Leadership behavior and effectiveness

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TEACHER-IDENTIFIED PRINCIPAL
LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOR AND EFFECTIVENESS AND STUDENT
ACHIEVEMENT IN SOUTH DAKOTA SECONDARY SCHOOLS
by
Les C. Odegaard
B.S., South Dakota State University, 1977
M.S., South Dakota State University, 1978
Sixth-Year Certificate, St. Cloud State University, 1993
A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Education
Division of Educational Administration
Adult and Higher Education Program
in the Graduate School
The University of South Dakota
May 2008

UMI Number: 3318826
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
®
UMI
UMI Microform 3318826
Copyright 2008 by ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest LLC
789 E. Eisenhower Parkway
PO Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346

Copyright by
LES C. ODEGAARD
2008
All Rights Reserved

Abstract
Les C. Odegaard, Ed.D, Educational Administration
The University of South Dakota, 2008
The Relationship between Teacher-Identified Principal Leadership
Behavior and Effectiveness, and Student Achievement in
South Dakota Secondary Schools
Dissertation directed by Dr. Marlene Jacobson
The study examined the relationship between principal leadership and
student achievement in South Dakota secondary schools. The study also
examined the relationship between principal leadership, school enrollment,
socioeconomic status, and student attendance, and student achievement.
Principal leadership was measured by administering the Transformational
Leadership Behavior Inventory online to 121 teachers in 41 schools. Student
achievement was measured by the Dakota Standardized Test of Educational
Progress (STEP). STEP, school enrollment, socioeconomic status, and student
attendance data were provided by the South Dakota Department of Education. A
Pearson product-moment correlation of the relationship between principal
leadership behavior and student achievement produced r = .11, which was not
significant at the .05 level. A Pearson product-moment correlation of the
relationship between principal leadership and improvement in student
achievement from 2003 to 2006 produced r = -.21, which was not significant at
the .05 level. A multiple regression analysis of the relationship between the
leadership components and improvement in student achievement from 2003 to
2006 found that predictors accounted for 25.7% of the variance within
improvement in student achievement. An ANOVA found that the model was not a
II

significant predictor of improvement in student achievement at the .05 level. The
standardized coefficients revealed that the strongest predictors of improvement
in student achievement were Identifying and Articulating Vision (.43), Fostering
Acceptance of Group Goals (.35), and High Performance Expectations (.34). A
multiple regression analysis of the relationship between principal leadership,
school enrollment, socioeconomic status, and student attendance, and student
achievement found that predictors accounted for 36.8% of the variance within
student achievement. An ANOVA found that the model was a significant predictor
of student achievement at the .05 level. School enrollment and student
attendance were significant predictors of student achievement at the .05 level.
The researcher concluded that there is little or no relationship between principal
leadership behavior and student achievement, and little or no relationship
between principal leadership behavior and improvement in student achievement.
The leadership components are not a significant predictor of improvement in
student achievement. However, Vision, Goals, and Expectations are the
strongest predictors of improvement in student achievement. A model consisting
of principal leadership, school enrollment, socioeconomic status, and student
attendance is a significant predictor of student achievement. School enrollment
and student attendance are strong and significant predictors of student
achievement.
This abstract of approximately 350 words is approved as to form and
content. I recommend its publication.

Doctoral Committee
The members of the committee appointed to examine the dissertation of
Les C. Odegaard find it satisfactory and recommend that it be approved.
•s*-X—
Dr. Marlene Jacoqson, Chair
Dr. Mejai Avoseh
Dr. Mark Baron
vZITffirf
Dr. Patricia Peel
IV

Acknowledgements
I wish to thank Dr. Marlene Jacobson, committee chair, for her guidance,
direction, patience, and encouragement throughout the completion of this study.
I would like to thank Dr. Mejai Avoseh, Dr. Mark Baron, and Dr. Pat Peel for their
considerable commitment and support in the completion of this study. I wish to
thank Dr. Amy Schweinle for her guidance regarding the statistical analysis. I
wish to thank the instructors in The University of South Dakota Division of
Educational Administration for their ongoing guidance and support throughout the
program. I wish to thank the staff at the South Dakota Department of Education
for their assistance in providing school information.
v

Dedication
This study is dedicated to my parents and my family. My parents, Carmi
and Shirley Odegaard have always inspired me to work hard, to do my best, and
to keep on plugging. I thank my sons Daniel and Thomas for their love, patience,
and support. A special thank you goes to my dear wife Feme for her faithful love
and support, and her technical assistance throughout the study.
VI

Table of Contents
Page
Abstract ii
Doctoral Committee iv
Acknowledgements v
Dedication vi
List of Tables x
Chapter
1. Introduction 1
Statement of the Problem 4
Research Questions 4
Significance of the Study 5
Definition of Terms 6
Limitations and Delimitations 10
Assumptions 11
Organization of the Study 11
2. Review of Related Literature and Research 13
School Improvement 13
Leadership Theory 18
Leadership and Student Achievement 27
Summary 37
3. Methodology 39
vii

Research Questions 39
Review of Related Research 40
Population and Sample 42
Instrumentation 44
Data Collection 51
Data Analysis 52
Summary 55
4. Findings of the Study 57
Response Summary 57
Findings 59
Leadership Practices of Secondary Principals 59
Principal Leadership Behavior and Effectiveness,
and Student Achievement 61
Principal Leadership Behavior and Effectiveness,
and Improvement in Student Achievement 63
Transformational and Transactional Leadership Behavior,
and Improvement in Student Achievement 65
Principal Leadership Behavior and School Factors,
Summary 85
5. Summary, Conclusions, Discussion, and Recommendations 87
Summary 87
Purpose of the Study 87
Review of Related Literature 88
Methodology 90
VIII

Findings of the Study 91
Conclusions 94
Discussion 95
Principal Leadership and Student Achievement 95
Principal Leadership and School Factors,
Recommendations 103
References 107
Appendixes 125
A. IRB Approval Letter 125
B. Transformational Leadership Behavior Inventory 126
C. Instrument Permission Letter 127
D. Superintendent Consent Letter 128
E. Superintendent Follow-Up Letter 129
F. Teacher Cover Letter 130
G. Pilot Study Participation Request 131
H. Transformational and Transactional Leadership
Component Data 132
I. Leadership Composite Mean, School Enrollment, Socioeconomic
Status, and Student Attendance Data 136
J. 2003 STEP, 2006 STEP, and STEP Improvement Data 138
K. Transformational and Transactional Leadership Component
Data for the STEPIMP Analysis 140
L LCM, STEP 2003, STEP2006, and STEPIMP Data 142
M. Transformed Leadership Composite Mean, School Enrollment,
Socioeconomic Status, and Student Attendance Data 143
IX

N. Transformed 2006 STEP Data 145
O. Survey Responses to Principal Length of Service 147
x

List of Tables
Table
1. Transformational Leadership Behavior Inventory
and Behavioral Components 47
2. Variable Codes 60
3. Descriptive Statistics for the Principal Leadership Components 61
4. Descriptive Statistics for the LCM and STEP06 62
5. Correlation between LCM and STEP06 62
6. Descriptive Statistics for LCM and STEPIMP 64
7. Correlation between LCM and STEPIMP 64
8. Descriptive Statistics for the Principal Leadership Components
and STEPIMP 66
9. Skewness Statistics for the Principal Leadership Components
and STEPIMP 67
10. Residual Statistics for the Principal Leadership Components
and STEPIMP 68
11. Correlation between the Principal Leadership Components
and STEPIMP 69
12. Collinearity Statistics for the Principal Leadership Components 71
13. Regression Model Summary for the Principal Leadership Components
and STEPIMP 73
14. Analysis of Variance of the Principal Leadership Components
and STEPIMP 74
15. Coefficients of the Principal Leadership Components 75
16. Descriptive Statistics for LCM, ENROLL, SES, ADA,
andSTEP06 76
17. Skewness Statistics for LCM, ENROLL, SES, ADA,
andSTEP06 77
XI

18. Residual Statistics for LCM, ENROLL, SES, ADA
andSTEP06 78
19. Descriptive Statistics for the Transformed LCM, ENROLL, SES, ADA,
andSTEP06 79
20. Skewness Statistics for the Transformed LCM, ENROLL, SES, ADA,
andSTEP06 80
21. Residual Statistics for the Transformed LCM, ENROLL, SES, ADA,
andSTEP06 81
22. Correlations between the Transformed LCM, ENROLL, SES, ADA,
andSTEP06 82
23. Regression Model Summary for the Transformed LCM, ENROLL,
SES, ADA, and STEP06 83
24. Analysis of Variance of the Transformed LCM, ENROLL, SES,
ADA, and STEP06 84
25. Coefficients for the Transformed LCM, ENROLL, SES, ADA,
andSTEP06 85
XII

1
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
The United States Constitution provides for a federal system in which
powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved for the states.
Throughout United States history, the states have assumed the responsibility of
providing public education. In the early 1900's, the federal government initiated
the process of standardized and IQ testing (Cobb, 2004). Scholastic Aptitude
Tests (SAT) were developed in the 1920's followed by the American College Test
(ACT) to assess student potential to succeed in higher education.
Five educational reform movements from 1950 through 1990 implemented
standardized testing for the purpose of assessing tracking and selection,
program accountability, minimum competency, school and district accountability,
and standards-based performance (Linn, 2000). In 1990, the United States
Department of Education implemented annual assessment of academic progress
by administering the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). The
Department of Education reported the assessment results. However, the primary
responsibility for educational reform and academic achievement remained at the
state and local levels of governance.
In the late 1980's, a number of states implemented annual standardized
testing procedures for the purpose of establishing uniform standards and
requiring schools to be accountable for academic progress (Goals 2000, 1996).
In 1994, President Clinton signed into law Goals 2000. Goals 2000 continued the
transition toward centralization by establishing federal educational standards. In

2
January, 2002, President George W. Bush signed Public Law 107-110,
commonly known as the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) (ED.gov, 2006). The
purpose of the law was "To close the achievement gap with accountability,
flexibility, and choice so that no child is left behind" (ED.gov, 2006, p. 1).
No Child Left Behind constituted a profound expansion of the role of the
federal government in public education (Wenning, 2003). NCLB placed the
nation's schools under an unprecedented level of federal scrutiny that required
states to implement standards-based assessment and federal accountability
procedures (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2007).
Federal standards-based accountability has compelled school districts to
review and revise their educational processes and procedures. Students are no
longer expected to meet the achievement standards required by local boards or
the state. Instead, schools are obligated to demonstrate annual yearly progress
as prescribed by federal law. This new process has encumbered educators with
the responsibility of ensuring a progressively higher level of student achievement
beginning in 2003 through 2014.
Numerous studies (Bell, Bolam, & Cubillo, 2003; Marzano, Waters, &
McNulty, 2005; O'Donnell & White, 2005; Verona, 2001; Waters, Marzano, &
McNulty, 2003; Witziers, Bosker, & Kruger, 2003) have identified the importance
of effective educational leadership. With the advent of standards-based
accountability, the importance of educational leadership has dramatically
increased. The principal's philosophy, leadership style, praxis, and effectiveness
have become critical factors in reorganizing schools to meet the new

3
accountability standards. Therefore, it was vital that researchers scrutinize
principal leadership behavior and effectiveness, and its relationship with student
achievement.
Research and related literature (Heck, Larsen, & Marcoulides, 1990;
Sergiovanni, 1990; Sizemore, Brossard, & Harrigan, 1983; Verona, 2001) have
provided a preponderance of evidence that principal leadership is a critical factor
in determining the effectiveness of a school. To meet the rigors of modern
accountability, principals need to possess a combination of leadership skills that
heretofore were not essential. The challenge of this inquiry is to determine the
relationship between principal leadership behavior and student achievement.
Educators have long acknowledged the importance of strong educational
leadership. However, researchers have struggled to identify clear evidence of the
influence of principal leadership. Researchers (Barnett, McCormick, & Conners,
2000; Barr, 2006; Leithwood & Jantzi, 1999a; Marks & Printy, 2003; McGuigan &
Hoy, 2006) have established the influence of leadership on school climate,
teacher confidence, teacher commitment, and teacher retention.
Several researchers (Hallinger & Heck, 1996, 1998; Leithwood & Jantzi,
1999b; Witziers, Bosker, & Kruger, 2003) reported that identifying a relationship
between leadership behavior and student achievement has been elusive.
Researchers (Archer, 2006; Byrd, Slater, & Brooks, 2006; Leithwood & Jantzi,
2005; Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005; O'Donnell & White, 2005; Verona,
2001; Wooderson-Perzan & Lunenburg, 2001) found that principal leadership
behavior was directly related to student achievement. Yet others (Bosker &

4
Witziers, 1996; Fischer, 2005; Murphy, 1988) found that the relationship
between leadership effectiveness and student achievement was weak,
insignificant, or that there was no relationship.
Statement of the Problem
The main purpose of the study was to collect and analyze data for the
purpose of examining the relationship between principal leadership behavior and
effectiveness, and student achievement in South Dakota secondary schools. The
study was designed to examine the relationship between principal leadership
behavior and student achievement. The study also examined the relationship
between principal leadership and improvement in student achievement from
2003 to 2006.
The study examined seven individual components of principal leadership
and their relationship with improvement in student achievement from 2003 to
2006. The study also analyzed the relationship between principal leadership,
school enrollment, socioeconomic status, and student attendance, and student
achievement.
Research Questions
The study was designed to collect and analyze data relative to principal
leadership behavior and student achievement. To achieve this goal the following
research questions were proposed:
1. What are the leadership practices of principals in South Dakota
secondary schools?

5
2. What is the relationship between principal leadership behavior and
effectiveness, and student achievement in South Dakota secondary schools?
effectiveness, and improvement in student achievement in South Dakota
secondary schools?
4. What is the relationship between transformational leadership behavior
and transactional leadership behavior, and improvement in student achievement
in South Dakota secondary schools?
5. What is the relationship between principal leadership behavior, school
enrollment, socioeconomic status, and student attendance, and student
achievement in South Dakota secondary schools?
Significance of the Study
Educators have long acknowledged the need for effective educational
leadership. However, the process of establishing conclusive evidence of a
relationship between principal leadership and student achievement has proven to
be problematic. Three studies (Bosker & Witziers, 1996; Fischer, 2005; Murphy,
1988) found no significant relationship between measures of educational
leadership and student achievement. Other studies (Archer, 2006; Byrd, Slater, &
Brooks, 2006; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2005; O'Donnell & White, 2005; Verona, 2001;
Wooderson-Perzan & Lunenburg, 2001) have found that there was a significant
relationship between leadership behavior and student achievement. Mid-
continent Research for Education and Learning (McREL) reviewed 30 years of
research in educational administration and found significant relationships

6
between leadership behavior and student achievement (Waters, Marzano, &
McNulty, 2003).
The federal standards mandated by the No Child Left Behind Act require
schools to incrementally increase student achievement each year from 2003
through 2014. The act stipulates that failure to meet these standards can result in
corrective action such as probationary status (school improvement), non-renewal
of staff, loss of administrative authority, restructuring, and dissolution
(Department of Education, 2006). Therefore, it was imperative that educators and
researchers identify every possible means to effectuate substantial, continuous,
and unremitting improvement in student achievement.
Several writers (Cotton, 2003; Fullan, 2001; Marzano, Waters, & McNulty,
2005; Schnur, 2003) have emphasized the importance of strong leadership in
education. The contemporary focus on student achievement and accountability
standards compels researchers to examine the relationship between principal
leadership and student achievement, and identify the most compelling praxes.
Definition of Terms
The following definitions are provided to ensure uniformity and clarity of
these terms throughout the study. The definitions that are not cited were
developed by the researcher.
Achievement Standards: The No Child Left Behind Act defined student
achievement standards as below basic, basic, proficient, and advanced based on
the performance of students on annual standardized tests. These standards are

7
used to determine the effectiveness of a school's educational program relative
to student achievement.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): The No Child Left Behind Act requires
states to develop their own definitions (Goertz, 2001) within the following
parameters:
1. Apply the same high standards of academic achievement for all
2. Develop processes that are statistically valid and reliable
3. Include separate and measurable annual objectives for continuous and
substantial academic improvement for all students
4. Include graduation rates for high school and one other indicator for
other schools (ED.gov, 2003).
Average Daily Attendance: Refers to the aggregate number of days of
student attendance for the regular school year divided by the aggregate number
of days of student enrollment.
Average Daily Membership: Refers to the aggregate number of days of
student enrollment for the regular school year.
Collaboration: Being both cooperative and assertive, trying to satisfy
everyone's concerns as fully as possible by working through differences, finding
and solving problems so that everyone gains. Collaboration involves working
through conflict differences and solving problems so that everyone wins
(Manning, 2003).
Dakota Standardized Test of Educational Progress (STEP): The Dakota
STEP is a standards-based test developed in South Dakota in cooperation with

8
Harcourt Assessment. It is aligned with the state's academic standards and
normed to a reference group (South Dakota, 2004).
Leadership: Leadership is an interpersonal influence directed toward the
achievement of a goal or goals (Allen, 1998).
Leadership Effectiveness: Mastery of a wide range of skills and how to
make the most of opportunities to learn, lead, and achieve goals.
Management: Management is the process of setting and achieving the
goals of the organization through the functions of management: planning,
organizing, directing and controlling (Allen, 1998).
No Child Left Behind (NCLB): The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 is a
federal law that requires annual testing, specifies a method forjudging school
effectiveness, sets a timeline for progress, and establishes specific
consequences for failure (Wenning, 2003).
Socioeconomic Status (SES): Characteristics of economic, social and
physical environments in which individuals live and work, as well as demographic
characteristics. Measures of SES include Income and Education
quartiles/quartiles and Socioeconomic Risk Index (SERI) or Socioeconomic
Factor Index (SEFI) scores. It is often ranked from 1 (poor) to 5 (wealthy), based
on income quintiles that measure mean household income, and grouped into five
income quintiles, each quintile assigned to 20% of the population (Manitoba
Center for Health Policy, 2003).

9
For this study, socioeconomic status is defined by the percentage of
students in each school that qualify for and participate in the free and reduced
lunch program.
Standardized Test: A test administered in accordance with explicit
directions for uniform administration (Indiana Department of Education, 2005).
Transactional Leadership: Transactional leadership is based on a
transaction or exchange of something of value the leader possesses or controls
that the follower wants in return for his/her services (Homrig, 2006).
Transformational Leadership: "Transformational leadership refers to the
leader moving the follower beyond immediate self-interest through idealized
influence (charisma), inspiration, intellectual stimulation, or individualized
consideration. It elevates the follower's level of maturity and ideals as well as
concerns for achievement, self-actualization, and the well-being of others, the
organization, and society" (Bass, 1999, p. 11). Transformational Leadership
occurs when one or more persons engage with others in such a way that leaders
and followers raise one another to higher levels of motivation and morality
(Homrig, 2006).
Transformational Leadership Behavior Inventory (TLI): The
Transformational Leadership Behavior Inventory was developed in 1996 by
Podsakoff, MacKenzie, and Bommer to assess six components of
transformational leadership behavior and one component of transactional
leadership behavior (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Bommer, 1996).

10
Limitations and Delimitations
The researcher acknowledges the following limitations and delimitations of
the study:
1. The longitudinal analysis was delimited to schools in which the
principal was continuously employed as principal from 2003 through 2006.
2. The longitudinal analysis did not involve repeated measures of the
same students.
3. The length of time that students attended each school was not
considered.
4. The middle-level and high school-level schools included in the study
were not comprised of identical grade levels.
5. For the purpose of manageability and objectivity, the survey instrument
did not include open-ended response items.
6. Due to the desire to survey 10 teachers per school and to minimize
analyzing schools where the principal served as both middle-level and high
school principal, the study was delimited to middle-level schools and high
schools where the reported enrollment exceeded 120 students.
7. The researcher attempted to survey 10 teachers in each school.
Therefore, the ratio of the teacher sample to the teacher population and to the
student population was unequal.

11
Assumptions
The researcher made the following assumptions:
1. The participants in this study served as a representative sample of
the total population of South Dakota teachers, principals, and students.
2. Teachers responded with accuracy and integrity in completing the
Inventory.
3. The responsibilities of school principals are relatively similar.
4. The results of the Dakota STEP were an accurate assessment of
student achievement.
5. The free and reduced lunch data produced an accurate sample of
students from low socioeconomic families.
6. Data for average daily attendance (ADA) and average daily
membership (ADM) specific to middle-level schools were not available.
Therefore, the researcher used the 2005-06 K-8 ADA and ADM for each district
to approximate the ADA and ADM for each middle-level school. Since South
Dakota Codified Law requires students to attend school through age 16, the
researcher assumed that the data for ADA and ADM for grades K-8 for each
district did not vary significantly from the middle-level values for each school.
Organization of the Study
Chapter 1 has presented the introduction, a statement of the problem,
research questions, the significance of the study, a definition of terms, limitations
and delimitations, assumptions, and the organization of the study. Chapter 2
contains a review of related literature and research relative to school

12
improvement, leadership theory, and leadership and student achievement. The
methodology and procedures used to gather data for the study are presented in
Chapter 3. The response summary and the findings of the study are presented in
Chapter 4. Chapter 5 contains a summary, the purpose of the study, the findings
of the study, the conclusions drawn from the findings, a discussion, and
recommendations for practice and further investigation.

13
CHAPTER 2
Review of Related Literature
This section of the study provides the background information regarding
school improvement, leadership theory, and leadership and student
achievement. This section also presents literature and research that directly
examine the relationship between principal leadership and student achievement.
School Improvement
Throughout the history of American education, the responsibility of
educating the nation's youth has traditionally been delegated to the states which,
in turn, have delegated the responsibility to locally elected boards. School
governance and reform has traditionally been administered at the state and local
levels. Under this system, educators enjoyed a long history of academic freedom
and the responsiveness of state and local control in selecting and incorporating
educational reform strategies.
Twentieth century federal interventions in education began by developing
programs designed to meet the needs of society and improve national security.
Early 20th
century educational reform movements were based on developing
workforce competencies, citizenship, and civic responsibility. The success of the
Allied Forces in World War II revealed the importance of technological
superiority.
In 1945, Prosser found that 20% of the nation's students were prepared
for college. Based on his finding, Prosser proposed that 20% of the nation's
public school students develop specific occupational skills, and the remaining

60% would benefit from developing the skills necessary for homemaking,
vocations, and immediate employment (PBS.org, 2001). Prosser's leadership
founded the Life Adjustment Movement, a curriculum sponsored by the U. S.
Department of Education which promoted vocational education and technical
training. As a result of the Life Adjustment Movement, school curricula by the
1950s were highly tracked and a majority of students received an education that
lacked academic rigor (Education Encyclopedia, 2007).
In 1957 the Soviet space program shocked the world by successfully
launching a satellite into space. This caused fear of Russian technological
superiority and its inherent threat to United States national security. The
American response resulted in a race between the Soviet and the American
space programs to be the first to successfully put the first manned space craft in
space. The crisis placed American education in the national spotlight, marked the
end of the Life Adjustment Movement, and prompted a dramatic increase in
federal education funding (New York State Education Department, 2006).
The nation responded to the crisis by calling for educational reform,
particularly in the areas of math, science, and foreign language (Dickson, 2007;
Howes, 2002). The National Defense Education Act of 1958 provided funds to
states and local districts to improve instruction in math, science, and foreign
language. Over the next 10 years, the annual budget for the National Science
Foundation increased by more than a factor of 10 from $40,000,000 to
$500,000,000 (National Science Foundation, 2008). The Foundation placed a

15
high priority on university research and improving graduate programs in
science education (National Science Foundation, 1994).
The next major reform movement began in 1983 when the National
Commission on Excellence in Education released A Nation at Risk in which the
Commission the reported pervasive mediocrity throughout the nation's
educational system. The Commission concluded, "We have been, in effect,
committing an act of unthinking unilateral disarmament" (North Central Regional
Education Laboratory, 2008, p. 5). The report resulted in a demand for higher
graduation requirements, standardized curricula, increased assessments for
teachers and students, and increased certification requirements (Gordon, 2006).
The urgent rhetoric of the report created an impetus for school improvement that
prompted a wave of reforms predicated on the belief that educational institutions
were large, inefficient, unresponsive bureaucracies incapable of self-reform.
Educational observers recommended school reorganization (Gordon,
2005). Policy-makers were urged to decentralize large districts and implement a
bottom-up approach. State governments agreed to less regulation in exchange
for more accountability. As a result, many large districts implemented site-based
decision making. School districts were restructured so that principals, teachers,
parents, and community members were empowered to make decisions and new
technology was incorporated.
The decentralization movement failed to produce school improvement
(Vander Ark, 2002). As a result, state governments promoted charter schools.

Charter schools were designed to operate beyond the purview of district policy
and in some cases, beyond state regulation.
By the late 1980s, California, Kentucky, and Maryland had developed
state initiatives to establish standards, a common curriculum, and annual
assessments. In 1989 President George H. W. Bush met with the nation's
governors in Charlottesville, Virginia. The conference initiated a nationwide shift
from state and local control to federal intervention. The attendees at the
conference agreed to establish national standards and assessments including
the following set of goals to be achieved by 2000 (National, 1993):
1. Provide preschool programs to ensure that all students are prepared to
learn.
2. Increase the high school graduation rate to a minimum of 90%.
3. Demonstrate grade-level competency of core academic subjects in
fourth, eighth, and twelfth grades.
4. Achieve first in the world in math and science achievement.
5. Reach universal literacy among American adults.
6. Provide a drug and violence-free learning environment for all students.
In 1994, President Clinton signed into law Goals 2000. Goals 2000
continued the transition toward centralization by establishing federal educational
standards. Unfortunately, misconceptions, rhetorical diversity, and political
infighting resulted in several states rejecting the movement.
In January, 2002, President George W. Bush signed Public Law 107-110,
commonly known as the No Child Left Behind Act (ED.gov, 2006). The purpose

17
of the law was, "To close the achievement gap with accountability, flexibility,
and choice so that no child is left behind" (ED.gov, 2006, p. 1). No Child Left
Behind (NCLB) constituted a profound expansion of the federal role in education
(Wenning, 2003). For the first time in United States history, the federal
government mandated compliance with a uniform set of professional standards
and educational accountability procedures (National, 2007).
Beginning in 2003, NCLB required all students in grades three through
eight to be tested in math and reading. The law required that these assessments
be aligned with state standards and that schools demonstrate adequate yearly
progress. The law further required that all students demonstrate proficiency by
2014 (Pastore, 2005). In summary, NCLB incrementally raised academic
standards, held schools accountable for student achievement, required that
every child demonstrate proficiency in reading and performance of mathematical
calculations, insured that all teachers are highly qualified, and provided choices
and flexibility for parents.
No Child Left Behind mandated that educators reform education. NCLB
has placed schools in a position where their existence is contingent upon their
ability to increase student achievement. In response, many schools have revised
their staff development efforts. For the purpose of effecting reform, educators
have focused on implementing research-based instructional strategies (Geissler
& Stickney, 2006). Schools have organized collaborative teams that consist of
teachers and administrators for the purpose of implementing reforms and peer
review.

18
The shift to standards-based accountability has increased the
significance of principal leadership in facilitating educational reform. Principal
leadership has become a critical factor in reorganizing schools to meet the new
accountability standards. It is vital that researchers scrutinize the relationship
between principal leadership behavior and student achievement.
Leadership Theory
The literature presents a variety of definitions of leadership. Bennis (1990,
p. 46) defined leadership as, "...the capacity to translate vision into reality." Doyle
and Smith (2001) organized modern leadership studies into four generations of
theories:
1. Trait theories.
2. Behavioral theories.
3. Contingency theories.
4. Transformational theories.
These generations of theories developed in a generally chronological
order. However, there were periods when generations of theories coincided as
support for one generation waned and another emerged (Van Maurik, 2001).
Early 20th
century leadership studies identified special traits or
characteristics that differentiated between leaders and non-leaders. The origin of
the Trait generation of theories is generally credited to the efforts of the United
States military during World War I to identify and predict leadership capacity
(Muldoon, 2004). Researchers and practitioners examined physical traits, social
traits, personality traits, and task-related traits. Physical traits included age,

19
height, and energy-level. Social traits consisted of such traits as charisma,
tact, popularity, and diplomacy as well as genetic and educational background.
Personality traits included self-confidence, adaptability, assertiveness, and
emotional stability. Task-related traits included drive to excel, acceptance of
responsibility, initiative, and results-orientation (Allen, 1998).
Tead (1935) proposed a list of leadership qualities. Subsequent studies
focused on intelligence, birth order, socioeconomic status, and child-rearing
practice (Bass, 1960; Bird, 1940).
Stogdill (1948) found that there was a moderate correlation between the
following six factors that were related to leadership:
1. Capacity.
2. Achievement.
3. Responsibility.
4. Participation.
5. Status.
6. Situational.
Stogdill (1948, p. 64) acknowledged that, "A person does not become a
leader by virtue of the possession of some combination of traits." In 1959, both
Stogdill and Mann found that many surveys differentiated between the
characteristics of leaders and followers. Stogdill and Mann concurred that the
differences between the characteristics of leaders and followers were small.
Therefore, both researchers abandoned this line of study. Subsequent research
failed to lend support to the Trait theories (Wright, 1996).

Support for the Trait generation of theories faded when it became
apparent that special traits or characteristics were not reliable predictors of
leadership ability and that the theories failed to consider interactions between
leaders and followers (Johns & Moser, 2001). The Trait theories also failed to
acknowledge that leaders can be developed through training and experience.
Although it continues to be popular to offer lists of desirable leadership
characteristics, this area of research has largely been abandoned.
The Behavioral generation of theories emerged in the 1950s and 1960s as
support for the Trait theories dwindled. The Behavioral theories examined what
leaders do that distinguishes them from non-leaders. This generation of theories
coincided with the development of the Behavioralist theory of learning.
The Behavioral theories represented a marked divergence from the Trait
generation of theories because it focused on the process of leadership rather
than the traits of the leader. Behavioral theories assume that leadership is
contingent upon actions and therefore leaders can be developed.
The Behavioral generation of theories consists of the following four main
categories of leadership behavior (Doyle & Smith, 2001):
Concern for task: Leader emphasizes the completion of concrete tasks.
Concern for people: Leader addresses followers as people.
Directive leadership: Leader makes decisions for others.
Participative leadership: Leader shares decision-making with followers.

21
Many of the Behavioral theories described and contrasted conflicting
leadership styles. The theories assumed that leaders could be separated into
dichotomous categories based on leadership behavior.
Researchers at the University of Iowa identified three styles of leadership:
autocratic, democratic, and laissez-faire (Lewin, Lippitt, & White, 1939). In the
1950s, Stogdill (1959) and Fleishman (1957) conducted studies at Ohio State
University that applied factor analysis to reduce the number of leadership factors
to the smallest number. The researchers developed the Leadership Behavior
Description Questionnaire which resulted in the first two-dimensional model. The
dichotomous model identified considerate leadership style and initiating-structure
leadership style (Shartle, 1979). During the same period, Katz and Kahn (1952)
at the University of Michigan proposed a model that consisted of task-oriented
leadership, relationship-oriented leadership, and participatory leadership.
McGregor (1960) proposed Theory X and Theory Y leadership styles.
McGregor's model identified the interactions of leaders and non-leaders by
contrasting directive leadership style and participative leadership style.
As Behavioral theories research progressed, it became evident that
leadership behavior was more complex than the early models proposed. Blake
and Mouton (1964) posited that the factors that comprised the dichotomous
Behavioral models were mutually inter-related. Blake and Mouton's Managerial
Grid model contrasted the leader's concern for task and concern for people, and
theorized that the leader's effectiveness was contingent upon both factors. Wren
(1979) suggested that the two orientations were not mutually exclusive, and

proposed that a leader could possess both high task and high relationship
orientations.
Critics of the Behavioral generation of theories argued that effective
leadership varied according to the situation to which it was applied and that the
models were not adaptable to a variety of changing circumstances. Boje (2000)
reported that the Behavioral theories simply describe the nature of the
transactions between leaders and non-leaders. The Behavioral theories also
failed to define whether a direct cause and effect Skinnerean relationship exists
between leader and non-leader behavior. Therefore, the Behavioral theories
failed to quantify the effectiveness of leadership behaviors.
Beginning in the late 1940s, researchers studied the influence of
situational factors on leadership behavior. The Contingency generation of
theories proposed that leadership is a dynamic process involving leaders,
followers, and circumstances. Researchers have generally agreed on the
following set of contingency or situational variables (Filley, House, & Kerr, 1976):
Supportive Leadership: Leader exhibits concern for the welfare of
followers.
Instrumental or directive Leadership: Leader emphasizes coordinating,
planning, and directing.
Participative Leadership: Leader shares power with followers.
Achievement Leadership: Leader sets challenging goals and expect
followers to assume the responsibility of achieving the goals.

With the addition of contingency as a variable, leadership models
became increasingly complex. Fiedler (1964, 1967) studied leadership by
developing a Least Preferred Co-worker Model. Participants ranked their co-
workers in terms of their personal characteristics and the desire of participants to
work with co-workers. Fiedler determined that leadership is contingent upon two
factors: the personality of the leader and the leader's ability to control situational
contingencies. Fiedler identified the following situational contingencies:
Leader-member relations: The extent to which the followers accept the
leader's leadership.
Task structure: The extent to which the followers' tasks are described in
detail.
Position power: The amount of formal authority inherent in leadership
positions.
Vroom and Yetton (1973) studied leadership in terms of decision-making
processes relative to two contingencies: decision quality and decision
acceptance. Hencley (1973) concluded that leadership is influenced more by the
demands of the situation than it is the characteristics of the individual.
Mitchell and House (1974) developed the Path-Goal Theory of Leadership
which proposed that leaders provide the encouragement and support necessary
for subordinates to fulfill the goals of the organization. The writers recommended
that leaders adjust their approach according to the demands of the situation. The
writers described four styles of leadership:
Supportive Leadership: Leader exhibits concern for followers and

maintains a friendly work environment.
Directive Leadership: Leader directs followers and provides appropriate
guidance.
Participative Leadership: Leader consults followers when making
decisions.
Achievement-oriented Leadership: Leader sets goals and exhibits
confidence in the ability of followers to meet the goals.
Hersey and Blanchard (1977) proposed that the ideal type of interaction
between the leader and the subordinate was contingent upon the ability and the
experience of subordinates. The Situational Leadership Model consists of the
following four phases of interaction:
Telling: Leader utilizes a high task/low relationship approach to direct the
activities of low-functioning followers.
Selling: Leader utilizes a high task/high relationship approach to persuade
and motivate competent but underachieving followers.
Participating: Leader utilizes a low task/high relationship approach to
persuade underachieving followers to adopt the leader's vision.
Delegating: Leader utilizes a low task/low relationship approach to exhibit
trust and confidence.
Three general concerns have been expressed regarding the Contingency
theories. The theories appear to be culture and gender specific. The theories are
confined to an examination of the interactions between leaders and immediate

25
subordinates. The theories fail to address the effectiveness or productivity of
leadership in terms of organizational success.
The fourth generation of leadership theories is the Transformational
theories. Burns (1978) has been widely recognized as the first to introduce this
concept of leadership. Burns (1978) argued that prior leadership theories focused
on the traits of great leaders and the transactions between leaders and
subordinates. Burns delineated between the role of the manager as a negotiator
or transactor who provides rewards for efforts and the role of the leader who
endeavors to change, improve, and transform the organization. Burns suggested
that leaders collaborate with subordinates for their mutual benefit. Burns stated,
"Transformational leadership occurs when one or more persons engage with
others in such a ways as to raise one another to higher levels of motivation and
morality" (1978, p. 20).
Burns (1978, p. 4) suggested that political leaders can be grouped into two
categories: transactional leaders that exchange contingency rewards for services
rendered, and transformational leaders which he described as, "...more complex
and more potent." Burns stated that transformational leaders seek to satisfy the
higher needs of their constituents and, "...engage the full person of the follower"
(Burns, 1978, p. 4). Burns posited that transformational leaders facilitate change
and movement within an organization.
Subsequent theorists generalized Burn's transformational leadership
model to apply to leader-follower interactions. Bass (1985) generalized
transformational leadership to apply to business, education, government, and the

armed services. Bass proposed a transformational model based on four
dimensions:
Individual consideration.
Intellectual stimulation.
Inspirational motivation.
Idealized influence.
Tichy and Devanna (1986, p. 9) proposed that managers maintain the
status quo and leave the organization much as they found it. In contrast,
transformational leaders focus on change, innovation, and entrepreneurship, and
thus lead the organization to a, "...new and more compelling vision." Bass and
Avolio (1997) suggested that transformational and transactional leadership
behaviors do not fall at opposite ends of the leadership spectrum. Effective
leadership consists of incorporating transformational behaviors to supplement
transactional behavior, and applying the model to meet the requirements of the
situation. Leithwood (1992) noted that transactional leadership is necessary to
address daily routines while transformational leadership provides the incentive to
improve.
Bass and Avolio (1997) proposed that transformational leadership consists
of a set of behavioral constructs. According to Bass and Avolio's model,
transactional leadership is divided into two groups: contingency rewards and
management by exception. Transformational leadership consists of idealized
influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized
consideration. Bass and Avolio (1997) suggested that transformational

leadership behaviors result in higher productivity and that the behaviors can be
acquired and developed.
Podsakoff, MacKenzie, and Bommer (1996) developed a leadership
model that consisted of six transformational components and a transactional
component. Podsakoff, et al.'s transformational components consisted of:
Identifying and Articulating Vision: Leader identifies new opportunities and
develops, articulates, and inspires other with his or her vision of the future.
Providing an Appropriate Model: Leader sets an example for followers that
is consistent with the values the leader espouses.
Fostering Acceptance of Group Goals: Leader promotes cooperation
among employees and inspires them to work together toward a common goal.
Establishing High Performance Expectations: Leader demonstrates
expectations of excellence, quality, and/or high performance.
Providing Individual Support: Leader demonstrates respect for followers
and concern about their personal feelings and needs.
Providing Intellectual Stimulation: Leader challenges followers to re-
examine some of their assumptions about their work and rethink how it can be
performed.
Podsakoff et al.'s model included Contingency Rewards as a transactional
component.
Leadership and Student Achievement
Three writers and researchers have documented the need for effective
educational leadership. According to Cotton (2003, p. 1), "It would be difficult to

find an educational researcher or practitioner who does not believe that school
principals are critically important to school success." Cotton further stated that,
"...decades of research have consistently found positive relationships between
principal behavior and student academic achievement" (Cotton, 2003, p. 1).
Schnur (2004, p. 1) noted, "The evidence is clear: the leadership of effective
principals is fundamental to school improvement and student achievement."
Fullan (2001, p. 65) stated that, "School capacity is seriously undermined if it
does not have...quality leadership." Marzano, Waters, and McNulty (2005, p. 5)
stated, "Leadership is considered to be vital to the successful functioning of many
aspects of a school."
Several writers have confirmed the recent transformation of the role of the
principal (Campbell, Cunningham, Nystrand, & Usdan, 1990; Fullan, 1998;
Malone & Caddell, 2000; Portin, 1997; Usdan, McCloud, & Podmostko, 2000).
Campbell, Cunningham, Nystrand, & Usdan (1990) chronicled the evolution of
the roles and responsibilities of the principalship as follows: one-room teacher,
head teacher, teaching principal, school principal, and supervising principal.
Portin (1997, p. 1) studied public school principals in the state of Washington and
reported the following fundamental shift in the role of the principal. "Principals
face increasingly complex interactions and tasks while simultaneously
encountering limitations to their capacity to lead their schools." Fullan (1998)
concurred by stating,
The job of the principal or any educational leader has become increasingly
complex and constrained. Principals find themselves locked in with less

and less room to maneuver. They have become more and more
dependent on context. At the very time that proactive leadership is
essential, principals are in the least favorable position to provide it (p. 1).
According to Malone and Caddell (2000, p. 162), "The principalship has
evolved into a sixth stage as principals assume the role of change agent...."
Usdan, McCloud, and Podmostko (2000, p. 4) stated, "Schools are changing
dramatically. Principals in the coming decades will lead schools that are far
different than those today."
Researchers (Barnett, McCormick, & Conners, 2000; Bell, Bolam, &
Cubillo, 2003; Firestone & Wilson, 1989; Gurr, 1997; Krug, 1992; Leithwood &
Montgomery, 1982) have established direct and indirect relationships between
principal leadership behavior and student achievement. Leithwood and
Montgomery (1982) found that effective elementary principals were instructional
leaders focused on program improvement while ineffective principals felt buried
in paper. Firestone and Wilson (1989) found that principal leadership support of
teachers managing instruction was positively related to student achievement.
Krug (1992) reported a significant positive correlation between principal
instructional leadership and student achievement. Gurr (1997) studied Australian
schools and found that the influence of principal leadership on student outcomes
is considerable but indirect. Barnett, McCormick, and Conners (2000) also
studied Australian secondary schools and concluded that transformational
leadership enhances positive teacher outcomes, task focus goals, and
excellence in teaching.

30
Bell, Bolam, and Cubillo (2003) reviewed eight studies of school
leadership and student achievement in primary and secondary schools
conducted in the United Kingdom, Hong Kong, Canada, the Netherlands, and the
United States. Bell et al. found that all of the studies confirmed "some," evidence
that school leadership affects student outcomes. One study confirmed significant
direct effects on student achievement and another study found significant indirect
effects on student achievement.
Witziers, Bosker, and Kruger (2003) conducted a meta-analysis of 37
studies of school leadership and student achievement conducted between 1986
and 1996. The researchers reported a small direct relationship between principal
leadership and student achievement. O'Donnell and White (2005) reported that
principal leadership behaviors which focused on instructional leadership and the
school learning climate were identified as predictors of student achievement.
In an attempt to best quantify leadership behavior, the researcher
examined a number of contemporary leadership models. Smith and Forbes
(2001) suggested a competency-based model which consisted of evaluation,
personality and self-assessment, experiential learning, development of career
plans, career coaching, and selection of coursework to enhance skills to achieve
career and life goals. Caruso and Salovey (2004) proposed an emotionally-
intelligent model based on identifying emotions, using emotions, understanding
emotions, and managing emotions.

31
Purkey and Siegal (2003) recommended an invitational model based
on the assumptions that education should be a collaborative, cooperative
activity, involving all participants, that people possess untapped potential, that
human potential can best be realized by places, policies, and processes that are
specifically designed to invite development, and that people must be
intentionally inviting with themselves and others. Bell, Bolam, and Cubillo (2003)
proposed a distributed model which empowers stakeholders to take
responsibility for student achievement and to assume leadership roles in their
areas of competency.
Leithwood, Jantzi, & Steinbach (1999) identified six contemporary
leadership models in education: instructional, transformational, moral,
participative, managerial/transactional, and contingent. Waters, Marzano, &
McNulty (2003) proposed a balanced model that consisted of 21 leadership
roles. Brewster (2005) described three leadership models as predominant
among successful principals: the transformational model, the instructional
model, and the balanced model.
For this study, the researcher was unable to find an instrument that
assessed balanced leadership that was suitable for research. The researcher
rejected the instructional model because the model focused on a single
leadership construct and failed to address multiple dimensions of educational
leadership.
The researcher found support for application of the transformational

leadership model in education. Castro (1998) reported a consensus among
writers regarding the components of transformational leadership. Sergiovanni
(1990, p. 23) suggested that student achievement can be "remarkably improved"
by transformational leadership. Sagor (1992, p. 1) worked with 50 school staffs to
incorporate collaborative action research and observed that,"... transformative
leaders in action share one thing: ...exemplary schools." Stewart (2006, p.1)
reviewed studies of effects of transformational leadership on organizational
learning and school improvement and concluded, "The evidence suggested that
transformational leadership stimulates improvement."
Writers and researchers have recommended that principals respond to the
demands of higher standards and greater accountability by developing and
incorporating transformational leadership strategies (Leithwood & Jantzi, 1991;
Leithwood & Poplin, 1992; Leithwood & Steinbach, 1991; Sagor, 1992;
Sergiovanni, 1990). Sagor (1992, p. 14) found that transformational leadership
was practiced in schools where teachers and students reported a culture,
"...conducive to school success."
Leithwood & Poplin (1992) proposed that school leaders approach school
reform by focusing their attention on first-order and second-order changes. First-
order changes involve improving the technical and instructional activities of the
school by guiding and monitoring the classroom work of teachers and students.
Second-order changes involve building a shared vision, improving
communication, and developing collaborative decision-making processes.

Leithwood recommended that transformational leadership be utilized to
implement second-order changes.
Leithwood and Jantzi (1991) studied transformational school leaders and
found that they help staff members to develop a professional school culture and
foster teacher development. Leithwood and Steinbach (1991) found that
transformational leaders help staff to collaborate to effectively solve problems.
Leithwood (1994) suggested that the transformational leadership
components proposed by Bass and Avolio are necessary characteristics for
educational leaders to apply if they are to respond effectively to the modern
demands of educational institutions and accountability standards. Leithwood
(1994, p. 498) stated that there is strong evidence, "...for the claim that
transformational leadership will be of considerable value in the context of a
school-restructuring agenda."
Studies have also identified relationships between transformational
leadership and its components, and student achievement (Bonaros, 2006;
Leithwood, Jantzi, & Steinbach, 1999; Marks & Printy, 2003; Silins, 1994;
Verona, 2001). Bonaros (2006) studied inner-city elementary teachers and
concluded that elementary teachers consider transformational principals to be
superior to non-transformational principals. Bonaros also found that
transformational leadership resulted in increased levels of satisfaction,
willingness to give extra effort, and a high perception of principal effectiveness
among teachers. Silins (1994) surveyed the perceptions of Australian elementary
teachers and reported that leadership behavior characterized by goal

achievement and building shared values had positive effects on student
achievement.
Leithwood, Jantzi, and Steinbach (1999) reviewed 21 studies that
supported the application of the transformational leadership components to
educational settings. Leithwood et al. found that there is strong empirical support
for idealized influence, intellectual stimulation, and individual consideration. High
performance expectations, goal consensus, and modeling had less support.
Regarding contingency rewards, a component of transactional leadership,
Leithwood et al. (1999) stated:
The possibility of providing informative feedback about performance in
order to enhance teachers' sense of professional self-efficacy, as well as
contributing to their day-to-day sense of job satisfaction makes this set of
leadership practices potentially transforming, as well (p. 144).
Structuring and culture building were leadership dimensions identified as
unique to the educational context. Although Leithwood et al. found little empirical
evidence of their value, he suggested that there was evidence beyond
transformational leadership theory to include them as a viable component of
educational leadership.
Leithwood et al. identified 20 separate leadership concepts that were
widely referenced in the literature as important as essential dimensions of
educational leadership. Leithwood et al. organized the concepts into the following
components:

1. Instructional Leadership.
2. Transformational Leadership.
3. Moral Leadership.
4. Participative Leadership.
5. Managerial Leadership.
6. Contingent Leadership.
Verona (2001) studied New Jersey secondary principals and found that
principal transformational leadership has a significant affect on student
achievement in math and reading. Marks and Printy (2003) studied 24
nationally-selected restructured schools and reported that the integration of
transformational leadership and instructional leadership resulted in high levels of
Cotton (2003) reviewed the findings of 81 studies on educational
leadership studies that had been conducted since 1985. Cotton found that
principals in high-achieving schools practiced the individual components of
transformational leadership. Cotton reported that these principals cultivate a
strong and focused vision on the importance of student learning (Cotton, 2003).
Cotton also found strong evidence that high expectations of student learning and
individual consideration results in high student achievement.
Marzano, Waters, and McNulty (2005) conducted a meta-analysis of
educational leadership studies conducted from 1978 to 2001. Marzano et al.
developed a survey based on the results of the meta-analysis and administered it
to 650 building principals. As a result of the analysis, Marzano et al. incorporated

the dimensions of transformational leadership into a balanced educational
leadership model base on 21 leadership responsibilities.
Marzano et al.'s model consisted of Culture, Focus, Ideals/Beliefs,
Optimizer, Relationships, Intellectual Stimulation and Change Agent as
transformational leadership components. Marzano et al. included Affirmation,
Contingent Rewards, and Flexibility as transactional components. Marzano et al.
included Communication, Discipline, Input, Involvement in Curriculum,
Instruction, and Assessment, Knowledge of Curriculum, Instruction, and
Assessment, Monitoring/Evaluating, Order, Outreach, Resources, Situational
Awareness, and Visibility as important leadership responsibilities.
The meta-analysis conducted by Marzano et al. (2005) determined that
the direct correlation between principal leadership behavior and student
achievement was r= .25. Marzano et al. also found direct correlations between
the components of transformational and transactional leadership behavior and
student achievement. Marzano et al. concluded, "...school leadership has a
substantial effect on student achievement and provides guidance for experience
and aspiring administrators alike" (p. 12). Leithwood and Jantzi (2005) reviewed
32 studies conducted from 1996 to 2005 and found significant indirect effects of
transformational leadership on student achievement and student engagement in
school.
The writer reviewed five instruments designed to assess transformational
leadership. The Leadership Practices Inventory, 3rd edition, was developed by
Kouzes and Posner (2003), to assess five practices of exemplary leaders. The

37
Transformational Leadership Questionnaire was designed to assess eight
leadership skills and styles (MySkillsProfile, 2002).
The Leadership Skills Inventory -Others, developed by Karnes and
Chauvin (2000), assesses nine dimensions of leadership. Bass and Avolio (1995)
developed the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire to assess nine components
of transformational leadership. The Transformational Leadership Behavior
Inventory, developed by Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Bommer (1996), assesses six
components of transformational leadership behavior and one component of
transactional leadership.
Summary
The responsibility for school governance and reform has traditionally been
administered at the state and local levels. Early twentieth century federal
interventions in education focused on developing programs designed to meet the
societal needs and improve national security. Educational reform movements
from 1950 through 1990 incorporated standardized testing for the purpose of
tracking and selection, developing program accountability, establishing minimum
competency, promoting school and district accountability, and introducing
standards-based accountability. Goals 2000 continued the transition toward
centralization by establishing federal educational standards. No Child Left Behind
(NCLB) constituted a profound expansion of the federal role in elementary and
secondary education. For the first time in history, the federal government
mandated compliance with a uniform set of professional standards and
accountability procedures.

38
The shift to standards-based accountability has increased the
significance of principal leadership in facilitating educational reform. Principal
leadership has become a critical factor in reorganizing schools to meet the new
accountability standards. It is vital that researchers scrutinize principal leadership
behavior and its relationship with student achievement.
Several writers have confirmed the recent transformation of the role of the
principal. Researchers have established direct and indirect relationships between
principal leadership behavior and student achievement. Writers have
recommended that principals respond to the demands of higher standards and
greater accountability by developing and incorporating transformational
leadership strategies. Studies have identified relationships between
transformational leadership and its components, and student achievement. It is
imperative that researchers examine the relationship between educational
leadership behavior and student achievement, and identify the most compelling
praxes.

CHAPTER 3
Methodology
The main purpose of the study was to collect and analyze data for the
purpose of examining principal leadership behavior and effectiveness, and
student achievement in South Dakota secondary schools. The study was
designed to examine the relationship between principal leadership behavior and
student achievement. The study was also designed to examine the relationship
between principal leadership, student enrollment, socioeconomic status, and
student attendance, and student achievement.
This section of the study is organized into the methodology, research
questions, review of related research, population and sample, instrumentation,
data collection, data analysis, and summary.
Research Questions
leadership behavior and student achievement. To achieve this goal the following
research questions were proposed:
secondary schools?
secondary schools?

4. What is the relationship between transformational leadership
behavior and transactional leadership behavior, and improvement in student
In an attempt to best quantify leadership behavior, the researcher
examined a number of contemporary leadership models. Smith and Forbes
(2001) suggested a competency-based model. Caruso and Salovey (2004)
proposed an emotionally-intelligent model. Purkey and Siegal (2003)
recommended an invitational model. Bell, Bolam, and Cubillo (2003) proposed a
distributed model.
Leithwood, Jantzi, & Steinbach (1999) identified six contemporary models
of educational leadership: instructional, transformational, moral, participative,
managerial/transactional, and contingent. Waters, Marzano, & McNulty (2003)
proposed a balanced model that consisted of 21 leadership roles. Brewster
(2005) described three leadership models as predominant among successful
principals: the transformational model, the instructional model, and the balanced
model.
The researcher was unable to find an instrument that assessed balanced
leadership that was suitable for research. The researcher rejected the

41
instructional model because the model focused on a single leadership
construct and failed to address multiple dimensions of educational leadership.
The writer found support for application of the transformational
leadership model in education. Castro (1998) reported a consensus among
writers regarding the components of transformational leadership. Sergiovanni
(1990, p. 23) suggested that student achievement can be "remarkably improved"
by transformational leadership. Sagor (1992, p. 1) worked with 50 school staffs to
incorporate collaborative action research and observed that,"... transformative
leaders in action share one thing: ...exemplary schools." Stewart (2006, p.1)
reviewed studies of effects of transformational leadership on organizational
learning and school improvement and concluded, "The evidence suggested that
transformational leadership stimulates improvement."
Writers and researchers have recommended that principals respond to the
demands of higher standards and greater accountability by developing and
incorporating transformational leadership strategies (Leithwood & Jantzi, 1991;
Leithwood & Poplin, 1992; Leithwood & Steinbach, 1991; Sagor, 1992;
Sergiovanni, 1990). Sagor (1992, p. 14) found that transformational leadership
was practiced in schools where teachers and students reported a culture,
"...conducive to school success."
The writer reviewed five instruments designed to assess transformational
leadership. The Leadership Practices Inventory, 3rd edition, was developed by
Kouzes and Posner (2003), to measure five practices of exemplary leaders. The

Transformational Leadership Questionnaire was designed to assess eight
leadership skills and styles (MySkillsProfile, 2002).
The Leadership Skills Inventory -Others, developed by Karnes and
Chauvin (2000), assesses nine dimensions of leadership. Bass and Avolio (1995)
developed the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire to assess nine components
of transformational leadership. The Transformational Leadership Behavior
Inventory, developed by Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Bommer (1996), assesses six
components of transformational leadership behavior and one component of
transactional leadership.
Population and Sample
The population examined in this study consisted of teachers working in
327 South Dakota secondary schools. The sample consisted of 136 middle-level
schools and high schools. A list of South Dakota schools is available online
through the South Dakota Department of Education website. The schools
included in the study employed a minimum of 10 certified teachers and had an
enrollment greater than 120 students. The schools included in the study were
reported as middle schools, intermediate schools, junior high schools, and high
schools. Schools that report that the principal supervised both the middle-level
and the high school were included in the high school sample and omitted from
the middle-level school sample. The analysis of improvement in student
achievement was limited to schools where the principal has been employed
continuously as principal from 2003 to 2006.

The teacher sample consisted of 10 certified teachers from each
school. Staff rosters are available online via school websites. Teachers were
selected by matching a set of random numbers generated by the data analysis
function of Microsoft Excel to each school's certified staff roster listed in
alphabetical order by last name. A new set of random numbers was generated
and applied to each school's roster. The teachers from each school that
corresponded with the 10 smallest random numbers were selected for
participation in the study.
Each year beginning in 2003, South Dakota schools have administered a
standard form of the Dakota STEP to secondary students in grades 6-8 and 11 to
assess student achievement in math and reading with the exception of
approximately 1% of students that have significant special needs. Students that
require significant special needs modifications are administered a state-approved
alternative assessment.
The student population consisted of 55,852 middle-level and high school
students enrolled in public South Dakota schools in 2006. The Dakota STEP has
been administered annually beginning in 2003 to assess yearly progress in math
and reading. Schools are required to report the results of 95% of their students.
Therefore, the student sample consisted of 95% or more of the middle-level and
grade 11 high school students enrolled in South Dakota secondary schools in
2003 and 2006.
Prior to administration of the study, the researcher successfully completed
the Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative (CITI) Human Subject Training.

The researcher received approval from the dissertation committee, the
Division of Education, and The University of South Dakota Institutional Review
Board (IRB). A copy of the IRB approval letter is presented in Appendix A.
Instrumentation
For the purpose of assessing principal leadership behavior and
effectiveness, the researcher selected the Transformational Leadership Behavior
Inventory (TLI) developed by Podsakoff, MacKenzie, and Bommer (1996). The
researcher selected the TLI for the following reasons:
1. The TLI is the most widely used instrument in assessing
transformational leadership behavior.
2. The TLI was designed specifically for the purpose of measuring
transformational leadership and transactional leadership behaviors.
3. The TLI discerns transformational leadership behaviors from
transactional leadership behaviors.
4. The TLI was supported by the documentation necessary for research
purposes.
5. Researchers have determined that the psychometric properties of the
TLI are acceptable for research purposes.
Leithwood, Jantzi, and Steinbach (1999) supported Podsakoff, etal.'s
model by stating, "...they offer arguably the most comprehensive set of
transformational leadership dimensions available at this point, dimensions based
on a synthesis of seven prior perspectives on transformational leadership"
(p. 29).

Leithwood et al. reviewed 21 educational studies that utilized
Podsakoff s transformational leadership model. Leithwood found strong support
for significant relationships between the transformational composites that
measure identifying and articulating vision, intellectual stimulation, and individual
consideration, and the criterion variable. Leithwood et al. found empirical support
for the component that measured fostering consensus of group goals in schools,
but the support was sparse. There were sufficient studies to review the effects of
contingency rewards and high performance expectations. However, the findings
conflicted and therefore were considered inconclusive. Podsakoff et al. (1996)
reported the following:
Bentler's (1990) comparative fit index (CFI) was .94, Bollen's (1989)
incremental fit index (IFI) was .94, Joreskog and Sorbom's (1993)
goodness of fit index (GFi) was .91, and Tucker and Lewis's (1973) fit
index (TLI) was .93. In addition, each of the hypothesized factor loadings
was statistically significant at the .01 level, all of the items had completely
standardized loadings of .60 or above, and Fornell and Larcker's (1981)
measure of the average amount of variance each latent factor accounted
for in its indicators ([[Rho].sub.vc]) was quite large, ranging from 58% to
68% with an average of approximately 61%. Thus, there appeared to be
good support for the hypothesized factor structure of the transformational
leadership scale. However, this was evaluated further by testing whether
any of the hypothesized factors could be combined - two, three, four, five
or even six at a time - without significantly affecting the fit of the model.

The results suggested that the hypothesized six factor model fit the data
significantly better than any of these rival models (p. 7).
Heinitz (2006) examined the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, the
Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire, and the Transformational
Leadership Behavior Inventory (TLI) and found that a German translation of the
TLI had, "appealing," psychometric properties and was readily useable. Bass and
Riggio (2006) reported that the TLI is the most widely used instrument in
assessing transformational leadership.
The TLI assesses six components of transformational leadership relative
to interrelated characteristics. A seventh component assesses the contingency
reward behaviors associated with transactional leadership.
For this study, the following TLI leadership components were independent
variables represented by the corresponding symbols:
1. Identifying and articulating vision VISION
2. Providing an appropriate model MODEL
3. Fostering acceptance of group goals GOALS
4. High performance expectations EXPECT
5. Providing individualized support SUPPORT
6. Intellectual Stimulation STIMULATE
7. Contingency rewards REWARD
A copy of the Transformational Leadership Behavior Inventory is
presented in Appendix B. Inventory items grouped by leadership component are
presented in Table 1. The TLI consists of 28 items designed to assess six

Table1
TransformationalLeadershipInventoryandLeadershipComponents
ItemLeadershipComponent
12Hasaclearunderstandingofwherewearegoing.
4Paintsaninterestingpictureofthefutureforourgroup.
24Isalwaysseekingnewopportunitiesfortheorganization.
18Inspiresotherswithhis/herplansforthefuture.
20Isabletogetotherscommittedtohis/herdream.
5Leadsby"doing,"ratherthansimplyby"telling."
8Providesagoodmodelformetofollow.
26Leadsbyexample.
16Fosterscollaborationamongworkgroups.
22Encouragesemployeestobe"teamplayers."
IdentifyingandArticulatingaVision
ProvidinganAppropriateModel
FosteringAcceptanceofGroupGoals

Table1(continued)
25Getsthegrouptoworktogetherforthesamegoal.
28Developsateamattitudeandspiritamongemployees.
1Showsusthathe/sheexpectsalotfromus.
10Insistsononlythebestperformance.
14Willnotsettleforsecondbest.
3Actswithoutconsideringmyfeelings.r
*
7Showsrespectformypersonalfeelings.
9Behavesinamannerthoughtfulofmypersonalneeds.
11Treatsmewithoutconsideringmypersonalfeelings.r
*
19Challengesmetothinkaboutoldproblemsinnewways.
HighPerformanceExpectations
ProvidingIndividualizedSupport
*r
=reverseorder

Table1(continued)
21Asksquestionsthatpromptmetothink.
23HasstimulatedmetorethinkthewayIdothings.
27Hasideasthathavechallengedmetoreexaminesomeofmybasicassumptionsabout
mywork.
2AlwaysgivesmepositivefeedbackwhenIdowell.
6CommendsmewhenIamdoingabetterthanaveragejob.
13Givesmespecialrecognitionwhenmyworkisverygood.
15PersonallycomplimentsmewhenIdooutstandingwork.
17Frequentlydoesnotacknowledgemygoodperformance.r
*
IntellectualStimulation
ContingencyReward
ContingencyReward
ContingencyReward
ContingencyReward
ContingencyReward
*r
=reverseorder

transformational leadership components and one transactional component.
There are four items per component. The TLI requires 10-15 minutes for
completion. Permission to administer the TLI is presented in Appendix C.
The TLI directs respondents to identify how frequently or to what degree
the leader has exhibited 28 specific behaviors or attributes. The TLI utilizes a
seven-point Likert scale with "1" representing Strongly Disagree and "7"
representing Strongly Agree. Participants respond to the survey items by
indicating the degree to which they agree or disagree with the item. Survey items
3, 11, and 17 were denoted by "r
" to indicate that, for the purpose of minimizing
response bias, the items were presented in reverse order.
For the purpose of data analysis, the researcher included an item which
directed respondents to verify whether or not the principal had served
continuously as principal from 2003 to 2006. The researcher also included an
item that directed the respondent to identify the school where the respondent
was employed. The item provided the information necessary for the researcher to
group teacher responses by school and compare the data to other schools.
The researcher maintained the utmost of confidentiality. The survey tool
provided responses to survey items. The survey tool did not provide the
researcher the identity of respondents. Therefore, the individual identity of
respondents was confidential and unavailable to the researcher. The researcher
maintained the confidentiality of school data.
The Dakota Standardized Test of Educational Progress has been
administered to grades 6-8 and 11 in South Dakota secondary schools beginning

in 2003. The researcher collected school assessment results in math and
reading for 2003 and 2006 from the South Dakota Department of Education
website (South Dakota Department of Education, 2007).
Data Collection
The study was limited to 136 South Dakota secondary schools that
reported a 2006 enrollment greater than 120 students. The longitudinal analysis
was limited to secondary schools in which the principal had continuously served
as principal from 2003 through 2006.
The researcher sent an introductory letter to selected superintendents to
request consent to administer the survey. A copy of the superintendent letter is
presented in Appendix D. The researcher sent a follow-up letter requesting
consent to the superintendents that failed to respond to the first letter. A copy of
the superintendent follow-up letter is presented in Appendix E. The schools
represented by superintendents that did not respond within 10 days to the follow-
up letter were eliminated from the study.
Upon receiving consent, the researcher electronically sent a cover letter to
10 randomly selected certified teachers in each school. The teacher cover letter
included survey instructions and a URL hyperlink to SurveyMonkey.com
(SurveyMonkey, 2006) which provided access to the TLI. SurveyMonkey
assigned respondents identification numbers so that the identity of each
respondent was confidential, and so that respondents were unable to submit
more than one survey. A copy of the teacher cover letter is presented in
Appendix F. The superintendents were informed that upon conclusion of the

study and committee approval, participating superintendents would receive a
copy of the findings.
The Dakota STEP has been administered annually to grades 6-8 and 11
in South Dakota secondary schools beginning in 2003. The student sample
consisted of students that attended the 136 selected secondary schools in 2006.
The dataset consisted of the selected secondary schools for which
consent to administer the survey was granted and surveys returned. The analysis
of improvement in student achievement was limited to schools where the
principal had continuously served as principal from 2003 to 2006.
For the purpose of providing effective administration, the researcher
conducted a critique. The critique was specifically designed to identify confusing
or ambiguous format, content, or procedures. The researcher administered the
survey to 12 professionals who were familiar with research or technology and
reviewed their recommendations. The researcher began surveying teachers after
five critiques had been received and reviewed. A copy of the critique cover letter
is presented in Appendix G.
Data Analysis
The researcher retrieved the survey responses collected by
SurveyMonkey and downloaded the responses to a Microsoft Excel for Windows
Office 2000 spreadsheet and to SPSS™ Graduate Pack 14.0 computer software
for Windows. The researcher utilized a Dell Dimension 8400 personal computer
to calculate the statistical analysis.

The independent variables in the study were the TLI survey responses,
school enrollment, socioeconomic status, and student attendance. The
dependent variables were student achievement in math and reading as
measured by the Dakota STEP, and improvement in student achievement in
math and reading from 2003 to 2006.
1. The first research question described the leadership practices of
secondary South Dakota principals. The response to the question was presented
in the form of descriptive statistics. Descriptive statistics were provided for the
purpose of presenting the mean, the range of scores, and the distribution for
each leadership variable.
2. The second research question examined the relationship between
principal leadership behavior and effectiveness, and student achievement in
South Dakota secondary schools. The response to the question was determined
by calculating the correlation between the Transformational Leadership Behavior
Inventory composite mean for each school and the composite percentage of
students in each school that demonstrated advanced or proficient achievement in
math and reading on the Dakota STEP in 2006. A Pearson product-moment
correlation analysis was applied to determine the relationship between the two
variables.
3. The third research question examined the relationship between
principal leadership behavior and effectiveness and improvement in student
achievement in South Dakota Secondary Schools. The response to the question
was determined by calculating the correlation between the Transformational

Leadership Behavior Inventory composite mean for each school and the
improvement from 2003 to 2006 in the composite mean percentage of students
in each school that demonstrated advanced or proficient achievement in math
and reading on the Dakota STEP. A Pearson product-moment correlation
analysis was applied to determine the relationship between the two variables.
4. The fourth research question examined the relationship between
principal transformational leadership behavior and transactional leadership
behavior and improvement in student achievement in South Dakota secondary
schools. The response was determined by applying a multiple linear regression
analysis to determine the relationship between six transformational leadership
component means and one transactional component mean, as measured by the
Transformational Leadership Behavior Inventory, and improvement from 2003 to
2006 in the composite percentage of students in each school that demonstrated
advanced or proficient achievement in math and reading on the Dakota STEP.
The researcher selected a multiple linear regression analysis to determine the
degree to which the set of predictor variables was related to the criterion variable.
5. The fifth research question examined the relationship between
principal leadership behavior, school enrollment, socioeconomic status, and
student attendance, and student achievement in South Dakota secondary
schools. The response to the question was determined by applying a multiple
linear regression analysis to determine the relationship between the
Transformational Leadership Behavior Inventory composite mean score for each
school, the student enrollment in each school, the percentage of students that

participated in the free and reduced lunch program in each school, and the
daily student attendance, and the composite percentage of students in each
school that demonstrated proficient and advanced achievement in math and
reading on the Dakota STEP in 2006. The researcher selected a multiple linear
regression analysis to determine the degree to which the predictor variables were
related to the criterion variable.
Summary
This study was a quantitative study involving a survey instrument, student
achievement data, school demographics, and statistical analysis. The study
examined the relationship between principal leadership behavior and student
achievement in math and reading. The study was limited to schools that reported
an enrollment greater than 120 students. Principal leadership behavior was
measured by administering the Transformational Leadership Behavior Inventory
to 10 teachers in each selected school. Superintendents were contacted via
email. The researcher utilized the South Dakota K-12 school directory provided
by the South Dakota Department of Education to contact superintendents, collect
teacher email addresses, and access school web sites. A majority of the schools
included certified staff contact information and email addresses in their school
web sites.
The TLI was administered online in May, 2007. All teacher responses
were confidential with no means available to the researcher to identify
respondents. Surveys were administered to certified teachers in 49 South Dakota

56
secondary schools. Survey responses were compared to student achievement
as measured by the 2003 Dakota STEP and the 2006 Dakota STEP.

CHAPTER 4
Findings
The findings of the study are organized into response summary, data
analysis, findings, and summary. The main purpose of the study was to examine
the relationship between principal leadership behavior and effectiveness, and
student achievement. The study was also designed to compare the relationship
between principal leadership behavior, student enrollment, socioeconomic status,
and student attendance, and student achievement.
Response Summary
In the first week of May, 2007, the researcher sent contact letters online to
136 South Dakota superintendents requesting consent to administer the surveys.
A copy of the consent request is presented in Appendix D. A follow-up letter was
sent to the superintendents that did not respond. A copy of the follow-up consent
request is presented in Appendix E.
A total of 22 superintendents responded and provided consent. Three
superintendents declined. The superintendents that responded provided consent
to survey the staffs of 49 secondary schools. Upon receiving consent, the
researcher sent a cover letter and survey instructions online to 10 randomly
selected certified teachers in each school. A copy of the teacher cover letter with
survey instructions is presented in Appendix F. The researcher sent a second
random mailing to a different set of teachers in schools whose teachers did not
complete three responses within 10 days. A copy of the survey is presented in
Appendix B.

The researcher was unable to obtain consent, contact information, or
collect school data from private and Bureau of Indian Affairs schools. Therefore,
the study was limited to South Dakota secondary public schools.
The researcher sent and collected surveys from May 10, 2007 through
June 7, 2007. A total of 690 surveys were sent to certified teachers in schools
where superintendents had provided consent. A total of 156 teachers responded
to the survey. The response rate was 22.61%. A total of 121 teachers identified
the schools in which they were employed. Therefore, 121 responses were
suitable for analysis (17.5%).
The school population consisted of 328 traditional secondary public
schools in 2006. A total of 121 teachers in 41 schools responded to the survey.
The school sample represented 30.15% of the secondary schools that were
invited to participate. The results of the survey are presented in
Appendix H.
The population of secondary public school students for 2005-2006 was
55,852 (South Dakota Department of Education, 2007). The student enrollment
in the participating schools was 28,210, which represented 50.51% of the
secondary student population. The student enrollment in schools included in the
analysis of improvement in student achievement consisted of 22,606 secondary
public students, which represented 39.50% of the student population. The 2003
STEP, 2006 STEP, and STEP improvement data from 2003 to 2006 are
presented in Appendix J.

In order to provide a valid sample, the analysis of improvement in
student achievement was limited to schools in which the principal had served
continuously as principal from 2003 to 2006. A total of 102 teachers in 31 schools
indicated that their principal had been continuously employed as principal from
2003 to 2006. The survey data for the longitudinal analysis are presented in
Appendix K. The survey data regarding length of service is presented in
Appendix O. The school sample in the longitudinal analyses represented 9.56%
of the school population.
Findings
The purpose for conducting the exploratory analysis was to examine the
descriptive statistics for each variable and identify patterns, linear trends, and
anomalies. The abbreviations used to represent the variables in the study are
presented in Table 2.
The transformational and the transactional leadership component data are
presented in Appendix H. The leadership composite mean, school enrollment,
socioeconomic status, and student attendance data are presented in Appendix I.
The Dakota STEP student achievement data are presented in Appendix J.
Leadership Practices of Secondary Principals
The first research question described the leadership practices of South
Dakota secondary principals. The responses of 121 teachers in 41 schools were
included in the analysis. The transformational and the transactional leadership
component data are presented in Appendix H.

Table 2
58
Variable Codes
Variables Codes
Leadership Composite Mean
Identifying and Articulating Vision
Providing an Appropriate Model
Fostering Acceptance of Group Goals
High Performance Expectations
Providing Individual Support
Intellectual Stimulation
Contingency Rewards
2006 Student Enrollment
2006 Socioeconomic Status (%)
2006 Average Daily Attendance (%)
2006 Dakota STEP
2003-2006 Dakota STEP Improvement
LCM
VISION
MODEL
GOALS
EXPECT
SUPPORT
STIMULATE
REWARD
ENROLL
SES
ADA
STEP06
STEPIMP
The descriptive statistics for the principal leadership components are
presented in Table 3. The descriptive statistics revealed a small range of means
at the maximum end of the range (.66) and a large range of means at the
minimum end (1.67). The mean for EXPECT (5.07) was the highest mean score
among the leadership components and the mean for REWARD (4.66) was the

59
lowest mean. The range for MODEL (5.23) was the largest range among the
leadership components. The range for EXPECT (3.67) was the smallest range
among the leadership components.
Table 3
Descriptive Statistics for the Principal Leadership Components
Variable Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Variance
LCM
VISION
MODEL
GOALS
EXPECT
SUPPORT
STIMULATE
REWARD
2.46
2.40
1.33
2.75
3.00
1.80
2.67
2.20
6.14
6.20
6.56
6.75
6.67
6.80
6.67
6.50
4.84
4.73
4.72
4.92
5.07
4.85
4.71
4.66
0.94
1.04
1.53
1.16
0.89
1.25
1.01
1.20
0.89
1.09
2.35
1.34
0.79
1.55
1.01
1.44
Principal Leadership Behavior and Effectiveness, and Student Achievement
The second research question examined the relationship between
South Dakota secondary schools. A total of 121 responses from 41 schools were
included in the analysis. The leadership composite mean data are presented in
Appendix I. The student achievement data are presented in Appendix J.

60
The descriptive statistics for LCM and STEP06 are presented in
Table 4. The values for LCM ranged from 2.46 to 6.14. The values for STEP06
ranged from 48.50 to 90.50.
Table 4
Descriptive Statistics for the LCM and STEP06
LCM 2.46 6.14 4.84 0.94 0.89
STEP06 48.50 90.50 73.04 9.95 98.97
A two-tailed Pearson product-moment correlation was applied to
determine the relationship between LCM and STEP06. The analysis, calculated
in SPSS, is presented in Table 5. The correlation between LCM and STEP06
was r =.11.
Table 5
Correlation between LCM and STEP06
Variable STEP06
LCM Pearson Correlation .11
Sig. (2-tailed) .51
cr = .05, two-tailed.

61
A test for significance is also presented in Table 5. The p-value for LCM
and STEP06 was p = .51 at a = .05. Since the p-value was greater than .05,
there was no significant correlation between LCM and STEP06.
A statistical power analysis was applied to determine whether the analysis
produced a small (.10), medium (.30), or large (.50) effect size (G Power, 2002).
The correlation between the LCM and STEP06 (r=.11) met the criterion for a
small effect size (.10).
Principal Leadership Behavior and Effectiveness, and Improvement in Student
Achievement
The third research question examined the relationship between principal
leadership behavior and effectiveness and improvement in student achievement
from 2003 to 2006 in South Dakota secondary schools. The analysis was limited
102 teacher responses in 31 schools in which the principal had served
continuously as principal from 2003 to 2006. The LCM and STEP06 data are
presented in Appendix L.
The descriptive statistics for the LCM and STEPIMP are presented in
Table 6. Since the analysis for the third research question was limited to 102
teacher responses in 31 schools, the values were not equal to the data
presented in Table 4. The mean for LCM was 4.94. The values for LCM ranged
from 2.46 to 6.14. The mean for STEPIMP was 9.89. The values for STEPIMP
ranged from -11.50 to 21.50, which indicated a wide range of improvement in

62
Table 6
Descriptive Statistics for the LCM and STEPIMP
Variable
LCM
STEPIMP
Minimum
2.46
-11.50
Maximum
6.14
21.50
Mean
4.94
9.89
Std. Deviation
0.88
7.96
Variance
0.77
63.30
A two-tailed Pearson product-moment correlation analysis was applied to
determine the relationship between the LCM and STEPIMP. The analysis,
calculated in SPSS, is presented in Table 7.
Table 7
Correlation between LCM and STEPIMP
Variable STEPIMP
LCM Pearson Correlation -.21
Sig. (2-tailed) .26
a= .05, two-tailed.
The correlation between LCM and STEPIMP was r = -.21. The analysis
indicated that there was an inverse correlation between LCM and STEPIMP. A
test for significance is also presented in Table 7. The p-value for LCM and
STEPIMP was p = .26 at a - .05. Since the p-value was greater than .05, there

was no significant correlation between LCM and STEPIMP. The inverse
correlation between LCM and STEPIMP (r = -.21) met the criterion for a small
effect size (.10) (G Power, 2002).
Transformational and Transactional Leadership Behavior and Improvement in
Student Achievement
The fourth research question examined the relationship between the
principal transformational and transactional leadership components and
improvement in student achievement from 2003 to 2006 in South Dakota
secondary schools. The analysis was limited to 102 teacher responses in 31
schools in which the principal had served continuously as principal from 2003 to
2006. The transformational and transactional leadership component data are
presented in Appendix K. The student achievement data are presented in
Appendix L.
The data analyzed consisted of 31 schools and 7 independent variables.
The researcher acknowledges that the ratio of cases per independent variable
(4.43:1) fell below the recommended lower limit (5:1) for regression analysis
(Abrams, 2007).
The descriptive statistics for the principal leadership components and
STEPIMP are presented in Table 8. Since the analysis was limited to 31 schools,
the data in Table 8 are not equal to the data presented in Table 3. The
descriptive statistics revealed a small range of means at the upper end of the
range and a large range of means at the lower end. The descriptive statistics
revealed a small range of means at the maximum end of the range and a large

64
range of means at the minimum end. The mean for EXPECT (5.08) was the
highest mean among the leadership components and the mean for MODEL
(4.57) was the lowest mean. The value for SUPPORT (6.80) was the highest
Table 8
Descriptive Statistics for the Principal Leadership Components and STEPIMP
Variable
VISION
MODEL
GOALS
EXPECT
SUPPORT
STIMULATE
REWARD
STEPIMP
Minimum
2.40
1.33
2.75
3.00
1.80
2.67
2.20
-11.50
Maximum
6.20
6.56
6.75
6.67
6.80
6.67
6.50
21.50
Mean
4.73
4.57
4.93
5.08
4.79
4.74
4.73
9.89
Std. Deviation
1.04
1.53
1.11
0.88
1.18
1.01
1.14
7.96
Varianc
1.09
2.33
1.24
0.77
1.39
1.01
1.30
63.30
score for the leadership components and the value for MODEL (1.33) was the
lowest score. The range for MODEL (5.23) was the largest range among the
leadership components. The range for EXPECT (3.67) was the smallest range
among the leadership components. The values for STEPIMP ranged from -11.50
to 21.50. A review of the means, the minimum and maximum values, and the
standard deviations for each variable indicated that the minimum and maximum

65
values fell within the limit of 3.00 standard deviations from the means (Abrams,
2007).
The skewness statistics for the principal leadership components and
STEPIMP are presented in Table 9. Skewness refers to the degree to which the
distribution of a variable is asymmetric (Howell, 2002). The acceptable range of
skewness for statistical analysis is ±1.00 (Cutting, 2008). The values for
skewness for the leadership component means and STEPIMP ranged from a low
value of -.39 for SUPPORT to a high value of -.83 for REWARD. These values
for skewness fell within the acceptable range of ±1.00 (Cutting, 2008).
Table 9
Skewness Statistics for the Principal Leadership Components and STEPIMP
Variable Skewness Statistic
VISION -0.50
MODEL -0.77
GOALS -0.50
EXPECT -0.51
SUPPORT -0.83
STIMULATE -0.55
REWARD -0.39
STEPIMP -0.63

66
The residual statistics for the leadership components and STEPIMP are
presented in Table 10. The minimum and maximum values for the standardized
residuals fell within the accepted range of ±2.50 (Simonoff, 2003).
Table 10
Residual Statistics for the Principal Leadership Components and STEPIMP
Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Predicted Value 0.99 17.40
Residual -15.60 12.58
Std. Predicted Value -2.21 1.86
Std. Residual -1.99 1.61
9.89
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.03
6.86
1.00
0.88
The researcher reviewed the regression standardized residuals and the
standardized predicted values for the principal leadership components and
STEPIMP. The STEP06 standardized residuals were symmetrically distributed as
the predicted value increased, indicating no violation homoscedasticity (Osborne
& Waters, 2003).
A two-tailed Pearson product-moment correlation analysis was used to
determine the correlations between predictors. The analysis, calculated in SPSS,
is presented in Table 11. The highest correlations between predictors were
r = .87 for MODEL and VISION, and r = .85 for VISION and STIMULATE.

Table11
CorrelationsbetweenthePrincipalLeadershipComponentsandSTEPIMP
Variable
VISION
MODEL
GOALS
EXPECT
P=
r=
P=
r-
P=
r=
P=
r=
P=
VISION
.03
1.00
.87
.00
.71
.00
.77
.00
MODEL
.04
.87
.00
1.00
.67
.00
.69
.00
GOALS
.19
.71
.00
.67
.00
1.00
.67
.00
EXPECT
.40
.77
.00
.69
.00
.67
.00
1.00
SUPPORT
.02
.71
.00
.84
.00
.73
.00
.59
.00
STIMULATE
.02
.85
.00
.77
.00
.67
.00
.63
.00
REWARD
.07
.54
.00
.70
.00
.51
.00
.45
.00

Table11
CorrelationsbetweenthePrincipalLeadershipComponentsandSTEPIMP(continued)
Variable
SUPPORT
STIMULATE
REWARD
r=
P=
r=
P=
r=
P=
VISION
.71
.00
.85
.00
.54
.00
MODEL
.84
.00
.77
.00
.70
.00
GOALS
.73
.00
.67
.00
.51
.00
EXPECT
.59
.00
.63
.00
.45
.00
SUPPORT
1.00
.70
.00
.77
.00
STIMULATE
.70
.00
1.00
.60
.00
REWARD
.77
.00
.60
.00
1.00

In a multiple linear regression analysis, correlations between predictors in
excess of r - .80 must be examined to determine whether the predictors meet
the non-collinearity assumption (Gatsonis & Sampson, 1989). Since the
correlations between predictors were greater than .80, they were further
analyzed.
The collinearity statistics for the correlations between the principal
leadership components is presented in Table 12. The values for tolerance met
Table 12
Collinearity Statistics for the Principal Leadership Components
Collinearity Statistics
Variable
VISION
MODEL
GOALS
EXPECT
SUPPORT
STIMULATE
REWARD
Tolerance
0.10
0.15
0.23
0.30
0.13
0.18
0.31
VIF
9.89
6.56
4.33
3.32
7.85
5.62
3.26

the minimum criterion for the acceptable value (0.10) (Braunstein, 2007). The
values for variance inflation factor (VIF) met the maximum criterion for the
acceptable value (10.00) (Braunstein, 2007).
The mean of the leadership components for VIF was 5.83. This value
exceeded the maximum criterion for the acceptable mean for VIF (6.00) (Ender,
2003). Ender (2003) stated that correlations in excess of .90 constitute high
intercorrelations. The correlations between predictors ranged from a low value of
.16 for EXPECT and SUPPORT, and for EXPECT and REWARD, to a high value
of .88 for VISION and STIMULATE. These correlations between predictors fell
below the maximum criterion for the acceptable value for intercorrelation (.90).
The correlations between the principal leadership components met the
acceptable criteria for tolerance, variance inflation factor, mean VIF, and
intercorrelation. Therefore, the researcher determined that the correlations
between the leadership components did not violate the assumption of non-
collinearity.
A multiple linear regression analysis, calculated in SPSS, was applied to
determine the relationship between the leadership component means and
STEPIMP in South Dakota secondary schools. The model for the analysis is as
follows:
STEPIMP = B0+ BiVISIONi + B2MODEL2 + B3GOALS3 + B4EXPECT4
+ B5SUPPORT5 + B6STIMULATE6 + B7REWARD7

71
STEPIMP is the composite mean score for improvement in student
achievement in math and reading from 2003 to 2006 on the Dakota STEP. Bi
through B7 represent the slope weights for the predictor variables. VISION,
MODEL, GOALS, EXPECT, SUPPORT, and STIMULATE are the
transformational leadership components. REWARD is the transactional
component. The last variable is a constant term, coefficient B0, which represents
the mathematical intercept.
A regression model summary for the principal leadership components and
STEPIMP variables is presented in Table 13. The analysis produced
R2
= .257. Therefore, predictors accounted for 25.7% of the variance within the
STEPIMP variable.
Table 13
Regression Model Summary for the Principal Leadership Components and
STEPIMP
Model
1
R
0.51
R Square
0.257
Adjusted R Square
0.03
Std. Error of
the Estimate
7.83
An analysis of variance test of statistical significance of the principal
leadership components and STEPIMP is presented in Table 14. The analysis
produced R2
= .257, F (7,23) = 1.13, MSE = 69.61, a = .05. The p-value was

72
p = .38. Since the p-value was greater than .05, the overall model was not a
significant predictor of STEPIMP.
Table 14
Analysis of Variance of the Principal Leadership Components and STEPIMP
Sum of Mean
Squares df Square F Sig.
Regression 487.23 7 69.61 1.13 .38
Residual 1411.62 23 61.38
Total 1898.86 30
a =.05
The coefficients for the leadership component means and STEPIMP are
shown in Table 15. The equation for the multiple linear regression analysis is as
follows:
Y = -8.53 + 3.24(4.73) + -2.86(4.57) + 2.51(4.93) + 3.09(5.08)
+ -1.14(4.79) + -.51(4.74) + -.85(4.73)
= 9.92
The p-values for VISION (.42), MODEL (.25), GOALS (.32), EXPECT
(.28), SUPPORT (.75), STIMULATE (.88), and REWARD (.74) were greater than

73
.05. Therefore, there were no significant bivariate relationships between the
principal leadership components and STEPIMP.
The standardized coefficients for the principal leadership components
and STEPIMP variables are also presented in Table 15. The strongest predictors
of STEPIMP were MODEL (-.55), VISION (.43), GOALS (.35), and EXPECT
(.34).
Table 15
Coefficients for the Principal Leadership Components
Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
Variable B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
(Constant)
VISION
MODEL
GOALS
EXPECT
SUPPORT
STIMULATE
REWARD
-8.530
3.240
-2.858
2.511
3.088
-1.140
-.510
-.847
10.37
3.98
2.40
2.48
2.81
3.49
3.24
2.47
.43
-.55
.35
.34
-.17
-.06
-.12
-.82 .42
.82 .42
-1.19 .25
1.01 .32
1.11 .28
-.33 .75
-.16 .88
-.34 .74
a =.05

74
Principal Leadership Behavior and School Factors, and Student Achievement
The fifth research question examined the relationship between principal
leadership behavior, school enrollment, socioeconomic status, and student
attendance, and student achievement in South Dakota secondary schools. A
total of 121 responses from 41 schools were included in the analysis. The LCM,
ENROLL, SES, and ADA data are presented in Appendix I. The Dakota STEP
data are presented in Appendix J.
The descriptive statistics for LCM, ENROLL, SES, and ADA are presented
in Table 16. A review of the mean, minimum score, and standard deviation for
SES and ADA revealed that the minimum score for each variable was greater
than 3.00 standard deviations below the mean. Therefore, these values
exceeded the acceptable range for analysis (Abrams, 2007).
Table 16
Descriptive Statistics for LCM, ENROLL, SES, ADA, and STEP06
LCM
ENROLL
SES
ADA
STEP06
2.46
130.00
18.10
86.90
48.50
6.14
2160.00
93.00
99.58
90.50
4.84
688.05
76.10
94.68
73.04
0.94
541.54
14.54
2.40
9.95
0.89
293261.00
211.31
5.74
98.97

75
The skewness statistics for LCM, ENROLL, SES, ADA, and STEP06
are shown in Table 17. The values for LCM and STEP06 fell within the
acceptable range of ±1.00 (Cutting, 2008). However, the values for skewness for
ENROLL (1.41), SES (-2.05), and ADA (-1.08) exceeded the acceptable range
for analysis.
Table 17
Skewness Statistics for LCM, ENROLL, SES, ADA, and STEP06
LCM -0.81
ENROLL 1.41
SES -2.05
ADA -1.08
STEP06 -0.41
The residual statistics for LCM, ENROLL, SES, ADA, and STEP06 are
presented in Table 18. The minimum value for standardized residuals was -2.51.
The minimum value revealed the presence of standardized residuals in excess of
±2.50 (Simonoff, 2003) among the LCM, ENROLL, SES, ADA, and STEP06
datasets.

76
The writer reviewed a scatterplot of the regression standardized
residuals and the standardized predicted values for LCM, ENROLL, SES, ADA,
and STEP06. As the predicted values increased, the range of standardized
residuals
Table 18
Residual Statistics for LCM, ENROLL, SES, ADA, and STEP06
Minimum Maximum Mean St. Deviation
Predicted Value 51.19 83.93 73.04 6.11
Residual -20.77 14.73 0.00 7.85
Std. Predicted Value -3.58 1.78 0.00 1.00
Std. Residual -2.51 1.78 0.00 0.95
appeared to increase, indicating a violation of homoscedasticity (Osborne &
Waters, 2003). Homoscedasticity is an assumption that the variance around the
regression line is uniformly distributed for all values of a predictor. A violation of
homoscedasticity, or homoscedastic error, occurs when the variance around the
regression line is not uniformly distributed for all values of a predictor (Osborne &
Waters, 2003).
The violations of normality, outliers beyond 3.00 standard deviations at the
upper and lower ends of the distributions (Abrams, 2007), standardized residuals
beyond ±2.50 (Simonoff, 2003), and the potential for homoscedastic error

77
represented unacceptable violations of assumptions. Therefore, the
researcher elected to transform the data by applying a 10% symmetrical
Winsorization. A symmetrical Winsorization is a process of transforming the
variables in which the trimmed values are replaced by the most extreme value
that remains in each tail of the distribution (Howell, 2002). Based on the sample
of 41 schools, the four highest and lowest scores for each variable were replaced
by the 5th
highest score and the 5th
lowest score respectively. The transformed
LCM, ENROLL, SES, and ADA data are presented in Appendix M. The
transformed STEP06 data are presented in Appendix N.
The descriptive statistics for the transformed LCM, ENROLL, SES, ADA,
and STEP06 variables are presented in Table 19. A review of the means,
Table 19
Descriptive Statistics for the Transformed LCM, ENROLL, SES, ADA, and
STEP06 Variables
LCM
ENROLL
SES
ADA
STEP06
3.18
176.00
63.40
91.60
60.50
6.08
1518.00
90.00
96.80
84.50
4.82
643.73
77.10
94.77
73.28
0.84
430.18
8.96
1.69
8.35
0.71
185056.00
80.35
2.86
69.70

78
minimum and maximum values, and standard deviations for the variables
revealed that the values fell within the accepted criterion of 3.00 standard
deviations (Abrams, 2007).
The skewness statistics for the transformed LCM, ENROLL, SES, ADA,
and STEP06 variables are presented in Table 20. The skewness values for LCM,
ENROLL, SES, ADA, and STEP06 ranged from a minimum value of-0.73 for
ADA to a maximum value of 0.90 for ENROLL. The values for the transformed
LCM, ENROLL, SES, ADA, and STEP06 variables fell within the acceptable
range for skewness of ±1.00 (Cutting, 2008).
Table 20
Skewness Statistics for the Transformed LCM, ENROLL, SES, ADA, and
STEP06
LCM -0.18
ENROLL 0.90
*
SES -0.25
ADA -0.73
STEP06 -0.19
The residual statistics for the transformed LCM, ENROLL, SES, ADA, and
STEP06 variables are presented in Table 21. The standardized residuals ranged

from a minimum of -2.21 to a maximum of 1.72. These values fell within the
acceptable criterion for standardized residuals of ±2.50 (Simonoff, 2003).
The writer reviewed the regression standardized residuals and the
standardized predicted values for the transformed LCM, ENROLL, SES, ADA,
and STEP06 variables. The standardized residuals were constant as the
Table 21
Residual Statistics for the Transformed LCM, ENROLL, SES, ADA, and STEP06
Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Predicted Value 58.00 85.83 73.28 5.07
Residual -15.43 12.04 0.00 6.64
Std. Predicted Value -3.02 2.48 0.00 1.00
Std. Residual -2.21 1.72 0.00 0.95
predicted values increased, which indicated that there was no violation of
homoscedasticity.
A review of the transformed data confirmed that the data were accurate
and there were no missing data. The process of transforming the data corrected
the problem of skewness beyond ±1.00. The extreme scores beyond 3.00
standard deviations and the standardized residuals in excess of ±2.50 were
eliminated, and the problem of homoscedastic error was corrected. Since the

80
transformed data presented no violations of the assumptions of regression, the
researcher determined that the data were suitable for analysis.
A two-tailed Pearson product-moment correlation analysis was applied to
determine the intercorrelations between predictors. The analysis, calculated in
SPSS, of LCM, ENROLL, SES, ADA, and STEP06 is presented in Table 22. The
highest correlation between predictors was r= -.60 for ENROLL and ADA. Since
the correlations between predictors were less than .80, the researcher
determined that there were no violations of the assumption of non-collinearity.
Table 22
Correlations between the Transformed LCM, ENROLL, SES, and ADA
Variable LCM ENROLL SES ADA STEP06
LCM r= 1.00
P =
ENROLL r= .06
p = .73
SES r= -.16
p = .32
ADA r= -.18
p = .26
.06
.73
1.00
.03
.84
-.60
.00
-.16
.32
.03
.84
1.00
.06
.69
-.18
.26
-.60
.00
.06
.69
1.00
.03
.87
.19
.25
.12
.46
.34
.03

81
A regression model summary of the transformed LCM, ENROLL, SES,
ADA, and STEP06 variables is presented in Table 23. The analysis produced
R2
= .368. Therefore, predictors accounted for 36.8% of variance within the
STEP06 variable.
Table 23
Regression Model Summary for the Transformed LCM, ENROLL, SES, ADA,
and STEP06
Model
1
R
0.607
R Square
0.368
Adjusted R
Square
0.298
Std. Error of the
Estimate
6.995
An analysis of variance of statistical significance for the LCM, ENROLL,
SES, ADA, and STEP06 variables is presented in Table 24. The analysis
produced R2
= .368, F (4,36) = 5.24, MSE = 256.58, a = .05. The analysis
produced p = .00. Since the p-value was less than .05, the overall model was
a significant predictor of student achievement.
An analysis of variance of statistical significance for the LCM, ENROLL,
SES, ADA, and STEP06 variables is presented in Table 24 produced p = .00.
Since the p-value was less than .05, the overall model was a significant predictor
of STEP06.

Table 24
Analysis of Variance of the Transformed LCM, ENROLL, SES, ADA, and
STEP06
Sum of Mean
Squares df Square F _ Sig.
Regression 1026.34 4 256.58 5.24 0.00*
Residual 1761.69 36 48.94
Total 2788.02 40
*denotes significant predictor at a = .05
The coefficients for the transformed LCM, ENROLL, SES, and ADA
variables are presented in Table 25. The unstandardized coefficients produced
the following equation for the multiple linear regression analysis:
Y= -283.62 + 1.34(4.82) + 0.01(643.73) + 0.07(77.10) + 3.56(94.77)
= 73.40
The significance test for a bivariate relationship between ENROLL and
STEP06 produced p = .00. The p-value for ENROLL and STEP06 was less than
.05. Therefore ENROLL was a significant predictor of STEP06. The significance
test for ADA and STEP06 also produced p = .00. Since the p-value for ADA and
STEP06 was less than .05, ADA was also a significant predictor of STEP06.

83
The standardized coefficients for the predictors are also presented in
Table 25. The analysis found that the strongest predictor of STEP06 was ADA
(.72) followed by ENROLL (.61), LCM (.14), and SES (.08).
Table 25
Coefficients for the Transformed LCM, ENROLL, SES, and ADA Variables
Variable
(Constant)
LCM
ENROLL
SES
ADA
Unstandardized
Coefficients
B
-283.62
1.33
0.01
0.07
3.56
Std. Error
81.65
1.35
0.00
0.13
0.83
Standardized
Coefficients
Beta
0.14
0.61
0.08
0.72
t
-3.47
0.99
3.65
0.56
4.27
Sig.
0.00
0.33
0.00*
0.58
0.00*
*denotes significant predictors at a = .05.
Summary
The descriptive statistics revealed a small range of means at the
maximum end of the range and a large range of means at the minimum end. The
leadership composite mean was 4.84. The minimum value for the leadership
composite mean was 2.46 and the maximum value for was 6.14.

84
A two-tailed Pearson product-moment correlation analysis of the
relationship between LCM and STEP06 found a small direct correlation (r = .11)
that was not significant at the .05 level. A two-tailed Pearson product-moment
correlation analysis of the relationship between LCM and STEPIMP produced a
small inverse correlation (r = -.26) that was not significant at the .05 level.
A multiple linear regression analysis of the relationship between the
principal leadership components and STEPIMP produced F? = .257. Therefore,
predictors accounted for 25.7% of the variance within the STEPIMP variable. The
model was not a significant predictor of STEPIMP at the .05 level. The
standardized coefficients revealed that the strongest predictors of STEPIMP
were MODEL (-.55), VISION (.43), GOALS (.35) and EXPECT (.34).
A multiple linear regression analysis of the relationship between LCM,
ENROLL, SES, and ADA, and STEP06 produced R2
= .368. Therefore, predictors
accounted for 36.8% of the variance within the STEP06 variable. An analysis of
variance produced p = .00. Therefore, the model was a significant predictor of
STEP06 at the .05 level. A significance test of the bivariate relationships between
ENROLL and STEP06, and ADA and STEP06 produced a p = .00. Therefore,
ENROLL and ADA were significant predictors of STEP06 at the .05 level. The
standardized coefficients revealed that ADA (.72) was the strongest predictor of
STEP06, followed by ENROLL (.61), LCM (.14), and SES (.08).

Chapter 5
Summary, Conclusions, Discussion, and Recommendations
Summary
The first four chapters presented the statement of the problem, a review of
related literature and research, the methodology, and the findings. This chapter
presents a summary of the findings, the conclusions, a discussion, and
recommendations for practice and further research.
The study examined, through quantitative methods, the relationship
between principal leadership behavior and practices and student achievement in
South Dakota secondary schools. The study was also designed to examine the
relationship between principal leadership behavior, school enrollment,
socioeconomic status, and student attendance, and student achievement.
Principal leadership behavior was assessed by administering the
Transformational Leadership Behavior Inventory online to 121 secondary
teachers from 41 schools. School data in the study were provided by the South
Dakota Department of Education. Student achievement data in math and reading
was measured by the 2003 and 2006 Dakota STEP and was available online
through the South Dakota Department of Education.
Purpose of the Study
The main purpose of the study was to collect and analyze the data for the
purpose of examining the relationship between principal leadership behavior and
practices, and student achievement in South Dakota secondary schools. The
study was also designed to examine the relationship between principal

attendance, and student achievement in South Dakota secondary schools.
leadership behavior and effectiveness, and student achievement. To achieve this
goal the following research questions were proposed:
secondary schools?
secondary schools?
4. What is the relationship between principal transformational leadership
practices and transactional leadership practices, and improvement in student
Since the turn of the 20th
century, educators and researchers have worked
to reform the nation's educational systems. In January, 2002, President Bush
initiated the most recent reform effort by signing Public Law 107-110, commonly
known as the No Child Left Behind Act (ED.gov, 2006). The purpose of the law

was, "To close the achievement gap with accountability, flexibility, and choice
so that no child is left behind" (ED.gov, 2006).
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) constituted a profound expansion of the
federal role in public education (Wenning, 2003). NCLB imposed federal student
achievement and accountability standards on the nation's elementary and
secondary schools. (National, 2007). In summary, NCLB incrementally raises
academic standards, holds schools accountable for student achievement,
requires that every child demonstrate proficiency in reading and performance of
mathematical calculations, insures that all teachers are highly qualified, and
provides choices and flexibility for parents. NCLB stipulates that failure to meet
these standards results in corrective action such as probationary status (school
improvement), non-renewal of staff, loss of administrative authority, restructuring,
and dissolution (Department of Education, 2006). It was imperative that
educators and researchers identify every possible means to effectuate
substantial, continuous, and unremitting improvement in student achievement.
The shift to standards-based accountability has increased the significance
of principal leadership in facilitating educational reform. Principal leadership has
become a critical factor in reorganizing schools to meet contemporary
accountability standards. It is vital that researchers scrutinize principal leadership
behavior and its relationship with student achievement.
Writers and researchers have documented the impact of effective
educational leadership (Bonaros, 2006; Cotton, 2003; Schnur, 2004). Writers
have noted that the recent emphasis on higher standards and increased

accountability has transformed the role of the principal (Campbell et al., 1990;
Fullan, 1998; Malone & Caddell, 2000; Portin, 1997; Usdan, et al., 2000). Writers
and researchers have recommended that principals respond to the demands of
higher standards and greater accountability by developing and incorporating
transformational leadership strategies (Leithwood, 1992; Sagor, 1992;
Sergiovanni, 1990).
Research on principal leadership and student achievement has produced
mixed results. Researchers have reported that identifying the relationship
between principal leadership and student achievement has been problematic and
difficult to substantiate (Bosker, & Kruger, 2003; Hallinger & Heck, 1996, 1998;
Leithwood & Jantzi, 1999b; Witziers, 1996). Some researchers have concluded
that there is no relationship between principal leadership (Bosker & Witziers,
1996; Fischer, 2005; Murphy, 1988) while others have established direct and
indirect associations between leadership behavior and student achievement
(Barnett, et al., 2000; Bell, et al., 2003; Firestone & Wilson, 1989; Gurr, 1997;
Krug, 1992; Leithwood & Montgomery, 1982). Several researchers have found a
significant relationship between transformational leadership and student
achievement (Leithwood et al., 1999; Marks & Printy, 2003; Silins, 1994; Verona,
2001).
Methodology
This study was a quantitative analysis involving a survey instrument,
student achievement data, school demographics, and statistical analysis. The
study examined the relationship between principal leadership and student

91
achievement in South Dakota secondary schools. The study was limited to
South Dakota secondary schools that reported an enrollment greater than 120
students. Leadership practices were assessed by administering the
Transformational Leadership Behavior Inventory to certified teachers in each
selected school. The TLI was administered online in May and June, 2007. All
teacher responses were confidential with no means available to the researcher to
identify respondents.
Survey results were compared to student achievement in math and
reading as measured by the Dakota STEP in 2003 and 2006. A review of the
collected data resulted in a sample of 121 teacher responses from 41 schools
that were suitable for analysis.
Findings of the Study
The study was based on the relationship between teacher perceptions of
principal leadership behavior and practices and student achievement in South
Dakota secondary schools. The study also examined the relationship between
principal leadership behavior, school enrollment, socioeconomic status, and
student attendance, and student achievement in South Dakota secondary
schools. The analysis consisted of descriptive statistics, two Pearson product-
moment correlations, and two multiple linear regressions.
The first research question examined principal leadership practices in
South Dakota secondary schools. The analysis found a wide range of principal
leadership practices relative to the components of transformational and
transactional leadership in South Dakota secondary schools. The mean for the

principal leadership composite (LCM) was 4.84. The minimum LCM score was
2.46 and the maximum score was 6.14. The mean for High Performance
Expectations (5.07) was the highest mean among the leadership components.
The mean for Contingency Rewards (4.66) was the lowest mean among the
leadership components. There was a small range of leadership composite means
at the maximum end of the range (.66) and a large range at the minimum end
(1.67). The range of scores for Provides an Appropriate Model (5.23) was the
largest range among the leadership components.
The second research question examined the relationship between
South Dakota secondary schools. A Pearson product-moment correlation was
applied to analyze the relationship between the principal leadership behavior and
student achievement in South Dakota secondary schools. A total of 121 teacher
responses from 41 schools were included in the analysis. The analysis found a
direct correlation (r = .11) between the principal leadership behavior and student
achievement, and a small effect size. A significance test found no significant
relationship at a = .05.
The third research question examined the relationship between principal
leadership behavior and effectiveness, and improvement in student achievement
in South Dakota secondary schools. A Pearson product-moment correlation
analysis was applied to 102 teacher responses from 31 schools in which the
principal had served continuously as principal from 2003 to 2006. The analysis
calculated the relationship between principal leadership behavior and

improvement in student achievement from 2003 to 2006. The analysis found
an inverse relationship (r = -.21) between principal leadership behavior and
improvement in student achievement and a small effect size. A significance test
found no significant relationship at a = .05.
The fourth research question examined the relationship between the
principal transformational and transactional leadership components and
improvement in student achievement from 2003 to 2006 in South Dakota
secondary schools. A total of 102 teacher responses from 31 schools in which
the principal had served continuously as principal from 2003 to 2006 were
included in the analysis.
The analysis found that the predictors accounted for 25.7% of the variance
within improvement in student achievement. An analysis of variance found that
the model was not a significant predictor of improvement in student achievement
(p = .38) at a = .05. Furthermore, the analysis found no significant bivariate
relationships between the leadership components and improvement in student
achievement. The standardized coefficients for the principal leadership
components indicated that the strongest predictors of improvement in student
achievement were MODEL (-.55), VISION (.43), GOALS (.35), and EXPECT
(.34).
The fifth research question examined the relationship between principal
attendance, and student achievement in South Dakota secondary schools. A
total of 121 teacher responses from 41 schools were included in the analysis.

The analysis found that the predictors accounted for 36.8% of the
variance in student achievement. An analysis of variance found that the model
was a significant predictor of student achievement (p = .00) at a = .05. A
significance test of the coefficients found that ENROLL (p = .00) and ADA
(p = .00) were significant predictors of student achievement at a - .05. The
standardized coefficients indicated that the strongest predictor of STEP06 was
ADA (.72) followed by ENROLL (.61), LCM (.14), and SES (.08).
Conclusions
1. There is a wide range of principal leadership practices and behaviors
relative to the components of transformational and transactional leadership.
2. There is little or no direct relationship between principal leadership
behavior and student achievement.
3. There is no relationship between principal leadership behavior and
improvement in student achievement.
4. Principal transformational and transactional leadership components are
not a significant predictor of improvement in student achievement. However,
Identifying and Articulating Vision, Fostering Acceptance of Group Goals, and
High Performance Expectations are the strongest predictors of improvement in
5. Principal leadership behavior, student enrollment, socioeconomic
status, and student attendance are a significant predictor of student
achievement.

6. Student enrollment and student attendance are significant predictors
of student achievement.
The conclusions of this study were supported by consistent evidence that
there is little or no direct relationship between principal leadership behavior and
student achievement, and a model consisting of principal leadership,
socioeconomic status, student enrollment, and student attendance is a significant
predictor of student achievement (Archibald, 2006; Konstantopoulos, 2006;
Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005; Sutton & Soderstrom, 1999; Verona, 2001;
Witziers, Bosker, & Kruger, 2003).
Discussion
Principal Leadership and Student Achievement
The researcher concluded that there is little or no direct relationship
between principal leadership and student achievement. This conclusion was
supported by similar studies conducted by Bosker and Witziers (1996), Murphy
(1988), and Wooderson-Perzan and Lunenburg (2001) who concluded that the
direct relationship between leadership behavior and student achievement is low.
Witziers, Bosker, and Kruger (2003) conducted a meta-analysis of 37
studies on school leadership and student achievement conducted between 1986
and 1996. The researchers concluded that there is a small direct relationship
between principal leadership and student achievement.
Bell, Bolam, and Cubillo (2003) reviewed eight studies on school
leadership and student achievement in primary and secondary schools
conducted in the United Kingdom, Hong Kong, Canada, the Netherlands and the

United States. Bell et al. concluded that there is evidence that school
leadership affects student outcomes. Bell et al. reviewed a study that concluded
that school leadership had a significant direct affect on student achievement, and
another study that concluded that school leadership had a significant indirect
affect on student achievement. O'Donnell and White (2005) studied instructional
leadership and concluded that there is a significant direct relationship between
principal instructional leadership and student achievement.
Verona (2001) studied the affects of principal transformational leadership
behavior on student achievement. Verona reported that transformational
leadership is more complex than the original model proposed by Bass and Avolio
(1995). The transformational leadership model used in this study to assess
principal leadership behavior and effectiveness included six transformational
components and one transactional component. Verona administered Bass and
Avolio's Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire and adjusted the method of scoring
to reflect the combined influence of transformational and transactional
leadership. The process of adjusting the model was supported by Leithwood,
Jantzi, and Steinbach (1999). Verona concluded that there is a significant
relationship between the adjusted model for principal transformational leadership
and student achievement. These conclusions regarding transformational and
transactional leadership were supported by Marzano, Waters, and McNulty
(2005).

A meta-analysis conducted by Marzano, Waters, and McNulty (2005),
who reviewed 69 studies, determined that the correlation between principal
leadership and student achievement fell within the small effect size. Marzano
et al. reported that many of the studies they reviewed were based on principal
self-studies. Marzano et al.'s findings may have been influenced by the bias
inherent in self-studies.
Marzano et al. proposed a balanced leadership model consisting of 21
dimensions of leadership responsibility. Several of Marzano's dimensions of
leadership responsibility are similar or identical to the components of
transformational and transactional leadership. Marzano et al.'s Focus
responsibility is similar to High Performance Expectations and Fostering
Acceptance of Group Goals. Ideals/beliefs are similar to Identifying and
Articulating Vision and Providing an Appropriate Model. Relationship is similar to
Providing Individualized Support. Intellectual Stimulation and Contingency
Rewards are equivalent to the leadership components found in Podsakoff,
MacKenzie, and Bommer's model. Marzano et al. concluded that there are
positive direct relationships between these leadership responsibilities and
student achievement with small effect sizes.
The researcher found several studies that examined the relationship
between transformational leadership and student achievement (Leithwood,
Jantzi, & Steinbach, 1999; Marks & Printy, 2003; Silins, 1994; Verona, 2001).
These studies consistently found that there is a positive direct or indirect

98
significant relationship between transformational leadership and the
components of transformational leadership, and student achievement.
It should be noted that there are discrepancies in the literature regarding
the nature and effectiveness of transactional leadership. Bass (1985) developed
a model in which transactional leadership consisted of contingent rewards and
management by exception designed to motivate subordinates to a higher level of
productivity. Marzano, Waters, and McNulty (2005) described contingency
rewards as recognizing individuals who excel, using performance as a criterion
for advancement, and using hard work and results as the basis for reward and
recognition. Marzano et al. (2005) reported that contingency rewards was directly
related to student achievement. In addition, Marzano et al. (2005) concluded that
the transformational and transactional components are similar in their
relationship with student achievement.
Leithwood, Jantzi, and Steinbach (1999) also supported a model of
principal leadership that included both transformational and transactional
components. Leithwood et al. (1999) reported that numerous studies of
transactional leadership have concluded that management by exception has a
negative affect on performance and therefore recommended that it is not relevant
to education. Leithwood reported that contingency rewards have been well-
studied and the research has produced conflicting results. Leithwood suggested
that transactional leadership practices are "managerial," in nature and
underrepresented in current models, and proposed a model that replaced
transactional leadership with the administrative tasks of staffing, instructional

support, monitoring school activities, and community focus. In consideration of
the absence of consensus regarding the nature and effectiveness of
transactional leadership, when reviewing the literature researchers are
well-advised to examine each individual writer's perception of transactional
leadership.
The researcher reviewed three studies that measured transactional
leadership behavior and contingency rewards (Bosker & Witziers, 1996; Fischer,
2005; Murphy, 1988) and found no significant relationship between principal
leadership and student achievement. The researcher suggests that the findings
in these studies may have been influenced by the utilization of instruments that
were developed prior to the emergence of the Transformational generation of
theories. It is generally accepted that the Transformational theories are more
effective than the Contingency theories. Therefore, it is less probable that studies
that utilize instruments designed to measure contingency leadership behavior
would find a significant relationship between principal leadership and student
achievement.
The researcher concluded that the components of transformational
leadership and transactional leadership are not predictors of improvement in
student achievement. Since the researcher found no studies that specifically
examined the longitudinal affects of transformational and transactional leadership
behavior on student achievement, this conclusion was unsupported in the
literature.

f
100
Principal Leadership and School Factors, and Student Achievement
The researcher concluded that a model consisting of principal leadership,
socioeconomic status, student enrollment, and student attendance is a significant
predictor of student achievement. Furthermore, the researcher concluded that
student enrollment and student attendance are significant predictors of student
achievement. These conclusions were supported by Verona (2001) who
concluded that principal leadership behavior, student attendance, and socio-
economic status are significant predictors of student achievement. However,
Verona concluded that school enrollment had no significant relationship with
The conclusions of this study regarding the significant relationship
between school enrollment and student achievement, and student attendance
and student achievement were supported by Konstantopoulos (2006) who
reviewed three national surveys conducted over a 30 year period.
Konstantopoulos concluded that school factors are significant predictors of
student achievement over time. However, Konstantopoulos concluded that
students in high socioeconomic schools demonstrate higher student achievement
than students in low socioeconomic schools. In addition, Konstantopoulos
concluded that schools with high student attendance demonstrate higher student
achievement compared to schools with low student attendance.
Archibald (2006) reported that school factors are significant predictors of
student achievement. Archibald further concluded that poverty has a significant

101
negative affect on student achievement in math and reading. Archibald's
findings contradicted the conclusions of this study.
Sutton and Soderstrom (1999) reported a strong and significant
relationship between socioeconomic status and student achievement and a
moderate relationship between student attendance and student achievement.
O'Donnell and White (2005) concluded that higher socioeconomic status is
related to higher achievement in reading among eighth grade students. These
findings contradicted the conclusion of this study, which found that
socioeconomic status was not a significant predictor of student achievement.
The researcher concluded that student enrollment is a significant predictor
of student achievement. Wainer and Zwerling (2006) reported that student
enrollment had no affect on primary school student achievement, but was
positively related to higher student achievement in high schools. Verona (2001)
found that enrollment size had no significant affect on student achievement.
Archibald (2006) concluded that school enrollment has a significant negative
affect on student achievement in math and reading. The conclusions of these
studies both support and contradict a growing body of evidence that supports the
notion that smaller schools produce more positive outcomes and higher student
achievement than larger schools (Galletti, 1998; Raywid, 1997).
Cotton (1996) and Williams (1990) suggested that secondary school
enrollment should not exceed a range of 400 to 500 students. Williams (1990)
concluded the effect size for secondary student enrollment is within the range of
400 to 800 students. Cotton (1996) reviewed 103 documents regarding school

102
size and school variables. Although there is no clear agreement on what
constitutes a small school versus a large school, the ideal size for secondary
school appears to be within the range of 400 to 800 students (Cotton, 1996).
The conclusions of this study may have been influenced by the range of
enrollments found in South Dakota schools where a majority of the schools had
enrollments under 400 and are found in small rural communities, and there are
few large schools with enrollments over 800. Many of South Dakota's larger
schools fall within the recommended range of ideal size. The writer also suggests
that the large schools in the study may benefit from large district infrastructure,
programs, and resources designed to improve student achievement that are not
as readily accessible to many small rural schools.
The conclusion of this study that student attendance is a significant
predictor of student achievement concurred with Daugherty (2008),
Konstantopoulos (2006), and Verona (2003) and who concluded that student
attendance is a strong predictor of student achievement.
These conclusions do not suggest a causal effect between student
attendance and student achievement. The researcher recommends that
additional research be conducted to identify the causal factors related to student
attendance and student achievement.

103
Recommendations
The study examined, through quantitative methods, the relationship
between principal leadership behavior and student achievement in South Dakota
secondary schools. The study was also designed to examine the relationship
between principal leadership behavior, school enrollment, socioeconomic status,
and student attendance, and student achievement.
This study has added to the current but limited body of knowledge
regarding the relationship between principal leadership behavior and
effectiveness and student achievement. This and other studies have provided
evidence of the relationship between transformational leadership and
transactional leadership and student achievement. The relationship between
transformational and transactional leadership and student achievement in this
study was lower than the results found in previous studies. The results in this
study may have been influenced by a general unfamiliarity among South Dakota
practitioners regarding the Transformational theories. It is recommended that
South Dakota practitioners develop the knowledge and skills necessary to meet
the ever-increasing demands of the educational leadership.
The conclusions of this and other studies suggest that student
achievement is the result of a complex set of factors that are both within and
beyond the purview of school leadership. It is self-evident that principals have
little or no influence over school factors such as student enrollment and
socioeconomic status. School attendance may be influenced by a number of
factors including student behavior, parent/guardian behavior, teacher and

104
principal behaviors, law enforcement, the court system, and societal
expectations. For the benefit of maximizing their influence on student
achievement, it is recommended that practitioners place a high priority on regular
school attendance.
The conclusions of this and other studies suggest that the complexity of
school leadership requires a broad range of leadership skills and abilities. There
is evidence that transformational and transactional principal leadership behaviors
are directly related to student achievement. Modern leadership theory suggests
that effective leadership behavior and practices can be learned and developed.
Therefore, it is recommended that graduate programs in education administration
incorporate studies of leadership theory and development into their coursework
with special emphasis on the Transformational theories.
The following research would be appropriate to further expand the
knowledge base:
1. The study was limited to a survey of teacher perceptions of principal
leadership behavior. For the benefit of developing a more complete assessment
of principal leadership behavior and effectiveness, it is recommended that
researchers include the perspectives of the principal, peers and the
superintendent in the assessment.
2. The study was limited to traditional public secondary schools. It is
recommended that further studies examine private schools, Bureau of Indian
Affairs schools, and non-traditional public schools.
3. The study was limited to secondary schools. It is recommended that

105
further studies determine the influence of principal leadership behavior and
effectiveness in elementary schools.
4. The analysis in this study consisted of combined middle-level and high
school level data. It is recommended that further studies analyze middle-level
leadership and achievement separate from high school leadership and
achievement.
5. The data for student achievement consisted of composite scores in
math and reading. For the purpose of further identifying the affects of principal
leadership, it is recommended that further studies perform an analysis of student
achievement in math and a separate analysis of student achievement in reading.
6. The conclusions of the study concurred with a preponderance of
research that indicates that student attendance is strongly related to student
achievement. This study, like others, did not examine the causal affects of
attendance and student achievement. With due consideration of the intense
contemporary focus on student achievement and accountability, it is
recommended that further study determine the dimensions of student attendance
and the nature of their relationship with student achievement.
7. The study concluded that school enrollment is related to student
achievement. It is recommended that further research is conducted to determine
the factors of school size that are related to student achievement.
8. For the purpose of collecting a subjective perspective regarding
principal leadership behavior and effectiveness, and teacher satisfaction, the
writer recommends further research regarding teacher-perceived principal

106
leadership behavior and effectiveness and teacher satisfaction relative to
principal leadership behavior.
9. The Transformational generation of theories is generally accepted to
be the most effective theories of leadership. Therefore, the researcher
recommends that further studies examine the relationship between
transformational leadership behavior and student achievement. Such research
may further establish the relationship between the most effective principal
leadership practices and student achievement.
10. This study concluded that the components of transformational
leadership and transactional leadership were not significant predictors of
improvement in student achievement. Since this conclusion was unique and the
researcher was unable to find literature that supported this conclusion, it is
recommended that further research examine the longitudinal and cumulative
effects of transformational and transactional leadership behavior on student
achievement.

107
References
Abrams, D. (2007). Introduction to regression. Retrieved January 2, 2008 from
http://dss.princeton.edu/onlineJnelp/analysis/regressionJntro.htm
Allen, G. (1998). Supervision. Retrieved January 23, 2007 from
http://telecollege.dcccd.edu/mgmt1374/book_contents/4directing/leading/
ead.htm
Archer, J. (2006). Synthesis finds district leadership-learning link. Education
Week, 26, 8.
Archibald, S. (2006). Narrowing in on educational resources that do affect
student achievement. Peabody Journal of Education, 81(4), 23-42.
Barnett, K., McCormick, J., & Conners, R. (2000J. Leadership behaviour of
secondary school principals, teacher outcomes, and school culture.
Paper presented at the annual conference of the Australian Association
for Research in Education. Sydney, AUS.
Barr, B. (2006). A study of the impact of leadership on secondary school climate
(Doctoral Dissertation, Cappella University, 2006). Digital Abstracts
International, 67(04).
Bass, B. (1960). Leadership, psychology, and organization behavior. New York:
Harper and Brothers.
Bass, B. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York:
Free Press.

108
Bass, B. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational
leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,
8(1), 9-32.
Bass, B., &Avolio, B. (1995). Multifactor leadership questionnaire. Redwood
City, CA: Mind Garden.
Bass, B., &Avolio, B. (1997). Full range leadership development. Manual for the
multifactor leadership questionnaire. Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden.
Bass, B., & Riggio, R. (2006). Transformational leadership (2nd ed.).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bell, L, Bolam, R., & Cubillo, L. (2003). A systematic review of the impact of
school headteachers and principals on student outcomes. School
Leadership Review Group. Retrieved February 3, 2007 from
http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/EPPIWebContent/reel%5Creview_groups%5Cleaders
hip%5Clea_rv1/lea_rv1 .doc
Bennis, W. (1990). Managing the dream: Leadership in the 21st century.
Training: The Magazine of Human Resource Development, 27, 44-46.
Bird, C. (1940). Social psychology. New York: Appleton-Century.
Blake, R., & Mouton, J. (1964). The managerial grid. Houston: Gulf Publications.
Boje, D. (2000). The isles of leadership: The voyage of the behaviorists. The
Leadership Box. Retrieved February 16, 2007 from
http://business.nmsu.edU/~dboje/teaching/338/behaviors.htm#problems

109
Bonaros, D. (2006). A study of transformational leadership and student
achievement in inner-city elementary schools (Doctoral Dissertation,
Florida Atlantic University, 2006). Digital Abstracts International. 67(2).
Bosker, R., & Witziers, B. (1996). The true size of school effects. Paper
presented at a meeting of the American Education Research Association,
New York.
Braunstein, J. (2007). ResearchConsultation.com. Retrieved January 3, 2008
from http://www.researchconsultation.com/Default.asp
Brewster, C. (2005). Leadership practices of successful principals. Northwest
Regional Educational Laboratory. Portland, OR.
Burns, J. (1978). Leadership, New York: HarperCollins.
Byrd, J., Slater, R., & Brooks, J. (2006). Educational administration program
quality and the impact on student achievement. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the University Council of Educational Administration.
San Antonio, TX.
Campbell, R., Cunningham, L, Nystrand, R., & Usdan, M. (1990). The
organization and control of American schools. New York: Macmillan.
Caruso, D., & Salovey, P. (2004). The emotionally intelligent manager: How to
develop and use the four key emotional skills of leadership. Hoboken,
NJ: Jossey-Bass.

110
Castro, S. (1998). Development and validation of a new measure of
transformational leadership (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Miami,
1998). Dissertation Abstracts International, 60(06), 2120.
Cobb, S. (2004). History of assessment practices in the United States. Retrieved
March 4, 2008 from
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:l86b-
vShlz4J:learn.midsouthcc.edu/LearningObjects/facDev/history_of_assess
ment.pdf+history+of+educational+assessment&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=u
s
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences
(2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cotton, K. (1996). School size, school climate, and student performance.
Retrieved August 7, 2007 from
http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/10/c020.html
Cotton, K. (2003). Principals and student achievement. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Cutting, J. (2008). SPSS: Descriptive statistics. Retrieved April 23, 2008 from
http://www.psychology.ilstu.edu/jccutti/138web/spss/spss3.html
Department of Education. (2006). LEA and school improvement. Retrieved
January 26, 2007 from
http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/schoolimprovementguid.doc

111
Daugherty, M. (2008). Attendance and other factors that influence student
achievement in a Delaware public school district (Doctoral Dissertation,
Wilmington College, 2008). Digital Abstracts International, 68(12).
Doyle, M., & Smith, M. (2001). Classical leadership. The encyclopedia of
informal education. Retrieved February 16, 2007 from
http://www.infed.org/leadership/traditional_leadership.htm
ED.gov. (1999). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. National
Commission on Excellence in Education. Retrieved April 3, 2007 from
http://www.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/risk.html
ED.gov. (2003). No child left behind, accountability and adequate yearly
progress. Retrieved January 22, 2007 from
http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/ayp203/edlite-slide005.html
ED.gov. (2006). No child left behind. Retrieved January 15, 2007 from
http://www.ed.gov/nclb/landing.jhtml
Ender, P. (2003). Applied categorical & nonnormal data analysis. Retrieved
January 3, 2008 from
http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/courses/ed231c/231c.html
Fiedler, F. (1964). A contingency model of leadership effectiveness.
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 1, 149-190.
Fiedler, F. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York:
McGraw-Hill.

112
Filley, A., House, R., & Kerr, S. (1976). Managerial process and organisational
effectiveness. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman, and Company.
Fischer, T. (2005). A comparison of the perceived leadership characteristics of
central Florida middle and high school principals and school achievement
scores (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Central Florida, 2005).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 66(06), 2038.
Firestone, W., & Wilson, B. (1989). Administrative behavior, school SDS, and
student achievement: A preliminary investigation. Philadelphia: Research
for Better Schools. Retrieve May 30, 2007 from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detai
lmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED374563&ERI
CExtSearch_SearchType_0=eric_accno&accno=ED374563
Fleishman, E. (1957). A leader behavior description for industry. In R. M. Stogdill
and C. L. Shartle (Eds.) Patterns of administrative performance.
Columbus: Ohio State University Bureau of Business Research.
Fullan, M. (1998). Leadership for the 21st
century: Breaking the bonds of
dependency. Educational Leadership, 55(7), 6-10.
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Galletti, S. (1998). School size matters: Small schools create communities with
results. Schools in the Middle, 8(1), 24-27.
Gatsonis, C, & Sampson, A. (1989). Multiple correlation: Exact power and
sample size calculations. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 516-524.

113
Geissler, F., & Stickney, D. (2006). A flow chart for success: Connecting
assessment to instruction. Retrieved April 4, 2007 from
http://www. wm.edu/ttac/articles/assessment/flow_chart_for_success.htm
Goals 2000: Increasing student achievement through state and local initiatives.
(1996). Retrieved April 4, 2008 from
http://www.ed.gov/G2K/GoalsRpt/intro.html
Goertz , M. (2001). The federal role in defining "adequate yearly progress:"
The flexibility/accountability trade-off. Consortium for Policy
Research in Education. Retrieved January 22, 2007 from
http://www.cpre.org/Publications/cep01.pdf
Gordon, D. (2006). A short history of school reform. Retrieved February 10, 2007
from http://www.fcd-us.org/pdfs/AShortHistoryGordon.pdf
Gordon, Z. (2005). The effect of distributed leadership on student achievement.
Retrieved April 4, 2007 from
http://fred.ccsu.edu:8000/archive/00000207/02/zgordonFINAL3.htm
Gurr, D. (1997). Principal Leadership: What does it do, what does it look like.
Paper presented at a meeting of the Australian Principals Centre
Research Forum, Melbourne, AUS.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (1996). The principal's role in school effectiveness: An
assessment of methodological progress: 1980-1995. Paper presented
at a meeting of the American Education Research Association, New York.

114
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (1998). Exploring the principals' contribution to school
effectiveness: 1980-1995. School Effectiveness and School Improvement,
9, 157-191.
Heck, R., Larsen, T., & Marcoulides, G. (1990). Instructional leadership and
school achievement: Validation of a causal model. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 26, 94-125.
Heinitz, K. (2006). Assessing the validity of the Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire: Discussing new approaches to leadership (Doctoral
Dissertation, University of Berlin, 2006). Retrieved March 14, 2007 from
http://www.diss.fu-berlin.de/2006/93/Heinitz.pdf
Hencley, S. (1973). Situational behavioral approach to the study of educational
leadership. In L. C. Cunningham &W.J. Gephart (Eds.), Leadership: The
science and art today. Itaska, IL: F.E. Peacock Publishers.
Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. (1977). The management of organizational
behaviour (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Homrig, M. (2006). Transformational leadership. Retrieved January 23, 2007
from http://leadership.au.af.mil/documents/homrig.htm
House, R., & Mitchell, T. (1974). Path-goal theory of leadership. Contemporary
Business, 3, 81-98.
Howell, D. (2002). Statistical methods for psychology (5th ed.). Pacific
Grove, CA: Duxbury/Thomson Learning.

115
Indiana Department of Education. (2005). Definitions. Retrieved February 26,
2008 from www.doe.state.in.us/asap/definitions.html
Karnes, F., & Chauvin, J. (2000). Leadership skills inventory. Scottsdale, AZ:
Gifted Psychology Press.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. (1952). Readings in social psychology, New York: Holt,
Rinehard and Winston.
Konstantopoulos, S. (2006). Trends of school effects on student achievement:
Evidence from NLS 72, HSB 82, and NELS 92. Teacher College Record,
108(12).
Kouzes, J., & Posner, B. (2003). The leadership practices inventory (3rd ed.).
Retrieved February 3, 2007 from
http://www.leadershipchallenge.com/WileyCDA/LCTitle/productCd-
PCOL52.html
Krug, S. (1992). Instructional leadership, school instructional climate, and student
learning outcomes. Project report. Urbana, IL. Retrieved June 12, 2007
from
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (1991). Transformational leadership: How principals
can help reform school cultures. School Effectiveness and School
Improvement, 1(3), 249-281.

116
Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., & Dart, B. (1991). How the school improvement
strategies of transformational leaders foster teacher development. Paper
presented at a meeting of the Teacher Development Conference.
Vancouver, B.C.
Leithwood, K., & Steinbach, R. (1991). Indicator of transformational leadership in
everyday problem solving of school administrators. Journal of Personnel
Evaluation in Education, 4(3), 221-244.
Leithwood, K., & Poplin, M. (1992). The move toward transformational
leadership. Educational Leadership, 49, 8-12.
Leithwood, K. (1994). Leadership for school restructuring. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 30(4), 498-518.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (1999a). The relative effects of principal and teacher
sources of leadership on student engagement with school. Educational
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (1999b). Transformational school leadership effects:
A replication. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 10, 451-479.
Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., & Steinbach, R. (1999). Changing leadership for
changing times. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2005). A review of transformational school leadership
research 1996-2005. Leadership & Policy in Schools, 4, 177-199.

117
Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., & White, R. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behaviour in
experimentally created social climates. Journal of Social Psychology, 10,
271-301.
Linn, R. (2000). Assessments and accountability. ER Online, 29(2). Retrieved
March 4, 2008 from http://www.aera.net/pubs/er/arts/29-02/linn01.htm
Malone, B., & Caddell, T. (2000). A crisis in leadership: Where are tomorrow's
principals. The Clearing House, 73(3), 162-164.
Manitoba Center for Health Policy. (2003). Definitions beginning with S.
Retrieved August 1, 2007 from
http://www.umanitoba.ca/centres/mchp/concept/thesaurus/thesaurus_S.ht
ml#SES
Mann, R. (1959). A review of the relationship between personality and
performance in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 241-270.
Manning, G., & Curtis, K. (2003). The art of leadership. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Marks, H., & Printy, S. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An
integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational
Marzano, R., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. (2005). School leadership that works.
Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill.

118
McGuigan, L, & Hoy, W. (2006). Principal leadership: Creating a culture of
academic optimism to improve achievement for all students. Leadership &
Policy in Schools, 5, 203-229.
Mezirow, J. (1981). A critical theory of adult learning and education. Adult
Education, 32(1), 3-24.
Muldoon, S. (2004). Is symbolic interactionism the fifth paradigm of leadership?
Victoria University School of Management. Retrieved February 16, 2007
from
http://www.business.vu.edu.au/Mgt/pdf/working_papers/2004/wp11_2004
_muldoon.pdf
Murphy, J. (1988). Methodological, measurement, and conceptual problems in
the study of instructional leadership. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 4, 290-310.
MySkillsProfile. (2002). Transformational leadership questionnaire. Retrieved
February 3, 2007 from http://www.myskillsprofile.com/tests.php
National Conference of State Legislatures. (2007). Accountability, standards, and
assessments. Retrieved January 15, 2007 from
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/educ/ahomepage.htm
National Educational Goals Report. (1993). Building a nation of learners.
http://www.ed.gov/pubs/goals/report/goalsrpt.txt

119
National Science Foundation. (2008). NSF 88-16 A brief history. Retrieved
February 27, 2008 from
http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/stis1994/nsf8816/nsf8816.txt
New York State Education Department. (2006). Federal-state education policy
chronology 1944-2002. Retrieved March 12, 2008 from
http://www.archives.nysed.gov/edpolicy/altformats/ed_research_chronolog
y.pdf
North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. (2008). A nation at risk.
http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/content/cntareas/science/sc3risk.ht
m
O'Donnell, R., & White, G. (2005). Within the accountability era: Principals'
instructional leadership behaviors and student achievement. NASSP
Bulletin, 89,56-71.
Pastore, R. (2005). History of educational reform. Retrieved February 10, 2007
from http://teacherworld.com/potreform.html
PBS.org. (2001). SCHOOL: The story of American public education. Retrieved
April 4, 2007 from
http://www.pbs.org/kcet/publicschool/innovators/index.html

120
Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., & Bommer, W. (1996). Transformational leader
behaviors and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee
satisfaction, commitment, trust, and organizational citizenship behaviors.
Journal of Management, 22, 259-298.
Portin, B. (1997). Complexity and capacity: A survey of principal role change in
Washington state. Retrieved June 13, 2007 from
Purkey, W., & Siegal, B. (2003). Becoming an invitational leader: A new
approach to professional and personal success. Lake Worth, FL:
Humanics Publishing Company.
Raywid, A. (1997). Small schools: A reform that works. Educational Leadership,
55, 34-39.
Sadler, P. (1997). Leadership. London: Kogan, Page/Coopers, and Lybrand.
Sagor, R. (1992). Three principals who make a difference. Educational
Leadership, 49(5), 13-18.
Schnur, J. (2004). A recipe for school success. Retrieved June 13, 2007 from
http://www.fordham.edu/economics/vinod/docs/schnur-pap.doc
Sergiovanni, T. (1990). Adding value to leadership gets extraordinary results.
Educational Leadership, 47(5), 13-18.

121
Sergiovanni, T., & Moore, J. (1990). Schooling for tomorrow: Directing reforms to
issues that count. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Shartle, C. (1979). Early years of the Ohio State University leadership studies.
Journal of Management, 5, 127-166.
Silins, H. (1994). Leadership characteristics that make a difference to schools.
Paper presented at the annual conference of American Education
Research Association, New Orleans, l_A. Retrieved June 17, 2007 from
Sizemore, B., Brossard, C, & Harrigan, B. (1983). An abashing anomaly: The
high achieving predominantly black elementary school. Executive
summary. Pittsburgh, PA.
Smith, J., & Forbes, J. (2001). Creating a competency-based leadership and
managerial skills program: A model for smaller schools. Journal of
Management Education, 25, 209-230.
South Dakota Department of Education. (2004J. Interpretive guide: The South
Dakota standardized test of educational progress for educators and
parents. Retrieved January 22, 2007 from
http://doe.sd.gov/octa/assessment/docs/DakotaSTEPInterpretiveGuide.pdf

122
South Dakota Department of Education. (2007). Office of Finance and
Management. Retrieved July, 16, 2007 from
http://doe.sd.gov/ofm/fallenroll/2006/index.asp
Stewart, J. (2006). Transformational leadership: An evolving concept examined
through the works of Burns, Bass, Avolio, and Leithwood. Canadian
Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 54, 1 -29.
Stogdill, R. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership. The Journal
of Psychology, 25, 35-71.
Stogdill, R. (1959). Individual behavior and group achievement. New York:
Oxford University Press.
SurveyMonkey.com. (2006). Because knowledge is everything. Retrieved April
17, 2007 from http://www.surveymonkey.com
Tead, O. (1935). The art of leadership. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Tichy, N., & Devanna, M. (1986). The transformational leader. Training and
Development Journal, 41(7), 27-32.
Usdan, M., McCloud, B., & Podmostko, M. (2000). Leadership for student
learning: Reinventing the principalship. Report of the Task Force on the
Principalship. Retrieved May 30, 2007 from
http://www.iel.org/programs/21st/reports/principal.pdf
Van Maurik, J. (2001). Writers on leadership. London: Penguin Books.

123
Vander Ark, T. (2002). Toward success at scale. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(4).
Retrieved March 14, 2008 from
http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/k0212va1.htm
Verona, G. (2001). The influence of principal transformational leadership style
on high school proficiency test results in New Jersey comprehensive and
vocational-technical high schools (Doctoral Dissertation, Rutgers
University, 2001). Dissertation Abstracts International, 62(03), 874.
Vroom, V., & Yetton, P. (1973). Leadership and decision-making. Pittsburg:
University of Pittsburg Press.
Wainer, H., & Zwerling, H. (2006). Evidence that smaller schools do not improve
student achievement. Phi Delta Kappan, 88(4), 300-303.
Waters, T., Marzano, R., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What
30 years of research tells us about the effect of leadership on student
achievement. Working Paper, Aurora, CO.
Wenning, R., Herdman, P., Smith, N., McMahon, N., & Washington, K. (2003).
No child left behind: Testing, reporting, and accountability. ERIC Digest.
Retrieved January 22, 2007 from
http://www.ericdigests.org/2004/behind.html
Williams, D. (1990). The dimensions of education: Recent research on school
size. Working Paper Series. Clemson, SC.

124
Witziers, B., Bosker, R., & Kruger, M. (2003). Educational leadership and student
achievement: The elusive search for an association. Educational
Wooderson-Perzan, M., & Lunenburg, F. (2001). Transformational leadership,
student achievement, and school district financial and demographic
factors. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council
of Professors of Educational Administration. Houston, TX.
Wren, D. (1979). The evolution of management thought. New York: John
Wiley and Sons.
Wright, P. (1996). Managerial leadership. London: Routledge.

1
Appendixes
Appendix A
IRB Approval Letter
u.The University of South Dakota
May 8, 2007
Dr. Marlene Jacobson
The University of South Dakota
Educational Administration
Project Title: 100-07-064- An Analysis of Teacher Identified Principal Leadarship Practices
and South Dakota Secondary Student Achievement
PI: Dr. Marlene Jacobson Student PI: Les Odegaard
Level of Review: Exempt 2 Risk: No More than Minimal
Date Approved: 5/4/2007
The proposal referenced above has received an Exempt review and approval via the procedures
of the University of South Dakota Institutional Review Board 01.
Annual Continuing Review is not required for the above Exempt study. However, when this
study is completed you must submit a Closure Form to the IRB. You may close your study when
you no longer have contact with the subject.
Prior to initiation, promptly report to the IRB, any proposed changes or additions (e.g., protocol
amendments/revised informed consents/ site changes, etc.) in previously approved human subject
research activities.
The forms to assist you in filing your: project closure, continuation, adverse/unanticipated event,
project updates /amendments, etc. can be accessed at
http://www.usd.edu/oorsch/compliance/applicationforms.cfm.
If you have any questions, please contact me: lkorcusk@usd.edu or (605) 677-6184.
Sincerely,
Lisa K.orcuska
Director-Office of Human Subjects Protection
University of South Dakota
Institutional Review Boards
The University of South Dakota IRBs operate in compliance with federal regulations and applicable laws and are registered
with the Office for Human Subject Protections (CHRP) under FWA # 00002421.
Office of Human Subjects Protection
(605) 677-6184
(605) 677-3134 Fax
i] 4 E o s l C l o r k S l r e e l > V e r m i l l i o n . S D 5 7 0 ( 5 9 - 2 . 1 9 0 • l - 8 7 7 - C O Y O T E S • F a x ' 6 0 5 - 6 7 7 - 6 3 2 3 • w w w . u s d . a t l u

126
Appendix B
Transformational Leadership Behavior Inventory
Directions: For each of the following statements, use your mouse to place an "X" in the box that
best describes your perception of your principal's leadership practices.
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
My Principal:
1 Shows us that he/she expects a lot from us.
2 Always gives me positive feedback when I perform well.
3 Acts without considering my feelings.
4 Paints an interesting picture of the future for our group.
5 Leads by "doing," rather than simply by "telling."
6 Gives me special recognition when my work is very good.
7 Shows respect for my personal feelings.
8 Provides a good model for me to follow.
9 Behaves in a manner thoughtful of my personal needs.
10 Insists on only the best performance.
11 Treats me without considering my personal feelings
12 Has a clear understanding of where we are going.
13 Commends me when I am doing a better than average job.
14 Will not settle for second best.
15 Personally compliments me when I do outstanding work.
16 Fosters collaboration among work groups.
17 Frequently does not acknowledge my good performance.
18 Inspires others with his/her plans for the future.
19 Challenges me to think about old problems in new ways.
20 Is able to get others committed to his/her dream.
21 Asks questions that prompt me to think.
22 Encourages employees to be "team players."
23 Has stimulated me to rethink the way I do things.
24 Is always seeking new opportunities for the organization.
25 Gets the group to work together for the same goal.
26 Leads by example.
„ 7 Has ideas that have challenged me to reexamine some of my
basic assumptions about my work.
28 Develops a team attitude and spirit among employees.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

127
Appendix C
Instrument Permission Letter
Les:
I have attached several papers that have used the TLI. It was originally reported in the
Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman and Fetter (1990) paper, which contains information
about its psychometric properties. You are welcome to use it at no cost for your research
(but, not for consulting purposes.). However, I would like a copy of your findings when
you are done.
I am not familiar with the study from the University of Berlin. Can you send me the full
citation?
Phil Podsakoff
Dr. Phil Podsakoff,
I am a doctoral student in the Department of Educational Administration at the University
of South Dakota. I have completed my coursework and am developing my dissertation
proposal. I plan to study educational leadership and student achievement. This spring I
plan to survey 20 South Dakota middle-level and high school-level schools. I plan to
survey the principals and teachers on their staffs for a total of 200-250 participants (ten
teachers per school). I have reviewed a number of instruments and decided to use the
MLQ Form 5x (Short Form).
While working on my literature review, I found a study from the University of Berlin that
showed high correlations between the items in the transformational scales and the same
concern regarding the transactional scales of the MLQ. The writer also expressed
concern that some facets of transformational leadership were not measured by the MLQ.
The researcher reported that the concerns raised in the study concurred with those
found in previous studies.
One component of the Berlin study was a comparison of the MLQ to the TLI. This was
my first exposure to the TLI. The researcher reported more favorable factorial validity
and construct validity among the TLI transformational scales.
In light of this new information, I am writing to investigate the prospect of using the TLI in
my study.
Please advise, and I would appreciate any information that you could provide.
Thank you for your consideration and response.
Respectfully,
Les Odegaard

128
Appendix D
Superintendent Consent Letter
Dear Superintendent
I am a doctoral student in the Educational Administration graduate
program at The University of South Dakota. The purpose of this letter is to
request your approval and assistance in a research study that is part of my
program. The study will examine principal leadership practices and student
achievement in South Dakota secondary schools.
For the study, I have selected 136 South Dakota secondary schools. Upon
your approval, I will email ten randomly selected certified teachers in each of the
selected schools in your district. The email will provide survey information and a
URL address to access the Transformational Leadership Behavior Inventory.
Survey results will be analyzed to determine the relationship between principal
leadership and student achievement in math and reading as measured by the
Dakota STEP. I believe that this will be the most comprehensive study of school
leadership conducted to date in South Dakota. The results will provide the
information necessary to continue the process of school improvement.
The data will be analyzed and reported in a manner that will maintain the
utmost of confidentiality. School identification numbers will be assigned for the
purpose of data analysis. There will be no attempt to identify or report individual
school, teacher, or principal information. This study has been approved by The
University of South Dakota proposal committee and by the human subjects
research committee.
I am requesting that you or your designee grant me permission to conduct
this study in your district. Please send permission to the email address listed
below and inform your building staff(s). I will send you a copy of the instrument
and methodology, and begin surveying your teaching staff. Upon completion of
the survey, I will send you an abstract which provides the findings.
Your prompt attention is greatly appreciated to allow sufficient time for
data collection. Thank you for your consideration and response regarding this
study. My advisor at USD is Dr. Marlene Jacobson. If you have any questions or
concerns, contact me at les.odegaard@k12.sd.us or at work at 605-394-4092.
Respectfully yours,
Les C. Odegaard
Rapid City

129
Appendix E
Superintendent Follow-up Letter
Superintendent
I am a doctoral student in the Educational Administration graduate program at
The University of South Dakota. This is a follow-up to a letter I sent in May
requesting your consent to include your school in a dissertation study that will
examine principal leadership practices and student achievement in South Dakota
secondary schools. Teacher responses to an online principal leadership survey
will be compared to school results on the 2006 Dakota STEP.
Please indicate your consent by replying to this email at
les.odegaard@k12.sd.us. At the completion of the study, I will send you an
abstract which summarizes the findings.
Please find attached the original contact letter and institutional approval.
Respectfully,
Les C. Odegaard

130
Appendix F
Teacher Cover Letter
Dear Sir/Madam(teacher):
I am a doctoral student in the Educational Administration program at The
University of South Dakota. The purpose of this letter is to request your
participation in a research study that is part of my program.
The purpose of the study is to examine the relationship between principal
leadership practices and student achievement in South Dakota secondary
schools. A total of 136 secondary schools have been selected to participate in
the study. Leadership will be measured by surveying teachers regarding the
practices and styles of their principals. The results of the survey will be compared
to student achievement in math and reading as measured by the Dakota STEP.
This study will be the most comprehensive study of educational leadership
conducted to date in South Dakota. The results will provide educators the
knowledge and insights they need to maximize student achievement.
Survey data will be collected, analyzed and reported in a manner that will
maintain the utmost of confidentiality. The identities and responses of individual
participants are unavailable to the researcher. Identification numbers will be
assigned to schools for the purpose of data collection and analysis. There will be
no attempt to identify or report individual district, school, teacher, or principal
information. Your participation in this research study is completely voluntary. If
you decide not to be in this study, or if you stop participating at any time, you will
not be penalized or lose any benefits for which you are otherwise entitled.
This study has been approved by your superintendent (see attachment),
by The University of South Dakota dissertation proposal committee and by
Institutional Review Board. If you have any questions, now or later, you may
contact the IRB at the number below. If you have any questions about your
rights as a human subject, complaints, concerns or wish to talk to someone who
is independent of the research, contact the Office for Human Subjects
Protections at 605/677-6184.
You have been randomly selected to participate by completing the
Transformational Leadership Behavior Inventory. The survey consists of 30 items
and requires 10-15 minutes to complete. The following URL address will take you
to the Inventory:
http://www.survevmonkev.com/s.asp?u=URL listed here
Thank you for your assistance and participation. If you have any questions
or concerns, please contact me at les.odegaard(8>k12.sd.us or 605-394-4092
(work). Again, your participation in this study is greatly appreciated.
Respectfully,
Les C. Odegaard

131
Appendix G
Pilot Study Participation Request
Dear Pilot Study Participant:
I am a doctoral student in the Educational Administration graduate
program at The University of South Dakota. The purpose of this letter is to
request your participation in a pilot study that is part of my dissertation. The study
will examine principal leadership practices and student achievement in South
Dakota secondary schools.
For the study, I have selected 136 South Dakota secondary schools. I will
survey ten certified teachers in each of the selected schools. Survey results will
be analyzed to determine the relationship between principal leadership and
student achievement in math and reading as measured by the Dakota STEP. I
believe that this will be the most comprehensive study of school leadership
conducted to date in South Dakota.
The purpose of the pilot study is to identify confusing or ambiguous
format, content, or procedures. I am requesting that you review the attached
documents that will be emailed to superintendents and teachers and complete
the Transformational Leadership Inventory by clicking in the URL link listed
below.
http://www.survevmonkev.com/s.asp?u=URL listed here
When you have completed the survey please reply to this email and
provide any and all feedback that will assist me in conducting the study. Upon
completion of the survey, I will send you an abstract which provides the findings.
Thank you for your consideration and participation regarding this study.
My advisor at USD is Dr. Marlene Jacobson. If you have any questions or
concerns, contact me at les.odegaard@k12.sd.us or at work at 605-394-4092.
Respectfully yours,
Les C. Odegaard

Appendix H
Transformational and Transactional Leadership Component Data
SCHOOL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
VISION
5.40
4.70
3.60
3.53
2.80
4.60
5.20
4.97
5.34
5.95
4.70
5.47
3.70
5.05
5.80
4.60
4.00
6.05
5.60
6.20
MODEL
4.89
4.00
3.17
2.56
3.67
4.50
5.89
4.06
5.28
5.50
4.83
5.44
4.17
5.00
6.00
4.00
5.33
6.42
6.00
6.00
GOALS
5.75
5.00
3.25
4.83
4.75
4.38
6.25
5.25
5.25
5.50
5.13
4.75
4.31
5.19
6.13
3.50
3.00
6.13
6.00
6.75
EXPEC
5.44
5.00
5.33
4.22
5.67
3.50
5.89
4.89
5.28
5.67
4.96
5.33
4.33
5.17
6.17
4.00
5.00
5.83
6.33
6.67

133
Appendix H (continued)
SCHOOL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
SUPPORT
5.4
5
3.1
5.13
3.4
4.6
6.07
4.6
4.9
5.5
5.4
5.6
5.05
4.9
5.9
6.2
4.6
6
4.8
6.8
STIMULATE
5.22
4.33
4.17
3.78
2.67
4.83
5.56
5
5.17
5.5
4.58
6
3.83
4.67
5.83
5
3.83
6.08
3.33
6.67
REWARD
5.73
5.7
3.8
4.85
2
4.2
6.27
4.5
4.4
5.87
4.25
5.2
5.5
4.1
6.3
3
4.7
5.75
5.8
6.2

134
SCHOOL
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
VISION
5.55
4.40
3.20
3.00
5.50
4.30
6.20
2.40
3.80
4.89
4.10
5.80
3.80
4.80
5.93
3.20
5.80
4.83
4.60
5.93
2.80
MODEL
6.13
5.33
3.33
2.00
6.33
2.33
6.50
2.67
4.22
4.52
3.50
6.00
1.33
5.67
6.50
3.33
4.83
5.61
5.00
6.56
1.33
GOALS
5.44
4.75
3.67
2.75
5.88
3.88
5.50
6.44
4.67
5.07
3.00
6.50
3.75
6.25
6.25
3.25
5.50
5.08
4.75
5.83
3.00
EXPECT
6.08
5.00
3.56
3.33
6.17
5.33
6.33
4.00
4.78
5.67
4.67
5.33
4.67
5.33
5.78
5.00
4.83
4.44
5.00
5.89
3.00

135
SCHOOL
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
SUPPORT
6.15
4.6
4.8
3.2
5.5
2.7
5.2
5.2
3.4
4.49
3.4
5.6
2.8
5.4
6
3
5
5.83
5.4
6
1.8
STIMULATE
5.08
4.67
3.44
4.33
5.33
4.67
6
2.67
4.44
5.52
2.83
5.67
2.67
5
6
4
5.17
4.67
4.33
5.44
3.17
REWARD
6.35
4.5
4.27
5.2
6.5
3
4.2
4.2
4.8
3.94
3.4
5.6
2.2
4.8
5.8
3
3.8
5.23
5.4
5.53
2.3

136
Appendix I
Leadership Composite Mean, School Enrollment, Socioeconomic Status,
and Student Attendance Data
SCHOOL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
LCM
5.44
2.77
6.14
3.70
4.23
5.63
4.79
5.88
4.76
5.05
5.67
4.84
5.38
4.48
4.84
5.00
4.64
3.25
6.02
5.36
ENROLL
652
130
845
690
295
2160
299
163
834
250
296
176
652
557
690
620
703
283
191
1871
SES
39.70
90.00
89.30
88.40
89.80
76.90
83.60
69.90
64.30
83.60
80.70
79.50
75.80
63.90
71.40
77.30
72.70
79.50
63.40
76.10
ADA
94.30
95.36
95.84
97.20
98.55
86.90
96.56
96.08
94.30
95.07
97.05
95.92
93.46
95.24
95.10
95.70
94.04
94.28
95.20
90.50

137
Appendix I (continued)
Leadership Composite Mean, School Enrollment, Socioeconomic Status,
and Student Attendance Data
SCHOOL
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
LCM
5.33
5.86
4.70
3.83
3.46
5.88
4.64
4.80
3.24
4.44
4.79
5.91
5.79
5.29
5.97
3.43
4.98
5.15
4.96
5.87
2.46
ENROLL
1041
375
233
163
811
560
485
1117
1897
652
445
1518
389
263
2057
1261
590
152
271
634
939
SES
84.10
84.00
80.30
71.80
79.50
66.10
18.10
85.80
82.00
71.80
93.00
91.80
90.20
87.10
73.20
84.90
75.80
65.10
91.10
78.50
50.30
ADA
96.50
95.09
96.80
99.58
95.14
96.60
91.60
96.10
92.20
94.10
95.40
89.50
90.80
94.61
92.40
92.31
96.50
95.05
95.47
94.50
95.10

Appendix J
2003 STEP, 2006 STEP, and STEP Improvement Data
SCHOOL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
STEP03
38.50
75.50
79.50
71.00
48.50
56.00
60.50
67.00
52.50
64.50
69.50
54.50
58.00
54.50
61.00
76.50
69.50
56.00
65.00
68.50
STEP06
60.00
62.00
82.00
83.50
60.50
56.00
63.00
74.00
65.00
79.00
76.50
74.00
54.00
70.50
82.00
81.50
75.00
71.00
73.50
82.00
STEPIMP
21.50
-13.50
2.50
12.50
12.00
0.00
2.50
7.00
12.50
14.50
7.00
19.50
-4.00
16.00
21.00
15.00
5.50
15.00
8.50
13.50

Appendix J (continued)
2003 STEP, 2006 STEP, and STEP Improvement Data
SCHOOL
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
STEP03
67.00
66.50
69.00
69.00
71.00
66.50
36.00
73.50
66.00
58.50
77.50
76.50
40.00
58.00
53.00
69.50
67.50
84.50
63.50
71.50
54.00
STEP06
87.00
73.00
84.50
67.50
76.00
82.00
48.50
89.00
76.50
71.00
90.50
82.00
61.50
66.00
71.50
64.50
85.00
73.00
66.00
80.00
74.50
STEPIMP
20.00
6.50
15.50
-1.50
5.00
15.50
12.50
15.50
10.50
12.50
13.00
5.50
21.50
8.00
18.50
-5.00
17.50
-11.50
2.50
8.50
20.50

«WMMIOMN3MMIOMM-iJ-i-'-'-'-»-i
-iOtooovicsoi^wM-iOcDooîmcn^wio
(DOO-slOlOlJiUlO
CO
O
X
O
O
ocowoooocoooooooocnooooio
co
-jocnj^-vioowooO
^0)ai^^Cnw^^MO>MO)N30lC3)0)aiC5)Ol*wOiJÔlOl-ti.Cn^.|,
OW
wwrooouooicnrooioiuwow-'Ouoo-'ôooiMoaaioi
WO)^03WOONDN3^0CAiWOWWOWOO^^COOOOO>CDOC3)^JCD(y|
*>O
ooo
uwwoiwoiww^ppiuwio^wpwpw^ûioiwwro
bboboi^tnbbb)*wbob^^^spj^Q^^wwMMuoio>i>
ocoooooioo~vj~>i4ôo30oaicnji.cnoo3<Dwwooioioioowoioir
CO
coen
bbo
oco
•âbwbibvio
^WNIUSSOOO
uMûbbbb^^wwbfflio'ooboiiou^
WU-vlUOt»Ô>J>JU«(J)vl00(0(DOMU^
m
X
m
o
H
CD
CO
CO"
0}
Co
3"
1
O'
0)
CO
o
o"
CD
3-
O
o
3
•o
o
CD
D
CD
sr
CD
X'
o

WWMIOIOM(ON)MMMM-'-i-»-'-'-i-i-»
-*0(0(»>IO)01ÛM-»0(DO»>I(DOI^())IO(O00-slO)Ol^WM-i
-ipOiOiMOiW
bobboobob^
OOCOOOOO
ji.it*.KJro-vienK>b>
CDOOOOOOO
CDCD4*.en-t*
'-»•boococo
enoooo
enenenen.&>-&.a>
6b)'*bibb)o
enooooo-vi
CD-»•
oeo
«Ol^CtMOlWUl^M0)Ô1^-tiWCDUUlJi030)
-s|
-»•CDenooen
-vi-si-vieoto
o
-J
o
o
CDeoeoCD
-sieoeo-si
oCDooooCDooo
oo-jeoeo-vieoo
J*,enenenenêo
enenôenbo-vi-^
00O-VIO0)W00N|
CO
o
o
O
ji.eneoen
o
-fc».en
IO
^cobohotooenN3uieoro
o-tôoooooocno
eoentoootoCD
oeoeoooo
-ts.CD
-sjeo
oo
ji.
o
en
en
o
en
to
o
-C*
to
en
en
00
J>.
o
js.CD^êoen
entotooooo
o-joeno
-si
eo
CO
C
•u
"0
O
73
H
CO
H
C
H
m
73
m
I73
O
3
CO
cT
3
o"
3"
CD
CO
a
T)
0)
Co'
05
=5
CO
0)
o
o"
i—
:s-
•5'
O
o
3
o
CD
0)
0)
3>
CD
Q.
X"
o
c
CD
sQ-

UWN5K)M(OWrOIOION5M-i-'-i-'-'-»-'-'
-»0(DOOSO)W^WN)-'0(DOOÔ)01^«IO(D00ÎO)OlÛK)-i
CO
o
o
o
r—
O
toenen-U
'4^bo^CD
O)MOl00<D
Oi01^.J2».CO4i».42k
B^Ji04i(»0)UO)UO)JiÔOOO^v|OlO)00(DUO^.|iS
en
4S>.
00O)
42k--J
oenenen
0000
o
b
o
a)-vi(flO)>lO)O)vl
ooo)coa)en-»•enenenoenoeno
00000000
-j00
*•P
enb
oo
•vj00O)CD(D-NI
eoen
bbenb
0000
ro0
en
o
o
o
v|CO|iCO-N|
O)CDCO(0CD
enbenbb
00000
o
en
o
00
en
o
A-^10
_k->l-*•
enenen
ooo
en
en
o
cojopen10en
benenenenen
000000
en
b
0)0)0)0)0)0)0101010)0)01(3)0)01^
(DO)^1COffl
benbenenben
0000000
^CO*.(OAM>JOO)
oenenen01
00000
oen
oo
o
o
o
o
CO
-vieo—I
P9°m
en01-a
000
eo
O)
en
o
eo
b
o
00co>ico
NIMOlN)
bob'
OOO
O
o
-J
0
en
o
en~vi
4*>-tk
bb
oo
VlNlO)
O)CDen
01o
oo
o
o
NIO)(Ji00COO)
4^.eoCDeoK>o
oooenoo
000000
ACD
en01
oo
IO
O
O
O
k
eo
en
0
01
en
0
K)
O
O
O)
O
O
-kO)•&•CD
O
O
Ol
45>.K>
enen
oo
-jroo
benb
000
N)
en
o
jo
01
o
ro
en
o
CO
H
rn
TI
o
O)
CO
H
m
CO
3
ro
o
o
$*>
Co
s
o
o
p>
0)
a
CO
s
"0
D
0)
ST
1*
CD
Q.
X"
42k
ro

Appendix M
Transformed Leadership Composite Mean, School Enrollment,
Socioeconomic Status, and Student Attendance Data
SCHOOL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
LCM
5.40
4.82
3.77
4.13
3.84
4.44
5.86
4.75
5.09
5.64
4.84
5.40
4.41
4.87
6.00
4.30
4.39
6.00
5.39
6.08
ENROLL
652
176
845
690
295
1518
299
176
834
250
296
176
652
557
690
620
703
283
191
1518
SES
63.90
90.00
89.30
88.40
89.80
76.90
83.60
69.90
64.30
83.60
80.70
79.50
75.80
63.90
71.40
77.30
72.70
79.50
63.40
76.10
ADA
94.3
95.36
95.84
96.8
96.8
91.6
96.56
96.08
94.3
95.07
96.8
95.92
93.46
95.24
95.1
95.7
94.04
94.28
95.2
91.6

144
Appendix M (continued)
Transformed Leadership Composite Mean, Student Enrollment,
Socioeconomic Status, and Student Attendance Data
SCHOOL
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
LCM
5.78
4.75
3.82
3.68
5.84
3.83
5.62
4.10
4.30
4.87
3.64
5.75
3.44
5.32
6.01
3.55
4.99
5.10
4.93
5.85
3.18
ENROLL
1041
375
233
176
811
560
485
1117
1518
652
445
1518
389
263
1518
1261
590
176
271
634
939
SES
84.10
84.00
80.30
71.80
79.50
66.10
63.90
85.80
82.00
71.80
90.00
90.00
90.00
87.10
73.20
84.90
75.80
65.10
90.00
78.50
63.90
ADA
96.5
95.09
96.8
96.8
95.14
96.6
91.6
96.1
92.2
94.1
95.4
91.6
91.6
94.61
92.4
92.31
96.5
95.05
95.47
94.5
95.1

145
Appendix N
Transformed 2006 STEP Data
SCHOOL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
STEP06
60.5
62
82
83.5
60.5
60.5
63
74
65
79
76.5
74
60.5
70.5
82
81.5
75
71
73.5
82

to
<o
^
CD
3
.C
c;
o
^
5
.*
T3
C
CD
Q.
Q.
<C
CO
Q
CL
Ul
K
CO
<o
o
o
CJ
•o
CD
sc
.8CO
c
JO
LO
CO
o
Q_
LU"*
I-°°
CO
CO
1^
LOLO
00<o
COCM
00
LOLOLO
o
CO
"3-
00
CO
LO
00
CM
co
LO
co
CO
CO
LOLOLO
COco
coco
co°sco^r
o
o
X
o
CO
CM
CM
CM
CO
CM
•^J"
CM
LO
CM
CO
CM
!"«-
CM
00
CM
O)
CM
O
COCO
CM
CO
CO
CO
^
co
LO
CO
co
CO
h-
co
CO
CO
CD
CO
o
M-

147
Appendix 0
Survey Responses to Principal Length of Service
SCHOOL YES NO
1 1
2 2
3 1
4 1
5 2
6 1
7 1
8 1
9 1
10 1
11 1
12 1
13 1
14 1
15 1
16 2
17 1
18 2
19 2
20 1

148
Appendix O (continued)
Survey Responses to Principal Length of Service
SCHOOL YES NO
21 1
22 1
23 2
24 1
25 1
26 1
27 1
28 1
29 1
30 1
31 1
32 1
33 1
34 2
35 2
36 2
37 1
38 1
39 2
40 1
41 1

Leadership behavior and effectiveness

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to Leadership behavior and effectiveness

More from Siti Khalijah Zainol

Leadership behavior and effectiveness