Npdf

PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT: WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF
TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP IN CONJUNCTION WITH INSTRUCTIONAL
LEADERSHIP ON STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT?
By
William Greb
MARIAN UNIVERSITY
A Dissertation
Submitted in
Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Specialization: Leadership Studies
Under the Supervision of
Marilyn J. Bugenhagen, Ph.D., chairperson
Jon Nicoud, Ph.D.
Moreen Travis Carvan, Ed.D.
Fond du Lac, Wisconsin
April 2011

All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent on the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
UMI 3468985
Copyright 2011 by ProQuest LLC.
UMI Number: 3468985

iii
ABSTRACT
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT:
WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP IN CONJUNCTION
WITH INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP
ON STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT?
William Greb
The purpose of this quantitative correlational research study was to develop a better
understanding of how successful principals lead and more importantly how they help their
students achieve at higher levels through their role as principal. The study focused on the
principal’s role in providing instructional leadership as defined by Krug (1992), transformational
leadership as defined by Bass and Avolio (1995), specifically in the context of elementary
education, and measuring the effect these principal leadership constructs have on student
achievement.
The study was designed to determine if there was a benefit derived by principals who
attend to at least three of the five dimensions of instructional leadership and practice at least
three of the four transformational leadership behaviors. The five dimensions of instructional
leadership are: defining mission, managing curriculum and instruction, supervising and
supporting teaching, monitoring student progress, and promoting instructional climate. The four
transformational leadership behaviors are: idealized influence, inspirational motivation,
intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration.
The study sample was drawn from public schools in Cooperative Educational Service
Agencies 2-12 in the State of Wisconsin, an area that covers 90% of the state excluding the large
metropolitan areas in and around Milwaukee. Results revealed no statistically significant

iv
correlations between principals who did or did not exhibit transformational and or instructional
leadership and higher academic student performance. Post-hoc analysis revealed statistically
significant correlational coefficients between management-by-exception passive and high student
achievement r = .515 for reading, r = .479 for language arts, and r = .567 for math with n = 31
and p < .05, two tails. These findings indicate that previous research findings may be in
question for both instructional leadership and transformational leadership constructs.

v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to extend my deepest gratitude to my research advisor, Dr. Marilyn J.
Bugenhagen. I am grateful to have had her advising me through this research study. Dr.
Bugenhagen is cognizant of the time and effort invested in this type of work and pragmatically
helped me to addresses the challenges and frustrations that accompany it. Throughout the course
of my program, Dr. Bugenhagen has been the driving force which has taken me to a higher plain,
mentally, and professionally.
I sincerely thank my committee members for the time and effort they spent in this
process, Dr. Moreen Travis Carvan and Dr. Jon Nicoud. Dr. Carvan and Nicoud are exceptional
individuals who I admire in the classroom setting.
I would also like to thank Dr. Randall J. Koetting who saw my potential to succeed as a
member of the doctoral program.
I would like to thank Dr. Zhao Xia Xu, my classmate and colleague, for assisting me with
gathering additional participants for my study, for sharing both our successes and frustrations,
and for being a friend through this process.
I would also like to thank my parents for recognizing the value of education, ensuring I
had a sound foundation at an early age for future learning, and instilling in me the work ethic that
has enabled me to be successful in all my endeavors.

vi
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT:
WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP IN CONJUNCTION
WITH INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP
ON STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT?
BY
William Greb
SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE:
Approved Date
Signature
Marilyn J. Bugenhagen Ph.D.
Committee Chairperson
Signature
Moreen Travis Carvan Ed.D.
Committee Member
Signature
Jon Nicoud Ph.D.
Committee Member
Signature
Edward Ogle, Ed.D.
Executive Vice President Academic & Student Afairs

vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
I. INTRODUCTION ……………………………...…………….………… 1
Purpose Statement ……………………………………………….…… 3
Context ………………………………………………………….…….. 3
Theoretical Base ………………………………………….………….... 5
Research Question ………………………………….…………………. 8
Method ……………………………………….…………………….….. 9
Assumptions …………………………….………………………….…. 10
Delimitations and Limitations ……….…………………………….….. 11
Significance of Research …………………….……………………..…. 12
Conclusion ………………………………….…………………………. 15
II. LITERATURE REVIEW ……………………...………………………... 18
Effective Schools Movement .………………..……………………….. 19
Full-Range Leadership: Transformational and Transactional ….……… 40
Transformational Leadership Studied in Educational Context ………... 45
Summary ………………………………………………………………. 58
III. METHOD ………………………………...……………………………… 61
General Framework ………………………………………….………... 61
Hypotheses ………………………………………………….…………. 63
Data Collection Procedure(s) ……………………………….…………. 64
Sample Design …………………………………………….…………… 67

viii
Instrumentation …………………………………………….………….. 68
Data Analysis ………………………………………………………….. 80
Limitations ………………………………………………….…………. 83
Summary ………………………………………………………………. 84
IV. RESULTS ……………………………...………………………………... 85
Demographics …………………………………….…………………… 85
Data Collection Procedures …………………………….……………... 90
Preliminary Analytical Issues ……………….………………..……….. 93
Hypothesis Tests ………………………………….…………………… 99
Summary of Results …………………………………………………… 128
V. SUMMARY and CONCLUSIONS ……………………………………... 130
Discussion ……………………………..…………………….………… 134
Implications ………………..………………………….……….……… 145
Contribution of This Study …...……………………….……….……… 148
Limitations …………………………………………………….………. 150
Recommendations for Future Research ……………………….………. 151
Summary …………………………………………………….………… 153
REFERENCES ……………………………………………………………………. 156
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Definition of Terms ………………………………………. 170
Appendix B: Principal Invitation Letter of Participation ……………….. 174
Appendix C: IRB Approval Email ………………………………………. 177
Appendix D: Teacher Letter of Consent ………………………………… 182

ix
Appendix E: Principal Invitation Letter of Participation ………………... 185
Appendix F: Teacher Invitation Letter of Participation ………………… 188
Appendix G: Second Teacher Invitation Letter of Participation ………… 191
Appendix H: IRB Approval Email ………………………………………. 194

x
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
1. Content Validation: Average Agreement on Items Among Judges ……… 70
2. Reliability Estimates for the Instructional Management Subscale ………... 71
3. Subscale Inter-item Correlation Matrix …………………………………… 73
4. Subscale Inter-item Correlation Matrix for this Study …………………… 74
5. Subscale Inter-item Correlation Matrix (after aggregation to depict
the Krug model) …………………………………………………………… 75
6. Summary of Criteria to Assess the Adequacy of the Instructional
Management Rating Subscales ……………………………………………. 76
7. Inter-item Correlational Matrix for Transformational Behavior
for this Study ................................................................................................ 80
8. Participants Years as Principal (n = 31) ………………………………….. 86
9. Participant Principals’ Age (n = 31) ………………………………………. 86
10. Women Participants Years as Principal (n = 17) ………………………….. 87
11. Women Participant Principals’ Age (n = 17) ……………………………… 87
12. Men Participants Years as Principal (n = 14) ……………………………... 88
13. Men Participant Principals’ Age (n = 14) …………………………………. 88
14. Rater Participants Years with Principal (n = 107) ………………………… 89
15. Rater Participant Age (n = 107) …………………………………………… 90
16. Leader and Rater Simple Statistics and Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire Comparison ………………………………………………… 94
17. Pearson Correlation Matrix on Hypotheses ……………………..………… 100

xi
18. Kendall’s tau-b Correlation Matrix on Hypotheses ………………………..102
19. Spearman’s rho Correlation Matrix on Hypotheses ………………………. 104
20. Pearson Correlation Matrix on Hypotheses with specific
WKCE score ranges (n = 31) ………………………………………………106
21. Kendall’s Correlation Matrix - Hypotheses with specific
22. Spearman’s Correlation Matrix - Hypotheses with specific
23. Pearson Correlation Matrix on Hypotheses for Men
Principals (n = 14) ………………………………………………………… 113
24. Kendall’s tau-b Correlation Matrix on Hypotheses for
Men Principals (n = 14) …………………………………………………… 115
25. Spearman’s rho Correlation Matrix on Hypotheses for
Men Principals (n = 14) …………………………………………………… 117
26. Pearson Correlation Matrix on Hypotheses for Women
Principals (n = 17) ………………………………………………………… 119
27. Kendall’s tau-b Correlation Matrix on Hypotheses for Women
Women Principals (n = 17) ……………………………………………….. 121
28. Spearman’s rho Correlation Matrix on Hypotheses for
Women Principals (n = 17) ……………………………………………….. 123
29. Pearson Correlation Matrix on Laissez-faire for Principals (n = 31) ……... 125
30. Pearson Correlation Matrix on Laissez-faire for Women
Principals (n = 17) ………………………………………………………… 126

xii
31. Pearson Correlation Matrix on Laissez-faire for Men
Principals (n = 14) ………………………………………………………… 127
32. Pearson Correlation Matrix on Management-by-Exception Passive
For Principals (n = 31) ……………………………………………………. 128

1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The quality of a school in the PK-12 arena is affected by how its internal processes work
to constantly improve its performance. One such internal process involves leadership. As its
basic purpose, instructional leadership designates the school principal as the central school figure
to continuously articulate the school’s mission and vision to the school’s staff and community.
The school principal oversees curriculum and instruction management and facilitates teachers’
professional development that is supportive of best practice. The school principal monitors
student progress to provide individual attention for specific students and to identify areas of
curriculum and instruction in need of change or improvement. The school principal is also
tasked with promoting a positive learning environment. However, there is question regarding the
principalship and school administration in general. According to Murphy (2002):
For some time now, the [education] profession has been marked by considerable
ferment as it has struggled to locate itself in a post behavioral science era. During
this era of turmoil, the historical foundations of the profession have been thrown
into question, especially the legitimacy of the knowledge base supporting school
administration and the appropriateness of programs for preparing school leaders.
(p. 177)
Leadership, in education and in business, is an evolving discipline. School principals and
aspiring administrators need to become familiar with leadership as a discipline to practice, learn
their strengths and weaknesses, infuse themselves with best practice so they can provide
leadership that best fits their circumstances, and work diligently to perfect and implement the
behaviors that will enable deep sustained improvement in schools.

2
A range of leadership theories were developed encompassing characteristics from a broad
understanding that evolved from the early industrial era to the rapidly changing political,
business, and educational perspectives of the 21st
century. In the field of PK-12 education,
during the past twenty eight years there have been a number of notable studies of instructional
leadership (e.g. Andrews & Soder, 1987; Bossert, Dwyer, Rowan, & Lee, 1982; Dwyer, 1985;
Edmonds, 1979; Hallinger & Murphy , 1985; Leithwood, Begley, & Cousins, 1990; Leithwood
& Montgomery, 1982). Although there has been significant work in developing theoretical
constructs of leadership for the PK-12 educational arena and attempts to define leadership in
broad terms, the focus on defining instructional leadership has been prevalent for the past twenty
years. While Leithwood and Steinbach (1993) produced a study on total quality leadership that
involved transformational leadership, the majority of research involving the effects of
transformational leadership in the PK-12 educational arena has occurred since 2000.
According to Krug (1992), instructional leadership is a combination of five dimensions of
the principal’s role: “defining mission, managing curriculum and instruction, supervising and
supporting teaching, monitoring student progress, and promoting instructional climate” (p. 5).
A basic understanding of these five dimensions of instructional leadership is: defining mission is
framing the school’s goals, purpose, and mission to drive decision making and design.
Managing curriculum and instruction is structuring programs and curriculum so there is
coherence and alignment both within specific curricula and across programs. Supervising and
supporting teachers involves providing professional development that incorporates various
strategies related to instruction and learner needs. Supporting teachers also involves developing
teacher’s human capital. Monitoring student progress is a process which involves interpreting
and assessing relevant data to produce criteria for teacher instruction that best meets individual

3
learner needs. Promoting instructional climate is the development of a sound learning
environment. Krug presented empirical evidence that a direct correlation exists between these
five dimensions of instructional leadership and student achievement.
Purpose Statement
The purpose of this study was to develop a better understanding of how successful
principals lead and more importantly how they assist their students achieve at higher levels
through their role as principal. The study was conducted to determine if there existed a benefit
derived for students in terms of higher academic achievement if principals attend to the various
dimensions of instructional leadership and practice transformational leadership behaviors.
Context
The demand on the school principal, in terms of managerial work, is a result of a number
of factors. State and federal departments of educations’ require creation of new policy writing,
policy review and up-dating. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) introduced
significant requirements that demand accountability through testing and a growing number of
reporting documents. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1997 (IDEA) also has
significant requirements to which all schools must conform and require administrative oversight
on the part of the principal. This continually growing work load consumes an exceptional
amount of time in the work day. The result is that important instructional leadership dimensions
of the principal’s work load, defined by Krug (1992b) as “defining mission, managing
curriculum and instruction, supervising and supporting teaching, monitoring student progress,
and promoting instructional climate” (p. 5) often are not attended to nearly as much as it should
be.

4
The U.S. Department of Education conducted a policy forum on educational leadership
over a two day period involving more than forty leading experts in the field of leadership. “Most
participants agreed that the number one characteristic of an effective leader is the ability to
provide instructional leadership. Yet . . . some studies suggest that as many as three-quarters of
current principals are not skilled instructional leaders” (Riley, McGuire, Lieb, & Dorfman, 1999,
p. 4). According to Peterson (1989)
Universities, colleges, and professional organizations that educate school
administrators . . . during in-service workshops should design distinctive training
activities. These activities could focus on exerting influence through others,
building school cultures, and shaping improvement programs in . . . school
settings. Without more attention from principals, policy makers, and those
training administrators, instructional leadership in . . . schools may remain
relatively weak, when it could have a powerful impact on school improvement (p.
6).
Identifying leadership behavior school principals need to encompass and display may or
may not be the key to success in public education since each behavior may or may not
match with an individual principal’s personality. However, given the consensus of
participants of the U.S. Department of Education policy forum on educational leadership
it does seem to have merit that principals should develop behaviors that foster leadership.
Peterson (2002) suggested that “Over the next 5 years, districts are expected to replace
more than 60% of all principals” (p. 213). The five years Peterson referred to have since passed.
Since the most significant work in developing and defining instructional leadership occurred
during the late 1980’s and 1990’s one might expect that academia would have evolved to prepare

5
the individuals who are new to the principalship role. Unfortunately, Grogan and Andrews
(2002) state that many institutions follow tradition, “most university-based programs for the
training of aspiring principals . . . might best be characterized as preparing aspiring principals …
for the role of a top-down manager” (p. 238). The emphasis on student achievement and
accountability for learning has raised the bar for students to leave the K-12 arena with the ability
to succeed in a global economy by means of sound preparation for post secondary learning or
having harnessed the skills necessary to move directly into the work force (Fulmer, 2006).
Principals need preparation as instructional leaders to set high standards for achievement, to
create a positive school culture for learning, and to develop the vision and school mission which
entails a shared sense of purpose throughout their school’s community which will enable
students to be academically successful (Chrispeels, 2002; Hallinger, 2003).
On January 8, 2002, President Bush signed into law the No Child Left Behind Act of
2001. Fulmer (2006) states:
State and national standards have been enacted and implemented in an attempt to
improve student achievement and close the achievement gap (e.g., CSAP and
NCLB). Since this legislation, responsibilities for principals have burgeoned to
the extent that some fear the job can no longer be done by one person. (p. 110)
This drive for accountability and raising achievement of all students to meet their potential for
learning has placed a significant focus on instructional leadership.
The debate as to whether PK-12 education should or should not be driven by state and
national standards was not addressed. NCLB has placed principals and PK-12 administrators, in
general, in an accountability mode so that all students will be successful learners.
Theoretical Base

6
This study draws from two theoretical constructs including instructional leadership
(Krug, 1992b) and full-range leadership (Avolio & Bass, 1995). Three decades of research
exists that supports current beliefs and understandings of instructional leadership. The idea of
instructional leadership began as a result of backlash within the education research community to
the 1966 Coleman report that suggested family background was the major determinant of student
achievement (Coleman et. al., 1966). Factors such as poverty or a parent’s lack of education
prevented children from learning regardless of the method of instruction or school (Edmonds &
Frederiksen, 1979; Jencks, 1972; Lezotte, 1992; Mace-Matluck, 1987). Coleman’s report
stimulated spirited reactions that instigated a number of studies:
• D’Amico (1982), The Effective Schools Movement: Studies, Issues, and Approaches
• Edmonds (1979), Effective schools for the urban poor
• Edmonds & Frederiksen (1997), Search for Effective Schools: The Identification and
Analysis of City Schools that are Instructionally Effective for Poor Children
• Frederiksen (1980), Models for Determining School Effectiveness
• Hallinger & Heck (1998), Exploring the principal’s contribution to school Effectiveness:
1980-1995
• Klitgaard & Hall (1975), Are there unusually effective schools?
• Weber (1971), Inner-city children can be taught to read: Four successful schools.
These studies were initiated during what is referred to as the effective schools movement in the
United States. Although a jump to transformational leadership occurred, Hallinger (2005) shows
that instructional leadership is very much alive in his article: “Instructional Leadership and the
School Principal: A Passing Fancy that Refuses to Fade Away”.

7
During the late 1980’s and beyond, education research in the area of leadership in general
jumped to transformational leadership studies such as:
• Barnett, McCormick & Conners (2001), Transformational Leadership in Schools: Panacea,
Placebo, or Problem?
• Gardin (2003), Impact of Leadership Behavior of Principals on Elementary School Climate
• Gulbin (2008), Transformational Leadership: Is it a Factor for Improving Student
Achievement in High Poverty Secondary Schools in Pennsylvania
• Hallinger (2003), Leading Educational Change: Reflections on the Practice of Instructional
and Transformational Leadership
• Jantzi & Leithwood (1996), Toward an Explanation of Variation in Teachers Perception of
Transformational Leadership
• Leithwood (1992), Transformational Leadership: Where does it Stand?
• Leithwood & Jantzi (1999a), Transformational School Leadership Effects: A Replication
• Leithwood & Jantzi (1999b), The Effects of Transformational Leadership on Organizational
Conditions and Student Engagement with School
• Leithwood & Jantzi (2000b), The Effects of Transformational Leadership on Organizational
Conditions and Student Engagement with School
• Leithwood & Jantzi (2006), Transformational School Leadership for Large-Scale Reform:
Effects on Students, Teachers, and their Classroom Practices
• Leithwood, Jantzi & Fernandez (1993), Secondary School Teachers’ Commitment to
Change: The Contributions of Transformational Leadership
• Leithwood & Steinbach (1993), Total Quality Leadership: Expert Thinking Plus
Transformational Practice

8
• Marks & Printy (2003), Principal Leadership and School Performance: An Integration of
Transformational and Instructional Leadership
• Mills (2008), Leadership and School Reform: The Effects of Transformational Leadership on
Missouri Assessments
• Philbin (1997), Transformational Leadership and the Secondary School Principal
• Ross & Gray (2006), Transformational Leadership and Teacher Commitment to
Organizational Values: The Mediating Effects of Collective Teacher Efficacy
• Verona & Young (2001), The Influence of Principal Transformational Leadership Style on
High School Proficiency Test Results in the New Jersey Comprehensive and Vocational
High Schools.
Suddenly, instructional leadership took a backseat in the research community. This change may
have been warranted, but instructional leadership should continue to play a role in educational
leadership research in conjunction with transformational leadership.
Research Question
The focus of this study was to explore the principal’s role in providing instructional
leadership as defined by Krug (1992), transformational leadership as defined by Bass and Avolio
(1995), specifically in the context of elementary education, and measuring the possible effect this
principal leadership has on student achievement. Hypotheses address the correlation of
instructional leadership in conjunction with transformational leadership and student achievement
outcomes as measured by standardized testing which measure instructional outcomes. The
research question this study explored, “What is the effect of transformational leadership in
conjunction with instructional leadership on student achievement?”

9
Independent variables were instructional leadership and transformational leadership
practices. The dependent variable was student achievement.
Method
This study utilized a correlational approach to examine two leadership constructs,
instructional leadership and transformational leadership, in the realm of elementary principalship
in public schools. This study attempted to determine if there existed a correlation between
principals who practiced both instructional leadership and transformational leadership resulting
in instruction that fostered higher student academic achievement. Further, what correlation
existed between principals who practiced one of the two constructs or neither with student
academic achievement for comparison to student academic achievement with principals who
perform both constructs.
Participating principals completed both the Principal Instructional Management Rating
Scale (PIMRS), Hallinger (1982), and Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ-5X) short-
Self Report surveys developed by Bass and Avolio (1995) while their respective teacher
participants completed the PIMRS teachers’ survey, Hallinger (1982) and MLQ-5X rater survey.
“The first published version of the MLQ … contained 67 items measuring the [full-range-
leadership] FRL Model (with 37 of these items assessing transformational leadership)” (Bass &
Riggio, 2006, p.21). This study used the Bass and Avolio 1995 revised version of the MLQ (5X).
“The current, revised form of the MLQ (5X) … is substantially refined and contains 36
standardized items, 4 items assessing each of the nine leadership dimensions associated with the
FRL model” (p. 21).
Between 1983 and 2008, 119 doctoral studies have used the Principal Instructional
Management Rating Scale (PMIRS) to collect data relating to instructional leadership (Hallinger,

10
2008). In terms of reliability, Hallinger (2008) states “while relatively few researchers using the
instrument sought to replicate the initial findings, several did. The replication studies of
reliability and validity included Howe (1995), Jones (1987), Nogay (1995), Sawyer (1997),
Taraseina (1993), [and] Wotany (1999)” (p. 24).
Assumptions
The most important assumption being made was that there would be significant statistical
difference in Wisconsin Knowledge and Concept Examination (WKCE) results for students who
have principals who practice both instructional leadership and transformational leadership versus
students who have principals who do not practice these leadership constructs.
Another assumption was that principals actually practiced the five, or at least three of the
five, dimensions of instructional leadership rather than designating various dimensions of
instructional leadership to other staff members. Furthermore, that teachers of principals’ who
designate dimensions of instructional leadership to other staff members would still identify their
principal as exercising instructional leadership through others when completing the PIMRS
teacher survey.
There was an assumption that principals would not be attributed leadership constructs
that were occurring in a school, if the occurrence could not be attributed to the principal, but
rather another staff member or members.
An assumption was made that there would be enough practicing elementary principals
who have been operating in their current building for at least three years and further that at least
60 would be willing to participate in this study. It was anticipated that principals, as
professionals, would have a desire to be involved in a study that could potentially assist
academia to better prepare future principals for the jobs they will do.

11
An assumption was made that teachers would be willing and perhaps eager to participate
in this study, by rating their principal, for the purpose of assisting their principal in terms of
professional growth.
Some of these assumptions are drawn from the researcher’s belief that as professionals,
principals and teachers would be interested in participating in research that may help improve
student instruction and they would take the time to complete the surveys. This belief stems from
what the researcher feels is a duty or a responsibility that is embedded with being a professional.
Delimitations and Limitations
As with all correlational research, there is limited possibility of causal inferences.
Although the instructional leadership model as defined by Krug (1992) and transformational
leadership construct by Bass and Avolio (1995) may have significant empirical evidence to
support theoretical rational, this study was devised to identify cause-and-effect relationships.
Gall, Gall, and Borg (2005) state
It is difficult to make inferences about cause and effect from results of a
correlational study. When variables A and B are correlated, researchers cannot
definitively conclude that A caused B, that B caused A, or that both A and B are
caused by some third variable, C. (p. 220)
In this study there may have been significant factors such as the socioeconomic background of
students, teacher expertise, and other anomalies that could have skewed survey results.
Another limitation of correlational research can be chance findings. It was possible for
variables to correlate by chance alone rendering future replication of the study unlikely to
generate similar findings (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2005).

12
The fact that student achievement was measured for correlation purposes using
Wisconsin Knowledge and Concepts Exam (WKCE) results should not present an issue for
reproducing this study in the future, however the WKCE will be replaced in the next few years
with another form of testing and this could present a limitation.
One limitation for this study was that results may not be generalized across middle and
senior high school settings.
A delimitation existed due to the fact that transactional leadership behaviors were not
initially considered within the context of the hypotheses. Had all aspects of full range leadership
been incorporated in the hypotheses, there would have been a wider depth of leadership
understanding in the elementary educational arena for future research to reaffirm or disprove.
A limitation may exist due to the lack of large metropolitan schools within the study.
Larger school districts have resources that are not available in smaller districts.
Significance
This study focused on the premise that one of the most accepted definitions of
instructional leadership involving five broad dimensions: defining mission, managing curriculum
and instruction, supervising and supporting teaching, monitoring student progress, and
promoting instructional climate, as determined by significant research over several decades, is
not leadership, but rather a list of managerial functions necessary to master and implement
through a form of leadership. These include:
• Austin (1978), Process Evaluation: A Comprehensive Study of Outliers
• Brookover & Lezotte (1979), Changes in School Characteristics Coincident with Changes in
Student Achievement
• D’Amico (1982), The Effective Schools Movement: Studies, Issues, and Approaches

13
• Edmonds (1979), Effective Schools for the Urban Poor
• Frederiksen (1980), Models for Determining School Effectiveness
• Hallinger (1982), The Development of Behaviorally Anchored Rating for Appraising the
Instructional Management Behavior of Principals
• Hallinger & Murphy (1985), Assessing the Instructional Management Behavior of Principals
• Krug (1990a), Leadership and Learning: A Measurement-Based Approach for Analyzing
School Effectiveness and Developing Effective School Leaders
• Krug (1990b), Current Issues and Research Findings in the Study of School Leadership
• Krug (1992a), Instructional Leadership: A Constructivist Perspective
• Krug (1992b), Instructional Leadership, School Instructional Climate, and Student Learning
Outcomes
• Leithwood & Montgomery (1982), The Role of the Elementary School Principal in Program
Improvement
• Lunenburg (1990), The 16PF as a Predictor of Principal Performance: An Integration of
Quantitative and Qualitative Research Methods
• New York State Department of Education (1974), School Factors Influencing Reading
Achievement: A Case Study of Two Inner City Schools
• New York State Department of Education (1976), Three Strategies for Studying the Effects
of School Process
• Rutter, Maughan, Mortimore, Ouston & Smith (1979), Fifteen Thousand Hours: Secondary
Schools and Their Effects on Children
• Weber (1971), Inner-City Children can be Taught to Read: Four Successful Schools) over
several decades

14
Principals, or principal’s designees, need to attend to these five dimensions of school
management to provide the K-12 arena with a sound basis for high academic achievement;
however the process with which these dimensions are administered may or may not be defined as
leadership. The process could be managerial in nature.
Broadly defined, management is a “secondary social practice through which
administrative regulation and control is established and maintained over those activities and
relationships in which non-managerial practitioners are engaged by virtue of their membership of
communities of primary productive practice” (Reed, 1984, p.281). Traditional functions of
management involve planning in terms of meeting goals and being ready for crises, staffing in
terms of recruiting and training, organizing in terms of time management and team building,
controlling in terms of quality of methods, productivity, and people, and leading through
communication and motivation. Drucker (1986) identifies five basic operations of the
managerial role: set objectives, organize, motivate and communicate, measure, and develop
people. These five basic operations are similar to the five dimensions of Krug’s definition of
instructional leadership: setting objectives is similar to defining mission, organize could match
up with managing curriculum and instruction, developing people is similar to supervising and
supporting teaching, measurement is similar to monitoring student progress, and motivating and
communication could relate with promoting instructional climate.
Drucker (1986) suggests that leadership “cannot be created or promoted. It cannot be
taught or learned” (p. 158). He repeatedly remarks that management is no substitute for
leadership, but “management cannot create leaders. It can only create the conditions under
which potential leadership qualities become effective” (p. 159). However, the primary functions
of management involves organizing and controlling something where “leadership is an influence

15
relationship among leaders and followers who intend real changes that reflect their mutual
purposes” (Rost, 1993, p. 102).
Bennis and Nanus (1985) espoused that leadership is not about control, direction, and
manipulation nor is it restricted to charismatic people, but that leadership is usually found in
ordinary people and is open to all; essentially stating that all people have potential for leadership.
Further, the reason leadership was lacking in society may be because leadership had been largely
overlooked as a topic for serious academic research and that people did not understand it. These
researchers argue that leadership can be created, promoted, and learned.
In the PK-12 arena, is the principal a manager or leader? Is the principal both? What is
the nature of the principal’s primary duties and responsibilities and if those duties and
responsibilities are managerial in nature, what effect in terms of student achievement would
transformational leadership play in carrying out these duties and responsibilities?
Conclusion
Rost (1993) provides a rather long list of definitions or understandings of leadership that
could lead one to believe that the study of leadership has been somewhat elusive. Leadership in
the field of education is no exception; significant research has been conducted throughout the
evolution of the effective schools movement since the late 1960’s and early 1970’s. Early on,
the main research thrust centered on instructional leadership as a construct through the late
1990’s and continuing to a significantly lesser degree on through 2010. The introduction of
transformational leadership as a construct, mainly by Leithwood, in the field of education started
in the 1990’s (Jantzi & Leithwood, 1996; Leithwood, 1992; Leithwood, 1994; Leithwood &
Jantzi, 1998; Leithwood & Jantzi, 1999; Leithwood, Jantzi, & Fernandez, 1993; Leithwood,
Jantzi, & Steinbach, 1999; Leithwood & Steinbach, 1993; Lezotte, 1992; Liontos, 1992; Philbin,

16
1997), but has mainly taken off after 2000 (Barnett, McCormick, & Conners, 2001; Dorward,
2009; Estapa, 2009; Fisher, 2003; Gardin, 2003; Gulbin, 2008; Hallinger, 2003; Leithwood,
Aitken, & Jantzi, 2001; Leithwood, & Jantzi, 2000a; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2006; Lyles, 2009;
Marks & Printy, 2003; Mills, 2008; Niedermeyer, 2003; Ross &Gray, 2006; Verona & Young,
2001; Witziers, Bosker, & Kruger, 2003). Research began to focus more on how principals do
what they do rather than what they do as a shift in the study and research of leadership in general
towards transformational leadership took place. Two major studies were conducted that
involved both constructs together, Hallinger (2003) Leading Educational Change: Reflections on
the Practice of Instructional and Transformational Leadership and Marks and Printy’s (2003)
Principal Leadership and School Performance: An Integration of Transformational and
Instructional Leadership, but other than those two, there appears to be a clean and decisive break
in the research where instructional leadership research nearly stopped and transformational
leadership research took off. With all that had been learned and developed within the
instructional leadership construct in the three decades leading up to the year 2000, perhaps there
is still a place for it in conjunction with transformational leadership or some other leadership
behavior that is conducive to higher student academic achievement.
Within the realm of elementary principal leadership, this study uses a correlational
approach to examine the relationships between transformational leadership conceived by Burns
(1978) and later extended by Bass (1985) and operationalized by Bass and Avolio (1988),
instructional leadership as defined by Krug (1992), and academic achievement measured by
Wisconsin Knowledge and Concepts Examination (WKCE).
This study may add to existing research suggesting change is necessary in the way
principals are trained for the PK-12 educational arena. This effort should inspire greater

17
attention for research involving instructional leadership as a model in conjunction with the
behaviors of transformational leadership.
With the ensuing need for all students to attain proficiency required by NCLB, principals,
as central leaders within their schools, need to be better equipped to lead their respective staffs to
meet the demands of raising the overall academic achievement of students. This research should
provide answers as to how this challenge needs to be addressed.
This study provides a new perspective on how the two constructs, instructional leadership
and transformational leadership, work in tandem. A review of previous research in the areas of
instructional leadership and transformational leadership was conducted to ascertain previous
knowledge and build upon what was known. Appendix A provides a definition of terms.
Elementary principals throughout the state of Wisconsin, excluding the large
metropolitan area in and surrounding Milwaukee, Wisconsin, were invited to participate in this
study. Of the well over 1000 principals invited to participate, 31 completed two surveys, the
Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale (PIMRS), Hallinger (1982), and the MLQ-5X,
Bass & Avolio (1995). A minimum of three teachers associated with each principal also
completed the rater form of the two surveys.
Analysis was then conducted on the collected data, Pearson’s correlation, Kendall’s tau-
b, and Spearman’s rho tests were used to determine if there was a correlation between leadership
behaviors and higher student academic performance as measured by the Wisconsin Knowledge
and Concept Examination (WKCE).
Principals need the necessary tools to be effective educational leaders to facilitate high
student achievement. On-going research is necessary to determine what the tools are and how
principals need to use them. This research project adds to that necessary knowledge.

18
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
This literature review of literature provides an examination of the roots of the effective
schools movement and how it leads to the formation of instructional leadership as a K-12
education leadership construct. Instructional leadership is a composition of what it is believed
that principals in the K-12 educational arena need to focus on to ensure high academic
achievement. The review then examines research findings pertaining to full-range leadership.
Specifically, the review focuses on transformational leadership and to a lesser extent
transactional leadership, spotlighting transformational leadership as it is studied in educational
context.
principals lead and more importantly how they assist their students achieve at higher levels
through their role as principal. To determine this, it is important to reveal the nature of the
principal’s primary duties and responsibilities and what leadership behaviors provide the
necessary means to provide the environment that leads to high student achievement. This
research study was conducted to determine if there was a benefit derived for students in terms of
higher academic achievement if principals attended to the various dimensions of instructional
leadership and practiced transformational leadership behaviors.
The literature review examines how instructional leadership developed through the
effective schools movement in terms of what it is, how research and educational literature has
shaped its’ understandings and meaning among educators, and what has been prescribed as best
practice to be successful in facilitating high student achievement. The literature review also
examines the beginnings of transformational leadership, the history of how transformational

19
leadership fits within the full-range leadership construct, and the research that has been done
involving transformational leadership studied in educational context.
Through examination of the past three decades of principal leadership research, there is a
distinction between the effective school movement research centered on instructional leadership
and the introduction of principal leadership research centered on transformational leadership.
With the exception of an article by Hallinger (2003) and Marks and Printy’s (2003) study, there
is a gap in the research where a jump was made from instructional leadership to transformational
leadership research. Although there have been a number of dissertations published in this area,
major works involving both instructional leadership and transformational leadership constructs
appears to be lacking.
Effective Schools Movement
To develop an understanding of instructional leadership it is necessary to examine its
origin through the evolution of the effective schools movement. “Lezotte (1986) has identified
four ‘critical’ periods that mark the epochs of the Movement’s evolution: 1966-76, 1976-80,
1980-83, and 1983-present [1986]” (Mace-Matluck, 1987, p. 5). Beyond these time frames
research began to focus more on how principals do what they do rather than what they do. It is
during the timeframe between 1986 and the present that a jump took place from studying
instructional leadership to transformational leadership.
Effective Schools Movement 1966-1976.
The first critical period identified by Lezotte spans ten years. Notable historical
landmarks that occurred during and just prior to this period include the Civil Rights Act of 1964
and the Equal Educational Opportunity Survey (Coleman; 1966). The Civil Rights Act “sought
to ensure equal rights of all citizens, including equality of educational opportunity in public

20
schools. In conjunction with the Civil Rights Act, Congress provided funding under which
Coleman and his colleagues conducted [the] . . . Equal Educational Opportunity Survey” (Mace-
Matluck, 1987, p. 6). The Coleman report concluded that family background was the major
determinant of student achievement. Factors such as poverty or a parent’s lack of education
prevented children from learning regardless of the method of instruction or school (Edmonds &
Frederiksen, 1979; Jencks, 1972; Lezotte (n.d.); Lezotte, 1992; Mace-Matluck, 1987). Lezotte
(no date) states: “the report stimulated a vigorous reaction, instigating many of the studies that
would come to define the research base for the Effective Schools Movement” (np).
Accordingly, Klitgaard and Hall set out, along with other colleagues, to explore
the question, “Do effective schools exist?” Their 1974 report is important for
historical as well as substantive reasons: it was the first rigorous, large-scale effort
to identify effective schools. (Mace-Matluck, 1987, p. 8)
What they found was strikingly different than the Coleman report. Klitgaard and Hall (1974)
used regression analysis of achievement data, but focused on the top 100 and bottom 100 outlier
schools present in a study by Fetters, Connors, and Smith who had reanalyzed the Coleman data
and “constructed a histogram of residuals from their regression of achievement scores against
various background measures of 2,392 schools” (p. 94). Klitgaard and Hall were able to identify
schools that “were statistically ‘unusual,’ but [stated] whether they were unusually effective
depends on one’s subjective scale of magnitude” (p. 104-105). High achieving schools
“comprised 2 to 9 percent of the sample and averaged about 0.4 to 0.6 of an interstudent
standard deviation above the mean per test” (p.104). Others, who followed in this line of
research, were also able to identify schools that made a difference in achievement scores for all
children regardless of the student’s socio-economic background (D’Amico, 1982; Edmonds,

21
1979; Edmonds & Frederiksen, 1979; Frederiksen, 1980; Hallinger, 2003; Hallinger & Heck,
1998; Lezotte, 1992; Mace-Matluck, 1987; Weber, 1971). This spurred a number of researchers
to determine the factors relevant to the disparity between effective and non-effective schools.
A study conducted by Weber (1971) sought to identify operating processes of successful
inner-city schools serving urban poor children. Weber’s study examined four successful inner-
city schools, among 95 nominated, via case study. He found several factors that were common
to the four:
Strong leadership [in three cases it was the principal, in the other it was the area
superintendent]; High expectations [school staff held high expectations with
regard to school achievement of inner-city children]; Good atmosphere [school
climate was characterized by order, a sense of purpose, relative quiet, and
pleasure in learning]; careful evaluation of pupil progress; and Strong emphasis
on reading” [; Weber’s outcome measure focused on reading] (p. 30).
Ronald Edmonds states subsequent research showed that factors including “leadership,
expectations, atmosphere, reading emphasis, and assessment” (1979, p. 16) substantiate that
Weber was correct. Furthermore, “in 1974, the State of New York’s Office of Education
Performance Review published a study that [also] confirmed certain of Weber’s major findings”
(p. 16). Mace-Matluck (1987) cited six outlier studies, three from New York, one from
Maryland, one from Michigan, and one from Delaware conducted in this time frame stating “the
results of these outlier studies are amazingly consistent” (p. 10).
Review of studies, two in New York State and one in Austin Texas: School factors
influencing reading achievement: A case study of two inner city schools (New York State
Department of Education, 1974), Three strategies for studying the effects of school process (New

22
York State Department of Education, 1976), and Process Evaluation: A Comprehensive Study of
Outliers (Austin, 1978) shows consistent findings for high-achieving schools in the following
areas: principals exercised instructional leadership, set high expectations for student and teacher
performance, school staff had greater experience, higher teacher ratings, teachers were open to
trying new things, schools tended to have open space facilities, and a learning environment with
fewer discipline problems.
During this initial period of the effective schools movement, it became clear that effective
schools did exist and more importantly that socio-economic status, although prevalent in terms of
schools with low achievement, was not the deciding factor. The foundation had been laid for
researchers to answer a far more daunting question. What are the factors that must be addressed
to change schools to be become more effective?
During the second period 1976-1980 of the school effectiveness movement, several
characteristics and correlates of effective schools were identified. Edmonds (1982) formally
identified five characteristics of effective schools in a paper entitled Programs of School
Improvement: An overview. These initial characteristics were as follows:
(1) the leadership of the principal notable for substantial attention to the quality
of instruction, (2) a pervasive and broadly understood instructional focus, (3) an
orderly, safe climate conducive to teaching and learning, (4) teacher behaviors
that convey the expectation that all students are expected to obtain at least
minimum mastery and (5) the use of measures of pupil achievement as the basis
for program evaluation. (p. 6)

23
According to Mace-Matluck (1987) the list of correlates changed somewhat during the late 70’s
and early 80’s. Mace-Matluck made this assertion upon her interpretation of the results of the
following case studies: “Brookover and colleagues at Michigan State (1979), Brookover and
Lezotte (1979), Rutter and colleagues from England (1979), the California State Department of
Education (1980), Glenn (1981), Levine & Stark (1981), and Venezky & Winfield (1981)” (p.
8). Review of these studies and others revealed there was a change that occurred. However, it
had to do more with Mace-Matluck’s, as well as others, interpretation and the wording of the
resulting correlates. Through review of a number of secondary source articles that repeated the
new wording of correlates, it appears that this may have opened the door to misunderstandings of
the correlates. Leadership of the principal derived from the original major works referred to
leadership in the following ways: strong administrative policies, behaviors, and practices (or
instructional leadership); strong leadership; a crucial instructional role; and a demanding leader.
Many secondary source publications placed the label “instructional leadership” on these findings
and referred to it as strong leadership. In several articles, authors also made reference for the
need for principals or instructional leaders to be more involved in the instructional process which
evolved into the need for instructional leaders to managing curriculum and instruction. The term
instructional leadership took on meaning, but lacked a definition.
Similarly, ‘a pervasive and broadly understood instructional focus’ (Edmonds, 1982)
throughout the secondary literature was referred to as ‘a clear set of goals and an emphasis for
the school’ and later evolved into the school mission, but the primary research actually identified
this as the establishment of student expectations.
The correlate: ‘an orderly, safe climate conducive to teaching and learning,’ (Edmonds,
1982) was seldom mentioned as a separate correlate, but rather as an extension of what ‘strong

24
leadership’ provided in the primary research. However, the secondary literature took hold of this
as a stand alone correlate that appeared frequently in the literature.
The correlate ‘teacher behaviors that convey the expectation that all students are expected
to obtain at least minimum mastery’ (Edmonds, 1982) was actually characterized in the primary
research in terms of stress on non-school factors often leads to a justification for failure, high
expectations on the part of teachers, and belief that all children can learn. Again, the secondary
literature developed a misrepresentation, high expectations by staff for student achievement.
Although there is general congruence in meaning it is important to note that obtaining at least
minimum mastery was lost in the translation.
The correlate ‘use of measures of pupil achievement as the basis for program evaluation’
(Edmonds, 1982) evolved into frequent monitoring of student progress throughout most
secondary literature. This was perhaps the most significant change and diverged greatly from the
intent of the primary research findings. The primary research spoke of follow-up monitoring of
the children’s abilities for the purpose of remediation and re-teaching. The essence of
monitoring student achievement was two fold in the primary research findings. It was to ensure
students who failed to master minimum skill had further instruction and to ensure that teachers
learned to make necessary adjustments in terms of future direct instruction.
A new correlate emerged during this time frame. The primary research was fairly
consistent about the necessity of an effective school wide staff training program. However, this
correlate is also an interpretation of a number of different findings. Primary research referenced
it as teachers need to be well trained, staff development must be tied to the instructional program,
and continuous in-service training is necessary. Some primary research made reference to
experienced staff and tenured staff as being important for high achieving schools. These

25
findings evolved from primary research centered on determining what the factors were in schools
of poor black children, and a few that simply studied socioeconomic disadvantaged urban
schools, that enabled them to be generally successful. This resulted in literature review works
and articles that solidified the correlate as a necessity for effective schools.
The practice of the interpretation of these correlates by well know researchers such as
Bossert, Dwyer, Rowan, & Lee (1982), Bridges (1982), Edmonds (1982), Hallinger & Heck
(1998), Leithwood & Montgomery (1982), Lezotte (1992), etc., found throughout available
literature, i.e. Review of Educational Research, Journal of Curriculum Studies, Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, North Central Association Quarterly, National Elementary
School Principal, Principal Leadership, American Educational Journal, Educational
Researcher, etc., generated a list of effective schools characteristics that appear to be sound on
the surface. However, it appears the term “instructional leadership,” albeit commonly used, was
still open to wide interpretation.
A study published by Brookover and Lezotte (1979) involved eight Michigan schools, six
of which were identified as improving and two as declining in achievement, expanded the list of
correlates finding 10 factors attributed to higher student achievement.
The ten factors attributed to providing higher student achievement were:
• Improving schools accept and emphasize the importance of basic reading and math
objectives
• Staff of improving schools believe all students can master basic skills objectives and they
believe the principal shares this belief
• Staff of improving schools expect higher and increasing levels of expectations from their
students

26
• Staff of improving schools assume responsibility for teaching basic reading and math skills
and are committed to do so
• Staff of improving schools spend more time on achieving basic reading and math skills
objectives
• Principals at improving schools are likely to be assertive instructional leaders and
disciplinarians and they assume responsibility for the evaluation of the achievement of basic
skills objectives
• Staff at improving schools accept the concept of accountability based on standardized testing
• Teachers at improving schools are generally not satisfied or complacent, they tend to
experience tension and dissatisfaction with low student achievement
• Parent involvement differences between improving and declining schools remains unclear,
however there appears to be less parent contact in improving schools
• Improving schools do not emphasize paraprofessional involvement or heavy teacher
involvement in the selection of students for compensatory education programs.
(Brookover & Lezotte, 1979, pp. 66-69)
Rutter, Maughan, Mortimore, Ouston, and Smith (1979), found seven significant
constants existed in successful schools. Successful schools held higher expectations for children
to achieve; spent more time on the lesson topic rather than setting up equipment, distributing
materials and dealing with discipline; provided a variety of rewards, praise and appreciation,
specifically important was the use of frequent immediate positive reinforcement; put effort into
providing a pleasant and comfortable learning environment; enabled opportunities for a greater
percentage of the student body to take on responsibilities and have input on the general
operations of the school; teacher continuity held both advantages and disadvantages depending

27
on how well the individual student got along with the teacher; and functioned as a coherent
whole with agreed ways of doing things, provided a consistent process for checking student
work, and planned lessons and curriculum jointly.
From these correlates and identified characteristics, a definition of effective schools
began to take shape. Mace-Matluck (1986) (as cited in Mace-Matluck, 1987) developed a
composite definition based on a survey of the current literature. However, she acknowledged
details varied among researchers and studies and indicated some aspects of the composite
definition may have been attributed to secondary source works.
An effective school is one in which the conditions are such that student
achievement data show that all students evidence an acceptable minimum mastery
of those essential basic skills that are prerequisite to success at the next level of
schooling. (p. 11)
Unfortunately, with the inconsistent findings in studies, it was still difficult to identify a
definitive recipe that principals could focus attention towards.
The focus of the majority of studies during this time frame concerned primary grades
involving reading and math skills. It is for this reason that it is important to note that the
conceptual form of a list of characteristics, for successful schools, for any given study needs to
be viewed in line with the focus of the study that generated the list. Studies prior to this time
frame and some during this time frame were not directly focused on primary grade reading and
math skills. Some studies searched for generalizations among identified successful schools and
therefore generated markedly different characteristics. Also notable is that there is still no
agreed upon definition or list of characteristics which strong administrative leadership or
instructional leadership encompasses.

28
Although there were many unanswered questions and a multitude of prescribed practices,
the second period of the effective schools movement clearly asserted that effective schools did
exist and further that socioeconomic and family background were not sufficient reasons for
students’ failure to be successful. Edmonds (1979) who was involved heavily with research,
along with Frederiksen, of poor black children and urban schools in general writes “pupil family
background neither causes nor precludes elementary school instructional effectiveness” (p. 21).
Unanswered questions centered on four issues; what is educational effectiveness, what is
instructional leadership, how to deal with a mismatch between general conclusions and specific
studies’ results, and the extensive lists of definitions and characteristics are too great in number,
thus impractical for developing a single recipe for implementation. However, even though these
issues existed, the research during this period created a movement in which “effective schools
and their characteristics became models for school improvement . . . in some cases, as a basis for
far-reaching educational policy decisions and large-scale school improvement initiatives”
(D’Amico, 1982, p. 4).
The third effective schools movement period identified by Lezotte extended three years,
from 1980 to 1983. Hallinger and Heck (1998) identify this era as the beginning of a 15 year
period from which empirical literature specifically related to principal contributions to school
effectiveness moved to the forefront of research endeavors. Previous research clearly identified
that “in the search for factors that influence school effectiveness, the role of the elementary
school principal has emerged as critical” (Leithwood & Montgomery, 1982, p. 309). Bossert et
al. (1982) agree, “recent work on ‘successful schools’ underscores the importance of
instructional leadership, especially the role of the principal in coordinating and controlling the

29
instructional program” (p. 34), but also that “little is known about how instructional management
at the school level affects children’s schooling experiences” (p. 34). The daunting effort to
identify these factors initiated this short three year time period.
Entering this time period, there appeared to be four common characteristics of successful
schools within research: a school climate conducive to learning and generally free of disciplinary
issues, a school-wide emphasis on mastery of basic skills in reading and math; a common belief
that all children can learn; and instructional objectives which are based on minimal expectations
of basic skills mastery and student achievement monitoring assessments in place to insure
students received further instruction (Austin, 1978; Brookover & Lezotte, 1979; Edmonds, 1979;
Edmonds & Frederiksen, 1979; Frederiksen, 1980; Rutter, Maughan, Mortimore, Ouston, &
Smith, 1979). The missing element in this list is leadership.
Edmonds (1982) states that a fifth characteristic has been both identified and widely
disseminated, “the leadership of the principal [is] notable for substantial attention to the quality
of instruction” (p. 6). Furthermore, Bossert, Dwyer, Rowan, and Lee (1982) suggest that studies
to this point also indicate that the conditions created above are in large part due to school
principals who are perceived to be “strong pragmatic leaders” (p. 35). However, Bossert, et al.
(1982) also points out that research has not focused causal ordering of variables and therefore
“current work on successful schools does not link instructional management practices with
instructional outcomes that exist in successful schools” (p. 36). In large part this is due to
findings that no style of leadership was found that worked consistently in successful schools.
Principal behaviors had different affects in different school settings. Such findings reaffirmed
Hersey and Blanchard’s situational leadership and Fiedler’s contingency theories found in what
was current literature at that time.

30
Bridges (1982), in his research of 322 research reports, identified a number of issues that
presented conceptual and methodological obstacles necessary to overcome what he identified as
major gaps in the research leading up to this time frame. The issues listed included stability of
impact, neutrality of impact, generalized impact, uniformity of impact, and management impact.
Researchers ignored the transitory nature of administrator behaviors over time, did not take into
account the possibility that administrator effects were not independent of one another, assumed
that findings in one school setting were valid across all educational settings, assumed that
administrator behavior would hold identical effects with other administrators, and that no casual
comparison has been identified between administrator behavior or practice and a specific desired
outcome. The issues Bridges’ research divulged led him to conclude that defining a recipe for
successful school leadership would “not be completed easily or quickly” (p. 29). Murphy,
Hallinger, and Mitman (1983) echoed these results stating that the methodological areas
identified included generalizability, lack of exploratory models, lack of behavioral indicators,
and premature application of research findings. From an organizational perspective, they found
misconceptions about management, misconceptions about leadership, and misallocation of time
devoted primarily to internal organizational considerations. These authors also concluded that
there was a lack of original research, lack of clarity in terminology with respect to leadership,
and a lack of attention to indirect leadership.
The last time frame identified by Lezotte, 1983-1986, is marked with a plethora of
practitioner resources to understand and implement successful schools; Educational
Administration Quarterly, Educational Leadership, Educational Management, Administration, &
Leadership: EMAL, Phi Delta Kappan, Review of Educational Research, etc. are replete with

31
articles extolling the research findings of the effective schools movement. How to books were
available such as Reaching for Excellence: An Effective Schools Sourcebook (Kyle,1985),
Implementing School Improvement Plans: A Directory of Research-Based Tools (Fleming &
Buckles, 1987), Research-Based Strategies for Bringing About Successful School Improvement
(Mace-Matluck, 1986a), and Research-Based Tools for Bringing About Successful School
Improvement (Mace-Matluck, 1986b). In essence, the effective schools movement information
became readily available for practitioners. The recipe for producing effective schools was
available. With subtle variations between sources, administrators needed to promote the
instructional climate, place emphasis on mastery level of basics, develop a school wide belief
that all children can and will learn, monitor student progress, and provide direct assistance for
development of teacher skills as the instructional leader.
Beyond Lezotte’s four ‘critical’ periods that marked the epochs of the effective schools
movement, the study of instructional leadership began to envision instructional leadership from
different points of view. Researchers were fairly clear on what needed to happen in schools, but
how it occurred was still somewhat illusive. Anderson (1990) addressed this issue from a
functionalistic approach. “Most current empirical research in education administration – whether
of a positivist or naturalistic paradigm – is incapable of studying such phenomena because it
lacks a critical approach to research” (p. 43). Unfortunately, the study of instructional leadership
from the critical functionalistic approach encounters several immediate tribulations. As Krug
(1992a) addressed this issue, “the contexts in which instructional leaders operate vary
tremendously as do the opportunities they encounter for expressing leadership in these difficult
contexts” (p. 6). The manner with which an administrator addresses the various aspects of
instructional leadership are as varied as the number of administrators and although many schools

32
share some environmental aspects, there are an infinite number of factors that shape them such as
the socioeconomic background of the staff and student body and the resources available to
individual schools in terms of fiscal matters, staff knowledge, and staff training.
In large part, the effective schools movement research reviews seemed to have come to
rest on the shoulders of the school principal regarding the role the school principal plays as
instructional leader. However, Hallinger and Murphy (1985) note that the
lack of research on instructional management has effected school administrators
in several ways. Instructional management (used synonymously in this paper with
instructional leadership) has meant anything and everything; an administrator
trying to be an instructional leader has had little direction in determining just what
it means to do so. (p. 217)
Instructional Leadership Research
Hallinger and Murphy were enlisted by a school district in 1985 to develop a study to
describe and measure instructional management behavior related to a principal’s behavior in
terms of defining the school mission, managing the instructional program, and promoting the
school learning climate. To perform this study the Principal Instructional Management Rating
Scale (PIMRS), developed by Hallinger (1982), was used. This instrument, consisting of 71
items, segmented defining school mission into framing school goals and communicating school
goals. It segmented managing the instructional program into three parts: supervising and
evaluating instruction, coordinating curriculum, and monitoring student progress. And
segmented promoting school climate into six parts: protecting instructional time, promoting
professional development, maintaining high visibility, providing incentives for teachers,
enforcing academic standards, and providing incentives for students. The items were designed to

33
be answered by principals, teachers and district administrators. Each item is answered on a five
point Likert scale, one representing almost never to 5 representing almost always. The original
version of the PIMRS also had a “?” option as a response. Unfortunately, Hallinger and Murphy
reported that several principals’ self ratings were inconsistent with those of their respective
teachers and supervisors.
The notable outcome from Hallinger and Murphy’s research was three-fold. These
researchers acknowledged that instructional management and instructional leadership occurred
synonymously, a pattern emerged that showed that a principal who ranked highly in one area
ranked highly on other job subscales, and the development of the PIMRS advanced the necessary
movement from description to measurement of instructional leadership.
Noting that instructional management and instructional leadership are used
synonymously suggests that these researchers do not differentiate management and leadership.
This begs the question, does the method and tool(s) used in the study help foster an
understanding of leadership within the K-12 arena to any extent at all?
The fact that principals who scored well in one area were found to score well in most or
all areas may tell us something about the individuals, but does not aid our understanding about
how individual aspects of instructional leadership work independently.
The PIMRS did advance the movement from description to measurement of instructional
leadership. However, Krug (1990a) identified several issues with the construction of the
PIMRS: Many of the items are long and complex. Evidence for its reliability or validity is
relatively limited and /or difficult to obtain as there were only ten principals/schools involved.
No norms have been developed to facilitate comparative applications. Little is known about the
sensitivity of the instrument to differences arising from demographic factors such as school type

34
(elementary, middle, secondary), school size, gender, or age. And, the PIMRS makes no attempt
to assess contextual factors that might moderate or influence the interpretation on individual
scores. Although Hallinger and Murphy (1985) presented findings across ten subscales that
identified the instrument as both reliable and valid they give credence to Krug’s criticism stating:
“the absence of outcome data limited our ability to test the external validity the instructional
leadership construct or to comment on the relative importance of the various principal functions,
policies, practices, or behavior” (p. 232).
Having acknowledged that school leaders have both a direct and indirect affect on student
achievement, Krug conducted several studies. Krug (1990a) attempted to answer questions
about how school leadership influenced learning and achievement. In this study Krug used the
1988 final version of the Instructional Leadership Inventory (ILI) self-report instrument for
administrators, developed by Maehr and Ames, and the Instructional Climate Inventory (ICI) that
mirrors the ILI instrument for cross-checking administrator’s responses, developed by Maehr,
Braskamp, and Ames. The result of this study produced a set of “psychometrically refined
instruments” (p. 21), found to be reliable and valid, the beginnings of researchers’ ability “to
understand the structure of school leadership behavior better” (p. 21), and “identified important
dimensions of school climate through which school leaders influence the motivation of both
teachers and students” (p. 21).
Krug (1990b) published work establishing two important findings: “(a) What leaders
believe about their work is paramount in explaining differences between leaders, and (b) what
we learn about instructional leadership is highly dependent upon whom we ask” (p. 2). In order
to develop an understanding of what were principals’ beliefs, an experience sampling
methodology (ESM) signaled 81 principals at random times between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m.

35
five times per day over a five consecutive day period. Principals would then “record what they
were doing, their interpretation of that activity, and their feelings at the time” (pp. 15-16). In
addition to this, the ILI was used to determine leadership effectiveness. The data revealed that
principals engaged in the same types of activity exercising their instructional leadership, but their
beliefs about what they were doing differed significantly. The conclusion drawn from this Krug
states: “more effective instructional leaders conceptualize and utilize these activities as
opportunities for exercising instructional leadership. In other words, instructional leadership can
be better conceptualized as an approach to school administration rather than as a specific set of
practices” (p. 20). This study employed the ICI-T instrument to alleviate self-report bias. Two
findings were derived from this aspect of the study. First the teacher ratings of instructional
leadership behavior correlated significantly well with principal self-reports using these
instruments and second that “teachers may not fully understand the motives that underlie a
principal’s actions, yet they may still provide valid information about whether the school’s
leadership is working or not” (p. 35). Unfortunately, MetriTech no longer supports the ILI or
ICI-T instruments for use.
A study performed by Lunenburg (1990) did not specifically address principals in terms
of instructional leadership, but used the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF) (Cattell,
Eber, & Tatsuoka, 1986) to examine principal performance from a broad set of personality
factors. Lunenburg’s data describes a “superior principal as more educated, assertive,
imaginative, self-sufficient, and warm-hearted” (p. 11). The importance of this study
demonstrated that high performing principals fare equally with high performing managers in
non-education sectors in terms of personality factors and although it may be possible to predict
performance of possible principal prospects, it does not provide insight to what these principals

36
do differently in terms of instructional leadership as the study failed to “predict the way in which
principal’s spend their time” (p. 11).
Krug (1992b) published a study which involved 72 principals, 1,523 teachers, and 9,415
students from Chicago area schools. It should be noted that this publication provided only zero-
order correlations. These initial zero-order correlations provided uniform positive evidence that
principal self-ratings of the five broad dimensions of instructional leadership hold a statistically
significant relationship with student achievement. However, the zero-order correlations did not
provide a statistically significant relationship between teacher ratings of the five dimensions of
instructional leadership and student achievement, but the correlations were generally positive. In
summary, Krug stated “it seems reasonable to conclude that the empirical evidence for link
between instructional leadership and student learning outcomes is strong, particularly in the early
school years” (p. 4).
Hallinger and Heck (1998) examined studies produced over a 15 year period to look at
principals’ contribution to school effectiveness from 1980 to 1995. In their study, they identified
three models through which they classified the studies:
… direct effects (i.e., where principal’s actions influence school outcomes);
mediated effects (i.e., where principal actions affect outcomes indirectly through
other variables); reciprocal effects (e.g., where the principal affects teachers and
teachers affect the principal, and through these processes outcomes are affected).
(pp. 162-163)
Prior to 1985, most studies follow the direct effects study model. As Hallinger and Heck found,
direct effects studies as conducted had “limited utility for investigating the effects of principal
leadership” (p. 166). Research determined a smorgasbord of what principals did with some

37
congruence in the area of instructional leadership in effective schools and clearly demonstrated
that all children can learn given certain conditions within their schools, but it did not identify a
‘recipe’ for success for principals to follow.
Studies thereafter, such as the work of Maehr , Braskamp, and Ames (1986), Hallinger
and Murphy (1985), and Krug (1990b, 1992a), recognized instructional leadership on the part of
principals from the perspective of the mediated effects model. These later studies viewed
instructional leadership as actions or behaviors performed by the principal to accomplish the
effects on school outcomes indirectly through staff members by providing direct assistance to
teachers on instructional practices, promoting school culture, and monitoring student progress.
This is particularly true in terms of student achievement. In relation to classroom teachers, the
principal does not have near as much direct contact with individual students. Although the
principal promotes the instructional climate, it is the classroom teacher and other staff members
who have the most significant direct student contact. Assuming principals closely monitor
student progress, generally interventions are performed by other staff members. Principals may
manage change in curriculum and instruction, but again it is the classroom teachers who deliver
instruction. Although principals may define school mission, the mission is mediated to students
daily more through the general staff than the principal. One area that may have a closer direct
effect on achievement is achieved through principals who directly supervise and support
teaching.
There was little evidence of longitudinal research found to both clearly identify and
measure success involving what Hallinger and Heck refer to as the reciprocal-effects model.
This model involves an interactive relationship between the principal and the school’s staff and
school climate. Hallinger and Heck (1998) suggest this “framework implies that administrators

38
adapt to the organization in which they work, changing their thinking and behavior over time”
(p. 168). This does not suggest a form of laissez-faire leadership. It takes a form where
leadership may be shared and take multiple forms over time. Work involving studies of
principals exercising transformational leadership may be moving in this direction and may be the
answer to why no single recipe for instructional leadership has been revealed through research.
However, studies utilizing this model will most likely require a combination of both quantitative
and qualitative longitudinal data.
Conclusions drawn from 43 participants in a two day educational forum held in
Washington DC (Riley, McGuire, Lieb, & Dorfman, 1999), made up of prominent educational
leadership researchers and a host of others including superintendents, principals, teachers,
education consultants, and state policy makers agreed that there is a distinction between
management and instructional leadership. To arrive at this conclusion, they first addressed the
question: “What is the definition of an effective leader for today’s schools?” (p. 2). In order to
answer this question, this group first identified instructional leadership. Instructional leaders
devote significant time evaluating instruction and then assisting teachers with methods to
improve instruction. Leaders in effective schools have sound understandings of pedagogy and
developmentally appropriate learning and use this knowledge to assist teachers improve
instruction. Effective leaders set the vision (mainly it was agreed that district vision came down
from the superintendent) and assist in cooperatively developing school goals and provide
“teachers with informed feedback, guidance, support, and professional development that will
help them do their jobs better” (p. 5). However, forum attendees could not arrive at consensus
regarding to what degree effective leaders needed to perform instructional leadership relative to
management skills. It was clear that management encompassed significant time for principals on

39
a daily basis. They did not suggest that school management is a facet of instructional leadership,
but rather a host of duties that all principals must attend. However, the group determined that
school leaders as a whole need to shift their focus and energy “from the B’s (budgets, books,
buses, bonds, and buildings), to the C’s (communication, collaboration, and community
building)” (p. 5).
Leithwood and Jantzi (1999c) instituted a large scale quantitative study involving 129
principals, 2,465 teachers, and 44,920 students to measure relative effects of both principal and
teacher leadership effects on student engagement. Although the overall results were
disappointing for a variety of reasons, it was mainly because results contradicted a number of
qualitative case studies that were designed to examine effects of teacher leadership on student
outcomes. Principal leadership effects were positive, “although not strong, do reach statistical
significance” (pp. 696-697). Although this study did not specifically address instructional
leadership, it did further exemplify the importance of the role school principals play in terms of
indirect effects on student learning and added to the growing evidence that principals make a
significant contribution to school effectiveness.
After the turn of the twenty first century, principal leadership researchers’ attention
turned toward transformational leadership, but the idea of instructional leadership continued to
maintain a presence. Marks and Printy (2003) published a study entitled Principal Leadership
and School Performance: An Integration of Transformational and Instructional Leadership.
These researchers specifically examined shared instructional leadership. Shared instructional
leadership implies that the principal is not the sole agent responsible for school change. This
plays well into the idea of the integration of instructional and transformational leadership as a
model since the transformational model recognizes the idea that leaders and followers can and at

40
times should exchange roles. However, it did not add to the body of knowledge regarding
instructional leadership as a leadership construct.
Full Range Leadership: Transformational and Transactional Leadership
The origins of the full range leadership model trace back to Burns’ (1978) description of
transforming leadership. Burns formalized transforming leadership as a construct in 1978. Bass’
(1985) theory of transformational leadership expanded Burns’ model to include the
psychological mechanisms underpinning transformational and transactional leadership (Bass,
Avolio, Jung, & Berson, 2003). “Bass’s (1985) conceptualization of transactional and
transformational leadership included seven leadership factors, which he labeled charisma,
inspirational, intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration, contingent reward,
management-by-exception and laissez-faire leadership” (Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1999, p. 441).
This seven factor model was later reduced to a six factor model because charisma and
inspirational were often not empirically distinguishable (Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1999). Hater and
Bass (1988) soon after separated the transactional factor, management-by-exception, into
management-by-exception active and management-by-exception passive.
Bass and Avolio developed the concept of full range leadership to be an inclusive range
of leadership involving four behaviors of transformational leadership, three behaviors of
transactional leadership, and laissez-faire leadership. Transformational leadership in the full
range leadership model is composed of what are now referred as the four I’s; idealized influence,
inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration (Avolio,
Waldman, & Yammarino, 1991). Transactional leadership is composed of three leadership
behaviors; contingent reward, management-by-exception active, and management-by exception

41
passive. Laissez-faire leadership is the final behavior and on the opposite end of the full range
leadership model continuum from the four I’s.
Transformational leadership.
Although many authors credit Burns as having first introduced the concept of
transformational leadership in 1978, Downton was first to distinguish transformational
leadership from transactional leadership (Avolio & Bass, 1995). Downton (1973) contrasted
transformational from transactional leadership in Rebel Leadership, differentiating revolutionary,
rebel, reform, and ordinary leaders (Nguni, Sleegers, & Denessen, 2006). Burns formalized
transforming leadership as a concept in 1978. “A transformational leader differs from a
transactional one by not merely recognizing associates’ needs, but by attempting to develop
those needs from lower to higher levels of maturity” (Avolio & Bass, 1995, p.16). Although
Bass and Avolio extended the concept of transformational leadership into full range leadership,
Burns and Bass are generally known for the origins of the transformational leadership construct.
It should be noted that “neither Burns nor Bass studied schools, but rather based their work on
political leaders, Army officers, or business executives” (Liontos, 1992, p.2).
As the name implies, the heart of transformational leadership involves the ability of the
leader to transform peoples’ behavior or actions that in essence makes them better for the
organization they serve. “Bass depicted transformational leadership as a higher order construct
comprising of three conceptually distinct factors: charisma, intellectual stimulation, and
individualized consideration” (Howell & Avolio, 1993, p. 891). By 1991, the three conceptual
factors became four; these conceptual areas were then labeled charismatic leadership/idealized
influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration
(Smith, Montagno, & Kuzmenko, 2004, p. 83). Leaders maintain high ethical and moral conduct

42
and focus on followers’ values, motives, and satisfying their needs (Burns, 2003). Ethical and
moral conduct requirements are what set transformational leadership apart. This is the answer to
the all too often debated question; was Adolf Hitler a leader? “Transforming values lie at the
heart of transforming leadership” (Burns, 2003, p.29), but the values need to be morally and
ethically grounded to be considered leadership.
Transformational leadership currently is defined by four dimensions: idealized influence,
inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration.
Bass and Riggio (2006) identify idealized influence as a combination of two aspects: “the
leader’s behaviors and the elements that are attributed to the leader by followers and other
associates” (p. 6). Transformational leaders model the behaviors they expect in their followers.
Behaviors emphasize others needs and maintain high ethical and moral conduct. As a result
followers recognize that transformational leaders are generally well respected, admired, and
trusted by others. An emphasis for the leader is to consider followers’ needs over their own
(Bass, Avolio, Jung, & Berson, 2003). “Followers identify with the leaders and want to emulate
them; leaders are endowed by their followers as having extraordinary capabilities, persistence,
and determination” (Bass & Riggio, 2006, p. 6).
Transformational leaders characterize inspirational motivation by motivating and
inspiring followers, displaying enthusiasm, demonstrating optimism, communicating
expectations, and creating a shared vision for the organization. Leaders provide meaning and
challenge to their followers’ work to inspire them to perform and create a sense of purpose
(Bass, Avolio, Jung, & Berson, 2003; Barbuto & Brown, 2000; Smith, Montagno, & Kuzmenko,
2004). In practice, transformational leaders focus followers’ efforts through inspirational
motivation to achieve more for the organization than they would for their own self-interest. Bass

43
and Riggio (2006) affirm this; “transformational leaders behave in ways that motivate and
inspire those around them by providing meaning and challenge to their followers’ work” (p. 6).
Intellectual stimulation is characterized by leaders who encourage innovation and
creativity, they are willing to abandon practices or systems demonstrated to be not useful,
question assumptions, they approach old situations in new ways, and are willing to take risks for
long term success (Bass, Avolio, Jung, & Berson, 2003; Smith, Montagno, & Kuzmenko, 2004).
These behaviors stimulate followers’ creativity and encourage followers to challenge their own
beliefs. Bass and Riggio (2006) relate intellectual stimulation in terms of leaders who “stimulate
their followers’ efforts to be innovative and creative by questioning assumptions, reframing
problems, and approaching old situations in new ways” (p. 6). Followers are involved in the
process of addressing problems and finding solutions (Bass, Avolio, Jung, & Berson, 2003).
Individualized consideration is characterized by leaders who attend to followers’ needs
for growth and achievement, create learning opportunities, and empower followers to make
decisions. This accomplished in part by the leader taking the role of coach or mentor (Bass,
Avolio, Jung, & Berson, 2003; Smith, Montagno, & Kuzmenko, 2004); all in an effort that
enhances the organization. Leaders create an environment that is supportive where followers are
heard and individual needs are met. This facet of transformational leadership is sometimes
associated with Maslow’s hierarchy of needs relating to self-actualization. Bass and Riggio
(2006) maintain that “followers and colleagues are developed to successively higher levels of
potential” (p. 7).
Transactional Leadership.
Burns (1978) states that transactional leaders “approach associates with an eye to
exchanging one thing for another [in the area of political transactional leaders it may be]: jobs for

44
votes, or subsidies for campaign contributions. Such transactions comprise the bulk of the
relationships among leaders and associates, especially in groups, legislatures and parties” (p. 4).
There are three dimensions that underlie transactional leadership: management-by-
exception passive, management-by-exception active, and contingent reward. “Transactional
forms of leadership are premised on exchange theory. Various kinds of rewards from the
organization are exchanged for the services of the teacher who is seen to be acting at least partly
out of self-interest” (Leithwood, Jantzi, & Fernandez, 1993, p.11).
Management-by-exception is an intervention in which corrective action is made by the
leader. Timing of the intervention distinguishes the difference between active and passive
management-by-exception. In cases of active management-by-exception the leader monitors
followers continuously in an effort to prevent mistakes from happening or becoming serious. In
some situations this is considered necessary for the purpose of safety. Standards are set and
clarified for followers in advance to avoid problems. Passive management-by-exception
involves interventions in the form of criticism and reprimand by the leader only after mistakes
have been made or standards are not met. Leaders exhibiting passive management-by-exception
wait until tasks are completed before clarifying standards and only then to point out errors
(Howell & Avolio, 1993). Management-by-exception passive is “the extent to which leaders
may not be aware of problems until informed by others and generally fail to intervene until
serious problems occur” (Nguni, Sleegers, & Denessen, 2006, p. 149).
Howell and Avolio (1993) describe contingent reward leadership an active positive
exchange which occurs between leaders and followers. The exchange involves rewards such as
recognition from the leader, bonuses, or merit increases for agreed-upon objectives. Contingent
reward is “the extent to which leaders set goals, make rewards on performance, obtain necessary

45
resources, and provide rewards when performance goals are met” (Nguni, Sleegers, & Denessen,
2006, p. 149). Contingent reward is transactional when the reward is material in nature,
contingent reward “can be transformational, however, when the reward is psychological” (Bass
& Riggio, 2006, p. 8).
Laissez-faire.
Laissez-faire is essentially non-leadership or the lack of leadership. Nguni, Sleegers, and
Denessen (2006) define laissez-faire as “the extent to which leaders avoid responsibility, fail to
make decisions, are absent when needed, or fail to follow up on requests” (p. 149). Barbuto and
Brown (2000) describe laissez-faire as a hands-off form of leadership often referred to as the
absence of leadership. Laissez-faire “leaders avoid specifying agreements, clarifying
expectations, and providing goals and standards to be achieved by followers” (Bass, Avolio,
Jung, & Berson, 2003).
Transformational Leadership Studied in Educational Context
Although transformational leadership as a construct had been in place since 1978 and
studied in practice through the 1980’s it had not been researched in relation with education until
the 1990’s and since then research has taken place involving two different constructs of
transformational leadership.
Leithwood, Jantzi, and Fernandez (1993) developed a six factor model believed to be
more appropriate in design and nature for the K-12 arena. Within the realm of PK-12 education,
transformational leadership has been researched through in-depth case study (Liontos, 1993), in
conjunction with “expert thinking” in comparison with total quality leadership (Leithwood &
Steinbach, 1993), as a moderator of teacher commitment (Leithwood, Jantzi, & Fernandez,
1993), its’ effectiveness on student engagement and organizational conditions (Leithwood &

46
Jantzi, 2000b), its’ effectiveness on collective teacher efficacy (Ross & Gray, 2006), its’
effectiveness on job satisfaction, and general effectiveness of school reform (Leithwood &
Jantzi, 2006). Leithwood and Jantzi (1999) stated “current educational leadership literature
offers no unitary concept of transformational leadership” (p. 453). However, there is evidence
that principals who exhibit transformational leadership do create a positive school climate and
culture (Barnett, McCormick, & Conners, 2001; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2000b; Maehr et al., 1996;
Silins, Mulford, & Zarins, 1999). And indirectly improved student achievement (Andrews &
Soder, 1987; Day, Harris, & Hadfield, 2001; Hallinger & Heck, 1998; Jantzi & Leithwood, 1996;
Marks & Printy, 2003; Verona & Young, 2001).
Liontos (1993) performed an in-depth case study involving a high school principal who
exhibited transformational leadership through developing a school wide culture of collaboration.
This culture of collaboration involved, at its heart, shared decision-making; and, teacher
empowerment and an environment of continual learning and change. The purpose of Liontos’
study was to develop a profile of a transformational principal leader in the school setting. Liontos
expressed that the case study subject “appears to exceed descriptions of transformational leaders
in the literature” (p. 48). It was Liontos belief that subject’s lack of interest for taking credit for
success, which was echoed by a number of staff members, facilitated his ability to share power
through collaborative decision making. In essence it was never about him or what he did. It was
about the advancement of staff ability and the school in general. In terms of idealized influence
the subject was not described as charismatic in nature, but more of a leader by example, however
it was quite clear that the staff liked and highly respected the principal. This principal focused
on staff and student needs. He was not directive in nature, but rather modeled the actions and
behavior he expected in his staff such as being a life long learner through reading and

47
researching various aspects of issues as they arose. His vision was that of what is described as a
“super school” (p. 13). Liontos concluded, in the school setting, that transformational leadership
encompasses three essential elements: a collaborative shared decision-making approach, an
emphasis on teacher professionalism and teacher empowerment, and an understanding of change,
including how to encourage change in others.
Liontos’ study did not provide evidence that transformational leadership can be taught,
but did state that many “believe modeling or leading by example is a more effective way of
transmitting qualities essential for transformational leadership (p. 49).
Leithwood and Steinbach (1993) examined the idea of total quality leadership (TQL)
from an understanding that a combination of expert thinking and transformational practice was
needed for this type of leadership. However, the focus was on how to develop a total quality
organization, i.e. a total quality school. Nine secondary schools from a large urban school district
were selected to participate in the study. The schools were selected based upon recommendation
“by at least two central office administrators as particularly effective school leaders who were
actively engaged in significant school improvement efforts” (p. 11). Evidence showed that all
nine principals were perceived by their respective staff to exhibit transformational leadership;
quoting the researchers, “to the extent our data can be relied on” (p. 15). It is interesting to note
that the researchers did not employ the MLQ transformational leadership instrument, but used an
instrument developed by Leithwood, Jantzi, and Fernandez (1993) that has 47 items relating to
what they have determined to be six dimensions of transformational leadership within the school
context. This raises an important question in terms of both reliability and validity as to whether
the subjects did in fact exhibit transformational leadership. All nine principals rated relatively
high in terms of expert thinking as well. The researchers concluded that

48
transformational leadership theory is not sufficient for total quality leadership
because it awards too little explicit weight to the mind of the leader. Expert
thinking is not sufficient either; while it may increase the probability of
transformational practices being used when appropriate, it is no guarantee. (p. 25)
This study examined an interesting facet of transformational leadership, but is lacking validity
from the standpoint of the common understanding and definition of what transformational
leadership is across other disciplines/work settings and literature.
Leithwood, Jantzi, and Fernandez (1993) presented a study that examined effects of
transformational leadership on teacher commitment to change as a function of their personal
goals. Building on the work of Crookall (1989), Deluga (1991), Seltzer (1990), and Shamir
(1991), Leithwood found empirical evidence existed demonstrating that transformational
leadership impacted “organizational members’ willingness to exert extra effort” (p. 3) and “their
sense of self-efficacy” (p. 3) in non-school organizations. The study used the seven dimensions
of transformational and transactional leadership, developed in earlier research, believed to
contribute to teacher commitment to change as follows: identifying and articulating a vision,
fostering the acceptance of group goals, providing individualized support, intellectual
stimulation, providing an appropriate model, high expectations, and contingent reward.
The study concluded that four dimensions of transformational leadership had direct
effects on teachers’ commitment to change: high expectations, consensus of group goals,
intellectual stimulation, and contingent reward, however “only vision-building activities and
developing consensus about group goals have significant total effects on teachers’ commitment
to change” (p. 21). Although this study provided strong implications that transformational
leadership provides what may be necessary elements of leadership to institute school reform

49
initiatives it is once again based upon a conception of transformational leadership that exists
exclusive in school related research. The result may or may not transfer to non-school
organizations.
A study examining the effects of transformational leadership on teacher commitment was
replicated by Leithwood and Jantzi (1999a) using sample data collected from 94 elementary
schools involving 1818 teachers and 6490 students and studied the effects of transformational
leadership on student engagement. The same transformational leadership model was used in this
study defined by six dimensions of leadership, but with an additional four dimensions of
management. The reasoning for this change explained that “most models of transformational
leadership are flawed by their under representation of transactional practices” (p. 454). The four
dimensions of management introduced “include: staffing, instructional support, monitoring
school activities, and community focus” (p. 454). One limitation this study points out is that it
relied solely upon teacher input for determining evidence of transformational leadership. The
conclusion of this study supported previous research identifying transformational leadership with
strong effects on organizational conditions on school conditions only. However, it differed in
that the previous study demonstrated strong effects of transformational leadership as a whole.
This study also demonstrated that “transformational leadership practices have a modest but
statistically significant effect on the psychological dimension (identification) of student
engagement” (p. 468).
Ross and Gray (2006) conducted research involving transformational leadership and
teacher commitment to organizational values. The study examined mediating effects of
collective teacher efficacy. This study differs from previous research as no previous research has
examined the difference between mechanisms through which teacher outcomes, such as

50
commitment, influence occurs. Ross and Gray hypothesized two models and did path analysis to
arrive at comparisons. One model demonstrated direct linking from transformational leadership
to the collective teacher efficacy to teacher commitment of organizational values. The second
model linked transformational leadership to teacher commitment of organizational values both
directly and indirectly with or through collective teacher efficacy. “The main finding of the
study is that collective teacher efficacy is a partial rather than a complete mediator of the effects
of transformational leadership on teacher commitment to organizational values” (p. 191)
consisting of commitment to school mission, professional learning community, and community
partnerships. This study did substantiate and is consistent with previous studies, but the second
model demonstrated stronger evidence that both direct and indirect paths from leadership to
teacher outcomes exist and provide enhanced value for the institution of transformational
leadership in school organizations (Ross & Gray, 2006). Ross and Gray concluded that
principals focus on three specific areas:
Principals should overtly influence teacher interpretations of school and
classroom achievement data. The critical leadership task is to help teachers
identify cause-effect relationships that link their actions to desired outcomes. …
Principals should help teachers set feasible, proximal goals to increase the
likelihood of mastery experiences. … Principals need to provide teachers with
access to high quality professional development and provide constructive
feedback on their skill acquisition. (pp. 193-194)
These areas of focus run parallel with the following dimensions of instructional leadership:
defining mission, managing curriculum and instruction, supervising and supporting teaching.
Once again it is difficult to compare these results with research conducted outside of education

51
since this research also used an alternative model of transformational leadership. Ross and Gray
used a more narrow definition of transformational leadership than Leithwood cutting down to
four dimensions: “symbolizing good professional practice, providing individualized support,
providing intellectual stimulation, and holding high performance expectations” (p. 187). This
study did not measure transactional leadership. As a result, it is difficult to make direct
comparison both within educational administrative leadership and non-educational organization
leadership.
Another study that did examine both transactional and transformational leadership effects
on teachers’ organizational commitment along with the effects on teachers’ job satisfaction and
organizational citizen behavior in primary schools took place in eastern Tanzania. Nguni,
Sleegers, and Denessen (2006) conducted a study consisting of 700 primary teachers selected
from 70 schools over five Tanzanian districts. In order to participate in the study, a school had to
have at least 20 teachers, ten of whom would be randomly selected to participate, who worked
under a headteacher for a full school year. These schools do not have principals, but rather a
headteacher. This study employed the MLQ version1 with additional items from the 5X version
to measure the headteachers’ leadership. As with previous research, this study concluded that
both transactional and transformational leadership had a positive effect on teacher commitment.
This held true for organizational citizenship behavior and job satisfaction. The results
demonstrated a stronger level of commitment for transformational leadership over transactional
with one exception. The commitment for teachers to stay at a school was rated higher for
transactional leadership. However, in Tanzania, teachers are not hired by schools; they are hired
by a central office and then told what city they will teach in. These results for both transactional
and transformational leadership coincide or confirm research results both in educational and non-

52
educational settings. It is difficult to ascertain the reason, but most interesting was that
“charismatic leadership had shown to have the greatest influence and accounts for a large portion
of variation in value commitment” (p. 168). It was found that individualized consideration was
insignificant in all areas, “job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and organizational citizen
behavior” (p. 168).
Leithwood and Jantzi (2006) defended their school specific model of transformational
leadership. The model has three broad categories with nine dimensions of practice. The model
had been developed using their own qualitative and quantitative research in schools and as a
result there are parts such as charisma that are not included or are granted different value. It
means that their model includes dimensions such as creating productive community relations that
are not found in other models. Leithwood and Jantzi claim their model of transformational
leadership addresses conceptual weaknesses such as
the omission of leadership behaviors demonstrated by research to be important;
some of the behaviors in [their] model not found in Bass’s (1996) model, for
example, include “facilitating agreement about objectives and strategies,”
“increasing followers self-efficacy,” and “articulating a vision and strategy for the
organization.” (p. 205)
Unfortunately, the results of this study “indicate significant effects of leadership on teachers’
classroom practices but not on student achievement” (p. 201). Leithwood and Jantzi make a
valid point that the differences between the construct they developed and that of Bass and Avolio
“are almost never acknowledged by those commenting on our work” (p. 205).
It is important to note that it is these differences between the Leithwood and Jantzi model
and the Bass and Avolio model potentially pose a problem in that both models are referred to by

53
the same name. The practice of altering characteristics of a theoretical construct and referring to
it by the same name is essentially what researchers struggled with while researching instructional
leadership during the 90’s. It is a necessary practice to allow research to evolve, but it does open
the door to criticism. Nguni, Sleegers, and Denessen (2006) used the model developed by Bass
and Avolio. It is congruent to results from business organizations. However, it may not be
appropriate to compare results of this study to the research of Leithwood and Jantzi since the
construct is not the same and therefore it does not measure the same things. This introduces the
opportunity for criticism and question of validity.
The transformational leadership model developed by Leithwood and Jantzi (1993)
evolved from their own qualitative and quantitative research in PK-12 public schools. Over ten
years of research involving businesses, public institutions, and school settings (Leithwood, 1992;
Leithwood, 1994; Leithwood, Aitken, & Jantzi, 2001; Leithwood & Jantzi, Leithwood & Jantzi,
1999a; Leithwood & Jantzi, 1999b; Leithwood & Jantzi, 1999c; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2000;
1998; Leithwood & Leonard, 1998) went into the transformational leadership model for schools.
Leithwood and Jantzi have demonstrated reliability and validity throughout the evolution of their
transformational leadership construct specific for PK-12 educational leadership. The resulting
revised construct (1999) from these studies consists of ten dimensions: establishing effective
staff practices, providing instructional support, monitoring school activities, providing a
community focus, building school vision and goals, providing intellectual stimulation, offering
individualized support, symbolizing professional practices and values, demonstrating high
performance expectations, and developing structures to foster participation in school decisions.
The Nature of School Leadership survey was developed “as a result of a four year study
of transformational leadership by Leithwood and Jantzi (1995) at the Ontario Institute for Studies

54
in Education of The University of Toronto to describe various aspects of leadership” (Estapa,
2009, p. 35). This instrument measures the eight transformational leadership behaviors defined
by Leithwood and Jantzi as: Develops a widely shared vision for the school; Builds consensus
about school goals and priorities; Holds high performance expectations; Models behavior;
Provides individualized support; Provides intellectual stimulation; Strengthens school culture;
Builds collaborative structures.
The results of the Leithwood and Jantzi (2006) study bear positive results regarding
transformational leadership, but do not result in improved achievement. There was demonstrated
improvement in teacher commitment and efficacy, teachers were working harder, and teachers
were more enthusiastic, but it did not directly translate into higher student performance measured
by achievement.
Leithwood and Jantzi (2006) concluded three substantial findings:
First, school leadership has an important influence on the likelihood that teachers
will change their classroom practices. Second, transformational approaches to
school leadership seem to hold considerable promise for this purpose. Third,
there is a significant gulf between classroom practices that are ‘changed’ and
practices that actually lead to greater pupil learning; the potency of leadership for
increasing student learning hinges on the specific classroom practices which
leaders stimulate, encourage, and promote. (p. 223)
Leithwood, Jantzi, Silins, and Dart (1993) determined transformational leadership on the
part of the school principal positively affected student achievement through creating consensus
on building level goals, developing shared vision, and establishing high expectations. Similarly,
although it did not translate directly to higher student achievement, Philbin (1997) found

55
transformational leadership had positive school effects on principal effectiveness. The study
determined followers experienced more satisfaction and were willing to exert extra effort.
Research on Principal Transformational Leadership
The transformational leadership construct provides a strong advantage for principals who
practice transformational leadership, since principals can motivate and inspire staff members to
perform at their best (Smith & Piele, 2001). “This may be especially important [in the field of
education] because teachers are oriented to intrinsic rewards” (Mills, 2008, p. 48). The MLQ
and MLQ-5X have been used in the PK-12 education to determine if there is a relationship
between transformational leadership exhibited by school principals and student academic
achievement.
The MLQ was employed to study the influence of principal transformational leadership
on high school proficiency test results in New Jersey (Verona & Young, 2001). Results of the
study indicated significant positive effects on student passing rates. Although it was determined
transformational leadership existed more prevalently in comprehensive high schools than
vocational high schools, results were consistent. Passing rates were lower in schools where
transformational leadership did not exist.
The MLQ-5X and Idaho comprehensive testing program were used to measure the
transformational leadership behaviors and student achievement in 34 Idaho elementary schools
to examine the relationship between principal leadership and student achievement (Fisher, 2003).
Simple regression analysis for each leadership style was conducted with regard to reading, math,
and writing; no significant relationship occurred. This study further examined the relationship
between principal and teacher perceptions of school climate and student achievement. Again

56
there was no significant relationship found in the areas of math or writing. There was a positive
moderate relationship for reading, but only in the third grade and only with teachers.
Another study used the MLQ-5X to examine the relationship of principal leadership style
and student achievement in Indiana low socio-economic schools (Niedermeyer, 2003). Both
public and private schools were selected based upon school profile data obtained through the
Indiana Department of Education web site. Schools were identified as low or high achieving
based upon 60% passing levels on third grade Indiana annual state achievement tests. Schools
with 60% or more passing level were considered high achieving and schools with less than 60%
passing levels were considered low achieving. To be included in the study, schools with 40% or
more students qualifying free lunch were defined as low socioeconomic status schools. In this
study, no relationship was found between principal leadership behavior and improved student
achievement. It must be noted that transformational leadership was predominant in both low and
high achieving schools. There was evidence that suggested transformational leadership was
related to teacher satisfaction and willingness to exert extra effort. This has been consistent with
most studies of this nature.
A study conducted in Missouri using the MLQ-X5 instrument and Missouri state
assessments in communication arts and mathematics arrived at results that contradict these
previous studies. Results show that transformational leadership characteristics significantly
correlated to student achievement in communication arts and math (Mills, 2008). Conclusions in
this study state: “The more the principal displays the leadership characteristics, the more likely
the school has achieved high scores for communication arts and math” (p.77).
A study that extended beyond transformational leadership to include contingent reward
using the MLQ-5X instrument demonstrated that Blue Ribbon School leaders had statistically

57
significantly greater mean scores for all four dimensions of transformational leadership and
contingent reward (Lyles, 2009). These Blue Ribbon schools had statistically significant low
mean scores Management by exception passive and active and laissez-faire. “Blue Ribbon
School leaders were most likely to be associated with leadership behaviors that pertained to the
Inspirational Motivation dimension and the Idealized Influence Behavioral dimension” (p. 99)
while only exhibiting transactional leadership characteristics “once in a while” (p. 100).
A study employing the MLQ-5X determined that “there does not appear to be any
correlation at all between the transformational leadership scores attributed to participating
principals and changes in the percentage of students in their schools that achieved mastery on the
CERE” (Dorward, 2009, p. 57). The main purpose of this study was to determine if a correlation
existed between leadership behavior and student achievement. The study did reveal some
correlation between teacher satisfaction and student performance as a result of increased levels
of effort on the part of teachers.
Clearly there are mixed results among studies using the MLQ and MLQ-5X instruments
and within the use of the MLQ-5X instrument. There does not appear to be a common thread
within the studies, but in each case principal leadership behaviors were considered in relationship
to student academic achievement. Although staff members working under principals who
exhibit transformational leadership experience greater satisfaction and exert extra effort, there is
not evidence to conclusively state that principals who exhibit transformational leadership
behaviors will have students who consistently perform better academically. The fact that one
study provided evidence that principals who exhibit transformational behaviors specific to the
inspirational motivation and idealized influence dimensions may suggest that research needs to
examine each dimension of transformational leadership individually rather than specifically

58
researching transformational leadership as a whole. This idea is reinforced by Lyles and
extended to other dimensions of full range leadership.
Lyles (2009) suggests “transformational leaders have a holistic view of leadership, which
consists of an emphasis on relationship, cooperation, and an awareness of individuals involved in
the change process [and] transactional leaders have a hierarchical approach to leadership” (p.
41). To be effective, a principal must exhibit a combination of leadership behaviors. There are
times when a principal needs to be transactional, but an emphasis on relationship and
cooperation is necessary most of the time working collaboratively with school staff.
Two studies, one using Leithwood and Jantzi (1999) model for transformational
leadership and the other using Leithwood and Jantzi (1995) nature of school leadership survey,
were conducted in schools in Pennsylvania (Gulbin, 2008) and Georgia (Estapa, 2009)
respectively. Like the studies conducted using the MLQ and MLQ-5X instruments, these studies
used state assessment results to measure student achievement. Both studies concluded that there
was not a relationship between transformational leadership behaviors and high student
achievement.
Summary
Forty three years ago it was accepted that schools didn’t make the difference in predicting
student achievement. The Coleman report lent credence to the idea that socioeconomic and
family background provided the most significant indications for student success. The finding
reported in the Coleman (1966) report was so offensive that it incited researchers to identify
successful schools independent of factors such as socioeconomics and family background and
thus laid the foundation for what would become the effective schools movement.

59
Ronald Edmunds was the first to formulate correlates of effective schools and a number
of researchers have identified list after list of new correlates and characteristics of effective
schools and leadership since that time. Some have agreed and some have not, but over time with
more rigorous research involving larger samples and repeated studies have added validity and
reliability to a condensed and refined list of such correlates and characteristics. What is clear is
the accepted notion that instructional leadership is a necessary factor for effective schools.
In the early 21st
century, it is accepted that all children can learn. Along the lines of the
Elementary and Secondary Education ‘No Child Left Behind’ (NCLB) Act of 2001, enacted
January 8, 2002; federal legislation now requires each state to develop assessments that are to be
administered to all children in specific grades in order to benefit from federal funding. NCLB
has essentially declared student assessment outcomes as the bottom line as to whether schools
are effective. Clearly public education has made a significant transformation since the days of
the Coleman report where students of poor and/or minority families were not expected to be
successful and in great part school leadership has received significant attention. Skillful
leadership of school principals is a key contributing factor to successful change, school
improvement, and school effectiveness (Hallinger, 2003). With all that is at stake for public
education to survive, one might surmise that effective leadership has never been more important
As of 1999, educational leadership literature did not offer a concept of transformational
leadership that was accepted among educational leadership researchers (Leithwood & Jantzi,
1999a, p. 453). Leithwood with others performed several research studies that solidified the
correlation between transformational leadership and teacher commitment/efficacy. However,
Leithwood is criticized for not utilizing Bass and Avolio (1995) model of transformational
leadership model as Leithwood and Jantzi developed a model (1999) specific to education.

60
Research findings, both Bass and Avolio (1995) model and Leithwood and Jantzi (1999)
model, have produced mixed results. There does not appear to be a direct relation between
transformational leadership and higher student achievement.
Large scale studies have found statistically weak relationships between transformational
leadership and student engagement. It has been further determined that high student engagement
correlates well with high student achievement on state assessments, yet there is no direct
evidence to support transformational leadership leads to high student achievement. There have
been dissertation studies conducted that suggest transformational leadership and student
achievement are negatively correlated. However, there may be an indirect positive effect of
transformational leadership when it is coupled with other leadership behaviors, such as
contingent reward, on student achievement.
Support for the success of transformational leadership in schools is evident and nearly 30
years of research in instructional leadership proved to identify significant correlates and
characteristics that clearly had positive effects on student learning and achievement. Having
only discovered two studies that directly tie the two leadership constructs together may suggest a
lapse in the educational leadership research. It seems reasonable that where leaders focus their
energy is equally important as to how they perform it.

61
CHAPTER 3
METHOD
Within the realm of elementary school principal leadership, this study uses a correlational
approach to examine the relationships between transformational leadership developed by Burns
(1978) and operationalized by Bass and Avolio (1988), instructional leadership as defined by
Krug (1992), and academic achievement measured by Wisconsin Knowledge and Concepts
Exam (WKCE).
This study surveyed principals and their respective teachers to gain insight into the
relationship between instructional leadership practice in conjunction with transformational
leadership practice and student academic achievement. The question this study addresses is:
“What is the effect of transformational leadership in conjunction with instructional leadership on
student achievement?”
General Framework
This research study encompassed both instructional leadership and transformational
leadership in conjunction with one another to determine if there is a correlation between the
combined leadership constructs and student achievement. This model is somewhat unique as
research has been conducted on each leadership construct independently, but little research has
been conducted with the two constructs together.
To be clear the focus of the study is on leadership and its’ effects on student achievement.
The leadership constructs are specifically instructional leadership as defined by Krug (1992) and
transformational leadership as defined by Bass and Avolio (1995), not full range leadership.
Fourth grade WKCE data is the dependent variable for student achievement correlation purpose.

62
The most significant assumption made going into this research endeavor was that there
will be statistically significant difference in student academic achievement, as measured by the
WKCE, when comparing the existence or lack of existence of instructional and transformational
leadership on the part of school principals.
This study used a correlational approach. The advantage of the correlation approach was
three fold. The correlational approach enabled the determination of the extent of a relationship.
The correlational approach also allowed for comparison of the relationship between variables.
The statistically computed correlation coefficients of variables were compared to one another.
Most importantly, the correlational approach made it possible to analyze the relationships
between the two independent variables, instructional leadership and transformational leadership,
at the same time.
As with any research that involves human participants, there are risks. Possible effects
from data collection may include the following issues. Teachers may recognize areas their
principal does not generally attend to or is inept on in one or more of the five dimensions,
defining mission, managing curriculum and instruction, supervising and supporting teaching,
monitoring student progress, or promoting instructional climate, and or transformational
leadership in some way and use it against the principal after the data collection has been done.
In the same light, principals may recognize areas of the five dimensions he or she generally does
not attend to or feels inept in. This could affect the principal in terms of self-efficacy in a
negative way. This could also cause the principal to drop from the study, thus possibly skewing
results.

63
Hypotheses
Ho1: Principals exhibiting three out of five dimensions of instructional leadership and
exhibit effective transformational leadership will have student bodies that out perform other
schools in terms of academic achievement as measured by WKCE results.
Ho2: Principals exhibiting effective transformational leadership and not exhibiting three
out of five dimensions of instructional leadership will have student bodies that out perform
schools whose principal does not exhibit effective transformational leadership and do not exhibit
three out of five dimensions of instructional leadership in terms of academic achievement as
measured by WKCE results.
Ho3: Principals exhibiting three out of five dimensions of instructional leadership and do
not exhibit effective transformational leadership will have student bodies that out perform
schools whose principal do not exhibit three out of five dimensions of instructional leadership
and does not exhibit effective transformational leadership in terms of academic achievement as
measured by WKCE results.
Ho4: Principals exhibiting effective transformational leadership behaviors and do not
exhibit three out of five dimensions of instructional leadership will have student bodies that out
perform schools with a principal exhibiting three out of five dimensions of instructional
leadership and not exhibiting effective transformational leadership in terms of academic
achievement as measured by WKCE results. However, the difference will be marginal; not
statistically significant.
The hypotheses suggest that there are specific behaviors exhibited by principals that have
an indirect effect on student achievement. To determine the extent that this is true or not, data
was collected from principals and their teachers using surveys to determine if each principal

64
exhibits instructional leadership and/or transformational leadership. Correlations were drawn
between principals and academic achievement based upon district WKCE results in reading,
math, and language arts for students in grade four as these are uniform results available for all
Wisconsin public schools.
Data Collection Procedures
Five types of data were collected:
• Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale self-report (PIMRS) for principals
• Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale for teachers
• Fourth grade WKCE testing data results
• Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire 5X Self Report (MLQ-5X) for principals
• Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire 5X rater form for teachers.
The research project was approved through the Institutional Review Board of Marian
University. The approval included review of the instruments, demographic design, and the
informed consent documents for participants.
Participation occurred at the individual schools of the participating principal’s in schools
in all Wisconsin Cooperative Educational Service Agencies (CESAs) except the metropolitan
area in and around Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
The method used to recruit participants started with an explanatory email that identified
the purpose and scope of the research project (Appendix B). Names and email addresses for
each principal was obtained using the current Wisconsin Department of Instruction listing of
schools and principal contact information. An electronic acknowledgement of consent and
understanding from each participating principal has been obtained by requiring participating
principals to agree with the IRB statement (Appendix C) in the initial stage of the electronic

65
survey and similarly for teachers before they were allowed to access surveys. Surveys were then
administered through the use of SurveyMonkey for the PIMRS and the MLQ-5X. Fourth grade
WKCE data collected for respective principal’s buildings was obtained on-line from the
Wisconsin Information Network for Successful Schools (WINSS). A link to this network was
found on the Wisconsin Department of Education web site.
Once principals had acknowledged their willingness to participate they were then able to
access the surveys using a link to an online survey tool, SurveyMonkey.com. Participating
principals should have been able to complete both the PIMRS and MLQ-5X self report surveys
in less than half an hour. After completing the PIMRS and MLQ-5X, Principals were asked to
list not less than three teachers to complete the teacher rater surveys. Respective teachers, who
the principal listed, were then asked to participate via email using the teacher invitation email
letter (Appendix D).
Teacher participants completed the PMIRS rater form and the MLQ-5X rater form using
SurveyMonkey on-line. Similar to the principals, teachers should have been able to complete the
PIMRS and MLQ-5X survey forms in less than half an hour.
Initial response data included the principal’s name, years of age, gender, race, years as
principal, years in current position, number of third, fourth, and fifth grade classrooms under
their administration, number of students in their school, grade range within their school, school
name, school district, and the name of the institution where they earned their principal licensure.
Teacher data response included grade level, school name, school district, years of teaching
experience, years teaching under current principal, years of age, gender, and race.
The decision to use electronic data collection was two fold. There was an expected
higher participation rate from using electronic data collection rather than paper/pencil with

66
physical mailings. And, given the size and scope of the study, there was an expectation of
reduced data transfer error.
This data collection process took place during the later part of the 2009-2010 school year
and through the summer prior to the 2010-2011 school year. Since there was a lack of willing
participation, the process continued well into the 2010-2011 school year.
Because the participation was far less than expected, in October of 2011 my advisor, Dr.
Marilyn Bugenhagen, suggested that I request the use of MLQ data from principal participants
who had participated in a research project performed by my colleague, Dr. Zhao Xia Xu, and to
request that these principals complete the PIMRS survey along with at least three or more of
their teachers to be part of this research project. Similar to the initial process, the method used to
recruit participants started with an explanatory email that identified the purpose and scope of the
research project (see Appendix E). An electronic acknowledgement of consent and
understanding from each participating principal has been obtained by requiring participating
principals to agree with the IRB statement in the initial step in the electronic survey and similarly
for teachers before they were allowed to access surveys. Surveys were then administered
through the use of SurveyMonkey for the PIMRS. Again, fourth grade WKCE data collected for
respective principal’s buildings was obtained through the Wisconsin Information Network for
Successful Schools (WINSS).
As with the principals, it was difficult to get teachers to complete the surveys. As a
result, a second initial letter was created and sent to teachers (see Appendix E). This letter was
slightly different than the first letter. This was necessary since I was not able to identify which
teachers had already replied in the first, second, etc. stage in the data collection process.

67
Participants were then coded. Principals were denoted with a double letter such as AA
and respective teachers were then coded as AA1, AA2, etc. A master list of participants has
been kept in a fire-proof safe at the home of the researcher and will remain there for a period of 5
years. This list has and will remain confidential at all times.
Sample Design
Population invited to participate in this study included principals in public schools that
had fourth grade students. These principals needed to have three or more years of experience in
their current building. The geographic area encompassed approximately 90% of Wisconsin.
Principals in schools in CESAs 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 were invited to participate.
Schools in these regions of the state range in size and student ethnicity.
Principal and teacher participants are non- race and age specific. However, race and age
data was collected for future analysis. Selection of principal participants tried to generate an
equal number of male and female principal participants. Analysis procedures viewed results in
terms of gender separately and combined. Participants included were restricted to those who
have been principal at their respective schools for not less than three years, as this study
examined student achievement data collected over a three year period.
Originally the study expected at least 60 participants; however the response resulted in 31
principal participants.
The CESA regions selected encompass a wide range of rural to small urban areas which
have a significant number of communities of varying socio economic backgrounds. A
representative sampling of students from all socio economic and ethnic backgrounds generated
the student academic achievement data.

68
The regions selected encompass a number of cities that experience some of the issues of
large urban areas, but not nearly on the same scale as Milwaukee for example, so the population
sample does have limitations. Although there is a representative sample of impoverished
families through out the state, their resources are significantly different than those of inner-city
families.
To justify the selection of these CESA regions for participation, literally all except CESA
1 that encompasses Milwaukee, the statement above regarding the sample of students is
pertinent. Since there are significantly fewer private school options for students in smaller
communities throughout the majority of the State of Wisconsin, it is believed that student
academic achievement data is more representative of a wider range of students than those of
studies that occur in large metropolitan areas by virtue of the fact that students of affluent
families and/or families that place higher value on education do not have the option of placing
their children in private schools.
Instrumentation
Four assessments were utilized to collect data: the Principal Instructional Management
Rating Scale (PIMRS), a self-report survey principals completed to measure and identify
instructional leadership behaviors; the Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale
(PIMRS) rater survey for teachers used to compare with principal’s responses on the PIMRS
self-report as it parallels the PIMRS self-report principal form; the Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire (MLQ-5X Self Report) to identify and measure the existence of transformational
leadership behaviors in principals; and the MLQ-5X rater form, teacher survey for their
respective principal to compare with the principal’s response on the MLQ-5X self-report.
Demographic information for principals was included at the beginning of the principal PIMRS

69
survey and teacher demographic information was included at the beginning of the teacher
PIMRS survey.
Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale.
The PIMRS provides measurement in ten instructional leadership job functions:
• frame the school goals
• communicate the school goals
• supervise and evaluate instruction
• coordinate the curriculum
• monitor student progress
• protect instructional time
• maintain high visibility
• provide incentives for teachers
• promote professional development
• provide incentives for learning.
Because the PIMRS instrument does not match directly to the Krug (1992) instructional
leadership construct the following aggregation of Hallinger’s ten job functions to Krug’s (1992)
model of instructional leadership was done for the purpose of determining whether principals
were exhibiting instructional leadership behaviors. Define mission was determined by: frame the
school goals and communicate the school goals. Manage curriculum and instruction was
determined by: coordinate the curriculum. Supervise and support teachers was determined by:
supervise and evaluate instruction, provide incentives for teachers, and promote professional
development. Monitor student progress was determined by: monitor student progress. Promote

70
instructional climate was determined by: protect instructional time, maintain high visibility, and
provide incentives for learning.
Hallinger (1999) stated that “it is important to note hat the PIMRS does not measure an
administrator’s effectiveness. Rather, it assesses the degree to which a principal is providing
instructional leadership” (p.6). Content validity for the PIMRS originated through Hallinger’s
efforts to develop an instrument designed to appraise the instructional management behavior of
elementary principals (Hallinger, 1982, p. 1). Table 1 provides average agreement on items
among the four judges in its initial creation process.
Table 1
Content Validation: Average Agreement on Items Among Judges
Subscale Number of Items Average Agreement
Frame Goals 6 91%
Communicate Goals 6 96%
Supervision/Evaluation 11 80%
Curricular Coordination 7 80%
Monitors Progress 8 88%
Protects Time 5 85%
Incentives for Teachers 4 100%
Professional Development 10 80%
Academic Standards 5 95%
Incentives for Learning 4 94%
(Hallinger, 1982) Permission granted to replicate.

71
The final version of the PIMRS does not include the subscale: academic standards. In the
final version the tenth subscale is: maintains high visibility. For the purpose of this study,
maintains high visibility is aggregated into the Krug model under the dimension: promote
instructional climate. Academic standards as a subscale did not really fit in the Krug model.
Table 2 lists the Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients for reliability estimates for the PIMRS
subscales. “The reliability of the instrument as a whole was not measured since the individual
subscales were conceptualized to represent related, but discrete functions” (p.8).
Table 2
Reliability Estimates for the Instructional Management Subscale
Subscale Reliability* Sample Size
Frame Goals .89 (77)
Communicate Goals .89 (70)
Supervision/Evaluation .90 (61)
Curricular Coordination .90 (53)
Monitors Student Progress .90 (52)
Protects Instructional Time .84 (70)
Visibility .81 (69)
Incentives for Teachers .78 (70)
Professional Development .86 (58)
Academic Standards .83 (76)
Incentives for Learning .87 (61)
* Reliability estimates are Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients (Hallinger, 1982)

72
The subscale, incentives for teachers, stands out with a rather low Cronbach alpha
reliability coefficient α = .78 with a sample of n = 70, but in this study this subscale is
aggregated with the subscales supervise and evaluate instruction α = .90 with a sample of n = 61
and promote professional development α = .86 with a sample of n = 58 so it should not have a
significant effect.
The Cronbach’s alpha reliability of the PIMRS instrument as a whole in its original form
for this study was α = .91 with a sample of n = 31. After the subscales were aggregated to fit the
Krug model of instructional leadership the Cronbach alpha reliability of the PIMRS instrument
as a whole was α = .92 with a sample of n = 31. The slight difference can be explained as a
result of the aggregation of subscale data. In the process of aggregating data the decimal places
can change as result of averaging 10 or 15 subscale questions verses the original five.
Construct validity of the instrument items was accomplished through a comparison of
perceptions collected by the PIMRS and related information contained in school documents such
as school goal statements, handbooks, principal newsletters, staff bulletins, staff meeting agendas
and minutes, and teacher evaluations (Hallinger, 1982). “Sufficient documentary data existed for
six of the eleven subscales: framing goals, communicating goals, supervision and evaluation of
instructions, monitoring student progress, encouraging professional development for teachers,
and providing incentives for student learning” (p. 11). Table 3 provides the subscale inter-item
correlation matrix.

73
Table 3
Subscale Inter-Item Correlation
FG CG SE CC MSP PIT V IT PD AS IL
FG (.89) .85 .47 .60 .54 .43 .39 .28 .45 .43 .46
CG (.89) .55 .57 .65 .50 .60 .37 .69 .59 .47
SE (.90) .57 .65 .50 .60 .37 .69 .59 .47
CC (.90) .73 .52 .60 .43 .64 .53 .58
MSP (.90) .65 .57 .40 .67 .60 .49
PIT (.84) .57 .37 .57 .65 .39
V (.81) .47 .69 .60 .57
IT (.78) .61 .53 .39
PD (.86) .69 .57
AS (.83) .54
IL (.87)
*All coefficients in parentheses are reliability estimates (Cronbach Alpha) FG - Frame Goals; CG – Communicate
Goals; SE – Supervision/Evaluation; CC – Curricular Coordination; MSP – Monitors Student Progress; PIT –
Protects Instructional Time; V – Visibility; IT – Incentives for Teachers; PD – Professional Development; AS –
Academic Standards; IL – Incentives for Learning
(Hallinger, 1982)
In table 3 the inter-item correlational factor between frame school goals and
communicate school goals; although a low inter-item correlational factor exists between
supervise and evaluate instruction and provide incentives to teachers, there is a good inter-item
correlational factor between evaluate instruction and promote professional development and a
high inter-item correlational factor between promote professional development and provide
incentives to teachers.; and although there is a low inter-item correlational factor between protect

74
instructional time and provide incentives to learn, there are strong inter-item correlational factors
between protect instructional time and maintain visibility and between maintain visibility and
provide incentives to learn. With these inter-item correlational factors the aggregation of these
subscales should provide fairly strong inter-item correlational factor.
The inter-item correlation matrix, calculated using the PASW Statistics 18, for the
PIMRS data prior to aggregation is shown in table 4.
Table 4
Subscale Inter-Item Correlation Matrix for this Study
FG CG SE CC MSP PIT V IT PD IL
FG 1.00 .51 .36 .33 .63 .45 .36 .49 .45 .41
CG 1.00 .61 .72 .74 .35 .54 .56 .67 .62
SE 1.00 .69 .69 .46 .43 .69 .52 .41
CC 1.00 .75 .40 .33 .62 .71 .62
MSP 1.00 .44 .45 .67 .61 .56
PIT 1.00 .40 .37 .39 .42
V 1.00 .33 .37 .42
IT 1.00 .40 .64
PD 1.00 .43
IL 1.00
FG - Frame Goals; CG – Communicate Goals; SE – Supervision/Evaluation; CC – Curricular Coordination; MSP –
Monitors Student Progress; PIT – Protects Instructional Time; V – Visibility; IT – Incentives for Teachers; PD –
Professional Development; IL – Incentives for Learning

75
There are noticeable differences between the original subscale, the original inter-item
correlation matrix, and the inter-item correlation matrix for this study. The number of cases
where coefficients so higher reliability is 15 and the coefficients that showed weaker results
numbered 31; however the original data had a considerably higher number of participants so
outliers weighted the results less. Furthermore, after the data had been aggregated, the inter-item
correlation factors were considerably stronger as shown in table 5 below.
Table 5
Subscale Inter-Item Correlation Matrix with Aggregation Depicting Krug Model
DI MCI SST MSP PIC
DI 1.00 .72 .78 .79 .69
MCI 1.00 .77 .75 .58
SST 1.00 .76 .68
MSP 1.00 .63
PIC 1.00
DI – Define Mission; MCI – Manage Curriculum and Instruction; SST – Supervising and Supporting; Teaching;
MSP – Monitor Student Progress; PIC – Promote the Instructional Climate
As expected, the inter-item correlation factors calculated after the data had been
aggregated into the Krug model are much stronger than in the original form. This results from
strong inter-item correlation factors that exist between the dimensions that were aggregated.
A summary of the criteria used to assess the adequacy of the PIMRS subscales developed
in 1982 is provided in Table 6.

76
Table 6
Criteria to Assess the Adequacy of the Instructional Management Rating Subscales
(Construct Validity)
Subscale Content Reliability Discriminant Intercor- Document
Validity Validity relations Analysis
Frames Goals Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Communicates Goals Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Monitor Student Progress Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Supervision/Evaluation Yes Yes Mixed Yes Mixed
of Instruction
Curricular Coordination Yes Yes Yes Yes ------
Protects Instructional Time Yes Yes Yes Yes ------
Visibility Yes Yes Yes Yes ------
Incentives for Teachers Yes Yes Yes Yes ------
Professional Development Yes Yes No Yes Mixed
Academic Standards Yes Yes No Yes ------
Incentives for Learning Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
(Hallinger, 1982)
Table 6 provides a composite of the validity and reliability testing that the PIMRS went
through upon its inception. Subscales demonstrated content validity, reliability using the
Cronbach’s alpha, discriminant validity, and inter-item correlational reliability. The PIMRS was
used in 76 projects through 1999.

77
The PIMRS and its’ rater form consist of 50 questions each. The 50 questions are
grouped in ten sections each containing five questions. In order, the sections are: Frame the
school goals, Communicate the school goals, Supervise and evaluate instruction, Coordinate the
curriculum, Monitor student progress, Protect instructional time, Maintain high visibility,
Provide incentives for teachers, Promote professional development, and Provide incentives for
learning. The self-report and teacher-rater forms are basically the same; the questions are
provided in the same order and worded the same. The only difference between the two forms is
the sentence prior to the first question on each form. The principal form states: “To what extent
do you . . . ?” and the teacher form states: “To what extent does your principal . . . ?”
Hallinger developed the instrument to assess instructional management of principal
behavior at the time. The PIMRS is used for formative assessment of district needs and principal
professional development in the realm of instructional leadership. The instrument has been
employed for principal evaluation.
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Form 5X-Short).
The instrument used to determine whether principals exhibited transformational
leadership for this study was the MLQ-5X (1995) short version. This instrument was developed
in response to criticisms of the MLQ-5R survey, an earlier version of this instrument (Avolio &
Bass, 1995). The MLQ-5X measures transformational and transactional leadership behaviors.
The transformational behaviors are:
• idealized influence, the leader communicates the vision and mission, develops relationships
based on respect and trust, and gains an individual identification from followers
• inspirational motivation, the leader talks optimistically about the future, generates enthusiasm
and confidence, and articulates the a vision for the future

78
• intellectual stimulation, the leader re-examines critical assumptions, encourages looking out
side the box for new solutions, and fosters creativity
• individualized consideration, the leader provides personal attention coaching and mentoring
followers, treats others as individuals in terms of needs, abilities, and aspirations, and helps
followers develops their strengths through professional development.
The transactional leadership behaviors are:
• contingent reward, the leader exchanges rewards for effort and agreed upon levels of
performance, sets goals and specifies what can be expected for goals that are met, and
expresses satisfaction when goals are met
• management-by-exception, the leader intervenes only when problems occur and focuses
attention on mistakes, irregularities, and deviations from standards.
In addition to transformational and transactional leadership behaviors, the MLQ-5x measures
the following leadership behaviors: laissez-faire, extra effort, effectiveness, and satisfaction.
Although this study specifically examined only transformational leadership behaviors in
conjunction with instructional leadership, post-hoc analysis did involve transactional behaviors.
The MLQ-5X contains 45 items. Respondents answer questions using a 5-point Likert
scale numbered zero through four: 0 – Not at all, 1 – Once in a while, 2 – Sometimes, 3 – Fairly
often, and 4 – Frequently, if not always.
The MLQ-5X self-report and rater form each consist of 45 questions and are quite
similar. Questions are ordered the same, but worded slightly different. Self-report questions
begin with the word “I”. Question one reads: “I provide others with assistance in exchange for
their efforts.” Rater-form questions are preceded by the phrase: “THE PERSON I AM RATING .
. .” and individual questions are changed slightly so they address the reader on a personal level.

79
Question one for the rater-form reads: “Provides me with assistance in exchange for my efforts.”
The 45 questions evaluate 12 areas. Ten areas have four questions each: Idealized Influence
(Attributed), Idealized Influence (Behavior), Inspirational Motivation, Individualized
Consideration, Contingent Reward, Management-by-Exception (Active), Management-by-
Exception (Passive), Laissez-faire, and Effectiveness. The other two areas are: Extra Effort and
Satisfaction. They have three and two questions respectively. Unlike the PIMRS, the questions
for the MLQ are not grouped in area sections.
The MLQ evaluates the frequency or to what degree raters observe or feel the leader they
are rating, in this case building principals, engage in 32 specific leadership behaviors. There are
items to rate leadership attributes included in the idealized attributes (Avolio & Bass, 1995).
“The behaviors and attributes form the nine components of transformational, transactional, or
Passive/Avoidant leadership” (p. 13). Leaders being rated, complete parallel survey instruments
based on their personal beliefs of their leadership behaviors and attributes.
Final estimates of reliabilities for the leadership factor scales range from α = .63 to α =
.92 in the initial sample set and from α = .64 to α = .92 for the replication set (Avolio & Bass,
1995). For this study the overall Cronbach’s alpha α = .88 for n = 4; this value included
transformational leadership behaviors only. The intercorrelational matrix is provided in table 7.

80
Table 7
Inter-Item Correlational Matrix for Transformational Behavior for this study
Idealized Inspirational Intellectual Individual
Influence Motivation Stimulation Consideration
Idealized Influence 1.00 .67 .83 .78
Inspirational Motivation 1.00 .43 .56
Intellectual Stimulation 1.00 .81
Individual Consideration 1.00
The inter-item correlational coefficients between inspirational motivation and intellectual
stimulation and between inspirational motivation and individual consideration are weak, but the
over-all Cronbach’s alpha was still fairly high; α = .88 well within Nunnally’s (1978) minimum
reliability of α = .70.
The overall Cronbach’s alpha for this study across the full range leadership construct is α
= .38. This low figure is due in part to negative correlations in the laissez-faire and
management-by-exception areas.
Date Analysis
This study used quantitative data analysis to examine the relationships between
instructional leadership in conjunction with transformational leadership and student achievement.
Data was analyzed using correlation approach.
The principal instructional management rating scale (PIMRS) was used to
determine if principals exhibited instructional leadership. Since Krug’s definition was used as
the determining factor for instructional leadership behavior on the part of principals, Hallinger’s

81
ten job functions of instructional leadership measured by the PIMRS were aggregated to fit
Krug’s (1992) model of instructional leadership as follows. Define mission was determined by
aggregating Hallinger’s frame the school goals and communicate the school goals. Manage
curriculum and instruction was determined directly by results of Hallinger’s coordinate the
curriculum. Supervise and support teachers was determined by aggregating Hallinger’s
development. Monitor student progress was determined directly by Hallinger’s monitor student
progress. And, promote instructional climate was determined by aggregating Hallinger’s protect
instructional time, maintain high visibility, and provide incentives for learning. Aggregation of
the dimensions of Hallinger’s model of instructional leadership to Krug’s model of instructional
leadership did not pose a problem. Subscale inter-item correlation with aggregation depicting
the Krug model resulted in higher inter-item correlation factors than in the original Hallinger
model form.
The Cronbach’s alpha reliability was calculated using PASW Statistics GradPack (SPSS-
18). The Cronbach alpha of the PIMRS instrument as a whole in its original form for this study
was α = .91 with a sample of n = 31. After the subscales were aggregated to fit the Krug model
of instructional leadership, post aggregation, the Cronbach’s alpha reliability, calculated using
SPSS-18, of the PIMRS instrument as a whole was α = .92 with a sample of n = 31. The slight
difference can be explained as a result of the aggregation of subscale data. In the process of
aggregating data the decimal places can change as result of averaging five verses the original 10
or 15 subscale questions. Criteria for determination of principals exhibiting instructional
leadership was determined upon ratings set at greater than 3.75 average on a 5.0 scale.

82
The Multifactor leadership questionnaire form 5-X short (MLQ-5X) was used to
determine if principals exhibited transformational leadership behaviors. Preliminary analysis
involved the use of Microsoft Office Excel 2003 to calculate principals (leaders) and teachers
(raters) means and standard deviations for comparison with normative study data from Avolio
and Bass (2004). Data collected for this study compared well with the normative data. This
indicated the MLQ data for this study was valid and reliable. To further identify the data as
reliable, SSPS-18 was used to calculate the Cronbach alpha for the four transformational
behaviors included in this study. The overall Cronbach’s alpha value was α = .88. Inter-item
correlation was also calculated using SPSS-18. Criteria for determination of principals
exhibiting transformational leadership was determined upon ratings set by Avolio and Bass
(2004) at greater than 3.0 average on a 4.0 scale.
Student achievement data was obtained directly from the Wisconsin Information Network
for Successful Schools (WINSS). The data used was three years (2008-2010) of Wisconsin
Knowledge and Concepts Exam (WKCE) testing results for fourth grade students from the
respective principal’s schools. The three years of data was averaged for each area, reading,
language arts, and math to provide a single value for correlation with leadership behaviors.
SPSS-18 was used to conduct the Pearson, Kendall tau-b, and Spearman rho correlation
analysis for hypothesis testing. Use of SPSS-18 enabled calculation of correlation between
student achievement and the two leadership constructs simultaneously. Testing involved the
principal group as a whole, n = 31, with WKCE data first. To verify the results of the first test
procedure, the scope of the subject areas was set with specific ranges that provided fairly even
distributions of scores within the data set. Reading and math was set at 0 to 79% proficient, 80
to 89% proficient, and 90 to 100% proficient. For the subject area language arts, the scope of the

83
range was set at 0 to 74% proficient, 75 to 84% proficient, and 85 to 100% proficient. By
subdividing the dependent variable in this fashion, an explanation of sorts could be derived to
demonstrate why no significant relationship occurred between the variables in hypotheses.
Correlations were then performed for men principals only, n = 14, and women principals
only, n = 17, using SPSS-18. Correlation analysis was conducted using Pearson, Kendall tau-b,
and Spearman rho tests.
Post-hoc analysis was also conducted using SPSS-18 Pearson correlation testing for other
leadership behaviors within the full-range leadership model including contingent reward,
management-by-exception active, management-by exception passive, and laissez-faire.
Limitations
The only realized limitation that occurred during the study involved the lack of willing
participation (n = 31). Well over 1000 principals who perform their duties in elementary schools
throughout Wisconsin were invited to participate. Not less than 9, unless a principal denied the
desire to participate via email, and as many as 13 invitations were sent to these principals.
Follow-up invitations were sent to principals one to three weeks apart to request participation
over a six month period.
The resulting limitation that is derived from low participation is that there is not enough
data to firmly address the research question as initially desired.
Unconfirmed variables may have been introduced such as the socioeconomic background
of students, teacher expertise, and other anomalies that may have skewed survey confounding
results and student achievement data collected.

84
Summary
The correlational approach was selected because it allowed for comparison of relations of
multiple independent variables on a single dependent variable. In this study the independent
variables were instructional leadership and transformational leadership. The dependent variable
was student academic achievement. The question for this study centered on the multiple
combinations of the two leadership constructs and the effect principal leadership behaviors have
on student achievement. The main concern for this study was if a correlation did exist between
leadership behavior and student achievement, would it be statistically significant?
The data collection procedure was carried out using Survey Monkey and attempted to
involve every elementary principal throughout the state with the exception of those in CESA 1,
the south eastern corner of the state consisting mainly of large metropolitan school districts.
Multiple attempts were carried out over a six month period to involve as many principals as
possible. Thirty-one principals actually participated, 14 male and 17 female.
Participating principals and their raters completed two surveys, the Principal Instructional
Management Rating Scale (PMIRS) and the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ-5X).
These instruments were used to determine whether principals exhibited behaviors for the two
leadership constructs. After principal leadership behaviors had been determined, analysis was
conducted using the SPSS PASW® Statistics GradPack 18 to determine if there was a
correlation with academic achievement. Fourth grade Wisconsin Knowledge and Concepts
Exam (WKCE) results from the past three year period was used as the dependent variable.
Results of this analysis are presented in the following chapter.

85
CHAPTER 4
ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
This study’s data was analyzed using correlation approach to determine if a relationship
existed between transformational leadership in conjunction with instructional leadership and
academic achievement. Instruments used to determine if principals exhibited instructional
leadership and transformational leadership were the Principal instructional management rating
scale (PIMRS) and Multifactor leadership questionnaire form 5-X short (MLQ-5X). The student
achievement data was obtained from the Wisconsin Information Network for Successful Schools
(WINSS).
This chapter provides details on the demographics of the study participants. A review of
the data collection procedure including an explanation of the response rate and problems
encountered throughout the process. Hypotheses testing is presented in-depth using three
correlation test measures.
Demographics
Well over 1000 elementary principals were invited with repeated attempts to generate
participation for this study. In all, there were 31 principal participants. From the original pool of
candidates, 106 principals took the time to start the survey process, 11 completed both surveys,
but did not provide any teachers to be surveyed; 27 others completed both surveys, but not
enough teachers would complete the surveys to enable the principals to be part of the study; four
principals completed the PIMRS, but did not complete the MLQ or provide teachers to survey;
and 33 simply did not get beyond or even complete the demographics section. The time frame to
generate the 31 participants took place over a six month time frame beginning in mid-May and
continuing through mid-November.

86
The demographics for the principal participants’ include years as principal, years at their
current school, and age.
Table 8
Years as Principals (n = 31)
Range of As Principals In Current
Years Position
2-4 9 (29.0) 6 (35.0)
5-9 11 (35.5) 9 (53.0)
10-15 6 (19.4) 2 (12.0)
15+ 5 (16.1) 0 (00.0)
Percentages are presented in parenthesis
The demographic make-up of the principal population participating in this study is
interesting from the perspective that significantly more principals with less experience elected to
participate.
Table 9
Principals’ Age (n = 31)
Age Count
31–35 2 (06.5)
36-40 8 (25.8)
41-45 5 (16.1)
46-50 7 (22.6)
51-55 5 (16.1)
56-60 4 (12.9)

87
There were 31 principal participants; 30 of these principals were Caucasian-White and
one was African-American.
Table 10
Women: Years as Principal (n = 17)
Range of Count In Current
Years Position
2-4 4 (23.5) 6 (35.0)
5-9 6 (35.0) 9 (53.0)
10-15 4 (23.5) 2 (12.0)
15+ 3 (18.0) 0 (00.0)
Table 11
Women Participant Principals’ Age (n=17)
Years of Age Count
31-35 0 (00.0)
36-40 4 (23.5)
41-45 2 (11.8)
46-50 5 (29.4)
51-55 3 (17.6)
56-60 3 (17.6)

88
There were 17 female principal participants; 16 of these principals were Caucasian-White
and one was African-American.
Table 12
Men: Years as Principal (n = 14)
Range of Count Years in Current
Years Position
2-4 5 (35.7) 7 (50.0)
5-9 5 (35.7) 4 (28.6)
10-15 2 (14.3) 3 (21.4)
15+ 2 (14.3) 0 (00.0)
Table 13
Men Principals’ Age (n = 14)
Years of Age Count
31-35 2 (14.3)
36-40 4 (28.6)
41-45 3 (21.4)
46-50 2 (14.3)
51-55 2 (14.3)
55-60 1 (07.2)

89
All men principal participants were Caucasian-White.
Table 14
Raters’ Years Working with Principal (n = 107)
Years with Count Years
Principal Teaching
1 7 (06.6) 1 (00.9)
2-4 56 (52.8) 8 (07.6)
5-9 36 (34.0) 28 (26.4)
10-15 5 (04.7) 23 (21.7)
15+ 2 (01.9) 46 (43.4)

90
Table 15
Rater Participants Age (n = 107)
Years of Age Count
25-30 11 (10.4)
31-35 18 (17.0)
36-40 22 (20.8)
41-45 12 (11.3)
46-50 16 (15.1)
51-55 23 (21.7)
56-60 1 (00.9)
61+ 3 (02.8)
The participant raters were represented by 85 Caucasian-White women, one American
Indian woman, one Hispanic woman, and 19 Caucasian-White men.
Data Collection Procedures
This data for this study comes from practicing elementary principals, their respective
teachers, and the three years (2008-2010) of WKCE testing results for fourth grade students from
the respective principals’ schools.
Five types of data were collected from study participants: Principal Instructional
Management Rating Scale self-report (PIMRS) for principals; Principal Instructional
Management Rating Scale for teachers; fourth grade WKCE testing data results; Multifactor

91
Leadership Questionnaire 5X Self Report (MLQ-5X) for principals; and Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire 5X rater form for teachers rating their principal.
From the original pool of well over 1,000 candidates, 106 principals took the time to start
the survey process, 11 completed both surveys (PIMRS and MLQ), but did not provide any
teachers to be surveyed; 27 others completed both surveys, but not enough teachers would
complete the surveys to enable the principals to be part of the study; 4 principals completed the
PIMRS, but did not complete the MLQ or provide teachers to survey; and 33 simply did not get
beyond or even complete the demographics section.
The original invitation went out to elementary principals in the northern half of the state
of Wisconsin. Due to low return, after the first two months, the geographic area was increased to
include all CESA regions except one and two. CESA one and two were not included initially to
avoid involving the large metropolitan areas of Milwaukee, Racine, Kenosha, and Madison.
Larger school districts have significantly greater recourses and face significantly different
challenges than districts in small to medium size communities. There was concern that variables
not being accounted for would skew results. However, a concession was made regarding
Madison shortly after the expansion involving the southern half of the state and CESA two was
invited to participate to expand participation.
Reasons for the low rate of participation are speculative in nature, but one reason
probably had to do with the fact that principals were just busy doing their jobs. A building level
principal answers to the superintendent and school board, but needs to address needs and issues
that come from students, teachers, paraprofessionals, aides, cooks, bus drivers, specialists,
custodians, parents, and community members. Several principals responded immediately citing

92
issues of major school reform projects they were taking on, end of the year issues, school start-up
work, etc.; principals basically said they were too busy to take the time to complete the surveys.
It was also possible that principals did not want teachers rating their leadership ability.
This speculation was generated from the fact that many principals who started the process quit
after they spent the time to read the introductory letter and IRB statement and began the survey
instruments.
The electronic acknowledgement and IRB informed consent of understanding may have
been a factor in the low participation rate. The informed consent was nearly four pages of
reading, 33 principals logged into the informed consent, but did not elect to begin the surveys.
Whether it was simply too long or its content convinced principals to not participate was purely
speculative.
It was equally difficult to get teacher rater participation. The fact that teachers were just
as busy as their principals was a factor. Some teachers took the time to email and politely state
they did not have time to participate. Some emailed stating they were concerned about
anonymity, regardless of the assurances provided in the cover letter and informed consent. One
teacher responded stating their union (building?) leaders instructed them to not participate.
Another issue with getting teachers to participate was in part due to the anonymity factor.
Since it was not possible to know which teachers agreed to participate among those who were
invited, repeat invitations had to be reworded and sent to all teachers of specific principals to
attempt to get the minimum number of teachers for rating purposes.
The assessment instrument process appeared to work well from the participant
perspective. No participants emailed questions or concerns regarding the process.

93
When participation was far less than anticipated, in October it was suggested by my
dissertation advisor, that I request the use of MLQ data from principal participants who had
participated in a research project performed by my colleague, Dr. Zhao Xia Xu, and to request
that these principals complete the PIMRS survey along with at least three or more of their
teachers and become part of this research project. Similar to the initial process, the method used
to recruit participants started with an explanatory email that identified the purpose and scope of
the research project (see Appendix C). This yielded only two more principal participants for this
study.
Participants were coded; principals were denoted with a double letter such as AA and
respective teachers were then coded as AA1, AA2, etc. A master list of participants has been
kept in a fire-proof safe at the home of the researcher and will remain there for a period of 5
years and remains confidential.
Preliminary Analytical Issues
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Form 5X Short) A comparison of leader and rater
simple statistics for the MLQ-5X including means (M) and standard deviations (SD) for
principals (leaders) and teachers (raters) were compared to normative study by Avolio and Bass
(2004).

94
Table 16
Leader and Rater Simple Statistics and Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Comparison
This Study *Normative Study
Leader (n=31) Rater (n=106) Leader (n=3375) Rater (n=13,829)
Attributes M SD M SD M SD M SD
II 2.98 0.51 3.08 0.68 2.99 0.59 2.75 0.72
IM 3.34 0.39 3.29 0.61 3.04 0.59 2.86 0.76
IS 2.98 0.50 2.64 0.89 2.96 0.52 2.74 0.71
IC 3.02 0.43 2.68 0.84 2.99 0.52 2.81 0.76
CR 2.76 0.62 2.79 0.83 2.99 0.53 2.86 0.68
MBEA 1.45 0.89 1.41 0.93 1.58 0.79 1.69 0.89
MBEP 0.81 0.56 1.09 0.89 1.07 0.79 1.03 0.75
LF 0.57 0.38 0.94 0.77 0.61 0.62 0.65 0.67
EE 2.81 0.57 3.03 0.89 2.79 0.61 2.71 0.86
EFF 3.17 0.50 3.11 0.81 3.14 0.51 3.05 0.74
SAT 3.32 0.45 3.22 0.78 3.09 0.55 3.08 0.82
Note. *Normative Study data (Avolio & Bass, 2004).
II = Idealized Influence; IM = Inspirational Motivation; IS = Intellectual Stimulation; IC = Individual Consideration;
CR = Contingent Reward; MBEA = Management-by-exception Active; MBEP = Management-by-exception
Passive; LF = Laissez Faire; EE = Extra Effort; EFF = Effectiveness; SAT = Satisfaction. Scale: 0 (Not at all) to 4
(Frequently, if not always)
An examination of the means and standard deviations between the data collected for this
study and that of the normative data study data (Avolio & Bass, 1995) were very close. For

95
leaders, the areas of contingent reward and management-by-exception passive show the most
divergence within the means. For raters, the areas of idealized influence, inspirational
motivation, management-by-exception active, laissez-faire, and extra effort show the most
divergence within the means. It is unknown why these divergences occurred. For the attributes of
management-by-exception and laissez-faire it may have resulted due to the negative inter-item
correlations in the laissez-faire and management-by-exception scores. These differences were not
significant, but note worthy.
Final estimates of reliabilities for the leadership factor scales for the MLQ-5X short
ranged from α = .63 to α = .92 in the initial sample set and from α = .64 to α = .92 for the
replication set (Avolio & Bass, 1995). For this study the overall Cronbach’s alpha α = .88 for n
= 31; this value included transformational leadership behaviors only. The inter-item correlation
matrix was provided in Table 7.
The inter-item correlation coefficients between inspirational motivation and intellectual
stimulation and between inspirational motivation and individual consideration were weak, but
the over-all Cronbach’s alpha for transformational leadership behaviors only was still fairly high;
α = .88.
The overall Cronbach’s alpha for this study across the full range leadership construct is α
= .38. This low figure was due in part to negative inter-item correlations in the laissez-faire and
management-by-exception attributes. The Cronbach’s alpha for full range leadership in this
study does not meet Nunnally’s (1978) minimum reliability of α = .70.
The criteria for determination of principals exhibiting transformational leadership were
set as follows. For this study, principals had to be rated at greater than 3.0 average (Avolio &
Bass, 2004) on a 4.0 scale, for three of the four dimensions idealized influence, inspirational

96
motivation, intellectual stimulation, or individualized consideration. Setting the threshold at
greater than 3.0 comes directly from the manual for the assessment manual. To average greater
than 3.0, raters must rank leaders to exhibit the behaviors within the subscale as being at least 3
which is fairly often and at least one person must rank the leader at 4 which is frequently if not
always.
Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale. The PIMRS provides measurement in
ten instructional leadership job functions: frame the school goals, communicate the school goals,
supervise and evaluate instruction, coordinate the curriculum, monitor student progress, protect
instructional time, maintain high visibility, provide incentives for teachers, promote professional
development, and provide incentives for learning.
Because the PIMRS instrument does not match directly to the Krug (1992) instructional
leadership construct, the following aggregation of Hallinger’s ten job functions to Krug’s (1992)
model of instructional leadership was done for the purpose of determining whether principals
were exhibiting instructional leadership behaviors. Define mission was determined by: frame the
school goals and communicate the school goals; manage curriculum and instruction was
determined by: coordinate the curriculum; supervise and support teachers was determined by:
development; Monitor student progress was determined by: monitor student progress; and
promote instructional climate was determined by: protect instructional time, maintain high
visibility, and provide incentives for learning.
The aggregation of these dimensions did not create a reliability issue. Table 2 listed the
Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients for reliability estimates for the PIMRS subscales. The lowest
subscale Cronbach’s measure was for the attribute incentives for teachers α = .78 with n = 70. In

97
this study this subscale was aggregated with the subscales supervise and evaluate instruction α =
.90 with a sample of n = 61 and promote professional development α = .86 with a sample of n =
58 and fell well within Nunnally’s (1978) minimum reliability of α = .70.
The Cronbach’s alpha reliability of the PIMRS instrument as a whole in its original form
for this study was α = .91 with a sample of n = 31. After the subscales were aggregated to fit the
Krug model of instructional leadership, post aggregation, the Cronbach’s alpha reliability of the
PIMRS instrument as a whole was α = .92 with a sample of n = 31. The slight difference can be
explained as a result of the aggregation of subscale data. In the process of aggregating data the
decimal places can change as result of averaging five verses the original 10 or 15 subscale
questions.
Hallinger (1999) stated that “it is important to note that the PIMRS does not measure an
administrator’s effectiveness. Rather, it assesses the degree to which a principal is providing
instructional leadership” (p.6).
There were noticeable differences between the original subscales of the normative inter-
item correlation matrix and the inter-item correlation matrix for this study. The number of cases
where coefficients had higher reliability is 15 and the coefficients that showed weaker results
numbered 31, however the original data had considerably higher number of participants so
outliers in this study may account for the differences. This is likely to be true since after the data
had been aggregated, the inter-item correlation factors were considerably stronger as show in
Table 5.

98
Table 5
Subscale Inter-Item Correlation Matrix with Aggregation Depicting Krug Model
DI MCI SST MSP PIC
DI 1.00 .72 .78 .79 .69
MCI 1.00 .77 .75 .58
SST 1.00 .76 .68
MSP 1.00 .63
PIC 1.00
DI – Define Mission; MCI – Manage Curriculum and Instruction; SST – Supervising and Supporting; Teaching;
MSP – Monitor Student Progress; PIC – Promote the Instructional Climate
Post aggregation inter-tem correlation had two factors which stood out. First between
frame school goals and communicate school goals; although a low inter-item correlational factor
existed between supervise and evaluate instruction and provide incentives to teachers, there was
good inter-item correlational factor between evaluate instruction and promote professional
development and a high inter-item correlational factor between promote professional
development and provide incentives to teachers. Second, between protect instructional time and
provide incentives to learn, but there were strong inter-item correlational factors between protect
instructional time and maintain visibility and between maintain visibility and provide incentives
to learn. With these inter-item correlational factors the aggregation of these subscales provided
fairly strong inter-item correlational factors after data was aggregated. Table 5 presents the post
aggregation inter-item correlation matrix. The inter-item correlation factors presented in Table 5
were significantly higher than the inter-item correlation factors prior to data aggregation.

99
The determining criteria for principals exhibiting instructional leadership were set as
follows. For this study, principals had to be rated at greater than 3.75 average on a 5.0 scale on
three out five dimensions of instructional leadership; defining mission, managing curriculum and
instruction, supervising and supporting teaching, monitoring student progress, and promoting
instructional climate. The decision to use 3.75 on a 5.0 scale was made to be proportionally
consistent with the threshold set by Avolio and Bass (2004) for the MLQ-5X.
Hypothesis Testing
PASW® Statistics GradPack 18 was used for statistical analysis. Initial observations of
the raw data suggested there would not be any correlation to support any of the four hypotheses.
Three individual tests were performed from multiple avenues on the data set. The three
tests utilized were the Pearson Correlation test, Kendall’s tau-b Correlation test, and Spearman’s
rho Correlation test. The Pearson correlation coefficient represents a value between -1.0 and 1.0
where -1.0 is a perfect negative (inverse) correlation and 1.0 is a perfect positive correlation.
Essentially, the Pearson correlation test determines if a linear relationship exists between
variables. Using the SPSS PASW® Statistics GradPack 18 enabled calculation of the correlation
of student achievement measured by WKCE data with two independent variables, instructional
leadership and transformational leadership, simultaneously. This was also true for Kendall’s tau
and Spearman’s rho correlation tests. Kendall’s tau and Spearman’s rho were two accepted
measures of rank correlations to measure the strength of a relationship between two variables
(Statistics Solutions, 2009). Correlation values for Kendall’s tau and Spearman’s rho are
represented by values ranging between -1.0 and 1.0.
Elimination of Hypotheses for Testing

100
Hypothesis two involving leaders who exhibit transformational leadership and do not
exhibit instructional leadership was omitted in table form throughout the study because there
were no principals who exhibited transformational leadership and did not exhibit instructional
leadership.
Since there were no principals in the data set who exhibited transformational leadership
and did not exhibit instructional leadership hypotheses two and four can not be tested and
therefore were not addressed throughout the hypotheses testing section.
Table 17 represents Pearson Correlation results for principal leadership behaviors.
Table 17
Pearson Correlation Matrix on Hypotheses
(n = 31) WKCE WKCE WKCE
Reading Lang Arts Math
Ho1: Transformational & Instructional r .159 .102 .117
Sig. .392 .586 .531
Ho3: Not Transformational & Instructional r -.201 -.135 -.192
Sig. .257 .471 .300
Ho4: Not Transformational or Instructional r .014 .009 .040
Sig. .942 .961 .830
*p < .01, two tails
**p < .05 two tails
For hypothesis one, principals exhibiting three out of five dimensions of instructional
leadership and exhibit effective transformational leadership will have student bodies that out
perform other schools in terms of academic achievement as measured by WKCE results, a

101
correlational analysis of the data revealed that there is no relationship for all included subject
areas with, n = 31, *p < .01, **p < .05, two tails. This Pearson correlation test result did not
provide statistically significant supportive evidence to suggest that principals exhibiting both
transformational leadership and instructional leadership had student bodies that out performed
other schools in terms of academic achievement as measured by WKCE results. The correlation
for principals who performed both transformational and instructional leadership was not
statistically significant. Therefore, hypothesis one was not supported.
For hypothesis three, principals exhibiting three out of five dimensions of instructional
leadership and exhibit effective transformational leadership will have student bodies that out
perform other schools in terms of academic achievement as measured by WKCE results, a
correlational analysis of the data revealed a negative correlation for all included subject areas.
This Pearson correlation test result did not provide statistically significant supportive evidence to
suggest that principals who do not exhibit transformational leadership and do exhibit
instructional leadership would have student bodies that out performed schools whose principal
did not exhibit instructional leadership and did not exhibit effective transformational leadership
in terms of academic achievement as measured by WKCE results. Furthermore, although the
data was not statistically significant, the results show that principals who exhibited instructional
leadership and did not exhibit effective transformational leadership not only did not out perform
schools in terms of academic achievement as measured by WKCE results where principals did
not exhibit transformation or instructional leadership. Hypothesis three was not supported.
Hypotheses one, three, and four were analyzed using Kendall’s tau-b correlation for
principal leadership behaviors.

102
Table 18
Kendall’s tau-b Correlation Matrix on Hypotheses
Ho1: Transformational & Instructional r . 238 .122 .154
Sig. . 117 .421 .312
Ho3: Not Transformational & Instructional r -.076 .019 -.167
Sig. . 617 .900 .271
Ho4: Not Transformational or Instructional r -.169 -.133 -.015
Sig. . 266 .382 .921
*p < .01, two tails
**p < .05 two tails
For hypothesis one, a correlational analysis of the data revealed no statistically significant
supportive evidence to suggest that principals exhibiting both transformational leadership and
instructional leadership would have student bodies that out performed other schools in terms of
academic achievement as measured by WKCE results. The correlation for principals who
performed both transformational and instructional leadership was not statistically significant.
The results were consistent with Pearson data for principals who exhibited both transformational
and instructional leadership. Hypothesis one was not supported.
For hypothesis three, the Kendall correlation test result does not provide statistically
significant supportive evidence to suggest that principals who do not exhibit transformational
leadership and do exhibit instructional leadership would have student bodies that out performed
schools whose principal did not exhibit instructional leadership and did not exhibit effective

103
transformational leadership in terms of academic achievement as measured by WKCE results.
Furthermore, although the data was not statistically significant, the results show that principals
who exhibit instructional leadership and did not exhibit effective transformational leadership not
only did not out perform schools in terms of academic achievement as measured by WKCE
results where principals did not exhibit transformation or instructional leadership, they actually
have a negative correlation in the areas of reading and math subject areas. This was not
completely consistent with the Pearson results in terms of r magnitude or positive-vs.-negative
relationship, but the results do parallel the Pearson results. Hypothesis three was not supported.
The Kendall correlation test result did show that all three subject areas demonstrated
negative relationship for principals who did not exhibit transformational leadership and did not
exhibit instructional leadership, where the Pearson results showed all three subject areas to have
positive, but weak correlations. Although there is a positive relationship, it is not statistically
significant. For hypothesis three this was not completely consistent with the Pearson results in
terms of r magnitude or positive-vs.-negative relationship, but the results do parallel the Pearson
results.
Data for hypotheses one, three, and four were analyzed with Spearman’s rho Correlation
results for principal leadership behaviors.

104
Table 19
Spearman’s rho Correlation Matrix on Hypotheses
Ho1: Transformational & Instructional r . 286 .147 .185
Sig. .118 .430 .320
Ho3: Not Transformational & Instructional r -.091 .023 -.201
Sig. . 625 .903 .279
Sig. . 274 .391 .923
*p < .01, two tails
**p < .05 two tails
For hypothesis one, the data revealed that there were positive relationships with all
subject areas, but the Spearman correlation test result did not result in statistically significant
supportive evidence to suggest that principals who exhibited both transformational leadership
and instructional leadership had student bodies that out performed other schools in terms of
performed both transformational and instructional leadership was a positive relationship, but not
statistically significant. The results were consistent with Kendall data for principals who
exhibited both transformational and instructional leadership. Hypothesis one was not supported.
For hypothesis three, a correlational analysis of the data revealed that there was negative
relationship for reading and math subject areas and a weak, but positive relationship for language
arts. This Spearman correlation test result did not provide statistically significant supportive

105
evidence to suggest that principals who did not exhibit transformational leadership and did
exhibit instructional leadership would have student bodies that out perform schools whose
principal did not exhibit instructional leadership and did not exhibit effective transformational
leadership in terms of academic achievement as measured by WKCE results. Furthermore,
although the data was not statistically significant, the results show that principals who exhibited
instructional leadership and did not exhibit effective transformational leadership not only did not
out perform schools in terms of academic achievement as measured by WKCE results where
principals did not exhibit transformation or instructional leadership, they actually had a negative
relationship in the areas of reading and math subject areas. This was consistent with the Kendall
results in terms of r magnitude and positive-vs.-negative relationship and the results paralleled
the Pearson results. Hypothesis three was not supported.
The Spearman correlation test result did show that all three subject areas were negative
relationships for principals who did not exhibit transformational leadership and do not exhibit
instructional leadership, where the Pearson results showed all three subject areas to have
positive, but weak relationship. The results were consistent with the Kendall test results in terms
of r magnitude or positive-vs.-negative relationship, and the results paralleled the Pearson
results.
The results of hypotheses one, three, and four Pearson correlations were correlated with
specific WKCE subject area score ranges.

106
Table 20
Pearson Correlation Matrix on Hypotheses with specific WKCE score ranges (n=31)
Reading WKCE WKCE WKCE
90+% 80-89% 0-79%
Ho1: Transformational & Instructional r . 295 -.226 -.084
Ho3: Not Transformational & Instructional r -.022 -.179 .299
Ho4: Not Transformational or Instructional r -.267 .360 -.156
Language Arts WKCE WKCE WKCE
85+% 75-84% 0-74%
Ho1: Transformational & Instructional r .155 .053 -.239
Ho4: Not Transformational or Instructional r -.131 .017 .130
Math WKCE WKCE WKCE
90+% 80-89% 0-79%
Ho1: Transformational & Instructional r .065 -.079 -.079
Ho3: Not Transformational & Instructional r .011 -.163 .186
*p < .01, two tails
**p < .05 two tails
For the subject areas of reading and math the scope of the three ranges was set at 0 to
79% proficient, 80 to 89% proficient, and 90 to 100% proficient. For the subject area language
arts the scope of the range was set at 0 to 74% proficient, 75 to 84% proficient, and 85 to 100%

107
proficient. These ranges of scores were set purposely to provide a fairly even distribution of
scores within the data set. By subdividing the dependent variable in this fashion, an explanation
of sorts could be derived to demonstrate why no significant relationship occurred between the
variables in hypotheses.
It is important to note that the samples within each range were relatively small for this
type of data analysis; therefore no significant inferences can be drawn. What was evident in
each table was a numerical explanation as to why the correlations were so weak within the
overall data set. The dependent variable, WKCE data, was divided into three sub-dependent
variables. The result was the separation of the overall relationship between the independent
variables, transformational leadership and instructional leadership, and dependent WKCE
variable. In every case there would be either one positive correlation and two negative
correlations or two positive correlations and one negative correlation that exemplified the
separation of data within each WKCE subject area variable.
An examination of the data for hypothesis one for reading, language arts, and math from
Table 18, demonstrated positive relationship for WKCE scores on the high end of proficiency in
each area. This explained the positive relationship in each area from earlier analysis. Seeing the
negative relationship in reading at r = -.266 (80-89%) verses the positive relationship r = +.295
(90-100%) exemplified why the correlation was weak in previous tables for principals who
exhibited both transformational and instructional leadership.
An examination of the data for hypothesis three in each area, reading, language arts, and
math in Table 18, demonstrated a negative relationship for WKCE scores on the high end of
proficiency in the areas of reading and language arts and a significant negative relationship r = -
.163 in the 80 to 89% proficient column that far outweighs the r = +.011 positive relationship on

108
the high end. This provided an explanation for the negative relationship for principals who did
not exhibit transformational leadership, but did exhibit instructional leadership. For reading,
there are negative relationships r = -.022 (90-100%) and r = -.179 (80-89%) to off set what was
actually a stronger positive r = +.299 (0-79%) relationship. Language arts was similar; r = -.022
(85-100%) and r = -.085 (75-84%) combine to off set the stronger positive relationship r = .126
(0-74%) correlation to arrive with an overall negative relationship. The dissection of the math
variable provided the most interesting example of why the overall data set arrived at a negative
relationship. Although the positive r = +.011 (90-100%) and r =+.186 (0-79%) relationship
clearly out weighed the r = -.163 (80-89%) negative relationship, the negative relationship splits
the positive relationship and the r = -.163 (80-89%) relationship out weighs the r = +.011 (90-
100%).
Hypotheses one, three, and four were analyzed with Kendall’s tau-b Correlation results
for principal leadership behaviors to specific WKCE score ranges.
Similar to the Pearson correlation results, it was noted that the small samples with in each
range were more sensitive in the Kendall test than the Pearson test by virtue of the manner with
which the coefficients were calculated; therefore no significant inferences can be drawn.

109
Table 21
Kendall’s Correlation Matrix - Hypotheses with specific WKCE score ranges (n=31)
90+% 80-89% 0-79%
Ho4: Not Transformational or Instructional r -.267 .360* -.156
85+% 75-84% 0-74%
Math WKCE WKCE WKCE
90+% 80-89% 0-79%
*p < .01, two tails
**p < .05 two tails
An examination of the data for hypothesis one for reading, language arts, and math,
shows a positive relationship between for WKCE scores on the high end of proficiency in each
area which was similar to the Pearson test analysis. This explained the positive relationship for

110
each area in earlier analysis tests; and reaffirmed the results in the Pearson correlation testing.
The negative relationship demonstrated in reading scores at r = -.226 (80-89%) verses the
positive relationship r = +.295 (90-100%) exemplified why the relationships were weak yet
positive in previous reported results for principals who exhibited both transformational and
instructional leadership.
An examination of the data for hypothesis three in each area, reading, language arts, and
math, shown in Table 19, demonstrates a negative relationship between WKCE scores on the
high end of proficiency in the areas of reading and language arts and a significant negative
relationship r = -.163 in the 80 to 89% proficient column that far outweighs the r = +.011
positive relationship on the high end. This was identical to results of the Pearson correlation
demonstrated in Table 18. It reaffirmed the explanation for the negative relationship between for
principals who did not exhibit transformational leadership, but did exhibit instructional
leadership. For reading, there were negative relationships r = -.022 (90-100%) and r = -.179 (80-
89%) to off set what was actually a stronger positive relationship r = +.299 (0-79%). Language
arts results were similar; r =-.022 (85-100%) and r = -.085 (75-84%) combined to off set the
stronger relationship r = +.126 (0-74%) to arrive with an overall negative relationship all of
which were identical to Pearson’s Table 18 results. The dissection of the math variable provided
the most interesting example of why the overall data set arrived at a negative relationship.
Although the positive relationship r = +.011 (90-100%) and r = +.186 (0-79%) clearly out
weighed the negative relationship r = -.163 (80-89%), the negative relationship splits the positive
and the r = -.163 (80-89%) relationship out weighed the r = +.011 (90-100%); once again the
Kendall results were identical to Pearson’s Table 18 results.

111
Hypotheses one, three, and four were analyzed with Spearman’s rho Correlation results
for principal leadership behaviors to specific WKCE score ranges.
Similar to the Pearson and Kendall analysis results, it should be noted that the small
sample with in each range was more sensitive in the Spearman test than the Pearson test by
virtue of the manner with which the coefficients were calculated; therefore no significant
inferences can be drawn.

112
Table 22
Spearman’s rho Correlation Matrix on Hypotheses with specific WKCE score ranges
(n = 31) 90+% 80-89% 0-79%
Ho4: Not Transformational or Instructional r -.267 .360* -.156
(n = 31) 85+% 75-84% 0-74%
Math WKCE WKCE WKCE
(n = 31) 90+% 80-89% 0-79%
*p < .01, two tails
**p < .05 two tails
The Spearman correlation matrix with specific WKCE score ranges in Table 20 was
identical to the Pearson Table 18 and Kendall Table 19 correlation matrixes with the individual

113
WKCE areas split with specific ranges. This reaffirmed how the data was distributed to arrive at
the correlation coefficients in the Pearson correlations Table 15.
Pearson Correlation results for hypotheses one, three and four for men principal
leadership behaviors were analyzed.
Table 23
Pearson Correlation Matrix on Hypotheses for Men Principals (n = 14)
WKCE WKCE WKCE
Sig. .077 .293 .097
Sig. .113 .326 .176
Sig. .720 .845 .660
*p < .01, two tails
**p < .05 two tails
For hypothesis one, an analysis of the data revealed that there is strong positive
relationship for all included subject areas. The SPSS program did not demonstrate that the
Pearson correlation test for men principals resulted in statistically significant supportive evidence
to suggest that principals exhibiting both transformational leadership and instructional leadership
had student bodies that out performed other schools in terms of academic achievement as
measured by WKCE results. However, the correlation for principals who performed both

114
transformational and instructional leadership was the strongest positive relationship within this
study. Therefore, hypothesis one was not supported for men principals.
relationship for all included subject areas. This Pearson correlation test result did not provide
statistically significant supportive evidence to suggest that men principals who did not exhibit
transformational leadership and did exhibit instructional leadership had student bodies that out
perform schools whose principal do not exhibit instructional leadership and does not exhibit
effective transformational leadership in terms of academic achievement as measured by WKCE
results. Furthermore, although the data was not statistically significant, the results show that
principals who exhibited instructional leadership and did not exhibit effective transformational
leadership not only did not out perform schools in terms of academic achievement as measured
by WKCE results where principals did not exhibit transformation or instructional leadership,
they actually had a negative relationship in all three areas of the WKCE subject areas. However,
the results for men principals varied significantly from the overall Pearson Table 15 results. The
negative relationship results for men principals were nearly double the overall results. The
reading data for men principals demonstrated a relationship of r = -.442 and the overall r = -.201.
Hypothesis three was not supported for men principals.
The Pearson correlation test result did demonstrate that all three subject areas have
negative relationships for men principals who did not exhibit transformational leadership and did
not exhibit instructional leadership, where the overall Pearson correlation results had small, but
positive relationships.
Kendall’s tau-b Correlation analysis results for hypotheses one, three and four for men

115
Table 24
Kendall’s tau-b Correlation Matrix on Hypotheses for Men Principals (n = 14)
WKCE WKCE WKCE
Sig. .053 .350 .096
Sig. .392 .755 .186
Sig. .245 .518 .606
*p < .01, two tails
**p < .05 two tails
For hypothesis one, an analysis of the data revealed that there was a positive relationship
for all included subject areas. This Kendall correlation test result did not provide statistically
significant supportive evidence to suggest that men principals who exhibited both
transformational leadership and instructional leadership had student bodies that out performed
other schools in terms of academic achievement as measured by WKCE results. The correlation
for principals who performed both transformational and instructional leadership was a positive
relationship, but not statistically significant. The results were consistent with Pearson data for
men principals who exhibited both transformational and instructional leadership. There was a
fairly strong relationship in the area of reading. Hypothesis one was not supported for men
principals.

116
relationship across all subject areas. This Kendall correlation test result did not provide
transformational leadership and did exhibit instructional leadership would have student bodies
that out performed schools whose principal did not exhibit instructional leadership and did not
exhibit effective transformational leadership in terms of academic achievement as measured by
WKCE results. Furthermore, although the data was not statistically significant, the results show
that men principals who exhibited instructional leadership and did not exhibit effective
transformational leadership not only did not out perform schools in terms of academic
achievement as measured by WKCE results where principals did not exhibit transformation or
instructional leadership, they actually had a negative relationship across all subject areas. This
was not completely consistent with the Pearson results in terms of r magnitude or positive-vs.-
negative relationship, but the results paralleled the Pearson results. Hypothesis three was not
supported.
The Kendall correlation test result did show that all three subject areas were negative
relationships with principals who did not exhibit transformational leadership and did not exhibit
instructional leadership, where the Pearson results demonstrated all three subject areas to have a
positive, but weak relationship. As stated above in the hypothesis three result description, this
was not completely consistent with the Pearson results in terms of r magnitude or positive-vs.-
negative relationship, but the results paralleled the Pearson results.
Spearman’s rho Correlation analysis results for hypotheses one, three and four for men

117
Table 25
Spearman’s rho Correlation Matrix on Hypotheses for Men Principals (n = 14)
WKCE WKCE WKCE
Sig. .048 .371 .096
Sig. .414 .769 .197
Sig. .261 .540 .625
*p < .01, two tails
**p < .05 two tails
For hypothesis one, an analysis of the data revealed that there was a positive relationship
across included subject areas. This Spearman correlation test result did not provide statistically
significant supportive evidence to suggest that men principals exhibiting both transformational
leadership and instructional leadership would have student bodies that out performed other
schools in terms of academic achievement as measured by WKCE results. The relationship for
men principals who performed both transformational and instructional leadership was positive,
but not statistically significant. The results wee consistent with Kendall data for principals who
exhibited both transformational and instructional leadership. Hypothesis one was not supported.
relationship for all subject areas. This Spearman correlation test result did not provide

118
transformational leadership and did exhibit instructional leadership had student bodies that out
performed schools whose principals did not exhibit instructional leadership and did not exhibit
effective transformational leadership in terms of academic achievement as measured by WKCE
results. Furthermore, although the data was not statistically significant, the results demonstrated
that men principals who exhibited instructional leadership and did not exhibit effective
transformational leadership not only did not out perform schools in terms of academic
instructional leadership, they actually had a negative relationship across all subject areas. This
was consistent with the Kendall results in terms of r magnitude and positive-vs.-negative
relationship and the results paralleled the Pearson results. Hypothesis three was not supported.
The Spearman correlation test result did show that all three subject areas have negative
relationship with men principals who did not exhibit transformational leadership and did not
exhibit instructional leadership, where the overall Pearson results demonstrated all three subject
areas to have positive, but weak relationships. The results were consistent with the Kendall test
results in terms of r magnitude or positive-vs.-negative relationship, and the results paralleled the
Pearson results.
Pearson Correlation analysis results for hypotheses one, three and four for women

119
Table 26
Pearson Correlation Matrix on Hypotheses for Women Principals (n = 17)
WKCE WKCE WKCE
Ho1: Transformational & Instructional r -.066 -.042 -.114
Sig. .802 .873 .663
Sig. .815 .870 .802
Ho4: Not Transformational or Instructional r .110 .073 .160
Sig. .675 .781 .541
*p < .01, two tails
**p < .05 two tails
For hypothesis one, correlation among the data revealed that there was weak negative
relationship across all subject areas. The Pearson correlation test for women principals resulted
in no statistically significant supportive evidence to suggest that principals exhibiting both
transformational leadership and instructional leadership would have student bodies that out
performed other schools in terms of academic achievement as measured by WKCE results.
Furthermore, the principals who performed both transformational and instructional leadership
was a negative relationship across all subject areas within this study. Therefore, hypothesis one
was not supported for women principals.
relationship across all subject areas. This Pearson correlation test result did not provide
statistically significant supportive evidence to suggest that women principals who did not exhibit

120
transformational leadership and did exhibit instructional leadership would have student bodies
that out performed schools whose principal did not exhibit instructional leadership and did not
exhibit effective transformational leadership in terms of academic achievement as measured by
WKCE results. Furthermore, although the data was not statistically significant, the results
demonstrated that women principals who exhibited instructional leadership and did not exhibit
effective transformational leadership did not out perform schools in terms of academic
instructional leadership, they had a negative relationship across all three areas of the WKCE
subject areas. However, the results for women principals vary quite a bit from the overall
Pearson Table 15 results. The negative relationship for women principals were nearly one-third
the overall results. For example, with reading, women principals coefficient r = -.062 and the
overall coefficient r = -.201. Hypothesis three was not supported for men principals.
The Pearson correlation test result does show that all three subject areas had positive
relationships for women principals who did not exhibit transformational leadership and did not
exhibit instructional leadership, where the overall Pearson correlation results demonstrated small,
but positive relationships and Pearson correlation results for men principals had negative
relationships across all subject areas.
Kendall’s tau-b Correlation analysis results for hypotheses one, three and four for women

121
Table 27
Kendall’s tau-b Correlation Matrix on Hypotheses for Women Principals (n = 17)
WKCE WKCE WKCE
Sig. .688 .801 .763
Ho3: Not Transformational & Instructional r .026 .103 -.053
Sig. .900 .614 .801
Ho4: Not Transformational or Instructional r -.101 -.132 .101
Sig. .603 .531 .630
*p < .01, two tails
**p < .05 two tails
For hypothesis one, a correlational analysis of the data revealed that there was positive
relationships in reading and language arts subject areas and a small, but negative relationship in
math. This Kendall correlation test result did not provide statistically significant supportive
evidence to suggest that women principals exhibiting both transformational leadership and
instructional leadership would have student bodies that out performed other schools in terms of
performed both transformational and instructional leadership was positive for reading and
language arts, but not statistically significant. The results were not consistent with Pearson data
for men principals who exhibited both transformational and instructional leadership. The
relationships were significantly weaker than the relationships for men principals in both the

122
Pearson data for men principals and the Kendall data for men principals. Hypothesis one was
not supported for women principals.
For hypothesis three, a correlational analysis of the data revealed that there was weak, but
positive relationship in reading and language arts and a negative relationship in math. This
Kendall correlation test result did not provide statistically significant supportive evidence to
suggest that women principals who did not exhibit transformational leadership and did exhibit
instructional leadership would have student bodies that out performed schools whose principal
did not exhibit instructional leadership and did not exhibit effective transformational leadership
in terms of academic achievement as measured by WKCE results across all subject areas.
However, the results demonstrated that women principals who exhibited instructional leadership
and did not exhibit effective transformational leadership did out perform schools in terms of
academic achievement as measured by WKCE results where principals did not exhibit
transformation or instructional leadership in the areas of reading and language arts by small
margins, r = .127 and r = .233 respectively, but there was a negative relationship in the math
subject area. This was not consistent with the Pearson results in terms of r magnitude or
positive-vs.-negative relationship and the results did not parallel the Pearson results. Hypothesis
three was not supported for women principals.
The Kendall correlation test result demonstrated that reading and language arts subject
areas had a negative relationship while math had a positive relationship for principals who did
not exhibit transformational leadership and did not exhibit instructional leadership, where the
Pearson results demonstrated all three subject areas had positive, but weak relationships. As
stated in the hypothesis three result description, the Kendall results for women principals were

123
not consistent with the Pearson results in terms of r magnitude or positive-vs.-negative
relationship and the results did not parallel the Pearson results.
Spearman’s rho Correlation analysis results for hypotheses one, three and four for women
Table 28
Spearman’s rho Correlation Matrix on Hypotheses for Women Principals (n = 17)
WKCE WKCE WKCE
Sig. .701 .811 .774
Ho3: Not Transformational & Instructional r .031 .126 -.063
Sig. .904 .630 .810
Ho4: Not Transformational or Instructional r -.120 -.156 .120
Sig. .646 .549 .646
*p < .01, two tails
**p < .05 two tails
For hypothesis one, an analysis of the data revealed that there was positive relationship
for reading and language arts subject areas and a negative relationship for math. This Spearman
correlation test result did not provide statistically significant supportive evidence to suggest that
women principals exhibiting both transformational leadership and instructional leadership would
have student bodies that out performed other schools in terms of academic achievement as
measured by WKCE results. The correlation for women principals who performed both
transformational and instructional leadership was positive for the areas of reading and language

124
arts, but not statistically significant. The results were consistent with Kendall data for women
principals who exhibited both transformational and instructional leadership. Hypothesis one was
not supported.
For hypothesis three, a correlational analysis of the data revealed there was a positive
relationship for the subject areas of reading and language arts and a negative relationship for the
math subject area. This Spearman correlation test result did not provide statistically significant
supportive evidence to suggest that women principals who did not exhibit transformational
leadership and did exhibit instructional leadership would have student bodies that out performed
schools whose principal did not exhibit instructional leadership and did not exhibit effective
transformational leadership in terms of academic achievement as measured by WKCE results.
The data demonstrated that women principals who exhibited instructional leadership and did not
exhibit effective transformational leadership did out perform schools in terms of academic
instructional leadership in the areas of reading and language arts by a small margin, r = 151 and r
= 282 respectively. This was consistent with the Kendall results for women principals in terms
of r magnitude and positive-vs.-negative relationship and the results paralleled the Pearson
results. Hypothesis three was not supported.
The Spearman correlation test result demonstrated that reading and language arts subject
areas had negative relationships for women principals who did not exhibit transformational
leadership and did not exhibit instructional leadership, where the overall Pearson results
demonstrated across all three subject areas to have positive, but weak relationships. The results
were consistent with the Kendall test results for women principals in terms of r magnitude or
positive-vs.-negative relationship. The results did not parallel the overall Pearson results.

125
Post-hoc Analysis: Although the absence of instructional leadership and transformational
did not equate or translate to laissez-faire leadership, the question of laissez-faire surfaced. Men
principals who did not exhibit transformational or instructional leadership had negative
relationship across all three subject areas. Women principals who did not exhibit
transformational or instructional leadership had a positive relationship across all three subject
areas. This raised the question: How do principals who exhibited the absence of instructional
and transformational leadership correlate with student achievement?
Pearson Correlation analysis results on laissez-faire principal leadership behaviors.
Table 29
Pearson Correlation Matrix on Laissez-faire for Principals (n = 31)
WKCE WKCE WKCE
r .075 .160 .146
Sig. .690 .391 .433
*p < .01, two tails
**p < .05 two tails
The data revealed that there was a positive relationship across all subject areas. This
Pearson correlation test result did not provide statistically significant supportive evidence to
suggest that principals exhibiting laissez-faire leadership would have student bodies that out
performed other schools in terms of academic achievement as measured by WKCE results.
However, although there was no statistically significant supportive evidence to suggest it, the
results did demonstrate that principals who exhibited laissez-faire leadership may out perform
principals who exhibited instructional leadership, but did not exhibit transformational leadership.

126
Pearson Correlation analysis results on laissez-faire principal leadership behaviors for
women.
Table 30
Pearson Correlation Matrix on Laissez-faire for Women Principals (n = 17)
WKCE WKCE WKCE
r -.124 .005 -.120
Sig. .635 .985 .647
*p < .01, two tails
**p < .05 two tails
The correlation coefficients for the areas of reading and math for women principals who
exhibited laissez-faire leadership were not consistent with relationships for women principals
who did not exhibit transformational or instructional leadership behaviors. The relationships
were small, but positive for all three curricular areas for female principals who did not exhibit
transformational or instructional leadership. Although the coefficients were not statistically
significant, the negative coefficients, r = -.124 for reading and r = -.120 for math may suggest
that women principals who did not exhibit transformational or instructional leadership may still
have student bodies which out performed student bodies of women principals who exhibited
laissez-faire leadership behavior in terms of academic achievement.
Pearson Correlation analysis results on laissez-faire principal leadership behaviors for
men.

127
Table 31
Pearson Correlation Matrix on Laissez-faire for Men Principals (n = 14)
WKCE WKCE WKCE
r .295 .306 .528
Sig. .306 .287 .052
*p < .01, two tails
**p < .05 two tails
The relationships across all subject areas were fairly high, r = +.295, r = +.306, and r =
+.528 for reading, language arts, and math respectively, for men principals who exhibit laissez-
faire leadership, but not statistically significant. These results were not consistent with the
relationships demonstrated by the men principals who did not exhibit transformational or
instructional leadership behaviors. The relationships were negative across all three subject areas
for female principals who did not exhibit transformational or instructional leadership. Although
the relationships were not statistically significant across all subject areas, the relationships for
men who exhibited laissez-faire leadership behavior may suggest that men principals who did
not exhibit laissez-faire leadership behavior would have student bodies which out performed
student bodies of men principals who did not exhibit transformational or instructional leadership
in terms of academic achievement.
The only analysis conducted that provided statistically significant results was conducted
for management-by-exception passive. Pearson Correlation analysis results on management-by-
exception passive principal leadership behaviors.

128
Table 32
Pearson Correlation Matrix on management-by-exception passive for Principals (n = 31)
WKCE WKCE WKCE
r .515** .479** .567**
Sig. .003 .005 .001
*p < .01, two tails
**p < .05 two tails
An analysis of the data revealed that there was a positive relationship across all subject
areas with, n = 31, *p < .01, **p < .05, two tails. This Pearson correlation test result provided
statistically significant supportive evidence with p < .05 (two tails) to suggest that principals
exhibiting management-by-exception passive leadership would have student bodies that out
performed other schools in terms of academic achievement as measured by WKCE results. As
this was a post-hoc analysis, there are no hypotheses to examine, but the results of this analysis
will be discussed in chapter five.
Summary of Results
No statistically significant relationships ware determined between instructional leadership
and transformational leadership and higher student academic achievement for the hypotheses in
this study.
The process for this study had issues in terms of principal and teacher participation; due
to the low return rate. Finding willing participants was difficult. The final 31 principal
participants and 107 teacher raters took six months to achieve. Of the 106 principals who took
the time to start the survey process, 11 completed both surveys, but did not provide any teachers

129
to be surveyed. Twenty-seven others completed both surveys, but not enough teachers would
complete the surveys to enable the principals to be part of the study. Four principals completed
the PIMRS, but did not complete the MLQ or provide teachers to survey; and 33 simply did not
get beyond or even complete the demographics section.
Finding no results demonstrating principals who did exhibit transformational leadership
and did not exhibit instructional leadership within the pool of participants prevented analysis of
hypotheses two and four.
What is clear from this study is that the results here, utilizing the transformational
leadership construct developed by Bass and Avolio (1995), did not mirror those of Leithwood
and Jantzi (1992) who developed a construct of transformational leadership specifically defined
for educational administrators. Nor did the results mirror those of the study that used Bass and
Avolio (1995) construct for transformational leadership in Tanzania. Although none of the
studies referred to here considered both instructional and transformational leadership in tandem
and the manner with which the studies were performed varied, it would have been expected to
see stronger relationships exist between principals who exhibited transformational leadership and
high academic achievement given the results of the research that occurred previously.
A post-hoc analysis of management-by-exception passive was conducted and provided
the only statistically significant relationship within this study, though not hypothesized.

130
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY and CONCLUSION
principals lead and more importantly if principal leadership fostered high student achievement.
The study focused on the principal’s role in providing instructional leadership as defined by
Krug (1992), transformational leadership as defined by Bass and Avolio (1995), specifically in
the context of elementary education, and measured the effect principal leadership had on student
achievement. No statistically significant relationships were found. As it turned out, the data
collected in this study contradicts previous studies involving instructional leadership and
transformational leadership constructs.
Within the realm of elementary school principal leadership, this study used a
correlational approach to examine the relationships between transformational leadership
developed and operationalized by Bass and Avolio (1995) and instructional leadership as defined
by Krug (1992) in relation to academic achievement measured by Wisconsin Knowledge and
Concepts Exam (WKCE). Significant research conducted between the mid 1960’s and 1990’s on
instructional leadership throughout the evolution of the effective schools movement provided
significant evidence that principals who exhibited instructional leadership had student bodies that
outperformed the student bodies of principals who lacked attentiveness to attributes of
instructional leadership.
• Austin (1978), Process Evaluation: A Comprehensive Study of Outliers.
• Bossert, Dwyer, Rowan, & Lee (1982), The Instructional Management Role of the
Principal.
• Bridges (1982), Research on the School Administrator: The State of the Art, 1967-1980.

131
• Brookover & Lezotte (1979), Changes in School Characteristics Coincident with
Changes in Student Achievement.
• D’Amico (1982), The Effective Schools Movement: Studies, Issues, and Approaches.
• Edmonds (1982), Programs of School Improvement: An Overview.
• Fleming & Buckles (1987), Implementing School Improvement Plans: A Directory of
Research-Based Tools.
• Hallinger (2005), Instructional Leadership and the School Principal: A Passing Fancy that
Refuses to Fade Away.
• Hallinger (2008), Methodologies for Studying School Leadership: A Review of 25 Years
of Research Using the Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale.
• Hallinger & Heck (1998), Exploring the Principal’s Contribution to School Effectiveness:
1980-1995.
• Hallinger & Heck (1998), Exploring the Principal’s Contribution to School Effectiveness:
1980-1995.
• Krug (1990), Leadership and Learning: A Measurement-Based Approach for Analyzing
School Effectiveness and Developing Effective School Leaders.
• Krug (1990), Current Issues and Research Findings in the Study of School Leadership.
• Krug (1992), Instructional leadership: A Constructivist Perspective.
• Krug (1992), Instructional Leadership, School Instructional Climate, and Student
Learning Outcomes.
• Kyle (1985), Reaching for Excellence: An Effective Schools Sourcebook.
• Leithwood & Montgomery (1982), The Role of the Elementary School Principal in
Program Improvement.

132
• Lezotte (1992), Learn from Effective Schools.
• Mace-Matluck (1986), Research-Based Tools for Bringing about Successful School
Improvement.
• Murphy, Hallinger, & Mitman (1983), Problems with Research on Educational
Leadership: Issues to be Addressed.
• New York State Department of Education (1974), School Factors Influencing Reading
Achievement: A Case Study of Two Inner City Schools.
• New York State Department of Education (1976), Three Strategies for Studying the
Effects of School Process.
• Rutter, Maughan, Mortimore, Ouston, & Smith (1979), Fifteen Thousand Hours:
Secondary Schools and their Effects on Children.
• Weber (1971), Inner-City Children can be Taught to Read: Four Successful Schools.
From the early 90’s to the present, research focused more on how principals do what they
do rather than what they do. This shift in the study and research of leadership in general took
place as transformational leadership came to the forefront.
• Barnett, McCormick, & Conners (2001), Transformational Leadership in Schools:
Panacea, Placebo, or Problem?
• Estapa (2009), The Relationship Between the Transformational Leadership
Characteristics of Principals, as Perceived by Teachers, and Student Achievement on
Standardized Tests.
• Gulbin (2008), Transformational Leadership: Is it a Factor for Improving Student
Achievement in High Poverty Secondary Schools in Pennsylvania.

133
• Hallinger (2003), Leading Educational Change: Reflections on the Practice of
Instructional and Transformational Leadership.
• Leithwood & Jantzi (1999), Transformational School Leadership Effects: A Replication.
• Leithwood & Jantzi (1999) The Effects of Transformational Leadership on
Organizational Conditions and Student Engagement with School.
• Leithwood & Jantzi (2000), The Effects of Transformational Leadership on
Organizational Conditions and Student Engagement with School.
• Leithwood & Jantzi (2006), Transformational School Leadership for Large Scale
Reform: Effects on Students, Teachers, and their Classroom Practices.
• Leithwood, Jantzi & Fernandez (1993), Secondary School Teachers’ Commitment to
Change: The Contributions of Transformational Leadership.
• Leithwood & Steinbach (1993), Total Quality Leadership: Expert Thinking Plus
Transformational Practice.
• Liontos (1993), Transformational Leadership: Profile of a High School Principal.
• Mills (2008), Leadership and School Reform: The Effects of Transformational
Leadership on Missouri Assessments.
• Nguni, Sleegers, & Denessen (2006), Transformational and Transactional Leadership
Effects on Teachers’ Job Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment, and Organizational
Citizenship Behavior in Primary Schools: The Tanzanian Case.
• Philbin (1997), Transformational Leadership and the Secondary School Principal.
• Ross & Gray (2006) Transformational Leadership and Teacher Commitment to
Organizational Values: The Mediating Effects of Collective Teacher Efficacy.

134
• Verona & Young (2001), The Influence of Principal Transformational Leadership Style
on High School Proficiency Test Results in the New Jersey Comprehensive and
Vocational High Schools.
This resulted in what this researcher believes was a jump or gap in the research with
respect to leadership in the K-12 educational arena. Since 1990, there is little doubt that
transformational leadership needs to be studied, however leadership is a combination of what
leaders do as well as how they do it and perhaps the why behind their action and behaviors.
This study did not yield the number of participants originally desired. However, the
effort and short comings further explains the need to find a better understanding of what change
is necessary in the way principals are trained in terms of leadership for the PK-12 educational
arena. This effort should inspire greater attention for research in this area of leadership specific
to the instructional leadership model in conjunction with the effects of transformational
leadership and perhaps full range leadership.
Difficulties finding willing participants may be a testament to how busy principals and
teachers are or perhaps an illustration of how unprepared principals are for what is expected from
them since finding the final 31 participants took six months.
Discussion
Previous research demonstrated that instructional leadership had a statistically significant
relationship on student academic achievement (Andrews & Soder, 1987; Brookover, & Lezotte,
1979; D’Amico, 1982; Edmonds, 1979; Edmonds, 1982; Edmonds & Frederiksen, 1997;
Frederiksen, 1980; Hallinger & Heck, 1998; Klitgaard & Hall, 1974; Krug, 1992b; Mace-
Matluck, 1987; New York State Department of Education, 1974; Weber, 1971; Whitaker, 1997).
This study does not support the claim that principals who exhibit instructional leadership, as

135
defined by Krug (1992), have student bodies which perform academically higher than student
bodies of principals who do not exhibit instructional leadership. This study offers evidence to
suggest that principals who exhibit instructional leadership may actually have a negative
relationship with higher student achievement.
Previous research has demonstrated that transformational leadership had a statistically
significant relationship on student academic achievement outcomes (Leithwood & Jantzi, 1999a;
Liontos, 1993; Lyles, 2009; Marks & Printy, 2003; Mills, 2008), however the results were not
consistent. There is research that suggests that transformational leadership has no statistically
significant relationship on student achievement outcomes (Doward, 2009; Estapa, 2009; Gulbin,
2008; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2006). This study offers evidence to suggest that principals who
exhibit transformational leadership did show small positive relationships to all three curricular
areas, as measured by the Wisconsin Knowledge and Concept Exam (WKCE), of r = +.159 for
reading, r = +.102 for language arts, and r = +.117 for math. These results are brought to light
within the results of the first hypothesis test results.
Hypothesis One
The first hypothesis states that principals exhibiting three out of five dimensions of
instructional leadership and exhibit effective transformational leadership will have student bodies
that out perform other schools in terms of academic achievement as measured by WKCE results.
Although there were no statistically significant results, Pearson correlation analysis demonstrates
a positive relationship between principals who exhibit both instructional and transformational
leadership and each of the three Wisconsin Knowledge and Concept Exam (WKCE) core areas
while there is negative relationship across all three WKCE areas for principals who exhibit
instructional leadership, but do not exhibit transformational leadership and extremely low

136
relationships for principals who do not exhibit transformational or instructional leadership. This
suggests that transformational leadership may be an integral part of how principals need to
approach their duties. Though the results are relatively weak because of sample size the first
hypothesis is not supported statistically. However, examining Kendall’s tau-b and Spearman’s
rho correlation tests reinforce this hypothesis as an inference. Kendall and Spearman results
demonstrate stronger positive relationships across each of the three WKCE core areas for
principals who exhibit both instructional and transformational leadership constructs. Further, the
negative relationships for reading and math are weaker in the Kendall and Spearman test results
than the negative relationships in the Pearson’s correlations for principals who do not exhibit
transformational leadership, but do exhibit instructional leadership and a positive relationship
exists for language arts. The results demonstrate consistency which helps to establish the
validity in the Pearson test results. Given the results it is suggested that further study is
warranted, particularly since the participation in this study was low.
The analysis by gender does not hold up in this study. Pearson results for men
participants demonstrated a strong relationship, again not statistically significant across all three
WKCE areas, particularly for reading and math for principals who exhibit both instructional and
transformational leadership. It also held true that all three WKCE areas resulted in negative
relationships for men principals who exhibited instructional leadership, but did not exhibit
transformational leadership. Women principal participants are not only weak relationships
across all three WKCE areas for women principals who exhibited both instructional and
transformational leadership, results actually demonstrate a negative relationship across all three
areas. The results for women principal participants who exhibited instructional leadership, but
did not exhibit transformational leadership are also negative relationships across all three WKCE

137
areas and are nearly equal to the results of women principals who exhibited both instructional
and transformational leadership.
An examination of the Kendall and Spearman correlation tests by gender reinforces the
men principal findings and offers a slight improvement for women principals. The results for
men principals were consistent with that of the Pearson results. The women principal Kendall
and Spearman results varied from the Pearson correlations somewhat, however this was expected
because these correlation tests are more sensitive with small n factors. In both the Kendall and
Spearman tests, the results for women principals who exhibited instructional and
transformational leadership provided extremely weak, but positive relationships for both reading
and language arts. Both Kendall and Spearman results still resulted in weak, but negative
relationships in math for women principals who exhibited both instructional and transformational
leadership. Interestingly, the Kendall and Spearman results also provided weak, but positive
results for women principals who exhibited instructional leadership, but did not exhibit
transformational leadership. One might infer that it is important for men principals to exhibit
transformational leadership where it appears to have little to no effect for women principals or
that instructional leadership is not effective in conjunction with transformational leadership for
women principals. The difference in results between women principals who exhibit both
instructional and transformational leadership and women principals who exhibit instructional,
but do not exhibit transformational are quite close. Women who exhibited both instructional and
transformational leadership had relationships r = -.066 for reading, r = -.042 for language arts,
and r = -. 114 for math and women principals who exhibited instructional, but did not exhibit
transformational had relationships r = -.062 for reading, r = -.043 for language arts, and r = -.066
for math.

138
What is most disturbing about these results is that the results contradict thirty plus years
of research regarding instructional leadership. Going back as far as Weber (1971) there was
clear evidence that factors such as strong leadership, high expectations, a good school climate,
careful evaluation of student progress, and an emphasis on reading had significant impact on
student achievement. By the late 1970’s there appeared to be four common characteristics of
successful schools within research: a school climate conducive to learning and generally free of
disciplinary issues, a school-wide emphasis on mastery of basic skills in reading and math; a
common belief that all children can learn; and instructional objectives are based on minimal
expectations of basic skills mastery and there are student achievement monitoring assessments in
place to insure students received further instruction (Austin, 1978; Brookover and Lezotte, 1977;
Edmonds, 1979; Edmonds and Frederiksen, 1979; Frederiksen, 1980; and Rutter, Maughan,
Mortimore, Ouston, & Smith, 1979). Edmonds (1982) later came forward suggesting that
leadership should be a fifth characteristic in this list; “the leadership of the principal [is] notable
for substantial attention to the quality of instruction” (p. 6). Furthermore, Bossert, et al. (1982)
suggest that studies to this point also indicated that the conditions created in the characteristics of
successful schools are in large part due to school principals who are perceived to be “strong
pragmatic leaders” (p. 35). From that point forward instructional leadership took on a meaning,
instructional leadership began to encompass characteristics of successful schools that principals
were primarily responsible for ensuring. By the early 1990’s the list of characteristics an
instructional leader exhibited still varied slightly, but there was general consensus on five
dimensions: “defining mission, managing curriculum and instruction, supervising and supporting
teaching, monitoring student progress, and promoting instructional climate” (Krug, 1992b, p. 5).

139
It is possible that there is a certain amount of dissatisfaction generated among staff when
instructional leadership is institutionalized without the existence of transformational leadership at
the core of delivery, but it seems unlikely that it would consistently exhibit negative correlations
to higher student achievement within a pool of random participants. This finding could not be
simply explained.
Hypothesis Two
The second hypothesis states principals exhibiting effective transformational leadership
and not exhibiting three out of five dimensions of instructional leadership will have student
bodies that out perform schools whose principal does not exhibit effective transformational
leadership and do not exhibit three out of five dimensions of instructional leadership in terms of
academic achievement as measured by WKCE results. Since there was not a single principal
participant in the pool who exhibited transformational leadership and did not exhibit instructional
leadership the second hypothesis could not be tested.
The fact that there were no principal participants who exhibited transformational
leadership and did not exhibit instructional leadership may suggest that the effective schools
movement had a positive effect on the way principals are prepared for the PreK-12 arena.
Perhaps all principals are made aware of such necessary dimensions of leadership (or school
management) that fall under the responsibility of the principal regardless of the type of
leadership they exhibit, just not necessarily how to accomplish it. Unfortunately, no inference
can be made here. The inference can not be made because, of the 31 principal participants, 14
were determined not to exhibit instructional leadership. Nearly half the principals involved in
this study did not exhibit instructional leadership. Though difficult to believe, but that is what
the data results demonstrated. Now there is no guarantee the PIMRS will identify principals who

140
delegate dimensions of instructional leadership to other staff will be identified as exhibiting
instructional leadership thus maybe the principals were seeing to it that the dimensions of
instructional leadership were occurring through a delegation process, but that is one of the
limitations of the instrument that can not be addressed here. Perhaps through an extensive
number of case studies where such irregularities could be readily identified it is possible that the
results would show improvement, but that would be highly speculative.
Hypothesis Three
The third hypothesis stated principals exhibiting three out of five dimensions of
instructional leadership and do not exhibit effective transformational leadership will have student
bodies that out perform schools whose principal do not exhibit three out of five dimensions of
instructional leadership and does not exhibit effective transformational leadership in terms of
academic achievement as measured by WKCE results. This hypothesis also failed to hold true.
Here again, the Pearson correlations for principals who exhibited instructional leadership, but did
not exhibit transformational leadership all had negative relationships with factors for each of the
three WKCE areas of instruction. Principals who did not exhibit instructional or
transformational leadership had extremely weak, but positive relationships across each of the
WKCE instructional areas. Therefore the hypothesis failed to hold true. What was interesting
here was that the results of the Kendall tau-b and Spearman rho were consistent with each other
as expected, but they were not completely consistent with the Pearson correlations. In both the
Kendall and Spearman tests, the WKCE areas of reading and language arts were in fact slightly
higher for principals who exhibited instructional leadership and not transformational than
principals who did not exhibit either leadership construct. In the area of math, the results of the
Kendall and Spearman correlation tests were consistent with the Pearson correlation although in

141
both cases, both correlations were negative. In no way would this infer there is any evidence to
support the hypothesis however.
Examining the data for hypothesis three by gender was somewhat different, yet still did
not provide support for hypothesis three. The Pearson data for the men principals had a slightly
larger difference than that of the overall Pearson results. In the case of the men only data,
relationships across all three WKCE subject areas for both principals who do exhibit
instructional and do not exhibit transformational leadership and for principals who fail to exhibit
instructional or transformational are negative relationships. Furthermore, similar to the overall
Pearson correlations the relationships for principals who did not exhibit instructional or
transformational leadership were much closer to zero, thus actually opposite the hypotheses. The
Kendall and Spearman results were similar to one another as expected, but varied from the
Pearson results. This may be due to the low number of participants in this sub-group. As it turns
out, the Kendall and Spearman results actually show stronger relationships with principals who
exhibited instructional leadership and did not exhibit transformational leadership for both
reading and language arts, although still not for math, but again, the relationships are negative
across all three WKCE subject areas. Here again hypothesis three is not supported. The
difference between the Pearson results and those of the Kendall and Spearman results are
probably due to the sensitivity of the Kendall and Spearman calculations with small sample
sizes.
In the case of women principals the Pearson correlations are fairly similar. The
relationships with women only participants are negative across all three WKCE subject areas for
principals who exhibited instructional leadership, but did not exhibit transformational leadership
and are quite small, but positive relationships across all three WKCE subject areas for women

142
principals who did not exhibit instructional or transformational leadership. Here again,
hypothesis three is not supported. What is interesting is that we see a similar dynamic to that of
the men principal participants in the Kendall and Spearman results. In the area of reading and
language arts we see a reversal of data results for women principals along these lines. In the
Kendall and Spearman results there were small, but positive relationships with principals who
exhibited instructional leadership, but did not exhibit transformational leadership and small, but
negative relationships with women principals who did not exhibit instructional or
transformational leadership thus suggesting there may be some small support for hypothesis
three for women principals. Here again, like the mens’ findings, in the area of math, Kendall and
Spearman results are consistent with the Pearson results for women principals who exhibited
instructional leadership, but did not exhibit transformational leadership there was a negative
relationship and there was a positive relationship for women principals who did not exhibit
instructional or transformational leadership. Given the inconsistencies between the Pearson
results and the Kendall and Spearman results, it can not be suggested there is support of
hypothesis three. Similar to the discrepancy in the men principal data between Pearson
correlations and both Kendall and Spearman correlation results, it can be suspected that the
inconsistency in results for women principals between the test results was due to the small
number of participants since the Kendall and Spearman tests tend to be less valid when used on a
small sample from a numerical analysis perspective.
Hypothesis Four
The fourth hypothesis stated that principals exhibiting effective transformational
leadership attributes and do not exhibit three out of five dimensions of instructional leadership
will have student bodies that out perform schools with a principal exhibiting three out of five

143
dimensions of instructional leadership and not exhibiting effective transformational leadership in
terms of academic achievement as measured by WKCE results. However, the difference will be
marginal; not statistically significant. Here again, since there were no principals who exhibited
transformational leadership, but did exhibit instructional leadership, hypothesis four could not be
tested.
Post-Hoc Testing Involving Laissez-faire Leadership
With 14 principals out a pool of 31 participants that did not exhibit instructional
leadership or transformational leadership was rather surprising. What if principals who did not
exhibit instructional or transformational leadership were seen by their raters as a representation
of lack of leadership or laissez-faire? The analysis for the group was done as a whole and by
gender.
The results of the group as a whole for principals who exhibit laissez-faire leadership
behavior had positive Pearson correlation coefficients across all subject areas of r = +.075 for
reading, r = +.160 for language arts, and r = +.146 for math. Although these results are not
statistically significant, they are larger than the relationships for principals who do not exhibit
transformational or instructional leadership of r = +.014 for reading, r = +.009 for language arts,
and r = +.040 for math.
There were relatively small, but positive Pearson correlation coefficients of r = +.110 for
reading, r = +.073 for language arts, and r = +.160 for math for women principals which did not
exhibit transformational or instructional leadership behaviors. This compared to r = -.124 for
reading, r = +.005 for language arts, and r = -.120 for math Pearson correlation results when
tested for laissez-faire leadership. Although there are similar results for language arts, there is a
clear difference for the results in reading and math.

144
There is a consistent negative relationship between higher student achievement in schools
with men principals across all three WKCE subject areas in which principals did not exhibit
instructional or transformational leadership. The Pearson correlations for the leadership
behaviors of these principals are r = -.105 for reading, r = -.058 for language arts, and r = -.129
for math. The Pearson correlations for men principals who exhibit laissez-faire leadership
behaviors are r = +.295 for reading, r = +.306 for language arts, and r = +.528 for math. Not
only was there a significant difference that suggests, as the women data showed, that there is
little or no link to the idea that the lack of instructional and transformational leadership can be
considered laissez-faire. The laissez-faire for men principals is a closer match to the leadership
relationships between men principals who exhibit both instructional and transformational
leadership. Pearson correlations for men principals who exhibit both instructional and
transformational leadership are r = +.488 for reading, r = +.302 for language arts, and r = +.462
for math. Men principals denoted as exhibiting laissez-faire leadership actually rank higher in
math and are within four thousands of the correlation coefficient in language arts. Significant
conclusions can not be drawn from these results since the pool of candidates is so small, but if
these results were found to be generalized on a large scale, it could raise questions as to whether
higher student achievement is linked to principal leadership at all.
Post-Hoc Testing Involving Management-by-Exception Passive
Each of the transactional leadership behaviors were tested using the Pearson correlational
test in post-hoc testing, but only one area of transactional leadership behavior provided
statistically significant results. A correlation of the data revealed that there is positive
relationship with all included subject areas with, n = 31, *p < .01, **p < .05, two tails.
Management-by-exception passive resulted in correlation coefficients of r = +.515** for reading,

145
r = +.479** for language arts, and r = +.567** for math. All three subject areas tested resulted
in significant findings that students performed academically higher in achievement for principals
who exhibited management-by-exception passive leadership behaviors. This is a form of
transactional leadership in which the principal intervenes only if standards are not met and only
take action after rules or policies are not followed or mistakes are brought to the principal’s
attention. This form of leadership is corrective in nature; the principal does not take corrective
action and foresee issues until after problems exist.
Implications
The extent of research, involving large samples, using Bass and Avolio’s construct of
transformational leadership are few in number in the PreK-12 administrative arena, extremely
few compared the number of studies that have been conducted for leaders in government,
business, and the military.
• Dorward (2009), A Study of the Relationship Between Principal Leadership Style and
Student Achievement.
• Fisher (2003), Effects of Principal Leadership Style on School Climate and Student
Achievement in Select Idaho Schools.
• Lyles (2009), An Examination of the Relationship Between the Leadership Styles of Blue
Ribbon School Administrators and Student Achievement.
• Mills (2008), Leadership and School Reform: The Effects of Transformational
Leadership on Missouri Assessments.
• Nguni, Sleegers, & Denessen (2006), Transformational and Transactional Leadership
Effects on Teachers’ Job Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment, and Organizational
Citizenship Behavior in Primary Schools: The Tanzanian Case.

146
• Niedermeyer (2003), The Relationship of Principal Leadership Style and Student
Achievement in Low Socio-Economic Schools.
• Verona & Young (2001), The Influence of Principal Transformational Leadership Style
on High School Proficiency Test Results in the New Jersey Comprehensive and
Vocational High Schools.
The research is even more limited when the effect of transformational leadership is considered in
conjunction with instructional leadership.
• Hallinger (2003), Leading Educational Change: Reflections on the Practice of
Instructional and Transformational Leadership.
• Marks & Printy (2003), Principal Leadership and School Performance: An Integration of
Transformational and Instructional Leadership.
Regardless of whether instructional leadership is considered a construct of leadership among
education programs focused on leadership or a composition of managerial functions of the
school principal, thirty plus years of research has demonstrated that principals need to perform in
these areas or at the very least delegate such responsibilities to others. It appears that there is
insufficient empirical research that has examined this relationship with transformational
leadership behaviors of building level principals in its original form and student achievement.
Further, it appears there is insufficient research involving instructional leadership in conjunction
with transformational leadership and its affect on student achievement.
Taken on face value, the implications of this study are found in the lack of supportive
evidence for the hypotheses. Previous research both supports and fails to support the idea that
there is a relationship between principals who exhibit transformational leadership and higher
student achievement. This study implies that principal leadership which exhibits

147
transformational leadership combined with instructional leadership in relation to student
achievement is not significant overall, but when examined by gender the results appear to be
different. Men principals who exhibit both leadership constructs demonstrated relationships with
academic achievement that were high, but not statistically significant. Women principals who
exhibit both leadership constructs demonstrated negative relationships with achievement. This
implies that men principals who exhibit both leadership constructs will have student bodies that
out perform the student bodies of men and women principals who do not exhibit these leadership
behaviors.
Furthermore, women principals who did not exhibit transformational leadership or
instructional leadership had small, but positive relationships with student achievement. This
implies that women principals who do not exhibit both leadership constructs will have student
bodies that will out perform the student bodies of women principals who do exhibit both
leadership construct behaviors.
Theoretical implications are found in the questions that arisen from this study. Why did
men principals who exhibit both transformational and instructional leadership have a stronger
relationship with high student achievement than women principals who exhibited both
instructional and transformational leadership? Are or should leadership behaviors within the
elementary principalship be gender specific?
Another question that comes to the forefront is why would principals who are exhibiting
instructional leadership and not exhibiting transformational leadership demonstrate a negative
relationship to higher student achievement after decades of research clearly demonstrating that
instructional leadership has been a sound component of academically higher achieving schools?

148
The implication here is that both what principals do and possibly more importantly how
principals do what they do and perhaps why should be the focus of further study.
On another note there is the possibility that another implication could be derived from
this study. Perhaps Weber had it correct from the beginning. Weber (1971) suggested that there
was clear evidence that strong leadership was at least one of the main factors for high academic
achieving schools. The implication is that transformational leadership may not be the answer,
but rather a more autocratic manner of leadership that benefits the followers in the leader-
follower relationship. Walberg investigated leadership in private schools; Walberg (2007) noted,
“The reason private schools excel is the way they are organized – strong principals with clear
academic visions, the freedom to adopt and pursue policies, etc.” (p. 69). It is possible that the
high performing schools have principals that may or may not appear to exhibit transformational
leadership, but tend to be autocratic when necessary. In theory it does not seem possible that an
autocratic leader could appear to exhibit transformational leadership, but pseudo-
transformational behavior could possibly account for such results.
The questions that come forth from this study may imply that perhaps methodological
issues may be at the center of some of the discrepancies between this study and past research.
Quantitative research of this nature provides data that is statistically significant or it is not; it
does not address the why questions. Perhaps future studies should be performed using a mixed
method where individual case studies are performed as follow-up to attempt to address the
questions that quantitative data brings forth.
Contribution of This Study
Since there were so few studies conducted first using Bass and Avolio’s construct of
transformational leadership in the realm of education and second using transformational

149
leadership in conjunction with instructional leadership it is difficult to point out specific
differences between this study and previous work. The findings of this study, although not
statistically significant, point toward a positive relationship between transformational leadership
in conjunction with instructional leadership and higher student achievement for men principals.
This study produced negative relationships for women principals exhibiting transformational and
instructional leadership with higher academic achievement. This demonstrates consistent
findings with previous work on the part of men principals, but contradicts previous research on
the part of women principals who have demonstrated positive results for transformational
leadership behavior. However, the majority of past research involving transformational
leadership used a construct developed by Leithwood and Jantzi that is similar, but not identical to
that of Bass and Avolio so it is difficult to suggest consistency at all.
An unexplainable point of contention lies within the results that show negative
relationships between principals who exhibit instructional leadership and do not exhibit
transformational leadership with higher academic achievement. It could be expected at the very
least that there would be a positive relationship between principals exhibiting instructional
leadership and high academic achievement. That was not the case. This is a point of contention
since there has been well over thirty years of cumulative research, some providing empirical
evidence, that instructional leadership is a key factor in schools that perform better academically.
So not only do the results of this study not clarify contradictions in previous research, the results
of this study provide greater contradictions. This was a completely unanticipated outcome
unable to be explained.
A significant contribution of this study came about as a result of post-hoc testing.
Management-by-exception passive provided the only statistically significant results that

150
demonstrate a relationship between leadership behavior and higher academic achievement.
Considerable more research that focuses on transactional leadership behavior would be necessary
to generalize this outcome.
From pure mathematical and logical reasoning it is understandable that for statistically
significant relationship between variables to exist, specifically high academic achievement in this
study there must be statistically significant correlations to explain low academic achievement.
However, to find negative relationships between leadership behavior for both transformational
leadership behavior and instructional leadership behavior was rather unnerving and
unexplainable. And then to find it may be gender related was more unexplainable. Though
previous research was not reviewed that addressed results by gender, previous research
contradicts these results or omits the negative correlational findings.
Limitations
Through the process of analyzing the data it became more and more evident that the
small pool of participants limited any possibility of making generalizations from the results. The
small pool of participants was a limiting factor from various perspectives. The hypotheses were
designed to address four unique combinations of transformational leadership and instructional
leadership. Since there were no participants who exhibited transformational leadership, but did
not exhibit instructional leadership, hypothesis two and four could not be addressed. The
hypotheses were to be addressed on a basis with the group as a whole and also by gender. The
whole group was small to begin with, 31, the sub-groups were very small, n = 14 for men and n
= 17 for women. Even if the results had demonstrated statistically significant results by gender,
the results would be inferences for further study at best given the nature of the analysis.

151
As with all correlational research, there is limited possibility of causal inferences. There
are a vast number of factors that can and do affect student achievement, directly and indirectly,
both positively and negatively. It is entirely possible that the results generated in this study are
dependent on factors that are not known or addressed in any way. Given the original pool of
well over a thousand possible participants invited to participate, it is within the realm of
possibilities that the 31 principals who agreed to participate come from some form of unique
sub-groups with specific characteristics that are not identified or addressed using the MLQ and
PIMRS surveys. It is possible that there are causal factors that have nothing to do with the
principals involved. Since it is believed within the research community that the conditions that
lead to successful high academically performing schools are in large part due to principals who
are perceived to be “strong pragmatic leaders” (Bossert, et al., 1982, p. 35) one would like to
think that such causal inferences would not have a significant affect on results.
A final limitation lies within the PIMRS survey tool. There is no guarantee the PIMRS
will identify principals who delegate dimensions of instructional leadership will be identified as
exhibiting instructional leadership. It is possible that principals are delegating responsibility for
the dimensions of instructional leadership and that instructional leadership was taking place as a
direct result of the principals’ effort, but these principals were not attributed with exhibiting
instructional leadership characteristics. That is a limitation of the instrument that could not be
addressed within this study. Perhaps future work could involve both quantitative and qualitative
data that could identify such cases.
Recommendations for Future Research
Although the results of this study did not provide statistically significant results for the
hypotheses tested, I believe this study warrants further consideration. I would like to see this

152
study performed on a large scale with not less than 100 participants equally segregated by
gender. The fact that women principals found to exhibit both transformational and instructional
leadership demonstrated a negative relationship to higher student achievement is disturbing.
Either the results of this study presented an unexplained anomaly or transformational in
conjunction with instructional leadership should not be practiced by women principals in
elementary education.
The limitations related to the small pool of participation in this study may well be a
testament to just how busy elementary principals are, but the benefits from this type of research
could provide professional education programs with a better understanding of how to prepare
future principals. Philosophically, I believe every country’s greatest asset lies in its ability to
educate its’ population. Since principal leadership is a component of the educational process,
research of this nature is necessary for appropriate change to occur in how principals are
prepared to perform their duties.
By virtue of the fact that management-by-exception passive provided the only
statistically significant correlational coefficients for this study and that no hypotheses were in
place for this post-hoc testing, I believe it would be beneficial for future research to examine all
aspects of full range leadership. Broad understandings of leadership behavior are important
when the human element is involved because every principal will bring a different set of
strengths and weaknesses to the profession. A better understanding of how individuals can
benefit from their strengths and develop strategies to over come their weaknesses is the type of
pragmatic implementation that can be derived from this type of research. Because the human
element of strengths and weaknesses is a factor, as well as the human element that exists in

153
followers, there will not be a single recipe that fits every principal in every building and
situation. A broad understanding of leadership is necessary.
The thought of the human element within followers raises another point. Perhaps the
research of leadership in the realm of education and leadership in general needs to be more
follower need focused. When considering change, the decision process within education
generally centers on the question, what is best for the students? To assimilate this question to
leadership, perhaps the question is what do teachers need in terms of leadership to perform at
their best, i.e. what is best for teachers? Herein lays the problem with a single model of
leadership since each teacher may need something just a little bit different. Some teachers may
want and need to be told what to do to perform at their best, some may need a pat on the back
and a piece of chocolate in their mailbox to perform at their best, while others may need and
want to be able to close their door and be left alone to perform at their best.
For the purpose of providing what should be more reliable data, further research of this
nature should strive to include as many teachers as possible to complete rater forms to provide a
more accurate assessment of the principal in terms of their leadership behaviors. Having three
hand picked raters by the principal may not provide an accurate assessment of actual leadership
behavior. I believe it is human nature for a principal to select individuals, who will provide the
most favorable response; it would be ideal if it were possible to collect surveys from all teachers
under the principal’s supervision. In this study the majority of principals provided only three
teacher raters.
Summary
principals lead and more importantly how they help their students achieve at higher levels

154
through their role as principal. The study set out to determine if there is a benefit derived by
principals who attend to the various dimensions of instructional leadership and practice
transformational leadership behaviors.
Studies have been performed that provided statistically significant findings that principals
who exhibit a specific array of instructional leadership characteristics had student bodies who
performed academically higher than student-bodies whose principals did not exhibit those
characteristics. Although it is true that the array of characteristics changed dramatically over a
thirty year period and it is also true that what was actually derived from research and what
appeared in educational journals varied widely, there were a select number of instructional
leadership characteristics that stood out. Five of those characteristics bore statistical evidence in
Krug’s work in early to middle part of the 1990’s; “defining mission, managing curriculum and
instruction, supervising and supporting teaching, monitoring student progress, and promoting
instructional climate” (Krug, 1992, p. 5). Although not always listed in these exact words, other
researchers found these five instructional leadership characteristics to consistently be part of a
principal’s repertoire of skills in high performing schools.
Although much fewer in number, there have been studies that conclude that principals
who exhibit transformational leadership tend to have higher academically performing school
bodies.
Conclusions of this study do not agree with previous work. Transformational leadership
may have a place in educational leadership for men administrators, but may not for women
administrators if the results of this study were generalizable. Further, it would seem that even for
men administrators transformational leadership may not necessarily be a construct of leadership
that programs designed to prepare educational administrators should strive to impart on its

155
students since men principals exhibiting laissez-faire leadership behaviors demonstrated near
equally well in terms of having student bodies that perform higher academically.
Furthermore; it would appear that principals who attend to the dimensions of instructional
leadership also have little to no effect on academic performance. The results of this study
demonstrate that principals who exhibit instructional leadership and not transformational
leadership behaviors actually produced negative relationships in terms connected to student
academic achievement.
The conclusion that seems to cut across all lines here is that there is little to no direct or
indirect affect on academic student performance derived from the building level principal. I find
that difficult to believe, but it can be inferred based upon the results of this study. It appears that
other variables need to be factored in.

156
REFERENCES
Anderson, G. L. (1990). Toward a critical constructivist approach to school
administration: Invisibility, legitimation, and the study of non-events. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 26(1), 38-59.
Andrews, R. L., & Soder, R. (1987). Principal Leadership and student achievement.
Educational Leadership, 4, 9-11.
Austin, G. R. (1978). Process evaluation: A comprehensive study of outliers. Baltimore,
MD: Maryland Department of Education (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED160644). Retrieved October 3, 2009 from: ERIC
Avolio, B. J. & Bass, B. M. (1995). Multifactor leadership questionnaire. [Manual and
sampler set] (3rd
ed.). Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden.
Avolio, B. J. & Bass, B. M. (2004). MLQ manual (3rd
ed.). Menlo Park, CA: Mind
Garden, Inc.
Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999). Re-examining the components of
transformational and transactional leadership using the multifactor leadership
questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 441-
462.
Avolio, B. J., Waldman,D. A., & Yammarino, F. J. (1991). The four i’s of
transformational leadership. Journal of European Industrial Training, 15(4), 9-
16.
Barbuto, J. E. & Brown, L. L. (2000). Full range leadership (#G1406). Retrieved
from University of Nebraska, NebGuide: http:/advisor.unb.edu/wanttoknow/Full-
Range-Leadership.pdf

157
Barnett, K., McCormick, J., & Conners, R. (2001). Transformational leadership in
Schools: Panacea, placebo, or problem? Journal of Educational Administration,
39(1), 24-26.
Bass, B. M. (1996). Is there universality in the full-range model of leadership?
International Journal of Public Administration, 19, 731-761.
Bass, B. M. & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through
transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance
by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88(2), 207-218.
Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership (2nd
ed.). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: Strategies for taking charge. New York,
NY: Harper Collins.
Bossert, S. T., Dwyer, D. C., Rowan, B., & Lee, G. V. (1982). The instructional
management role of the principal. Educational Administration Quarterly, 18(3),
34-64.
Bridges, E. M. (1982). Research on the school administrator: the state of the art, 1967-
1980. Educational Administration Quarterly, 18(3), 12-33.
Brookover, W. B., & Lezotte, L. W. (1979). Changes in school characteristics
coincident with changes in student achievement (Occasional Paper No. 17). East
Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, The Institute for Research on Teaching.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

158
Burns, J. M. (2003). Transforming leadership. New York, NY: Atlantic Monthly Press.
Chrispeels, J. H. (2002). The California center for effective schools: The Oxford school
district partnership. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(5), 382.
Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E. Q., Hobson, C. J., MaPartland, J., Mood, A. M., Weinfeld,
F. D., & York, R. L. (1966). Equality of education opportunity. Washington,
DC: US Government Printing Office.
D’Amico, J. J. (1982). The effective schools movement: Studies, issues, and approaches.
(Report number EA015788). Philadelphia, PA: Research for Better Schools,
Inc. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED231091). Retrieved March
19, 2009 from: ERIC
Day, C., Harris, A., & Hadfield, M. (2001). Challenging the orthodoxy of effective
school leadership. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 4(1), 39-56.
Dorward, P. N. (2009). A study of the relationship between principal leadership style and
student achievement (Doctoral Dissertation). Available from ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3350024).
Downton, J. V. (1973). Rebel leadership. New York: Free Press.
Drucker, P. F. (1986). The practice of Management. New York, NY: Harper & Row
Publishers, Inc.
Dwyer, C. D. (1985). Understanding the principal’s contribution to instruction. Peabody
Journal of Eucation, 63(1), 3-18.
Edmonds, R. R. (1979). Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational Leadership,
37(1), 15-24.
Edmonds, R. R. (1982). Programs of school improvement: An overview. Washington,

159
D.C.: National Institution of Education: Teaching and Learning Program. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED221536). Retrieved October 4, 2009
from: ERIC
Edmonds, R. R., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1979). Search for effective schools: The
identification and analysis of city schools that are instructionally effective for
poor children. (Report number UD019304). (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED170396). Retrieved October 12, 2009 from: ERIC
Estapa, A. L. (2009). The relationship between the transformational leadership
characteristics of principals, as perceived by teachers, and student achievement on
standardized tests (Doctoral Dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations
and Theses database. (UMI No. 3378413).
Fisher, M. W. (2003). Effects of principal leadership style on school climate and student
achievement in select Idaho schools (Doctoral Dissertation). Available from
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3091403).
Fleming, D. S. & Buckles, C. (1987). Implementing school improvement plans: A
directory of research-based tools. Andover, MA: Regional Laboratory for
Educational Improvement of the Northeast and Islands.
Frederiksen, J. R. (1980). Models for determining school effectiveness (Report No.
TM800319). Boston, MA: American Educational Research Association. (ERIC
Documentation Reproduction Service No. ED189149). Retrieved October 5,
2009 from: ERIC
Fulmer, C. L. (2006). Becoming instructional leaders: Lessons learned from instructional
leadership work samples. Educational Leadership and Administration, 18, 109-

160
129.
Gall, J. P., Gall, M. D., & Borg, W. R. (2005). Applying educational research: A
practical guide. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Gardin, R. A. (2003). Impact of leadership behavior of principals on elementary school
climate (Doctoral Dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses
database. (UMI No. 3108344)
Grogan, M., & Andrews, R. (2002). Defining preparation and professional development
for the future. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(2), 233- 256.
Gulbin, K. M. (2008). Transformational leadership: Is it a factor for improving student
achievement in high poverty secondary schools in Pennsylvania (Doctoral
Dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI
No. 3303551).
Hallinger, P. (1982). Instructional management rating scale: Resource manual (Tech.
Rep. Version 2.2). Bangkok, Thailand: Mahidol University, College of
Management.
Hallinger, P. (1982). The development of behaviorally anchored rating for appraising
the instructional management behavior of principals. Palo Alto, California:
Stanford University.
Hallinger, P. (1999). PIMRS manual (version 2.2). Bangkok, Thailand: Mahidol
University, College of Management.
Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading educational change: reflections on the practice of
instructional and transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education,
33(3), 329-352.

161
Hallinger, P. (2005). Instructional leadership and the school principal: A passing fancy
that refuses to fade away. Leadership & Policy in Schools, 4(3), p. 221-239.
Hallinger, P. (2008, March). Methodologies for studying school leadership: A review of
25 years of research using the principal instructional management rating scale.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, New York, NY.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. A. (1998). Exploring the principal’s contribution to school
effectiveness: 1980-1995. School Effectiveness & School improvement, 9(2), 157-
191.
Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. (1985). Assessing the instructional management behavior of
principals. The Elementary Schools Journal, 86(2), 217-242.
Hater, J. J. & Bass, B. M. (1988). Superiors’ evaluations and subordinates perceptions of
Transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology,
73, 695-702.
Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership, transactional
leadership, locus of control, and support for innovation: Key predictors of
consolidated-business unit performance. Journal of Applied Psycology, 79, 891-
902.
Jantzi, D., & Leithwood, K. A. (1996). Toward an explanation of variation in teachers
perception of transformational leadership. Education Administration Quarterly,
32, 512-538.
Jencks, C. (1972). Inequality: An effect of family and schooling in America. New York:
Basic books, Inc.

162
Klitgaard, R. E., & Hall, G. R. (1974). Are there unusually effective schools? The
Journal of Human Resources, 10(1), 90-106.
Krug, S. E. (1990a). Leadership and learning: A measurement-based approach for
analyzing school effectiveness and developing effective school leaders.
Washington, DC.: Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED022609). Retrieved April 4, 2009
From: ERIC
Krug, S. E. (1990b). Current issues and research findings in the study of school
Leadership. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED327946). Retrieved April 4, 2009
from: ERIC
Krug, S. E. (1992a). Instructional leadership: A constructivist perspective. Occasional
papers: School leadership and education reform, OP #7. Urbana, IL: National
Center for School Leadership, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED356526). Retrieved May 23,
2009 from: ERIC
Krug, S. E. (1992b). Instructional leadership, school instructional climate, and student
learning outcomes. Urbana, IL: National Center for School Leadership, Office of
Educational Research and Improvement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED359668). Retrieved May 23, 2009 from: ERIC
Kyle, R. M. (1985). Reaching for excellence: An effective schools sourcebook.
Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
Leithwood, K. A. (1992). Transformational leadership: Where does it stand? Education

163
Digest, 58(3), 17-21.
Leithwood, K. A. (1994). Leadership for school restructuring. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 30, 498-519.
Leithwood, K. A., Aitken, R., & Jantzi, D. (2001). Making schools smarter: A
system for monitoring school and district progress. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press, Inc.
Leithwood, K. A., Begley, P. T., & Cousins, B. (1990). The nature, causes and
consequences of principals’ practices: An agenda for future research. The Journal
of Educational Administration, 28(4), 5-31.
Leithwood, K. A., & Jantzi, D. (1998, April). Distributed leadership and student
engagement in school. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA (ED424645). Retrieved July
4, 2010 from: ERIC.
Leithwood, K. A., & Jantzi, D. (1999a). Transformational school leadership effects: A
replication. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 10(4), 451-479.
Leithwood, K. A., & Jantzi, D. (1999b). The effects of transformational leadership on
Organizational conditions and student engagement with school. Paper presented
at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
Montreal, Canada. (ED432035). Retrieved July 4, 2010 from: ERIC
Leithwood, K. A., & Jantzi, D. (1999c). The relative effects of principal and teacher
sources of leadership on student engagement with school. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 35, 679-706.
Leithwood, K. A., & Jantzi, D. (2000a). Principal and teacher leadership effects: A

164
replication. School leadership and Management, 20, 415-434.
Leithwood, K. A., & Jantzi, D. (2000b). The effects of transformational leadership on
Organizational conditions and student engagement with school. Journal of
Educational Administration, 38(2), 112-129.
Leithwood, K. A., & Jantzi, D. (2006). Transformational school leadership for large-
scale reform: Effects on students, teachers, and their classroom practices. School
Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17(2), 201-227.
Leithwood, K. A., Jantzi, D., & Fernandez, A. (1993). Secondary school teachers’
commitment to change: The contributions of transformational leadership. Paper
presented at the 1993 American Educational Research Association. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED360701). Retrieved May 23, 2009 from: ERIC.
Leithwood, K. A., Jantzi, D., Silins, H., & Dart, B. (1993). Using the appraisal of
school leaders as an instrument for school restructuring. Peabody Journal of
Education, 68, 85-109.
Leithwood, K. A., Jantzi, D., & Steinbach, R. (1999). Changing leadership for
changing times. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
Leithwood, K. A., & Leonard, L. et al. (1998). Conditions fostering organizational
learning in schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 34, 243-277.
Leithwood, K. A., & Montgomery, D. J. (1982). The role of the elementary school
principal in program improvement. Review of Educational Research, 52(3), 309-
339.
Leithwood, K. A., & Steinbach, R. (1993, April 12-16). Total quality leadership: Expert
thinking plus transformational practice. Paper presented at the 1993 American

165
Educational Research Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED360702). Retrieved May 23, 2009 from: ERIC.
Lezotte, L. W. (1992). Learn from effective schools. Social Policy, 00377783, (22), 3.
Lezotte, L. W. (n.d.). Revolutionary and evolutionary: The effective schools movement.
Retrieved from: http://www.edutopia.org/files/existingpdfs /edutopia.org-closing-
achievement-gap-lezotte-article.pdf
Liontos, L. B. (1992). Transformational leadership. ERIC Digest, Number 72. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED347636). Retrieved November 17, 2009
from: ERIC.
Liontos, L. B. (1993). Transformational leadership: Profile of a high school principal.
Oregon School Study Council, 36(9), 57.
Lunenburg, F. C. (1990). The 16PF as a predictor of principal performance: An
integration of quantitative and qualitative research methods. Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston,
MA.
Lyles, N. B. (2009). An examination of the relationship between the leadership styles of
blue ribbon school administrators and student achievement (Doctoral
Dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI
No. 3342222).
Mace-Matluck, B. (1986a). Research-based strategies for bringing about successful
school improvement. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Department Laboratory.
Mace-Matluck, B. (1986b). Research-based tools for bringing about successful school
Improvement. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Department Laboratory.

166
Mace-Matluck, B. (1987). The effective schools movement: Its history and context.
[Monogragh] Southwest Educational Development Laboratory, 23 (EA 020
803, ED 304 781).
Maehr, M, Midgley, C., Hicks, L., Roeser, R., Urdan, T., & Anderman, E. (1996).
Patterns of adaptive learning survey. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
Marks, H. M., & Printy, S. M. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An
integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 370-397.
Mills, M. J. (2008). Leadership and school reform: The effects of transformational
leadership on Missouri assessments (Doctoral Dissertation). Available from
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3290981).
Murphy, J. (2002). Recruiting the profession of educational leadership: New blueprints.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 38, p. 176-191.
Murphy, J., Hallinger, P., & Mitman, A. (1983). Problems with research on educational
leadership: Issues to be addressed. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
5(3), 297-305.
New York State Department of Education (1974). School factors influencing reading
achievement: A case study of two inner city schools. Albany, NY: Office of
Education Performance Review. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED089211). Retrieved October 3, 2009 from: Eric
New York State Department of Education (1976). Three strategies for studying the
effects of school process. Albany, NY: Bureau of School Programs Evaluation.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED126572). Retrieved from: ERIC.

167
Nguni, S., Sleegers, P., & Denessen, E (2006). Transformational and transactional
leadership effects on teachers’ job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and
organizational citizenship behavior in primary schools: The Tanzanian case.
School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17(2), 145-177.
Niedermeyer, B. H. (2003). The relationship of principal leadership style and student
achievement in low socio-economic schools (Doctoral Dissertation). Available
from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3342222).
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Olson, L. (2000). New thinking on what makes a leader. Education Week, 19(19), 14-
16.
Peterson, K. (1989). Secondary principals and instructional leadership: Complexities in
a diverse role. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Center for Education Research. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED305718). Retrieved from: ERIC.
Peterson, K. (2002). The professional development of principals: Innovations and
opportunities. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(2), p. 213-232.
Philbin, L. P. (1997). Transformational leadership and the secondary school principal
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Purdue, Lafayette, IN.
Reed, M. I. (1984). Management as a social practice. Journal of management Studies,
21, 3, 273-285.
Riley, R. W., McGuire, K. C., Lieb, B., & Dorfman, C. H. (1999). Effective leaders for
today’s schools: Synthesis of a policy forum on educational leadership.
Perspectives on education policy research. (Report No. GFI-1999-9501)
Washington, DC.

168
Ross, J. A., & Gray, P. (2006). Transformational leadership and teacher commitment to
organizational values: The mediating effects of collective teacher efficacy.
School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17(2), 179-199.
Rost, J. C. (1993). Leadership for the twenty-first century. Westport, CT: Praeger
Publishers.
Rutter, M., Maughan, B., Mortimore, P., Ouston, J., & Smith, A. (1979). Fifteen
thousand hours: Secondary schools and their effects on children. Ambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Silins, H., Mulford, B., & Zarins, S. (1999). Leadership for organizational learning and
student outcomes. The LOLSO Project: The first report of an Australian three
year study of international significance. Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the American Educational Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Smith, B. N., Montango, R. V, & Kuzmenko, T. N. (2004). Transformational and
servant leadership: Content and contextual comparisons. Journal of Leadership
and Organizational Studies, 10, 4, 80-91.
Smith, S. C., & Piele, P. K. (1997). School leadership: Handbook for excellence.
Oregon: Eric Clearinghouse on Educational Management. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED401596). Retrieved August 6, 2010 from: ERIC.
Statistics Solutions, Inc (2009, November 24). Kendall’s Tau and Spearman’s Rank
Correlation Coefficient. Retrieved from: http://www.statisticssolutions.com
/methods-chapter/statistical-tests/kendall-spearman-rank-correlation-coefficient/.
Verona, G. S. & Young, J. W. (2001). The influence of principal transformational

169
leadership style on high school proficiency test results in the New Jersey
Comprehensive and Vocational High Schools. Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, 27. Meeting conducted at the meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
Walberg, H. J. (2007). School coice: the findings. Washington, DC: CATO Institute.
Weber, G. (1971). Inner-city children can be taught to read: Four successful schools.
Washington, D.C.: Council for Basic Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED057125). Retrieved October 3, 2009 from: ERIC.
Whitaker, B. (1997). Instructional leadership and principal visibility. Clearing House,
70(3), 155-156.
Witziers, B., Bosker, R. J., & Kruger, M. L. (2003). Educational leadership and student
achievement: The elusive search for an association. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 39(3), 398-425. Retrieved from: http://0-web.ebsco
host.com.sabrecat.marianuniversity.edu/ehost/

170
APPENDIX A:
Definition of Terms

171
APPENDIX A:
Definition of Terms
Academic achievement. Academic proficiency in the areas of Math, Reading, and
Language Arts as measured by the Wisconsin Knowledge and Concepts Examination (WKCE).
Being visible. The principal visits classrooms often and can also be seen in the hallways,
playgrounds, and lunch room on a regular basis. The principal interacts with staff and students
on a regular basis.
Contingent Reward. A component of transactional leadership that is not corrective in
nature. It is an exchange process between leaders and followers in which followers are
compensated for contribution of their efforts with rewards such as higher pay, time off, benefits
or some form specific pre-arranged reward.
Defining mission. Framing the school’s goals, purpose, and mission to drive decision
making and design.
Elementary School. Schools housing grades one through at-least fifth grade; although
may contain grades through eighth grade.
Idealized Influence. A component of transformational leadership involving role
modeling and leadership that exhibits high moral and ethical standards. It is a form of leadership
that places emphasis on the needs of followers in such a way that followers what to emulate their
leaders; sometimes characterized as charismatic leadership in nature.
Individualized Consideration. A component of transformational leadership that
specifically addresses followers’ needs through careful listening and paying attention to
individual professional growth. Considered to be a means of assisting followers towards self-
actualization through empowerment and providing professional growth opportunities.

172
Inspirational Motivation. A component of transformational leadership in which the
leader displays enthusiasm and communicates a shared vision for the organization. Ultimately
this component involves motivating and inspiring followers to do what is best for the
organization.
Instructional Leadership. A combination of five dimensions of the principal role:
“defining mission, managing curriculum and instruction, supervising and supporting teaching,
monitoring student progress, and promoting instructional climate” (Krug, 1992, p. 5).
Intellectual Stimulation. A component of transformational leadership that encourages
followers to think out-side the box, to be creative or innovative for the betterment of the
organization. Followers need to challenge their own beliefs and per-haps values.
Laissez-Faire. A component of full-range-leadership that is non-transformational and
non-transactional. It is generally referred to as non-leadership.
Management by Exception – Active. A component of transactional leadership that is
corrective in nature where the leader that oversees followers watches followers to find mistakes,
poor work ethics, or possible rule violations and then takes necessary action.
Management by Exception – Passive. A component of transactional leadership that is
corrective in nature where the leader that oversees followers does not take action and foresee
issues, but intervenes after problems exist or when standards have not been met.
Managing curriculum and instruction. Structuring programs and curriculum so there is
coherence and alignment both within specific curricula and across programs.
Monitoring student progress: is a process which involves interpreting and assessing
relevant data to produce criteria for teacher instruction that will best meet individual student
needs.

173
PMIRS. Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale; an instrument developed by
Philip Hallinger in 1982 and revised in 1985 is designed to measure dimensions of instructional
leadership.
Principals. Individuals who hold a valid licensure and practice school administration, in
the role of school principal, as the direct supervisor for all teaching staff members in a specific
school in the state of Wisconsin.
Promoting instructional climate. The development of a sound learning environment
which involves encouragement for students to be engaged in their learning and where the
atmosphere for learning has a shared sense of purpose for students and teachers.
Supervising and supporting teachers. Providing professional development that
incorporates various strategies related to instruction and learner needs. Supporting teachers also
involves developing teacher’s human capital.
Teachers. School personnel, holding a valid teaching license in the state of Wisconsin,
responsible for direct instruction of students.
Transformational Leadership. Leadership construct originally having three components
involving peoples’ ethics, morals, emotions, motivators, personal and professional goals, and
how to address such needs for the betterment of the organization the leadership is intended for
that is now defined to encompass four components: Idealized Influence, Inspirational
Motivation, Intellectual Stimulation, and Individualized Consideration.
Wisconsin Knowledge and Concepts Examination (WKCE). Standardized tests designed
to measure student achievement using Wisconsin academic standards as the standard for school
aged students in grades three through eight and ten.

174
APPENDIX B:
Principal Invitation Letter of Participation

175
APPENDIX B:
To: [first name] [last name]
Principal of [school name]
District of [district name]
From: Bill Greb
Principal
District of Three Lakes
Re: Principal Leadership Study
I am writing to ask for your assistance with an elementary principal leadership study I am
conducting. The purpose of the study is to gain insight into the relationship between
instructional leadership practice in conjunction with transformational leadership practice and
student academic achievement.
If you are at all like me, you learned a great deal of what makes you effective as principal on the
job. I don’t expect to be able to provide future principals with a road map to immediate success,
but it is my hope that the results of this research will assist institutions that train administrators in
the future, to have a better idea of what truly effective principals need to do and how to go about
doing it through leadership. Ultimately, what we all want is higher achievement for all students
and that is the end goal here.
The study involves practicing principals, such as yourself, and preferably four or more of your
teachers. If it is not possible to gain four teachers to participate, I would ask that you involve at
least three.
What you are asked to do is to complete two surveys. Each survey will take conservatively 15
minutes each. One is the Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale (PIMRS) and the
other is the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ-5X) short form. You may be familiar
with one or both of these surveys from your leadership training. Similarly, participating teachers
will complete parallel surveys that also take 15 minutes each.
If you choose to participate in this study, you will receive results with an explanation outlining
your personal leadership strengths and areas you may want to improve upon. Information in this
form will be provided only to you. Overall study results information will be strictly confidential
in nature. No personal participant information will be reported in any way. Interested
participants may request a complete copy of the research findings upon completion.
The identity of all participants, the school, and school district will remain confidential and
known only to the researcher.

176
Please feel free to contact me at any time. Thank you for your time and assistance in this
endeavor.
William Greb
Principal
School District of Three Lakes
PhD candidate, Marian University, Wisconsin
To Participate:
To participate in this study, you must read the following three page consent form (linked
attachment). At the end of the (linked attachment) consent form is the link that will take you
directly to the surveys. Once again, thank you in advance for being part of this endeavor.
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/CWPL6XW

177
APPENDIX C:
IRB Approval Email

178
APPENDIX C:
IRB Approval Email
Study Title: PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT
IRB Approval File Code: B09100522490
Researchers: William (Bill) Greb
Principal, Director of Curriculum & Technology,
PhD Candidate, Marian University
Dr. Marilyn J. Bugenhagen, PhD Director of Doctoral
Studies Marian University
You are being asked to take part in a research study carried out by William Greb and Dr. Marilyn
J. Bugenhagen, PhD. This form explains the research study and your part in it if you decide to
join the study. Please read the form carefully, taking as much time as you need. Ask the
researcher to explain anything you don’t understand. You can decide not to join the study. If
you join the study, you can change your mind later or quit at any time. There will be no penalty
or loss of services or benefits if you decide to not take part in the study or quit later. This study
has been approved for human subject participation by the Marian University Institutional Review
Board.
What is this study about?
This research study is being done to gain insight into the relationship between instructional
leadership practice in conjunction with transformational leadership practice and student
academic achievement. You are being asked to take part because you are a practicing
elementary principal. Taking part in the study will take about 30 minutes to complete both
surveys. You cannot take part in this study if you do not currently hold a valid Wisconsin
Principal licensure.
What will I be asked to do if I am in this study?
If you take part in the study, you will be asked to complete two surveys, the Principal
Instructional Management Rating Scale (PIMRS principal form) and the Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire (MLQ-5X self-report short form). The combined time to complete the surveys is
conservatively 30 minutes. You will also be asked to have four or more of your teachers
complete parallel surveys. The surveys are designed to determine your leadership in terms of
what you do and how you do it. You may elect to withdraw at any time and choose to not
answer specific survey questions. An electronic copy of the study results will be provided to all
principal participants who would like a copy.
Are there any benefits to me if I am in this study?

179
The potential benefits to you for taking part in this study are: Principals will receive a
personalized explanation of their leadership qualities and behaviors as determined by a 360
degree leadership evaluation; developed through the combined self and teacher reporting survey
results. This evaluation will provide you with an opportunity to reflect on your own leadership
behaviors and plan for personal professional development. Beyond that there is no direct benefit
to you from being in this study. However, by taking part in this study you may be providing
critical information that can be used to prepare future educational administrators with necessary
leadership behaviors to be effective principals and have a positive effect for students’ high
Are there any risks to me if I am in this study?
The potential risks from taking part in this study will involve loss of time. Participants will
spend approximately 30 minutes completing two surveys. Individuals completing survey
information that can be considered reflective in nature poses a potential for emotional
discomfort. It is also necessary to point out that regardless of efforts to protect participant’s
anonymity, it impossible to provide a 100% guaranty.
Will my information be kept private?
The data for this study will be kept confidential to the extent allowed by federal and state law.
No published results will identify you, and your name will not be associated with the findings
and all data will be reported publicly in aggregate. Under certain circumstances, information that
identifies you may be released for internal and external reviews of this project. All participants
will be coded and a master list of the participants and coding system will be maintained in a
fireproof safe. All data processing and analysis will be maintained on a secure computer.
William Greb and Dr. Marilyn J. Bugenhagen will be the only personal with access to un-coded
data.
The results of this study may be published or presented at professional meetings, but the
identities of all research participants will remain anonymous.
The data for this study will be kept for 5 years.
Are there any costs or payments for being in this study?
There will be no costs to you for taking part in this study. You will not receive money or any
other form of compensation for taking part in this study.
Who can I talk to if I have questions?
If you have questions about this study or the information in this form, please contact the
researcher:

180
If you have questions about your rights as a research participant, or would like to report a
concern or complaint about this study, please contact the Marian University IRB Administrator
at (920) 923-8796, or e-mail orsp@marianuniversity.edu, or regular mail at Marian University,
ORSP, 45 S. National Avenue, Fond du Lac, WI 54935
What are my rights as a research study volunteer?
Your participation in this research study is completely voluntary. You may choose not to be a
part of this study. There will be no penalty to you if you choose not to take part. You may
choose not to answer specific questions or to stop participating at any time.
What does my signature on this consent form mean?
Your signature on this form means that:
• You understand the information given to you in this form
• You have been able to ask the researcher questions and state any concerns
• The researcher has responded to your questions and concerns
• You believe you understand the research study and the potential benefits and risks that are
involved.
Statement of Consent
I give my voluntary consent to take part in this study. I will be given a copy of this consent
document for my records.
__________________________________ _____________________
Signature of Participant Date
__________________________________
Printed Name of Participant
Statement of Person Obtaining Informed Consent
I have carefully explained to the person taking part in the study what he or she can expect.
I certify that when this person signs this form, to the best of my knowledge, he or she
understands the purpose, procedures, potential benefits, and potential risks of participation.
I also certify that he or she:

181
• Speaks the language used to explain this research
• Reads well enough to understand this form or, if not, this person is able to hear and
understand when the form is read to him or her
• Does not have any problems that could make it hard to understand what it means to take
part in this research.
__________________________________ _________________________
Signature of Person Obtaining Consent Date
William (Bill) Greb___________________ Principal Investigator____
Printed Name of Person Obtaining Consent Role in the Research Study

182
APPENDIX D:
Teacher Invitation Letter of Participation

183
APPENDIX D:
To:
From: Bill Greb
Principal
Your current school principal provided me with your email address to invite you to partake in an
elementary principal leadership study I am conducting. The purpose of the study is to gain
insight into the relationship between instructional leadership practice in conjunction with
transformational leadership practice and student academic achievement.
I don’t expect the immediate results of this study will provide future principals with a road map
to immediate success, but it is my hope that the results of this research will assist institutions that
train administrators in the future, to have a better idea of what truly effective principals need to
do and how to go about doing it through leadership. Ultimately, what we all want is higher
achievement for all students and that is the end goal here.
The study involves practicing principals and preferably four or more teachers such as your self.
minutes each. One is the Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale (PIMRS) for teacher
raters and the other is the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ-5X) rater short form.
Your identity, the identity of all other participants, the school, and school district will remain
confidential and known only to the researcher. A participant numbering system will be assigned
for data analysis and reporting purposes.
endeavor.
William Greb
Principal
To Particiapate:

184
To participate in this study, you must read the following consent form (linked attachment). At
the end of the (linked attachment) consent form is the question/link that will take you directly to
the surveys. Once again, thank you in advance for being part of this endeavor.
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/ZFT5J86

185
APPENDIX E:

186
APPENDIX E:
To: [first name] [last name]
Principal of [school name]
District of [district name]
From: Bill Greb
Principal
Recently you participated in a principal leadership survey. I am writing to ask for your
assistance with a similar study that, with your permission will utilize the data you provided in the
first survey in conjunction with data collected for this study. The purpose of the study is to gain
If you choose to participate in this study, you will receive results with an explanation outlining
your personal leadership strengths and areas you may want to improve upon. Information in this
form will be provided only to you. Overall study results information will be strictly confidential
in nature. No personal participant information will be reported in any way. Interested
participants may request a complete copy of the research findings upon completion.
If you are at all like me, you learned a great deal of what makes you effective as principal on the
job. I don’t expect to be able to provide future principals with a road map to immediate success,
but it is my hope that the results of this research will assist institutions that train administrators in
the future, to have a better idea of what truly effective principals need to do and how to go about
doing it through leadership. Ultimately, what we all want is higher achievement for all students
and that is the end goal here.
The study involves practicing principals, such as yourself, and preferably four or more of your
teachers. If it is not possible to gain four teachers to participate, I would ask that you involve at
least three.
What you are asked to do is to complete one survey. The survey will take conservatively 15
minutes. The survey is the Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale (PIMRS).
Similarly, participating teachers will complete a parallel survey that also takes 15 minutes.
The identity of all participants, the school, and school district will remain confidential and
known only to the researcher.
endeavor.
William Greb

187
Principal
To Participate:
To participate in this study, you must read the following three page consent form (linked
attachment). At the end of the (linked attachment) consent form is the link that will take you
directly to the survey. Once again, thank you in advance for being part of this endeavor.
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/KN8F35P

188
APPENDIX F:

189
APPENDIX F:
To:
From: Bill Greb
Principal
What you are asked to do is to complete a survey. The survey will take conservatively 15
minutes. The Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale (PIMRS) for teachers.
endeavor.
William Greb
Principal
To Participate:

190
the survey. Once again, thank you in advance for being part of this endeavor.
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/K3BHZYX

191
APPENDIX G:
Second Teacher Invitation Letter of Participation

192
APPENDIX G:
Second Teacher Invitation Letter of Participation
I apologize for the inconvenience if you have already responded. Since teacher response is
anonymous, I can not determine who has responded.
Teacher Invitation Letter of Participation to the study your principal is participating in:
To:
From: Bill Greb
Principal
minutes each. One is the Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale (PIMRS) for teacher
raters and the other is the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ-5X) rater short form.
endeavor.
William Greb
Principal

193
To Particiapate:
the surveys. Once again, thank you in advance for being part of this endeavor.
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/ZFT5J86

194
APPENDIX H:
IRB Approval Email

195
APPENDIX H:
IRB Approval Email
Study Title: PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT
IRB Approval File Code: B09100522490
Researchers: William (Bill) Greb
Principal, Director of Curriculum & Technology,
PhD Candidate, Marian University
Dr. Marilyn J. Bugenhagen, PhD
Director of Doctoral Studies
Marian University
You are being asked to take part in a research study carried out by William Greb and Dr. Marilyn
J. Bugenhagen, PhD. This form explains the research study and your part in it if you decide to
join the study. Please read the form carefully, taking as much time as you need. Ask the
researcher to explain anything you don’t understand. You can decide not to join the study. If
you join the study, you can change your mind later or quit at any time. There will be no penalty
or loss of services or benefits if you decide to not take part in the study or quit later. This study
has been approved for human subject participation by the Marian University Institutional Review
Board.
What is this study about?
This research study is being done to gain insight into the relationship between instructional
leadership practice in conjunction with transformational leadership practice and student
academic achievement. You are being asked to take part because you are a practicing
elementary principal. Taking part in the study will take about 30 minutes to complete both
surveys. You cannot take part in this study if you do not currently hold a valid Wisconsin
Principal licensure.
What will I be asked to do if I am in this study?
If you take part in the study, you will be asked to complete two surveys, the Principal
Instructional Management Rating Scale (PIMRS principal form) and the Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire (MLQ-5X self-report short form). The combined time to complete the surveys is
conservatively 30 minutes. You will also be asked to have four or more of your teachers
complete parallel surveys. The surveys are designed to determine your leadership in terms of
what you do and how you do it. You may elect to withdraw at any time and choose to not
answer specific survey questions. An electronic copy of the study results will be provided to all
principal participants who would like a copy.
Are there any benefits to me if I am in this study?

196
The potential benefits to you for taking part in this study are: Principals will receive a
personalized explanation of their leadership qualities and behaviors as determined by a 360
degree leadership evaluation; developed through the combined self and teacher reporting survey
results. This evaluation will provide you with an opportunity to reflect on your own leadership
behaviors and plan for personal professional development. Beyond that there is no direct benefit
to you from being in this study. However, by taking part in this study you may be providing
critical information that can be used to prepare future educational administrators with necessary
leadership behaviors to be effective principals and have a positive effect for students’ high
Are there any risks to me if I am in this study?
The potential risks from taking part in this study will involve loss of time. Participants will
spend approximately 30 minutes completing two surveys. Individuals completing survey
information that can be considered reflective in nature poses a potential for emotional
discomfort. It is also necessary to point out that regardless of efforts to protect participant’s
anonymity, it impossible to provide a 100% guaranty.
Will my information be kept private?
The data for this study will be kept confidential to the extent allowed by federal and state law.
No published results will identify you, and your name will not be associated with the findings
and all data will be reported publicly in aggregate. Under certain circumstances, information that
identifies you may be released for internal and external reviews of this project. All participants
will be coded and a master list of the participants and coding system will be maintained in a
fireproof safe. All data processing and analysis will be maintained on a secure computer.
William Greb and Dr. Marilyn J. Bugenhagen will be the only personal with access to un-coded
data.
The results of this study may be published or presented at professional meetings, but the
identities of all research participants will remain anonymous.
The data for this study will be kept for 5 years.
Are there any costs or payments for being in this study?
There will be no costs to you for taking part in this study. You will not receive money or any
other form of compensation for taking part in this study.
Who can I talk to if I have questions?
If you have questions about this study or the information in this form, please contact the
researcher:

197
If you have questions about your rights as a research participant, or would like to report a
concern or complaint about this study, please contact the Marian University IRB Administrator
at (920) 923-8796, or e-mail orsp@marianuniversity.edu, or regular mail at Marian University,
ORSP, 45 S. National Avenue, Fond du Lac, WI 54935
What are my rights as a research study volunteer?
Your participation in this research study is completely voluntary. You may choose not to be a
part of this study. There will be no penalty to you if you choose not to take part. You may
choose not to answer specific questions or to stop participating at any time.
What does my signature on this consent form mean?
Your signature on this form means that:
• You understand the information given to you in this form
• You have been able to ask the researcher questions and state any concerns
• The researcher has responded to your questions and concerns
• You believe you understand the research study and the potential benefits and risks that are
involved.
Statement of Consent
I give my voluntary consent to take part in this study. I will be given a copy of this consent
document for my records.
__________________________________ _____________________
Signature of Participant Date
__________________________________
Printed Name of Participant
Statement of Person Obtaining Informed Consent
I have carefully explained to the person taking part in the study what he or she can expect.
I certify that when this person signs this form, to the best of my knowledge, he or she
understands the purpose, procedures, potential benefits, and potential risks of participation.
I also certify that he or she:

198
• Speaks the language used to explain this research
• Reads well enough to understand this form or, if not, this person is able to hear and
understand when the form is read to him or her
• Does not have any problems that could make it hard to understand what it means to take
part in this research.
__________________________________ _________________________
Signature of Person Obtaining Consent Date
William (Bill) Greb___________________ Principal Investigator____
Printed Name of Person Obtaining Consent Role in the Research Study

Npdf

More Related Content

Similar to Npdf (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Npdf