situations which match their style ensures greater success. Alternatively, leaders can
change the nature of the situation by improving relationships with subordinates, improving
task structure by providing more specific directions and guidelines, or attempting to
improve one’s position of power within the organization (Lunnenberg & Ornstein, 2012).
Although situational leadership revealed the complexity of leadership, even combined with
contingency models, however, situational leadership cannot completely predict which
leadership skills will be effective in specific situations (Mendez-Morse, 2012).
The Effective Schools Movement
Research on effective schools emerged in response to The Equality of Educational
Opportunity Study, a federal report written in 1966 by Johns Hopkins sociologist James S.
Coleman. Commissioned by the United States Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare, it assessed the availability of educational opportunities to children of different
race, color, religion, and national origin.
The report found that educational resources available to Black students closely
matched those available to White students, suggesting greater parity among schools than
was previously thought. The report also stated that, despite the apparent availability of
19
similar resources, the academic achievement of Black students fell far below the
achievement of White students. The findings suggested that student performance was more
directly related to factors outside the control of the school than to factors within the control
of schools (Mace-Matluck, 1987).
[S]chools bring little to bear on a child’s achievement that is independent of his
background and general social context. This very lack of an independent effect
means that the inequalities imposed on children from their home, neighborhood, and
peer environment are carried along to become the inequalities with which they
confront adult life following the end of school. (Coleman, 1966, p. 325)
In response to findings in the Coleman (1966) Report that the characteristics and
operational aspects of schools did not make a difference in student achievement, research
was ignited to determine whether effective schools existed and, if they did, to identify
common factors that characterized those effective schools (Kiviat, 2000). The first task of
the effective schools researchers was to identify existing effective schools--schools that
were successful in educating all students regardless of their socioeconomic status or family
background (Kiviat, 2000). After identifying these effective schools, the next task was to
identify their common characteristics.
The effective schools movement examined schools whose students came from
minority status and low socioeconomic levels, but were performing at average or above-
average levels in basic skills on standardized achievement tests (Brookover & Lezotte,
1979; Edmonds, 1979). The research attempted to identify the reasons why one school was
more “successful” than another.
The effective school research challenged the long-standing belief that only those
who have won the genetic lottery were capable of high levels of learning.
Compelling evidence was presented to support two bold new premises: first, “all
20
students can learn” and second, “schools control the factors necessary to assure
student mastery of the core curriculum.” (Lezotte, 2001, p. 5)
With Brookover and Lezotte (1979), Edmonds (1979) was a leader in the effective
schools movement. In his viewpoint, equity was a key indicator of effective schools. He
described an effective school as “bringing the children of the poor to those minimal
masteries of basic school skills that describe minimally successful pupil performance for
children of the middle class” (Edmonds, 1979, p. 16).
Edmonds (1979) argued that the behavior of school leaders was critical in
determining the quality of education. Additionally, on the basis of his study on effective
schools in Detroit and an examination of previous studies involving effective schools in
New York, California, and Michigan, he isolated several factors that appeared to
significantly contribute to the creation of instructionally effective schools. These became
known as the correlates of effective schools (Edmonds, 1979). Although Edmonds
originally identified only five correlates of effective schools, seven were later recognized
(Lezotte, 2001). These correlates are: (1) strong administrative leadership; (2) high levels
of expectations for student achievement; (3) an orderly but not oppressive school climate;
(4) a focus on time on task and the acquisition of basic school skills; (5) an atmosphere
conducive to the instructional process, including positive home-school relations; (6) a
means to monitor student progress; and (7) resources that are focused on the fundamental
learning objectives of the school.
Of particular interest was the finding that in effective schools, the principal acts as a
strong instructional leader who clearly communicates the school’s mission and vision. By
doing so, the principal creates a shared sense of purpose and creates a set of common core
21
values among the stakeholders. Having common values and a shared sense of purpose helps
guide all members of the instructional team toward intended goals and prevents individuals
from straying from them (Kirk & Jones, 2004).
In the effective school, the principal acts as an instructional leader and effectively
and continually communicates the mission of the school to staff, parents, and
students. In addition, the principal understands and applies the characteristics of
instructional effectiveness in the management of the instructional program. Clearly,
the role of the principal as the articulator of the mission of the school is crucial to
the overall effectiveness of the school. (Lezotte, 2001, p. 5)
The effective schools movement and its associated research led the way for
restructuring schools and principal practices that focused on instructional leadership,
supervision models and accountability-driven reform.
Transformational Leadership
Rather than identifying a set of traits, matching leadership styles to specific
situations, or identifying correlates that contribute to effectiveness, transformational
leadership relies on the qualities of leaders to inspire followers toward exceptional
performance. Through the strength of their vision and personality, transformational leaders
are able to inspire followers to change individual expectations, perceptions and motivations
and work towards common goals (Liontos, 1994).
[Transformational leaders] lead changes in mission, strategy, structure and culture,
in part through a focus on intangible qualities like vision, shared values and ideas,
and relationship building. They are able to give significance to diverse activities,
illustrating, for example, the ways in which different people and groups might be
working towards larger organizational objectives. Transformational leaders also find
common ground that allows them to enlist followers in processes of change. (Hay,
2011, p. 3)
22
The concept of transformational leadership was initially introduced by James
MacGregor Burns (Hay, 2011). Bass and Riggio (2005) expanded Burns’ ideas and
developed the transformational leadership theory. They focused their work on studies of
political leaders, military officers, and business executives. Although neither Burns nor
Bass studied school leaders, transformational leadership found its place and application in
education.
According to Bass and Riggio (2005), transformational leadership is defined based
on the impact that leaders have on followers. As transformational leaders garner trust,
respect and admiration from their followers, they elicit excellent performance.
Bass and Riggio (2005) outlined four dimensions of transformational leadership:
1. Intellectual Stimulation: Transformational leaders not only challenge
the status quo, they encourage creativity among followers. The leader encourages
followers to explore new ways of doing things and new opportunities to learn.
2. Individualized Consideration: Transformational leadership involves
offering support and encouragement to individual followers. In order to foster
supportive relationships, transformational leaders keep lines of communication open
so that followers feel free to share ideas and so that leaders can offer direct
recognition to followers’ unique contributions.
3. Inspirational Motivation: Transformational leaders have a clear vision
that they are able to articulate to followers. These leaders are also able to help
followers experience the same passion and motivation to fulfill these goals.
4. Idealized Influence: The transformational leader serves as a role
model for followers. Because followers trust and respect the leader, they emulate the
leader and internalize his or her ideals.
Sergiovanni (1990) suggests that student achievement can be “remarkably
improved” by transformational leadership. Sagor (1992) found that in schools where
teachers and students reported a culture of school success there was a transformational
23
leader as the principal. Studies also suggested that transformational leaders influence
teacher collaboration and that a significant relationship exists between transformational
leadership and changes in teachers’ instructional behavior and attitudes toward school
improvement (Leithwood, 1992).
Instructional Leadership
The shift to instructional leadership was influenced largely by effective schools
research that found it to be a significant factor in facilitating, improving, and promoting the
academic progress of students (Brookover & Lezotte, 1982, Mendez-Morse, 2012).
Generally, instructional leaders hold high expectations for students and teachers, emphasize
instruction, provide effective professional development for their instructional staff, and use
data to evaluate students’ progress. The most effective instructional leaders are both task-
and people-oriented, which involves setting clear goals, allocating resources to instruction,
managing the curriculum, monitoring lesson plans, and evaluating teachers (Cotton, 2003).
By the beginning of the 21st century, school leadership also shifted in response to
accountability-driven reform initiated by NCLB. Recognizing that teachers would not be
able to create the conditions needed to attain AYP by themselves, school districts and state
boards of education began to study the discrepancies between principals’ responsibilities as
building managers and their responsibilities as instructional leaders.
Education leaders must not only manage school finances, keep buses running on
time, and make hiring decisions, but they must also be instructional leaders, data
analysts, community relations officers, and change agents. (Council of Chief State
School Officers, 2008, p. 3)
24
Although much of the emerging research supported instructional leadership as a
critical component in the realization of effective schools, Stronge et al., (2008) found that
only 11% of a principal’s time was actually devoted to providing instructional leadership.
Several reasons were posited for this low percentage including the lack of training for the
principal’s role as instructional leader, lack of time to execute instructional activities,
increased paper work, and the community’s expectation that the principal’s role is that of
manager (Flath, 1989). However, if principals are to increase their role of instructional
leader, they will need to create strategies relieving them from bureaucratic tasks and re-
direct their efforts towards improving teaching practices and student learning.
Unfortunately, there is no succinct definition of instructional leadership nor specific
guidelines or direction as to what an instructional leader does (Flath, 1989). An inseparable
attribute in the concept of instructional leadership, however, is the understanding that
student growth should be given top priority while everything else supports that learning.
Blasé and Blasé (2000) conducted a study to determine whether instructional
leadership does, in fact, promote teaching and learning. Data was gathered from over 800
elementary and secondary school teachers, using an open-ended questionnaire. Results
demonstrated that effective principals encouraged teachers to critically reflect on learning
and professional practice. Effective principals also offered suggestions, provided feedback,
modeled the use of inquiry, and gave praise to teachers. Blasé and Blasé (2000) reported
that (1) suggestions made by principals during postobservation conferences and informally
at day-to-day interactions had positive effects on increased teacher motivation, satisfaction,
self-esteem, efficacy, sense of security, and feelings of support and (2) the principals’
25
feedback increased teacher reflection, innovation, instructional variety, risk taking and
better planning for instruction.
Throughout the literature there are recurring themes about the qualities that
instructional leaders should possess. Rutherford (in Anderson & Pigford, 1987) identifies
five. First, instructional leaders have a vision and the ability to translate that vision into
action. Instructional leaders also develop a shared understanding of schoolwide goals and
expectations and communicate progress toward the achievement of those goals and
expectations. Instructional leaders create supportive environments for learning and promote
an orderly and purposeful school climate. They know what is going on in their schools.
Lastly, according to Rutherford (in Anderson & Pigford, 1987), instructional leaders
intervene as necessary to accommodate different teacher personalities, styles, and teaching
strategies.
Mendez-Morse (2012) agrees that no other dimension of principal behavior is more
consistently linked to school improvement than vision. Vision has a strong effect on school
climate, teachers’ instructional behaviors, and student learning. Instructional leaders
believe in meeting the needs of all students. Instructional leaders are also people-oriented
and recognize that human resources are the school’s greatest resource. Mendez-Morse cites
three dimensions of this characteristic:
The first is the leaders’ valuing the professional contributions of the staff, while the
second is the leaders’ ability to relate to people. The third dimension is fostering
collaborative relationships. Valuing people’s contributions to an organization differs
from relating to people and building collaboration. The first acknowledges
individuals’ skills and expertise, while the latter two involve interpersonal skills.
Leaders of change not only include the contributions of employees in determining
and realizing the vision but also have the interpersonal skills that help them relate
with others and develop collaborative relationships, foster environments and work
26
processes to facilitate the organizations’ collective efforts, and address the needs of
individuals as well as groups. (p. 12)
In other research, the impact of instructional leadership on student performance was
studied, using an empirical survey and classroom observations (Quinn, 2002). The Likert-
style questionnaire was developed by the Seattle school district in collaboration with the
University of Washington and measured leadership strength, staff dedication, student
growth, expectations, learning environment, early identification of learning deficiencies,
curriculum continuity, multicultural education, and gender equity. The Instructional
Practices Inventory (IPI), which was developed by the University of Missouri, was used to
conduct the classroom observations and measured six levels of teacher-student interactions
on a continuum from total disengagement to active learning/active teaching.
Analysis of the survey and observation data found a clear relationship between
strong instructional leadership and student academic achievement (Quinn, 2002). The
strongest correlations existed when principals provided resources, instructional support,
good communication, and a visible presence. Similar positive results emerged when
principals demonstrated teaching techniques in classrooms and provided praise to teachers.
Findings also indicated that instructional leaders need to promote professional growth that
emphasizes teaching and learning, and support collaboration among teachers to enhance
instructional decision making.
Effective leadership in schools is critical. Early research on principal leadership
identified traits that leaders should possess. Attempts to identify specific individual traits
led to the conclusion that no sole characteristic distinguished leaders from non-leaders.
Situational leadership, even combined with contingency models, revealed the complexity of
27
leadership, but could not predict which leadership skills would be more effective in certain
situations. The effective schools research revealed that strong school leaders are able to
address both the tasks and human aspects of their work.
Leadership continues to be recognized as an interconnected initiative, and as recent
studies assert, effective leaders are more than managers. They are instructional leaders with
vision, they recognize the purpose of the school as meeting the instructional needs of
students, and they value the contributions and efforts of everyone in the school.
The leadership perspectives described above represent historical foundations upon
which the current roles and responsibilities of school leaders are based. Combined, they
define the breadth and complexity of knowledge and skills that school leaders are now
expected to possess, underscoring an important issue: these responsibilities are more than a
single individual can handle well. The constant sense of frustration that many school
principals experience can be attributed to the expectation that they can successfully fulfill
all of these duties and responsibilities.
Shared Leadership
As a result, many ideas about shared leadership emerged. Traditionally, teachers
have exercised leadership in roles such as department heads, committee chairs, and union
representatives (Bellon & Beaudry, 1992). These opportunities are not only limited in
number but serve efficiency rather than leadership functions.
Recent educational reforms such as restructuring and site-based management
promote increased teacher involvement and shared decision making as change agents in
28
school improvement efforts. Emerging leadership positions involve teachers in
instructional roles such as professional development specialists, mentors, team leaders, and
curriculum developers.
One shared leadership strategy adapted to educational settings is distributive
leadership, which recognizes that individuals in both formal and informal positions are
capable of taking responsibility for instructional and managerial tasks (Spillane, 2006).
Using this model, leaders identify others in the organization who have particular interest
and expertise and determine whether these individuals or a small group of people are able
to complete a specific task. Once identified, three approaches for distributing leadership
appear to be most popular:
The first creates new positions with instructional leadership responsibilities (e.g.,
instructional specialists or coaches); the second takes advantage of existing
instructional leadership expertise among the school staff (by formalizing teacher
leadership positions); and the third cultivates collective leadership with teachers’
professional learning communities. (Portin et al., 2006, p. 52)
In some cases, distributed leadership may simply be a matter of giving staff
members some of the principal’s current responsibilities. A principal could, for example,
delegate certain managerial tasks to a teacher. Importantly, however, the literature suggests
that distributed leadership involves more than just reshuffling tasks. Distributive leadership
at its best requires a substantive change in culture.
SAM supports the basic premise of distributive leadership, with slight variations.
SAM differentiates administrative and instructional responsibilities. The SAM model
delegates management tasks to other staff members, enabling principals to focus more of
their time and energy on instructional leadership. As will be demonstrated in this study,
29
SAM holds considerable promise for changes in school leadership. For example, when
SAMs took on operational management tasks in schools in Jefferson County, Kentucky,
principals’ time spent on instructional tasks increased from 29% to 65% following the
redesign (Portin et al., 2006).
Standards for School Leadership
As demonstrated in the two previous sections of this literature review, leadership is
often described using adjectives such as situational, contingent, transformational, effective,
instructional, or distributed. These descriptive terms capture different deliveries or
methodological approaches to leadership. Sometimes these adjectives have real meaning,
but sometimes they mask the more important underlying themes common to successful
leadership, regardless of the style being advocated (Leithwood et al., 2004).
Standards for school leadership define what school principals should know and be
able to do. Several standards attempt to achieve this goal, all of which emphasize that the
primary role of school leaders is to improve student learning.
The National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP) includes in its
standards the need for principals to possess the knowledge and skills to place student and
adult learning at the center of their work. Additionally, principals are to set high
expectations for the performance of all students and adults, and demand content and
instruction that ensures student achievement of agreed-upon academic standards (NAESP,
2008). Two NAESP standards are particularly relevant to this research study:
1. Build principals’ capacity to provide instructional leadership. Principals
need resources and flexibility to consider a variety of ways to emphasize
30
instruction, including ways to increase time spent on instruction. These could
include staff development days and before- and after-school programs focused
on academics, reading and other specialties.
2. Provide support, funds and flexibility for alternative leadership
arrangements. Balancing leadership and management responsibilities
requires new thinking about leadership structures in the school. First,
all schools need a full-time, qualified principal. Principals also need
assistants, lead teachers, guidance counselors and administrative
officers. (NAESP, 2008, p. 4)
Standards set by the National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP)
also emphasize instruction as a primary responsibility for school principals. According to
the NASSP, professional development should be designed to help principals validate
teaching and learning as the central activities of the school, engage with peers and teachers
in career-long learning to improve student achievement, use data in planning and decision
making, and model effective teaching and learning.
Similarly, the Southern Regional Education Board (SREB) includes critical success
factors for school leaders in its set of standards: high expectations for all, using data to drive
change, organizing to improve student learning, demonstrating a passion for student
learning, and creating a personalized learning environment.
The Council of Chief State School Officers (2008) developed the Interstate School
Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) Standards for School Leaders. These standards
outline the knowledge, skills, and dispositions that school leaders need in order to
positively impact teaching and learning. They are considered the most comprehensive
overview of critical, authoritative competencies guiding the work of school leaders
(Council of Chief State School Officers, 2008).
31
At the risk of considerable oversimplification, the research [behind the development
of the ISLLC standards] revealed portraits of effective leaders who had a deeper
understanding of and who were much more heavily invested in the core business of
schooling--learning and teaching--than was the norm in the profession. (Murphy,
2005, p. 33)
The ISLLC Standards, currently in use by 46 states to guide administrator
certification programs, were developed by a national body of state departments of education
and leadership organizations. They are used by organizations such as the National
Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP), the National Association of
Secondary School Principals (NASSP), and the American Association of School
Administrators (AASA), even though each of these organizations has its own standards. In
addition, the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) recently
aligned its accreditation standards for leadership training programs with ISLLC (National
Policy Board for Educational Administration, 2002).
While they exert only a broad, diffuse influence over the leadership practice in
schools, these leadership standards are part of a process of recasting what it is that
school leaders should be doing. Among those expectations, leadership standards
have begun to clarify the centrality of school improvement and attention to teaching
and learning in the repertoire of leaders’ responsibilities. (Portin et al., 2006, p. 54)
Several ISLLC standards are relevant to this research project. For example, ISLLC
Standard 2 states “an education leader promotes the success of every student by advocating,
nurturing, and sustaining a school culture and instructional program conducive to student
learning and staff professional growth” (Council of Chief State School Officers, 2008, p.
18).
The standard also includes a discussion of actions school leaders could take to
address that standard. Functions especially aligned to this research are to
32
nurture and sustain a culture of collaboration, trust, learning, and high
expectations;
create a personalized and motivating learning environment for students;
develop the instructional and leadership capacity of staff;
maximize time spent on quality instruction; and
monitor and evaluate the impact of the instructional program. (Council of
Chief State School Officers, 2008, p. 5)
Also relevant to this study is ISLLC Standard 3, which states that “an
education leader promotes the success of every student by ensuring management of
the organization, operation, and resources for a safe, efficient, and effective
learning environment” (Council of Chief State School Officers, 2008, p. 18).
Actions from Standard 3 which are aligned to this study are to
develop the capacity for distributed leadership; and
ensure teacher and organizational time is focused to support quality
instruction and student learning. (Council of Chief State School
Officers, 2008, p. 19)
The role of principal as instructional leader was further emphasized in
Illinois when Governor Pat Quinn signed into law Public Act 96‐0861, the
Performance Evaluation Reform Act (PERA) in 2010. Under this legislation,
principals’ professional practice will be assessed based on newly revised Illinois
Performance Standards for School Leaders. Particularly relevant to this study is
Standard #3, Improving Teaching and Learning
The principal works with the school staff and community to develop a research-
based framework for effective teaching and learning that is refined continuously to
improve instruction for all students. The principal
33
a. works with staff to develop a consistent framework for effective teaching and
learning that includes a rigorous and relevant standards-based curriculum,
research-based instructional practices, and high expectations for student
performance;
b. creates a continuous improvement cycle that uses multiple forms of data and
student work samples to support individual, team, and school-wide
improvement goals, identify and address areas of improvement and celebrate
successes;
c. implements student interventions that differentiate instruction based on student
needs;
d. selects and retains teachers with the expertise to deliver instruction that
maximizes student learning;
e. evaluates the effectiveness of instruction and of individual teachers by
conducting frequent formal and informal observations providing timely
feedback on instruction as part of the district teacher appraisal system;
f. ensures the training, development, and support for high-performing
instructional teacher teams to support adult learning and development to
advance student learning and performance;
g. develops systems and structures for staff professional development and
sharing of effective practices including providing and protecting time allotted
for development; and
h. advances instructional technology within the learning environment. (Illinois
State Board of Education, 2012, p. 3)
This review of leadership standards supports the role of principal as instructional
leader, responsible for improving teaching and learning. In response, many emerging
evaluation initiatives now include measures of student growth as a primary component in
assessing principals’ annual performance ratings. As discussed below, the relationship
between principal leadership and student achievement is also supported by research.
34
Leadership and Learning
Research substantiates that administrative leadership is second only to classroom
instruction among school-related factors that influence student learning (Council of Chief
State School Officer, 2008), although a school leader’s effect on student learning is largely
driven by teachers. By improving the quality of teaching in the school, school leaders will
observe growth in student learning.
Leithwood and Riehl (2003) concluded that the quality of school leadership
accounted for a quarter of a school’s effect on learning. Specific behaviors linked to
instructional improvement include making suggestions, providing feedback, modeling
effective instruction, soliciting opinions, supporting collaboration, providing professional
development opportunities, giving praise for effective teaching, and the distribution of
needed instructional resources to teachers (Blasé & Blasé, 2000; Zepeda, 2007).
Additionally, effective school leaders are knowledgeable about curriculum and are
heavily invested in quality teaching and learning strategies. They spend considerable work
time on the instructional program and are personally involved with colleagues in
developing, implementing, and monitoring instruction and assessment at the classroom and
school levels (DuFour, 2002; Marzano, 2005).
Waters, Marzano, and McNulty (2003) conducted a meta-analysis of quantitative
research to identify the relationship between school leadership and student achievement.
The compiled studies involved 2,894 schools, 14,000 teachers, and more than 1.1 million
35
students. The study became known as the Mid-continent Research for Education and
Learning (McREL). McREL researchers also conducted a lengthy review of literature to
help leaders apply the results of the research to leadership practices. The analysis sought to
discover leadership practices that have the greatest impact on student learning
The meta-analysis identified three key findings:
1. Leadership matters. A significant, positive correlation exists between
effective school leadership and student achievement.
2. Effective leadership can be empirically defined. Contrary to misperceptions
that leadership is more art than science, McREL researchers have identified 21
key leadership responsibilities that are significantly correlated with higher
student achievement.
3. Effective leaders not only know what to do, but when, how, and why to do
it. This is the essence of what McREL researchers have labeled balanced
leadership--knowing not only which school changes are most likely to
improve student achievement, but also understanding staff and community
members’ dispositions to change and tailoring leadership practices
accordingly. (Waters, Marzano & McNulty, 2003, p 3)
The researchers also identified 21 leadership responsibilities that contributed to
increased student achievement, which are summarized Table 1 (Waters et al., 2003). From
these data, the researchers calculated a 10% increase in student achievement scores for a
principal who improved “demonstrated abilities in all 21 responsibilities by one standard
deviation” (Waters et al., 2003, p. 3).
36
Table 1
Key Leadership Responsibilities
Responsibility
Description
The extent to which the principal . . .
Average
Correlation
Culture fosters shared beliefs & a sense of community & cooperation .29
Order establishes a set of standard operating procedures & routines .26
Discipline protects teachers from issues & influences that would detract from
their teaching time or focus .24
Resources provides teachers with materials & professional development
necessary for the successful execution of their jobs .26
Curriculum,
instruction,
assessment
is directly involved in the design & implementation of curriculum,
instruction, & assessment practices .16
Focus establishes clear goals & keeps those goals in the forefront of the
school’s attention .24
Knowledge of
curriculum,
instruction
assessment
is knowledgeable about current curriculum, instruction, & assessment
practices .24
Visibility has quality contact & interactions with teachers & students .16
Contingent
rewards recognizes & rewards individual accomplishments .15
Communication establishes strong lines of communication with teachers & among
students .23
Outreach is an advocate & spokesperson for the school to all stakeholders .28
Input involves teachers in the design & implementation of important
decisions & policies .30
Affirmation recognizes & celebrates school accomplishments & acknowledges
failures .25
Relationship demonstrates an awareness of the personal aspects of teachers & staff .19
Change agent is willing to & actively challenges the status quo .30
Optimizer inspires & leads new & challenging innovations .20
Ideals/beliefs communicates & operates from strong ideals & beliefs about
schooling .25
Monitors/evaluates monitors the effectiveness of school practices & their impact on
student learning .28
Flexibility adapts his or her leadership behavior to the needs of the current
situation & is comfortable with dissent .22
Situational
awareness
is aware of the details & undercurrents in the running of the school &
uses this information to address current & potential problems .33
Intellectual
stimulation
ensures that faculty & staff are aware of the most current theories &
practices & makes the discussion of these a regular aspect of the
school’s culture
.32
37
Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, and Wahlstron (2004) suggest, however, that practical
applications from the McREL research should be developed with caution.
First of all, the data are correlational in nature, but cause and effect assumptions are
required to understand the effects of leadership improvement on student learning.
Second, the estimated effects on student achievement described in the study depend
on a leader’s improving their capacities across all 21 practices at the same time.
This is an extremely unlikely occurrence. Some of these practices are dispositional
in nature (e.g., flexibility), or rooted in deeply held beliefs unlikely to change much,
if at all, within adult populations (e.g., ideals). And just one of the 21 practices,
increasing “the extent to which the principal is knowledgeable about current
curriculum, instruction and assessment practices,” is a major professional
development challenge by itself. (p. 22)
In a similar study, Cotton (2003) conducted a meta-analysis that explored the
relationship between principal behavior and student achievement. Cotton’s synthesis
focused on 81 educational research studies conducted from as early as 1970, with special
emphasis on research from the past fifteen years. The reports included 49 studies at the
primary level, 23 at the secondary level, five combinations of studies and four textbook
analyses. The sample reports were predominantly from low socio-economic status (SES)
schools, and involved students, teachers, principals, school board members, community
members, and superintendents.
Initially, Cotton (2003) identified two related lines of inquiry that produced findings
about the impact of principals’ behavior on student learning. The first was the effective
school research in which high-and low-achieving schools with similar student populations
were examined to determine what accounted for the differences.
With only slight variations, they repeatedly identified a common set of attributes
that seemed responsible for the success of the high-achieving schools. These
include strong administrative leadership, high expectations of students and staff, a
safe and orderly school environment, a primary focus on learning, resources focused
38
on achieving key objectives, regular monitoring of student learning progress, and
instructional leadership on the part of the principal. (Cotton, 2003, p. iii)
The second line of inquiry focused on the principal’s involvement with instruction,
which emerged as the key difference between effective and ineffective schools. Cotton
(2003) concluded that principals who were actively involved with their school’s
instructional programs had more high-achieving students than those who managed only the
administrative aspects of their schools.
The research analysis identified 26 principal behaviors and traits that are positively
related to student achievement. Generally, they fall into five categories:
1. establishing a clear focus on student learning, including having a vision, clear
learning goals, and high expectations for learning for all students;
2. interactions and relationships, including behaviors such as communication
and interaction, emotional/interpersonal support, visibility and accessibility,
and parent/community outreach and involvement;
3. school culture, which includes such behaviors as shared leadership/decision
making, collaboration, support of risk taking, and continuous improvement.
4. instruction, which includes such behaviors as discussing instructional issues,
observing classrooms and giving feedback, supporting teacher autonomy, and
protecting instructional time; and
5. accountability, which includes monitoring progress and using student progress
data for program improvement. (Cotton, 2003, p. 27)
Another study identifies eight major categories of leadership behaviors associated
with student achievement (Stronge, Richard, & Catano, 2008). Their findings as shown in
Table 2 below, fully described in Qualities of Effective Principals, are based primarily on
existing empirical research, although the authors also draw from research on student
39
achievement, policy studies and theoretical perspectives. The research also synthesizes the
results of case studies, meta-analyses of principal effectiveness, and other reviews of
research. In summary, the authors present a multifaceted view of the effective
principalship, which can be used to guide principal practice that improves student learning.
Table 2
Qualities of Effective Principals
Qualities Description
Instructional
Leadership
The principal fosters the success of all students by facilitating the development,
communication, implementation, and evaluation of a shared vision of learning that
reflects excellence.
School Climate
The principal fosters the success of all students by advocating, nurturing, and
sustaining a positive and safe school climate for all stakeholders.
Human Resource
Administration
The principal fosters effective human resources administration through the
selection, induction, support, and retention of quality instructional and support
personnel.
Teacher Evaluation
The principal conducts meaningful, timely, and productive evaluations of teachers
and other staff members in order to support ongoing performance effectiveness
and school improvement.
Organizational
Management
The principal fosters the success of all students by supporting, managing, and
overseeing the school’s organization, operation, and resources.
Communication and
Community Relations
The principal fosters the success of all students by collaborating effectively with
all stakeholders.
Professionalism
The principal fosters the success of all students by demonstrating integrity,
fairness, and ethical behavior.
The Principal’s Role
in Student
Achievement
The principal’s leadership results in acceptable, measurable progress based on
established standards.
A small study by Gentilucci and Muto (2007) took a different approach by focusing
on the perceptions of students. They looked at two key research questions to determine
whether students perceive that leadership behavior of principals has a direct effect on their
learning and academic growth and, if they did, the specific leadership behaviors that
40
students perceived as the most positive influences in their learning and academic
achievements. The researchers interviewed eighth-grade students from the central coast of
California. Findings indicated that students do perceive certain leadership behaviors as
having an impact on their learning. Specifically, they noted those principals who met with
students formally and informally for conversations. They also felt that the principals who
built positive relationships motivated students to work harder and overcome challenges and
achieve their goals. Further, the principals who visited classrooms regularly for longer
periods and made attempts to establish student relationships were perceived as more
influential than those who visited less frequently for short periods of time. The principals
who modeled teaching practices and were seen working with teachers and student
organizations also had a powerful effect.
Background on the SAM Project
With support from the Wallace Foundation, the SAM Project began in Louisville,
Kentucky, in 2002 as the Alternative School Administration Study, which looked at
conditions that prevented principals from making instructional leadership their priority and
developed strategies to help change those conditions (Turnball et al., 2009). The purpose of
the Alternative School Administration Study was to determine how principals spent their
time and to test a new structure using business-management-trained staff to increase
principal time spent on academic achievement and gap closure (Turnball et al., 2009).
Each of the selected Kentucky schools received and pilot-tested a SAM, whose job
was to take over school operations functions (such as ordering budget items, overseeing fire
41
drills and completing compliance reports), enabling the principal to focus more time on
curriculum and instruction. Time-use studies during the pilot period showed that once
principals were given guidance on how to shift their priorities away from more customary,
non-instructional routines, the new SAM position did, in fact, result in a dramatic shift in
the amount of time principals spent on instruction (Turnball et al., 2009).
Preliminary results in the three Louisville schools were promising from the
beginning. Three years after participating in the SAM Project, principals spent more than
70 % of their time on instructional issues and student achievement increased. The results of
the initial study prompted the Wallace Foundation to support the development and diffusion
of SAMs and replicate SAM projects in 176 schools in eight states.
Initially the project involved only three schools, intended to help principals divert
their time from management responsibilities to instructional initiatives. In the very first
design, SAM was an external position hired by the school district to help the principal
identify and differentiate the use of time. The goal was for the SAM to become the “first
responder” to the myriad of situations that face the building principal throughout the day.
Currently, there are 346 teams in 15 states participating in the Wallace Foundation’s SAM
Project, utilizing one of several models for implementation (Shelton, 2009; Turnbull et al.,
2011). In some schools a SAM is a staff member, hired to work full time on SAM
responsibilities. In response to budgetary concerns about the cost of a new position, the
project has also created an alternative of adding SAM responsibilities to an existing
position in the school. A third model redesigns an existing position and adds a stipend or
42
designates a school staff member who retains all existing duties while also serving as the
SAM for no additional compensation (Turnbull et al., 2011).
The SAM Project is influenced by real-time data that increases the amount of time
principals spend on instruction by delegating the time-consuming managerial tasks to other
staff members. This data-based process encourages distributive leadership practices
throughout the building and serves as a powerful professional development tool for the
entire school community, leading to improved teaching and learning (Turnball et al., 2009).
Designed to free principals from tasks distracting them from teaching and learning
while ensuring the smooth operation of their schools, the SAM initiative offers a
way out of the daily time-crunch dilemma and calls attention to a commonly
acknowledged but rarely resolved obstacle to education reform: Principals can’t
and shouldn’t do it all. (Holland, 2008, p. 1)
The literature previously discussed provides the foundational framework for
rethinking the roles and responsibilities of the school principal, based on well-researched
leadership models and standards. The standards clearly define the current and emerging
role of the school principal as instructional leader. Research also clarifies that instructional
leadership is critical to improving student achievement. Additional research suggests that it
is difficult, if not impossible, for all the responsibilities of the contemporary principalship
to be handled by one individual. Although principals want to be more involved in leading
instructional improvement, data show they can spend up to 75% of their time on
management tasks (Shelton, 2009). One strategy that holds promise for addressing this
change is the SAM Project.
Many school reform efforts in the past two decades have emphasized the importance
of redefining the principal’s default role as supervisor of “buses, budgets, and butts”
to the school’s chief executive of learning. What the SAM initiative does is
systematize the process by showing principals exactly how they spend their time
43
and how they can use it better. It encourages changes in professional practices
driven by coaching and data. (Holland, 2008, p. 2)
Successful implementation of SAM is based on three key components. The first is
hiring a SAM or delegating certain managerial and operational tasks to a SAM. The second
is routinely and accurately tracking the principal’s time and analyzing the data to determine
the amount of time spent on instructional leadership tasks. Finally, the principal is coached
to become a more effective and reflective instructional leader (Shelton, 2009; Turnbull,
2009; Turnbull et al., 2009, 2011).
Core Elements of the SAM Project
The SAM initiative is a systematic strategy intended to show principals how they
are spending their time and to promote changes in practice based on real-time data and
substantive instructional conversations (Illinois School Board Newsbulletin, 2008; Shelton,
2009). The overarching goal is to improve teaching effectiveness and increase student
learning.
SAM is an operational and organizational structure that encourages reflective
practice. It is customized to each participating principal and will allow the principal to
effectively balance time spent on management tasks and on instructional responsibilities.
SAM provides principals with the data and strategies to enhance their instructional
capacity. Schools participating in the project designate a person as a SAM to whom the
principal delegates some administrative duties in order to shift focus to instructional tasks
(Seid, 2010). The core elements of the SAM Project are:
44
A willingness to commit to increasing time for instructional leadership.
Districts and principals voluntarily participate in the SAM project.
Baseline Time/Task Analysis Data Collection. Trained data collectors
shadow principals for five days and record in five-minute increments the
amount of time spent on management, instructional or personal tasks.
Principals use this data to create goals for increasing the time they spend on
instructional leadership.
Engagement with a SAM. The School Administration Manager or SAM may
be a new staff position or an existing staff person who takes on new duties.
The SAM meets with the principal daily to analyze how time is being used and
to shift managerial duties to others. During meetings, they use a software
calendar program, TimeTrack, which was developed for this purpose. The
goals are to help shift managerial duties to others and to increase the amount
of time the principal spends on leading instructional improvement.
External Coaching. The principal and SAM also meet monthly with a Time
Change Coach, a retired school administrator who is selected and trained to
discuss progress and challenges and identify training needs with the
principal/SAM team. The Time Change Coach also builds support networks
of principals and SAMs throughout the SAM network.
Follow-up Time/Task Analysis Data Collection one year later to assess
improvement. (Shelton, 2009, p. 2)
Visibility is another key element of the SAM strategy and this alone provides
opportunities for principals to observe firsthand the variety of instructional practices in
classrooms. The SAM program allows the principal to
be in touch with what is happening in the classrooms throughout the school year
[and] creates a collaborative environment where teachers, students and the principal
have opportunities for reflective conversations [and to] pay attention to instruction
and curriculum as a participant in school improvement discussions and exercise the
role as instructional leader. (Kachur, 2009, p. 8)
The establishment of relationships between teachers and principals is another key
element of the program, leading to engaged discussions about curriculum and instruction.
As Kachur (2009) contends,
45
The real work of school administrators is not done in the office, at a desk, in front of
a computer. Rather, it is done where the action is: where the students are learning
and where the teachers are teaching - in the classrooms, in the hallways and in the
supply closets that have been converted into teaching nooks. (p. 9)
The SAM project goes beyond simply adding staff to help principals improve
student learning and changes in teaching practice. It also ensures that the entire school
community is aware that changing the use of a principal’s time is critical to transforming
schools. This is a complex change strategy that SAM helps facilitate (Turnball et al.,
2009).
Readiness
As previously mentioned, several core elements define the SAM Project. The first
of these is a willingness to commit to increasing time for instructional leadership (Shelton,
2009). Districts must determine their level of readiness to commit to the demands of
successful implementation.
Although the SAM Project is an initiative proven to increase the instructional role
of the principal, participants must be willing to make a commitment to address teaching
practices, student learning and overall school improvement. At the beginning of a
principal’s engagement with SAM, a presentation is provided by trained educators from the
SAM project to stakeholders in the school community, including principals, teachers,
support staff, central office staff, and parents. Passion statements from principals and role-
playing scenarios are included in the training to assess readiness. Principals also complete
a questionnaire to determine suitability for the program.
46
Data Collection
The second core element of the SAM project is data collection. Principals receive
baseline data through a process called Time/Task Analysis Data Collection. This process is
conducted by a trained, external data collector who shadows the building principal for five
days and records the principal’s activities in five-minute increments. The information is
coded as management, instructional, or personal tasks, based on 25 descriptors. The
Time/Task Analysis is a confidential document for the principal’s use, in collaboration with
the School Administration Manager, in developing goals for increasing the time spent on
instructional leadership. One year later, Time/Task Analysis Data Collection is completed
again to assess progress toward the goals.
The Wallace Foundation found that most principals initially spend about 30% of
their time on activities directly related to learning, such as observing and modeling
instruction, providing feedback to students and teachers, and discussing curriculum and
assessment. After one year of implementation, significant changes were noted. Principals
spent more time on instructional tasks, as defined in the National SAM Innovation Project
(NSIP) record-keeping system, after only one year of participation in the SAM Project and
still more after two years.
The mean percentage of the principals’ time spent on instruction rose from 32%
at baseline to 46% after one year. Assuming a workday of 8.5 hours, this was the
equivalent of adding 71 minutes of instructional time within a day, or 5 hours 57
minutes in an average week.
Among the 93 principals with two years of implementation, those in the Model 1
group increased their instructional time from 33% to 52 %, adding 1 hour 37
minutes of instructional time in an 8.5 hour workday or 8 hours 5 minutes in a
week. Those in the Model 3 group increased their instructional time from 30% to
47
52% over two years, adding 1 hour 52 minutes in an 8.5 hour workday or 9 hours
21 minutes in a week. (Turnbull, 2011, p. i)
According to Turnbull et al., (2009), all of these differences from baseline to follow-up
were statistically significant. The small difference between models in the two-year results
was not statistically significant.
In addition to Time Tracker Data Collection, participating schools receive and are
expected to use the proprietary software package, TimeTrack™. As the project unfolded,
the three original schools that hired SAMs were unsure whether the principals were actually
using their time differently. In response to this concern, a new tool called TimeTrack™ was
developed. Originally designed as a simple Excel spreadsheet, TimeTrack™ has been
extensively revised over time by the National SAM Innovation Project (NSIP). The current
version is web-based and has been modified to synchronize with Outlook (Turnbull, 2009,
2011).
Principals and SAMs are expected to use TimeTrack™ in their daily meetings.
Together they analyze the data to develop the principal’s daily schedule and to record how
the principal actually spent time during that day. The analysis of TimeTrack™ data not
only provides potentially motivating feedback, but the process of scheduling in advance
may help principals focus on the choices that they make throughout the day (Turnbull,
2011).
Engagement with a SAM and Coaching
Additional core elements of the SAM Project that support successful
implementation rely on the principals’ engagement with the SAM and willingness to
48
participate in an external relationship. The requirement of a time change coach to work with
each principal/SAM team has been a critical component of the project’s strategy from the
beginning. According to data gathered in a recent survey of the coaches, all had been
teachers, and all but one had served as a school administrator. Many had experience as
university professors, superintendents, and coaches in other educational settings (Turnbull,
2011).
According to the National SAM Project (Turnbull et al., 2011), the goals for
coaching include supporting the principal’s goal to increase instructional leadership time
and data-based goal setting. In addition, time change coaches support the SAM in building
a professional relationship with the principal. Most importantly, coaches support the
instructional performance of the principal and the SAM.
During confidential monthly meetings, the time change coach assists the
principal/SAM team to reflect on progress and challenges, identify professional
development needs and connect with other SAMs and principals in the SAM network.
Additional guidelines call for the monthly meetings to include an observation of a daily
SAM/principal meeting, a meeting with the principal, and a meeting with the SAM. The
monthly meetings are also expected to include a review of TimeTrack™ data and the
principal’s progress toward goals. The coaches are also expected to identify principals’ and
SAMs’ needs for training and professional development and to maintain logs documenting
what happened in the meetings (Turnbull et al., 2009, 2011).
49
Assessment of the Project
Readiness activities, Time/Task Analysis and Data Collection, TimeTrack™,
coaching, and project training all reflect efforts to support effective implementation of the
SAM Project. With the exception of the descriptor framework, which remained intact for
the sake of consistent data, all have evolved over time and across sites for the purpose of
improving the instructional leadership of principals and increasing student learning.
Policy Studies Associates (PSA) began work in 2008 to evaluate the SAM Project.
PSA produced its initial evaluation in 2009 (Turnbull et al., 2009). This work was updated
in 2011 with a larger group of participating SAM schools (Turnbull et al., 2011). The
overall findings of the combined studies include:
the SAM process does what it is designed to do: increase principal time spent
on instructional leadership;
the increase in instructional leadership time is significant, adding the
equivalent of more than one day per week in instructional leadership time;
the increase of instructional time occurs at all levels: elementary, middle and
high school;
the process works equally well in schools where a new staff member is hired
to be the SAM and at schools where existing staff members take on this role; and
the longer the principal participates, the greater the increase in instructional
time.
Additionally, analysis of school-level achievement data also found:
50
Each of the five cohorts of participating schools had, on average, an
increase in achievement in the first year following introduction of the
SAM project.
These one-year increases were not significantly different from the
achievement increases observed in matched comparison schools that
did not participate in the SAM project.
Four of the cohorts (22 of the 54 SAM schools in total) had increases
in achievement over the two years following introduction of the SAM
project.
In two cohorts (13 of the 54 SAM schools in total) the two-year
increases in achievement exceeded those of their matched comparison
schools, and these differences were statistically significant. (Turnbull,
2010, p. 2)
Summary
Chapter 2 provided the review of literature related to the research questions that are
the focus of this study. Specifically, the first research question will investigate the extent to
which the fidelity of implementing SAM strategies impacts the principal’s job satisfaction.
The second research question explores the extent to which the fidelity of implementing
SAM strategies impacts change in teaching practice.
Chapter 2 included in-depth descriptions of relevant historical and current research
that supports the refocus of the principal’s role from school manager to instructional leader.
Additionally, Chapter 2 identified several sets of leadership standards and reviews recent
PERA legislation in Illinois. Lastly, a detailed explanation of the SAM project was
provided.
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
This chapter describes the design of the study, including the selection of the case
study schools, focused interviews with principals, teacher surveys, data collection
procedures and the limitations and delimitations of the work. The purpose of the study is to
examine self-adjustment strategies that principals can implement to increase the amount of
time they spend on instructional improvement. Research focused on the level of fidelity
with which SAM is implemented. Specifically, the first research question investigated the
extent to which effective implementation of SAM impacts the principal’s job satisfaction.
The second research question explored the extent to which effective implementation of
SAM impacts change in teaching practice. This chapter also describes the methods used to
answer the research questions in this study. The sample, instruments, research design, and
data analyses methods are also explained.
Design of the Study
This chapter will outline the design of the study and the methods used to gather data
to answer each of the research questions. The overall methodology of this study is a mixed
method, comprising three components.
1. The first component involved the selection of the school principals comprising
the case study.
52
2. The second component collected quantitative data through two survey
instruments: the Bowling Green State University Job Descriptive Index (JDI) and the
Educational Consultants Research Associates (ECRA) School Leadership 360 Appraisal
(360 Appraisal).
3. The third component gathered qualitative data through interviews with the
principals who participated in the study.
The data related to the first research question were collected through the JDI
instrument noted above. Additional qualitative data such as level of fidelity of SAM
implementation was collected through observation and interaction. Survey findings were
further supported with narrative data gathered through interviews with the principals who
participated in the study.
Data related to Research Question 2 were collected through the ECRA School
Leadership 360 Appraisal. These were electronically distributed to the teachers in each of
the fifteen school buildings under study.
Selection of the Principal Subjects
Principals were chosen with the assistance of the National SAM Innovation Project
Director, based on Time/Task Analysis, software that calculates the percentage of time the
building principal spends on instructional tasks versus management and personal tasks.
Before the principal begins the SAM initiative, a trained data collector shadows the
administrator for five days and records in five-minute increments whether the activity is
spent on instructional, management, or personal tasks (Turnbull et al., 2009, 2011). This
53
initial authentic data collection, called Time/Task Analysis, provides the baseline data
necessary for the SAM team to set targets and goals towards improving the amount of time
spent on instruction and the starting point from which to measure progress toward those
goals. The data collector re-visits each year to observe the principal to track the
improvement and provide the results.
Principals were selected for this study based on their current level of fidelity in
implementing SAM as recorded in the Time/Task Analysis data that is reported to the SAM
team. After consulting with Dr. Shellinger, National SAM Project Director, Table 3 was
used to select 15 schools based on their level of program implementation.
Table 3
Parameters for the Selection of Case Study Schools
Level of
Implementation
Number
of Schools
in Sample
Gain Over Baseline
(Time/Task Analysis)
Total Instructional
Leadership Time
Successful 5 12.5 percentage points
or greater
50% or greater
Progressing 5 4.0 percentage points
or greater
Above or below 50%
Implementing/Struggling 5 3.9 percentage points
or greater
Below 50%
The principals selected for this study represented elementary, middle and high
schools in suburban and rural areas. Most were large schools (above 700 students). The
principals represented 10 districts in five states. Six of the principals were male and nine
were female and represented all age groups and levels of experience.
54
Selection of the Teachers
Principals in the 15 buildings participated in this study. All certified teachers in
these 15 buildings represented the sample for data collection related to the second research
question. No teachers outside of the buildings represented by the 15 case study principals
were included in this study.
Research Question 1
The first research question examined the relationship between the level of School
Administration Manager implementation and principals’ sense of job satisfaction. Survey
results were collected and analyzed, individually and collectively, based on the level of
SAM implementation, characterized as Successful, Progressing, or Implementing/
Struggling. The researcher hypothesized that the greater degree to which SAM was
implemented, the higher level of principals’ job satisfaction would be noted.
Data Collection Instrument:- Job Descriptive Index (JDI)
The Job Descriptive Index (JDI) was selected to gather data related to the first
research question. The JDI is a scale used to measure five major factors associated with job
satisfaction: the nature of the work itself, compensations and benefits, attitudes towards
supervisors, relations with co-workers, and opportunities for promotion. Each factor
contains either 9 or 18 items. The instrument has been translated into several different
languages and administered to a myriad of organizations all over the world.
55
Development of the JDI began in the early 1960’s when researchers at Cornell
University’s industrial psychology program began to study people’s perceptions of work
satisfaction. Their conceptualization of satisfaction included two sub domains: an
evaluation of a general, long-term domain, which is concerned with assessing how an
individual’s current job compares with other jobs over his or her lifetime, and a descriptive-
specific short-term domain, which focuses on assessing satisfaction within the day-to-day
operations of an individual’s current job (Kinicki, 2002). Their studies culminated in the
development of the JDI. In the mid-1960s the JDI Research Group relocated to Bowling
Green State University, which continues to own and update the scales. Since its
introduction in 1969, the JDI has remained one of the most widely used measures of job
satisfaction due to the strong emphasis on psychometric rigor and its frequent updates over
the years (Lake, 2009). The JDI underwent a comprehensive review and update in January
2009 based on new response data. This resulted in minor revisions in some of the
employee job satisfaction survey questions comprising the index, update of the nationwide
norms, and new demographic norms. Norms were also added for the first time for specific
industry groups, including education services (Lake, 2009).
The JDI was selected for this study because it provided the data to assess aspects of
the principal’s work environment that the principal considers satisfactory and which the
principal considers unsatisfactory. The researcher compared the results among the study
groups to identify relationships between levels of job satisfaction in schools where
principals are using SAM strategies and different levels of SAM implementation.
56
Assessment Validity: JDI
The validity of the JDI was supported by results pertaining to reliability. Internal
consistency reliability estimates for the JDI were moderately high, and test/retest reliability
results supported the idea that job satisfaction is a dynamic state that is susceptible to
change over time (Kinicki et al., 2002). Kinicki’s research also supported the JDI’s
construct validity. The JDI obtained many relationships predicted from the proposed
network, and it possessed none that were contraindicative of construct validity (Kinicki et
al., 2002).
Procedures: JDI
The Bowling Green State University JDI was administered to the 15 SAM-involved
principals. Test items measured overall job satisfaction and job satisfaction in specific
areas, including Job in General (general), Work at Present Job (work), Pay (pay),
Opportunities for Promotion (promotion), People at Your Present Job (people), and
Supervision (supervision). Respondents were asked to indicate whether they agreed,
disagreed, or were neutral about 9 or 18 positive and negative job statements related to each
factor. Answers were coded according to the JDI Quick Reference Guide scoring
suggestions, which resulted in subgroup scores with a maximum of 54 that are added
together for a total possible score of 324.
57
Statistical Methods: JDI
To determine whether principals with varying levels of implementation of SAM
strategies varied in their job satisfaction, principals were divided through observation and
interactions into three groups. Five principals were placed in each of the three categories
based on Time Tracker-calculated levels of implementation: high level of fidelity (coded as
3), moderate level of fidelity (coded as 2), and low level of fidelity (coded as 1). In
addition, the total JDI score and the JDI subgroup scores for each principal were included in
the analysis. When a comparison of JDI mean scores by implementation group identified
that nonlinear relationships existed between several of the variables examined, additional
analysis was conducted using ANOVAs to discover significance by level of fidelity.
Interviews with Principals
During the early stages of this research project, participants were informed about the
purpose and significance of the study. In addition, a research description was emailed to
principals, including notice of confidentiality and a consent form. These documents can be
found in Appendices A and B. Participants were provided a numerical identification to
maintain confidentiality. The researcher also met with each of the 15 principals in one
small-group session at the National SAM conference in San Antonio on January 28, 2011.
Individual interviews with the principals were not conducted at the conference but in
follow- up sessions held at a later time.
58
Following the receipt of the JDI data, focused interviews were conducted with the
principals of the fifteen case study schools to gather qualitative data related to Research
Question 1. The Principal Interview Protocol can be found in Appendix C.
The researcher was the sole investigator in the interviews in order to obtain a
personal leadership story from each principal. For this particular study, open-ended
questions were developed to solicit broader responses from the participants and to better
understand the principal’s motivation, involvement, commitment and implementation of the
SAM program. Open-ended questions were selected as the preferred format because the
researcher wanted to hear from the respondents, not to validate a list of keywords or items
that the researcher anticipated would appear in the open-ended responses (Bernhardt &
Geise, 2009).
Interviews were selected as the research methodology because they provided the
opportunity to obtain an in-depth understanding of the principals’ thoughts and actions as
they implemented the SAM initiative and considered it in relation to job satisfaction.
Interviews, conducted in person or on the telephone, allowed for in-depth understandings of
the topics and content covered and were extremely valuable in providing the opportunity
for follow-up questions not considered in the original design (Bernhardt & Geise, 2009).
In discussing interview methodology, Glesne (1998) also speaks about the
intersection of personal stories and how the researcher is able to make sense of responses to
open-ended questions. According to Silverman (2006), focused interviews also allow the
researcher a way to obtain “natural occurring data” based on the “authenticity” of personal
experiences.
59
Analyzing responses to the open-ended questions provided a rich context for
interpreting principals’ participation in SAM. The first step in the analysis was approaching
the work with an open mind and not a set of preconceived notions. The researcher’s intent
in this study was to determine whether a correlation exists between SAM implementation
and the principal’s reported sense of job satisfaction. Data from the JDI provided
significant information for the analysis of the first research question. The open-ended
interviews provided additional qualitative data for a broader interpretation of the JDI data.
Research Question 2
The second research question explored whether a principal’s participation in the
SAM program and subsequent change in the amount of time spent on instructional tasks
had an impact on teachers’ willingness to engage in substantive instructional conversations
with their principals and change their teaching practices. Data were collected using
ECRA’s School Leadership 360 Appraisal.
An electronic questionnaire was selected as the preferred research methodology for
several reasons. First, questionnaires allow for the collection and analysis of a large
amount of data. Additionally,
questionnaires are an excellent way to assess perceptions; they can be completed
anonymously and re-administered to assess changes in perceptions over time. A
questionnaire can collect information to describe, compare, and explain knowledge,
attitudes, perceptions, and/or behavior. (Bernhardt & Geise, 2009)
The research hypothesis proposes that as principals change their role from manager
to instructional leader, teachers will view their principals as more able to engage in
instructional conferences that impact teaching practice.
60
Data Collection Instrument:
ECRA School Leadership 360 Appraisal
ECRA Group is a research and analytics consulting firm composed of leading
researchers and Ph.D. statisticians. ECRA Group has provided leaders in the fields of
education and health care with critical research, data analysis, strategies, and support to
assist in critical decision making.
One of the most important strategies ECRA developed for use by school leaders is
the School Leadership 360 Appraisal. This instrument is a multi-source feedback system
that collects data from multiple viewpoints to provide a detailed and accurate picture of
individual performance (ECRA Group, 2010). It is typically used as a formative
assessment to help school leaders focus on personal and leadership development and target
particular areas for behavior change (ECRA Group, 2010). In this study, the 360 Appraisal
was adapted by ECRA to collect data from the teachers in the schools in which SAM was
implemented. Data analysis focused primarily on the role of the principal as instructional
leader and the degree to which the principal, utilizing SAM strategies, influenced classroom
practice.
The use of the ECRA 360 Appraisal was an appropriate choice to address this
question due to its focus on school leadership and correlation with other frameworks that
informed this research. In constructing the 360 Appraisal, ECRA first reviewed previously
constructed proprietary leadership appraisal instruments, including work done by the
Illinois Principals Association (IPA), the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium
(ISLLC), and the Val-Ed Assessment program. An analysis of these standards and
61
instruments led to the classification of the six domains of leadership criteria, performance
areas that reflect the balance most school leaders seek in their role as both instructional
leaders and manager-administrator (ECRA Group, 2010).
The six domains assessed by the ECRA School Leadership 360 Appraisal are:
Vision and Values, Instructional Focus, Professional Development, Collaboration, Culture
and Communication, and Management. As seen in the discussion of findings that follows,
this research study utilized data collected on the Instructional Focus aspect of the appraisal.
Assessment Validity:
ECRA School Leadership 360 Appraisal
Validity is the degree to which an assessment instrument measures what it is
supposed to measure. This is not the same as reliability, which is the extent to which a
measurement gives consistent results. This study addressed the concern of validity by
selecting a highly researched instrument (Gatta, 2010). Researchers at ECRA engaged in
extensive study to establish the assessment validity of the 360 Appraisal, which supports
the validity of its use in this study.
In establishing the validity of the 360 Appraisal, ECRA researchers found that
previous benchmarks intended to assess the effectiveness of school principals took a
narrow view of leadership, focusing primarily on task-oriented skills rather than on the
impact of the principal’s leadership on school functions (Gatta, 2010). An investigation
into the leadership appraisal methods of 44 states found that nearly half of them failed
to provide their school leaders with clear feedback on ways to improve teaching and
learning (Gatta, 2010). In developing a valid, multi-faceted instrument to measure school
62
leadership, ECRA reviewed extensive literature and research that linked specific
competencies to effective school leadership. Included in the review were established
appraisal instruments from reputable organizations in school leadership, such as the Illinois
Principal’s Association, the 2008 Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC)
Standards, and the Val-Ed Assessment program. From this analysis, six domains defining
school leadership emerged.
Procedures:
ECRA School Leadership 360 Appraisal
The ECRA School Leadership 360 Appraisal (360 Appraisal) was administered
online. Separate surveys were assigned to each principal, who then sent the necessary
information to all certified school teachers under their supervision. Teachers were
instructed to complete the online survey during a three-week window of time. Survey items
measured teachers’ opinion of the principal’s leadership style and outcomes in a variety of
areas. Specific sections included Vision and Values, Instructional Focus, Professional
Development, Collaboration, Culture and Communication, and Management. Six to 11
questions in each section asked respondents to mark whether they strongly agreed, agreed,
somewhat agreed, somewhat disagreed, disagreed, or strongly disagreed with a variety of
statement regarding their principal’s leadership style. Responses were coded and analyzed
electronically by the 360 Appraisal program as well as exported for additional in-depth
analysis into SPSS analytic software. Responses were scored on a scale of 1 to 6, with 1
being strongly disagree and 6 being strongly agree.
63
Statistical Methods:
ECRA School Leadership 360 Appraisal
To determine whether principals with varying levels of effective implementation of
SAM varied in their success as instructional leaders, data on the 360 Appraisals for the
same three groups of principals (low, moderate, and high fidelity) were examined for
differences in the mean score of employee responses. Additional attention was paid to the
Instructional Focus subgroup, as this category most closely related to the instructional
leadership focus of the research. As a distinct and significant linear relationship was
observed for all categories of the 360 Appraisal, regression analysis was run on the total
360 score, subgroup scores, and individual items in the Instructional Focus section by
principal groups based on level of SAM fidelity.
Limitations and Delimitations
One of the delimitations of the study is that the principals and schools were chosen
by the National SAM Project Director and categorized into three groups (Successful,
Progressing, and Implementing/Struggling), based on their Time Tracker data analysis.
Had different principals and teachers been selected, the results of this study may have been
different.
The limitations of this study imply that the results are only applicable to the
principals and teachers who participated in this study. More specifically, the teachers
voluntarily participated in the program via an email invitation without the formal
introduction that the researcher had with each building principal.
64
Missing data were rare due to the relatively small sample size. There was no
missing data in the JDI instrument. When missing data were encountered in the 360
Appraisal, mean scores were calculated using the remaining available data for each
measure.
In addition to differences in levels of fidelity of SAM implementation, principals
also varied in a number of unaccounted factors, including but not limited to gender,
education, experience in the district, building characteristics, number of years as principal,
personality, and interpersonal skills. All of these factors, and others, could affect job
satisfaction and employees’ ratings of job performance beyond fidelity of SAM
implementation. Additionally, differences in disseminating survey information to teachers
may have had an effect on who completed the survey and for what reasons. There was also
variation in the number of employee respondents for each principal on the 360 Appraisal.
This information was initially run as an independent variable in all regression analyses, but
removed when no significance was found. Utilizing Cronbach’s alpha, data reliability was
confirmed, as shown in Tables 4 and 5, which confirm high reliability on the 360 Appraisal
and moderate reliability on the JDI.
Cronbach’s alpha is a coefficient, a number between 0 and 1, which is used to rate
the internal consistency of the items in a test. If a test has a strong internal consistency
most measurement experts agree that it should show correlations among items between .70
and .90. If correlations between items are too low, the test could be measuring more than
one trait. If item correlations are too high, it is likely that some items may be redundant.
65
Table 4
JDI: Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability Statistics
Subgroup Cronbach’s Alpha N of Items
People .71 18
General .62 18
Work .54 18
Promotion .76 9
Pay .94 9
Supervisor .90 18
Total JDI assessment .59 7
Table 5
360 Appraisal: Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability Statistics
Subgroup Cronbach’s Alpha N of Items
Vision and Values .97 11
Instructional Focus .95 7
Professional Development .94 6
Collaboration .96 7
Culture and Communication .97 10
Management .96 9
Total 360 Appraisal .98 7
The results of this study provide assistance to principals and superintendents who
are interested in changing the balance of their managerial and instructional tasks. The
researcher proceeds with confidence in the data analysis and findings described in Chapter
4.
66
Summary
This chapter explained the methodological approaches used to examine two research
questions. First, data were collected to determine the relationship between an increase in
the principals’ instructional time utilizing SAM strategies and the impact on the principals’
perception of job satisfaction. The second question examined the impact of changes in the
principals’ time spent on instructional tasks and changes in teaching practice.
Fifteen schools, including the building principal and teachers, were selected for this
research project. All 15 schools are currently involved in the SAM project. Two primary
sources of data collection were utilized, the Bowling Green State University JDI and the
ECRA School Leadership 360 Appraisal (360 Appraisal). In addition, principals were
interviewed utilizing an open-ended question format.
CHAPTER 4
DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
This study focused on two research questions. The first question explored the
relationship between participation in the SAM Project and the principal’s perception of job
satisfaction. The second research question studied the relationship between the increase in
the principal’s time spent on instructional work and the change in teaching practices. Data
were gathered using the Bowling Green State University’s Job Descriptive Index, ECRA’s
School Leadership 360 Appraisal, and narrative statements from participants. This chapter
summarizes the results of the various analyses of the data.
Description of the Subjects
All principals who participated in the study worked as school administrators
throughout the United States and were trained in the School Administration Manager
strategies. As shown in Table 6 below, each participant was assigned a numerical identifier
to maintain anonymity. Of the 15 participants, 9 administrators were female and 6
administrators were male. Five participants had 0-5 years of principal experience, six
participants had 6-10 years of principal experience, three participants had 11-15 years of
principal experience and one participant had more than 16 years of principal experience.
Eleven participants worked as a principal in the elementary school classification, three
68
participants worked as a principal in the middle school classification and one participant
worked as a principal in a high school classification.
Table 6
Principal Participation
Each participant completed a questionnaire soliciting demographic information
including gender, number of certified teachers supervised, classification that best describes
the level of the school, student enrollment, years of administrative experience and years
involved with the SAM Project.
The teachers who participated in the study were current employees in schools in
which the SAM principals worked. Teachers received access to their 360 Appraisal
document along with directions for completion from their building principals via email.
Directions were sent to the principals from the researcher to ensure consistency of
Principal Gender Years of Principal
Experience
Classification of
School
P1 F 6-10 Years Elementary
P2 F 0-5 Years Elementary
P3 M 0-5 Years Middle
P4 F 11-15 Years Elementary
P5 F 6-10 Years Elementary
P6 M 6-10 Years Elementary
P7 F 11-15 Years Elementary
P8 M 6-10 Years High
P9 M 11-15 Years Elementary
P10 F 0-5 Years Middle
P11 F 0-5 Years Elementary
P12 F 0-5 Years Elementary
P13 M 6-10 Years Elementary
P14 M 6-10 Years Middle
P15 F 16+ Years Elementary
69
administration. Results of the teacher questionnaire were returned directly to ECRA to
maintain the confidentiality of teacher responses.
Analysis and Findings
The findings and analysis of quantitative data related to the two research questions
were conducted simultaneously. Statistical measures included analysis of mean scores,
ANOVA, t tests, Bonferroni post hoc multiple comparisons and Pearson r square.
Regression analysis was also run specifically on the Work at Present Job (work) subgroup
of the JDI because of this subgroup’s close relationship to instructional leadership and
because of the linear nature of this subgroup’s mean score by fidelity. Interview data were
examined following the analysis of the JDI data and used primarily as narrative support of
the results obtained from the statistical analysis. Interview data were used for the purposes
identified by Van Manen (1997):
(a) It may be used as a means for exploring and gathering experiential narrative
material that may serve as a resource for developing a richer and deeper
understanding of a human phenomenon; and (b) the interview may be used as a
vehicle to develop a conversational relation with a partner (interviewee) about the
meaning of an experience. (p. 66)
Because this study sought to understand the fidelity of a program strategy and the
outcomes of job satisfaction and change in teaching practice, the researcher determined that
the interview comments would be used as insights to substantiate the data analysis and
findings.
70
Research Question 1: SAM’s Relationship to Job Satisfaction
The first research question addressed the extent to which levels of SAM
implementation affected principal’s job satisfaction. As illustrated in Table 7 and Figure 1,
only two subgroups (general and work) were correlated with level of fidelity in a linear
manner. In Table 7, the column headings indicate JDI categories from the survey. Each
question was graded and coded according to a rubric provided by the developers of JDI.
These category scores were then used to compute the total score for each category (e.g.
work, pay, people__). Once each participant had a score computed for each category, a
mean score (an average) was computed across participants in each fidelity group. These
results are found in the mean rows of each fidelity grouping in Table 7. The total column
shows the average of the sum of responses to all questions of the JDI survey.
Table 7
JDI Mean Scores by Level of Fidelity
Fidelity People General Work Pay Promotion Supervisor Total
High Mean 52.60 50.00 51.60 33.60 23.20 37.60 248.60
Std. Deviation 1.95 5.80 5.37 11.44 26.44 24.27 40.63
Moderate Mean 47.60 50.00 49.00 40.80 26.80 50.20 264.00
Std. Deviation 7.40 3.90 4.30 10.73 20.86 5.50 13.02
Low Mean 52.20 47.00 47.00 40.00 6.00 23.00 215.40
Std. Deviation 1.79 6.00 3.39 11.83 10.39 21.82 20.92
Total Mean 50.80 49.00 49.20 38.13 18.67 36.93 242.70
Std. Deviation 4.81 5.10 4.54 11.02 21.05 21.10 32.95
Note: (Group N = 5, Total N = 15)
71
Figure 1: JDI mean scores by level of fidelity.
Note: Results of ANOVA indicate that these two fidelity groups’ mean scores are
significantly different from each other on this measure.
Further analysis utilizing Bonferroni post hoc multiple comparisons was run to
determine which fidelity groups had significantly different mean scores. A significance test
generally indicates whether there is a significant difference in the descriptive means, but
does not specifically identify those differences. A post hoc test such as Bonferroni provides
that additional information. The Bonferroni adjustment was chosen for the post hoc
analysis because of its ease of use. Bonferroni multiplies the significance level by the
number of tests performed up to a significance level of 1.
Findings shown in Table 8 indicate that the participants in the moderate-fidelity
group had significantly higher total JDI scores than participants in the low-and high-fidelity
group. There is no significant difference between individuals in the high-fidelity group and
72
those in the low-fidelity group. Comparing the mean difference column shows that the
difference between the low-and moderate-fidelity groups mean scores larger than the
difference between the high-and low-fidelity groups mean scores, accounting for this result.
Table 8
JDI Total Score Post Hoc Bonferroni ANOVA Results by Level of Fidelity
(I) Fidelity (J) Fidelity Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig.
High Moderate -15.40 17.35166 1.000
Low 33.20 17.35166 .240
Moderate High 15.40 17.35166 1.000
Low 48.60* 17.35166 .048*
Low High -33.20 17.35166 .240
Moderate -48.60* 17.35166 .048*
* Results indicate that the low-and moderate-fidelity groups’ mean total JDI scores are
significantly different from each other with p-value < .05.
Although some of the JDI subgroup mean scores appeared to vary widely by
fidelity group, none of these differences were statistically different. This is due in part to
the small sample size, but also to the large standard deviation within fidelity groups for
some of the variables.
With the observation that the scores of principals who were in the moderate and
high-fidelity groups had higher JDI scores than those with a low level of fidelity, principals
with a high and moderate levels of fidelity were combined into a single group. T tests were
run to examine whether mean differences occurred between respondents in the low-fidelity
group and those in the moderate-and high-fidelity groups combined. The results of this
analysis can be seen in Table 9.
73
Table 9
T-Test Results: JDI Mean Scores by Level of Fidelity Group Combined
JDI Category N Mean
Std.
Deviation t-value df
Sig.
(2-tailed)
People High/Moderate 10 50.1 5.7 -0.79 13 0.45
Low 5 52.2 1.8
General High/Moderate 10 49.8 4.7 0.93 13 0.37
Low 5 47.2 6.0
Work High/Moderate 10 50.3 4.8 1.37 13 0.19
Low 5 47.0 3.4
Pay High/Moderate 10 37.2 11.1 -0.45 13 0.66
Low 5 40.0 11.8
Promotion High/Moderate 10 25.0 22.5 2.23* 13 0.04*
Low 5 6.0 10.4
Supervisor High/Moderate 10 43.9 17.9 1.99^ 13 0.07^
Low 5 23.0 21.8
Total High/Moderate 10 256.3 29.6 2.74* 13 0.02*
Low 5 215.4 20.9
* The low-and moderate/high-fidelity groups’ mean JDI scores on this section were significantly
different from each other with p-value < .05.
^ The low-and moderate/high-fidelity groups’ mean JDI scores on this section were marginally
significantly different from each other with p-value < .10.
Findings show a significant difference in the Promotion JDI score as well as the
total JDI score between the groups, with participants in the low-fidelity group showing
significantly lower mean scores than those in the moderate-and high-fidelity groups
combined. Interview data from Principal 10 (P10) further supports this analysis.
I originally became interested in the SAM Project because I was
concerned about the learning gap between subgroups of students in my
school. However, (chuckle) as I do hold aspirations for a superintendency
I can see that strong instructional leadership could help me in reaching that
goal, as well.
In addition, there was a marginally significant difference between the groups on the
JDI Supervisor subscale. Participants in the low-fidelity group had a lower mean score on
this subscale than those in the moderate-and high-fidelity groups combined (p-value = .07).
74
Because most of the subgroups in the JDI had a nonlinear association with fidelity,
additional analysis was conducted using ANOVA in order to compare the JDI means of
each of the three fidelity groups with each other. ANOVA revealed that the JDI total
composite score (across all subgroups) was found to be significantly higher for participants
in the moderate-fidelity group than those in the low-fidelity group. After grouping
moderate and high fidelity together, there was a significant difference in JDI means
between the 10 participants in the moderate/high group and the five participants in the low
group for both the total JDI mean and the Promotion subgroup mean (showing those in the
low-fidelity group generally believed they had fewer opportunities for promotion than those
in the moderate/high groups). There was also a marginally significant relationship between
JDI and the Supervisor subscale (showing those who had moderate/high implementation
rated their supervisors more highly). Because of the small sample size the researcher can
report marginally significant findings as speculative (e.g., if the sample were larger this
might have become significant). For example, P14 in describing the district
superintendent’s level of support and involvement commented:
I would not have been able to successfully implement SAM without the
support of my superintendent. He supported my use of time to work with
the SAM. He was able to get money from the Board of Education to pay
for the program and professional development opportunities like attending
the national SAM conferences.
Research Question 2:
Influence on Teaching Practice
The second research question addressed the extent to which levels of SAM
implementation affected principals’ instructional impact on teaching practice. Data were
75
gathered from teachers in schools where the principal had implemented SAM strategies
through ECRA’s School Leadership 360 Appraisal. Mean ratings by fidelity group can be
found in Table 10 and suggest a linear trend between 360 subgroups and fidelity of
implementation.
As seen in Table 10 and Figure 2, and confirmed in the correlation table, Table 11, a
strong positive relationship was found between level of implementation and the
independently gathered 360 Appraisal scores. A Pearson correlation coefficient was
selected for this measure because it told the researcher how the dependent variable changed
when the independent variable changed.
The Pearson r correlation is reported on a scale of -1 to 1, with correlations closer to
the absolute value of 1 showing a stronger relationship and correlations closer to 0 showing
a weaker relationship. A correlation is deemed significant not only by the value but by the
significance level, which for social science research is generally considered any
significance (or p-value) of .05 or lower. This would indicate that the results have a 5%
probability of occurring due to chance if there was no relationship between the items
examined. The Pearson correlation, on the other hand, also informs the researcher of the
magnitude of the relationship. For instance, with a large-enough sample, a correlation of
.10 could be considered significant. However, this small correlation would indicate that,
while significant, the relationship is so loose that the independent variable does not affect
the dependent variable to a large extent.
Table 10
360 Mean Scores by Level of Fidelity
Fidelity
Total
score
Value and
Vision Instructional Focus
Professional
Development Collaboration
Culture and
Communication Management
High Mean 5.23 5.34 5.32 5.37 4.94 5.10 5.32
Std. Deviation .46 .43 .37 .41 .63 .63 .35
Moderate Mean 4.81 4.91 4.78 4.88 4.65 4.82 4.76
Std. Deviation .22 .34 .26 .13 .20 .15 .26
Low Mean 4.30 4.36 4.33 4.45 4.04 4.23 4.27
Std. Deviation .86 .99 .72 .68 .93 .98 .82
Total Mean 4.78 4.87 4.81 4.90 4.54 4.72 4.79
Std. Deviation .66 .73 .62 .58 .72 .73 .67
Note: (Group N=5, Total N=15)
76
77
Figure 2: 360 mean scores by level of fidelity.
Table 11
Correlations between Principal’s 360 Mean Scores by Category and Level of Fidelity
Pearson Correlation Sign. (2-tailed)
Total score .59* .02
Value and Vision .56* .03
Instructional Focus .68**
.01
Professional Development .67**
.01
Collaboration .53* .04
Culture and Communication .50 .06
Management .67**
.01
(N=15)
* p-value is significant at the .05 level
** p-value is significant at the .01 level
78
Specific to this study, correlation scores ranged from an adjusted Pearson r square
of .50 for Culture and Communication to .68 for Instructional Focus. The 360 Appraisal
scores in all subsections, with the exception of Culture and Communication, are
significantly correlated with level of SAM implementation at a .05 significance level. As
hypothesized, this analysis confirms that a relationship exists between the job evaluation
items on the 360 Appraisal and the level of fidelity with which SAM is implemented.
Instructional Focus
As the most highly correlated item with level of fidelity at .68 as well as being the
sub-score most closely matched to the instructional leadership focus of the second research
question, the Instructional Focus sub-score deserves additional attention. A scatter plot was
constructed showing each principal’s Instructional Focus mean score by fidelity group and
is illustrated in Figure 3. Instructional Focus also showed high significance in the principal
interviews. All of the 15 case study principals cited the desire to improve student learning
through increased focus on instructional tasks as their greatest motivator for beginning the
SAM program.
There was a linear relationship between 360 scores and fidelity, so correlations can
be used to examine relationships and determine significance. A regression was also run
examining Instructional Leadership as the dependent variable and fidelity group and
independent variable to determine the slope of the data. The regression line can be seen in
a scatter plot (Figure 3).
79
Figure 3: Scatter plot of instructional focus mean principal rating by fidelity group.
In addition, Table 12 breaks down scores by each question item. Correlations
between individual items and fidelity group are reported in Table 13. All questions began
with the stem, “Is the school’s instructional leader . . .” Questions followed by “aligns
curriculum and assessment to school goals” and “monitors the effectiveness of the
instructional program” were the most highly correlated with level of fidelity. Questions
followed by “provides teachers with constructive feedback about their instructional
practices” and “utilizes a variety of methods to review instructional effectiveness” had the
lowest correlation with level of implementation.
80
Table 12
Instructional Focus Question Item Means
Question Mean N Std. Deviation
Is the school’s instructional leader 4.58 524 1.32
Articulates a clear vision for quality teaching and learning 4.68 527 1.27
Aligns curriculum and assessment to school goals 4.83 523 1.06
Monitors the effectiveness of the instructional program 4.72 522 1.18
Utilizes a variety of methods to review instructional effectiveness (e.g.,
teacher observations, audits, curriculum development groups, observational
teams)
4.66 523 1.22
Provides teachers with constructive feedback about their instructional
practices 4.52 523 1.36
Promotes effective use of instructional technology 4.91 527 1.06
Total: Instructional Focus 4.70 528 1.06
Table 13
Correlations between 360 Instructional Focus Items and Level of Fidelity
Question
Pearson
Correlation
Sign.
(2-tailed)
Is the school’s instructional leader .46** .21
Articulates a clear vision for quality teaching and learning .43** .19
Aligns curriculum and assessment to school goals .47** .22
Monitors the effectiveness of the instructional program .46** .21
Utilizes a variety of methods to review instructional effectiveness (e.g., teacher
observations, audits, curriculum development groups, observational teams) .39** .15
Provides teachers with constructive feedback about their instructional practices .39** .15
Promotes effective use of instructional technology .44** .19
** p-value is significant at the .01 level
Note: (N = 499)
Overall, all individual questions had a lower correlation with level of fidelity than
the total Instruction Focus subgroup, indicating the group of questions combined is a more
effective indicator than any individual item. However, all questions were correlated
significantly with level of fidelity at a .01 level, further supporting the relationship between
level of SAM implementation and program fidelity with an assessment of each principal’s
instructional focus.
81
Table 12 shows very little variation in the mean scores for the seven Instructional
Focus questions. For the purpose of this data analysis, the p-value was also considered to
help determine the probability of obtaining similar results in future replications of the study.
As can be seen in Table 13, the scale of the 360 survey is reported as a range of 1 to
5. Therefore, a greater consistency between all questions’ mean scores and that of the total
Instructional Focus section is illustrated by a rating of 4.7. A mean score of 4.7 on all
Instructional Focus items indicates that more individuals rated these items a 5 than a 4 or
lower.
Standard deviation was also taken into consideration when analyzing the data.
Standard deviation informs the researcher of the consistency of the mean. For instance, a
small standard deviation of .01 on a 5-point scale, indicates almost all of the survey
respondents rated the item the same value as the mean. However, a large standard
deviation, such as 2 on a 5-point scale, indicates that there was a wide range in the
responses.
In this study, the standard deviation ranged from 1.06 to 1.36 on a scale of 1 to 6,
indicating some variation through the sample. This information was useful to the
researcher’s reflection of possible uses of the information. For example, a large standard
deviation on ratings for a principal on the 360 Appraisal might cause a superintendent to
examine which employees rated the principal highly. Patterns may emerge, such as
teachers feeling very supported by the administrator but support staff feeling undervalued.
On the other hand, little deviation might indicate that all stakeholder groups feel basically
the same.
82
Based on this initial analysis, regression analysis was run to examine the exact
relationship between instructional focus and fidelity group. The model fits the data well,
with an adjusted R square of .42 and an F-value of 11 (p < .01). The F-value is similar to a t
test but used in an ANOVA. It is an indicator of model fit. Smaller values mean no
difference exists between items. There is no upper limit. As in previous analyses, the p-
value will inform the researcher of the significance.
Examination of the coefficients in the model suggest that for every increase in
fidelity group (e.g., from low to moderate and from moderate to high), a participant would
be expected to have a half-point increase on the Instructional Focus subgroup score, as
illustrated in Table 14. It was interesting to note during the interview process that principals
who had either low level of implementation fidelity or few years of experience with the
program expressed less instructional impact than those with high levels of implementation
fidelity. For example, P2 stated:
I am not sure whether SAM has had the influence on my instructional role
to the extent that I had anticipated. I am a little disappointed, but
reserving judgment.
On the other hand, P7 indicated:
…the longer I am in the program the greater the impact on instruction I
feel I have.
Table 14
Regression Analysis Coefficients: Instructional Focus and Fidelity
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
t Sig. B Std. Error
1 (Constant) 3.82 .32 11.82 .000
Fidelity .50 .15 3.31 .006
83
Comparison of JDI and 360 Appraisal Data
Interestingly, there was no significant correlation found between total JDI score and
total 360 score (see Table 15). As a result, no further analysis was conducted between these
two variables.
Table 15
Correlation between JDI Total, 360 Total, and Implementation Group
Fidelity 360 Total Score JDI Total Score
Fidelity 1 .59* .43
360 Total Score .59* 1 .15
JDI Total Score .43 .15 1
* p-value is significant at the .05 level
Summary
This chapter presented the results of the various analyses related to two research
questions. Informed through historical and current literature, the researcher examined the
relationship between principals’ increased instructional leadership and job satisfaction and
impact on teachers’ professional practice. Data were gathered through two quantitative
techniques, the Bowling Green State University JDI and the ECRA 360 School Leadership
Appraisal, and one qualitative measure, personal interviews with participating principals.
Data analysis focused primarily on the two research questions, but also included a
comparison of the results from the JDI and the 360 Appraisal items.
Findings showed that, with a few exceptions, the JDI showed little relationship
between SAM implementation and job satisfaction. However, significant differences did
emerge in a few instances. For example, findings indicated that participants in the
84
moderate-fidelity group had significantly higher total JDI scores than participants in the
low- fidelity group. Additionally, findings suggest that there is a significant difference in
the Promotion JDI subgroup score as well as the total JDI score between the groups, with
participants in the low-fidelity group showing significantly lower mean scores than those in
the moderate-and high-fidelity groups. Last, there was a marginally significant difference
between the groups on the JDI Supervisor subscale with participants in the low-fidelity
group again having a lower mean score on this subscale than those in the moderate-and
high-fidelity groups combined (p-value = .07).
Findings strongly supported the hypothesis proposed in the second research
question, which was of the most interest and practical value to the researcher. All subgroup
scores from the ECRA 360 School Leadership Appraisal were significantly correlated with
fidelity groupings. The lone exception was Culture and Communication, which was
marginally significantly correlated. Importantly, Instructional Focus was the 360 Appraisal
subgroup with the strongest relationship with fidelity groupings. Further exploration of this
relationship through regression analysis found a relationship intersection at 3.82, which is
significantly higher than would be expected if left to chance.
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION
This study explored the refocus of the school principal’s role as operations manager
to instructional leader and the redistribution of time spent on those tasks when SAM is
implemented. The study was guided by two research questions. The first question
measured the extent to which the principal’s implementation of SAM impacted the
principal’s job satisfaction. The second question focused on whether participation in the
SAM Project contributed to changes in teaching practice. The study was informed by a
variety of perspectives that surfaced in recent and historical literature, including standards
for school leadership, leadership and learning, and the SAM Project. A variety of research
methods were utilized to gather and analyze the data, including analysis of mean scores,
ANOVA, t tests, Bonferroni post hoc multiple comparisons, Pearson r square and interview
questionnaires. This concluding chapter will provide a summary and discussion of the
study, the research findings, general conclusions that can be drawn from the research,
implications for practice, and recommendations for future research.
Summary of the Study
The literature on school leadership and standards provided the contextual
framework for the study. It became clear in the analysis of the literature and recent
86
legislation that the expectations for the use of principals’ time shifted dramatically from
that of operations manager to instructional leader (Cotton, 2003; Marzano, Waters &
McNulty, 2005; PERA, 2010; Stronge, Richard & Catano, 2008). It was also clear that the
time constraints of a typical day prevented many principals from becoming instructional
leaders (Flath, 1989; Stronge et al., 2008). Although school improvement models for
instructional leadership exist, many principals do not understand, value or incorporate these
standards into their daily work (Shelton, 2009). The challenge becomes one of balancing
the job responsibilities and meeting the expectations for improving student learning.
One strategy that holds significant ramifications for creating that balance is the
SAM Project forwarded by the Wallace Foundation (Holland, 2008; Turnbull et al., 2009,
2011). Implementation of the SAM Project relies on principal, staff and community
readiness, commitment, and willingness to promote change in the role of building
leadership. Additionally, the project provides professional development for principals who
use data collection and daily reflective practices to change how they spend their time.
The SAM Project provides data collection and analysis tools to help principals
change the balance in the use of their time and shift it to more instructional tasks. Initially,
principals work with a trained data collector and use Time Tracker strategies to record their
daily activities in detail during the day. This data allows principals to reflect on their
practice by coding time use by task and category (instruction, management, and personal
time). Weekly and monthly time use reports enable principals and their SAMs to track
changes. The project also requires the principal/SAM teams to meet monthly with a time
87
change coach, typically a retired school administrator, who is selected and trained to
discuss progress and identify training needs with the team (Turnbull et al., 2009, 2010).
Research Questions
The study was guided by the following research questions:
1. To what extent does the fidelity of implementing SAM strategies impact
principals’ job satisfaction?
a. as job satisfaction relates to people?
b. as job satisfaction relates to the general work environment?
c. as job satisfaction relates to the work at present job?
d. as job satisfaction relates to pay?
e. as job satisfaction relates to promotions?
f. as job satisfaction relates to supervision?
2. To what extent does the fidelity of implementing SAM strategies impact
changes in teaching practice?
a. related to value and vision?
b. related to instructional focus?
c. related to professional development?
d. related to collaboration?
e. related to culture and communication?
f. related to management?
88
Overview of the Methodology
This research project involved fifteen building principals trained in and currently
implementing the SAM Project. Nine of the administrators were female and six were male.
All administrators were responsible for a school population of over 500 students and all
administrators had more than two years of administrative experience. Due to the small
sample size, analysis by demographics was not conducted. Rather, all 15 schools were
analyzed as an aggregate. In addition, the researcher chose not to report the findings by
either principal or teacher demographics because the focus of the study was on fidelity not
demographics.
Principals were selected for this study based on their current level of fidelity in
implementing SAM as recorded in the Time/Task Analysis data that was reported to the
SAM team. After consulting with the National SAM Project director, the fifteen principals
were placed in three groups based on their level of program implementation (see Table 3).
The building administrators and their certified teaching staff provided the data
which were collected through two survey instruments: the Bowling Green State University
JDI and the ECRA School Leadership 360 Appraisal (360 Appraisal). In addition,
principals were interviewed utilizing an open-ended question format. Data were analyzed
using a variety of techniques.
Discussion of the Findings
Data were analyzed simultaneously for research questions one and two. A summary
of the findings and further discussion follows.
89
Principal Job Satisfaction and
the Job Descriptive Index
The researcher ran ANOVA and t-test analysis to determine whether a relationship
existed between the fidelity level of the implementation of SAM strategies and the
principal’s reported sense of job satisfaction. The analysis initially found a non-linear
association with fidelity, so the moderate and high implementation groups were combined
into one group. The follow-up analysis showed the scores of the principals in the high and
moderate groups were higher than those in the lower fidelity group. As illustrated in Table
9, the relationship showed a significant difference in JDI means between the high/moderate
group (10 participants) and the low-fidelity group (5 participants).
As seen in Figure 1, only two subgroups (general and work) were correlated with
level of fidelity in a linear manner. The researcher made an overall observation that the
scores of the principals in the moderate-and high-fidelity groups typically had higher JDI
scores of those in the lower fidelity group. The findings also show there is a significant
difference in the total JDI score between the groups, with participants in the low-fidelity
group having much lower mean scores than those in the moderate-and high-fidelity groups.
The overall result of this analysis supports the researcher’s hypothesis that the
greater the degree to which principals are able to implement SAM strategies the more likely
they are to describe satisfaction with their jobs. Consistent with the researcher’s hypothesis
and with current literature, the data appears to support that principals appreciate the
opportunities to spend more of their time as instructional leaders rather than as building
managers. As shared by P8:
90
Before implementing SAM strategies I spent a great deal of time making sure there
was enough toilet paper in the bathrooms and that all copy machines had enough
toner. Now, I find myself sitting with teachers in classrooms really understanding
and influencing classroom practice.
The researcher expected to find a highly significant relationship demonstrating
increased job satisfaction as the principal was able to spend more time on instructional
tasks. Several differences did emerge, however, revealing that the participants in the
moderate-fidelity group had higher total JDI scores than participants in the low-fidelity
group. Finally, the findings did suggest a difference in the Promotion JDI subgroup score
as well as the total JDI score between the groups, with participants in the low-fidelity group
having lower mean scores than those in the moderate-and high-fidelity groups.
Increase of Principal’s Time on Instruction
and Change in Teaching Practices
The researcher ran tests to determine if principals with different implementation
levels of SAM varied in their success as instructional leaders, as reported by the certified
teachers in their buildings. Data on the 360 Appraisals for the same three groups of
principals (low, moderate, and high fidelity) were examined for differences in the mean
employee responses. Additional attention was paid to the Instructional Focus subgroup, as
this category most closely related to the Instruction Leadership focus of the research. As a
distinct and significant linear relationship was observed for all categories of the 360
Appraisal, regression analysis was run on the total 360 score, subgroup scores, and
individual items in the Instructional Focus section by principal groups based on level of
SAM fidelity.
91
As shown in Figure 2, the analysis concluded with a very clear linear trend between
360 subgroups and fidelity of implementation. This strong positive relationship confirms
that a relationship exists between the job evaluation items on the 360 Appraisal and the
level of SAM implementation fidelity. The analysis showed a strong relationship between
the fidelity of SAM implementation and the building principal’s instructional focus. In
other words, as the principal increases time spent on instruction, there is likely to be a
greater impact on teaching practice. As teaching practice improves, student learning is
likely to increase (Marzano et al., 2005; Stronge, et al., 2008). This strong, positive
correlation means that a principal engaged with high fidelity in the SAM Project tend to be
rated higher by certified teachers in instructional practices. As shared by P4:
The best part of implementing the SAM project has been the freedom of time that I
now have to engage in substantive conversations with my teachers, to hear their ideas
about instructional practice. This is the first time in my career as a building principal
that I have felt significant connection with the classroom. The biggest difference that
SAM has made in my professional practice is that every day I now leave my office
knowing that I have made a significant contribution to the learning lives of my
students.
The exciting result of this study is that the researcher’s hypotheses were
substantially supported. As the data and analyses demonstrates, the researcher found that
the more time and energy the principal is willing to devote to the implementation of SAM
strategies, the greater the impact on teaching practice and, by extension, the greater impact
on student learning. This information alone is enough to support the continued
implementation and expansion of strategies that move the role of the principal from that of
an operations manager to that of instructional leader.
92
Implications and Recommendations for Practice
In this section a re-conceptualized role of the principal is discussed based on a
synthesis of the findings of this research project. Results from this study indicate that when
the principal and teacher share more time together there is a higher focus on improving
instruction.
Over the past several years, as education has sought to attract and retain capable
building leaders, researchers have studied the work and lives of principals. They have
looked at what helps them sustain the growth and fulfillment that is necessary for continued
and enthusiastic work with teachers and students. This study reveals that in order to achieve
such a goal the role of the principal must be realigned to an instructional focus to improve
student learning. For example, a principal in the high-fidelity group stated:
I must be able to self-adjust my focus each minute of the day and I must be able to
use strategies that allow me to delegate operational requests to others that should be
the first responder to handle these situations.
The continuous nature of professional development supports the notion that policies
and practices related to principal preparation and induction need to be strengthened. In
September 2010, the Illinois State Board of Education released expectations and new
standards for principal and assistant principal preparation. Principal candidates will now be
required to participate in a year-long internship, during which they will have to meet 13
principal competencies. One of those competencies is instructional leadership. Utilizing the
results of this study it would seem incumbent upon principal preparation programs to
consider the strategies of the SAM Project.
93
Recommendations for Further Study
The findings of this research study provide several insights for future research.
Long-term effects of participation in the SAM Project need to be studied. For example, do
the results found in this study sustain themselves over time or are they the result of a
Pygmalion or Hawthorne effect?
It would be noteworthy to replicate this study with the same principals to see
whether the effects found in this research remained consistent over several years. An
interesting follow-up question would be to see if there is a long-term effect as a principal
becomes more adept at instructional leadership.
It would also be interesting to replicate the study with a different group of principals
to determine whether the same findings emerge. In the area of professional practice, the
replication of this study would provide valuable information simply by increasing or
adjusting the sample size of the SAM-involved principals.
This information could hold significance for superintendents and school districts
that are considering implementing or expanding their commitment to the School
Administration Manager Project. The significance of this study shows a professional
development tool that tracks progress and performance. A natural data collection system is
developed providing evaluative measures of principal behavior and school leadership.
There are also many demographic sub-sets that could be studied in order to
substantiate the effects of SAM implementation. For example, would similar results
emerge if principals from rural and suburban school districts were compared? Are there
significant differences in the impact of SAM implementation when more experienced
94
principals are compared with less veteran principals? Would differences emerge if gender
was a variable? Interestingly, some states, like Iowa, are mandating that every school have
a SAM program. Is this a program that should be mandated, seeing as that the researcher
discovered the effectiveness clearly is based on fidelity? Is part of the effect found in this
study due to the voluntary participation and commitment of the principal and SAMs?
Further investigation needs to be done to determine if SAM has a significant effect
on student achievement. One such study conducted by the Wallace Foundation (Turnbull et
al., 2010) described student achievement trends in schools participating in the SAM
initiative and groups of similar comparison schools. In addition to the overall comparison
between participating and nonparticipating schools, the study also analyzed student
achievement trends in the subset of participating schools where the principals made the
greatest changes in their use of time. Overall, the analysis of school-level achievement data
found a mixed picture on student achievement.
This same Wallace Foundation research also found that principals’ use of time, as
measured by the SAM Project after one year of participation, did not have a statistically
significant relationship with student achievement gains. However four schools showed
significantly higher achievement gains than their matched comparison schools after one
year, but this was no longer true after two years (Turnbull et al., 2010).
Questions of financial impact also need to be addressed. Many districts are
committing significant funding to SAM implementation. Future research might focus on
several related questions: Would further analysis yield similar results if this same study
95
were conducted with different models of the SAM Project? Would the results be any
different because the SAM position is structured differently?
The Wallace Foundation and the National SAM Initiative (now the National SAM
Innovation Project [NSIP]) suggest several models for SAM implementation (Haslam,
2011; Turnbull et al., 2009).
Model 1: The SAM is a newly hired member of the school staff.
Model 2: The SAM is an existing staff member in the school who takes on the
SAM duties and receives additional compensation for these duties.
Model 3: The SAM is an existing staff member in the school who takes on the
SAM duties with no increase in compensation.
The cost of salary and benefits for a full-time SAM in the Model 1 design is roughly
ten times the cost of a SAM in Model 2. The cost of implementing Model 3 is considerably
less than the cost of either of the other models.
In addition, participating SAM teams may spend annual service fees ranging from
$2,000 to $12,900 to fully benefit from national and state levels of ongoing professional
development programming. Well-structured cost-benefit analyses will assist school districts
in determining whether the financial costs justify gains in time devoted to instructional
tasks. In the current economy, it is incumbent upon districts to consider every dollar spent.
The instructional impact of SAM must be weighed against these financial considerations.
96
Summary
Chapter 5 concludes this research study, which focused on the implementation of
SAM strategies and the impact on principals’ job satisfaction and influence on teaching
practice. This final chapter provided a summary of the research project, discussed
implications the research holds for educational practice, and provided recommendations for
further research that could contribute to the knowledge base for changing the principal’s
role from manager to instructional leader.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anderson, L., & Pigford, A. (1987). Removing administrative impediments to instructional
improvement efforts. Theory Into Practice, 26(1), 67-71.
Baskett, S., & Miklos, E. (1992). Perspectives of effective principals. Canadian
Administrator, 32(1), 1-10.
Bass, B. (1960). Leadership, Psychology and Organizational Behaviour, Harper, New York,
NY.
Bass, B. M. (1997) Does the transactional–transformational leadership paradigm transcend
organizational and national boundaries? American Psychologist, 52(2), 130-139.
Bass, B. M., & Riggio (2005). Transformational leadership (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bellon, T., & Beaudry, J. (1992, April). Teachers’ perceptions of their leadership roles in
site-based decision making. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
Bernhardt, V. L., & Geise, B. J. (2009). From Questions to Actions: Using Questionnaire
Data for Continuous School Improvement: Eye on Education.
Blanchard, K. H., & Johnson, S. (1982). The one-minute manager. New York: William-
Morrow.
Blasé, J., & Blasé, J. (2000). Effective instructional leadership: Teachers’ perspective on
how principals promote teaching and learning in schools. Journal of Educational
Administration, 38(2), 130-141.
Bridgeland, J. M., Dilulio, J. J., Jr., & Balfanz, R. (2009, June). On the front lines of
schools: Perspectives of teachers and principals on the high school dropout
problem. Washington, DC: Civic Enterprises.
Brookover, W. B., & Lezotte, L. W. (1979). Changes in school characteristics coincident
with changes in student achievement. East Lansing, MI: The Institute for Research
on Teaching.
98
Brookover, W. B., & Lezotte, L. (1982). Creating effective schools. Holmes Beach, FL:
Learning Publication.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Burns, J. M. (2003). Transforming leadership. New York: Atlantic Monthly Press.
Catano, N., & Stronge, J. (2007). What do we expect of school principals? Congruence
between principal evaluation and performance standards. International Journal of
Leadership in Education, 10(4), 379-399.
Church, R. E., (2005). Principal Management: A stakeholder perspective. (Lanham, MD:
Scarecrow Press).
Coleman, J. S. (1966). Equality of Educational Opportunity. Washington, DC: the United
States Office of Education.
Cotton, K. (2003). Principals and student achievement: What the research says.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Council of Chief State School Officers. (2008). Educational leadership policy standards:
ISLLC 2008, Washington, DC: Author.
Davis, S., Darling-Hammond. L., LaPointe, M., & Meyerson, D. (2005). School leadership
study: Developing successful principals. Stanford, CA: Stanford Educational
Leadership Institute.
Drago-Severson, E. (2009). Leading adult learning: Supporting adult development in our
schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
DuFour, R. (2002). The Learning-Centered Principal. Educational Leadership 59(8), 12-15.
ECRA Group. (2010). Effective superintendents: ECRA literature review. Available at
http://resources.aasa.org/ConferenceDaily/handouts2011/3000-1.pdf.
Edmonds, R. R. (1979, October). Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational
Leadership, 37(2), 15-24.
Elmore, Richard. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Washington, DC:
The Albert Shanker Institute.
Fiedler, F. E., & Garcia, J. E. (1987) New approaches to effective leadership, New York:
John Wiley.
Flath, B. (1989). The principal as instructional leader. ATA Magazines, 69(3), 19-22, 47-49.
99
Fullan, M. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College
Press.
Fullan, M. J. (2010). Motion leadership: The skinny on becoming change savvy. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Gatta, J. (2010). School leadership. Washington, DC: Policy Studies Associates
Gentilucci, J. L., & Muto, C. C. (2007). Principals’ influence on academic achievement:
The student perspective. The National Association of Secondary School Principals,
Bulletin 219-236
Glesne, C. (1998). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. (2nd ed.). New
York, NY: Longman.
Glickman, C. (1985). Supervision of instruction: A development approach (2nd ed.).
Toronto, ON: Allyn and Bacon.
Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J .F. (1986). The social context of effective schools. American
Journal of Education, 94(3), 328-355.
Haslam, B. (2011). New structure for school leadership. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 4-
5.
Hay, I. (2011, June 22). Transformational leadership: Characteristics and criticisms.
Retrieved April 12, 2012, from www.leadingtoday.org
Hersey, P. H., Blanchard, K. H., & Johnson, D. E. (2007). Management of organizational
behavior: Leading human resources (9th ed.). New York: Prentice Hall.
Hightower, A., Knapp, M., Marsh, J., & McLaughlin, M. (Eds.). (2002). School districts
and instructional renewal. New York: Teachers College Press.
Holland, H. (2008). Out of the office and into the classroom: An initiative to help principals
focus on instruction. Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy,
University of Washington.
SAM project helps principals focus on instruction. (2008, March). Illinois School Board
Newsbulletin, pp. 4-5.
Illinois State Board of Education. (2012). Illinois standards for principal evaluation.
Springfield, IL: Author.
Kachur, D. (2009). Classroom walk-throughs to improve teaching and learning. Eye on
Education, Larchmont, NY.
100
Kinicki, A. J., McKee-Ryan, F. M., Schriesheim, C. A., &Carson, K. P. (2002). Assessing
the construct validity of the Job Descriptive Index: A review and meta-analysis.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 14-32.
Kirk, D. J., & Jones, T. L. (2004). Effective schools. San Antonio, TX: Pearson Education,
Inc.
Kiviat, B. J. (2000, April). The social side of schooling. Johns Hopkins Magazine.
Retrieved May 2, 2012, from http://www.jhu.edu/jhumag/0400web/18.html
Lake, C. J., (2009). The Job Descriptive Index: Newly updated and available for download.
The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 48(1), 47-49.
Lambert, L. (2002). A framework for shared leadership. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 37-
40.
Leithwood, K. A. (1992). The move toward transformational leadership. Educational
Leadership, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 49(5), 8-12.
Leithwood, K., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S., & Wahlstron, K. (2004). How leadership
influences student learning. Center for Applied Research and Educational
Improvement. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.
Leithwood, K. & Riehl, C. (2003) What do we already know about successful school
leadership? Paper prepared for the AERA Division A Task Force for the
Development of an Agenda for Future Research on Educational Leadership.
Lezotte, L. (1991). Correlates of effective schools: The first and second generation.
Okemos, MI: Effective Schools Products.
Lezotte, L. (2001). Revolutionary and evolutionary: The effective schools movement.
Okemos, MI: Effective Schools Products.
Liontos, L. B. (1994). Transformational leadership. ERIC Digest, Number 72.
ED347636.
Lunnenberg, F. C., & Ornstein, A. C. (2012). Educational administration: Concepts and
practices (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Mace-Matluck, B. J. (1987). The effective schools movement: Its history and context. A
SEDL Monograph, Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.
Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. (2005). School leadership that works: From
research to results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
101
Mendez-Morse, S. (2012). Leadership characteristics that facilitate school change. Austin,
TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.
Murphy, J. (2005, September). Using the ISLLC Standards for School Leaders at the state
level to strengthen school administration. The State Education Standard, 15-18.
National Association of Elementary School Principals. (2008). Leading learning
communities: Standards for what principals should know and be able to do.
Alexandria, VA: Author.
National Association of Secondary School Principals. (2001). Priorities and barriers in
high school leadership. Reston, VA: Author.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative
for educational reform. Washington, DC: Author.
National Policy Board for Educational Administration. (2002). Instructions to implement
standards for advanced programs in educational leadership. Arlington, VA:
Author.
Parkhurst, (2009). Getting out of the office and into the classroom. Principal, 88(5), 44-45.
PERA. (2010). Performance Evaluation Reform Act. Retrieved from
http://www.isbe.state.il.us/peac/default.htm
Portin, B. S., Alejano, C. R., Knapp, M. S., & Marzolf, E. (2006). Redefining leadership
roles: Redefining roles, responsibilities, and authority of school leaders. Center for
the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington.
Quinn, D. M. (2002). The impact of principal leadership behaviors on instructional practice
and student engagement. Journal of Educational Administration, 40(5), 447-467.
Rippa, S. A. (1988). Education in a free society: An American history. White Plains, NY:
Longman.
Sagor, R. D. (1992). Three principals who make a difference. Educational Leadership,
49(5), 13-18.
Schooley, M. L. (2010). Power source. Principal, 89(4), 22-27.
Seid, C. (2010). Journal of Staff Development, 31(2), 40-43.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (1989). The leadership needed for quality schools. In T. J. Sergiovanni &
J. H. Moore (Eds.), Schooling for tomorrow: Directing reforms to issues that count.
(pp. 213-226). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
102
Sergiovanni, T. J. (1990). Adding value to leadership gets extraordinary results.
Educational Leadership, 47(8), 23-27.
Sergiovanni, T. (1995). The principalship: A reflective practice perspective. Boston: Allyn
& Bacon.
Shani, A., & Lau, J. (1996). Behavior in organizations-an experiential approach.
Homewood, IL: Richard Irwin Educational Group.
Shelton, S. V. (2009). National School Administration Manager Project. National
Conference of State Legislatures, Legisbrief, 17(8), 1-2.
Silverman, D. (2006) Interpreting Qualitative Data: methods for analyzing talk, text and
interactions (3rd
ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Spillane, J. (2006). Distributed leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Stronge, J. H., Richard, H. B., & Catano, N. (2008). Qualities of effective principals.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Task Force on Teaching as a Profession. (1986). A nation prepared: Teachers for the 21st
century. Hyattsville, MD: Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy.
Turnbull, B. J., Arcaira, E., Sinclair, B., & Coleman, J. S. (2011). Implementation of the
national SAM innovation project: A comparison of project designs. Washington,
DC: Policy Studies Associates.
Turnbull, B. J., Haslam, B., Arcaira, E., Riley, D. L., Sinclair, B., & Coleman, J. S.,
(2009). Evaluation of the School Administration Manager Project. Washington, DC:
Policy Studies Associates.
Turnbull, B. J., White, R. N., & Arcaira, E. (2010). Achievement trends in schools with
school administration mangers (SAMs). Washington, DC: Policy Studies
Associates.
Van Manen, M. (1997). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action
sensitive pedagogy. (2nd ed.). London: The Althouse Press.
Vitaska Shelton, S. (2009). National School Administration Manager Project, National
Conference of State Legislatures, Legisbrief, 17(8). 1-2
von Frank, V. (2011). Interactions shape distributed leadership. The Learning Principal,
6(2), 3-5.
103
Waters, J. T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. A. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30
years of research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement.
Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.
Westley, F., & Mintzberg, H. (1989). Visionary leadership and strategic management.
Strategic Management Journal, 10, 17-32.
Wiles, J., & Bondi, J. (1986). Supervision: A guide to practice (2nd
ed.). Columbus OH:
Merrill.
Wise, J., & Sundsrom, D. (2010). Power of teaching-the science of the art: Behavioral
pathway to teaching excellence. Jacksonville, FL: Atlantic Research Partners.
Wiseman, A. W. (2005). Principals Under Pressure: The Growing Crisis. Lanham, MD:
Scarecrow Press.
Zepeda, S.J. (2007). The principal as instructional leader: A handbook for supervisors.
(2nd
ed.). Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
RECRUITMENT AND COVER COMMUNICATIONS
106
107
APPENDIX B
PRINCIPAL INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
109
Informed Consent for Participation in Dissertative Study
Principals
Purpose of Research The purpose of this study is to examine the National School Administration Manager (SAM) strategy and the fidelity of implementation as a school improvement model. In addition to identifying specific implementation components necessary to impact change, the study will focus on two outcomes. First, the study will examine the relationship between an increase in the principals’ instructional leadership time and the change in teaching practices impacted by principals involved in the National School Administration Manager (SAM) Project. Secondly, the study will examine the impact of participation in the School Administration Manager project on the principal’s perceptions of their job. The study is guided by the following research questions: 1. To what extent does effective implementation of SAM impact principal’s job? 2. To what extent does effective implementation of SAM impact change in teaching practice? Risks or Discomforts No risks are foreseen to you to participate in this study. Data will not be made available to anyone except my doctoral advisor and myself. Participation requires no legal, financial, physical, social, or psychological obligation. Benefits The SAM program has been in existence for 5 years without any data collected to determine if the program is successful as a school improvement model as it relates to increasing the job satisfaction of building principals and changes to teaching practices that will effectively increase student achievement. This study aims to identify components in the SAM program that have led to improving the role of the building principal and classroom teacher.
Through participants interaction with the interviews and the survey questions, they may have an
increased awareness of how the SAM program has benefited other school buildings and how
this school improvement model has influenced a change in teaching practices to increase
student achievement.
110
Benefits to people involved with the SAM program may occur because the study is aimed at perceptions of the program. Any meaningful findings that result from the research will be provided to the participants. Confidentiality The records of this study will be kept private and in a locked location. Any report published will not include any information that will make it possible to identify a particular person. At the completion of the research project, any and all identifying information will be destroyed. Contact Information: Should you have any questions, please contact me at [phone number] [Home/Work]. My dissertation advisor is Dr. Joseph Saban, Northern Illinois University, Department of Leadership, Educational Psychology and Foundations. He may be reached at [email protected] for questions regarding this study. Michael T. Bregy-Wilson Voluntary Nature of the Study: You are not obligated to participate; however, your participation in this study will facilitate a greater understanding as to the level of benefit derived from participating in the SAM Program. This information may be used to shape and improve the program currently in existence. Consented: _________________________________________ ________________________ Principal’s Signature Date
Please Print Name: _____________________________________________________________
APPENDIX C
CERTIFIED STAFF SURVEY PROTOCOL
112
Informed Consent for Participation in Dissertative Study
Certified Staff
Purpose of Research The purpose of this study is to examine the National School Administration Manager (SAM) strategy and the fidelity of implementation as a school improvement model. In addition to identifying specific implementation components necessary to impact change, the study will focus on two outcomes. First, the study will examine the relationship between an increase in the principals’ instructional leadership time and the change in teaching practices impacted by principals involved in the National School Administration Manager (SAM) Project. Secondly, the study will examine the impact of participation in the School Administration Manager project on the principal’s perceptions of their job. The study is guided by the following research questions: 1. To what extent does effective implementation of SAM impact principal’s job?
2. To what extent does effective implementation of SAM impact change in teaching practice?
Risks or Discomforts No risks are foreseen to you to participate in this study. Data will not be made available to anyone except my doctoral advisor and myself. Participation requires no legal, financial, physical, social, or psychological obligation. Benefits The SAM program has been in existence for 5 years without any data collected to determine if the program is successful as a school improvement model as it relates to increasing the job satisfaction of building principals and changes to teaching practices that will effectively increase student achievement. This study aims to identify components in the SAM program that have led to improving the role of the building principal and classroom teacher. Through participants interaction with the interviews and the survey questions, they may have an
increased awareness of how the SAM program has benefited other school buildings and how
this school improvement model has influenced a change in teaching practices to increase
student achievement.
Benefits to people involved with the SAM program may occur because the study is aimed at perceptions of the program. Any meaningful findings that result from the research will be provided to the participants.
113
Confidentiality The records of this study will be kept private and in a locked location. Any report published will not include any information that will make it possible to identify a particular person. At the completion of the research project, any and all identifying information will be destroyed. Contact Information: Should you have any questions, please contact me at [phone number] [Home/Work]. My dissertation advisor is Dr. Joseph Saban, Northern Illinois University, Department of Leadership, Educational Psychology and Foundations. He may be reached at [email protected] for questions regarding this study. Michael T. Bregy-Wilson Voluntary Nature of the Study: You are not obligated to participate; however, your participation in this study will facilitate a greater understanding as to the level of benefit derived from participating in the SAM Program. This information may be used to shape and improve the program currently in existence. Consented: _________________________________________ ________________________ Principal’s Signature Date Please Print Name: _____________________________________________________________
APPENDIX D
PRINCIPAL INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
115
PRINCIPAL INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
1. What motivated you to begin the SAM program?
2. What types of activities are you coding as “instructional”?
3. How do you facilitate instructional conversations with your teachers?
4. What did you do for staff readiness before you began the program?
5. Of what significance was the support of other staff members? parents? students?
6. Describe your district superintendent’s level of support or involvement?
7. What impact has implementing SAM had on your role as principal since establishing
your baseline data?
8. How has the SAM program impacted your satisfaction with the principal role?
9. What components of SAM do you feel are essential to impact the principal’s role?
10. What would you do differently if you had the opportunity to start over with SAM?
11. How will this school improvement model help increase student achievement?
12. Is there anything else you want me to know or any additional comments?
-
