School leadership

Principal Influence on School Climate: A Networked Leadership Approach
Dissertation
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy
in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University
By
David M. Fultz, M.Ed.
Graduate Program in Education
The Ohio State University
2011
Dissertation Committee:
Dr. Belinda Gimbert, Advisor
Dr. Helen Marks
Dr. Jerome D‘Agostino
Dr. Anika Anthony

Copyright by
David M. Fultz
2011

ii
Abstract
As processes and contexts for educating students alter, principals are expected to
shift their leadership styles to effectively cultivate school climates that proactively
accelerate student academic success. Previous models of educational leadership have
shown positive results under certain circumstances, but fail to consistently produce a
recurring link from a leadership platform to student academic success.
Espoused leadership platforms focusing on instruction, teacher collaboration and
parental involvement have been implemented in an effort to directly influence student
success. Although some studies have shown that the principal‘s focus on instruction
(Bamberg, & Andrews, 1990; Goldring, & Pasternack, 1994; Hallinger, & Heck, 1996a,
1996b, 2002; Hallinger, & Murphy, 1986) and collaboration (Conley, & Goldman, 1994;
Gronn, 2002; Harris, 2005; Spillane, 2005; Timperley, 2005) have positively influenced
student academic success, other studies have suggested no relationship on student success
with either of these styles without being moderated through the teachers influence on
student achievement (Bottery, 2001; Day, Harris, & Hadfield, 2001; Fullan, 2002;
Hallinger, & Heck, 1996a, 1996b; Leithwood, & Jantzi, 1999a; 1999b). Likewise, the
influence on the role that parents play within the educational environment has shown
both significant (Brabeck, & Shirley, 2003; Epstein, Sanders, Simon, Salinas, Jansorn, &
Van Voorhis, 2002; Fan & Chen, 2001; Herman & Yeh, 1983; Jeynes, 2003, 2007; Leana
& Pil, 2006) and non-significant (Bobbett, 1995; Ford, 1989; Keith, Reimers, Fehrmann,

iii
Pottebaum, & Aubey, 1986) impact on student academic success. Ultimately, it is the
principal‘s impact on school climate that influences student academic outcomes.
This study explored the amalgamated influence of instruction, collaboration and
parental involvement on the teachers‘ perceptions of school climate through a newly
conceptualized networked leadership model. Within such a model, how the principal
instructionally leads, collaborates, and secures parental involvement to leverage gains in
a positive school climate guides this inquiry. This study predicts an increase in the
measure of networked leadership is positively associated with an increase in the teachers‘
perceptions of school climate.
The target population for this study consisted of public school elementary
principals and teachers across the United States of America who were identified to
participate by the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES, 2010). Nationally,
the sampled included 5,250 public school districts, 9,800 public schools, 9,800 public
school principals, and 47,440 public school teachers. The sample identified for this study
consisted of 2,761 public elementary principals and 10,293 teachers. The average
number of years the teachers were at the current school site where this study took place
was 8.7 years. The principals‘ tenure were approximately half as long (4.6 years). There
was a substantially larger number of teachers who were female (9,149) than male (1,144).
Likewise, a larger portion of elementary principals were female (1,667) than male
(1,094). The average age of teachers (43.5 years) in the study was slightly lower than the
average age of principals (50.2 years).
The National Center for Educational Statistics collected information from public
school districts, principals and teachers in the 2007-2008 Schools and Staffing Survey

iv
(SASS). For the 2007-2008 school year survey, SASS used a stratified probability-
proportionate-to-size sample. SASS data is collected on a four year cycle, making the
2007-2008 the most recent dataset. Items on the SASS allowed the researcher to
determine the principal‘s degree of focus on instruction, teacher collaboration, and
parental involvement, as well as the teachers‘ perceptions of the school climate. The
primary statistical analysis used for this model was multiple linear regression using
hierarchical forced entry to better understand how each of the specific constructs within
the networked leadership model impacts on school climate.
As the networked leadership model shows, the principal‘s engagement in this
networked approach to leadership had a significantly positive influence on student
academic success. However, the correlation was weak (r = .072, p < .05). Likewise,
when the principal‘s focus on instruction is entered into the model alone, it is positively
correlated (r = .103, p < .01) with the teachers‘ perceptions of school climate. The
principal‘s influence on collaboration and parental involvement did not display
significant correlations with the teachers‘ perceptions of school climate.
While it initially appeared that the networked leadership approach held promise to
leverage positive influences on teachers‘ perception of school climate, further analysis
revealed that the construct of instruction was predominantly impacting significance.
When the individual constructs were parceled out, only the construct of instruction
retained significance. This significance was also maintained regardless of which of the
other constructs were entered into the model. However, these results must be tempered
with the fact that this significance is weak and the entire model only accounts for 3.1% of
the variability in school climate.

v
The limited application and statistical significance of the results should not
diminish interest in future configurations of networked leadership. The foundation of this
concept is a viable approach to school leadership. The notion of networked leadership
needs to be explored using appropriate instrumentation and research to identify unique
attributes and combinations of actions that may ultimately lead to a stout leadership
model. Further theorization of networked leadership may yield better research and result
in outcomes that facilitate leadership development and implementation in the field of
education and principal preparation.

vi
Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to my wife and children for accepting an imposed
vow of poverty, and allowing me at times to be an absent parent as I achieved
enlightenment at The Ohio State University. I also dedicate this dissertation to my
parents who selflessly gave up their dreams so that I could achieve mine. In honoring
their sacrifice, I will be ever vigilant in my service to education and continuously strive to
make them eternally proud!

vii
Acknowledgments
Achievement of this magnitude cannot be obtained without the continued support
of professors, colleagues, friends and family. I first would like to acknowledge my
advisor and committee chair, Dr. Belinda Gimbert. The knowledge and experience that I
gained through our journey together transformed how I approach education and scholarly
research. As my mentor, she facilitated my learning environment and provided
opportunities for me to acculturate into the world of higher education academia. I am
forever grateful for her kindness, guidance, and friendship.
Next, I would like to acknowledge my committee members, Dr. Helen Marks, Dr.
Jerome D‘Agostino, and Dr. Anika Anthony for their continued guidance and support
through this process. They challenged me to grow and expand my ideology of
educational leadership, and supported me through their actions and encouragement as I
developed into a scholar. It is through their compassion to the field of education and
their commitment to developing exceptional educational leaders, that I have found the
enlightenment that I sought while attending The Ohio State University.
Further, I would like to acknowledge my Project KNOTtT family, Rebecca
Parker, Patricia Hanna, Greg Nagy, Paula Kurth, Brad Henry, Jennifer Bale, and Debbie
Weaver. Like a family, they rallied around me and provided the necessary support and
encouragement that I needed to be successful. Their humor, advice, compassion, critical

viii
friendship, and assistance helped support me through achieving this goal. Like a family,
they enriched my life and experiences while at The Ohio State University.
Finally, it is with much appreciation that I specifically acknowledge my good
friend and colleague Patricia Hanna. Her support, skills, and overall motivational attitude
kept me going through the difficult patches of this process. She was there as my
shoulder, my cheerleader, my critical friend and my life-coach. She never let me forget
that our endeavors facilitate the cultivation of the next generation of global citizens,
which is truly the only way to change the world. Words cannot express my eternal
gratitude for that support and encouragement!

ix
Vita
1995 …………………………………….B.A. Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, The
University of South Florida
1999 …………………………………….M.A. Educational Guidance and Counseling,
The University of South Florida
2003 …………………………………….M.Ed. Educational Leadership and
Administration, The University of South Florida
2003 to 2007 ……………………………Elementary School Administrator, School Board
of Sarasota County, Florida
2007 to Present …………………………Graduate Research Associate The Ohio State
University
Publications
Gimbert, B. & Fultz, D. (2009). Effective principal leadership for beginning teacher
development. International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation,
4(2), 1-15.
Gimbert, B. & Fultz, D. (2009). Top 10 actions a principal can do to make my first year
successful. Principal’s Office. http://principalsoffice.osu.edu/files/staff.9.09.php.
Field of Study
Major Field: Education

x
Table of Contents
Abstract............................................................................................................................... ii
Dedication.......................................................................................................................... vi
Acknowledgments............................................................................................................. vii
Vita..................................................................................................................................... ix
List of tables..................................................................................................................... xiii
List of Figures....................................................................................................................xv
Chapters:
1. Introduction..................................................................................................................1
Background of the Study .........................................................................................2
Statement of the Problem.........................................................................................4
Purpose of the Study................................................................................................5
Research Questions..................................................................................................5
Definition of Terms..................................................................................................6
Basic Assumptions...................................................................................................7
Initial Limitations.....................................................................................................7
Significance of the Study.........................................................................................8
Organization of the Study........................................................................................9
2. Review of the Literature ............................................................................................10
Focus on Instruction...............................................................................................12
Instructional Leadership....................................................................................13
Focus on Teacher Collaboration............................................................................21
Transformational Leadership............................................................................22
Distributed Leadership......................................................................................27

xi
Shared Instructional Leadership .......................................................................32
Integrated Leadership........................................................................................35
Focus on Parental Involvement..............................................................................36
Parental Involvement and Student Success.......................................................39
Socio-Economic Influences ..............................................................................40
Attitudes and Satisfaction .................................................................................43
Defining Parental Involvement.........................................................................46
Types of Parental Involvement.........................................................................49
Teacher Perceptions..........................................................................................51
Parent Perceptions.............................................................................................56
Administrator‘s Role.........................................................................................58
School Climate.......................................................................................................62
Climate vs. Culture ...........................................................................................64
Principal Influence on School Climate .............................................................65
School Climate Influence on Teachers and Students........................................68
Networked Leadership...........................................................................................70
3. Methodology..............................................................................................................74
Research Design.....................................................................................................74
Conceptual Model..................................................................................................75
Population and Sampling.......................................................................................76
Instrument Description...........................................................................................79
Data Collection ......................................................................................................85
Data Analysis ........................................................................................................86
4. Results........................................................................................................................89
Assumptions...........................................................................................................89
Data Analysis.........................................................................................................98
Networked Leadership and School Climate .....................................................99
Covariates and School Climate.......................................................................104

xii
Instruction and School Climate.......................................................................106
Collaboration and School Climate..................................................................108
Parental Involvement and School Climate......................................................110
Analysis Summary...............................................................................................112
5. Conclusions and Implications..................................................................................115
Discussion............................................................................................................115
Limitations...........................................................................................................119
Recommendations................................................................................................121
General Implications............................................................................................122
Implications for Practice and Research................................................................125
References........................................................................................................................128
Appendix A: Instruction .................................................................................................157
Appendix B: Collaboration.............................................................................................159
Appendix C: Parental Involvement.................................................................................161
Appendix D: School Climate..........................................................................................163

xiii
List of Tables
Table 3.1. Demographics for Principals and Teachers Responding to the 2007 – 2008
Schools And Staffing Survey Questionnaire ....................................................................78
Table 3.2. Demographic Information for the Schools where the Principal and Teachers
Responded to the 2007 – 2008 Schools And Staffing Survey Questionnaire....................78
Table 3.3. 2007 – 2008 Principal SASS Items from Question 12 Selected to Represent
Instruction .........................................................................................................................80
Collaboration .....................................................................................................................81
Parental Involvement ........................................................................................................82
Table 3.6. 2007 – 2008 Teacher SASS Items from Question 55 Selected to Represent
School Climate...................................................................................................................84
Table 4.1. Demographic Characteristics ..........................................................................90
Table 4.2. Demographic Characteristics with Outliers Removed ....................................93
Table 4.3. Tolerance and Variance Inflation Factor Analysis .........................................95
Table 4.4. Reliability Estimates by Variables...................................................................96
Table 4.5. Principal Component Analysis Results ...........................................................97
Table 4.6. ANOVA to Determine Covariates Included in the Model .............................99
Table 4.7. Analysis of Variance Networked Leadership and School Climate................100
Table 4.8. Correlation between Networked Leadership and School Climate.................101
Table 4.9. Regression Analysis between Networked Leadership and School Climate .102

xiv
Table 4.10. Analysis of Variance Instruction, Collaboration, Parental Involvement
and School Climate .........................................................................................................103
Table 4.11. Correlation between Covariates and School Climate .................................104
Table 4.12. Regression Analysis between Covariates and School Climate ...................105
Table 4.13. Correlation between Instruction and School Climate .................................106
Table 4.14. Regression Analysis between Instruction and School Climate ...................107
Table 4.15. Correlation between Instruction, Collaboration and School Climate .........108
Table 4.16. Regression Analysis between Instruction, Collaboration and School
Climate.............................................................................................................................109
Table 4.17. Correlation between Instruction, Collaboration, Parental Involvement
and School Climate .........................................................................................................111
Table 4.18. Regression Analysis between Instruction, Collaboration, Parental
Involvement and School Climate ....................................................................................111

xv
List of Figures
Figure 3.1. Conceptual Model of Principal‘s Influence on School Climate.....................76
Figure 4.1 Histogram of Regression Standardized Residuals ...........................................91
Figure 4.2 Histogram of Regression Standardized Residuals with Extreme Values
Removed ...........................................................................................................................92
Figure 4.3. Normal P-Plot Regression Standardized Residuals of Instruction,
Collaboration, Parental Involvement and Climate.............................................................93
Figure 4.4. Linearity Scatterplot ......................................................................................94

1
Chapter 1: Introduction
The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) (U.S. Department of Education, 2001)
was designed to enhance the quality of academic instruction in core curricular areas, and
hold our educational system accountable for equitably addressing the needs of all
students. This policy primarily focuses on student academic success and the teachers‘
qualifications and ability to deliver meaningful instruction. It also influenced how
teacher preparation programs design the academic experience of their developing
teachers, including identifying what knowledge, skills, and dispositions are needed to be
successful under NCLB. Furthermore, this policy influenced how state departments write
and enforce state level policies regarding education (2001). As NCLB approaches
revision and reauthorization, educators and policy-makers have an opportunity to address
the shortcomings of the initial policy. One of these areas is the role of the building
administrator in impacting the climate of their schools, which translates to student
academic success.
The focus of this study is to better understand how the combination of different
facets of influence in the principal‘s leadership arsenal impacts school climate, knowing
that climate has a direct impact on student academic success. Included in chapter one of
this study are information pertaining to the background, problem statement, purpose of

2
study, research questions, definition of terms, significance of the study, assumptions,
initial limitations, and an overview of the organization of chapters to come.
Background of the Study
In 1983, the publication of A Nation at Risk (U.S. Department of Education,
1999) prompted a school reform movement calling for effective ways in which school
leaders provide an appropriate educational environment that facilitates student growth
and learning. As leadership models were developed and tested, gaps in its effectiveness
on cultivating a positive educational environment and student success began to emerge
(Bottery, 2001; Day et al., 2001; Firestone, 1996; Fullan, 2002; Hallinger & Heck, 1996a,
1996b; Leithwood & Jantzi, 1999a; 1999b; Marks & Printy, 2003). As educational
reform shifted the procedures and processes of best practices in educating students,
leadership styles also evolved. Through this evolution, prevailing theories in the
literature retained focus on the principal‘s influence on the individual constructs of
instruction, collaboration, and the cultivation of parental involvement onto the
educational environment.
Instructional leadership (Barth, 1986; Edmonds, 1979; Hallinger & Murphy,
1986; Leithwood & Montgomery, 1982) addressed the need for a strong, directive leader
in the principal position. This leader is responsible for facilitating curriculum,
supervising instruction, and conducting evaluations in order to increase student academic
success (Chrispeels, 2002; DuFour, 2002; Hallinger, 2003; Hallinger & Murphy, 1985,
1987; Lashway, 2002; Whitaker, 1997). Studies have suggested that the principal‘s
influence on school structures does correlate to some degree with school climate and

3
student academic success (Bamberg & Andrews, 1990; Goldring & Pasternack, 1994;
Hallinger & Heck, 1996a, 1996b, 2002; Hallinger & Murphy, 1986). However,
conflicting studies have shown that no direct relationship exists between instructional
leadership and student success (Hallinger, 2003; Hallinger & Heck, 1996a,; Murphy &
Hallinger, 1987). These studies suggest that failure to link leadership style to positive
school environment and student outcomes is due to the model‘s negligence to share
power or distribute leadership.
On the other hand, transformational leadership focuses on education as a collegial
effort where collaboration is paramount in the educational process (Bass, 1990; Blase &
Blase, 2000; Burns, 1979; Hallinger, 2003; Gill, 2003; Jung & Sosik, 2002; Marks &
Printy, 2003; Spillane, Camburn, & Pareja, 2007; Yukl, 1999). This allows the principal
to maintain control of the educational environment and impact student academic success,
while delegating authority and empowering teachers and staff. While some researchers
found that this type of leadership had a positive effect on student success (Conley &
Goldman, 1994; Harris, 2005; Spillane, 2005), other researchers found that the influence
is more directly associated with school conditions affecting teacher perception and
motivation, such as school climate, rather than student achievement (Bottery, 2001; Day
et al., 2001; Fullan, 2002; Leithwood & Jantzi, 1999a; 1999b).
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA, 1965) legislated
parental involvement by requiring parents to serve on school advisory boards, while
encouraging parents to participate in their child‘s classroom. NCLB (U.S. Department of
Education, 2001) further solidified the importance of parental and community
involvement with the school environment. Research findings have suggested that parents

4
and communities play a significant role in creating a positive school climate and in
student academic success (Brabeck & Shirley, 2003; Epstein, 2005; Fan & Chen, 2001;
Henderson & Berla, 1994; Henderson & Map, 2002; Jeynes, 2003, 2007; Leana & Pil,
2006). However, other studies indicate that parental involvement has no significant
effect on aspects of school climate or student success in the classroom (Henderson, 1988;
Keith, Reimers, Fehrmann, Pottebaum & Aubey, 1986; Zellman & Waterman, 1998;
Bobbett, 1995).
Statement of the Problem
Espoused leadership platforms that focus on instruction and teacher collaboration
have been implemented in an effort to directly influence student success. Although some
studies have shown that the principal‘s focus on instruction (Bamberg & Andrews, 1990;
Goldring & Pasternack, 1994; Hallinger & Heck, 1996a, 1996b, 2002; Hallinger &
Murphy, 1986) and collaboration (Conley, & Goldman, 1994; Gronn, 2002; Harris, 2005;
Spillane, 2005; Timperley, 2005) have positively influenced student academic success,
other studies have suggested no relationship on student success with either of these styles
without being moderated through the teachers influence on student achievement (Bottery,
2001; Day et al, 2001; Fullan, 2002; Hallinger & Heck, 1996a, 1996b; Leithwood, &
Jantzi, 1999a; 1999b). Likewise, the influence on the role that parents play within the
educational environment has shown both significant (Brabeck & Shirley, 2003; Epstein et
al, 2002; Fan & Chen, 2001; Herman & Yeh, 1983; Jeynes, 2003, 2007; Leana & Pil,
2006) and non-significant (Bobbett, 1995; Ford, 1989; Keith et al, 1986) impact on
student academic success. Ultimately, this influence is associated with school climate

5
than student academic outcomes. The principal‘s impact on school climate is the most
direct way for them to impact student academic success. Therefore, how the principal
influences the school climate, through the focus on instruction, collaboration, and
parental involvement is worth further investigation.
Purpose of Study
Previous research in this field has typically focused on instruction, collaboration
and parental involvement either individually or in a loosely coupled format through the
facilitation of the principal. Research has yet to to explore the amalgamated influence of
the three leadership constructs: instruction, collaboration, and parental involvement.
Combining these three constructs as they dynamically engage with the educational setting
guides leadership theory toward a networked leadership model. Within such a model,
how the principal instructionally leads, collaborates, and secures parental involvement to
leverage gains in a positive school climate guides this inquiry. This study predicts an
increase in the measure of networked leadership is positively associated with an increase
in the teachers‘ perceptions of school climate.
Research Questions
1. Is there a relationship between principals‘ degree of networked leadership within the
school environment and teachers‘ perception of school climate?
2. Is there a relationship between principals‘ degree of influence on instruction and
teachers‘ perception of school climate?

6
3. Is there a relationship between principals‘ degree of influence on collaboration and
4. Is there a relationship between principals‘ degree of influence on parental involvement
and teachers‘ perception of school climate?
Definition of Terms
Instruction. The principal makes purposeful and meaningful decisions regarding
curriculum and instruction as a primary way of positively impacting school climate and
increasing student academic success (Chrispeels, 2002; DuFour, 2002; Hallinger, 2003;
Hallinger & Murphy, 1985, 1987; Lashway, 2002).
Collaboration. The principal shares in the decisions making regarding the
educational environment by soliciting input and influence from the teaching staff. By
sharing in decision-making, teachers gain substantial influence over the educational
environment and increase their satisfaction within the school climate (Blankstein &
Noguera, 2004; Burnette, 2002; Garmston, 2006; Hallinger, 2003; Hudson, 2005).
Parental Involvement. The principal provides pathways that encourage parents
to be more involved in the educational environment and engages parents in continuous,
meaningful communication regarding student success and school activities (ESEA,
1965).

7
Networked Leadership. The process in which the principal instructionally leads,
collaborates, and secures parental involvement to leverage gains in a positive school
climate.
School Climate. ―The enduring quality of the school environment that is
experienced by participants, affects their behavior, and is based on their collective
perceptions of behavior in schools‖ (Hoy, 1990, p. 152).
Basic Assumptions
1. Individuals who completed the 2007 – 2008 Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) did
so while functioning as the building principal for the school in which they were
referring to when completing the items.
2. Individuals completing the SASS held a current administrators license in the state
where they reside, completing all coursework necessary for licensure.
3. Individuals who completed the SASS maintained the integrity of their perceptions by
responding honestly to each item on the Schools and Staffing Survey.
Initial Limitations
1. The population from which this sample was drawn included only public schools
principals and teachers. The effective influence of the principal‘s leadership and the
teachers‘ perceptions of school climate do not reflect relationships that might appear
within the private school sector.

8
2. The population from which this sample was drawn included only elementary school
principals and teachers. Responses from middle and high school principals and
teachers regarding the constructs in the model may impact leadership influence and
school climate outcomes differently that at the elementary level. However, they are
not reflected in this study.
3. Response information was only included in the study if principals and teacher data
could be matched where at least one teacher could be paired with one principal. Data
points without matching principal-teacher data were not included in the study.
4. The data collected for this study were exclusively based on principal and teacher self-
report data, and absent of any objective observable data. The data is contingent upon
the principals‘ and teachers‘ perception of their influence and interactions within the
school environment.
Significance of the study
If it is possible to identify the most pertinent attributes that principals possess and
actions that they engage in, which correlates to higher teacher perception of school
climate and ultimately student academic success, policy makers at both the state and
federal level can then include principal standards that reflect these attributes and actions
in state level policy as well as in the reauthorization of NCLB. By adding these standards
of leadership, educational policy will take great strides in holding principals directly
accountable cultivating a school climate that ultimately impacts the achievement of all

9
students in the school building, compelling them to be a more active and engaged
participant in the educational process. Principal preparation programs will then be able to
fine-tune their practices and course requirements to adequately accommodate best
practices in developing these new attributes and actions in novice principals. This
advancement in the current state of knowledge in educational administration will
facilitate principal awareness of their leadership style, as well as effectiveness in
providing an environment that promotes teacher cohesion and satisfaction, and provide an
environment that is conducive to optimal learning for all students.
Organization of the Dissertation
Chapter one introduced the need for such a study, along with what specific
research questions are necessary in order to adequately assess the constructs contained in
this study. Chapter two presents scholarly research that outlines the theoretical
components and empirical investigations associated with the principal‘s influences on the
teachers‘ perceptions of school climate. Chapter three addresses the methodological
process used in this study. Chapter four presents the research findings. Chapter five
contains a summary and discussion of the findings, as well as recommendations for
further research of these specific constructs.

10
Chapter 2: Review of the Literature
The publication of A Nation at Risk in 1983 (U.S. Department of Education,
1999) prompted a school leadership reform movement that primarily focused on
increasing the effectiveness of school leadership. Student academic success became the
standard for which principal effectiveness was measured. Leadership models were
developed and tested in order to cultivate efficient and effective ways in which to
influence the educational environment for the purpose of facilitating continuous student
success. As educational reform continued to shift the way educators provided instruction
to students, it also forced the evolution of the principal‘s style of leadership (Bottery,
2001; Day et al., 2001; Firestone, 1996; Fullan, 2002; Hallinger & Heck, 1996a, 1996b;
Leithwood & Jantzi, 1999a; 1999b; Marks & Printy, 2003).
What has maintained through this evolution of leadership style is the principal‘s
focus on instruction and collaboration within the learning environment. A portion of the
current literature has supported the relationship between the principal‘s focus on
instruction and the learning environment (Bamberg, & Andrews, 1991; Goldring &
Pasternack, 1994; Hallinger & Heck, 1996a, 1996b, 2002; Hallinger & Murphy, 1986), as
well as how their engagement in collaboration elicits positive outcome from both the
teachers and students (Conley & Goldman, 1994; Gronn, 2002; Harris, 2005; Spillane,
2005; Timperley, 2005). However, other studies have shown that the principal‘s focus on
instruction and collaboration have no meaningful relationship on teacher and student

11
success (Bottery, 2001; Day et al., 2001; Fullan, 2002; Hallinger & Heck, 1996a, 1996b;
Leithwood & Jantzi, 1999a; 1999b).
Additionally, parents began increasing their role in the educational environment.
The principal‘s leadership style had to accommodate active participation by the parents
and cultivate a learning environment where teachers, parents, and students were engaged
in the processes of learning (Christenson, Rounds & Gorney, 1992; Edwards, 1995; Egan,
O‘Sullivan & Wator, 1996; Epstein, 1991; Merttens & Vass, 1993; Patterson, 1994).
While some researchers suggest that the involvement of parents in the educational
environment increases teacher and student academic success (Brabeck & Shirley, 2003;
Epstein et al., 2002; Fan & Chen, 2001; Herman & Yeh, 1983; Jeynes, 2003, 2007; Leana
& Pil, 2006), others found that little connection between parental involvement and
student success (Bobbett, 1995; Ford, 1989; Keith et al., 1986).
Empirical analyses has suggested a somewhat tenuous relationship between
leadership styles that focus on the individual constructs of instruction, collaboration and
parental involvement and their impact on the learning environment, as well as student
academic success (Andrews & Soder, 1987; Blase & Blase, 2000; Hallinger, 2003;
Hallinger & Heck, 1996a, 1996b; Leithwood, 1992; Marks & Printy, 2003; Sergiovanni,
1990). However, there is an absence of research that assesses how the principal engages
in these three theoretical constructs simultaneously in order to produce an inter-correlated
or networked effect on the educational environment that ultimately impacts student
academic success. The combined successful aspects of these three constructs may negate
their individual shortcomings and result in a model that produces sustained success
within the educational environment. Therefore, how the principal influences the

12
educational environment, through the focus on instruction, collaboration, and parental
involvement is worth further investigation.
Focus on Instruction
The leader of the school plays a significant role in creating an environment where
students can achieve. Leithwood, Seashore-Louis, Anderson, and Walstrom (2004)
identify leadership as the pivotal point in improving student learning.
Leadership is widely regarded as a key factor in accounting for difference in the
success with which schools foster the learning of their students. Indeed, the
contribution of effective leadership is largest when it is needed most: there are
virtually no documented instances of troubled schools being turned around in the
absence of intervention by talented leaders. While other factors within the school
also contribute to such turnarounds, leadership is the catalyst. (p.17)
Likewise, Lezotte (1994) identifies the principal as the dominant power that influences
student academic success. He states:
When one asks who decides how resources such as time and limited money get
allocated, the answer in most schools is, ―the principal‖. If one asks who decides
what and who gets praised and sanctioned, the answer in most schools is, ―the
principal‖. When someone asks who places students in different settings, sets
priorities for the future, creates the climate and expectations for the school, and

13
recruits and socializes new teachers, again the answer is, ―the principal‖. Taken
together, these elements constitute a force powerful enough to alter what has been
the normal flow of that school. (p. 22)
Instructional Leadership
The concept of instructional leadership emerged from the effective schools
literature (Andrews & Soder, 1987; Chrispeels, 2002; Hallinger & Murphy, 1986) as a
means to increase student academic success. In order to identify and implement common
effective teacher practices, a need existed for a strong, directive leader in the unitary role
of the principal (Barth, 1986). Instructional leadership identified the principal as the
center of learning, and trained leaders who would take a direct approach in curriculum
development and instructional supervision as the dominant way of improving student
academic success (Chrispeels, 2002; DuFour, 2002; Hallinger, 2003; Hallinger &
Murphy, 1985, 1987; Lashway, 2002).
Instructional leadership was born out of research conducted by Edmonds (1979),
Leithwood and Montgomery (1982) and Hallinger and Murphy (1985). Edmonds
focused on effective schools for the urban poor and found that the instructional leader is
the one who provides resources and support focused on student academic. Leithwood
and Montgomery found that the principal‘s behaviors or strategies interconnected with
school-related factors and classroom-related factors such as school climate that ultimately
influenced student learning. Hallinger and Murphy found that instructional leaders take
the lead in defining the school mission, managing the instructional program, and
promoting a positive school environment.

14
Other scholars have expounded upon this construct by providing a plethora of
conceptualizations regarding instructional leadership. DuFour (2002) stated that effective
leaders need to have a focus on identifying curricular outcomes, implementing multiple
common assessments, analyzing assessment results, and developing strategies for student
improvement. He added that instructional leaders have a strong working knowledge of
curriculum, instruction and assessment. Principals understand the purposes and processes
of curriculum and how it is connected to students‘ cognitive development. This includes
identifying effective curricular tools, as well as ways to improve curricular integration
into the lesson.
DuFour (2002) also discussed how instructional leaders have a firm grasp on
effective teacher instructional strategies. Leaders comprehend the knowledge, skills and
dispositions necessary to formulate lesson plans and to deliver instruction in a
differentiated model in order to meet the diverse needs of individual students. From
pedagogy to practice, effective instructional leaders are cognizant of appropriate
instructional strategies and are able to model and evaluate them for their teachers.
Instructional leaders understand the importance and process of assessing student learning.
Instructional leaders acknowledge that student academic success is their top priority and
that using assessment tools are the means by which to measure that achievement. They
not only understand formative, summative, standardized and alternative assessment
techniques, but also know when to implement them into the learning environment.
Although DuFour advocated for a re-branding of the term instructional leader to lead
learner, the attributes of curriculum development, implementation of instruction and data
assessment remained the focus of skills necessary for effective instructional leaders.

15
Lashway (2002) re-conceptualized the construct of instructional leadership into
four skills: interpersonal communication skills, planning to achieve a goal skills, strong
observation skills, and effective research and evaluation skills. Lashway believed that
instructional leaders have good interpersonal skills in order to effectively communicate
with teachers. In this conceptualization, the purpose of the creation and delivery of the
lesson is to use instructional practices to improve student academic success. Instructional
leaders have planning skills that allow them to identify clear goals, and the process that it
takes to attain those goals. Within the planning process, they are able to plan for
enrichment or remediation if their goal does not come to fruition during its first
implementation. Lashway also stated that instructional leaders have strong observation
skills. As leaders of instruction, they feel comfortable observing the delivery of a lesson
and identifying areas to praise the teacher, as well as offer suggestions to improve
instruction. Finally, Lashway identifies that instructional leaders have effective research
and evaluation skills. They are able to evaluate student achievement using researched
methods of analysis. Being able to use the appropriate tools at various times during the
learning process allows instructional leaders to assist the teacher in making modifications
and accommodations in the delivery of instruction for the purpose of improving student
achievement.
Similar to Lashway, Whitaker (1997) conceptualized instructional leaders by
identifying their need to be strong educational resource providers, instructional resource
providers, great communicators, and have a visible presence in the learning environment.
Instructional leaders are educational resource providers, focusing on the overall needs of
their building. They recognize teacher and student needs, and find resources to fill those

16
needs. Instructional leaders are instructional resource providers, focusing on supporting
teachers‘ needs in the classroom. They understand effective instructional practices,
current trends in student learning, and effective pedagogy in instruction and assessment.
Instructional leaders are great communicators, conveying messages such as their vision,
mission, and instructional practices so that teachers are clear on their role in the learning
process. They also engage in quality communication with students, parents, and
community members as a way to disseminate the achievement and expectations of their
students. Finally, Whitaker identified visible presence as a crucial element of
instructional leadership. In other words, the instructional leader needs to be more
―hands-on‖ in the learning process. These leaders model appropriate learning, behavior
and lesson delivery, as well as focus on programs and activities that reflect appropriately
chosen learning objectives.
Marks and Printy (2003) narrowed previous conceptualizations into a construct
that more lucidly linked research to practice. They identified an instructional leader to be
a principal who focused on curriculum resources, instructional resources, and strong
communication, and maintained a visible presence to monitor student achievement. They
posited that, through the coordination of curriculum and supervision of the learning
process, instructional leaders could better monitor student achievement. They noted that
―instructional leadership, emphasizing the technical core of instruction, provides
direction and affects the day-to-day activities of the school‖ (p. 377).
One of the most frequently cited construct of instructional leadership was the
model conceptualized by Hallinger (2003). His model intertwines the previous constructs
and highlights commonalities that are pertinent to the leadership attributes necessary to

17
promote student academic success. Hallinger‘s construct consisted of three dimensions:
defining the school mission, managing the instructional program, and promoting a
positive school learning climate (Hallinger & Murphy, 1985).
In the first dimension, Hallinger (2003) addresses defining the school mission. In
this dimension, instructional leaders spend time ―framing the school‘s goals and
communicating the school‘s goals‖ (p. 332). The leader makes sure that these goals are
clearly defined, accurately targeted, and measure the academic processes of student
learning. The second dimension is managing the instructional program. In this
dimension, instructional leaders are appropriately ―supervising and evaluating instruction,
coordinating the curriculum, and monitoring student progress‖ (p. 332). The leader is
central in the development and delivery of instruction, facilitating what is addressed
academically and keeping the success of the curricular plan in place.
Hallinger‘s third dimension of instructional leadership addresses the promotion of
a positive learning climate. In this dimension, instructional leaders take on the
responsibility of ―protecting instructional time, promoting professional development,
maintaining high visibility, providing incentives for teachers, and providing incentives
for learning‖ (p. 332). The leader establishes a culture conducive to learning that focuses
on instruction implementation and academic success. This includes having a strong
presence, where the leader intervenes in the daily activities of instruction in the
classroom.
Principals are responsible for having knowledge of the curriculum and
instructional strategies in order to assist teachers in facilitating instruction (Leithwood &
Riehl, 2003). Marzano, Waters, and McNulty (2005) found that student achievement is

18
influenced by principal focus on instruction. They stated that ―Principals must be
knowledgeable about curriculum and instructional practices, knowledgeable about
assessment practices and provide conceptual guidance for teachers regarding effective
classroom practice‖ (p.55).
Empirical evidence demonstrating that instructional leadership can influence
student achievement has been met with mixed results. Research conducted by Blase and
Blase (2002) indicates supportive evidence that instructional leadership has a positive
effect on teachers and classroom instruction. Similarly, Hallinger (2003) states that ―The
preponderance of evidence indicates that school principals contribute to school
effectiveness and student achievement indirectly through actions they take to influence
what happens in the school and in the classrooms‖ (p. 333). Other inquiries suggest that
a consistent comprehensive mission statement as well as the influence the principal puts
on school structures, such as curriculum and instructional standards both play a role in
correlating instructional leadership to positive school climate and student academic
success (Bamberg & Andrews, 1990; Goldring & Pasternack, 1994; Hallinger & Heck,
1996a, 1996b, 2002; Hallinger & Murphy, 1986).
Meek (1999), analyzing the principals‘ instructional management characteristics
and student outcomes of 300 elementary schools in North Carolina found a positive
correlation between instructional leadership and student academic success. Of the actions
that had the most meaningful impact were: framing and communicating school goals,
coordinating the curriculum, monitoring student progress, and protecting instructional
time. Likewise, Marzano, Waters, and McNulty (2003) conducted a meta-analysis of
leadership involving 70 classrooms and identified 21 attributes and actions of leadership.

19
These areas are heavily identified as attributes and actions associated with instructional
leadership. Principals are responsible for having knowledge of the curriculum and
instructional strategies in order to assist teachers in facilitating instruction (Leithwood &
Riehl, 2003). Marzano, Waters, and McNulty (2005) stated that ―Principals must be
knowledgeable about curriculum and instructional practices, knowledgeable about
assessment practices and provide conceptual guidance for teachers regarding effective
classroom practice‖ (p.55).
Research conducted by Leithwood, Seashore-Louis, Anderson, and Walstrom
(2004) concluded that leadership was in fact a dominant factor in influencing school
climate and student academic success. They found that, ―leadership is second only to
classroom instruction among all school-related factors that contribute to what students
learn at school‖ (p.17). They identified successful leadership as a principal engaging in
(a) setting the direction of the school, (b) developing people and (c) redesigning the
culture and structure of the organization.
Hallinger and Heck (1998) conducted a meta-analysis of 40 empirical studies and
found that the studies fell into three common effects outcomes: (1) direct effects, (2)
mediated effects, and (3) reciprocal effects. They concluded that mediated effects such
as school climate seemed to have the most influential statistical significance between
principal leadership and student achievement. They expected this stating, ―The fact that
leadership effects on school achievement appear to be indirect is neither cause for alarm
or dismay. Achieving results through others is the essence of leadership. A finding that
principal effects are mediated by other school variables does nothing whatsoever to
diminish the principal‘s importance‖ (p. 44).

20
Likewise, Cotton (2003) found similar results with regard to indirect leadership.
Cotton concluded:
In general, these researchers find that, while a small portion of the effect may be
direct- that is, principals‘ direct interactions with students in or out of the
classroom may be motivating, inspiring, instructive, or otherwise influential- most
of it is indirect, that is, mediated through teachers and others. (p.58)
The principal, through the cultivation and facilitation of the climate and educational
environment, influences teachers, who in turn influence the academic development of
students. This process lends itself to an indirect influence from principal to student with
regard to student outcome measures (Gurr, 1997).
However, a study conducted by Andrews and Soder (1987) revealed a direct link
between the principal‘s leadership and student academic success. From this study, a
framework of instructional leadership was developed that focused on four specific actions
of engagement. In order to be an effective instructional leader, principals had to (1) be a
resource provider, (2) provide specific instructional resources, (3) be a good
communicator, and (4) be a visible presence in the school building on a daily basis.
Studies also exist that contradict such findings, asserting that there is no effect
between Instructional Leadership and student achievement (Hallinger & Heck, 1996a,
1996b). A synthesis of studies conducted by Witziers, Bosker, and Kruger (2003) found
that a direct link between instructional leadership and student achievement was
nonexistent. Despite research studies that have shown positive mediated or indirect

21
connections between instructional leadership and student academic success, a consistent
causal relationship between the two has yet to be established and maintained through
replications of research (Hallinger, Bickman, & Davis, 1996; Witziers et al., 2003).
Because of the hierarchical structure of instructional leadership, which focuses on
the principal as the dominant leader of curriculum and instruction, if principals lacked
pertinent knowledge and skills about how to evoke student academic success in their
school, the school as a whole suffered (Murphy & Hallinger, 1987). A primary critique
of instructional leadership is that it neglected to share power and distribute leadership
(Hallinger, 2003). As it became clear that modifications to instructional leadership were
necessary in order to better address student needs, a shift began toward a more
collaborative and distributed approach to leadership. As a part of the school restructuring
movement, principals had to transform their ways of leadership both inside and outside
the school building to maximize the resources and support necessary to make a positive,
sustained, and equitable difference in their approach to the school environment and the
academic success of all students (Marks & Louis, 1997).
Focus on Teacher Collaboration
Effective principals create an environment where they can tap into the collective
intelligence of their staff (Johnson, 2005). The principal facilitates a community of
educators dedicated to addressing student needs and improving student achievement
through collaboration and communication (Blankstein & Noguera, 2004; Burnette, 2002;
Garmston, 2006; Hudson, 2005). One such leadership model that promotes collaboration

22
between the principal and teacher as the dominant force in educating students is the
Transformational Leadership model.
Transformational Leadership
As we have seen, a primary critique of instructional leadership neglected to share
power and distribute leadership (Hallinger, 2003; Murphy & Hallinger, 1987).
Consequently, collaboration with shared leadership that promotes innovation and social-
relational capacity with teachers lends itself to the conceptualization of the
transformational leadership construct (Bass, 1990; Blase & Blase, 2000; Burns, 1979;
Gill, 2003; Jung & Sosik, 2002; Marks & Printy, 2003; Spillane et al., 2007; Yukl, 1999).
Building upon the foundation established by Bass, Leithwood is credited with bringing
Transformational Leadership into the educational setting (Bass, 1990; Hallinger, 2003;
Leithwood, 1992).
Transformational leaders improve organizational performance by working
collaboratively with teachers, parents and the community. Through this collective effort,
all educational stakeholders work together to identify and address issues or concerns,
thereby continually transforming the educational process to provide a meaningful
educational environment conducive for learning (Hallinger, 1992; Marks & Printy, 2003).
Leadership is not distributed from the principal to the teachers; rather, it is shared as
teachers accept leadership roles (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2000a; Louis & Marks, 1998;
Ogawa & Bossert, 1995). As they accept leadership roles, teachers are encouraged to
subordinate their own self-interest for the greater good of the organization (Bass &
Avolio, 1993; Leithwood, Tomlinson, & Genge, 1996; Silins, Mulford, Zarins, & Bishop,

23
2000). In regards to the definition of transformational leadership, Hallinger (2003) states
that:
Transformational leadership focuses on developing the organization‘s capacity to
innovate. Rather than focusing specifically on direct coordination, control and
supervision of curriculum and instruction, transformational leadership seeks to
build the organization‘s capacity to select its purposes and to support the
development of changes to practices of teaching and learning. (p. 330)
Avolio and Bass (1988) separated the behaviors of transformational leaders into
four categories: idealized influence, inspirational influence, intellectual stimulation and
individualized consideration. Idealized influence most notably reflects the followers
desire to emotionally identify and model the actions and behaviors of the leader (Avolio,
1999; Yukl, 1999). Conviction, trust, purpose and risk taking within a solid foundation
of moral and ethical guidance are necessary behavioral components in modeling
leadership with idealized influence (Avolio, 1999; Bass & Avolio, 1997).
Inspirational motivation centers on the leader providing inspiration and
motivation in order to challenge their followers to take part in a more meaningful
engagement in student learning (Avolio & Bass, 1988). Through communication and
collaboration, leaders and teachers work together to develop a shared vision that targets
high standards. Then, this vision is optimistically implemented with encouragement and
enthusiasm (Avolio, 1999; Bennis & Goldsmith, 1997; Donohue & Wong, 1994; Fullan,
1997).

24
Intellectual stimulation is where the transformational leader, ―stimulates their
followers‘ efforts to be innovative and creative by questioning assumptions, re-framing
problems, and approaching old situations with new methods and perspectives‖ (Avolio,
1999, p. 46). This category was designed to create a paradigm shift on how teachers
recognize and conceptualize a problem while facilitating new and innovative ways to
approach changing trends in education (Bass, 1985; Leithwood, Jantzi, & Steinbach,
1999). Meanwhile, individualized consideration focuses on the specific needs of
individuals as it pertains to their professional growth and development. This includes
fostering a supportive environment where teachers are treated fairly, provided
opportunity for growth, and acknowledged for their successes (Bass, 1985; Leithwood et
al., 1999).
Jantzi and Leithwood (1996) built upon this list by identifying categories that
recognize behaviors elicited by transformational leaders. Their research created six
dimensions of leadership practice: identifying and articulating a vision, fostering the
acceptance of group goals, providing individualized support, support intellectual
stimulation, providing an appropriate model, and promote high performance expectations.
Identifying and articulating a vision focused on identifying new educational opportunities
and developing a vision that inspires others to accept and become involved in that vision.
Fostering the acceptance of group goals focused on developing cooperative and
collaborative pathways to build common goals. Providing individualized support focused
on the leader taking time to get to know teachers in order to provide them with
appropriate support and encouragement in a very respectful manner.

25
Jantzi and Leithwood (1996) aligned with Avolio and Bass (1988) when they
created and defined their intellectual stimulation dimension. As with Avolio and Bass,
this conceptualization focused on challenging teachers to shift their paradigm about the
practices and processes they used to teach. Thus, teachers would be encouraged to find
innovative ways to improve upon their effectiveness and increase student academic
success. Jantzi and Leithwood‘s (1996) category of providing an appropriate model
focused on the importance of the leader to set a good example for teachers and to hold
themselves up to a high ethical and moral standard. Finally, the high performance
expectations dimension focused on ―the leader‘s expectations for excellence, quality, and
high performance on the part of the staff‖ (p. 515).
Hallinger (2003) further conceptualizes transformational leadership. He
delineates instructional and transformational leadership using three distinct
differentiations. The first differentiation has to do with a ―top-down versus a bottom-up
approach to school improvement‖ (p. 337). In a top-down approach, the principal is at
the center of instruction and controls the flow of instruction (Barth, 1990; Cohen &
Miller, 1980; Day et al., 2001; Heck, Larson, & Marcoulides, 1990). On the other hand,
the bottom-up approach is where transformational leadership shares control and decision-
making with the players that are closest to the situation, allowing teachers to facilitate
instructional resources and lesson implementation (Day et al., 2001; Jackson, 2000;
Marks & Printy, 2003).
The second differentiation involves ―managerial or transactional versus
transformational relationship to staff‖ (Hallinger, 2003, p. 337). Departing from the
instructional leadership model, principals adopted a transactional approach to leadership.

26
This approach reinforced the management and control of followers to maintain the status
quo of the day-to-day activities (Blase & Anderson, 1995; Howell & Avolio, 1993;
Silins, 1994). Transformational leadership and transactional leadership are on opposite
ends of a leadership continuum. Transformational leadership promoted collaboration,
cooperation, motivation and a shared commitment to perform at high levels to impact
student learning (Barnett, McCormick, & Conners, 2001; Burns, 1978).
The third differentiation between instructional and transformational leadership is
―First-order versus second-order target for change‖ (Hallinger, 2003, p. 337).
Instructional leaders are in first-order processes. They facilitate school goals, curriculum,
and delivery of instruction to target ways in which knowledge is transferred to students
(Hallinger et al., 1996; Leitner, 1994; Marks & Printy, 2003). Transformational leaders
focus on second-order processes such as collaboration, cooperation, motivation, and
inspiration to facilitate teachers‘ eliciting first-order effects on student achievement
(Lambert, 1998).
Empirical evidence exploring transformational leadership‘s effects on the
educational environment and student academic success has also been met with mixed
results. While researchers will argue that Transformational Leadership has a positive
effect on student development, they also note that this effect occurs in school conditions
that directly influence teacher perception, motivation, and way of work (Bottery, 2001;
Day et al., 2001; Fullan, 2002; Leithwood & Jantzi, 1999a; 1999b). Therefore, the
transformational leader‘s effect on student achievement is only through an indirect
pathway. Transformational Leadership has also shown positive results when linked to
other models like Instructional Leadership through a shared leadership approach (Marks

27
& Printy, 2003). In a study conducted by Leithwood and Steinbach (1991), they found
that when teachers collaborated with their principals, a more pronounced commitment to
the collective goals and shared vision of the school were attained. Teachers were
committed to enhancing student learning and solving any problems that limited the
students‘ ability to learn. Although learning may have been enhanced through student
engagement, a lack of direct effect on student achievement scores still exists (Leithwood,
1992; Silins et al., 2000).
Transformational leadership focuses more on the growth and innovation of the
organization than directly on curriculum and instruction (Hallinger & Leithwood, 1998;
Marks & Printy, 2003). With a diminished focus on instruction and curriculum in the
transformational leadership model, principals are forced to take on a more meticulous
leadership role to facilitate student achievement (Sebring & Bryk, 2000; Sheppard, 1996).
Transformational leadership has spawned multiple leadership models including
distributed leadership and shared instructional leadership.
Distributed Leadership
One major component of the educational reform movement is the shared
leadership approach to educating students. A popular form of shared leadership is the
conceptualization of a Distributed Leadership construct (Camburn, Rowan, & Taylor,
2003; Spillane, 2005). Distributed leadership is grounded in the idea that leadership
cannot exist in isolation and that in order to maximize the benefits to student learning,
leadership must be distributed widely across the organization to those individuals in a
position to make the decisions that will elicit the greatest improvement (Elmore, 2000;

28
Timperley, 2005). By combining expertise, individuals create a synergistic relationship
that increases the effect of achievement in a larger context of learning (Elmore, 2000;
Gronn, 2002; Harris, 2005; Spillane, 2005; Timperley, 2005). Ultimately, the principal
maintains control of the school, but utilizes the teachers‘ respective knowledge, skills and
dispositions by delegating authority, empowering teachers while continuously cultivating
a system conducive to student achievement (Elmore, 2000; Harris, 2005; Spillane, 2005).
Spillane (2005), Gronn, (2002), and Elmore (2000) each provide a
conceptualization of distributed leadership. Spillane approached distributed leadership
not by the attributes of the individual leader, but rather by the common practices of many
leaders. Multiple actors take part in the leadership actions of the school and it is the
inter-relational aspects of these actions that define leadership practice. Spillane‘s use of
artifacts includes the vision and goals of the school as well as tangible learning materials
and resources that guide instruction. Finally, Spillane conceptualized distributed
leadership through daily tasks and activities that the leader performs in relation to the
other two attributes. This focuses on the actions of the leader, the tools and resources
that the leader uses to provide instruction in alignment with the school‘s mission and
vision, and the context in which leadership is distributed.
Like Spillane, Gronn (2002) espoused that leadership in a distributed context must
include multiple leaders within the organizational structure. Leadership within the
organization could be vested in a few, many, or all of the individuals, given the
circumstances in the local context. Gronn also detailed distributed leadership as a way to
develop or enhance the vision and mission of the organization by understanding the
necessary tasks at hand, identifying individuals suited to the tools and technological

29
capabilities needed to address the task, and delegating leadership to those individuals.
Gronn also identified the importance in people working in concert to facilitate sustained
increases in student academic success. He outlined three forms of actions that can be
effectively implemented in a distributed leadership model: spontaneous collaboration,
intuitive working relations and institutionalized practices. Spontaneous collaboration is
an unplanned collaborative effort between two or more individuals who use their
knowledge of the situation and their respective skill sets to collaborate on solving a
problem.
Intuitive working relationships are a product of two or more individuals having
built a close working relationship where each can predict the needs of the other and
provide a means to satisfy those needs without being asked (Gronn, 2002). Finally,
institutionalized practices refer to the formal structures of the organization. When
processes are effective in a valid and reliable manner, they are absorbed into the climate
of the school as normal ways of work. As distributed actions prove successful, they are
repeated and eventually institutionalized within the processes of the organization.
Elmore (2000) conceptualized distributed leadership by focusing on the
improvement of instruction and student academic success. Multiple individuals work
together through a common climate and culture of leadership and collaboration. The
expertise of the members of the organization in order to connect appropriate individuals
to situations that need addressed. This highlights the necessary function of instructional
leadership in order to elicit large scale improvement.
Recently, research conducted by Robinson (2008) identifies distributed leadership
by two dimensions: delegation of leadership tasks and distribution of influence. She

30
stated that, ―By embedding leadership in tasks, attention is given to its content and
purpose‖ (p. 245). The performing of multiple tasks throughout a school day are
necessary to provide an environment where teaching and learning flourish. The
principals, using their knowledge of the situation and of the skill sets of their teachers,
delegate leadership responsibilities to complete the tasks. These tasks focus both on
direct curriculum and instructional activities, as well as larger building management
activities (Camburn, et al, 2003). The delegation can be in a collaborative, rotating or
straight forward manner until the task is completed, depending on what the principal
deems necessary for the current situation (Robinson, 2008).
Once a task is delegated, the principal uses a variety of influences to facilitate task
completion (Robinson, 2008). According to Robinson, influence is strictly used through
the filters of, ―positional authority, personal qualities, and rational persuasion‖ (p. 247).
This is overtly contrary to a power relationship that consists of ―force, coercion, and
manipulation‖ (p. 247). The role of leader and follower can change multiple times within
an organization, depending on the current situation: therefore, cooperation and transient
hierarchical processes must be ingrained in the culture of the school (2008).
Harris and Spillane (2008) offer three reasons why distributed leadership is so
popular. First, it has normative power. As leadership models continue to transform from
a principal-centered instructional leadership approach to a more collaborative model,
principals must meaningfully and purposefully distribute leadership and responsibilities
in order to continue to maintain a high level of academic focus. Second, distributed
leadership has representational power. As alternative approaches to leadership that
engage in complex collaborative organizational structures arise, principals must distribute

31
leadership that encourages multiple shared interaction and support to compensate for the
increasing demands placed upon the school or district (Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder,
2002). Finally, Harris & Spillane (2008) stated that distributed leadership is a popular
leadership model because it has empirical power. Although research investigating the
effects of this model on student achievement is relatively new, available research has
shown a positive correlation between distributed leadership and positive changes in the
climate and organization of the school (Harris, Leithwood, Day, Sammons, & Hopkins,
2007; Leithwood, Mascall, Strauss, Sacks, Memon, & Yashkina, 2007).
Empirical research on distributed leadership influencing the school climate and
student academic success is still relatively new (Harris et al., 2007; Harris & Spillane,
2008; Lashway, 2003: Spillane, 2005). However, findings have suggested that
distributed leadership has improved teaching and learning (Harris, 2005; Spillane, 2005;
Timperley, 2005). Similarly, Robinson (2008) concurred that success associated with
distributed leadership is more aligned with teacher perceptions of school climate.
Spillane, Camburn, and Pareja (2007) found that, although a distributed model
would be more effective in serving the roles and activities of a building principal than an
instructional leadership model, it does not focus explicitly on curriculum, instruction, and
assessment. Merely distributing leadership roles to others capable of taking them on in
the school building does not necessarily have a direct influence on student improvement
(Robinson, 2008). Organizational morale may improve but without student achievement
improving, then, according to Robinson, the primary focus on instruction and learning is
diluted.

32
Shared Instructional Leadership
One way to alleviate the lack of explicit focus on curriculum, instruction, and
assessment found in shared leadership models is to glean the specific attributes from
transformational leadership models and blend them into an instructional leadership
approach that affects student achievement. The process creates the shared instructional
leadership model (Marks & Printy, 2003; Printy & Marks, 2006).
In shared instructional models, principals leverage interrelationships and
collaboration to maintain the educational program at their respective schools (Conley &
Goldman, 1994). Although shared instructional leaders focus on instructional support
and resources, they share the instructional leadership process with teachers in a reciprocal
manner in both formal and informal actions (Ogawa & Bossert, 1995; Pounder, Ogawa &
Adams, 1995; Prestine & Bowen, 1993).
Fletcher and Kaufer (2003) identify three aspects of shared leadership
development that are absorbed into the shared instructional leadership model. The first
aspect focuses primarily on what was discussed earlier regarding distributed leadership.
Leadership in this instance is defined by the accumulative practices that the teachers and
principals engage in on a daily basis, not simply the individual principal‘s delegation of
responsibility and leadership opportunities (Firestone, 1996; Spillane, Halverson, &
Diamond, 2001; Harris & Spillane, 2008; Spillane, 2005). The second aspect of shared
leadership focuses on social interaction. Shared leadership is an interactive process in
which the players have a desire to collaborate and solve an issue or achieve a goal.
Fletcher and Kaufer‘s third aspect focuses on learning. Developing skills, both at the
individual and group level, as well as how to implement them in a manner that potentially

33
increases student success is a focus of this shared, interactive process (Argyris & Schon,
1996).
Printy and Marks (2006) absorbed facets of shared leadership and incorporated
them with pertinent instructional leadership attributes to conceptualize ―shared
instructional leadership.‖ They use five observation points to articulate their findings
with regard to their conceptualization of shared instructional leadership. Their first
observation focuses on interaction being the basis for learning and leadership (2006).
Schools where teachers interactively shared their expertise, worked toward a common
vision and mission, and openly supported each other tended to rate more favorably on
measures of quality of teaching and learning (Marks & Printy, 2003; Printy & Marks,
2006). The second observation focuses on how teachers make important contributions to
instructional leadership. Through predominantly informal processes, teachers meet and
discuss curriculum and instructional issues, concerns, and procedures in an attempt to
better serve the individual and collective needs of students. Through the process of
sharing and focusing on instructional development, teachers facilitate visions, establish
goals and encourage each other in their implementation. Often, teachers who have more
experience or who are willing to openly share and support their colleagues will rise to
leadership within the group as they help their colleagues understand, cope and adjust their
focus to improve student achievement (2006).
Printy and Marks‘ (2006) third observation focuses on how principals play a
pivotal role in instructional leadership. Formulation of committees, representatives on
those committees, and establishing an environment conducive for collaborative endeavors
are created and maintained through the office of the principal. The success of these

34
interactions depends heavily on the commitment of the principal to facilitate an
environment conducive for these types of processes (Printy, 2002; Printy & Marks,
2006). Principals also are responsible for keeping rigorous and relevant focus on matters
of curriculum, instruction and student achievement. When leadership and decision-
making is shared within these areas, significant attention is placed on achieving a desired
outcome (Printy & Marks, 2006). Also, principals who model positive, inspirational and
motivational ideologies about student learning, while linking it to practice through their
vision and mission, will more likely increase teacher buy-in and find teachers more
willing to accept leadership roles (2006).
Printy and Marks‘ (2006) fourth observation focuses on how shared leadership
provides coherence and clarity. As principals and teachers share leadership
responsibilities, a norming process occurs, and a common understanding materializes
where academic standards and processes become engrained in the culture of the school.
Finally, the fifth observation focuses on how shared leadership is essential for innovation.
Uniting teachers from various backgrounds and facilitating innovative conversations
focused on problem-solving leads to school improvement (Coburn, 2001; Hargreaves &
Macmillian, 1995; Marks & Printy, 2003).
Although shared instructional leadership brings a collaborative aspect to
instructional leadership, it lacks significant representation in building organizational
capacity through a more transformative construct (Firestone, 1996; Marks, & Printy,
2003). Depending upon the needs of the school, the principal must find an equitable
balance between shared instructional leadership and transformational leadership

35
properties through a more integrated leadership approach that facilitates student
achievement.
Integrated Leadership
Research conducted by Marks and Printy (2003) recognized the strengths and
weaknesses of both instructional and transformational leadership models, and identified
pertinent attributes that they believe positively impacted leadership and student success.
Through research analysis and conceptual synthesis of these identified attributes, they
created a new leadership model, ―Integrated Leadership.‖ They believe that ―when the
principal elicits high levels of commitment and professionalism from teachers and works
interactively with teachers in a shared instructional leadership capacity, schools have the
benefit of integrated leadership; they are organizations that learn and perform at high
levels‖ (p. 393).
Integrated leadership draws upon a shared sense of instructional leadership.
Principals and teachers share ideas on how to address student achievement with regard to
the development and implementation of curriculum, instruction, and evaluation.
Integrated leadership also encompasses facets of transformational leadership. Principal
and teachers engage in collective capacity building by encouraging collaborative support
through personal and professional growth opportunities. Teachers are empowered
through inspiration, innovation and influence to develop and embrace organizational
goals, viewing them as more important than the individuals‘ success or accomplishments
(Marks & Printy, 2003).

36
Regardless of the leadership model, a dominant factor in student academic
success is the ability of principals and teachers to collaborate. By working together and
sharing their intellectual capacity, they have the ability to facilitate a school climate
necessary to address the individual needs of their students and promote a positive
learning environment.
Focus on Parental Involvement
In the era of educational accountability, the school leaders focus on instruction
and collaboration with teachers in the educational environment, as well as cultivate an
environment that promotes and supports parent and stakeholder involvement in the
education process. The school and community connection is essential in the learning
process of the student. Parental involvement in the education of children has been at the
center of the educational movement since the early 19th
century in America. Parents and
community stakeholders recruited teachers into their towns to provide an education that
they deemed necessary for their children to be successful (Berger, 2008; Epstein, 1986;
Katz, 1971). During the turn of the 20th
century, teaching began to take on more of a
professional structure and parents began deferring their involvement to the
professionalism of the teacher (Berger, 2008; Epstein, 1996; Henderson, 1988; Katz,
1971; Zellman & Waterman, 1998). By the 1960s, however, federal legislation began
emphasizing the importance of parental involvement in the school setting (Zellman &
Waterman, 1988).
President Lyndon Johnson signed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965 (ESEA, 1965) into law, reconnecting parents to schools by providing them with a

37
mandated pathway to serve on school advisory boards and encouraging them to
participate within the classroom. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act provided
federal funding to schools for the purpose of strengthening student success through
professional development, funding instructional materials and resources, and promoting
parental involvement. Title I of the Act established a purposeful focus on schools
identified as having a high percentage of students from low socio-economic families.
Understanding the importance of parental involvement in the success of children‘s
education, as well as the challenge of facilitating a comprehensive parental involvement
plan in traditionally low-income communities, the Elementary and Secondary
Educational Act mandated funds to target and facilitate parental involvement in high need
educational environments (ESEA, 1965). Research published in the Coleman Report
(Coleman, 1966) further emphasized how the influence of parents was more likely to
affect student success than any other specific variable in the school environment.
A focus on parental involvement continued to play a role in the development of
student success through the 1980s and 1990s. A major form of federal legislation
intended to increase student achievement in American school systems, Goals 2000:
Educate America Act, was signed into law by President Bill Clinton (Goals 2000:
Educate America Act, 1994). Title IV of the act focused specifically on parental
assistance and involvement. Goals 2000 allocated funds for parent training, support
programs, and assistance in preparing them to support their children through the
education process. This act also established partnerships between schools and parents as
a national goal for public educational environments (Epstein, 1995; Goals 2000: Educate
America Act, 1994).

38
Policy initiatives from both the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and
Goals 2000: Educate America Act were absorbed into the No Child Left Behind Act of
2001 (U.S. Department of Education, 2001). With this integration, the No Child Left
Behind Act further solidified the importance of parental and community involvement in
the educational experience. The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 (2001)
absorbed the Goals 2000 act and reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education
act when it was signed into law by President George W. Bush. NCLB focused on
accountability for student achievement, local and flexible control of the educational
environment, greater influence of parental involvement and choice, and the
implementation of educational curriculum and programs that are research-based and have
shown to be successful in facilitating student achievement (Cowan, 2003; U.S.
Department of Education, 2001).
Title I, Part A of the reauthorized version of ESEA specifically focuses on
communities, schools and parents working in collaboration to improve teaching and
learning. This includes establishing and facilitating parental involvement processes that
are rigorous enough to connect to student academic success, but flexible enough to adapt
to local needs in high need, low performing schools within high poverty communities
(Cowan, 2003; ESEA, 1965
Federal policy has purposefully targeted parental involvement and influence in
their statutory laws, supporting the importance they believe parents play in the education
of their child. Although the focus seems to be tied more to impoverished communities
that receive Title I funding, the U.S. Department of Education have consistently
advocated that all schools need robust participation by parents in order to increase student

39
achievement. With this mandated policy, principals and teachers must establish and
maintain pathways in which parents have the opportunity to be involved in their child‘s
education, as well as collaborate on the development and implementation of the vision
and mission of the school. As the school leader, the principal is charged with creating
and cultivating a collaborative environment that supports parental influence and
participation.
Parental Involvement and Student Academic Success
Research findings have suggested that parents and communities play a pivotal
role in a student‘s academic success (Brabeck & Shirley, 2003; Jeynes, 2003, 2007;
Leana & Pil, 2006). These studies affirm the positive influence of parental involvement
in affecting student success indicators such as higher grades, attendance and graduation
rates (Epstein et al., 2002; Fan & Chen, 2001; Herman & Yeh, 1983). A similar positive
correlation has also been recognized between parental involvement and student well-
being with respect to self-esteem, behavior, and positive life goals (Epstein, 2005; Fan &
Chen, 2001). Henderson and Map (2002) concluded that academic achievement was
higher when parents were engaged and involved within the school environment.
Likewise, Henderson and Berla (1994) found that the level of student success was often
contingent on the level of parental involvement within the school setting. Such studies
suggest that parents want someone who creates a warm and inviting atmosphere where
they feel welcomed to participate as a partner in the educational process. They want a
principal who is open, honest, and trustworthy, and who finds value in the involvement of
parents (Abrams & Gibbs, 2000; Mawhinney, 2004; Miretzky, 2004).

40
Fan and Chen (2001) conducted a meta-analysis of quantitative research related to
parental involvement and student achievement. They found that although there were
inconsistencies between the different research analyses, there was a positive relationship
between the amount of parental involvement and the level of student achievement.
The interest in better understanding the involvement of parents in their child‘s
educational environment has lead researchers to conclude that parents contribute a critical
role in the education of their child (Austin Independent School District, 1977; Edwards,
1995; Egan et al., 1996; Merttens &Vass, 1993; Patterson, 1994; Christenson et al., 1992;
Epstein, 1991). Parental involvement can be mitigated by the socio-economic
background of the parent, parental attitudes and satisfaction, and parental participation in
school-supported workshops.
Socio-Economic Influences
A longitudinal study by Hart and Risley (1995) found that the socio-economic
status of the family plays a significant role in parental involvement and child
development. These researchers concluded that parents of impoverished families, when
compared to their more affluent counterparts, spend less time interacting with their
children. In turn, this reduces the amount of time these parents dedicate to their child‘s
growth and development. Lower levels of student academic success in traditionally
impoverished and high minority schools has lead researchers to focus on cultivating
parental involvement (Davies, 1985, 1991). When this effort is employed, parental
involvement increases and schools demonstrate student achievement gains.

41
Research by Henderson and Berla (1994) found that parents play a critical role in
influencing achievement for their children. They found that,
Regardless of income, education level, or cultural background, all families can
and do contribute to their children‘s success… When schools encourage families
to work with their children and provide helpful information and skills, they
reinforce a positive cycle of development for both parents and students… If
schools disparage parents, or treat them as negative influences, or cut them out of
their children‘s education, they promote attitudes in the family that inhibit
achievement at school. (p. 14)
Research has suggested that negative impacts associated with impoverished families can
be mitigated when parents are involved in learning activities, experience consistent two-
way communication with the school, and support student learning at home (Epstein,
1991a, 1991b; Henderson & Berla, 1996).
Using data collected through the National Committee for Citizens in Education
(NCCE), Henderson (1988) performed a meta-analysis with 35 studies on parental
influence on student academic success. Her conclusion supports the generalization that
parental involvement in all facets produces positive gains in student academic success,
clarifying that parents make a critical difference in their child‘s education. These studies
revealed that when schools were offering similar academic programs and processes, the
students in schools with a strong parental involvement component outperformed students
at schools that did not focus on making the parents a part of the educational process.

42
Likewise, when comparing families with similar aptitudes and socio-economic
backgrounds, parents with whom schools shared a positive relationship had students who
outperformed their counterparts in low parent-involvement schools. Not only did these
measures include higher grades and test scores, but also positive student attitudes and
behaviors increased when relationships with parents were cultivated to involve them as
partners in the education of their child.
Mattingley, Prislin, McKenzie, Rodriguez, and Kayzar (2002) analyzed 41 studies
that assessed parental influence on K-12 educational institutions in order to determine if
there is a correlation between parental involvement and student academic. Since parental
involvement programs seemed to be more prevalent in at-risk communities (communities
identified as urban, low income and/or high minority populations), Mattingley et al.,
decided to focus their attention on research that encompassed these demographics. They
found that within the at-risk context, a large number of correlational studies showed
improvement in student academic success when parents were involved in the educational
process. In more rigorous studies, parental involvement programs have been somewhat
successful in changing parent behaviors and student behaviors. However, they found no
causal relationship between the two in two of the four more rigorous studies.
Desimone, Finn-Stevenson, and Henrich (2000) conducted a quasi-experimental
evaluation on 53 teachers and 630 students in a predominantly African American, low-
income community. They found that when teachers placed a high value on parental
participation, parental involvement increased as well as student academic success. They
also found that it was the cultivation of a positive school climate that promoted the shared
involvement of teachers and parents in the decision-making of educational processes.

43
Regardless of income or background, when parents are heavily involved in their child‘s
education, their children are more likely to have increased grades and achievement
scores, attend school regularly, and go on to post-secondary education (Cowan, 2003;
Henderson & Mapp, 2002; U.S. Department of Education, 2001).
Attitude and Satisfaction.
Research conducted by Zellman and Waterman (1998) also found that parents
who are involved in their child‘s educational development tend to see higher outcomes
within their child‘s academic success. However, they did see a stronger correlation
between involvement and parental attitude and enthusiasm than involvement and student
academic success. Researchers have shown that parental involvement in school-related
activities that promote their child‘s academic success are positively correlated with
achievement, attendance and parents‘ overall satisfaction with the school (Abrams &
Gibbs, 2000; Chavkin & William, 1993; Dauber & Epstein, 1993; Henderson, 1987).
Another positive finding from Henderson (1988) was that parents themselves,
when included as partners in the education of their children, improved their attitudes and
beliefs about the effectiveness of teachers and the school. They also began to seek more
education so that they could make a more concerted difference in assisting their children
with school-related activities at home. However, Henderson found that parental
involvement at home was not sufficient to bring about a significant change in student
achievement. Parents also need to be part of the school climate for students to increase
their achievement.

44
Herman and Yeh (1983) analyzed parental involvement and student achievement
data from 256 schools in California. The results of teacher and parent questionnaires
revealed that parental engaged involvement in the child‘s education was positively
related to achievement. When parents were satisfied with their level of involvement with
the educational decision-making for their children, they were also satisfied with the
quality of instruction.
Research has shown both significant and non-significant results with regard to
parental involvement and student academic success (Moles, 1982). Although there are
studies that have shown positive relationships between student academic success and
parental involvement with school, there is another body of evidence that shows parental
involvement has little to no effect on student outcomes (Bobbett, 1995; Ford, 1989; Keith
et al., 1986). While there seems to be a focus on the need for strong parental
involvement in the child‘s education with regard to school work completed at home,
evidence shows that this assistance alone does not make a large difference in student
academic success as a whole (Henderson, 1988).
With regard to achievement levels in at-risk populations, although parents do
make an effort to improve student academic success through their influence, it is not
enough to overcome other disadvantages associated with low socio-economic status as it
relates to student success (Henderson, 1988). Research also indicates that the parents‘
interaction with their child regarding their education may be a better predictor of student
success than their involvement with the school (Zellman & Waterman, 1998).
The principal promotes an educational environment that cultivates parental
involvement. Without such an environment, teachers feel that parents will not become

45
involved in their child‘s school or be intimidated and withdrawn when they attend school
functions (Desimone et al., 2000). Parents may face challenges and obstacles and their
efforts may be thwarted as they seek to be involved in processes that support their
children‘s academic achievement within the school learning environment (Becker &
Epstein, 1982; Hobbs, Dokecki, Hoover-Dempsey, Moroney, Shayne & Weeks, 1984;
Lightfoot, 1978; Moles, 1982). Often, a school‘s organizational structure does not appear
to welcome or invite parental input. Corwin and Wagenaar (1976) found that when
schools are bound by strict controls and predominately hierarchical structures, parental
involvement occurred less often.
Likewise, teachers perceive parents and community members to lack
understanding of the intricacies of education, regarded parents as unable to significantly
provide appropriate academic support within the classroom, and thereby de-value the
parental role in facilitating student academic success (Jacobson, 2002). Parents and
community members seek to be active participants in children‘s education, but often lack
processes and access to make a significant contribution without the support of the
principal (Blackmore, 2002; Goldfarb & Grinberg, 2002; Kumashiro, 2000; Riehl, 2000).
Further, parents and school staff may have conflicting perceptions of what constitutes
parental involvement (Abrams & Gibbs, 2000).
Research conducted by Mattingley et al., (2002) found mixed results when
investigating whether or not parental involvement has an impact on student learning. A
meta-analysis of 41 studies revealed a lack of a rigorous theoretical framework or
structure. Although many of the studies were targeting minority and low-income
populations, their analysis did not address these demographics, especially considering

46
that evidence has shown that socio-economic status, race and family structure have
demonstrated correlations with parental involvement (Cowan, 2003; Desimone et al.,
2000; Henderson, 1998; Henderson & Mapp, 2002). Mattingly attributes this to a flawed
theoretic structure rather than ineffectiveness of the concept of parental involvement.
Fan and Chen (2001) found that many studies that affirm a positive relationship
between student academic success and parental involvement in the educational setting are
qualitative, non-empirical and lack proper structure to repeat with consistency. Fan and
Chen state that even when Epstein‘s (1987, 1992) and Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler‘s
(1994) theoretical frameworks are used to gauge parental involvement, major aspects of
the research are either nonoperational or unable to be quantitatively measured. When
parental involvement is not operationally defined differently from other studies, it
becomes difficult to generalize that the construct of parental involvement correlates with
student achievement (Fan & Chen, 2001; Bobbett, French, Achilles, & Bobbett, 1995;
Ford, 1989; Keith et al., 1986).
Defining Parents and Parental Involvement
In order to better understand the role that parents or, more specifically, parental
involvement plays in the success of the educational environment, it becomes prudent to
define these two constructs. The ESEA (1965), reauthorized by NCLB (U.S. Department
of Education, 2001), expanded the definition of parents to include:
in addition to a natural parent, a legal guardian or other person standing in
loco parentis (such as a grandparent or stepparent with whom the child lives,

47
or a person who is legally responsible for the child‘s welfare) (Section 9101(31),
ESEA).
Berger (2008) went on to further clarify the construct of parent as, ―Those who
act in a primary caregiver role whether they are the biological parent, a relative, adoptive
parent, foster parent or non-relative parent‖ (p. 2). Both definitions speak of an adult
who has some official influence over the child and whose actions are focused on the
primary best interest of the child. For this dissertation, the ESEA definition of parent will
be used as it is founded in federal policy.
Much like the definition of parent, parental involvement is often a generalized
construct whose meaning has relative inconsistencies across research studies (Fan &
Chen, 2001). For example, Bloom (1980) describes parental involvement as parental
behaviors associated with student aspirations and achievement, while Christenson, et al.,
(1992) and Epstein (1991a, 1991b) describe parental involvement as a focus on parental
communication with the school. Furthermore, Stevenson and Baker (1987) see parental
involvement as the physical involvement of parents as they participate in school
activities.
The ESEA (1965), reauthorized by NCLB (U.S. Department of Education, 2001),
defined parental involvement as:
the participation of parents in regular, two-way, and meaningful communication
involving student academic learning and other school activities, including
ensuring—

48
 that parents play an integral role in assisting their child‘s learning;
 that parents are encouraged to be actively involved in their child‘s
education at school;
 that parents are full partners in their child‘s education and are included, as
appropriate, in decision-making and on advisory committees to assist in
the education of their child (Section 9101(32), ESEA.)
For the purpose of this study, parental involvement is defined by the definition
outlined by ESEA. Moreover, this study contends that it is the responsibility of the
school, more specifically the principal, to provide opportunities for parental involvement
by establishing inclusive processes and removing barriers between the parent and the
school. This may involve having staff members work directly with parents, providing
electronic services for parents to monitor their child‘s academic progress, providing
workshops for parents to gain tools to assist their children with homework, or simply a
resource center that supplies parents with materials or services that allow them more time
to focus on their child‘s academic success. Providing an opportunity for parents does not
guarantee that parents will become more involved with the school in order to assist in
their child‘s success. However, if principals do not establish consistent pathways and
support structures for parental involvement, the parents‘ ability to become involved is
severely limited. Simultaneously, the principal risks devaluing the importance of
parental involvement in the child‘s education (Becker & Epstein, 1982; Blackmore, 2002;

49
Goldfarb & Grinberg, 2002; Hobbs et al., 1984; Kumashiro, 2000; Lightfoot, 1978;
Moles, 1982; Riehl, 2000).
Types of Parental Involvement
The inconsistencies of research on the effectiveness of parental involvement in
education may be due to the lack of agreement on processes that constitute parental
involvement. Fan and Chen (2001) stated that these inconsistencies are due to a lack of
atheoretical framework that guides empirical research. Without an agreeable structure on
what actions or processes constitute parental involvement, it would be difficult to achieve
uniform results. Epstein (1986, 1987) outlined a typology to better identify types of
parental involvement. Initially, she classified parental involvement into four types: (1)
involvement in basic obligations, (2) school-to-home communications, (3) parental
involvement at school, and (4) involvement with learning activities at home.
Involvement in basic obligations consisted of making sure their child had
appropriate school supplies and adequate support and supervision at home with all things
school related. School-to-home communications consisted of reading what the teacher
sent home and discussing progress reports and other communications with their children
as teachers disseminated information to the home. Research conducted by Epstein (1987)
found that 16% of parents never received any form of correspondence from the school,
while 60% of parents admitted that they never had a phone conversation with their child‘s
teacher. Involvement at school consists of parents attending their child‘s school and
participating as volunteers either in the classroom, library or cafeteria. Epstein (1987)
found that 88% of parents have never assisted in this fashion at their child‘s school.

50
Finally, involvement in the learning activities includes engaging the parents in the
learning activities that the teachers are facilitating in the classroom.
In 1995, Epstein revised this framework to include 6 types of parental
involvement activities. These six activities, which support the interconnection between
parents and the school and facilitate positive student academic success are: (1)
engagement in positive parenting techniques, (2) clear two-way communication between
the school and the parents, (3) physical presence at the school through volunteerism, (4)
assisting students with their homework and other aspects of learning at home, (5) being a
part of school decision-making teams, and (6) being a positive link to the larger
community that supports the school. Creating and implementing a sustained plan of
action that involves these six steps allows parents and schools to partner together in the
education of children and maintain a comprehensive focus on the importance of a quality
education.
Differing from Epstein, Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler (1995) proposed a parental
involvement framework that not only looked at types of involvement but also the
reasoning as to why parents want to be involved and to what extent their involvement
produced favorable outcomes. In their model, they focused on three main issues: (1) why
parents become involved, (2) what types of involvement do parents engage in, and (3)
why parental involvement is effective with regard to student achievement. Mixed results
accompanied the implementation of this model, which led researchers to question its
empirical validity (Fan & Chen, 2001; Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1998).
Research conducted by Becker and Epstein (1982) and Epstein and Becker
(1982), focused on the responsibility of the schools and teachers to establish parental

51
involvement opportunities. Their research on 3,700 public school teachers in 600 schools
in Maryland found that to build strong parental involvement, teachers have to overcome
bias and misperceived roles of parents. Some of their participants initially believed that
parents were generally undependable, too busy, or lacked the same skill set or values to
adequately support the teacher in educating their children. There was no time to provide
parents with training or child care needs so that the parents could spend a significant
amount of time on supporting their child through the educational process.
Becker and Epstein (1982) and Epstein and Becker (1982) found that, specifically
in Title I schools, parent coordinators were used to elicit more involvement from parents
in the school environment. This included investing time to train parents on educational
techniques that teachers use in the classroom so that they were better prepared to
volunteer in the classroom or continue the learning process at home with their children.
By having an individual in the school focused directly on developing opportunities and
training as a way to increase involvement, parents became more actively involved in the
learning processes of their children (Becker & Epstein, 1982; Cowan, 2003; Epstein &
Becker, 1982; Zellman & Waterman, 1998).
Teachers’ Perceptions of Parental Involvement
From the teachers‘ perspective, parental involvement tends to be seen as either a
positive collaborative endeavor (Anfara, Jr. & Mertens, 2008; Becker & Epstein, 1982;
Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Desimone, et al., 2000; Epstein, 1995; Epstein, 1986; Epstein &
Becker, 1982; Henderson and Mapp, 2002; Leichter, 1974; Litwak & Meyer, 1974) or
simply as an inconvenience or distraction from their job as the primary educator of

52
students (Becker & Epstein, 1982; Desimone, et al., 2000; Epstein, 1995; Epstein &
Becker, 1982). Epstein (1986) stated that there are two main opposing theories of how
teachers approach parental involvement. One theory consists of the teachers viewing
their roles as very different than the roles of parents. Teachers are responsible for the
education of students at the school while parents are responsible for the education of the
child at home (Epstein, 1986; Waller, 1965; Weber, 1947). When the schools see
children as only students to instruct, they solidify this separation between the product of
education and the influence of the family (Epstein, 1995). When teachers and parents
had a weak collaborative relationship, teachers rarely requested support or assistance
from the parents (Epstein 1986). In this view, the roles between the teacher and parent
are very distinct and the line between them should not be compromised in any way.
Epstein (1986) indicates that another theory exists where teachers and parents
work collaboratively, cooperating and developing processes that focus on best practices
for student achievement. The education of the child is a shared responsibility where
teacher and parent engage equally in goals necessary to significantly improve the child‘s
success in the educational environment (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Epstein, 1986; Leichter,
1974; Litwak & Meyer, 1974). When schools see children as children and not merely as
students, they are likely to see parents and community members as partners in the
educational environment (Epstein, 1995). When teachers and parents had a strong
collaborative relationship, teachers frequently requested support or assistance from the
parents (Epstein 1986). By integrating responsibilities and roles, parents and teachers
create a comprehensive learning environment where learning is not limited to occurring
only within the school building walls.

53
When addressing teachers‘ perceptions about parental involvement, common
themes that emerged in the scholarly literature centered on: time constraints (Becker &
Epstein, 1982; Desimone et al., 2000; Epstein, 1995; Epstein & Becker, 1982), skill
development (Anfara, Jr. & Mertens, 2008; Becker & Epstein, 1982; Desimone et al.,
2000; Epstein, 1995; Epstein & Becker, 1982; Henderson & Mapp, 2002),
communication (Anfara, Jr. & Mertens, 2008; Epstein & Dauber, 1991; Henderson &
Mapp, 2002), and parent coordinators (Becker & Epstein, 1982; Desimone et al., 2000;
Epstein & Becker, 1982).
Time. Teachers have always been very protective of their time with students.
Developing and implementing curriculum and instruction in a differentiated format can
be very demanding, however necessary to assist all students in achieving. Teachers who
have positive relationships with parents see their involvement as a way to maximize time
with specific students in order to increase their effectiveness. Whether support in the
classroom as volunteers or support with homework at home, when parents have the time
and skill to support the teacher, the teacher can spend quality time with more struggling
students (Becker & Epstein, 1982; Epstein & Becker, 1982). Conversely, teachers with
limited relationships with parents see their involvement as time consuming. Taking the
time to train parents on what they need to do in order to support their child‘s success, or
even explaining how to volunteer in their classroom takes away valuable time from the
learning process (Becker & Epstein, 1982; Epstein & Becker, 1982). In this scenario,
teachers see this as unnecessary and a waste of their most precious commodity: time.
Skill Development. Attached to the issue of time is the teacher‘s perceived lack of
parental knowledge and skills necessary to assist teachers in facilitating student

54
achievement. If the parent were to be involved in the classroom, training had to take
place to arm parent volunteers with the knowledge, skills, and methods to assist them in
facilitating student achievement (Becker & Epstein, 1982; Desimone et al., 2000; Epstein
& Becker, 1982). Teachers see taking the time to train and develop parents to be
supporters in the classroom, especially if parents cannot commit to a significant
consistent volunteer schedule throughout the year, as a waste of valuable time and
resources (Becker & Epstein, 1982; Desimone et al., 2000; Epstein, 1995; Epstein &
Becker, 1982). However, for those teachers who find value in preparing parents by
facilitating their knowledge and skill development to assist them in the classroom and at
home, they affirm that parents are vital assets in the academic development of the
students (Anfara, Jr. & Mertens, 2008; Becker & Epstein, 1982; Desimone et al., 2000;
Epstein, 1995; Epstein & Becker, 1982; Henderson and Mapp, 2002).
Communication. Communication affects the amount of parental involvement in
the education of children. For parents to be effective in collaborating with teachers,
communication must be a two-way process where teachers and parents are sharing
information in a clear and concise manner (Anfara, Jr. & Mertens, 2008; Henderson &
Mapp, 2002). For instance, research conducted by Epstein and Dauber (1991) found that
communicating with parents about school processes and programs showed a positive
correlation specifically with parents who are labeled hard to reach. Analyzing 171
teachers in 8 inner-city schools, they found that communication was a crucial element in
parental involvement. Whether it be face-to-face, over the telephone, or through informal
notes, teachers who actively cultivated parental communication had higher response rates
from parents than teachers who did not perceive parent communication as important in

55
the education of the student. In addition, they found that a significantly higher level of
parent involvement occurred in elementary schools rather than middle schools. High
schools were not included in this research. When parents and teachers have a healthy
communication structure, students will receive common messages about the importance
of school and common messages about what it takes to be successful (Epstein, 1995).
Parent Coordinators. Parent coordinators, especially in Title I schools, have
shown success in soliciting parental involvement in the school setting (Epstein & Becker,
1982). Parent coordinators may be teachers with this additional assignment or parents
who take on this role in order to increase the involvement of parents in the school. Parent
coordinators are dedicated to creating processes and pathways for parents to feel accepted
and valued in the school environment. They develop training programs and coordinate
with teachers to fill volunteer gaps that teachers need. When a school has an effective
coordinator, the students benefit from the additional adult support in the classroom
(Becker & Epstein, 1982; Desimone et al., 2000; Epstein & Becker, 1982). However, if
there is not sufficient support for parent coordinators by the teachers or principals, the
results will be less effective. Teachers who view parent coordinators as ineffective tend
to see this position as unstructured and a waste of financial resources (Epstein & Becker,
1982).
Conclusion. Teachers‘ perceptions of effective parental involvement were
underscored by the educational environment. Teachers who felt that the principal
cultivated a school environment conducive for high levels of parental involvement, and
whose belief in the level and necessity of parental involvement matched that of their
principal, scored their school as positively creating an environment that promotes and

56
welcomes parental input and collaboration (Epstein & Dauber, 1991). Conversely, when
there is a discrepancy between the teachers‘ and principal‘s beliefs of the level and
importance of parental input, the amount of parental input was lower than when the
teachers and principal aligned their belief (Epstein & Dauber, 1991). Therefore, it is the
principal‘s responsibility to build a community of common understanding between
teachers and parents in order to support teachers actions in the classroom and facilitate
student academic success.
Lack of parental involvement and the inability of the teacher to engage parents
lead to a sense of teacher power and control over the parent. By involving the parents in
the education of the child, teachers gain support and encouragement when targeting the
child‘s needs and areas of weaknesses without making the parents and students feel that it
is a negative attack directed toward them (Lightfoot, 1978).
Parents’ Perceptions of Opportunity for Involvement
Involvement from the parent perspective also sheds light on their role in the
educational environment. As with teachers having their perception about parents‘ ability
to assist and support, parents also have their own perception of how teachers include
them in the facilitation of their child‘s learning. Parents want to feel welcome, share in
the educational goals of their child, and experience clear communication with their
child‘s teacher (Abrams, & Gibbs, 2000; Cowan, 2003; Mawhinney, 2004; Miretzky,
2004; Zellman & Waterman, 1998).
Research conducted by Epstein (1986) demonstrated that, when schools make a
concerted effort to include parents in the education of their child, parents generally felt

57
that the school was welcoming to their involvement. They identified schools as well run
and comfortable and that the attitude of the teachers and staff were warm and positive.
Likewise, schools that seemed to have a focus on a significant parental involvement piece
were identified by the parents as having similar goals as the parents regarding the
development of their children.
Clear communication is necessary for parents to understand where their child is
with respect to their academic development, as well as what they can do to support the
teacher and facilitate their child‘s growth and development both at school and at home
(Abrams, & Gibbs, 2000; Cowan, 2003; Mawhinney, 2004; Miretzky, 2004; Zellman &
Waterman, 1998). In Epstein‘s (1986) study, 58% of parents were rarely or never asked
directly to participate in the learning activities both in school or at home. Likewise, over
80% of parents indicated that they would be more effective at helping their children with
work at home if their child‘s teacher taught them how to do the activities with their
children.
Clear two-way communication allows the teacher to share pertinent knowledge
and learning skills so that parents will be able to continue the learning process at home.
Parents‘ communication back to the teacher allows the parents to share if their child is
being successful with the current assignments, or if he is struggling to comprehend the
curriculum. This would allow the teacher to differentiate their instruction to meet the
specific child‘s needs. Clearly, concise communication allows students to receive a
consistent, common message that their teacher and their parent are working together to
facilitate a positive educational experience (Epstein, 1995).

58
Epstein (1995) found that, ―Parents with children in the classroom of teachers
who built parental involvement into their regular teaching practice were more aware of
teachers' efforts, received more ideas from teachers, knew more about their child's
instructional program, and rated the teachers higher in interpersonal skills and overall
teaching quality‖ (p. 291). By teachers including parents in the educating of their child,
teachers have a unique opportunity to influence parenting style and transform ways in
which parents approach their child with regard to education (Zellman & Waterman,
1998).
Research conducted by Desimore et al., (2000), analyzing data received from 72
parents and 63 teachers, found that the culture of the school is an important factor in
cultivating parental involvement. Schools that have programs that promote parent
involvement, shared decision-making, and outreach and engagement have positive results
in engaging parents in their child‘s learning environment. They found that school culture
is especially effective with low-income, high minority populations which have
traditionally been associated with low parental outreach or low levels of parental
engagement. The principal is responsible for the creation and maintenance of the school
culture.
Administrator’s Role in Parental Involvement
For parents to be involved in the education of their children through parenting,
volunteering, communicating, decision-making, and being positive conduits to the larger
community, principals must establish pathways and opportunities for parents to be
interconnected to the school (Berger, 2008; Epstein, 1995, 1996). Effective parental
support involves two-way communication, open collaboration and meaningful input to

59
the school improvement process (Cowan, 2003). Within a context of community
involvement, a principal must have the knowledge and skills to embrace input from
parents and guardians, as well as the sensitivity to cultivate trust relationships that
advocate parental involvement in the learning environment.
Research conducted by Epstein (1996) found that, ―At the elementary, middle,
and high school levels, surveys of parents, teachers, principals, and students reveal that if
schools invest in practices that involve families, then parents respond by conducting
those practices, including many parents who might not have otherwise become involved
on their own‖ (p.217). Berger (2008) discussed five types of school-parent interaction
that were directly affected by the principal‘s leadership within the school. Besides
stewarding the culture of the school, designing the educational program, and managing
committees charged with decision-making authority, the principal also successfully
garnered parental involvement by establishing an environment that makes parents feel
welcome, valued, supported. Principals who engage in actions that support the mutual
respect and influence between the school and the parents cultivate an environment that
lends itself to a more collaborative effort on improvement of student achievement.
Principals are responsible for creating an educational environment that recognizes
children as children and not merely students. By perceiving them as children, the school
is more likely to embrace parent and community involvement in the shared development
of their education (Epstein, 1995). Epstein (1995) identifies schools that have adopted a
culture where parents are partners in the education of their children as ―family-like
schools.‖ In family-like schools, children are treated as family members and parents and
teachers partner in their differentiation and development of instruction. They share in the

60
development of curriculum and process of instruction, continuing the learning activities
outside of the traditional educational day.
Unfortunately, schools often find themselves in positions where they want to
engage parents as partners in education, but lack the knowledge to establish and cultivate
such a relationship. According to Epstein‘s (1995) research,
Just about all teachers and administrators would like to involve families, but many
do not know how to go about building positive and productive programs and are
consequently fearful about trying. This creates a "rhetoric rut," in which educators
are stuck, expressing support for partnerships without taking any action. (p. 703)
Principals are the leaders in developing these pathways and discovering ways in which to
engage parents in the learning environment.
When principals take the initiative and develop educational environments that
have a collaborative culture, parental involvement increases at the school (Epstein &
Dauber, 1991). Principals are able to provide training to teachers through staff meetings
and workshops on the techniques and the importance of parental involvement both in the
classroom and at home as a way to continue the educational learning process for their
children (Becker & Epstein, 1982).
When teachers adopt this culture and, similar to the principal, make a conscious
effort to build and maintain partnerships with parents, the resulting parental involvement
is high. When there is a discrepancy between teacher and principal focus on parental
involvement, parent participation in programs and practices reduces significantly.
Likewise, principals cannot simply dictate that teachers need to create relationships with
parents or themselves be the conduit for the parent-teacher relationship (Becker &

61
Epstein, 1982). They must establish a culture and environment where teachers find value
in parental involvement and empower themselves to build positive partnership with
parents that have a positive impact on student achievement.
Schools offer a unique opportunity to assist parents in being involved in the lives
of their children. By collaborating with the parents, schools are able to receive additional
support from the family unit, as well as have partners in the growth and development of
their students (Hobbs et al., 1984). Ultimately, families contribute to their child‘s ability
to achieve academically. If principals create an environment and culture where the
school partners with parents and involves them in multiple aspects of student
achievement, they create a positive collaborative relationship that benefits the parent,
teacher and student. Conversely, if principals fail in establishing such an environment,
parental involvement and collaboration may be inhibited, leading to parents‘ minimal
influence on the academic outcomes of their children (Desminone et al., 2000; Henderson
& Berla, 1994).
Conclusion
Much of the scholarly literature reveals that parental involvement in their child‘s
educational environment leads to improved achievement and behaviors and lower
dropout rates (Ellis, et al, 1983; Henderson, 1987; Menard, 1993; Shuck, 1983; Siders &
Sledjeski, 1978; Swick & Land, 1984). Policy-makers, principals and teachers have
agreed that a program that cultivates parental involvement will provide parents with the
opportunity to share in the academic development of their child (Prindle and Resinski,
1989; Van Meter, 1994; Wagner & Sconyers, 1996; Khan, 1996; Roach, 1994; Wanat,

62
1994; Allen, 1996; Matzye, 1995). Empirical evidence has shown this to be the case
(Christenson et al., 1992; Epstein, 1991; Singh, Bickley, Trivette, Keith, Keith, &
Anderson, 1995). Parental involvement in the child‘s educational development has been
shown to be a contributing factor to increased student academic success (Epstein, 1991;
Henderson & Berla, 1996).
Since the introduction of theoretical frameworks of parental involvement,
researchers have been able to further analyze parental involvement and its effects on
student academic success (Fan & Chen, 2001; Epstein, 1987, 1992; Hoover-Dempsey &
Sandler, 1995). Researchers have not only identified types of parental involvement, but
also have indicated why parents choose to be involved in their child‘s educational growth
and development. When parents and schools work together to strengthen a caring and
supporting environment for children to function in, children‘s sense of belonging and
positive physical and mental well-being increase (Berger, 2008). Likewise, when
families and schools work together to facilitate a positive academic environment, students
receive a common message both at school and at home regarding the significance of an
education (Epstein, 1995).
School Climate
The actions and interactions of principals and teachers within the educational
environment are encompassed within the concept of school climate. Researchers have
focused on this concept as a phenomenon that occurs within the school setting that
facilitates positive student academic success (Goddard, Sweetland, & Hoy, 2000; Hoy &
Hannum, 1997; Hoy & Miskel, 2005; O‘Donnell & White, 2005; Smith & Piele, 2006).

63
The principal, as the leader of the educational environment has a direct impact on the
climate of the school (Blase & Blase, 2002; Cotton, 2003; Gurr, 1997; Hallinger, 2003;
Hallinger & Heck, 1998; Hoy & Clover, 1986). Understanding school climate is critical
in the process of improving student achievement, as the health of the school environment
impacts the students‘ ability to demonstrate academic success (Haynes, Emmons, & Ben-
Avie, 1997; Howard, Howell, & Brainard, 1987; Hoy, 1990; Hoy & Clover, 1986; Hoy &
Hannum, 1997; Hoy and Miskel, 2005; Hoy, Smith, & Sweetland, 2002; Sergiovanni,
2000). However, solidifying a single comprehensive definition of school climate has
been quite nebulous.
Definition. Schools are perceived as communities where the principal plays an
important role in facilitating the movement and direction of that community
(Sergiovanni, 2000). Within these educational environments, perceptions of the climate
drive the day-to-day direction of the school (Van Houtte, 2005). In order to infer the
relationship between school climate and student academic success, it is necessary to have
a clear definition of the characteristics that comprise school climate (Hoy & Hannum,
1997). School climate has been defined using attributes of action and behavior. Climate
has been defined as a set of distinguishable characteristics within the school that
accentuate its unique properties (Hoy & Hannum, 1997; Hoy & Miskel, 2005). These
properties shape teacher perception of the work environment (Hoy & Clover, 1986).
School climate has also been defined as an atmosphere of attitudes and emotional
bonding. Howard, Howell, and Brainard (1987) state that ―A school‘s climate is its
atmosphere for learning. It includes the feelings people have about school and whether it
is a place where learning can occur‖ (p. 5). School climate focuses on the general

64
atmosphere of the school, centering on teacher attitudes and perceptions of a collegial
work environment (Hoy, Smith, & Sweetland, 2002). Teachers who interact within
positive school climates express optimistic accolades about ―their school, enjoy working
with their colleagues, and are enthusiastic, accepting, and mutually respectful of their
colleagues‖ (Hoy & Clover, 1986, p. 101). This includes intimate professional
socializations with colleagues, as well as a sense of community support for each other.
For the purpose of this study, the construct of school climate will be defined as
the ―enduring quality of the school environment that is experienced by participants,
affects their behavior, and is based on their collective perceptions of behavior in schools‖
(Hoy, 1990, p. 152). It is prudent, however, to mark a clear distinction between school
climate and school culture. Often used interchangeably in the literature, it is important to
understand the difference in order to have a better understanding of the construct of
school climate.
Climate Versus Culture
When school climate and school culture are not clearly differentiated, it becomes
more difficult to understand how it affects student academic success (Van Houtte, 2005).
Although climate and culture at some level both deal with morale, ways of practice and
organizational success (Glisson, 2007), they are, in fact, distinct constructs describing the
educational environment. Van Houtte (2005) identifies the difference between climate
and culture using the concept of time. Culture is steeped in heritage and ways of practice
that spans across tenures of principals. It survives disruptions and maintains the long-
term vision and direction of the school. Climate is more focused on how teachers and

65
principal currently feel about their school. It typically is short in duration and is flexible
to fit the current needs of the students, school and community. Climate, over time, does
affect the culture of the school (Glisson, 2000, 2007; Glisson & Green, 2006; Hobby,
2004).
Culture can be understood through an anthropological examination of the artifacts
of the school, whereas climate focuses more on the subjective nature of the principal and
teacher‘s perceptions of the current learning environment (Deal & Peterson, 1994;
Glisson, 2000, 2007; Stolp, 1994; Van Houtte, 2005). Van Houtte further delineated
between climate and culture when he stated, ―culture concerns values, meanings and
beliefs, while climate concerns perceptions of those values, meanings and beliefs‖ (p.
75). Ultimately, consensus in the research details that culture is about how things occur
in the school environment, whereas climate is about how principals and teachers perceive
those occurrences influencing their ability to be successful at increasing student academic
success (Glisson, 2000, 2007; Glisson & Green, 2006; Lindahl, 2006; Schein, 1993;
Schneider, Brief, & Guzzo, 1996; Schneider & Hall, 1972).
Principal Influence on School Climate
School climate is directly impacted by the leadership practices of the principal.
The principal‘s ability to motivate the staff and to facilitate the development of quality
instructional practices, impacts the success of the students (Howard et al., 1987; Hoy &
Hoy, 2003; Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005). Principals are responsible for
maintaining a climate that is collegial, interactive and focused on supporting the teacher
and student throughout the educational process (Hallinger, 1987). By setting the tone of

66
the building, principals cultivate teacher morale, parent partnerships, and professional
collegiality, which in turn influences the delivery of instruction to students (Hoy &
Clover, 1986; Hoy, Smith, & Sweetland, 2002; Witcher, 1993). High teacher morale
increases job satisfaction and sense of school cohesiveness and pride.
School climate is not a stagnant concept, but, rather, a continuously changing
condition that needs to be monitored and cultivated (Hoy & Hoy, 2003). The principal as
the school leader monitors the climate and adjusts process and practices in order to keep
the environment healthy and flourishing. Mitchell and Castle (2005) stated that
principals are motivated to develop and maintain positive school climates because they
share in the high morale of the school and find interaction with the teachers and
community an asset in the development and implementation of instruction. Having a
staff want to come to work and engage with students and parents lays the foundation of a
cognitive climate where learning is valued and plentiful.
Kelley, Thornton, and Daugherty (2005) found that the most important aspect to
maintaining a successful educational environment is effective leadership. A large aspect
of that leadership is the principal‘s ability to create and maintain a positive school
climate. A positive school climate allows teachers to adequately address student
academic needs and support the process of learning (Smith & Piele, 2006).
Researchers found that when principals attend to the individual needs of their staff
and facilitate knowledge and skill development within the complex community of
educators, their leadership style has a positive effect on school climate (Bulach,
Lunenburg, & McCallon, 1995; Kelley et al., 2005). Whitaker & Turner (2000) found
that principals understood the connection between school climate and student

67
achievement, and worked diligently to create a positive climate conducive to learning.
Out of 1,801 principals surveyed in Indiana, building and maintaining a strong school
climate was a top priority for them. They felt that maintaining a positive school climate
positively impacted student learning.
When principals engage in processes where teachers are empowered to influence
the aspects of instruction, collaboration, and support, they increase their ability to have a
positive impact on school climate and student success (Leithwood, 1992; Pepper &
Thomas, 2002). Haynes et al., (1997), at the Yale Child Study Center, found that school
climate influences the students‘ ability to achieve, the involvement of parents and
teachers in the decision-making process, parent participation in school, the sharing of
building resources, and the overall caring atmosphere of the school. Likewise, Howard et
al., (1987) stated that school success was related to the level of productivity and
satisfaction that the principal and teachers perceive within the school environment. This
includes the perpetuation of academic growth, collaboration, and the support of parents
within the school climate. When assessing climate, researchers assess the principal‘s and
teachers‘ influences upon characteristics such as instructional time-on-task, collaboration
on professional development, and maintaining a presence where interaction with the
teachers and parents is open and convenient (Hallinger & Murphy, 1987). Inservice
activities are designed around professionally developing the teacher to support student
academic success.
Schools striving for excellence or decreasing on impact on student academic
success can be linked to the actions of the principal on the school climate (Howard et al.,
1987). Principals create a climate where they either take a prominent role in controlling

68
the development of a positive environment or facilitate a work environment where
teachers and staff participate in cultivating a healthy work atmosphere (Smith & Piele,
2006). Either way, the principal is that figure who facilitates the school climate and is
held to the responsibility of making that climate successful in meeting the needs of its
teachers and students (Kelley et al., 2005; Smith & Piele, 2006). In summation, the
principal positively impacts school climate (Hoy & Hoy, 2003; Smith & Piele, 2006),
which then allows teachers to positively impact student academic success (Kelly et al.,
2005; Norton, 2002; Smith & Piele, 2006).
School Climate Influence on Teacher and Student Success
Healthy school climates are linked to teacher job satisfaction and positive student
outcomes (Hoy, Tarter, and Bliss, 1990). Smith and Piele (2006) stated that school
climate directly influences how teachers and students perceive their educational
environment. Positive climates exude warmth, belonging and collegiality. This type of
atmosphere promotes a safe, trusting and meaningful environment that encourages
academic and personal growth and development (Maninger & Powell, 2007). The
principal is responsible for maintaining such an environment so that teaching and
learning can occur (Goddard et al., 2000; Hoy & Hoy, 2003).
School climate and student academic success have a bi-directional correlation.
Research conducted by Hoy and Hannuum (1997) found that school climate and student
achievement are intertwined. In their study on 86 middle schools, they found that climate
and achievement are dependent upon each other. Similarly, O‘Donnell and White (2005)
studied teacher perceptions of their principal‘s focus on school climate in Pennsylvania

69
middle schools. They found a correlation between the principal‘s leadership behaviors
and student achievement through positive school climate. Like Hoy and Hannum,
O‘Donnell and White found this symbiotic relationship between climate and
achievement.
Positive school climates allow teachers to build what Goddard et al., (2000)
identify as academic emphasis. Academic emphasis is where teachers believe students
have the capability to achieve and provide academic instruction that supports that belief.
Standards are high and learning is differentiated to support the students‘ individual needs
so that students work diligently to succeed and meet their teacher‘s expectations.
Goddard et al., identified that a climate where academic emphasis flourishes supports not
only teachers individually but also the school community as a whole. Principals are
responsible for this focus on academic emphasis by maintaining an environment where
teachers can provide that support to students.
During the 1970s and 1980s, school effectiveness research began looking at the
structure of the school and interactions between the teacher and principal as factors
influencing student achievement (Hellriegel & Slocum, 1974; Halpin & Croft, 1963; Van
Houtte, 2005). Within effective schools research, school climate has been associated with
student academic success. Research conducted by Brookover, Schweitzer, Schneider,
Beady, Flood and Wisenbaker (1978) found that school climate had a larger impact on
student achievement than ethnicity and socio-economic status. In their study, they found
that 72% of the variance in student achievement was explained by variables associated
with climate.

70
Conclusion
School climate is a prominent factor that mediates principal influence and teacher
interaction on student academic success (Brookover et al., 1978; Gilmer, 1966; Halpin &
Croft, 1963; Hoy, 1990; Lindahl, 2006; Van Houtte, 2005). Research has substantiated
that the principal‘s influence on student academic success is indirect, as it is the influence
on the school climate that ultimately impacts achievement (Blase & Blase, 2002: Cotton,
2003; Gurr, 1997; Hallinger, 2003; Hallinger & Heck, 1998; Hoy & Hannum, 1997; Hoy,
Tarter, & Bliss, 1990). The principal‘s influence is mitigated through his impact on the
school climate. Therefore, in order to influence student academic outcomes, the
principal must engage in actions and processes that promote a positive school climate.
Networked Leadership
Network leadership may provide another framework to isolate the impact that
principals may have on school climate and student performance. Networked leadership
was conceptualized out of a review of the United States military literature detailing their
engagement in network-centric operations. Network-centric operations is a new
approach to strategic operations that shifts the paradigm of power and decision-making
from a hierarchical structure to a more grass-roots approach, using a connection of
networked resources and support (Cebrowski, 2003; Garstika, 2003; Office of Force
Transformation, 2005; Surry & Ely, 2002). In other words, it allows dispersed
individuals to, ―Share the same battle-space awareness to achieve strategic, operational,
and tactical objectives. The linking of people, platforms, weapons, sensors, and decision
aids into a single network creates a whole greater than the sum of its parts‖ (Gonty, 2007,

71
p. 6). Leaders function as the hubs of these networks, monitoring the situation, keeping
support and resources flowing where it is needed, and maintaining the vision of the
mission (Alberts & Hayes, 2003; Atkinson & Moffat, 2005; Luddy, 2005; Stone, 2004).
Through relationship building and trust, they empower the individuals on the ground to
make the best decisions and remove obstacles that may have otherwise impeded support
and resources.
Garstka (2003) describes network-centric actions as those that bring a,
―combination of strategies, emerging tactics, techniques, and procedures, and
organizations that a fully or even a partially networked force can employ to create a
decisive war-fighting advantage‖ (p. 58). More than just acquiring these combination of
factors, Luddy (2005) further emphasized that this information must be in the hands of
the ―right‖ people, ―who in turn can take the right action, faster, against the right
objective‖ (p. 3). Network–centric operations have four sequential processes of practice
(Alberts & Hayes, 2003). It improves the sharing of information, which in turn prompts
collaboration to develop quality information, enabling the participants to increase
awareness and implement a more comprehensive plan, which ultimately increases the
effectiveness of the mission (Alberts, 2002).
The network itself can both be defined as a noun and a verb (Cebrowski, 2003).
As a noun, the network encompasses all of the information and technological platform
and infrastructure that supports the flow of information through human interaction. At
the same time, the network can be considered a verb in that it also encompasses the
human action and interaction of the exchange of information and data. In essence, it is
the physical resources and intellectual exchanges that define and conceptualize the term

72
network. Network centricity then describes the degree to which that network is central to
the operations of the organization in order to bring about effective change in an efficient
manner (Stone, 2004). It is the combination of people, processes and technologies
working together to effectively and efficiently build trust, share information and be both
individually and collectively aware of how to connect available resources to student
needs.
Network centricity, re-conceptualized into the field of education as networked
leadership, offers principals a new interactive way to engage the educational environment
and positively impact student academic success. A principal who utilizes networked
leadership engages in the learning environment, monitors teacher practices, maintains the
flow of support and resources to where they are needed, develops innovative process for
learning, and stewards the vision and mission of the school. This process will support
teacher success within the educational environment, as well as potentially increase
student academic success.
Summary
A review of the scholarly literature solidifies the impact that principals have on
school climate and student academic success success (Blase & Blase, 2002; Cotton, 2003;
Goddard et al., 2000; Gurr, 1997; Hallinger, 2003; Hallinger & Heck, 1998; Hoy &
Clover, 1986; Hoy & Hannum, 1997; Hoy & Miskel, 2005; O‘Donnell & White, 2005).
The principal‘s focus on instruction has positive effects on the school environment and
student outcomes (Bamberg & Andrews, 1991; Goldring & Pasternack, 1994; Hallinger
& Heck, 1996a, 1996b, 2002; Hallinger & Murphy, 1986). Likewise, the principal‘s

73
engagement in collaboration with teachers impacts the collegial learning environment
(Bass, 1990; Blase, & Blase, 2000; Burns, 1979; Hallinger, 2003; Gill, 2003; Jung &
Sosik, 2002; Marks & Printy, 2003; Spillane et al., 2007; Yukl, 1999). Additionally, the
principal‘s facilitation of an environment where parents feel welcomed and accepted as
partners in the education of their children has also shown positive connections to
educational climate and student success (Brabeck, & Shirley, 2003; Epstein, 2005; Fan &
Chen, 2001; Henderson & Berla,1994; Henderson & Mapp, 2002; Jeynes, 2003, 2007;
Leana & Pil, 2006). Previous research in this field has typically focused on instruction,
collaboration and parental involvement either individually or in a loosely coupled format
through the facilitation of the principal‘s actions on the school environment.
However, there is a gap in the literature, vis-à-vis how combined configurations
of these constructs elicit positive outcomes on the educational environment, which, in
turn may impact student academic success. Combining these three constructs as they
dynamically engage with the educational setting guides leadership theory toward a
networked leadership model. Within such a model, how the principal instructionally
leads, collaborates, and secures parental involvement to leverage gains in a positive
school climate guides inquiry. Within the purview of the principal‘s leadership style,
instruction, collaboration and parental involvement are networked together, influencing
the principal‘s facilitation of the educational environment. The subject of this research is
to determine if or to what extent these constructs are amalgamated to yield positive
results. By exploring networked influences on school climate, this study hypothesizes
that a networked leadership model is positively associated with the teacher‘s perceptions
of school climate.

74
Chapter 3: Methodology
Through a review of the current scholarly literature, it is evident that during the
evolution of leadership theory and its key variables, the principal‘s influence on
instruction, collaboration, and parental involvement has been identified as key influences
on student academic success. Therefore, this influence becomes a paramount variable in
this study. Chapter 3 now documents the plan of action, including: this project‘s research
design, conceptual model, and research questions. Additionally, sample demographics,
instrumentation, and data analysis are discussed.
Research Design
This study uses a descriptive survey research design to perform an exploratory
analysis on the effects of the principal‘s leadership influences on the school climate.
Data for this study was extracted from the 2007-2008 Schools and Staffing Survey data
warehouse at the National Center for Educational Statistics. This study addressed the
following research questions:
1. Is there a relationship between principals‘ degree of Networked Leadership within the

75
Conceptual Model
Principals focus on instruction, collaboration and parental involvement to impact
school climate. Figure 3.1 represents a model to illustrate how these three constructs as
separate processes may elicit positive school climate. The interaction of instruction,
collaboration and parental involvement within an educational environment may
maximize a positive learning environment which may ultimately impact student academic
success.

76
Figure 3.1. Conceptual Model of Principal‘s Influence on School Climate
Population and Sampling
The target population for this study was public school elementary principals and
teachers across the United States of America who were identified to participate in the
2007 – 2008 Schools and Staffing Survey collected by the National Center for
Educational Statistics (NCES, 2010). Nationally, the Schools and Staffing Survey
sampled 5,250 public school districts, 9,800 public schools, 9,800 public school
principals, and 47,440 public school teachers.
Principal
Influence
Instruction
Collaboration
Parental
Involvement
School
Climate
Focus on
Instruction
Teacher
Collaboration
Parental
Involvement
Networked Educational
Environment

77
Demographic Characteristics
The sample identified for this study was public elementary principals (n = 2,761)
and associated teachers (n = 10,293). Table 3.1 details their demographic characteristics.
The average number of years the teachers have been teaching in the field of education is
15.9 years. Approximately half of that time (8.7 years) has been at the current school in
which their data was collected for this study. The average number of years that the
selected principals have been in the administrative position is 8.3 years. Similar to the
teachers, almost half of that time (4.6 years) has been at the current school in which their
data has been collected for this study.
A substantially larger number of teachers were female (n = 9,149) compared to
male (n =1,144). Likewise, a larger portion of elementary principals were female (n =
1,667) with their male counterparts (n = 1,094). Both teachers and principals who
identified themselves as Caucasian dominate the ethnicity in this sample. Although other
ethnicities were represented, the total numbers were small. The average age of teachers
(43.5 years) in the study were slightly lower than the average age of principals (50.2
years).
Demographic information regarding the schools in which the principals and
teachers work is outlined in Table 3.2. Of the 2,761 elementary schools included in the
study, the mean enrollment was 436.4, the average percent of economically
disadvantaged student equaled 47.2%, and the percent of students who identified
themselves as other than white/Caucasian was 37.9%. The majority of schools selected
in this study were identified as suburban (4,607), followed by urban (2,730) and rural
(2,983) educational settings.

78
Teachers Principals
N 10,293 2,761
Mean Years in this Professional
Role
15.9 8.3
Mean Years at this School 8.7 4.6
Gender
Male 1,144 1,094
Female 9,149 1,667
Ethnicity
Caucasian 9,267 2,256
African American 553 257
Hispanic 45 141
Asian 180 33
Pacific Islander 33 10
Native American 121 38
Multi-Selected 94 26
Mean Age 43.5 50.2
Table 3.1. Demographics for Principals and Teachers Responding to the 2007 – 2008
Schools And Staffing Survey Questionnaire.
Variable N Mean SD
Percent Econ. Dis. 2,761 47.2 28.4
Percent Minority 2,761 37.9 33.7
Enrollment 2,761 436.4 228.9
Urbanicity 2,761
Urban 712
Suburban 1,194
Rural 855
Table 3.2. Demographic Information for the Schools where the Principal and Teachers
Responded to the 2007 – 2008 Schools And Staffing Survey Questionnaire.

79
Instrument Description
The National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) (2010) collected
information from public school districts, principals and teachers in the 2007-2008
Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS). For the 2007-2008 school year survey, SASS used
a stratified probability-proportionate-to-size sample. SASS data is collected on a four
year cycle, making the 2007-2008 the most recent dataset. One of the purposes of SASS
is to provide a representative sample of elementary and secondary school information,
including detailed information from public school system staff (Aritomi, Coopersmith &
Gruber, 2009). SASS (NCES, 2010) targeted information regarding ―principal
demographic characteristics, training, experience, salary, goals and decision making,
judgments about the seriousness of school problems, and, new to 2007–08, instructional
time, and teacher and school performance‖ (website). The SASS data allowed the
researcher to determine the principal‘s degree of focus on instruction, teacher
collaboration, and parental involvement, as well as the teachers‘ perceptions of the school
climate. For comparative purposes, the data collected from the selected variables were
converted to composite scores.
Independent Variables
Focus on Instruction. From the SASS, 4 items were selected to represent the
construct of instruction (Appendix A). This is measured on a 4-point Likert scale ranging
from no influence to major influence. The mean score of the 4 interval items determines
the principal‘s focus on instruction. The 4 items were selected from question 12 on the
2007 – 2008 Public School Principal SASS. Principals were asked to select their

80
influence as the principal on performance standards, curriculum, professional
development and teacher evaluation. Table 3.3 lists the selected instructional items.
12. How much actual influence do you as the principal have on decisions
concerning:
12.(4).a Setting performances standards for students of this school?
12.(4).b Establishing curriculum at this school?
12.(4).c Determining the content of in-service professional development programs
for teachers of this school?
12.(4).d Evaluating teachers of this school?
Instruction.
A higher rating on this scale inferred that principals perceived themselves has having a
meaningful impact on instruction within their school environments. A lower rating
indicated that their focus on instruction was not a high priority in cultivating their
educational environment.
Collaboration. From the SASS, 4 items were selected to represent the construct
of collaboration (Appendix B). This is measured on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from
no influence to major influence. The mean score of the 4 interval items determines the
principal-teacher collaboration score. The 4 items were selected from question 12 on the
2007 – 2008 Public School Principal SASS. Principals were asked to select their

81
influence as the principal on performance standards, curriculum, professional
development and teacher evaluation. Table 3.4 lists the selected collaboration items.
12. How much actual influence do you think the teacher has on decisions
concerning:
12.(5).a Setting performances standards for students of this school?
12.(5).b Establishing curriculum at this school?
12.(5).c Determining the content of in-service professional development programs
for teachers of this school?
12.(5).d Evaluating teachers of this school?
Collaboration.
In a collaborative environment, the principal would rate teacher‘s influence on the
organizational operations at the higher end of the Likert-scale. In contrast, in a non-
collaborative environment, the principal would perceive the teachers as having little to no
influence on decisions of organizational operations.
Parental Involvement. From the SASS, 4 items were selected to represent the construct
of parental Involvement (Appendix C). This is measured using a nominal scale of 0 and
1. If the participant answered yes to the item, they received a score of 1. If they
answered no then they received a score of 0. The scores were then summed to represent a
possible response range from 0 – 5. This total represented the principal‘s parental
involvement score. The 4 items were selected from question 22 on the 2007 – 2008

82
Public School Principal SASS. Principals were asked to identify what procedures or
services that they have in place at their school that facilitate parental involvement. The 4
items included in this study addressed having a liaison, workshops, support process, and a
drop-in center where parents could access support for their individual needs. Table 3.5
lists the selected parental involvement items. These items, rather than measuring the
level of parental involvement, identifies if the principal has established an environment
that facilitates opportunities for parental involvement.
22. This school year (2007-2008) does the school have the following:
22.a a staff member assigned to work on parent involvement (Liaison)?
22.b workshops or courses for parents or guardians?
22.c services to support parent participation, such as transportation and child
care?
22.d parent drop-in center or lounge?
Parental Involvement.
Networked Leadership. Networked Leadership is a construct that identifies
principals that facilitate an educational environment in which they leverage a purposeful
focus on instruction, perceive a high level of teacher collaboration, and establish an
environment that facilitates opportunities for parental involvement. Through the
interconnectedness of these three areas, functioning within an educational environment

83
that is perceived, facilitated and influenced by the principal, the teachers‘ sense of
positive school climate will significantly increase. The principal‘s networked leadership
scores were averaged from composite scores of the constructs of instruction,
collaboration, and parental involvement.
Dependent Variable
School Climate. From the SASS, 9 items were selected to represent the construct
of school climate (Appendix D). This is measured on a 4-point Likert-scale ranging from
strongly agree to strongly disagree. The mean score of the 9 interval items determines
the teachers‘ sense of positive school climate. The 9 items were selected from question
55 on the 2007 – 2008 Public School Teacher SASS. Teachers were asked to provide
their opinion regarding aspects of the educational environment in which they work. This
included aspects of communication, collaboration, mission, cooperation, support,
recognition, and overall general satisfaction with their environment. Table 3.6 lists the
selected school climate items.

84
55. To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following
statements:
55.a The school administration‘s behavior toward the staff is supportive and
encouraging.
55.g My principal enforces school rules for student conduct and backs me up
when I need it.
55.h Rules for student behavior are consistently enforced by teachers in this
school, even for students who are not in their classes.
55.i Most of my colleagues share my beliefs and values about what the central
mission of the school should be.
55.j The principal knows what kind of school he or she wants and has
communicated it to the staff.
55.k There is a great deal of cooperative effort among the staff members.
55.l In this school, staff members are recognized for a job well done.
55.o I am given the support I need to teach students with special needs.
55.q I am generally satisfied with being a teacher at this school.
Table 3.6. 2007 – 2008 Teacher SASS Items from Question 55 Selected to Represent
School Climate.
Covariates
Percent Economically Disadvantaged. This is determined by the percent of
students at each of the principals‘ schools that come from families who have been
identified as falling below the poverty level. This data is collected by NCES and
included as a percentage in the SASS reports.
Percent Minority. This is determined by the percent of students at each of the
principals‘ schools that has been identified as an ethnicity other than ―White/
Caucasian‖. This data is collected by NCES and included as a percentage in the SASS
reports.

85
Urbanicity. This is determined by the physical location of the school where the
principal and teacher serve according to the SASS questionnaire. The three units of
urbanicity selected for this study were urban, suburban, and rural. This data is collected
by NCES and included as a total number in the SASS reports.
Enrollment. This is determined by the total number of enrolled students at each of
the principal‘s schools. This data is collected by NCES and included as a total number in
the SASS reports.
Data Collection
Data concerning the principal‘s focus on instruction, collaboration, and parental
involvement were extracted from the SASS restricted use data set. NCES (2010)
collected SASS data through mail-based surveys and followed-up with connections via
telephone. Once schools were identified in the sample, in July of 2007 the principals
were initially sent a letter to verify their contact information as well as to confirm their
agreement to participate in the survey. Once the principal responded, NCES sent out a
package containing the questionnaire and all pertinent information on how to fill it out
and return it. Teachers were also mailed surveys and were followed-up with telephone
calls to complete and return the surveys. NCES, accessing federal department of
education databases, aligned the principal‘s responses with other school demographic
information such as percent economically disadvantaged, enrollment, urbanicity, and
percent minority. A restricted license use for the SASS data was obtained in order to
access all of the confidential identifiers.

86
Data Analysis
All analyses were conducted using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
(SPSS) version 19 (SPSS, 2010). Preliminary analysis using Principal Component
Analysis confirmed individual items within each construct loaded to one factor. Next,
Chronbach‘s Alpha was used to determine the level or reliability of the items in each
construct. A one-way ANOVA was also conducted on each covariate to determine if
they significantly accounted for any of the variance in the model and should therefore
either be included or excluded from the analysis.
A multiple linear regression analysis was applied. Multiple linear regression is a
multivariate statistical technique for examining the linear correlations between two or
more independent variables and a single dependent variable (Hinkle, Wiersma & Jurs,
1979). In order to provide a more detailed analysis on how the identified constructs
influence outcomes through their presence in the model, this study employed multiple
linear regression using hierarchical forced entry to analyze the model.
Multiple linear regression using forced entry requires an explanation as to the
order in which variables are entered into the model. Initially, the covariates were vetted
using the one-way ANOVA to determine if they will be included in the overall model.
Then, multiple linear regression was used to address the first research question.
1. Is there a relationship between principals‘ degree of Network Leadership within the

87
The order in which instruction, collaboration, and parental involvement are entered into
the hierarchical forced entry analysis are based on previous scholarly research and
literature.
Developed out of the effective schools literature, instructional leadership emerged as the
first major leadership model where the principal applied influence on school climate and
student academic success. Instruction was the pinnacle of this focus and the principal
was identified as the center of driving the agenda of learning (Andrews, & Soder, 1987;
Chrispeels, 2002; DuFour, 2002; Edmonds, 1979; Hallinger, 2003; Hallinger, & Murphy,
1985, 1987; Lashway, 2002; Leithwood & Montgomery, 1982). Therefore, the
principal‘s focus on instruction is the first variable entered into the model.
The next major leadership model to emerge was transformational leadership. The central
component of this leadership style was the principal‘s ability to collaborate with teachers
and staff on the many facets of student learning and school climate. Principals and
teachers became partners in the development and implementation of student learning.
Therefore, the principals‘ focus on collaboration became the next variable entered into

88
the model. (Bass, 1990; Blankstein & Noguera, 2004; Blase, & Blase, 2000; Burnette,
2002; Burns, 1979; Garmston, 2006; Gill, 2003; Hallinger, 2003; Murphy, & Hallinger,
1987; Hudson, 2005; Jung, & Sosik, 2002; Marks, & Printy, 2003; Spillane et al.,, 2007;
Yukl, 1999).
Parental involvement has recently emerged as a major component of influence on
positive school climate and student academic success. Principals, who build pathways
for parents to become involved in the education of their children, positively impact
parent-school relations as well as parent-teacher relations. Therefore, the principal‘s
focus on parental involvement is the final variable entered into the model. Chapter 4 will
detail how each variable entered into the model affected the overall outcome relationship
between networked leadership and school climate.

89
Chapter 4: Results
The results for an exploratory analysis conducted to address this study‘s research
questions unfold in Chapter Four. In order to begin a discussion about results of the
analysis, it is first prudent to address the assumptions of multiple linear regression. Next,
the data analyses conducted are detailed through multiple linear regression using
hierarchical forced entry to test the hypotheses. Finally, the results are summarized.
Assumptions
Independent Sample
One primary assumption of multiple linear regression is the integrity of the
independent sample. The National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) collected
data using the Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) from public school principals and
their corresponding teachers during the school year, 2007 – 2008. NCES used a stratified
probability-proportionate-to-size sample to identify participants for the SASS data
collection. Although participation was voluntary, NCES followed up with each principal
and teacher to facilitate survey completion. The purpose of this follow-up process was
two-fold: to ensure a comprehensive sample that was representative of each state; and to
document an appropriate national sample. Therefore, the level of structure and process

90
used in data collection support the inference that an appropriate independent sample was
used in this SASS dataset.
Normal Distribution
A second assumption of multiple linear regression analysis is an inherent normal
distribution of the data. Table 4.1 displays the demographic characteristics of the original
2,783 principals and aggregated teacher responses included in the model. Thus, there
was an initial threat to the assumption of normal distribution of the data due to large
skewness and kurtosis ratios. Consequently, an analysis of the distribution of the residual
values was warranted.
n Mean Stand. Dev. Skewness Kurtosis
Networked Score 2783 .004 .993 -23.52 9.98
Instruction 2783 .005 .991 -28.22 16.88
Collaboration 2783 .003 .997 -18.08 2.15
Parental
Involvement
2783 -.001 .999 -.46 -10.83
Climate 2783 .017 2.029 -12.39 8.03
Table 4.1. Demographic Characteristics

91
Since the skewness and kurtosis level for networked score, instruction, collaboration and
parental involvement were beyond the range of normality, the distribution of the residuals
was assessed in order to determine if the data was in fact normally distributed. The
regression standardized residuals tended towards a normal distribution (M = -1.05 x 10-17
,
SD = .999), however a slight skew was noted (Figure 4.1).
Figure 4.1 Histogram of Regression Standardized Residuals

92
Studentized residuals indicated that there were 22 extreme values that may have
contributed to an overall shift in the model. In order to increase the normality of the
distribution, the identified extreme values were removed. The re-analysis of the data
showed that the normality of the residuals improved (Figure 4.2), and showed that the
data was more closely aligned to a normal distribution (Figure 4.3).
Figure 4.2 Histogram of Regression Standardized Residuals with Extreme Values
Removed

93
Figure 4.3. Normal P-Plot Regression Standardized Residuals of Instruction,
Collaboration, Parental Involvement and Climate.
n Mean Stand. Dev. Skewness Kurtosis
Networked Score 2761 .0046 .99455 -21.46 10.01
Instruction 2761 .0050 .99233 -27.66 16.90
Collaboration 2761 .0036 .99723 -17.83 2.25
Parental
Involvement
2761 .0015 .99970 -.49 -10.83
Climate 2761 .0734 1.93561 -7.49 1.14
Table 4.2. Demographic Characteristics with Outliers Removed.

94
The revised demographic characteristics of the variables (Table 4.2) also demonstrated a
slight improvement in the mean, skewness and kurtosis of the variables. Therefore, the
size of the sample for the analysis was revised to 2,761.
Linearity
To assess linearity, the independent variables (instruction, collaboration and
parental involvement) were entered into the model and compared to school climate.
Figure 4.4 shows that although the majority of scores are clustered around zero, there
appeared to be a slight linear trend in the output.
Figure 4.4. Linearity Scatterplot

95
Multicollinearity
Testing for multicollinearity was also included in the analysis to determine if two
or more of the independent variables were highly correlated with each other.
Multicollinearity occurs in data sets when the tolerance of each of the variables is low
and the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) is high. Table 4.3 indicates that the variables in
the overall model all have a relatively moderate to high tolerance level, as well as a low
VIF. Therefore, there is no evidence that multicollinearity occurred in this model.
Variable Tolerance Variance Inflation Factor
Networked Score .993 1.007
Instruction .488 2.048
Collaboration .486 2.059
Parental Involvement .892 1.121
Table 4.3. Tolerance and Variance Inflation Factor Analysis
Measurement Strength
Reliability. Cronbach‘s Alpha was used to assess reliability in this study.
Cronbach‘s alpha analyzed how each item inter-correlated within the construct being

96
measured (Carmines & Zeller, 1979; Cronbach, 1951). Table 4.4 shows the Cronbach‘s
Alpha score for each of the variables in the model.
Variable Items Cronbach’a Alpha
Instruction 4 .624
Collaboration 4 .578
Parental Involvement 4 .552
Climate 9 .971
Table 4.4. Reliability Estimates by Variables
The results in Table 4.8 illustrate that a liberal approach to interpreting
Cronbach‘s Alpha must be observed in order to accept the independent variables as
reliable. While instruction (α = .624), collaboration (α = .578) and parental involvement
(α = .552) are low, they have similar reliability estimates with instruction being the larger
of the three. In taking a liberal approach to this exploratory analysis, the Cronbach‘s
Alpha scores for instruction, collaboration and parental involvement are acceptable for
this model. Climate (α = .971) was clearly within appropriate parameters for reliability.
Validity. Validity was assessed using the Principal Component Analysis (PCA).
Table 4.5 illustrates the validity of the item to variable fit for each of the constructs in the
model. Each of the grouped measurement items successfully loaded onto a single factor
for each variable: instruction, collaboration, parental involvement and school climate.
Although the measurement item ―evaluation‖ in both the variables of instruction and

97
collaboration are low, they are still included in these two constructs. Overall, there was a
good fit to the data and validity was retained.
Latent Variables Measurement Items Factor Loadings
Instruction Standards .783
Curriculum .803
Professional Development .672
Evaluation .425
Collaboration Standards .749
Curriculum .803
Professional Development .683
Evaluation .446
Parental Involvement Liaison .705
Workshops .696
Support .605
Lounge .603
Climate Administrative Behavior .894
Backs Me Up .912
Enforces Rules .912
Shares Beliefs .907
Communication .906
Cooperation .909
Recognition .933
Special Needs .881
Satisfaction .915
Table 4.5. Results of Principal Component Analysis.

98
Data Analysis
This section details the correlation between the independent variables, covariates,
and independent variable as the data is analyzed through multiple linear regression using
hierarchical forced entry. First, the covariates were analyzed to determine which of them
would be included in the model. Then, the correlation between networked leadership
score and climate are analyzed. Finally, the covariates and each of the three constructs
that comprised networked leadership in its current configuration (instruction,
collaboration, and parental involvement) are individually entered into the model to gauge
their influence on the teachers‘ perceptions of school climate.
Covariates
One-way ANOVAs were used to determine if each of the covariates significantly
accounted for any of the variance in the model. Table 4.6 detailed the results of these
analyses. The percentage of students who come from economically disadvantaged homes
had a significant influence on the variance (F = 55.209, df = 1, 2760, p < .01) and was
therefore included in the model. Likewise, the percentage of students who identify
themselves as an ethnicity other than Caucasian positively influenced the variance (F =
61.389, df = 1, 2760, p < .01) and was therefore included in the model. The total
enrollment of students did not significantly influence the variance in the model and was
excluded from this analysis. Urbanicity was entered as a dummy variable comparing
urban school with rural with suburban schools. Although urban schools demonstrated a
significant influence, rural schools did not attain the same level. Therefore, urbanicity
was not included in the model for this analysis.

99
Covariates SS MS F
Percent Economically Disadvantages 202.718 202.718 55.209**
Percent Minority 224.914 224.914 61.389**
Enrollment 6.349 6.349 1.679
Urbanicity
- Urban 22.741 22.741 6.087*
- Rural .974 .974 .261
*p < 0.05. **p < 0.01.
Table 4.6. ANOVA to Determine Covariates Included in the Model
Networked Leadership and School Climate
The primary focus of this analysis was the correlation between networked
leadership (as defined by the combined mean scores of instruction, collaboration, and
instruction) and the teachers‘ perceptions of school climate. An ANOVA was initially
used to determine if this was an appropriate measure of correlation between networked
leadership and school climate. Table 4.7 indicates that the overall model was significant
(F = 26.25, df =3,2757 , p <.01).

100
Model Sum of
Squares
Df Mean
Squares
F
1 Per. Econ. Dis. Regression 272.899 2 136.450 37.38**
Per. Minority Residual 10067.663 2758 3.650
Total 10340.562 2760
Per. Minority Residual 10053.440 2757 3.674
Networked
Score
Total 10340.562 2760
*p < 0.05. **p < 0.01.
Table 4.7. Analysis of Variance Networked Leadership and School Climate
Next, a correlational analysis was run to determine if a relationship existed
between the networked leadership score and the school climate score. Table 4.8 illustrates
that correlation with the covariates factored into the model. Networked leadership scores
are positively correlated with school climate (r = .050, p < .01). Although the
relationship appeared to be weak, it still extended in a positive direction.

101
Pearson Corr. Climate Percent Econ.
Dis.
Percent
Minority
Networked
Score
Climate 1.000
Per Econ. Dis. -.140** 1.000
Per. Minority -.147** .570** 1.000
Networked
Score
.050** -.076** -.066** 1.000
*p < 0.05. **p < 0.01.
Table 4.8. Correlation between Networked Leadership and School Climate.
The covariates in the model showed an inverse relationship with school climate,
which indicated that as the percentage economically disadvantaged (r = -.140, p < .01)
and percentage of minority (r = -.147, p < .01) increased, school climate decreased.
Table 4.9 shows that when the influence of the covariates are controlled for in the model,
networked leadership scores maintained a positive correlation with school climate (b =
.072, p = .048). After controlling for the covariates, .14% of the variance in school
climate can was uniquely explained by networked leadership score.
Results from Table 4.9 also indicated that 2.6% of the variability in school
climate was explained by the combination of the covariates in model 1. This was
statistically significant (p < .01). The addition of networked leadership scores in the
analysis (Model 2) improved the explanation of the variability of school climate by .001.
Although the addition of networked leadership was significant (p = .048), only 2.8% of

102
the variability of school climate was explained by the combination of all of the variables
in this model.
Predictor Variables β (SE) β (SE)
Model 1 % Econ. Dis. -0.161** (.044) -0.157** (.044)
% Minority -0.194** (.044) -0.192** (.044)
Model 2 Networked Score 0.072* (.037)
R2
0.026 0.028
Adj. R2
0.026 0.028
F = 37.4** 3.9*
df= 2, 2758 1, 2757
*p < 0.05. **p < 0.01.
Table 4.9. Regression Analysis between Networked Leadership and School Climate
Given this study‘s finding that networked leadership scores positively correlated
with school climate, the degree of influence of the individual constructs (instruction,
collaboration, and parental involvement) on the overall school climate was analyzed next.
An ANOVA (Table 4.10) indicated significant variance in the model (F = 17.42, df
=5,2755 , p <.01) between the inclusion of all three variables (instruction, collaboration,
and parental involvement) and school climate.
Applying hierarchical forced entry to multiple linear regression required the
identification of the order in which the variables were to be entered into the model. The
covariates were entered into the model first. The order of the independent variables was
determined by the order in which they became predominant in scholarly literature

103
regarding principal leadership. Instruction was the first dominant leadership model,
followed by influences of collaboration, and finally the focus on the importance of
parental involvement within the educational environment.
Model Sum of
Squares
Df Mean
Squares
F
Percent Minority Residual 10067.663 2758 3.650
Total 10340.562 2760
Instruction Total 10340.562 2760
Collaboration
Collaboration
Parent
Involvement
*p < 0.05. **p < 0.01.
Table 4.10. Analysis of Variance Instruction, Collaboration, Parental Involvement and
School Climate

104
Covariates
The percentage of students who were identified as economically disadvantaged,
and the percentage of students who identified their ethnicity as anything other than
Caucasian were first entered into the model as covariates. Table 4.11 indicated that both
percentage of economically disadvantaged (r = -.140, p < .01) and percentage of minority
students (r = -.147, p < .01) have an inverse relationship with school climate. As the
percentage of economically disadvantaged students and the percentage of minority
students increased, the overall teachers‘ perceptions of school climate decreased.
Pearson Corr. Climate Percent Econ. Dis. Percent Minority
Climate 1.000
Percent Econ. Dis. -.140** 1.000
Percent Minority -.147** .570** 1.000
*p < 0.05. **p < 0.01.
Table 4.11. Correlation between Covariates and School Climate
Table 4.12 shows that when the influence of the percentage of minority students
was controlled for in the model, the percentage of economically disadvantaged students
maintained a negative correlation with school climate (b = -.161, p < .01). After
controlling for the percentage of minority students in the model, .46% of the variance in
school climate was uniquely explained by the percentage of economically disadvantaged

105
students in the model. Likewise, when the influence of the percentage of economically
disadvantaged students was controlled for in the model, the percentage of minority
students maintained a negative correlation with school climate (b = -.194, p < .01). After
controlling for the percentage of economically disadvantaged students in the model, .67%
of the variance in school climate was uniquely explained by the percentage of minority
students in the model.
Predictor Variables β (SE)
Model 1 % Econ. Dis. -.161** (.044)
% Minority -.194** (.044)
R2
.026
Adj. R2
.026
F = 37.4**
df= 2, 2758
*p < 0.05. **p < 0.01.
Table 4.12. Regression analysis between covariates and school climate
Results from Table 4.12 also indicate that 2.6% of the variability in school climate was
explained by the combination of the covariates in the model.
The percentage of economically disadvantaged students and the percentage of
minority students are strictly entered as covariates in this model and are not the primary
variables under investigation in this study. They control for a significant portion of the
variance and therefore are included in the model as a way to receive a more accurate

106
analysis of the variables that this study is analyzing (instruction, collaboration, and
parental involvement).
Instruction and School Climate
Once the covariates were entered into the overall model, instruction scores were
added to assess its relationship to school climate. Table 4.13 indicates that the principal‘s
focus on instruction (r = .061, p < .01) had a positive correlation with school climate.
Although the relationship appeared to be weak, it is still trended in a positive direction.
As the principal‘s focus on instruction, the teachers‘ positive perceptions of school
climate increased.
Pearson Corr. Climate Percent Econ.
Dis.
Percent
Minority
Instruction
Climate 1.000
Percent Econ.
Dis.
-.140** 1.000
Percent Minority -.147** .570** 1.000
Instruction .061** -.060** -.038** 1.000
*p < 0.05. **p < 0.01.
Table 4.13. Correlation between Instruction and School Climate

107
Table 4.14 shows that when the influence of the covariates are controlled for in
the model, the instruction score maintained a positive correlation with school climate (b =
.103, p < .01). After controlling for the covariates, .28% of the variance in school climate
was uniquely explained by instruction score.
Predictor
Variables
β (SE) β (SE)
Model 1 % Econ. Dis. -0.161** (0.044) -0.155** (0.044)
% Minority -0.194** (0.044) -0.194** (0.044)
Model 2 Instruction 0.103** (0.037)
R2
= 0.026 0.029
Adj. R2
= 0.026 0.028
F = 37.4** 7.8**
df= 2, 2758 1, 2757
*p < 0.05. **p < 0.01.
Table 4.14. Regression Analysis between Instruction and School Climate
Results from Table 4.14 also indicate that 2.6% of the variability in school
climate was explained by the combination of the covariates in model 1. This was
statistically significant (p < .01). The addition of instruction in the analysis (Model 2)
improved the explanation of the variability of school climate by .003. Although the
addition of instruction is significant (p < .01), only 2.9% of the variability of school
climate was explained by the combination of all of the variables in this model.
The principal‘s focus on cultivating instruction within the educational
environment had a positive impact on the teachers‘ perception of school climate.

108
Teachers felt a stronger sense of collective school cohesion, as well as satisfaction and
recognition when principals were engaged with the instructional aspect of learning and
promoted student academic success.
Collaboration and School Climate
The principal‘s focus on collaboration was the next variable entered into the
overall model. This analysis assessed how collaboration influenced school climate when
instruction was already present in the model. Table 4.15 indicates that the principal‘s
focus on collaboration (r = .032, p = .047) had a positive correlation with school climate.
Although the relationship appeared to be weak, it still trended in a positive direction. As
the principal‘s focus on collaboration increased, the teachers‘ positive perceptions of
school climate also increased.
Pearson Corr. Climate Percent
Econ. Dis.
Percent
Minority
Instruction Collaboration
Climate 1.000
Percent Econ.
Dis.
-.140** 1.000
Percent
Minority
-.147** .570** 1.000
Instruction .061** -.060** -.038** 1.000
Collaboration .032* -.086** -.093** .714** 1.000
*p < 0.05. **p < 0.01.
Table 4.15. Correlation between Instruction, Collaboration and School Climate

109
Table 4.16 shows that when the influence of the variables are controlled for in the
model, the collaboration score did not maintain a positive significant correlation with
school climate (b = -.087, p = .09). Only .09% of the variance in school climate was
uniquely explained by the collaboration score. Also, the introduction of collaboration
into the model increased the influence of instruction on school climate (b = .165, p < .01).
Results from Table 4.16 further indicate that 2.9% of the variability in school
climate is explained by the combination of the covariates and instruction (Model 1 and
2). The addition of collaboration in the analysis (Model 3) improved the explanation of
the variability of school climate by .001. Therefore, the combination of all of the
variables in the model explained only 3.0% of the variability in school climate.
Predictor
Variables
β (SE) β (SE) β (SE)
Model 1 % Econ. Dis. -.161** (.044) -.155** (.044) -.156** (.044)
% Minority .194** (.044) -.194** (.044) -.199** (.044)
Model 2 Instruction .103** (.037) .165** (.052)
Model 3 Collaboration -.087 (.052)
R2
= .026 .029 .030**
Adj. R2
= .026 .028 .029**
F = 37.4** 7.8** 2.8
df= 2, 2758 1, 2757 1, 2756
*p < 0.05. **p < 0.01.
Table 4.16. Regression Analysis between Instruction, Collaboration and School Climate

110
The principal‘s focus on cultivating a collaborative learning environment through
sharing influence on the processes associated with the development of student academic
success did not have a positive impact on the teachers‘ perceptions of school climate.
The analysis showed that although not significant, there was a negative relationship
between correlation and school climate. This relationship did not positively contribute to
the effectiveness of the networked leadership model‘s impact on the teachers‘ perception
of school climate.
Parental Involvement and School Climate
With the addition of parental involvement, all variables were included in the
overall model. This analysis assessed how parental involvement influenced the teacher‘s
perceptions of school climate when instruction and collaboration are already present in
the overall model. Table 4.17 indicates that the principal‘s focus on parental involvement
(r = .025, p = .092) had a positive, yet non-significant correlation with school climate.
Table 4.18 shows that when the influence of the variables were controlled for in
the model, the parental involvement score maintained its non-significant correlation with
school climate, and turned negative (b = -.046, p = .23). Only .05% of the variance in
school climate was uniquely explained by the collaboration score. The presence of
parental involvement slightly decreased instruction (b = .163, p < .01) and collaboration
(b = -.086, p = .09) when other variables were being held constant in the model.

111
Pearson Corr. Climate Percent
Eco Dis
Percent
Minority
Instruction Collaboration Parental
Invol.
Climate 1.000
Per Eco Dis -.140** 1.000
Per Minority -.147** .570** 1.000
Instruction .061** -.060** -.038** 1.000
Collaboration .032** -.086** -.093** .714** 1.000
Parental Inv. .025 -.198 -.326 -.025 .015 1.000
*p < 0.05. **p < 0.01.
Table 4.17. Correlation between Instruction, Collaboration, Parental Involvement and
School Climate
Predictor
Variables
β (SE) β (SE) β (SE) β (SE)
Model 1 % Econ. Dis. -.161**(.044) -.155**(.044) -.156**(.044) -.157**(.044)
% Minority -.194**(.044) -.194**(.044) -.199**(.044) -.214**(.046)
Model 2 Instruction .103**(.037) .165**(.052) .163**(.052)
Model 3 Collaboration -.087 (.052) -.086 (.052)
Model 4 Parental Invol. -.046 (.038)
R2
= .026 .029 .030 .031
Adj. R2
=
.026 .028 .029 .029
F = 37.4** 7.8** 2.8 1.4
df= 2, 2758 1, 2757 1, 2756 1, 2755
*p < 0.05. **p < 0.01.
Table 4.18. Regression Analysis between Instruction, Collaboration, Parental
Involvement and School Climate

112
Results from Table 4.18 also indicate that the addition of the parental involvement
construct into the overall model improved the variability of school climate by .001.
When all of the variables were included in the model, the combination of these variables
explained 3.1% of the variability in school climate. None of the variables included in this
analysis controlled for the majority of variance in the model.
The principal‘s focus on creating processes and pathways for parents to become
more involved in the academic success of their child did not have a positive impact on the
teachers‘ perceptions of school climate. The analysis showed that although not
significant, there was a negative relationship between parental involvement and school
climate. This relationship did not positively contribute to the effectiveness of the
networked leadership model‘s impact on the teachers‘ perception of school climate.
Analysis Summary
Items identified on the SASS permitted for the development of the three
independent constructs used in this analysis: instruction, collaboration, and parental
involvement. This allowed for the creation of a comprehensive principal leadership
approach labeled networked leadership. Also, items identified on the SASS allowed for
the construction of the teachers‘ perceptions of school climate. The results of these
analyses addressed the following four research questions:
1. Is there a relationship between principals‘ degree of Network Leadership within the

113
The principal‘s networked leadership was positively related to the teachers‘
perceptions of school climate. Although there does not appear to be a strong relationship,
the correlation does indicate a positive significant influence. Principals that are engaged
in this type of leadership positively influenced the teachers‘ perceptions of a school
climate and therefore encouraged an educational environment that had the potential to
influence student academic success.
When instruction was held constant in the model, it was positively correlated with
school climate. For principals who focused on developing an environment where
instructional influence and decision-making were prominent in their leadership style, the
teachers‘ perception of that environment became more positive.
The principal‘s focus on collaboration did not maintain significance when the
other variables were controlled for in the model. The principal‘s perception of teacher
collaboration did not equate with the teachers‘ perceptions of positive school climate.

114
The principal‘s focus on creating an environment that promoted active parental
involvement did not hold significance when correlated with the teachers‘ perceptions of
school climate. The presence of parental involvement did not substantially improve the
variability of school climate and, like collaboration, did not equate with the teachers‘
perceptions of school climate.
The principal‘s engagement in a networked leadership style had a positive impact
on the teachers‘ perceptions of school climate. As the the variables were entered into the
overall model, instruction maintained its significance regardless of the presence or
absence of the other variables. Collaboration and parental involvement neither held
significance nor had a strong impact on the variance of the model. Despite small
correlations and small amounts of variance explained by the networked leadership model,
this model may yet have promising potential for the field of educational research. This
study‘s construct development may have limited the amount of networked leadership
influence and variance on the school climate. Thus, it is necessary to discuss the
limitations of inferences that can be made regarding the analysis of this study.

115
Chapter 5: Conclusions and Implications
Discussion
This chapter provides a summary of research findings, discussion pertaining to the
findings‘ impact on the field of educational leadership, and the limitations of this
particular research project. This chapter concludes with recommendations for further
research.
The purpose of this study was to identify an approach to leadership by which
principals network the constructs of instruction, collaboration, and parental involvement.
The primary benefit of examining such a networked leadership model was to
juxtaposition that model against prior research findings that indicated limited positive
influence on school climate and student academic success when these variables were
isolated. Thus, the degree to which principals influence instructional practices in the
building, engage in collaboration by empowering the teachers to influence the learning
environment, and establish processes and supports that facilitate parental involvement
within the school environment, are assessed both individually and collectively in this
networked approach to school leadership.
How principals lead schools influences teachers‘ overall cohesiveness as a
community and satisfaction within the educational environment. Prior research has
shown that the leadership style of the principal impacts school climate (Howard et al.,

116
1987; Hoy & Hoy, 2003; Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005). Principals that attend to
the needs of their teachers, staff, students and parents, create an environment where
support and satisfaction are part of the fabric of the school. Moreover, within such an
organizational climate, teachers are empowered to make decisions and provide
instruction that ultimately leads to gains in student academic success (Hallinger, 1987;
Halpin & Croft, 1982; Witcher, 1993). While this study‘s findings affirm that research,
there are some noteworthy considerations that warrant discussion prior to final
conclusions about the model‘s overall ability to predict positive gains vis-à-vis school
climate and student academic success.
As the networked leadership model shows, the principal‘s engagement in this
networked approach to leadership had a significantly positive influence on student
academic success. However, the correlation was weak (r = .072, p < .05) and it only
accounted for 2.8% of the overall variance in the model. Networked leadership had
influence on how the teachers viewed their educational environment and approached their
work, and this influence may have translated into improved student academic success.
Given that networked leadership displayed a positive correlation with school
climate, it was advantageous to investigate the principal‘s influence through each of the
constructs of instruction, collaboration, and parental involvement. Doing so allowed the
researcher to prompt premature conclusions that a networked leadership model better
predicts positive gains in school climate than does models of leadership that isolate these
variables. This was especially necessary as prior research has documented strong
relationships between instructional leadership and collaborative leadership and gains on
the teachers‘ perceptions of school climate.

117
For instance, the principal‘s influence on instruction has a positive impact on the
structures and processes within the school environment and the teachers‘ perceptions of
climate (Blase & Blase, 2002: Hallinger, 2003). Through their focus on instructional
procedures and practices, principals influence student academic success by facilitating a
climate and environment where teachers maximize their ability to provide quality
instruction (Bamberg & Andrews, 1990; Goldring, & Pasternack, 1994; Hallinger, &
Heck, 1996a, 1996b, 2002; Hallinger, & Murphy, 1986). This positive impact on school
climate allows the principal to have an indirect impact on student academic success
(Cotton, 2003; Gurr, 1997; Hallinger & Heck, 1998).
This study affirms the prevailing findings in research about instructional
leadership and school climate. When the principal‘s focus on instruction is entered into
the model alone, it is positively correlated (r = .103, p < .01) with the teachers‘
perceptions of school climate. As with the overall composite score of networked
leadership, instruction had weak influence on school climate. Also, instruction, when
coupled with the covariates of the percent of economically disadvantaged students and
the percent of minority students only accounted for 2.8% of the variance in the model.
Instruction itself only accounted for approximately .3% of the variance.
Additionally, prior research has documented that when principals engage in
collaborative efforts to enhance teacher involvement within the learning environment,
teachers have a more positive sense of satisfaction and collegiality (Leithwood, 1992;
Pepper & Thomas, 2000). When the principal shares decision-making responsibilities
with teachers, levels of productivity, satisfaction, cohesiveness, and collegiality also
increase (Howard et al., 1987; Hallinger, 1987; Halpin & Croft, 1982; Leithwood, 1992;

118
Pepper & Thomas, 2000; Witcher, 1993). This supports an environment that perpetuates
increased student academic success. However, the findings of this study do not support
such conclusions. The principal‘s focus on providing a collaborative environment did not
reach threshold of significance when entered into the overall model (b = -.087, p = .09).
In fact, it suggested a negative effect when instruction was already present in the model.
Thus, the inclusion of the collaboration variable does not appear to strengthen the overall
networked leadership approach to influencing school climate.
Prior research has also documented the effects of parental involvement on the
educational environment. Teachers feel that when they have clear structured pathways to
communicate and collaborate with parents, the school climate and their ability to
influence student academic success increases (Anfara, Jr,. & Mertens, 2008;
Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Epstein, 1986; Leichter, 1974; Litwak & Meyer, 1974; Henderson
& Mapp, 2002). When principals cultivate processes and procedures that support the
involvement of parents within the educational environment, the teachers‘ perceptions of
school climate increase (Epstein & Dauber, 1991). The findings of this study do not
support such conclusions. The principal‘s focus on parental involvement did not reach
the threshold of significance when entered into the overall model (b = -.046, p = .230).
Like collaboration, parental involvement had a negative effect when instruction and
collaboration were already present in the model. Thus, parental involvement cannot be
said to strengthen the networked leadership model in influencing school climate.
Therefore, while it initially appeared that the networked leadership approach held
promise to leverage positive influences on teachers‘ perception of school climate, further
analysis revealed that the construct of instruction was predominantly impacting

119
significance. When the individual constructs were parceled out, only the construct of
instruction retained significance. This significance was also maintained regardless of
which of the other constructs were entered into the model. The degree of the principal‘s
focus on instruction was so great that it compensated for the non-significance of
collaboration and parental involvement and allowed the comprehensive construct of
networked leadership to present as significant. However, these results must be tempered
with the fact that this significance is weak and the entire model only accounts for 3.1% of
the variability in school climate.
Limitations
This study identifies 5 major limitations in its design and outcome:
1. The items used for this study were extracted from self-report questionnaires.
Principals were self-assessing their influence on the educational environment that they
were hired to maintain. As a recognized risk of self-report data, their responses to
these items on the SASS questionnaire could have been motivated more by socially
desirable responses than efforts to accurately depict their influence over procedures
and processes within the educational environment.
2. The analysis for this study relied solely on responses to the items on the SASS
questionnaire. Neither field observations nor interviews were built into the data
collection model to supplement the principal‘s perceptions of their influence on the
educational environment. Thus, there was no mechanism capable of determining how

120
the principals‘ perception of their influence was correlated with how the teacher
perceived the principals influence within the school setting.
3. The responses from both the principals and the teachers were based on a singular
snapshot of their perceptions of the climate and influence at the time the questionnaire
was completed. Influence and perceptions may have easily been altered both
positively and negatively after the SASS was completed and returned. No follow-up
contact was entered into the data collection design in order to see if the influence and
perceptions recorded on the SASS were maintained over a period of time in each
respective school site.
4. The SASS was not designed to specifically measure how the principal engaged in
networked leadership practices, instruction, collaboration and parental involvement in
order to influence the teachers‘ perceptions of school climate. This study had to create
these constructs from the existing questions. This restricted what data was available
for analysis, and limited the comprehensive development of each construct.
Consequently, the variables‘ impacts on school climate may have been diluted.
5. The findings of this study have limited inferences outside of this research. Due to its
partial significance and lack of meaningful variability vis-à-vis school climate, the
overall findings lead to further discussion and research, but fail to adequately establish
a comprehensive impact on a new approach to educational leadership.

121
Recommendations
The following recommendations are presented to improve upon future attempts to
replicate or redesign the current study:
1. Create a new survey instrument in which items are constructed in such a way to limit
socially desirable responses and more accurately measure how principals engages
teachers, parents and the learning environment through the lenses of instruction,
collaboration, and parental involvement. A prudent step would be to first investigate
existing surveys in order to identify such items that have already been developed and
validated. If such items were available, then researchers could construct an instrument
to solicit appropriate responses to those items.
2. Identify a smaller sample size whereby follow-up interviews and observations can be
built into the data collection design. This will allow for better confirmation of
disconfirmation of principal responses. It may also invite a more comprehensive
picture of the principals‘ and teachers‘ interactions within the educational
environment that is not restricted to the singular snapshot provided by survey
completion.
3. Explore the possibility of including other constructs into the networked leadership
model. Prevailing areas in the current research literature lead this study to create a
networked approach to leadership by having the principal filter through the lenses of
instruction, collaboration, and parental involvement. Using this dataset only

122
accounted for roughly 3% of the overall variability in the model. Identifying and
including additional constructs into this type of analysis may account for more of the
unexplained variance with regard to its influence on school climate.
Implications in General
Identifying approaches to effective leadership have been the subject of a plethora
of research studies. A 6 year study commissioned by the Wallace Foundation (Seashore-
Louis, Leithwood, Wahlstrom & Anderson, 2010) summed up the prevailing literature
concerning the effects of principal leadership style on educational environment. They
studied 180 schools in 43 school districts in 9 states found that successful schools have
principals who engage in collegial collaboration, data-based decision-making, and some
degree of shared leadership. What tends to be absent from research are the specific
actions or behaviors that the principal uses to engage teachers and students in the learning
environment (Haynes, 2011).
Discussion needs to take place around first differentiating between ―what‖ the
principal brings to the educational environment and ―how‖ the principal affects the
educational environment. The ―what‖ tends to saturate the current literature: principals
engage in leadership focused on instruction, collaboration, shared decision-making, and
these foci produce positive results in teacher climate and student academic success
(Bamberg, & Andrews, 1991; Conley, & Goldman, 1994; Hallinger, & Heck, 1996a,
1996b, 2002; Hallinger, & Murphy, 1986; Harris, 2005; Goldring, & Pasternack, 1994;
Spillane, 2005).

123
However, it seems to be the ―how‖ that principals need to better understand in
order to cultivate an educational environment that supports teacher and student success.
Principals are interested in how the information is shared in a collaborative manner, how
decisions regarding curriculum and instruction are developed, and how principals,
teachers, and parents interact with each other in a way that maximizes student
achievement (Haynes, 2011; Seashore-Louis et al., 2010). In this study, a model of
networked leadership attempted to address how principals engage in the process of
cultivating an environment where teachers feel supported and students achieve academic
success. While the model of networked leadership presented in this study does not yet
sufficiently address the ―how‖ of principal leadership, it perhaps serves as an example of
the types of research projects needed in the field of educational leadership.
Seashore Louis et al., (2011) stated that, ―leadership is second only to classroom
instruction among all school-related factors that contribute to what students learn at
school‖ (p.17). Teachers are at the front line consistently adjusting their delivery of
instruction and processes to provide remediation and enrichment to continuously meet the
needs of their students. The role of the principal is to support such an environment by
assuring that teachers have the knowledge, skills, and resources available to make those
necessary adjustments.
The principal‘s approach to networked leadership employs what Haynes (2011)
called ―fatter decision-making structures‖ (p. 11). The principal remains the leader of the
school, monitoring the ebb and flow of the environment, keeping support and resources
flowing where they are needed, and maintaining the vision and mission of the school. In
such a model, mutual trust and respect would empower teacher to develop teacher-led

124
inquiry teams that engage the community, assess programs, resources, curriculum and
methods of instructional delivery in order to meet the individual needs of their students.
As teachers discover processes that are successful, they immediately convey their
antecedent actions and how they implemented their plan of instruction in order to build
on the collective capacity of teacher resources. This information is exchanged in multiple
ways, allowing teachers to learn from each other and build upon the successes of their
colleagues in their own classrooms. This fatter decision-making structure allows teachers
to increase awareness of effective processes of differentiating instruction and implement
a more comprehensive plan of student learning, which ultimately increases the
effectiveness of the school‘s ability to cultivate student success.
When principals engage in a networked approach to leadership, they cultivate a
school climate in which the teachers are impacted by the influence of the collective
capacity of the school community, which in turn, evokes positive outcomes on student
academic success (Seashore Louis et al., 2010). In a networked leadership model, the
principal would elicit the greatest impact on student academic success through building
school capacity, fostering teacher knowledge development, and supporting teacher-led
collaborative learning teams. In this manner, the principal facilitates the networking of
ideas, practices, processes, and supports so that students reap the benefits of efficient and
effective exchanges of teaching information, techniques and best practices.
Although this analysis was limited in the significance and meaningfulness of its
results, it shined a light on the need to have meaningful conversations around not only
―what‖ principals bring to the educational environment but also ―how‖ they engage in
processes that elicit teacher satisfaction and student success. Therefore, further research

125
exploring a networked leadership model would need to concentrate on how principals
engage in a networked approach to leadership in order to monitor, develop, and maintain
this fatter educational structure.
Implications for Practice and Research
Multiple implications for the field of practice unfold from this study. First,
instructional leadership is a critical piece in cultivating a positive school climate and
improving student academic success. Principals continue to play an important role in the
instructional process. Principals who focus on a consistent comprehensive mission and
vision that coordinates curriculum, monitors progress, and assist teachers in removing
barriers that impede instruction are positively influencing the educational environment as
well as student academic success (Bamberg & Andrews, 1990; Goldring, & Pasternack,
1994; Hallinger, & Heck, 1996a, 1996b, 2002; Hallinger, & Murphy, 1986; Meek, 1999).
By being knowledgeable about curriculum and instructional strategies, principals are able
to assist teachers in the facilitation of instructional practices in the classroom (Leithwood
& Riehl, 2003; Marzano, Waters & McNulty, 2003). Thus, principals maintain the
instructional integrity of the learning environment by providing the resources, support
and presence necessary for teachers to appropriately impact student learning (Andrews &
Soder, 1987).
Instructional support with student academic success is mitigated through the
teachers within the educational environment (Blase & Blase, 2002; Hallinger, 2003;
Hallinger & Heck 1998). Principals make the most meaningful impact on student
achievement through the the cultivation and facilitation of the school climate within the

126
educational environment (Gurr, 1997). Principals motivate, inspire and provide resources
to teachers as a way of driving the instructional process (Cotton, 2003). They assist in
developing the teachers‘ mastery of instructional practices through the knowledge, skills,
and dispositions that bring to the educational environment (Leithwood et al., 2004).
Higher educational institutions must maintain a focus of instructional leadership
in their principal preparation programs. Principals who graduate from their programs and
enter into the field of education need to be stewards of the instructional process and have
the skills necessary to cultivate a positive school climate in order to provide support and
resources to their teachers. Diminishing the focus on instructional leadership in the
preparation process runs the risk of inadequately preparing principals for success in the
field, as well as potentially negating aspects of influence within the school climate.
Models of networked leadership have implications for the field of research. The
lack of significant results in this study should not diminish interest in future
configurations of networked leadership. The foundation of this concept is a viable
approach to school leadership. Networked leadership seeks to identify fatter
organizational structures that develop and fluctuate according to the needs of the teachers
and the vision and direction of the school. In such models, power and decision-making
authority reside within the network, empowering teachers, staff, and parents to make
meaningful decisions that impact day-to-day learning environment for the purpose of
increasing student academic success (Cebrowski, 2003; Garstika, 2003; Office of Force
Transformation, 2005; Surry & Ely, 2002). Networked leadership is about putting the
best information in the hands of the appropriate people in order for them to make
efficient and effective decisions that ultimately leads to student success (Garstka, 2003).

127
As the hub of the network, principals facilitate the smooth interaction of
knowledge, resources, and collaboration while maintaining the vision of the mission of
the school (Alberts, & Hayes, 2003; Atkinson, & Moffat, 2005; Luddy, 2005; Stone,
2004). It is this physical and intellectual structure that improves the sharing of
information, which in turn prompts collaboration to develop quality information, and thus
enables the participants to increase awareness and implement a more comprehensive
plan. Ultimately, the combination of these processes increases the effectiveness of
teaching and learning (Alberts, 2002).
The notion of networked leadership needs to be explored using appropriate
instrumentation and research to identify unique attributes and combinations of actions
that may ultimately lead to a stout leadership model. Further theorization of networked
leadership may yield better research and result in outcomes that facilitate leadership
development and implementation in the field of education and principal preparation.

128
References
Abrams, L., & Gibbs, J. T. (2000). Planning for change: School community collaboration
in a full-service elementary school. Urban Education, 35(1), 79–103.
Abrams, L., & Gibbs, J. (2002). Disrupting the logic of home-school relations: Parent
involvement strategies and practices of inclusion and exclusion. Urban
Education, 37(3), 384-407.
Alberts, D. (2002). Information Age Transformation: getting to a 21st century military.
Washington, D.C.: Department of Defense Command and Control Research
Program. Retrieved April 15, 2010 from
http://www.dodccrp.org/files/Alberts_IAT.pdf.
Alberts, D., & Hayes, R. (2003). Power to the edge: command, control in the information
age. Washington, D.C.: Department of Defense Command and Control Research
Program. Retrieved February 28, 2010, from
http://www.dodccrp.org/files/Alberts_Power.pdf
Allen, S. M. (1996). Changing educational practices: An ethnographic study of how
schools have changed. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.:
ED 399-668)
Andrews, R., & Soder, R. (1987). Principal instructional leadership and school
achievement. Educational Leadership, 44(6), 9-11.

129
Anfara, Jr., & Mettens, S. (2008). Varieties of parental involvement in schooling. Middle
School Journal, 39(3), 56-64.
Argyris, C., & Schon, D. (1996). Organizational learning II: Theory, method and
practice.Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Aritomi, Coopersmith, Guber, K. (2009). Characteristics of public school districts in the
united states: Results from the 2007 – 08 schools and staffing survey. Retrieved
November 15, 2010 from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED505835.pdf.
Atkinson, S., & Moffat, J. (2005). The agile organization: From informal networks to
complex effects and agility. Washington, D.C.: Department of Defense Command
andControl Research Program. Retrieved February 28, 2010, from
http://www.dodccrp.org/files/Atkinson_Agile.pdf
Austin Independent School District (1977). Review of research in parental involvement in
education, Interim Report: Low SES and minority student achievement study.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.: ED 161-980)
Avolio, B. (1999). Full leadership development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications,
Inc.
Avolio, B., Bass, B., & Jung, D. (1999). Re-examining the components of
transformational and transactional leadership using the multifactor leadership
questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and organizational Psychology, 72(4),
441-463.
Avolio, B., & Bass, B. (1988). Transformational leadership, charisma, and beyond. In J.
Hunt, B. Baliga, H. Dachler & Schriesheim, C. (Eds.), Emerging Leadership
vistas. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

130
Bamberg, J., & Andrews, R. (1990). Schools goals, principals and achievement. School
Effectiveness and School Improvement, 2(3), 175-191.
Barth, R. (1990). Improving Schools from Within (San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass).
Barth, R. (1986). On sheep and goats and school reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 68(4), 293-
296.
Barnett, K., McCormick, J., & Conners, R. (2001). Transformational leadership in
schools-Panacea, placebo or problem? Journal of Educational Administration,
39(1), 24 47.
Bass, B. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free
Press.
Bass, B. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the
vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18(3), 19-31.
Bass, B., & Avolio, B. (1993). Transformational leadership: a response to critiques. In
M. Chemers & R. Ayman (Eds.) Leadership Theory and Research: perspectives
and directions. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Bass, B., & Avolio, B. (1997). The full range leadership development manual for the
multifasctor leadership questionnaire. Redwood Coty, CA: Mindgarden, Inc.
Becker, H. J., & Epstein, J. L. (1982). Parent involvement: A survey of teacher practices.
Elementary School Journal, 83(2), 85–102.
Bennis, W., & Goldsmith, J. (1997). Learning to lead: A workbook on becoming a
leader. Massachusetts: Bennis-Goldsmith.
Berger, E. H. (2008). Parents as partners in education: Families and schools working
together. (7th ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.

131
Blackmore, J. (2002). Leadership for socially just schooling: More substance and less
style in high-risk, low trust times? Journal of School Leadership, 12(2), 198-222.
Blankstein, A., & Noguera, P. A. (2004). Reclaiming the promise of public education.
School Administrator, 61(5), 31-34.
Blase, J., & Anderson, G. (1995). The micropolitics of educational leadership: From
control to empowerment. West Orange, NJ : Leadership Library of America.
Blase, J., & Blase, J. (2000). Effective instructional leadership teachers' perspectives on
how principals promote teaching and learning in schools. Journal of Educational
Administration, 38(2), 130-141.
Blase, J., & Blase, J. (2002). Teachers‘ perceptions of principals‘ instructional leadership
and implications. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 1(3), 256-264.
Bloom, B. S. (1980). The new direction for educational research: Alterable variables. Phi
Delta Kappan 61(6), 382–385.
Bobbett, G. C. (1995). An analysis of Nevada’s report cards on high schools. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research
Association. Biloxi, Mississippi, November 8–10. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 397-084)
Bobbett, G. C., French, R. L., Achilles, C. M., and Bobbett, N. C. (1995). An analysis of
Nevada’s report cards on high schools. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of
the Mid-South Educational Research Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No.: ED 397-084

132
Bottery, M. (2001). Globalization and the UK competition state: no room for
transformational leadership in education? School Leadership & Management,
21(2), 199–218.
Brabeck, M. & Shirley, D. (2003). Excellence in schools of education: An oxymoron?
Phi Delta Kappan, 84(5), 368-372.
Bronfenbrenner U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature
and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Brookover, W., Schweitzer, J., Schneider, J., Beady, C., Flood, P. & Wisenbaker, J.
(1978). Elementary school climate and school achievement. American
Educational Research Journal, 15(2), 301-318.
Bulach, C., Lunenburg, F., McCallon, R. (1995). The influence of the principal's
leadership style on school climate and student achievement. People and
Education: The Human Side of Schools, 3(3), 333-350.
Burnette, B. (2002). How we formed our community. Journal of Staff Development,
23(1), 51-54.
Burns, J. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Burns, J. (1979). Two excerpts from leadership. Educational Leadership, 36(6), 380.
Camburn, E., Rowan, B., & Taylor, J. (2003). Distributed leadership in schools: The
case of elementary schools adopting comprehensive school reform models.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(4), 347-373.
Carmines, E. G., & Zeller, R. A. (1979). Reliability and validity assessment. London:
Sage University.

133
Cebrowski, A. (2003). Transformation Trends. Speech by VADM Arthur Cebrowski to
the Network Centric Warfare 2003 Conference (22 January 2003). Retrieved on
February 28, 2010 from http://www.oft.osd.mil/library/library_
files/trends_170_Transformation_rends--17_ebruary_Issue.pdf.
Chavkin, N. F., & William, D. L., Jr. (1993). Minority parents and the elementary school:
Attitudes and practices. In N. F. Chavkin (Ed.), Families and communities in a
pluralistic society (pp. 73-83). Albany: State University of New York.
Chrispeels, J. (2002). The California center for effective schools: The oxford school
district partnership. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(5), 382.
Christenson, S. L., Rounds, T., and Gorney, D. (1992). Family factors and student
achievement: An avenue to increase students‘ success. School Psychology
Quarterly 7(3), 178–206.
Coburn, C. (2001). Collective sense-making about reading: How teachers mediate
reading policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and
Policy Analysis, 23(2), 145–170.
Cohen, E., & Miller, R. (1980). Coordination and control of instruction in schools.
Pacific Sociological Review, 23(4), 446–473.
Coleman, J. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Retrieved November 10, 2010
from http://eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED012275.pdf.
Conley, D. T., & Goldman, P. (1994). Ten propositions for facilitative leadership. In J.
Murphy& K. S. Louis (Eds.), Reshaping the principalship: Insights from
transformational reform efforts (pp. 237-262). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.

134
Corwin, R. G., & Wagenaar, T. C. (1976). Boundary interaction between service
organizations and their publics: A study of teacher-parent relationships. Social
Forces, 55(2), 471–492.
Cotton, K. (2003). Principals and student achievement: What the research says:
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Cowan, K. (2003). The new Title I: The changing landscape of accountability. Tampa,
FL: Thompson Publishing Group.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests.
Psychometrika, 16, 167-186.
Dauber, S. L., & Epstein, J. L. (1993). Parents‘ attitudes and practices of involvement in
inner-city elementary and middle schools. In N. F. Chavkin (Ed.), Families
andschools in a pluralistic society (pp. 53-71). Albany: State University of New
York.
Davies, D. (1985). Parent involvement in the public schools in the 1980s: Proposals,
issues, opportunities. Paper presented at the Research for Better Schools
Conference Philadelphia. Microfiche ED 274427
Davies, D. (1991). Schools reaching out: Family, school, and community partnerships for
student success. Phi Delta Kappan, 72(5), 376-382.
Day, C. (2000). Beyond transformational leadership. Leadership, 57(7), 56-59.
Day, C., Harris, A., & Hadfield, M. (2001). Challenging the orthodoxy of effective
school Leadership. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 4(1), 39-56.
Deal, T. E. & Peterson, K. D. (1994). The Leadership Paradox. San Francisco,
California: Jossey-Bass, Inc., pp. 40-41.

135
Desimone, L., Finn-Stevenson, M., and Henrich, C. (2000). Whole school reform in A
low-income african american community: The effects of The cozi model on
teachers, parents, and students. Urban Education, 35(3), 269-323.
Donohue, K., & Wong, L. (1994). Understanding and applying transformational
leadership. Military Review, 74, 24-31.
DuFour, R. (2002). Learning-centered principal. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 12-15.
Edmonds, R. (1979). Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational Leadership,
37(1), 15-24.
Edwards, S. L. (1995). The effect of parental involvement on academic achievement in
elementary urban schools. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.: ED 398-
331)
Egan, C. L., O‘Sullivan, C., &Wator, V. (1996). Improving the reading skills of at-risk
students. Unpublished Masters Thesis. St. Xavier University. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No.: ED 398-545)
Ellis, B. (1983). Implementation assessment of a parent involvement program and
the relationship between level of implementation and child achievement. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Montreal.
Elmore, R. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Washington, DC: The
Albert Shanker Institute.
Epstein, J. L. (1986). Parents‘ reactions to teacher practices of parent involvement. The
Elementary School Journal, 86(3), 277–294

136
Epstein, J. L. (1987). Parent involvement: What research says to administrators.
Education Urban Society 19 (2): 119–136.
Epstein, J. L. (1991a). School programs and teacher practices of parent involvement in
inner-city elementary and middle schools, Elementary School Journal, 91, 289-
303.
Epstein, J. L. (1991b). Effects on student achievement of teacher practices of parent
involvement. In S. Silvern, (Ed.), Literacy through family, community, and school
interaction. Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press, 261-76.
Epstein, J. L. (1992). School and family partnerships. In M. Aiken (Ed.), Encyclopedia of
educational research (6th ed.), Macmillan, New York, pp. 1139–1151.
Epstein, J. L. (1995). School/ family/ community partnerships: Caring for the children
we share. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(9), 701-712.
Epstein, J. L. (1996). Perspectives and previews on research and policy for school,
family, and community partnerships. In A. Booth & J. Dunn (Eds.), Family-
school links: How do they affect educational outcomes? (pp. 209–246). Mahwah,
NY: Erlbaum.
Epstein, J. L. (2005). Foreword. In E. N. Patrikakou, R. P. Weissberg, S. Redding, & H.
J. Walberg (Eds.), School-family partnerships for children’s success (pp. vii–xi).
New York: Teachers College Press.
Epstein, J. L. & Dauber, S. L. (1991). School programs and teacher practicesof parental
involvement and inner-city elementary and middle schools. The Elementary
School Journal, 91(3), 289-305.

137
Epstein, J. L., Sanders, M., Simon, B., Salinas, K. C., Jansorn, N. R., & Van Voorhis, F.
L. (2002). School, family, and community partnerships: Your handbook for action
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
ESEA (1965). The elementary and secondary education act. Retrieved November 11,
2010 from http://wps.prenhall.com/wps/media/objects/531/544609/Documents_
Library/esea 1965.htm.
Fan, X. T., & Chen, M. (2001). Parental involvement and students‘ academic
achievement: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 13(1), 1–22.
Firestone, W. (1996). Leadership: Roles or functions? In K. Leithwood et al. (Eds.),
International handbook of educational leadership and administration (pp. 395-
418). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Fletcher, J., & Käufer, K. (2003). Shared leadership: Paradox and possibility. In C. L.
Pearce & J. A. Conger (Eds.), Shared leadership (pp. 21–47). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Ford, D. L. (1989). Parental participation and academic achievement. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 344-659).
Fullan, M. (1997). Emotion and hope: Constructive concepts for complex times. In A.
Hargreaves (Eds.), Rethinking educational change with heart and mind (pp. 14-
33). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Fullan, M. (2002) The change leader. Educational Leadership, 59(8), pp. 16–20.
Garmston, R. (2006). Group wise. Journal of Staff Development, 27(1), 73-74.

138
Garstka, J. (2003). Network-centric warfare offers Warfighting advantage. Signal.
Retrieved February 28, 2010, from
http://www.afcea.org.ar/publicaciones/garstka.htm
Gill, R. (2003). Change management--or change leadership? Journal of Change
Management, 3(4), 307-318.
Gilmer, B. (1966). Industrial psychology (2nd ed.), New York: McGraw-Hill.
Glisson, C. (2000). Organizational climate and culture. In R. Patti (Ed.), The Handbook
of Social Welfare Management, 195-218. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Glisson, C. (2007). Assessing and changing organizational culture and climate for
effective services. Research on Social Work Practice, 17(6), 736-747.
Glisson, C., & Green, P. (2006). The effects of organizational culture and climate on the
access to mental health care in child welfare and juvenile justice systems.
Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 33(4), 433-48.
Goals 2000: Educate America Act. (1994). Goals 2000: Educate America Act. Retrieved
October 5, 2010 from http://www2.ed.gov/legislation/GOALS2000/TheAct
/index.html.
Goddard, R., Sweetland, S., Hoy, W. (2000). Academic emphasis of urban elementary
schools and student achievement in reading and mathematics: A multilevel study.
Education Administration Quarterly, 36(5), 683-702.
Goldfarb, K., & Grinberg, J. (2002). Leadership for social justice: Authentic participation
in the case of a community center in Caracas, Venezula. Journal of School
Leadership, 12, 157-173.

139
Goldring, E., & Pasternack, R. (1994). Principal‘s coordinating strategies and school
effectiveness. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 5(3), 239-253.
Gonty, C. (2007). Gauging the diffusion and adoption of innovations supporting network-
centric operations. Dissertation Abstract International, 68(12), 144. (UMI No.
AAT 3293735) retrieved February 3, 2010 from Dissertation and Thesis
Database.
Gronn, P. (2002). Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis. Leadership Quarterly,
13(4), 423-451.
Gurr, D. (1997). Principal leadership: What does it do, what does it look like? Melbourne
Australia: Department of Educational Policy and Management, University of
Melbourne.
Hallinger, P. (1992). School leadership development: evaluating a decade of reform.
Education and Urban Society, 24(3), 300–316.
Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading educational change: Reflections on the practice of
instructional and transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education,
33(3), 329-351.
Hallinger, P., Bickman, L., & Davis, K. (1996). School context, principal leadership and
student Achievement. Elementary School Journal, 96(5), 498–518.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (1996a). Reassessing the principals role in school
effectiveness: A review of empirical research 1980-1995. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 32(1), 5-44.

140
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (1996b). The principal‘s role in school effectiveness: A review
of the methodological issues 1980-1995. In K. Leithwood, J. Chapman, D.
Corson, P. Hallinger, and A. Weaver-Hart (Eds.) The International Handbook of
Educational Leadership and Administration. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1998). Exploring the principal‘s contribution to school
effectiveness: 1980-1995. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9, 157-
191.
Hallinger, P. & Heck, R. (2002). What do you call people with visions? The role of
vision, mission, and goals in school improvement. In K. Leithwood, P. Hallinger,
G. Furman, P. Gronn, J. MacBeath, B. Mulford and K. Riley (Eds.) The Second
International Handbook of Educational Leadership and Administration.
Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
Hallinger, P., & Leithwood, K. (1998). Unseen forces: The impact of social culture on
school leadership. Peabody Journal of Education, 73(2), 126-151.
Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. (1985). Assessing the instructional management behavior of
principals. The Elementary School Journal, 86(2), 217-247.
Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. (1986). The social context of effective schools. American
Journal of Education, 94(3), 328-355.
Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. (1987). Assessing and developing principal instructional
development. Educational Leadership, 45(1), 54-61.
Halpin, A. & and Croft, D. (1963). The organizational climate of schools. Chicago:
University of Chicago.

141
Hargreaves, A., & Macmillan, R. (1995). The balkanization of secondary school
teaching. In L. S. Siskin & J.W. Little (Eds.), The subjects in question:
Departmental organization and the high school (pp. 141–171). New York:
Teachers College Press.
Harris, A. (2005). Leading or misleading? Distributed leadership and school
improvement. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(3), 255-265.
Harris, A., Leithwood, K., Day, C., Sammons, P. & Hopkins, D. (2007). Distributed
leadership and organizational change: Reviewing the evidence. Journal of
Educational Change, 8(4), 337-347.
Harris, A., & Spillane, J. (2008). Distributed leadership through the looking glass.
Management in Education, 22(1), 31-34.
Hart, B., & Risley, T. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of
young American children. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Hater, J., & Bass, B. (1988). Superior‘s elevation and subordinates: Perceptions of
transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology,
73(4), 695-702.
Haynes, M. (2011). Meeting the challenge: The role of school leaders in turning around
the lowest-performing high schools. Alliance for Excellent Education. Retrieved
February 5, 2011 from http://www.all4ed.org/files/MeetingTheChallenge.pdf.
Haynes, N.M., Emmons, C., & Ben-Avie, M. (1997). School climate as a factor in
student adjustment and achievement. Journal of Educational and Psychological
Consultation, 8(3), 321 329.

142
Heck, R., Larson, T., & Marcoulides, G. (1990). Principal instructional leadership and
school achievement: validation of a causal model. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 26(2), 94–125.
Hellriegel, D., & Slocum Jr., J. (1974). Organizational climate: Measures, research and
contingencies. Academy of Management Journal, 17(2), 255-280.
Henderson, A. T. (1987). The evidence continues to grow: Parental involvement and
student achievement. Columbia, MD: National Committee for Citizens in
Education.
Henderson, A. T. (1988). Parents are a school‘s best friend. Phi Delta Kappan, 70(2),
149–153.
Henderson, A. T., & Berla. N. (1994). A new generation of evidence: The family is
crucial to student achievement. Washington, DC: National Committee for
Citizens in Education, Center for Law and Education.
Henderson, A. T., & Mapp, K. L. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school,
family, and community connections on student achievement. Austin, TX: National
Center for Family and Community Connections with Schools.
Herman, J. L., & Yeh, J. P. (1983). Some effects of parent involvement in schools. The
Urban Review, 15(1), 11–17.
Hinkle, D., Wiersma, W., & Jurs, S. (1979). Applied Statistics for the Behavioral
Sciences. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
Hobbs, N., Dokecki, P.R., Hoover-Dempsey, K.V., Moroney,, R.M., Shayne, M.W., &
Weeks, K.H. (1984). Strengthening families. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

143
Hobby, R. (2004). A culture for learning: An investigation into the values and beliefs
associated with effective schools. Retrieved August 4, 2010 from
http://www.schools-of-ambition.org/sofa/files/Culture%20for%20Learning.pdf
Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (1997). Why do parents become involved in
their children‘s education? Review of Education Research, 67(1), 3-42.
Howell, J., & Avolio, B. (1993). Transformational leadership, transactional leadership,
locus of control, and support for innovation: Key predictors of consolidated-
business-unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(6), 891-902.
Howard, E., Howell, B., Brainard, E. (1987). Handbook for Conducting School Climate
Improvement Projects. Bloomington, IN: The Phi Dappa Educational Foundation.
Hoy, W. K. (1990). Organizational climate and culture: A conceptual analysis of the
school workplace. Journal of Educational & Psychological Consultation, 1(2),
149-168.
Hoy, W. K., & Clover, I. R. (1986). Elementary school climate: A revision of the
OCDQ. Educational Administration Quarterly, 22(1), 93-110.
Hoy, W., & Hannum, J. (1997). Middle school climate: An empirical assessment of
organizational health and student achievement. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 33(3), 290-311.
Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. (2003). Instructional Leadership: A Learning-Centered Guide.
Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Hoy, W., & Miskel, C. (2005). Educational Administration: Theory, Research, and
Practice. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill Co.

144
Hoy, W., Smith, P., Sweetland, S. (2002). The development of the organizational climate
index for high schools: Its measure and relationship to faculty trust. High School
Journal, 86(2), 38-50.
Hoy, W., Tarter, C., & Bliss, J. (1990, August). Organizational climate, school health,
and effectiveness: A comparative analysis. Educational Administration Quarterly,
26(3), 260-279.
Hudson, J. (2005). Collaboration, inquiry, and reflection: A principal creates a CFG-
inspired learning environment. Educational Horizon, 84(1), 58-59.
Jackson, D. (2000) The school improvement journey: perspectives on leadership, School
Leadership & Management, 20(1), pp. 61–78.
Jacobson, L. (2002). Putting the ‗parent piece‘ in schools. Education Week, 22(5), 1.
Jantzi, D., & Leithwood, K. (1996). Toward an explanation of variation in teachers‘
perceptions of transformational school leadership. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 32(4), 512-538.
Jeynes, W. (2003). A meta-analysis: The effects of parental involvement in minority
children‘s academic achievement. Education and Urban Society, 35(2), 202-218.
Jeynes, W. (2007). The relationship between parental involvement and urban secondary
school student academic achievement. Urban Education, 42(1), 82-110.
Jung, D., & Sosik, J. (2002). Transformational leadership in work groups: The role of
empowerment, cohesiveness, and collective-efficacy on perceived group
performance. Small Group Research, 33(3), 313-336.
Khan, M.-B. (1996). Parental involvement in education: Possibilities and limitations.
SchoolCommunity Journal 6(1), 57–68.

145
Katz, M. B. (1971). Class, bureaucracy, and schools: The illusion of educational change.
New York: Praeger.
Keith, T. Z., Reimers, T. M., Fehrmann, P. G., Pottebaum, S. M., and Aubey, L. W.
(1986).Parental involvement, homework, and TV times: Direct and indirect
effects on high school achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology 78(5),
373–380.
Kelley, R., Thornton, B., Daugherty, R. (2005). Relationships between measures of
leadership and school climate. Education, 126(1), 17-25.
Kumashiro, K. (2000). Toward o theory of anti-oppressive education. Review of
Educational Research 70(1), 25-53.
Lambert, L. (1998). Building leadership capacity in schools. Alexandria, VA:
Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Lashway, L. (2002). Developing instructional leaders. ERIC Digest 160.
Lashway, L. (2003). Distributed leadership. ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational
Management, Research Roundup 19(4). Retrieved April 4, 2010, from
http://eric.uoregon.edu/publications/roundup/Summer_2003.html
Leana, C. & Pil, F. (2006). Social capital and organizational performance: Evidence
from urban public schools. Organization Science, 17(3) 353-366.
Leichter, H. J. (1974). The family as educator. New York: Teachers College Press.
Leithwood, K. (1992). The move toward transformational leadership. Educational
Leadership, 49(5), 8-12.

146
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (1999a). The relative effects of principal and teacher sources
of leadership on student engagement with school. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 35, 679–706.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (1999b). Transformational leadership effects: a replication.
School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 4(10), 451–479.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D (2000a) Principal and teacher leader effects: a replication.
School Leadership and Management, 20(4), 415–434.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2000b) The effects of transformation leadership on student
engagement with school. Journal of Educational Administration, 38(2), 112–129.
Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., & Steinbach, R. (1999). Changing leadership for changing
times. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
Leithwood, K., Mascall, B., Strauss, T., Sacks, R., Memon, N., & Yashkina, A. (2007).
Distributing leadership to make schools stronger: Taking the ego out of the
system. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 6(1), 37-67.
Leithwood, K., & Menzies, T. (1998). Forms and effects of school-based management: A
review. Educational Policy, 12(3), 325-346.
Leithwood, K., & Montgomery, D. (1982). The role of the elementary school principal in
program improvement. Review of Educational Research, 52(3), 309-339.
Leithwood, K. & Riehl, C. (2003). What do we already know about successful school
leadership? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association.

147
Leithwood, K., Tomlinson, D., & Genge, M. (1996) Transformational school
Leadership. In K. Leithwood, J. Chapman, D. Corspn, P. Hallinger & A. Weaver-
Hart (Eds) International Handbook of Educational Leadership and
Administration. New York: Kluwer.
Leithwood, K., Seashore Louis, K., Anderson, S. & Walstrom, K. (2004). How
leadership influences student learning. University of Minnesota: Center for
Applied Research and Educational Improvement.
Leithwood, K., & Steinbach, R. (1991). Indicators of transformational leadership in the
everyday problem solving of school administrators. Journal of Personnel
Evaluation in Education, 4(3), 221-244.
Leitner, D. (1994) Do principals affect student outcomes? An organizational perspective.
School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 5(3), 219–239.
Lezotte, L. (1994). The nexus of instructional leadership. School Administrator, 51(6),
20-23.
Lightfoot, S. L. (1978). Worlds apart: Relationships between families and schools. New
York: Basic Books.
King, R., Swanson, A., & Sweetland, S. (2003). School finance: Achieving high
standards with equity and efficiency. Boston, MA: Ally, and Bacon.
Lindahl, R. (2006). The role of organizational climate and culture in the school
improvement process: A review of the knowledge base. Retrieved December 11,
2010, from http://cnx.org/content/m13465/1.1/

148
Litwak, E., & Meyer, H. J. (1974). School, family and neighborhood: The theory and
practice of school-community relations. New York: Columbia University Press.
Louis, K., & Marks, H. (1998) Does professional community affect the classroom?
American Journal of Education, 106(4), 532–575.
Luddy, J. (2005). The challenge and promise of network-centric warfare. Retrieved
February28, 2010 from http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/docs/521.pdf
Malen, B., Ogawa, R., & Kranz, J. (1990). What do we do about school-based
management? A case study of the literature – a call for research. In W. Clune and
J. Witte (Eds), Choice and Control in American Education, Volume 2: The
Practice of Choice, Decentralization and School Restructuring. New York, NY:
Falmer Press.
Maninger, R., & Powell, D. (2007, March). The Lincoln Middle School paradigm shift: A
case study. Journal of Educational Leadership, 10(1), 22-31.
Marks, H., & Louis, K. (1997). Does teacher empowerment affect the classroom? The
implications of teacher empowerment for instructional practice and student
academic performance. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(2), 245-
275.
Marks, H., & Printy, S. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance : An
integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational
Marzano, R., Waters, T., & NcNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of
research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement. Aurora,
CO.

149
Marzano, R., Waters, T. & McNulty, B. (2005). School leadership that works: From
research to results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Mattingley, D., Prislin, R., McKenzie, T., Rodriquez, J., & Kayzar, B. (2002). Evaluating
evaluations: The case of parental involvement programs. Review of Educational
Research, 72(4), 549-576.
Matzye, C. (1995). Parental involvement in middle schools. (ERIC Document
Mawhinney, H. (2004). Deliberative democracy in imagined communities: How the
power geometry of globalization shapes local leadership praxis. Educational
Meek, J. (1999). Relationship between principal instructional leadership and student
achievement outcomes in North Caroline public elementary schools. Bell &
Howell Information and Learning Company.
Menard, J. (1993). Development and implementation of an integrated parent involvement
program for regular and special education classes in preschool and kindergarten
for home and school (practicum report). Nova University.
Merttens, R., and Vass, J. (1993). Partnerships in maths: Parents and schools, The
IMPACTProject. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.: ED 387-355).
Miretzky, D. (2004). The communication requirements of democratic schools: Parent-
Teacher perspectives on their relationships. Teachers College Record, 106(4),
814-851.

150
Mitchell, C., & Castle, J. B. (2005). The instructional role of elementary school
principals. Canadian Journal of Education, 28(3), 409-433.
Moles, O. C. (1982). Synthesis of recent research on parent participation in children‘s
education. Educational Leadership, 40(2), 44–47.
Murphy, J., & Hallinger, P. (1987). New directions in the professional development of
school administrators: A synthesis and suggestions for improvement. In J.
Murphy and P. Hallinger (Eds.), Approaches to administrative training in
education (pp. 245-282). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
NCES (2010). National center for educational statistics schools and staffing survey.
Retrieved November 15, 2010 from http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass/.
Norton, S. (2002). Let's Keep our Quality School Principals on the Job. High School
Journal. 86.2, 50-57.
O‘Donnell, R., & White, G. (2005, December). Within the accountability era:
Principals‘ instructional leadership behaviors and student achievement. NASSP
Bulletin, 89(645), 56-71.
Office of Force Transformation. (2005). A network-centric operations case study: US/UK
coalition combat operations during operation Iraqi freedom. Retrieved February
28, 2010, from http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/transformation/oft_
implementation_ncw.pdf
Ogawa, R., & Bossert, S. (1995). Leadership as an organizational quality. Educational

151
Patterson, S. R. (1994). Increasing parental involvement in grades one, four, and five in a
rural elementary school. Unpublished Ed.D. Dissertation.NovaSoutheastern
University.(ERICDocument Reproduction Service No.: ED 389-480)
Pepper, K., & Thomas, L. H. (2002). Making a change: The effects of the leadership role
on school climate. Learning Environments Research, 5(2), 155-166.
Pounder, D., Ogawa, R., & Adams. (1995). Leadership as an organization-wide
phenomena: Its impact on school performance. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 31(4), 564-588.
Prestine, N., & Bowen, C. (1993). Benchmarks for change: Assessing essential school
restructuring efforts. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(3), 298-319.
Prindle, C., and Rasinski, K. A. (1989). The National Education Longitudinal Study of
1988:Data collection results and analysis potential. Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No.: ED 308-215).
Printy, S. (2002). Communities of practice: Participation patterns and professional
impact for high school mathematics and science teachers. Unpublished
dissertation. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University.
Printy, S., & Marks, H. (2006). Shared leadership for teacher and student learning.
Theory Into Practice, 45(2), 125-132.
Riehl, C. (2000). The principal‘s role in creating inclusive schools for diverse students: A
review of normative, empirical, and critical literature on the practice of
educational administration. Review of Educational Research, 70(1), 55-81.

152
Roach, V. (1994). The superintendent‘s role in creating inclusive schools. School
Administrator 51(10), 20–25, 27.
Robinson, V. (2008). Forging the links between distributed leadership and educational
outcomes. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(2), 241-256.
Schein, E. (1993). On dialogue, culture, and organizational learning. Organizational
Dynamics, 22(2), 40-51.
Schneider, B., Brief, A.P., & Guzzo, R.A. (1996). Creating a climate and culture for
sustainable organizational change. Organizational Development, 24, 7-19.
Schneider, B., & Hall, D. (1972). Toward specifying the concept of work climate: A
study of Roman Catholic diocesan priests. Journal of Applied Psychology, 56(6),
447-455.
Seashore-Louis, K., Leithwood, K., Wahlstrom, K., & Anderson, S. (2010). Investigating
the links to improved student learning. Retrieved June 3, 2010 from
http://www.wallacefoundation.org/KnowledgeCenter/KnowledgeTopics/CurrentA
reasofFocus/EducationLeadership/Pages/learning-from-leadership-investigating-
the-links-to-improved-student-learning.aspx
Sebring, P., & Bryk, A. (2000). School leadership and the bottom line in Chicago. Phi
Delta Kappan, 81(6), 440-443.
Sergiovanni, T. (1990). Adding value to leadership gets extraordinary results.
Educational Leadership, 47(8), 23-27.
Sergiovanni, T. (2000). The lifeworld of leadership: Creating culture, community, and
personal meaning in our schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

153
Shuck, A. (1983). Parents encourage pupils (PEP): An inner-city parent involvement
reading project. The Reading Teacher, 36(6), 524-528.
Sheppard, B. (1996). Exploring the transformational nature of instructional leadership.
The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 42(4), 325–344.
Siders, M., & Sledjeski, S. (1978). How to grow a happy reader: Report on a study of
parental involvement as it relates to a child's attitudes and achievement in the
acquisition of reading skills. Gainesville: Florida State University.
Silins, H. (1994). The relationship between transformational and transactional leadership
and school improvement outcomes. School Effectiveness and School
Improvement, 5(3), 272-298.
Silins, H., Mulford, B., Zarins, S., & Bishop, P. (2000). Leadership for organizational
learning in Australian secondary schools. In K. Leithwood (Eds.) Understanding
Schools as Intelligent Systems. Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI.
Singh, K., Bickley, P. G., Trivette, P., Keith, T. Z., Keith, P. B., and Anderson, E. (1995).
The effects of four components of parental involvement on eighth-grade student
achievement: Structural analysis of NELS-88 data. School Psychology Review
24(2), 299–317.
Smith, S., & Piele, P. (2006). School Leadership: Handbook for Excellence in Student
Learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Spillane, J (2005). Distributed leadership. The Educational Forum, 69(2), 143-150.
Spillane, J., Camburn, E., & Pareja, A. (2007). Taking a distributive perspective to the
school principal‘s workday. Leadership & Policy in Schools, 6(1), 103-125.

154
Spillane, J., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2001). Investigating school leadership
practice: A distributed perspective. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 23–28.
SPSS (2010). IBM SPSS statistics 19 brief guide. Retrieved February 21, 2011 from
http://support.spss.com/productsext/statistics/documentation/19/client/User%20M
anuals/English/IBM%20SPSS%20Statistics%2019%20Brief%20Guide.pdf.
Stevenson, D. L., and Baker, D. P. (1987). The family-school relation and the child‘s
school performance. Special issue: Schools and development. Child Development
58(5), 1348–1357.
Stolp, Stephen. (1994). Leadership for School Culture. Eric Digest. Number 91, 1.
Stone, P. (2004). Network-centric warfare key to combat power. American Forces
Information Services. Retrieved February 28, 2010, from http://www.defenselink.
mil/news/Jan2004/n01152004_200401151.html
Surry, D., & Ely, D. (2002). Adoption, diffusion, implementation, and institutionalization
of education technology. Retrieved February 28, 2010, from
http://www.southalabama.edu/coe /bset/surry/papers/adoption/chap.htm
Swick, K., & Land, B. (1984). The long-term influence of a kindergarten parent
involvement program. Paper presented at the Southern Association on Children
Under Six Annual Conference, Lexington, KY.
Timperley, H. (2005). Distributed leadership: Developing theory from practice. Journal
of Curriculum Studies, 37(4), 395-420.
U.S. Department of Education (1999). A nation at risk. Retrieved April 10, 2010 from
http://www2.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/index.html

155
U.S. Department of Education. (2001). No child left behind act. Washington, DC:
Retrieved October 15, 2010, from http://www.ed.gov/nclb/statutes.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2010). Title I. Retrieved April 2, 2010 from,
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html
U.S. Department of Labor (1991). What Work Requires of Schools: A SCANS Report for
America 2000. Retrieved March 31, 2010 form
http://wdr.doleta.gov/SCANS/whatwork/whatwork.pdf
Van Houtte, M. (2005, March). Climate or Culture? A Plea for Conceptual clarity in
school effectiveness research. School Effectiveness & School Improvement, 16(1),
71-89.
Van Meter, E. J. (1994). Implementing school-based decision making in Kentucky.
NASSPBull., 78, 61–70.
Wagner, T., and Sconyers, N. (1996). “Seeing” the school reform elephant: Connecting
policy makers, parents, practitioners, and students. (ERIC Document
Waller, W. (1965). The sociology of teaching. New York: Russell & Russell.
Wanat, C. L. (1994). Effect of family structure on parental involvement: Perspectives of
principals and traditional, dual-income, and single parents. Journal of School
Leadership 4(6), 631–648.
Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice:
Learning, meaning and identity. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

156
Whitaker, B. (1997). Instructional leadership and principal visibility. The Clearinghouse,
70(3), 155-156.
Whitaker, T., & Turner, E. (2000, September). What is Your Priority? NASSP Bulletin,
84(617), 16-21.
Witcher, A. E. (1993). Assessing school climate: An important step for enhancing school
quality. NASSP Bulletin, 77(554), 1-5.
Witziers, B., Bosker, R. J., & Krüger, M. L. (2003). Educational leadership and student
achievement: The elusive search for an association. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 39(3), 398- 425.
Yukl, G. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and
charismatic leadership theories. Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 285-305.
Zellman, G. L., & Waterman, J. M. (1998). Understanding the impact of parent school
involvement on children‘s educational outcomes. Journal of Educational
Research, 91(6), 370–380.

158
Instruction
Four Likert-scale Items from Question 12 on the 2007-2008 Principal Schools and
Staffing Survey used to identify the construct of Instruction:
How much actual influence do you think the principal has on decisions concerning:
1) setting performance standards?
2) establishing curriculum?
3) determining professional development content?
4) evaluating teachers?

160
Collaboration
Four Likert-scale Items from Question 12 on the 2007-2008 Principal Schools and
Staffing Survey used to identify the construct of Collaboration:
How much actual influence do you think teachers have on decisions concerning:
1) setting performance standards?
2) establishing curriculum?
3) determining professional development content?
4) evaluating teachers?

161
Appendix C: Parental Involvement

162
Parental Involvement
Four Nominal scale Items (Yes/ No) from Question 22 on the 2007-2008 Principal
Schools and Staffing Survey used to identify the construct of Instruction:
This school year (2007-2008) does the school have the following:
1) a staff member assigned to work on parent involvement (Liaison)?
2) workshops or courses for parents or guardians?
3) services to support parent participation, such as transportation and child care?
4) parent drop-in center or lounge?

163
Appendix D: School Climate

164
School Climate
9 Likert-scale Items from Question 55 on the 2007-2008 Teacher Schools and Staffing
Survey used to identify the construct of School Climate:
1 (a) The school administration‘s behavior toward the staff is supportive and
encouraging.
2 (g) My principal enforces school rules for student conduct and backs me up when I
need it.
3 (h) Rules for student behavior are consistently enforced by teachers in this school, even
for students who are not in their classes.
4 (i) Most of my colleagues share my beliefs and values about what the central mission
of the school should be.
5 (j) The principal knows what kind of school he or she wants and has communicated it
to the staff.
6 (k) There is a great deal of cooperative effort among the staff members.
7 (l) In this school, staff members are recognized for a job well done.
8 (o) I am given the support I need to teach students with special needs.
9 (q) I am generally satisfied with being a teacher at this school.

School leadership

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to School leadership

More from Siti Khalijah Zainol

Recently uploaded

School leadership