Influence 2

PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND ITS INFLUENCE ON EDUCATIONAL
OUTCOMES FOR HIGH NEED STUDENT POPULATIONS
A Dissertation
Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies and Research
in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Alyssa Ford-Heywood
Indiana University of Pennsylvania
August 2016
ProQuest Number: 10144206
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon 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.
ProQuest 10144206
Published by ProQuest LLC (2016). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.
All rights reserved.

This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
© 2016 Alyssa Ford-Heywood
All Rights Reserved
ii
Indiana University of Pennsylvania
School of Graduate Studies and Research
Department of Sociology
We hereby approve the dissertation of
Alyssa Ford-Heywood
Candidate for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
______________________ _____________________________
John A. Anderson, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology, Advisor
______________________ _____________________________
J. Beth Mabry, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
______________________ _____________________________
Melissa L. Swauger, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
______________________ _____________________________
Jon C. Landis, Ph.D.
National Development Executive
Apple Inc.
ACCEPTED
_____________________________ ______________________________
Randy L. Martin, Ph.D.

Dean
School of Graduate Studies and Research
iii
Title: Principal Leadership and Its Influence on Educational Outcomes
for High Need Student Populations
Author: Alyssa Ford-Heywood
Dissertation Chair: Dr. John A. Anderson
Dissertation Committee Members: Dr. J. Beth Mabry

Dr. Melissa L. Swauger
Dr. Jon C. Landis
As a result of the achievement gaps that exists between high poverty and low
poverty student groups, as well as accountability criteria mandated by the federal No
Child Left Behind Act (2001), which requires significant improvements in student
achievement for low-income and minority students, school districts must now implement
strategies that assist them in obtaining outcomes that demonstrate significant growth in
achievement for these students. One strategy considered for improving achievement in
high poverty schools suggests assigning the best educator resources to the most
disadvantaged groups. This study more closely examines the theory about the impact of
leadership for low income groups and acknowledges the negative impact of poverty on
student achievement outcomes. Despite poverty’s negative impact, the researcher
hypothesizes that principal leadership can mitigate the impact of poverty to improve
student achievement for disadvantaged student groups.
In order to examine the proposed theory, the study employs a quantitative
research design using a secondary dataset from the New Teachers Center to explore
relationships that exist between key variables including principal leadership, school
culture, student achievement and school poverty. Further the research explores whether
the influence of principal leadership when used to impact the school culture is more
significant in high poverty schools than low poverty schools in hopes that the information
v
will contribute to the conversation for developing strategies that improve achievement for
disadvantaged student groups.
vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
As I reflect on the journey of obtaining my Ph.D., I realize that none of this would
have been possible without the help, prayers and support of the many individuals that
God has placed in my life. However before acknowledging these individuals, I would
first like to acknowledge and give thanks to an awesome God for without him I could not
even imagine taking the initial steps to apply to the ALS program and ultimately endure
the demanding nine year process that resulted in the achievement of my doctorate degree.
Through the entire process, He has been the constant that has kept me grounded and
instilled in me the resilience to continue and complete this journey.
Additionally, I want to thank both my husband Patrick and my daughters, Aryell
and Avery who have given the ultimate sacrifice of time. They have unselfishly allowed
me to pursue my dream and have rarely complained irrespective of the late classes, hours
of homework, group projects and studying that have delayed movie dates and other
family activities. Specifically to Aryell and Avery, I hope that I have provided you with
an example that inspires you to shatter the expectations of naysayers and instills in you
the work ethic that results in you striving to accomplish the lives that you dream of.
Also, I would like to thank my mother, Alice Jones. She has been a constant
encourager who instilled in me a work ethic that is second to none. She was my first
example of a “super women”. She has been the inspiration for completing this process
and has pushed me “to get ‘er done”. Thank you Mom for setting the example of
finishing what you start. Additionally I thank you for always being there to provide a
listening ear, words of encouragement and unconditional love.
vii
Furthermore, I want to thank my grandmother Lucille Ford who is no longer with
us. She recognized my potential early on and would not let me take the path that seemed
easiest. She saw all that I could be even beyond what I could see in myself. Nana I thank
God that I had you in my life for over 30 years. You have made an indelible imprint on
my life. I wish you were here for me to share this accomplishment with you. I know I
would have made you proud.
I also would like to thank my two big little brothers, Mike and Kenny and sister,
Darlene. Thank you for your love, support and encouragement.
To my cousins Edna and Ginny, thank you so much for cultivating a desire to
pursue a college education very early in my life. You both introduced me to the college
life on the campuses of Clarion University and the University of Pittsburgh before I was
even able to fully understand the advantages of a college degree. All I knew is that I was
going to college like my big cousins and would one day become your Sorors. Thank you
so much for cultivating a desire in me to pursue higher education.
To my three dearest friends, Dana, Kim and Thelma, thank you for years of
unconditional friendship. You have encouraged me, prayed for me and been my
confidants. You support me like no other. I so appreciate your genuine friendship and
presence in my life. I could not ask for better sister friends. I love you all.
To Jean, Mathilda and Erika, I am so thankful to have shared this experience with
you. I will never forget the rides home, nor the laughter, or the stops at drive-thru
restaurants that provided a little lightness to an arduous process. You all are rock stars.
Few people will ever experience this process nor understand what it takes to do this work
viii
and more importantly what it takes to finish this work. I am so glad to have taken the
journey with you all.
Also I would like to thank my committee members, Dr. Melissa Swauger and Dr.
Jon Landis. Thank you both for your willingness to serve and for your invaluable
feedback and guidance throughout this process. I could not have asked for a more
supportive committee.
Lastly, I would like to thank Dr. John Anderson. Your guidance and support
throughout the process were invaluable. I know that your being my chair was truly the
result of divine intervention. Thank you so much for believing in me, pushing me, and
not giving up on me.
ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page
1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................1
Poverty, Race and the Achievement Gap ................................................................2

The Effects of Concentrated Poverty .......................................................................4
The Impact of Urban Poverty ..................................................................................6
Limited Access to High Quality Resources .............................................................7
Student Achievement ...............................................................................................8
Quality Resources ....................................................................................................9
Resource Infusion ..................................................................................................10
Inhibited Life Success ............................................................................................10
Purpose of the Study ..............................................................................................12
Rationale and Significance ....................................................................................17
Research Questions ................................................................................................19
Research Position ...................................................................................................20
Research Strategy...................................................................................................22
Summary of Methods .............................................................................................22
Assumptions...........................................................................................................24
Limitations .............................................................................................................25
Delimitations ..........................................................................................................26
Definition of Terms................................................................................................26
Chapter Summary ..................................................................................................28
2 LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................................................30
Historic Context .....................................................................................................30

Theoretical Underpinnings.....................................................................................34
Chapter Summary ..................................................................................................60
3 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................62
Setting/Data Frame ................................................................................................63

Research Design.....................................................................................................64
Data Source ............................................................................................................65
Validity and Reliability ..........................................................................................69
Data Collection Procedures....................................................................................70
Data Analysis .........................................................................................................71
Ethical Consideration .............................................................................................73
Chapter Summary ..................................................................................................73
x
Chapter Page
4 FINDINGS .............................................................................................................75
Modification/Manipulations to the Original Data................................................. 76

Descriptive Statistics ..............................................................................................77
Variable Generation ...............................................................................................84
Data Analysis .........................................................................................................98
Chapter Summary ................................................................................................127
5 DISCUSSION, RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS.....................130
Summary of Research Methodology ...................................................................131

Other Research Findings ......................................................................................138
Limitations ...........................................................................................................139
Delimitation .........................................................................................................140
Theoretical and Policy Implications ....................................................................140
Recommendations and Future Research ..............................................................144
Conclusion ...........................................................................................................145
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................147
APPENDICES .................................................................................................................161
Appendix A- Informal Request for Use of Dataset .............................................161

Appendix B- New Teacher Center Data Request Form.......................................162
xi
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 North Carolina Total State Gender and Enrollment

Tabulations ...................................................................................... 79
2 Comparison of 2010 North Carolina Student

Data and the Final Research Dataset .............................................. 80
3 Student Achievement Expected Growth Categories ....................... 86
4 Interquartile Results for Continuous Dependent

Assessment Variable (ABC Results) .............................................. 87
5 School Leadership Scale Correlation .............................................. 89
6 Interquartile (IQR) Results Table ................................................... 90
7 Crombach Alpha Summary for North Carolina

Teaching and Working Conditions ................................................. 92
8 Summary Statistics for the Educator Experience............................ 94
9 State Teacher Student Ratio Calculation ........................................ 95
10 Summary of Variables .................................................................... 97
11 Test for Multicollinearity of Model Regressing

School Leadership on Eight Independent Variables ..................... 101
12 Regression Output of School Leadership on the Eight

Independent (Demographic) Variables ......................................... 106
13 Block 1: Nested Regression Output of School Culture on the

Eight Independent (Demographic) Variables ............................... 110
14 Block 2: Nested Regression Output of School Culture on the

Eight Independent (Demographic) Variables with
School Leadership ......................................................................... 111
15 Summary of Effects on School Culture and the

Mediating Effect of School Leadership ........................................ 112
xii
Table Page
16 VIFs for Model Regressing Student Achievement on School

Leadership and School Culture Variables..................................... 117
17 VIFs for Model Regressing Student Achievement on

Eight Independent Variables and School Leadership
(No multicollinearity) ................................................................... 118
18 Block 1: Nested Regression Output for Student Achievement

Regressed onto the Eight Independent Variables ......................... 122
19 Block 2: Nested Regression Output for Student Achievement

Regressed onto the Eight Independent Variables and
20 Summary of Effects on Student Achievement on the Eight

Independent Variables and the Mediating Effects of
xiii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1 Adapted framework from Wallace Foundation supported

leadership study .............................................................................. 54
2 Principal impact framework for high-poverty schools ................... 58
3 Analytical model ............................................................................. 72
4 North Carolina student racial demographics................................... 80
5 Histogram of average number of classroom teachers in

North Carolina ................................................................................ 82
6 Histogram of mean years of educator experience ........................... 83
7 Histogram of school poverty percentage within the state of

North Carolina ................................................................................ 84
8 Histogram of student achievement percentages within the

state of North Carolina .................................................................... 87
9 Histogram of school leadership construct variable ......................... 90
10 Histogram of educator experience .................................................. 94
11 Histogram of teacher student ratio .................................................. 95
12 Histogram of North Carolina high need schools............................. 98
13 Causal model of school leadership and school culture

variables .......................................................................................... 99
14 Residuals versus fitted plot for the regression model of

school leadership on the eight independent variables ................... 102
15 Leverage versus squared residuals plot for regression

model of school leadership on the eight independent
variables ........................................................................................ 102
16 Residuals versus fitted plot for the regression model of

school culture on the eight independent variables and
school leadership ........................................................................... 103
xiv
Figure Page
17 Leverage versus residuals plot for the regression model of

school culture on the eight independent variables and
18 Causal model representing relationship between the eight

independent variables and school leadership ................................ 105

independent variables and school leadership including the
direct effects .................................................................................. 108

independent variables, school leadership and
school culture ................................................................................ 114
21 Residuals versus fitted plot for the model regressing

student achievement on the eight independent variables and
22 Leverage versus residuals plot for the model regressing

student achievement on eight independent variables and

independent variables, school leadership and
student achievement ...................................................................... 120

independent variables and school leadership with
indirect effects ............................................................................... 121

independent variables with indirect effects through school
leadership and direct effects to student achievement .................... 126
xv
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
In 2009, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) developed a
common set of standards and metrics across subject areas to allow for consistent
administration and monitoring of student progress. These tools provided the nation with a
“common yardstick” (Aud et al., 2010) for assessing student growth over time. A review
of this assessment shows that the average national reading scale score for fourth-grade
students was 221. This number means little on its own. However, when examining it in
the context of the same scores for fourth graders from 2007-2009, one is more clearly
able to understand its significance. The NAEP finds that despite the efforts of teaching
staff, this score remained nearly unchanged. The pattern of stagnation is an indication
that there may be a larger problem occurring within the American schools that is resulting
in little improvement to student achievement.
Although the statistic above demonstrates an overall lack of growth in reading for
fourth-grade students in the United States, reading achievement for low-income students
as defined by the National School Lunch Program (NSLP), appears more alarming. The
eligibility standards from the NSLP, the National Assessment of Education Progress
(Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2010) finds that 83% of the nation’s fourth graders from
low-income families had reading skills below the level of proficiency. Furthermore, Aud
et al. (2010) find that reading scores for low-income students are typically 28 points
lower than the achievement of students who did not qualify for free or reduced-price
lunch.
1
Poverty, Race and the Achievement Gap
A comparison of the student achievement data for low-income students and their
more affluent counterparts suggests that lower income students are advancing
academically at a pace that is slower than higher income students. The differences
between achievement outcomes serves as evidence of an achievement disparity or gap
between the two student groups. Further, a similar disparity is observed between
Caucasian students and African American students. Although being African American on
its face is not synonymous with being poor or low achieving, studies (Aud et al., 2010;
Lippman, Burns & McArthur, 1996) indicate that these factors are often present in school
environments where there are high percentages of African American students and high
levels of poverty.
Aud et al. (2010) say that African American students are 47% more likely to
attend a high-poverty school. Further a relationship between African American students
and low student achievement is supported by the National Assessment of Education
Progress (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2010) student achievement statistics that continue
to illustrate a persistent achievement gap between the two student groups. . The presence
of these disparities inspires research that hopes to discover answers about how to close
the gap and improve achievement for poor students.
Aladjem, Boyle, and Kurki (2005) are among the researchers who have explored
some of the reasons behind the existing academic crisis. They state that students are most
likely to be enrolled in schools within their neighborhoods. Furthermore, Kannapel and
Clements (2005) say that many of the worst performing schools in the nation are also the
most impoverished schools. Lippman et al (1996) further support this claim with
2
research that demonstrates that as poverty increases student achievement decreases.
Additionally, they find that many of the poorest schools are located within urban settings
where there are high percentages (about 30%) of minority students, (e.g. African
American, Hispanic and Pacific Islander) who are often poor. Lippman et al define
poverty by the percentage of students who are eligible for free and reduced lunch, a
number that they say is greater than the percentage of poor students in both suburban and
rural districts. Acknowledging a relationship between poverty, race, and poor
performance on state assessments is not sufficient to conclude the existence of a causal
relationship; however, it does suggest that some schools may face severe problems in
meeting the educational needs of poor, African-American, other minority and
disadvantaged students and preparing these students for later life success.
In terms of defining high poverty schools and students, Clotfelter, Ladd, Vigdor,
and Wheeler (2006) say that standards of practice for measuring the level of poverty at
the school level are based on determining the percentage of students who both apply and
are eligible for free or reduced price lunches through the federally funded school lunch
program. A student’s free or reduced-price lunch status is often used as a proxy that
represents poverty concentration in schools (Aud et al., 2010). The U.S. Department of
Education (Aud et al., 2010) define high-poverty schools as those schools where at least
75% of the students are eligible for free or reduced-price lunches.
In addition, Aud et al. (2010) indicate that a large percentage of the students who
qualify for free and reduced-price lunches are often African American (40%) and
Hispanic (42%) students. Research (Clotfelter et al., 2006; Kannapel & Clements, 2005;
Lippman et al., 1996) has shown that the schools attended by the above student groups
3
are also schools that tend to experience more challenges in improving the achievement of
these students. This suggests that African American and other minority students who are
low-income are more likely to attend schools with other low-income and minority
students. Additionally, the literature suggests that minority and poor students are less
likely to receive the support they need to overcome academic and school location
challenges.
Further supporting this hypothesis is an examination of achievement gains for
disadvantaged students. Researchers (Aud et al, 2010; Clotfelter et al., 2006; Kannapel &
Clements, 2005) say that the achievement gains for poor minorities are particularly low
when compared to students who have more financial resources. This is especially true of
those who are educated in schools where there are large percentages of low-income
students as in the case of high-poverty schools that can have a low-income population as
high as 100%, suggesting a correlation between poverty and student achievement. The
theory that there are different achievement outcomes that exist between these groups is
further supported by data representing the increase in the number of students from high-
poverty schools that require additional academic support (Aud et al., 2010).
The Effects of Concentrated Poverty
Borman and Dowling (2010) offer an additional explanation for the student
achievement differences between these groups by suggesting that differences in
achievement are the result of teacher bias, that is, a teacher’s preference for interacting
with higher income students. Because researchers (Aladjem et al., 2005; Shah, 2012)
conclude that students are most likely to attend schools in their neighborhood, it is
assumed that students from high poverty neighborhoods will most likely attend school
4
with other low-income students. Aud et al. (2010) find that African American children
are more likely to attend schools that are considered high poverty. This research further
suggests that poor and African-American students who attend schools in neighborhoods
where there is a higher concentration of poverty are most likely to attend schools that
have few higher income classmates. As such, the students who attend schools with high
percentages of poor and/or minority students have an increased likelihood of being
subjected to teacher bias that favors high-income students and thus it is the conjecture of
the researcher that as a result of the teacher bias that these student may be less likely to
receive the skills that will equip them with the tools needed for school success.
Additionally, in regard to the impact that student disadvantages have on
achievement, the Coleman Study (1966) finds that the schools influence student
achievement. This work was further developed by Borman & Rachuba (2001) and others
(Kennedy, Jung, Orland, & Myers, 1986; Lippman et al., 1996; Myers, 1985) who
identified both race and poverty as having a negative impact on student achievement. The
Borman & Rachuba study (2001) concludes that when both low-income and higher
income students attended low-poverty schools, the student achievement results were
generally higher. In contrast, when students, regardless of income, attended high-poverty
schools, their achievement was negatively impacted as a result of attending the high-
poverty schools.
Borman and Rachuba (2001) say that the school’s composition, defined by both
racial and socioeconomic distribution, can be used to predict student achievement and is
up to 150% more important than the student’s individual race or class in predicting
student achievement. This suggests that effects associated with a school (e.g., teacher
5
practices, leadership, and student population) are more likely to impact student
achievement than are individual family (or student) effects. Bidwell and Kasarda (1980)
say that schools themselves do not result in learning, but rather the school provides the
environment that can support the learning that occurs.
The Impact of Urban Poverty
The condition of concentrated poverty is one that is often identified within urban
settings and indicative of the presence of more severe problems related to poverty, race,
and student achievement. Lippman et al. (1996) say that urban schools typically have
higher percentages of African American and Hispanic students than suburban schools.
Additionally, the authors suggest that minority students comprise the vast majority of
poor students within urban schools. Lippman et al. (1996) say that 40% of urban students
attend high-poverty schools that are identified as schools with concentrations of poverty
greater than 40%. This suggests that African American and Hispanic students are more
likely to attend schools that have high concentration of poor students and are thus more
likely to have increases in the problem areas that result from poverty.
Similar to the achievement outcomes found in schools with both high degrees of
poverty and those attended by a large percentage of African-American and Hispanic
students, urban schools also have lower achievement levels than nonurban schools.
Lippman et al. (1996) find that achievement as measured by scores on achievement tests
for urban eighth graders were generally lower than the achievement tests scores for
suburban eighth graders. Additionally the authors say that suburban students are more
often white. Further, Aud et al. (2010) find that suburban Whites are less often poor. This
suggests that minority students are most likely to live in urban settings and attend schools
6
where there are high concentrations of poverty, factors that are likely to correlate with
subpar student achievement.
Not only do the above statistics establish a link between urban schools and high
poverty schools, but they also suggest that urban students may be overrepresented in the
statistics and thus indicate the presence of even more severe education and life
consequences for these students. Lippman et al. (1996) hypothesize that the
characteristics of both poverty and an urban setting together produce effects that are more
devastating than they would be if imposed on schools in nonurban locations.
Another factor that is negatively impacted by poverty is educational attainment.
Lippman et al. (1996) defines educational attainment as the amount of education and
credentials attained as measured by high school and postsecondary completion rates. The
researchers say that when compared to their suburban and rural counterparts, urban
students were less likely to graduate from high school on time, a factor that is said to be
influenced by the school's location, yet separate from the concentration of disadvantaged
students. Because researchers (Cantor, Smolover & Stamler, 2010; Lippman et al., 1996)
say that educational attainment is strongly linked to economic success, one can assume
that because the poor and more specifically, the urban poor contribute significantly to the
percentage of students who score lower on assessments (Kannapel & Clements,2005),
there may be barriers to their achieving this level of success.
Limited Access to High Quality Resources
Inequitable distribution of resources present barriers that inhibit the success of
students. Particularly, the absence of suitable resources is negatively correlated with a
student’s socioeconomics (Schmidt, Cogen & McKnight, 2011). Schmidt et al. (2011)
7
say that inequitable student achievement outcomes are the result of unequal educational
learning opportunities or limited exposure to the resources that advance learning. This
suggests that students’ access to adequate learning opportunities is restricted as a result of
their family’s financial resources.
Student Achievement
The above scenario draws a link between student achievement outputs and
resource inputs. This framework has its foundation in education production function
studies. Hanushek (1979) says that student achievement is influenced by primary inputs
that can include many factors such as student’s peers, family, or schools that impact
student achievement. The hypothesis that the student achievement outcomes for poor
students are hindered by inadequate resources, spurs thinking about which strategies
assist in improving the plight of these students.
Gamoran and Long (2006) say that modern policies are needed that redistribute
resources in a way that assists poor students to obtain student achievement outcomes that
are similar to those of their higher income counterparts. Among the policy changes
advocated by the researchers are those that provide the best resources to the students who
attend high poverty schools, suggesting that current educational policies may distribute
resources in a way that disadvantages the poor. Although this study finds that the
variations between schools has little influence on student achievement, it demonstrates
more significant effects occurring as a result of school-influenced factors such as
decisions about how resources are distributed.
Further, researchers (Borman & Rachuba, 2001; Gamoran & Long, 2006;
Lippman et al., 1996) find that poverty is a factor that when concentrated may act as a
8
deterrent to improved student achievement outcomes. Despite the dismal forecast about
the plight of low-income students in high-poverty schools, Gamoran and Long (2006) say
that negative factors associated with these schools can be negated by providing greater
benefits to disadvantaged students than are provided to their more affluent peers.
Clotfelter et al. (2006) say that schools with the highest poverty levels often have
the lowest test scores and receive the least experienced and qualified teachers and
principals. Furthermore, their study finds that ratings for the principal leadership in these
schools are typically among the lowest. These statistics reveal problems that contribute to
the inequity that exists among schools. It can be assumed that without effective teachers,
principals, and other quality resources in these schools, the schools will continue to
encounter difficulty in improving student achievement outcomes for the most
disadvantaged groups.
Quality Educators
In terms of securing high-quality teachers, Clotfelter et al. (2006) find that high-
poverty schools have the highest percentage of teachers with “weaker average
qualifications,” (p. 13) as identified by experience level, licenses, and graduation from
competitive undergraduate institutions. Additionally, the researchers say that the number
of inexperienced teachers in high-poverty schools has continued to rise over a 10-year
period. This statistic suggests that high-poverty schools are without staff who are deemed
effective and thus appear to lack the human resources that contribute to improved student
achievement outcomes. Thus, these schools have limited capacity to improve student
learning.
9
Resource Infusion
Clotfelter et al. (2006) say that in terms of equal education opportunities or
resource inputs across schools, that students in high-poverty schools should have
resources (e.g., teachers and principals) that are at least “similar in quality” (p. 5) to their
more advantaged student counterparts. Like Coleman (1966) the authors acknowledge
that this strategy alone would not be sufficient to result in student achievement outcomes
for poor students that are equal to more advantaged students. Instead, Clotfelter et al.
(2006) suggests that in order to arrive at this outcome, that disadvantaged students require
a higher quality resource to compensate for family disadvantages such as poverty.
Still other researchers (Gamoran & Long, 2006) agree with theories posed by
Clotfelter et al. (2006) and advocate for the infusion of quality resources to assist students
who attend high-poverty schools achieve at improved levels. Additionally the authors
hypothesize that higher quality resources will assist poor students to achieve at a higher
rate despite their race or socioeconomic status. Their research offers hope to the poorest
students; not only of school success but of life success by suggesting that with improved
resources these students can also access a quality education and, therefore gain access to
improved educational, vocational and higher earnings opportunities that are believed to
occur as a result of securing a quality education.
Inhibited Life Success
While education may be viewed as a vehicle that assists students in gaining access
to the experiences that lead to both personal and financial success, an examination of
student achievement outcomes across socio-economic groups reveal disparities among
the most disadvantaged groups. Researchers (Hernandez, 2011; Lippman et al., 1996)
10
find that education attainment correlates strongly with economic success and better life
outcomes; yet find that poorer students often have lower educational attainment, as
indicated by both graduation rates and test scores. Because a relationship exists between
education attainment and one’s lifetime earnings, substance abuse, and incarceration rates
(Kutash, Nico, Gorin, Tallant, & Rahmatullah, 2010), we can assume that as a result of
poor children being at risk for lower education attainment, they are also at risk for having
lower quality life outcomes (e.g., higher incarceration, substance abuse, and teen
pregnancy rates). This suggests that poorer students may not have access to the same life
success as their higher income counterparts as a result of their academic preparation or
lack thereof.
The decline in student achievement outcomes and related life success for some of
the nation’s students may cultivate a perception among other industrialized nations that
America’s schools have lost their educational prestige among the world’s economic,
educational, and technological elite. Cantor et al. (2010) say that in 1960, the United
States was ranked number one in high school graduation rates. However, by 2006, the
authors indicate that the ranking had slipped to 18 among 24 industrialized nations. In
addition, 30% of American schools are failing to make adequate yearly progress (AYP;
U.S. Department of Education, 2008). Conley (1991) posits that America’s decline in
global prestige is likely the result of an educational system in crisis and has spurred a
growing awareness of this problem that has motivated much of the education reform
phenomenon and a particular focus on low-achieving schools and students.
11
Purpose of the Study
This study acknowledges the negative impact of poverty in influencing student
achievement outcome, as well as the importance of resources that are necessary to
influence the achievement outcomes for low income students. As a result, the study seeks
to more closely examine the school leader’s role in mitigating the influence of poverty for
low income student groups.
While researchers (Clotfelter et al., 2006; Coleman et al., 1966; Gamoran &
Long, 2006) have studied the role that high-quality resources have played in improving
student achievement for high poverty students, few researchers have explicitly explored
the influence of principal leadership in respect to high-poverty students’ achievement.
Leithwood and Day (2008) say that new school accountability efforts are responsible for
the renewed interest in leadership effectiveness and understanding its contribution to
student achievement. Shelton (2010) says that states are most interested in understanding
the role that principals play in shaping teaching and learning cultures within their schools
and are using this information to recruit, prepare, and train their principals to become
more effective leaders.
In response to the need to learn about resources and their impact on student
achievement outcomes, this study acknowledges the challenges in improving student
achievement outcomes when poverty is concentrated at a school as posed by Coleman
(1966) and others (Borman & Rachuba, 2001; Cantor et al., 2010; Gamoran& Long,
2006; Lippman et al., 1996). However unlike Coleman, the current research posits that
resources do matter and seeks to learn whether the human resource of principal
12
leadership has a more pronounced influence on student achievement for the poorest
students.
Although many studies (Hallinger, 2003; Hallinger & Heck, 1996; Heck, 1992;
Leithwood & Reihl, 2003; Leithwood, Louis, Anderson & Wahlstrom, 2004; Waters,
Marzano, & McNulty, 2005) find that a positive relationship exists between principal
leadership and student achievement, none of these studies has established a direct link
between principals’ effectiveness and student achievement improvement. This begs into
question an understanding of why schools are looking at leadership as a solution for
improving student achievement instead of other strategies that may be more directly
linked to improved student achievement. Robinson, Lloyd, and Rowe (2008) conclude
that one of the major reasons for the interest in exploring leadership’s impact on student
achievement is based on a belief that school leaders can assist in reducing the educational
disparities between “social and ethnic groups” (p. 636).
While research studies (Leithwood and Levin, 2005; Robinson et al, 2008) have
acknowledged the influence of leadership, these studies do not directly identify how
leadership contributes to the changes that occur in student achievement outcomes. Of the
more than 37 meta-analytic studies that exist, Robinson et al. (2008) say that few identify
more than an indirect relationship between principal leadership and student achievement.
Still other researchers (Leithwood et al., 2004) have found that troubled schools cannot
be improved without the assistance of effective leadership, suggesting a more direct
relationship between the principal’s practice and student achievement outcomes.
Researchers (Leithwood & Levin, 2005; Waters, Marzano & McNulty, 2003)
have attempted to bring clarity to the above juxtaposition by acknowledging both the
13
significance of the principal’s role and their indirect contribution to student achievement
by explaining how leadership influences other factors within the school that directly
impact student achievement outcomes. Leithwood (2005) hypothesizes that sources of
school leadership such as principals have a direct effect on school and classroom
practices that result in direct effects on student learning. Furthermore, Hallinger and Heck
(1996) find that a principal’s leadership makes the biggest impact on student learning
when the leadership focuses on internal school processes such as academic expectations,
norms, and school policies, factors believed to more directly influence student
achievement. The National School Climate Center (2007) cites these factors as being
representational of the schools’ climate, culture and learning environment. Leithwood
and Levin’s (2005) work suggests that principals are able to influence student
achievement by influencing variables (e.g. school culture and the learning environment)
that are most closely connected to students.
Leithwood et al. (2004) say that conditions representing the school’s culture
directly influence student learning. Hallinger’s (2003) research further supports the idea
about how principal leadership impacts student learning. Additionally, the author calls
out culture as a factor that principals can impact that also touches student achievement.
Culture, climate and the learning environment have been identified by scholars (Fans &
Maher, 1990; Stop, 1994; Thacker & McInerney, 1992; National School Climate Center,
2007) as factors that principal impact that connect to student learning. That said, these
researchers suggest that by playing an active role in creating positive cultures (and school
environments), principals support positive student achievement outcomes.
14
Explicitly related to the student achievement outcomes of poor students,
Leithwood et al. (2004) say that a positive school culture helps negate the environmental
challenges often found in more challenging schools. Because high-poverty schools
typically have lower achievement levels, this logic is important as it suggests that
changes to the school culture circumvent the challenges of poor students’ achievement.
Most notable in the process of changing school culture is the role of principal leadership,
which Leithwood et al. (2004) say is a necessary component for improving the quality of
low-performing schools.
In terms of the leadership effects associated with the principal role, Leithwood et
al. (2004) say that the influence of leadership makes the largest contribution when it is
used where it is needed most. This sentiment is supported by other studies (Clotfelter et
al., 2007; Leithwood & Day, 2008) that find higher quality resources provided to low-
income schools result in the students at these schools overcoming their achievement
deficits. These studies identified principal leadership as one of several resources for
which quality can be improved to result in higher student achievement.
Principal leadership as a resource that contributes to student achievement growth
has been widely studied. Many of these studies suggest that leadership is a factor that
improves student achievement outcomes for high-poverty students. Cantor et al. (2010)
say that in order to eliminate the achievement gap, the quality of principals, teachers and
administrator resources provided to high-poverty schools must be of a higher quality as
demonstrated by years of experience and advance degrees. In terms of higher quality,
Clotfelter et al (2006) says that quality is often defined by experience, licenses and
graduation from competitive colleges and universities. Thus the principal leaders of high-
15
poverty schools must be among the most effective leaders in order to improve
achievement.
Despite growing support to improve the quality of leadership and other resources
in high-poverty schools, there are few studies citing principal leadership as a resource
that directly correlates to improved student achievement outcomes for poor students. This
suggests that there is more to learn about leadership and the factors (e.g., teacher
practices, classroom environment and school culture) that it influences, precisely in
relation to improving student achievement outcomes for low-income students.
The Wallace Foundation (2012) says that school leadership is identified as a
priority for many school reform efforts and among the most pressing issues for public
schools. In addition, Heck’s (1992) studies indicate that new trends in K-12 schools find
that more school districts are beginning to hold the school staff responsible for the
instruction and leadership in schools. Furthermore, Heck (1992) cites examples of school
districts that have removed ineffective principals as part of district reform initiatives.
These examples indicate a growing support for strategies that involve improving
leadership quality and support a theory about principals' leadership effect on the school
environment that improve student achievement. As such, the nation is becoming witness
to the emergence of a new paradigm, one that posits that effective principals can increase
student achievement outcomes for all students by improving the quality of the school
learning environment.
16
Rationale and Significance of the Study
The above discussions suggest that when examining the achievement of students
from low-income households, the differences between the achievement gains of this
group and their more affluent counterparts are of particular concern. The U.S.
Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (as cited in Aud et al,
2010) reports on the historically low achievement of students who live in poverty and the
achievement gap that exists between them and their higher income peers across grade
levels and subject areas.
Furthermore, because low-income students are identified as a subgroup with
specific achievement goals in the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act (2001), schools that
serve large populations of low-income students appear to have more at stake while also
having an increased difficulty in improving student achievement for low-income groups
of students (Clotfelter et al., 2007). It is believed that these findings may advance policy
changes that result in the most effective staff (and principal leaders) being assigned to the
highest need schools.
It is further anticipated that the information obtained from this study will
contribute to educational leadership and school reform literature. Lippman et al. (1996)
hypothesized that the schools that educate America's most challenged and impoverished
student populations negatively impact national student achievement outcomes. The
authors further state that growth among this group must be stimulated in order to
eliminate achievement disparities.
In addition, Cantor et al. (2010) find that school failures often correlate with
increases in other societal problems (e.g., incarceration, dropouts, and teen pregnancy
17
rates) that interfere with America’s ability to compete globally. The perceived failure
among many schools “undermines our national obligation to children and exacts
enormous economic and social costs” (Cantor et al., 2010, p. 2). Lippman et al. (1996)
say that high-poverty schools account for many of the nation’s dismal student
achievement outcomes and indicate that as the concentration of poverty increases in
schools, achievement decreases. As such, it is believed that the primary beneficiaries of
this research would be school districts, schools of education with principal leadership
programs, schools, and other institutions that serve communities with high concentrations
of low-income students and achievement challenges.
The Wallace Foundation (2012) finds that the U.S. Department of Education has
identified principals as playing an important role in helping the most troubled schools to
improve student achievement. As a result, it is anticipated that this study will help school
districts determine whether it is beneficial to continue focusing resources on improving
the quality of principal leadership or whether those efforts and resources should be
redirected to other areas of the organization that may result in a greater likelihood of
success for this population.
Undoubtedly, students and staff will also benefit, and in turn, American
communities and other extended social jurisdictions will benefit from the results of this
study. Further, it is anticipated that the information obtained through this study can
directly impact schools with large achievement gaps between disadvantaged and
advantaged students, as well as assist in determining whether cultivating specific
elements such as the school’s culture promote improved student achievement for high-
poverty students.
18
Research Questions
Because researchers (Leithwood et al., 2004) have indicated that a positive school
environment can have a positive influence on student achievement, states such as North
Carolina have begun to rely upon data generated from Teachers Working Condition
Survey as a guide to improve schools (Hirsch, Sioberg, Robertson, & Church, 2010)
within the state. Hirsch et al. (2010) indicate that these changes can be made quickly and
can also have a positive influence on students.
Furthermore, current research has supported the development of policies that
focus on improving the quality of resources that high-poverty schools receive in order to
improve their student achievement. Leithwood et al. (2004) identify a link between
principal leadership in high poverty schools and improved student learning. Researchers
(Clotfelder et al., 2007; Leithwood & Day, 2008) say that the resources allocated to high-
poverty schools should exceed the quality of those same resources provided to low-
poverty schools in order to eradicate achievement gaps, and their research offers
additional support for the argument that schools should provide their neediest students
with the best resources as a way to eliminate achievement disparity. Therefore within this
context, the study poses that having effective principals at the helm of the high-need
schools can lessen the impact of poverty in order to have a positive effect on student
achievement.
As a result, this study seeks to use quantitative method to examine the premise
stated above and explore the impact that effective leaders have on learning environments
within both high-poverty and low-poverty schools. Additionally, the study will determine
whether the impact is more significant within schools based on the demographics served
19
by the school (i.e., low- or high-income students). Furthermore, this study will present an
in-depth analysis and discussion pertinent to the above argument thereby providing
further insight into the power of leadership to influence the most vulnerable school
environments.
It is also anticipated that the study will assist in learning about the effectiveness of
leadership and determine whether these effects can stimulate different levels of success
among various groups. The following research questions will guide this investigation:
• Do high poverty and low poverty schools vary in relation to student
achievement?
• Does leadership effectiveness differ among leaders in higher poverty schools
versus those in lower poverty schools?
• Does a school’s culture differ among higher poverty schools versus lower
poverty schools?
• Does a school’s culture differ as a function of leadership and does that
difference vary among higher poverty schools versus lower poverty schools?
Research Position
My current role as a program manager with a large urban school district
influenced my decision to select a research project addressing principal leadership and
student achievement. In this role, I have held the responsibility of managing a grant that
funds operations associated with a newly developed evaluation and compensation system
for school principals. This initiative was formed based on a belief that effective
leadership drives school improvement. It is hypothesized that improving the effectiveness
of the principal results in changes to the school culture and that this change helps to foster
20
improved student achievement outcomes. Being in this position has allowed me to
become privy to the issues faced by school districts that serve high percentages of high-
poverty students.
In particular, I have become keenly aware of the existing deficits in achievement
that exist between low-and high-income students. Furthermore, as a result of my work
with principals and central office administrators, I have become increasingly more
sensitive to the challenges that schools encounter in regard to growing achievement
among high-poverty students. Because our district serves large percentages of minority,
special education, and poor students, there is an increased level of accountability from
district board members, parents and community members, and the State Department of
Education to ensure that we are providing an equitable and high quality education to all
students. The presence of issues of disparity and increased accountability have spurred
what I believe to be a sense of urgency within this district as well as other districts that
serve large percentages of poor students to develop strategies that can assist in closing the
achievement gap between poor students and their more affluent peers.
Although examining principal leadership is but one of many strategies that our
school district is attempting to utilize as part of our efforts to improve achievement, we
know that other human capital initiatives like those focused on developing a quality
teacher corps are hinged on ensuring that quality leaders are in all of our schools, but
particularly in those schools that have an increased level of need as indicated by high
levels of poverty, disability rates, and low student achievement outcomes. Understanding
the role that principals can play in recruiting and developing teachers and shaping the
school culture has provided me with insight that assists in understanding the complexity
21
of both the issues and the proposed solutions related to improving resources for low-
income students with the intent of improving student achievement outcomes.
Research Strategy
In order to assist in addressing the above research questions, I have relied on a
quantitative research design. The planned strategy included a review of secondary data
(previously collected by the State of North Carolina) that examined leadership, school
culture and student achievement within the State of North Carolina while giving
consideration to the following:
• Students’ free and reduced lunch eligibility; and
• Students’ Accountability, teaching the Basics with an emphasis on high
educational standards, and maximum local Control (ABC) results;
Summary of the Methods
For the study, I am interested in learning how leadership influences student
achievement outcomes within high poverty schools. As a result, I conducted explanatory
research to examine leadership and school culture in relation to high poverty schools. I
will use a secondary dataset obtained from the New Teacher’s Center to perform relevant
analysis that assists in answering key research questions.
The dataset included student achievement data from the North Carolina ABC
assessments and information from the State’s Teacher Working Condition Survey that
assesses both leadership effectiveness and the strength of the school culture. These
metrics assisted me in learning about how the independent variables work through the
study’s dependent variable.
The independent variables for this study are identified as follows:
22
• IV1=Principal Leadership
• IV2=School Culture as measured by the following variables in the Teaching and
Learning Survey
o Time
o Facilities and Resources
o Community Support
o Student Conduct
o Teacher Leadership
o Professional Development
o Instructional Practices
• IV3=School Poverty
Additionally, I included other independent variables that serve as control variables.
The variables that were included as controls include the following:
• IVk=Various control variables

o School Poverty (primary interest)
o Educator Experience
o Student Teacher Ration
o Student Race
Other Minority
Hispanic
Black
White
Further identified as variables for the study is the dependent variable,
• DV1=Student Achievement
Research (Hallinger and Heck, 1996 and Leithwood et al, 2004) indicates that
principals influence many factors that impact student achievement. Thus this theory
supports my hypothesis that effective principal leadership influences school culture in
high poverty schools in a way that supports improved student achievement outcomes.
As such, I sought to determine whether a predictive relationship exists between
the study’s identified independent variables (e.g. leadership, culture, school poverty) and
the dependent variable (student achievement). The relationships were explored by
23
analyzing data obtained through the Teaching and Working Conditions Survey that
measures both the quality of the school’s leadership and the culture.
Assumptions
This study assumes that children from low-income households attend poorer
quality schools and receive fewer and inferior resources than do their lower poverty
counterparts, a factor that is supported by much research. Clotfelter (2006) and Aud et al
(2010) find that in particular minority and poor students receive ineffective and
inexperienced teachers and other staff found to correlate with improved student
achievement outcomes. It is expected that the researcher will find a similar relationship
between poverty, student achievement and resource allocation among schools in North
Carolina.
It is also assumed that children from lower socioeconomic backgrounds more
often attend schools that are led by less effective leaders that have limited ability to
impact the school’s culture and thus have less influence on driving the teaching practices
that can assist in bolstering student achievement outcomes. The assumption is one that is
supported by the theories of Clotfelter et al. (2007) who say that minority and low-
income students are most likely to be assigned staff that are ineffective and
inexperienced.
It is assumed that North Carolina is not uniquely different from other states and
thus, it is also assumed that in North Carolina that the most effective principals will be
assigned to low poverty schools and that the less experienced principals will be assigned
to high poverty schools. Additionally it is assumed that in high-poverty schools where the
leader is deemed effective, the level of leadership competency influences others and has a
24
more significant impact on student achievement than would a similarly effective leader at
a low-poverty school. Further it is believed that within the low-poverty school that the
leader’s influence will have less of an impact because the students may come to school
with fewer barriers to learning and are first influenced by their home and family culture,
which may be more aligned with the goals of the school and community, resulting in less
influence of the leader. This assumption is supported by the findings of the Coleman
report (1966) that indicate that student achievement outcomes for high-income students
are more related to parental factors that are closely linked to socioeconomics.
Limitations
The limitations of the study can be anticipated to be those related to the
methodology used; particularly those related to the School Working Conditions Survey
that assesses the strength of the school culture. The School Working Conditions Survey
relies on a Likert scale that limits the respondents’ flexibility to choose responses that are
not listed. This serves as a benefit to the analysis and allows for correlating responses
across participants, an action that would be achieved with various responses across a
large number of participants.
Furthermore, the survey limits results to the perceptions of teachers and principals
participating in the study and does not include the input of other stakeholders (Assistant
Superintendent, parents, students, etc.). As such, the results are restricted to persons
found by researchers to have the largest impact on student achievement outcomes and the
learning environment (Wallace, 2004 and Hallinger and Heck, 1996) and thus increases
face validity.
25
Delimitations
In terms of the delimitations of this study, one might assume that a natural path
might be to examine the impact that leadership has on all students. This study chooses
instead to focus on those who are most vulnerable as indicated by student achievement
outcomes. Although there exists much research (Hallinger & Heck, 1996; Leithwood et
al., 2004; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2000) that substantiates the impact that leadership has on
influencing general student achievement outcomes, the schools participating in these
studies have not been clearly identified as schools with increased levels of poverty, which
is believed to correlate negatively to student achievement outcomes. Kannapel and
Clements (2005) said that poor children are overrepresented among the number of
students scoring below the proficiency level on state assessments. This serves to support
the need to focus on strategies that improve the student achievement outcomes for this
group.
Definition of Terms
It is likely that many of the terms used throughout this research may be unfamiliar
to those outside of the education field. As a result, the researcher has provided this
section to list terms that have been both defined above and will appear throughout the
dissertation. The reader is invited to review the terms below, which are available to the
reader as a reference for use throughout the reading of the text.
Climate. A set of psychological priorities of a given work environment that are
based on the collective perception of the people in that environment (Burke,
2008).
Culture. Defined by (group members') beliefs, values, and attitudes (Burke, 2008).
26
High-Poverty Schools. For the purpose of this study, these are schools that qualify
for Title 1 services, that is, serving a student population where 75% of the student
body is eligible to receive free and reduced-price lunch services.
Leader. An individual who demonstrates traits that help influence others to move
toward the achievement of a particular goal.
Leadership. The act of influencing others to move toward the achievement of a
particular organizational goal.
Leadership Effects. The result of an act that influences others to move towards the
achievement of a particular organizational goal.
Low-income Student. Student who qualifies for free or reduced-price lunch,
which is based on the federal criteria for determining income guidelines. In order
to qualify for either free or reduced-price lunches, the families of the students
must have incomes that fall 185% below the poverty threshold (U.S. Department
of Agriculture, 2012).
Organizational Change. Moving an organization towards its most optimal or
efficient state.
Principal. Identified as a school’s primary administrator who holds the
responsibility of administering the day-to-day school operations, evaluating
teaching staff, and advancing the district’s mission at the individual school level.
Student Achievement. Improvement in student learning as measured by state and
local assessments that demonstrate student proficiency in the identified subject
matter.
27
School Culture. Beliefs, values, and attitudes held by a school’s group members
that influence student learning.
School District. Entity that is fiscally responsible for the delivery of educational
services to students attending schools within a designated location.
School Leadership. The administrator assigned to a particular school and charged
with the day-to-day operations and management of the school building. In
addition, this person is in charge of managing and monitoring the staff responsible
for the delivery of educational services to all enrolled students.
School Reform. The strategic act of improving the quality of education received
by all students within the district, giving particular attention to the education
services and achievement of high-needs students.
School Staff. Individuals employed by the district and assigned to a particular
school under the charge of the school’s principal and responsible for delivering
educational services to students assigned to the school.
Teaching and Learning Environment (TLE). The school and classroom
environment that encompasses a set of beliefs, values, and attitudes that are
reflected in both the teaching and student engagement practices.
Chapter Summary
The number of high-poverty students able to demonstrate proficiency on state
assessments designed to measure learning has indicated that the American educational
system needs improvements. As a result, school systems are identifying large-scale
reform strategies that can potentially help improve student achievement for all students,
but they have found a specific urgency to identify strategies for assisting the earners with
28
the most need. Aud et al. (2010) and Clotfelter et al. (2007) reaffirm this by saying that in
order to address the urgency of the achievement crisis among the most vulnerable groups,
many school districts now focus their efforts on improving the quality of resources
provided to those with the lowest achievement who are often our poorest students.
One of the most important elements identified to improve student achievement
outcomes is staff resources, which include principals and teachers. In terms of these
resources, Clotfelter et al. say that poor students often are served by the least experienced
and effective staff. Because researchers (Hallinger, 2003; Hallinger & Heck, 1996; Heck,
1992; Leithwood et al., 2004; Leithwood & Reihl, 2003) find that principals impact
achievement by influencing the staff and the environment of schools, this study will
explore whether the presence of high-quality leadership impacts these factors as they
exist within high-poverty schools to improve student achievement.
In the next chapters, I will review current literature that informs practices related
to principal leadership and its impact on student achievement outcomes for low-income
students. In addition, I will present research that represents the influence that leaders
have on school culture and how this relationship impacts student achievement.
Furthermore, this researcher will present quantitative research methods that assist
in determining whether relationships exist between the effects of school leaders, culture,
and student achievement, but more precisely determine whether the correlations are more
significant for low-income student populations. Finally, this study will also present a
review of research findings related to this topic, provide a synthesis of these findings, and
engage in discussion that weaves the findings of other research with the findings of this
study and explore avenues for future research that could enhance this area of study.
29
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Chapter two presents a contextual overview that depicts theories about how
education improves achievement for poor students. Additionally, the chapter presents
theories about the barriers that limit access to life success for less affluent student groups.
Furthermore, this chapter will examine reasons why eliminating achievement disparities
has emerged as one of the most important issues of focus for urban school districts and
show why school districts are concentrating on improving the quality of school leadership
as a solution for overcoming the challenges associated with the student education
achievement crisis.
The information presented in chapter two is important to note as it dispels beliefs
that education alone can assists in improving student achievement for student living in
poverty. Instead the information presented in this chapter demonstrates how ineffective
resources including teachers and principals have not been successful in ensuring that high
poverty students obtain the skills that prepare them to gain access to post-secondary
education and employment opportunities that are indicators of success.
Historic Context
Theories about How Education Improves Outcomes for Poor Students
Many Americans grow up believing that less advantaged students can overcome
the challenges of their lives by simply working harder and obtaining a quality education.
Beliefs about education in America being the “Great Equalizer” (Mann, 1848) suggest
that education can place disadvantaged groups on equal footing with those who have
more life advantages. This assumption also suggests that education can mitigate the
30
barriers that hinder the advancement of one’s financial standing. Although this may
appear to be a rational theory, it is based on logic that assumes that high quality education
is accessible to all.
In terms of educational resources, both history and research (Aud et al., 2010;
Cantor et al., 2006; Kannapel & Clements, 2005; Lippman et al., 1996) indicate that
disparities do exist in education for children living in poverty. This is important to note,
as it is often assumed that all American students receive similar education resources,
which generates an unsubstantiated belief that all student have a similar likelihood of
achieving success. However acknowledging the presence of a resource gap, creates
support for the argument that the education received by low-income students has not
helped to level the playing field and thus has not benefited poor groups as prescribed by
the Mann’s theory (1848).
A review of student attainment data further supports the above claim. Researchers
(Aud et al., 2010; Cantor et al., 2006; Kannapel & Clements, 2005; Lippman et al., 1996)
conclude that when compared to more affluent student groups, disadvantaged groups
have lower attainment rates as indicated by high school graduation percentages,
performance on state assessments, college completion rates, and employment earnings.
These outcomes suggests that as a result of subpar educational resources that the
pathways to opportunities are limited.
Theories about the Barriers that Limit Access to Life Success
The practice of limiting access to high-quality educational opportunities to the
poor dates back to the late 1700s. While educating the poor was a practice that was
generally accepted in the United States, Vinovskis (1992) says that the motive for
31
educating the poor was rooted in a desire to influence the poor (who were most often
immigrants) to adopt actions, beliefs, and behaviors that were more typical of middle
class America. Because the intent was not to assist the poor to improve their economic
standing, Vinovskis (1992) indicates that the quality of the schools attended by low-
income children was usually inferior when compared to the school quality of middle class
students.
Furthermore in terms of educational quality, little consideration was given to the
quality of educational services delivered to poor students because it was believed that
most would likely become farmers and thus the assumption was made that little education
was needed for this vocation. This rationale was further supported by the large numbers
(80%-90%) of poor students who left school before entering ninth grade (Kantor &
Lowe, 2004) and thus would support a rationale of reserving the best educational
resources for the more affluent students as allocating them to the poor for the purpose of
improving quality of life was likely believed to be a misuse of quality resources.
High school education was considered advanced learning in the 1700s and 1800s.
Kantor and Lowe (2004) indicate that this level of education was typically reserved for
young men and women from middle and upper middle class families. Kantor and Lowe
conclude that the education received by middle and upper middle class families was often
of higher quality and say that these students were instructed by teachers who themselves
were better educated. Furthermore, the authors say that even when schools became more
open to more economically diverse student groups, the academics that poor students were
offered was often restricted to a tract that was less academically focused. Such practices
began to establish a historic precedence of using education as a way to cultivate middle
32
class values and citizenship as opposed to improving economic standards and life success
for the poor.
The above history about educating poor students assists in shedding light on
similar modern day practices for education high poverty students. Additionally, the
historic context assists in understanding possible motives for providing less affluent
students subpar resources. . Low expectations in terms of vocational and post-secondary
goals for poor students may result in the provision of education that qualifies these
students to participate in the workforce at a basic level. In comparison, it can be argued
that most affluent students will attend college and secure high earning vocations and that
in anticipation of this outcome, these students receive a level of education that prepares
them to assume careers that require postsecondary education and leads to employment
that allows them to earn a livable wage.
Student Achievement for both the affluent and the poor appear to be reflective of
their access to educational opportunities. As citizens of the United States, many may
subscribe to the belief that all students have access to the same educational opportunities
and thus similar access to post-secondary education and high earning vocational
prospects. If this assumption is true, it would suggest that education disparities between
affluent and high poverty students do not exists.
Lippman et al. (1996) dispel this belief and find that high-poverty students are
less likely than more affluent students to have access to higher quality programs such as
those for the gifted and talented. Additionally, the authors conclude that students living at
the lowest socioeconomic levels have higher poverty and unemployment rates as adults.
This suggests that by not having access to quality education programs that lower income
33
students may also be denied access to opportunities that could improve their employment
outcomes, and thus their future financial standings.
Revelations about the above correlations draw into focus theories about the
deliberateness of strategies for providing subpar education to the poor. Bowles and Gintis
(1976) say that these practices do not occur by accident, but reflect different educational
objectives and expectations that administrators, teachers, and parents have for students of
different social classes. This is important as the above information supports an argument
that says that the best resources should be allocated to those to whom society has high
expectations for success, which in itself suggests that all students, particularly poor
students, are not expected to achieve success. This thinking further propels the widening
of the existing resource gap.
Theoretical Underpinnings
Eliminating Student Achievement Disparities Emerging as an Important Issues
When approaching this study, it is important to begin by examining both the
problems identified in this research and the proposed solutions through their various
theoretical lenses, which include organizational theory, organizational change, and school
leadership theories. These theories provide additional context about how effective
leadership can drive changes within the school organization to obtain improved student
achievement outcomes for low-income students.
This work will explore the school system as an organization that has become
inefficient as a result of its perceived failure to improve student achievement, particularly
for low-income students. Additionally, the study will examine how a demand for an
improved organization (school system) has resulted in the development of reform
34
initiatives that focus on leadership within individual schools as a tool for improving
student achievement particularly for low-income groups.
Understanding the School System as a Functioning Organization
When school districts engage in school reform initiatives, it implies that
components of the system must change in order to deliver an educational product that is
acceptable to the districts’ stakeholders. In order to understand the components that
motivate changes within schools, one must first understand the school district as an
organization. Researchers (Blau & Scott, 1962; Etzioni, 1964; Scott, 1998) define
organizations as units that collectively and purposefully work towards achieving specific
goals of the organization. In this light, school districts presumably work toward a united
purpose of educating all students and should therefore be understood as a functional
organization.
As evidenced in federal policy and the No Child Left Behind mantra, society has
expectations of its school systems. It assumes that school districts will consistently work
toward the goal of equipping students to achieve educational milestones, which will in
turn prepare them to meet the expectations of both the workforce and postsecondary
institutions. In addition, society has come to rely upon the student achievement as the
standard for determining whether the schools, staff, and leaders of the district and its
schools are effective.
Scott (1998) says that organizations that do not meet the expectations of society
are often pressured to implement changes that produce society’s desired expectations and
outcomes. Thus, when school districts fall short of the goal to educate students in the way
that is expected, the community, government, and other stakeholders may force them to
35
rectify problems, restore efficiency and allow for the successful achievement of the
pursued goal. Weick and Quinn (1999) define this process as organizational change. In
terms of organizational change for schools, the process requires that school districts
correct the problems that interfere with student learning.
Organizations and the Environment: Correcting Organizational Inefficiencies
Burke (2008) says that organizations interact with the environment in a way that
ensure organizational accountability and assists in sustaining the organization and
contributes to the organizational change process. Burke (2008) says that interaction with
the environment motivates the organization to move towards its intended outcomes and to
correct systems that interfere with the organization achieving its identified goals. Burke
(2008) further indicates that the interaction with the external environment is necessary in
order to ensure the organization’s existence. The organization ensures its survival by
meeting the expectations of society in terms of the product that is delivers.
School systems typically rely on relationships with the environment that include
parents, community members, and funding agencies. These components assist in
sustaining the school district by providing resources, funding, support, and ensuring
accountability. Burke (2008) says that societal dissatisfaction with the organization’s
product forces the organization to examine and change its practices or risk becoming
obsolete.
In the case of school districts that are unable to deliver quality education services,
they risk becoming unsustainable as a result of lost funding or parents choosing
alternative school options. Additionally, the communication between the environment
and the organization forces the school district to implement changes that produce the
36
outcomes demanded by groups represented by the external environment. A district’s
response to the changes that stakeholder groups impose helps to ensure the district’s
success.
Extracting Resources from the Environment
In addition to the above benefits associated with an organization’s interaction
with the environment, a relationship with the environment allows an organization to
extract resources from the environment that assists in both replacing and repairing
various organizational components. Burke (2008) says that organizations must interact
with the environment in order to generate change within the organization. The author
further hypothesizes that organizations that fail to interact with the environment risk
extinction.
For schools and school systems, a healthy relationship with the environment is
likely to result in securing effective teachers and administrators for schools. Clotfelter et
al. (2007) conclude that most high-poverty schools experience difficulty attracting and
retaining high-quality administrators and staff. The observable challenge of a
disconnected relationship with the environment may result in the inability of high poverty
schools within school districts to positively influence the components of the school (e.g.,
learning environment, school climate, and teaching practices) that help to improve
student achievement. A disconnection with goals of the environment is an important note,
as organizations that fail to connect with the environment may be the result of the school
district’s or school’s outcomes being misaligned with the expectations of the
environment.
37
Poor Student Achievement Outcomes and the Consequences for High Poverty
Students
For schools that serve large numbers of low-income students, researchers (Loeb,
Kalogrides & Horng, 2009; Branch, Hanushek & Rivkin, 2009) suggests that the failure
of these schools occurs as a result of ineffective or subpar human resources. That is, some
schools are unable to extract high quality resources from the environment, which includes
effective principals, teachers and other staff. This is particularly true of high-poverty,
low-achieving schools where the resources are needed most. Researchers (Clotfelter et
al., 2007) find that a lack of adequate resources is often the reason for academic decline
within schools and districts.
Furthermore, assumptions can be made about how limited success for students in
high-poverty schools may result from penalties wielded by an external environment that
holds educational institutions accountable for student achievement. Based on existing
student achievement data, the environment may have determined that these schools have
not met the criteria to establish legitimacy and thus are not able to tap into the
environment to secure high quality resources.
Drawing a connection between misaligned outcomes and resources is an
important concept, as much of the research (Clotfelter et al, 2007, Loeb et al, 2009;
Branch, Hanushek & Rivkin, 2009) presented indicates a strong correlation between
student achievement outcomes and the resources that they receive. Additionally, the
researchers have presented evidence that the inability to secure resources has played a
major role in poor students not receiving the same quality of education and thus presents
38
additional support for why addressing these inequities has surfaced as a primary issue for
addressing the quality of resources available within low-income schools.
Burke (2008) indicates that organizations are not naturally inclined to change
without influence or pressure from the external environment. For school systems, the
interaction that motivates school reform or change is often the result of pressure exerted
from legislative bodies enforcing rigorous reform initiatives. Leithwood and Day (2008)
say that policyholders are now imposing high standards of accountability on schools for
student achievement outcomes.
Heck (1992) finds that the 2001 No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation plays a
significant role in increasing accountability among school systems, as the law requires
that schools document instructional efforts and outcomes by providing student
achievement data results from state assessments or other high-stakes tests. The recent
reform movements in school systems motivated by new legislative expectations have
pushed schools to adopt new strategies that improve schools both by offering funding to
those who succeed in improving student achievement and imposing harsh sanctions on
those whose strategies do not result in improved student achievement. This thereby exerts
pressure on the school entity to implement changes that align to the external environment
expectations. Researchers (Burke, 2008; Lewin, 1958; Schein, 1987) suggest that this
type of pressure forces changes to occur within an organization.
Disconfirming Beliefs in Order to Move Organizations towards Change
Burke (2008) suggests that the compliance measures exerted by this new
legislation create conditions that assist members of organizations to become dissatisfied
with the existing state of the organization that motivates change. Burke relates this
39
urgency to the phase of "unfreezing” explored by Lewin (1947) and cites this as a crucial
step in preparing an organization to become more accepting of change. Burke further
indicates that as part of this process, an organization is readied for change because
awareness is created among organization members about the ineffectiveness of existing
measures implemented by the organization. Schein (1987) finds that disconfirming
organizational members' existing beliefs induces guilt and moves the group to act (or
change) to ensure their own and the organization's survival.
For school systems, the process of disconfirmation has been evident during the
implementation of the NCLB Act (2001). An examination of the history leading up to the
NCLB Act illustrates how school systems were confronted with achievement data that
made both society and schools aware of the deficiencies that existed in the American
education system. The confirmed student achievement deficits spurred urgency among
school districts to adopt new strategies designed to advance the educational attainment
and growth of all students, regardless of challenges (e.g., poverty) perceived to be outside
of the school purview.
Although both state and federal governments acknowledge that there are barriers
that make the work of staff in high-poverty schools difficult, they continue to demand
better student achievement outcomes for the schools and districts that educate low-
income and minority students. As a result, school districts that serve large populations of
high-poverty students identify strategies (e.g., improving the quality of staff, leadership
and school culture) that are found to promote success among this group of students.
Furthermore, Leithwood (2007) finds that most reform initiatives in the United
States and other parts of the world are aimed at increasing public accountability for
40
schools. A review of the NCLB Act (2001) suggested that its primary intent was to
improve the academic achievement outcomes for disadvantaged groups. Darling-
Hammond (2007) says that the NCLB Act was an attempt by the Bush administration to
address the deficiencies and inequities of the American educational system by holding
schools more directly responsible for improving student achievement for students within
districts’ subgroups such as low-income, minority, or disabled students. Protheroe (2005)
concludes that new levels of accountability and rigorous goals have made it necessary for
both schools and districts to require changes in achievement that are immediate and
significant.
Not only does NCLB (2001) require that districts demonstrate continuous student
growth, but the law also requires that schools show growth among its highest need
students (e.g., special education, low-income, and minority students). For some districts,
particularly those located in urban settings, accomplishing these mandates may prove to
be beyond ambitious. Protheroe (2005) concludes that as a result of more rigorous
standards, like those imposed by NCLB, districts are now more accountable for the
achievement of subgroups (e.g., low-income, disabled, and minority students) and may be
subjected to sanctions that are based on the groups’ achievement on state assessments. As
a result, it is believed that schools that serve high percentages of students represented in
the above subgroups, inherit an increased liability to ensure that student achievement
improve for the students with the most need.
Other legislation that has influenced education reform is the recently implemented
federal Race to the Top program. The $4.35 billion program is the largest competitive
grant in history and was created as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
41
of 2009. Shelton (2010) says that the federal Department of Education hopes that the
incentive of large amounts of funding dollars for school reform will encourage school
systems to reexamine leader policies and accountability or risk not having access to these
funding dollars. This implies that there exists a trend to incent districts to respond to state
and national requirements to change existing systems or risk financial consequences that
districts may not be able to afford. Legislation that advocate for improved resources and
student achievement outcomes for low-income and minority students are important in the
process of motivating changes within public school systems as they use funding
incentives to drive changes that align to expectation of the environment.
Scott (1998) theorizes that organizations that reflect the priorities of the
environment establish legitimacy, which assists the organization to secure resources. The
author’s theory suggests that schools that are unable to secure high quality teachers and
principal resources (e.g. high-poverty and low-achieving schools) may not reflect societal
priorities and thus may have lost the benefit of participating in an exchange with the
environment that allows them to obtain high quality school leaders and teaching staff.
The National Education Association (NEA, 2008) education policy states that when more
experienced teachers leave high-poverty schools, they are most often replaced by
uncertified or inexperienced teaching staff. One of the consequences for the students who
attend these schools may be receiving ill-equipped or unprepared staff to assist them in
achieving adequate educational growth.
The Role of Leadership in Shaping Organizations and Establishing Legitimacy
One theory that has been recently floated as a strategy to encourage experienced
teachers to go to the highest need schools, is one that is based on a theory about the
42
influence of good principal leaders. Kimball (2011) suggests that despite the challenges
associated with low-achieving schools, teachers (and perhaps other staff) are attracted to
schools that are run by effective leaders. This suggests that the effectiveness of a school’s
leadership plays a significant role in improving the quality of schools that educate high
poverty students.
Kannapel and Clements (2005) concur that principal leadership is a factor that
plays a significant role in improving the quality of a school, as they identify the principal
as being able to coordinate components (e.g., quality teaching staff and school culture)
within a school that contribute to its success. This suggests that principals may be
positioned to align the school environment to the expectations of the environment. Jaffee
(2001) says that organizations must incorporate the rules and requirements established by
the environment in order to be perceived as legitimate and that this ultimately assures the
organization’s survival.
Beliefs about leaders’ abilities to transform components of school organizations
align with the beliefs of Burke (2008) and Murphy (2010) who indicate that no real
change within any organization can begin without giving thought to the organization’s
leadership. Education researchers (Peterson & Kelly, 2001; Leithwood, 2007; Deal &
Peterson, 1990) identify principals as the key players to implement comprehensive
reform programs. Theories about the role of principals and the significance of their role
in the reform process suggest that principals, in their positions as leaders, have the ability
to improve student achievement for their school organization by putting strategies in
place that move the school towards its desired state of change.
43
Heck (1992) says of principal leaders that they are in a position that enables them
to influence key aspects of the school that result in increased student achievement. As a
result of the belief about the ability of school leaders to influence components of the
school that impact student achievement, school districts now recruit leaders who develop
strategies that assist in creating the learning environment within schools that support the
achievement of improved student gains.
The Impact of Effective Principal Leadership on the Achievement of High-Poverty

Students
Principals are identified as key players in many education reform movements, as a
result of their ability to influence the conditions in a school. The National Commission on
Teaching and America’s Future (2003) says that effective principals establish the
school’s vision and demonstrate the skills that assist in developing school environments
that can meet the needs of the 21st century. Additionally, Peterson, and Kelly’s (2001)
findings indicate that measurable change to a school organization cannot occur without
considering the impact of leadership, thus suggesting that school reform efforts cannot be
successful without ensuring that the school leadership is also effective.
It is clear from the research presented that the principal’s role is significant and
can assist in acting upon factors that result in improved student achievement outcomes.
(Hallinger and Heck, 1996; Leithwood et al, 2004). Although research has typically
found that leadership’s direct effects on student achievement are small, Leithwood and
Levin (2005) says that leaders impact student achievement by influencing a variety of
factors such as school culture that directly influence student achievement. This is
significant to note as it suggests that leaders have a wide range of influence within
schools that assist in impacting student achievement outcomes for students. Studies (Loeb
44
et al., 2009; Papa, Lankford, & Wyckoff, 2002; Rice, 2010; Branch et al., 2009) about the
significant role that effective principal leaders play in improving school quality and
student achievement outcomes, and find that schools serving disadvantaged students are
least likely to have effective principals as a resource that Andrews and Soder (1987) say
more significantly impacts the student achievement outcomes of this group.
This suggests that one reason for the poor academic achievement of the students
who attend these schools may be that they receive leadership resources of lower quality
than more affluent schools. This suggests that leadership is an important aspect of student
achievement and that schools with subpar leadership and high poverty students are
disadvantaged. Additionally this disadvantage plays out via poor academic outcome
results for poor students.
Although many might agree that higher poverty students should have access to
school leaders who are at least comparable in quality to those at schools attended by
lower poverty students, Clotfelter et al.(2007) indicate that simply having equal resources
is not enough to eradicate the existing disparities between disadvantaged students and
non-disadvantaged students. The authors posit that in order to arrive at the same student
achievement outcomes as more affluent students, students from high-poverty
backgrounds require access to resources of a higher quality than those received by their
more affluent counterparts. In other words, to arrive at equal achievement outputs, the
quality of the inputs for low-income students must be of higher quality. This strategy
requires adoption of a new paradigm; one that prioritizes the needs of poor students by
providing them with the best resources this includes having access to the best leadership.
45
Clotfelter et al. (2007) say that improving the quality of resource inputs can help
overcome the educational disadvantages associated with poverty. Heck (1992) suggests
that many of the environmental factors encountered by low-income students could be
overcome through “strategic school organization” (p. 5) and strong principal leadership.
Thus, it is hypothesized that leadership may neutralize poverty’s effect on educational
achievement and act as a factor that bolsters the achievement of low poverty students.
Andrews and Soder (1987) further demonstrate the leverage that leadership can
provide in improving student achievement for high-poverty students. Their study reveals
that low-income students attending high-quality schools or schools with effective
principals have more significant gains than students in schools of poor quality or those
that have ineffective principal leadership and thus is a study that will support the
hypothesis for this study that posits that high quality resources, explicitly principal
leadership has more significant impact on high poverty student populations.
The above is supported by Leithwood et al. (2004) find benefits associated with
effective leadership for schools that have the greatest challenges (e.g., poverty and low
student achievement outcomes). They further conclude that leadership is the key to
improving student achievement for these students. Particularly valuable in relation to
these studies were the findings that reflect the impact that strong leadership can have in
influencing the student achievement outcomes of high-needs students.
Therefore, the strategy of improving principal leadership effectiveness as a
resource within high poverty schools may offer high need student groups a benefit that is
separate from and above the benefit that this same strategy provides to other student
groups. These studies indicate that providing high-poverty schools with effective leaders
46
could potentially assist in eradicating the achievement gap that exists between high
poverty students and their more affluent counterparts.
Andrews and Soder (1987) support the adoption of the strategy to provide
effective leadership to high-poverty groups. They find that although principal leadership
does little to influence student achievement for White and non-free-lunch students,
leadership (whether strong or weak) significantly and consistently influences the student
achievement outcomes for minority and high poverty students, with the greatest
differences occurring among students eligible for free lunch. Thus, the study suggests that
ensuring the placement of strong, effective principals in low-achieving schools where the
student population is largely low-income may assist in improving student achievement
outcomes and eradicate the achievement gap between low-poverty and high-poverty
students.
The Equality of Education Study (Coleman, 1966) was among the first studies to
initiate interest in a theory about resources and school differences in order to assess their
influence on student achievement. Gorman and Long (2006) hypothesize that the original
purpose of this research may have been to substantiate theories about how resources
advantaged low poverty schools. Instead the authors say that because only small
differences in achievement were observed and attributed to school resources (e.g. teacher
quality, curriculum and facility) that this theory was initially rejected. The Coleman
(1966) report instead attributed student achievement gains to be more related to
characteristics that are influenced more by students’ individual backgrounds, precisely
factors that are most often attributed to the student’s socioeconomics and parental
influence.
47
Furthermore, the study’s outcomes suggest that schools do little to advance the
learning of high- income students. However in the case of low-income students, the study
finds that the same high quality resources produce improved student achievement
outcomes. These findings further substantiate that high quality resources can in fact
negate the impact of the home environment for low-income students in a way that is
different for other students.
This theory is further confirmed in Summers and Wolf’s (1975) analysis
education production function study that speaks to specific resources that best influence
student achievement for low-income students. The authors’ research outcomes find that
resources such as class size and teacher quality positively affect student achievement
outcomes for low-income students and thus also support movements posed by researchers
(Gamoran and Long, 2006) to provide the best resources (e.g. teachers and principals) to
the students who need them the most.
Other research that adds additional support for the theory about the impact of
effective leadership on student achievement outcomes of high poverty student
populations include the Leithwood et al (2004) study which indicates that leadership has
more significant impacts in schools with more challenging circumstances. These studies
corroborate the need for policy changes that advocate for the identification of the most
effective school leaders and placing them into schools where there is an increased level of
need, as defined by low achievement and high poverty.
Research conducted by Heck (1992) suggests that even risk factors such as low
SES (poverty), language barriers, and poor parental participation can be overcome
through “strategic school organization" (p. 5) and strong principal leadership. Although
48
the study does provide additional support for the theory about the benefits of principal
leadership and its impact on student achievement outcomes of high-needs students, the
authors caution against generalizing the results, as the study only includes elementary
schools. As such, it is suggested that future studies include representation from other
school grades (e.g., elementary, middle, and high school).
Other studies that discuss the relationship of principals to achievement growth for
low-income students are those that identify the principal as the link to securing more
effective staff, a factor shown to directly correlate with improved student achievement
gains. Leithwood et al. (2004) conclude that among school-related factors that are
associated with student achievement, leadership is second only to classroom instruction
in improving student achievement outcomes. The NEA (2008) says “there is no one
factor more important for attracting and retaining (quality and experienced) teachers and
improving schools than a skilled and knowledgeable leader . . ." (p.3).
One could hypothesize that in order to improve student achievement and obtain high
quality teachers, school districts must improve the quality of principal resources provided
to high-needs schools.
While some school reform efforts have focused on improving the quality of
school leaders as a solution for accelerating student achievement, studies do not
conclusively support the hypothesis that leadership alone can improve the most
challenging schools. Many studies (Hallinger, 2003; Hallinger & Heck, 1996; Heck,
1992; Leithwood & Reihl, 2003; Leithwood et al., 2004; Waters et al., 2005) find that the
relationship between principal leadership and student achievement is an indirect one. This
is important to note, as the argument that principals are a significant factor in school
49
reform efforts may be difficult to justify by simply assuming a direct relationship
between principal leadership and achievement. Hallinger and Heck (1998) find that
studies that attempt to establish a direct relationship between the two factors are at best
weak. Still other research studies offer explanations about how principals impact student
achievement without directly influencing it.
Principal Effectiveness and the Impact on Factors Linked to Student Achievement
Because principals’ practices do not directly influence student achievement,
researchers (Hallinger and Heck, 1998; Leithwood and Levin, 2005) imply that principals
influence other variables that are more directly linked to student achievement.
Researchers (Leithwood et al., 2004; Leithwood & Levin, 2005) explain this relationship
through a mediated effects model that speaks to the impact of school leadership. Based
on this framework, Hallinger and Heck (1998) conclude that principals’ effects on
student achievement outcomes occur by way of indirect paths that are mediated by
people, factors, or events within the organization.
Kannapel and Clements (2005) indicate that school culture is one factor that can
be influenced by principal leadership that also influences student achievement. While
culture is a term that is not easily defined, Peterson and Deal (1998) define culture as the
norms, values belief and traditions of an organization that are observable over time.
Specific to school culture, Hinde (2004) says that culture occurs within a school
as a result of interactions between and among students, staff, and the community and
guide the behavior of the staff and students within a school. Michigan State University
(2004) says that school culture is represented by the shared values of the principal, staff,
students and others who are part of the school community. This implies that the principal
50
in concert with others in the school building contribute to the shaping of the school
culture that Leithwood et al (2004) find also influences student achievement.
Furthermore, researchers (Leithwood et al, 2004) find that in addition to culture
that principals also influence the school climate. Michigan State University (2004)
defines climate as being reflective of the “physical and psychological” (p. 2) components
of a school that are most receptive to change and that provide the “preconditions” (p. 2)
that are essential for teaching and learning to occur. In essence, this definition can be
summarized as the feelings that individuals experience as a result of the conditions of the
environment. The Leithwood et al, (2004) model identifies classroom conditions as a
factor that contributes to the development of a positive teaching and learning experience
and indicates that it represents the school climate.
Research (National School Climate Center, 2007) speaks to the importance of a
healthy school climate and its contribution to student success. However, the Alliance for
Excellent Education (2013) finds that high poverty schools often struggle to implement
positive school climates and thus also struggle with improving student achievement.
Leithwood et al (2004) explain that by improving classroom conditions (school climate)
through teachers’ actions that student achievement can also be improved.
Upon researching climate and culture in the literature, there appears to be much
disagreement about how best to distinguish the terms. The NSCC (2007) says that while
there exists a convincing body of evidence that is available, much of the literature does
not accurately or consistently define the terms and uses the terms interchangeably, thus
contributing to the lack of clarity about the terms.
51
Other anticipated challenges include difficulty in measuring perceptions related to
values as associated with school culture. Hoy and Feldman (1999) imply that perceptions
related to values that are associated with culture are not easily measured and suggests
instead measuring behavior perceptions typically associated with climate that they say is
less abstract than culture and thus present fewer empirical measurement problems. The
authors further suggest that this makes climate less difficult to measure and a
recommended construct for assessing the health of the school organization. Further,
researchers (Schein, 1985) imply that culture is inclusive of climate. This suggests that
the researcher will be able to assess aspects of a school’s culture through information
obtained via an assessment of the climate.
Both climate and culture relate to leadership in improving student achievement.
For the purpose of this study, the researcher will focus on the relationship between school
leadership and school conditions that can also include culture. However, in terms of
measuring the perceptions of teachers and other staff, the researcher will seek to use
measurements that assess school climate as a way of measuring the conditions of the
school. This decision is driven by research (Hallinger & Heck, 1998; Leithwood et al,
2004; Michigan State University, 2004) that indicates a strong relationship between
school conditions and student achievement, as well as research (Hoy & Feldman, 1999)
that identifies measurements associated with climate as being less abstract than those
associated with culture and thus a better construct for measuring the quality of the school
environment.
52
Understanding the Conceptual Framework and It’s Influences
The conceptual theory for this study hypothesizes that leadership impacts student
achievement by manipulating conditions within the school that influence student
achievement. As such, the conceptual framework (figure 1) for this study is based on a
commonly held premise about the relationship between a leader’s effective practices and
achieving the organization’s intended goal, that of improving student achievement.
More precisely, the study’s framework assumes that the effects of leadership are
influenced by the environment and organizational school district’s culture, which also
influence leadership. Further the model illustrates reciprocal influence that the leader has
on the organization. Additionally the model hypothesizes that the leader is able to
implement his/her beliefs and values through the design/structure of the organization that
are operationalized through policies and systems that influence school conditions and
impact teacher practices. Lastly the model illustrates the influences that the principal
leadership has on teachers’ practices that impact the conditions in the classroom and that
are hypothesized to improve student achievement outcomes for high poverty students.
Moreover, the Wallace Foundation’s supported leadership study model
(Leithwood & Levin, 2005) serves as a guide to the model for this study. This model
demonstrates the role that effective school leadership plays in influencing factors (e.g.
teacher practices, classroom and school conditions) within the school’s learning
environment that impact student achievement.
53
Figure 1. Conceptual framework: school leadership impact model for high poverty student achievement
(adapted from Wallace, 2004, p. 18 and Burke Litwin, 1992)
Additionally Hallinger and Heck’s (1998) variation of the Pitner’s (1988)
Reciprocal Effects model implies that there are factors indicates that there are factors that
54
act as mediators that interact with leadership to impact student achievement outcomes .
The researchers’ models suggest that the school leader’s ability to influence student
achievement occurs as a result of interacting with other variables. Hallinger and Heck
(1998) further imply that while leadership practices contribute to school achievement
outcomes, a school leader’s achievements often occur through the actions of other people,
events or organizational factors. Further, Pitner’s (1998) Mediated Effects with
Antecedent Model implies that other factors (e.g. the school leader’s education, training
and socio-economics background) can influence both the impact of the principal leader
and the outcome of student achievement.
While the conceptual model for this study accepts theories about the impact of
poverty on student achievement outcomes founded in other research, it also accepts the
research findings (Clotfelter et al., 2007 and Heck, 1992) that indicate the student
achievement outcomes anticipated by high poverty can be mitigated by effective
principal leadership. Furthermore, the conceptual model for this study demonstrates the
significance of school leadership in both providing direction and exercising influence on
the school conditions (school culture) in ways that help schools achieve the desired
outcome of improved student achievement outcomes.
Based on the influence of the two models discussed above, the framework for this
study makes a similar assumption that leadership practices can impinge upon other
variables (i.e., school conditions, classroom conditions, and teacher practices) more
directly in order to influence student achievement outcomes. Specifically, the model
assumes that the school leader driven by his/her vision for the school works to change
beliefs about student learning that results in changes in practices and behaviors in others
55
and creates a learning environment that results in improved student achievement for high
poverty students.
In addition to the influence of school leadership models, the framework for this
study is also influenced by organizational theory that speaks to the factors that motivate
change within the organization. In terms of the model’s organizational influence, the
components of the framework are also reminiscent of those in the Burke and Litwin’s
(1992) causal model of organizational performance and change. The Burke and Litwin
model, although without specific reference to school organizations, identifies the
organizational leader as playing an instrumental role in influencing the intended
outcomes of an organization by gaining insight from the environment that influence the
leader’s values, beliefs and practices that result in the development of policies and
procedures that change the organizational culture. Burke (1992) says that culture is a
transformational component and that changes occurring to an organization’s
transformational components assist in moving an organization towards its optimal
performance and achieving organizational goals.
Specific to the issue of leadership and its role in organizational change, there are
few models other than the Burke and Litwin (1992) model that capture the significance of
the leader’s influence. Although there are other models (Nadler & Tushman, 1977; Tichy,
1983; Weisbord, 1976) believed to be representational of the organizational change
process and the leader’s influence, however, Burke (2008) says that these models do not
speak to organizational change but more to the function of an organization. Like the
conceptual model for this study, the Burke and Litwin model focuses on key factors
related to change; among these factors are culture and leadership. Burke (2008) indicates
56
that the Burke and Litwin model is useful to assist in understanding how key components
within the organizations (particularly those that directly connected to the external
environment) contribute to the process of organizational change.
When exploring issues related to educational reform, the Burke and Litwin (1992)
model is also useful in understanding the impact that the external environment has in
developing reform strategies for school districts across the country, as well as to the
application of tenets related to leadership and its resulting impact on changing the school
learning environment. Burke (2008) says that transformation within organizations occurs
when leadership works to link the information obtained from the external environment to
transformational factors (e.g. vision, mission, and culture) in order to influence the
organization. Burke and Litwin (1992) indicate that changes to an organization’s
structure may result in total system changes when key structures within the organization
are impacted. Burke (2008) says that these factors affect structural components of the
organization that often result in organizations’ members developing new behaviors to
accommodate these changes, thus reflected in a changed culture by new beliefs, values,
attitudes and practices.
Exploring the Details of the Study’s Model
While the conceptual framework for this research encompasses many
components, the model (see figure 2) used for this study will only focus on the principal’s
effectiveness, the school’s conditions like culture and student achievement outcomes for
high poverty students. The decision to focus precisely on this dynamic of the research
model is based on the findings of researchers (Hallinger, 2003; Hallinger & Heck, 1996;
Heck, 1992; Leithwood et al., 2004; Leithwood & Reihl, 2003; Waters et al., 2003) that
57
focus on principals' direct impact on other measures that directly influence student
achievement. As such, this study validates the proposed hypothesis by utilizing a model
that is based on a premise about how leadership can impact mediating (intervening)
variables such as the school’s conditions (culture) in order to influence student
achievement outcomes for high poverty students.
Principal Leadership
School Conditions
(School Culture)
Student Achievement Outcomes

for Low income students
Figure 2. Principal impact framework for high-poverty schools
In accordance with this strategy for examining the influence of principal
leadership, this study assumes that principal effectiveness drives changes in the school’s
conditions (that includes the beliefs, values and practices of the individuals within the
school). Therefore, this study hypothesizes that as a result of the effectiveness of the
leader that the influences on the school’s conditions can more significantly support the
needs of low-income students. This theory is based on studies (Hallinger, 2003; Hallinger
& Heck, 1996; Heck, 1992; Leithwood & Reihl, 2003; Leithwood et al., 2004) that find
58
that principals are able to impact aspects of the school that influence student achievement
and other studies (Clotfelter et al., 2007; GA Moran & Long, 2006) that conclude that the
effectiveness of principal leadership more significantly influences achievement for low-
income students.
The chapter is included to demonstrate how the pieces of the model relate to one
another. Chapter two relies upon various models (e.g. organization, leadership, school
leadership and organizational change models) to provide foundational understanding of
the model for this study. The theoretical framework for this study hypothesizes that the
leader plays a significant role in improving student achievement outcomes for low-
income students. Specifically the model suggests that for schools that serve large
percentages of low-income students that the principal leader, as a result of other
influences implements a vision for the school that impacts the school environment and is
able to change the beliefs of teachers and others who are able to implement practices that
improve student achievement.
While many resources were used to document the information in this literature
review, it should be noted that all the items appearing in the literature review do not
appear in the model, but provide essential background in understanding key elements
included in the framework. As a point of interest for the reader, additional resources not
cited in the text may also be found in the list of supplemental resources in Appendix A.
59
Chapter Summary
Chapter two presents an overview of the following four research questions that
will drive this study:
1. Do high poverty and low poverty schools vary in relation to student
achievement?
2. Does leadership effectiveness differ among leaders in higher poverty schools
3. Does a schools’ culture, as measured by the school conditions differ among
higher poverty schools versus lower poverty schools?
4. Does a schools’ culture differ as a function of leadership and does that
Additionally the chapter introduces theories about education and reveals how many
schools that educate high percentage of low income students are missing the mark in
terms of improving student achievement for this group of students. Further the chapter
links the disparity in student achievement outcomes for poor students, resulting from
inequitable access to quality education to limited access to high quality vocational and
educational opportunities for these students.
Chapter two also examined reasons why eliminating academic disparities has
emerged as one of the most important issues of focus for school districts, states and the
Federal Department of Education, and shows why improving the quality of the school
leader has become a focus of districts as they explore strategies for improving
achievement outcomes for high risks groups. As such, the information presented in
chapter two is important in the context of this study as it illustrates that education alone is
60
not enough to improve outcomes for students living in poverty and instead introduces
other research that support a specific strategy, that of improving the quality of school
leaders, which is found to have a particularly significant influence on the achievement of
high poverty students.
Chapter three will be used to outline the methods that will assist in measuring key
variables found in the Principal Impact Framework for High Poverty Schools. Further
chapter three will reveal the source of the data, as well as outline methods and identify
and operationally define the primary variables. Furthermore, the researcher will present
the hypothesis of the research study and analysis that will assist in answering the research
questions for this study.
61
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
The literature presented in chapter two substantiates the impact that principals
have on low-income student populations’ achievement outcomes. This provides support
for improving the quality of principal leadership within schools that educate high
percentages of low-income students. Furthermore the literature review presented in
chapter two speaks to a principal’s ability to improve the quality of school conditions,
which research (Leithwood et al, 2004; Hallinger and Heck, 1998) suggests contributes to
improved student achievement.
Chapter three focuses on the methodology that this study will use to measure
leadership effectiveness and its influence on the school environment to determine
whether principal leadership, as measured by the principal’s ability to improve the quality
of the school’s culture, results in improved student achievement for the poorest students
within the state of North Carolina.
The research will be used to research questions that lend themselves to the
following hypotheses:
1. School poverty has an effect on student achievement
2. School culture has an effect on student achievement
3. School leadership has an effect on student achievement
4. A two-way interaction exists between school poverty and school culture in
terms of student achievement
5. A two-way interaction exists between school poverty and school leadership in
62
6. A two-way interaction exists between school leadership and school culture in
7. A three-way interaction exists among school poverty, school culture, and
school leadership in terms of student achievement
These hypotheses emerged from the supported idea that principal practices have an
impact on school conditions in a way that impacts the student achievement of high
poverty students.
Setting and Sample Frame
The state of North Carolina is located in the southeast region of the United States.
It currently has 115 school districts (excluding charters) that serve 1,450,435 students.
The Kids Count Data Center (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2010) reports that 53.9%
(approximately 75,993,340) of the state’s 1,409,895 enrolled students qualify for free and
reduced-price lunch. It should be noted that the total number of students given here may
be different the number of total students referenced in other parts of the study,
particularly in terms of the numbers used for analysis. This is likely the result of data
cleansing, resulting in the elimination of some schools (e.g. charters and other schools
without sufficient data).
The sampling frame for this study will include all schools within the state of
North Carolina that meet the minimum participation rate of 40% on the 2009-10
Teaching Working Conditions Survey and have an ABC school level composite score,
used to measure student achievement across various grade levels.
63
Research Design
The study used quantitative research methods to conduct an explanatory research
design to explore both direct and indirect causal relationships between principal
leadership and school culture. The study compares differences between high poverty
schools to low poverty schools. The dependent variable that has been identified for this
study is student achievement that will be measured using the ABC composite scores from
the North Carolina Accountability, teaching the Basics with an emphasis on high
educational standards, and maximum local Control (ABC). The information was obtained
from the North Carolina data and statistics website (http://abcs.ncpublicschools.org/abcs/)
where the 2009-10 data is publically accessible.
One of the independent variables for this study will be school culture, which will
be measured in terms of results from the North Carolina Teacher Working Conditions
Survey (NTC, 2010). Teachers within all schools in the state of North Carolina were
administered the Teaching and Working Conditions Survey to assess the quality of the
school culture. Additionally this assessment also includes a measurement of leadership
which measures the effectiveness of the leadership and will serve as measurement of
leadership for this study, included in the model as an independent variable. The dataset
including the results of the 2009-10 survey results were obtained from the New Teacher
Center using the form included in Appendix B.
As indicated above, one of the variables for this study will define poverty.
Poverty will be determined by the percentage of students qualifying for free and reduced
lunch. Each school within the state has a continuous variable denoting the poverty rate as
measured by the number of students who are eligible for free and reduced lunch. A
64
higher level of eligibility indicates high levels of poverty. Poverty is included as a
primary control variable in the model in addition to educator experience, student teacher
ratio and race (White, Black, Hispanic and Other Minority).
Data Source
For this study, the researcher will rely upon secondary survey data obtained from
the New Teacher Center. The data provided will include results from the Teaching and
Working Conditions (TWC) Survey, an assessment of school conditions that has been
administrated to all schools within the state of North Carolina and North Carolina student
achievement data from the 2009-10 school year, assessed by examining ABC composite
results.
It should be noted that while similar TWC is available from the school district for
which I am employed, I choose not to use my district’s data as we were just beginning to
use this survey in 2010 and did not have the historic data of North Carolina. Additionally
the assessment was only used for an individual school district and not the entire state as
in the case of North Carolina. As result, I believed that the historic data and use within
the entire state would assist in producing results related to this study that would be more
widely applicable for a broader audience.
In terms of the achievement data used for this study, the data resulting from the
North Carolina ABC ratings are composite scores based on multiple standardized
assessments dependent on grade level and administered to students annually were
obtained from the state’s Data and Statistics website
(http://www.ncpublicschools.org/data/reports/) and are available to the public. The TWC
Survey results were provided by the New Teacher Center after first submitting an
65
informal request, followed by a formal request using the form found in Appendix B.
From the dataset and download, I was able to obtain data that assisted me in assessing
school leadership effectiveness, the quality of the school culture and their impact on
student achievement.
Specifically in terms of the TWC surveys, they are administered to teachers,
principals and other staff within schools located in the state of North Carolina from 2009-
10. This year is most significant as it was the first year in which every district and
traditional school within the state obtained the minimum 40% response rate for the
survey, resulting in 89% of the state’s educators participating as respondents in the
survey (NTC, 2010). Additionally, the participating schools will have both an ABC
composite scores and meet the 40% participation threshold for the Teaching and Working
Conditions Survey.
In regard to gathering information about principals’ leadership capacity, I used the
secondary data as assessed by the Teachers and Working Conditions (TWC) Survey. The
tool assessed the following factors related to school culture as measured by professional
development, teacher leadership, school leadership, facilities and resources, community
support and involvement, time, managing student conduct, and instructional practices and
support. The survey contains 72 questions rated on a Likert scale ranging from 1 to 5 and
is administered to staff by means of an online survey. The study used this secondary data
resulting from an assessment of leadership as determined by a section of the Teacher
Working Conditions (TWC) Survey, which Wheeler (2006) concludes to be a reliable
measurement of principal leadership effectiveness. Clotfelter et al. (2007) finds that the
leadership items on the survey that correlated most with the leadership factor were the
66
items that assessed the principal’s vision for the school, responsiveness to concerns about
leadership, and general leadership strength.
The state of North Carolina has collected this information on each principal since
2002. The data used for this research comes from the 2010 survey, which received
responses from 105, 000 educators (89% of all North Carolina educators). This
information was obtained through a request for secondary data use from the New Teacher
Center responsible for administering, collecting, and managing the survey data.
In terms of validity for the leadership factor, the New Teacher Center (2012)
concludes that the questions included in both the school leadership and education sections
were valid. The specific content included in the survey is supported by an extensive
literature review conducted by the North Carolina Professional Teaching Standards
Commission (NCPTSC). As for reliability, the leadership component was found to have
an internal consistency of .929 (New Teacher Center, 2012), thus indicating the ability of
this measurement to consistently measure leadership. As a result, this instrument will
serve as the measurement of leadership for this study.
As for measuring culture, the Teacher Working Condition (TWC) Survey
identifies the presence and strength of conditions within a school that support student
learning as assessed through teacher perceptions (New Teacher Center, 2012). Litwin and
Stringer (1968) say that perceptions are beliefs that organizational members hold about
an organization that contribute to their productivity, thus suggesting a positive correlation
between perceptions and meeting the goals for organizational (school) quality. Banks,
Bodkin, and Heissel (2011) say that the TWC Survey serves as a tool for assessing
whether capacity-building efforts, strategies that are targeted in schools with a history of
67
low achievement, can be determined by changes reflected in the school’s leadership,
culture, or other working conditions. The New Teacher Center (2012) finds that this
survey provides a robust measure of aspects of a school’s teaching and learning
conditions, and thus indicates that the instrument is an appropriate (valid) measure of
school culture. Furthermore, the validity of the assessment is also affirmed by Banks et
al. (2011), who identifies the tool to be a valid assessment of school culture and affirms
the construct validity of the instrument.
In addition to the instruments described above, North Carolina student
achievement data was also used determine the impact that both leadership and culture
have on this dependent variable. Currently, the state relies on the results of the ABC End
of Grade Test to determine student growth expectations at the end of Grades 3-8 and
assesses growth at the elementary and middle (Public Schools of North Carolina, State
Board of Education, Department of Public Instruction, 2012).
Additionally the data from this survey allowed me to obtain information about
the quality of the school culture within each of the participating schools. Leithwood et al
(2004) say that the principal leader influences the school’s culture. Thus an examination
of data that assesses the strength of schools in North Carolina provided me insight about
the quality of leadership within each school.
Further, I used the data to determine whether schools that have positive learning
environments have a greater influence on student achievement in high poverty schools. In
order to determine the presence and strength of these relationships, I analyzed student
achievement data using the North Carolina ABC ratings.
68
This school level assessment is currently administered to 2,482 schools in the
state of North Carolina and is based on student achievement outcomes that include
Mathematics and Reading end of the year grade test for grades 3-8, Science tests in
grades 5-8, end of course tests for English I, Algebra I and Biology, cohort graduation
rate and student performance on alternate assessments for student with disabilities. For
the purpose of this study, I devised a sample that considered whether each of the
participating schools had an ABC assessment.
Validity and Reliability
The New Teachers Center (2010) says that the 2010 version of the Teaching and
Working Conditions Survey is similar in content to previous iterations (2002, 2004, 2006,
and 2008) of the survey and is found to be similarly valid. The survey has been tested for
content, construct and predictive validity.
In terms of testing the survey’s content validity, the content included in the survey
is supported by an extensive literature review conducted by the North Carolina
Professional Teaching Standards Commission (NCPTSC). The NTCJ (2010) says that the
NCPTSC identified conditions that were believed to contribute to both teacher mobility
and dissatisfaction. The authors say that initially the 30 conditions created served as the
foundation for the first survey that was administered in 2002 and used to determine
whether educators agreed with these conditions.
The New Teacher Center (2010) reports that in 2004, that educators were asked to
use an ordinal scale to rank the importance of each question on the 2004 instrument to
allow for a factor analysis to be conducted in order to verify the importance of each set of
critical conditions included in each section of the survey. The researchers found that the
69
questions that were most important were also those that had the highest factor loads and
thus these questions were included in the battery of core questions in the 2010 version of
the survey.
Additionally, the Teaching and Working Conditions Survey theorizes that there
are eight distinct constructs that assess the quality of the learning environment. They are
time, managing student conduct, school leadership, professional development, teacher
leadership, facilities and resources, community support and involvement, instructional
practices and support. In order to determine the validity of these particular constructs a
factor analysis was used. The New Teacher Center (2010) indicates that this analysis was
run in order to determine if the assessment distinctly measured eight areas of focus. In
addition, Hirsch and Emerick (2007) found correlation between working conditions as
measured by the Teacher Working Conditions Survey and teacher retention and student
learning. The authors also identify positive correlations between the ABC student
performance composite and conditions present within a healthy school environment.
In terms of reliability of the Teaching and Working Conditions Survey, it has
been assessed for internal consistency by calculating Cronbach’s Alphas. The New
Teacher Center (2010) reported that all measures were reliable with alpha coefficients
above .859.
Data Collection Procedures
The study used secondary survey data obtained from the North Carolina TWC
study from 2010. Using this data, I compared the results of the surveys administered to
staff members during this year and examined and compared the results within and
between participating school groups. This information assisted in determining whether
70
the leadership practices as implemented by the principals of the high-poverty schools are
more effective in shaping the schools’ culture (e.g., establishing high expectations for
staff and students) and whether these factors have resulted in improved student
achievement outcomes for the identified schools. The information in terms of the survey
data was obtained via a verbal request and informal written request to Dr. Andrew
Sioberg (see Appendix A). This request will be followed up with a formal request for the
said data using the attached North Carolina Data Request form, (see Attachment B) after
receiving IRB approval. The data was then delivered via email as an electronic file
attachment.
Data Analysis
In order to complete the data analysis, I used Stata statistical software. The
analysis included descriptive statistics and regression based models that assist in testing
the hypotheses posed for this study. I initially developed a causal model mapping out the
relationship between independent variables, leadership (culture) and student achievement.
I then tested the relationships between leadership and the eight descriptive variables by
running an Ordinary Least Squared (OLS) regression analysis. Next, in order to
determine whether a more comprehensive model could tell me more about the
relationships, I performed a two block nested regression analysis including school
culture. This analysis allowed me to obtain coefficient information that assisted me in
determining the effects of leadership.
Similarly, I examined the relationship between student achievement and the eight
descriptive variables by running an OLS regression analysis. Additionally a two block
nested regression analysis was run to develop a more comprehensive model in which
71
student achievement was regressed against the eight descriptive variables and school
leadership. As in the above analysis, I was able to obtain coefficient information that
allowed me to determine the effects of leadership.
Interacting Variables
School School
Variables
Schools
Control
Culture Poverty Student
Clustered
by Achievement
District
Leadership
Figure 3. Analytical model
Additionally the above analysis assisted in answering the following questions related to
the research:
1. Do high poverty and low poverty schools vary in relation to student
achievement?
2. Does leadership effectiveness differ among leaders in higher poverty schools
3. Does a schools’ culture differ among higher poverty schools versus lower
poverty schools?
4. Does a schools’ culture differ as a function of leadership and does that
The research questions emerged from the supported idea that principal practices
influence school conditions in a way that impacts the student achievement of high
72
poverty students. Investigation into these questions will add to the body of knowledge
that speaks to how quality human resources positively impact outcomes in high-poverty
schools.
The multiple regression models will allow for an analysis to better understand the
relationships between poverty and non-poverty groups while examining school leadership
and school culture in terms of student achievement. The model will further control for
school district effects and other variables such as the size of the school and length of
principal tenure within the school.
Ethical Consideration
In order to ensure the safety, privacy and ethical treatment of all subjects and data
included in this study, I implemented standards of the Indiana University of
Pennsylvania’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) in order to ensure that standard and
ethical research procedures are followed. Further the subjects have incurred minimal
risks associated with the study. Additionally because all data is de-identified, I have
assured that all data management procedures are followed to ensure confidentially.
Further confidentiality will continue to be maintained as the file obtained for this study
will be secured.
Chapter Summary
In presenting chapter three, I hoped to assist the reader in gaining a clear
understanding of the methodological issues that should be considered for this study. It is
my intention that the reader will gain a comprehensive understanding of the research
design, instruments, data analysis and relative procedures that will guide the research.
73
In chapter three, I presents methods that assist the reader in gaining a greater
understanding about the research topic about how leadership advantages schools that
serve large percentages of low-incomes students. The study’s methods will assist in
answering this question and others in the study by exploring the strength of the
relationships based on tests of the interactions and effects among school culture, school
poverty, and leadership in relation to student achievement. The next chapter will
highlight the results of this study and the final chapter will discuss these results relative to
the literature.
74
CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS
This chapter presents the analyses addressing the impact that school leaders have
on school culture within high need schools in order to impact student achievement.
Additionally this chapter reports the findings resulting from analyses using STATA
statistical software (StataCorp, 2013) to explore data from a secondary dataset acquired
from the New Teacher Center’s Teacher and Working Conditions survey (2010).
The survey data obtained from the New Teacher Center (2010) includes over
105,000 respondents who participated in the annual survey. These respondents represent
89% of the educators within the state of North Carolina. Further, the New Teacher
Center (2010) reports that the 2009-10 survey yielded the highest participation rate since
the survey’s initial administration.
This study also relies on data obtained from the North Carolina Department of
Public Instruction (2010) that provides information relative to achievement including
Average Yearly Progress (AYP), achievement results, accountability, teaching the Basics
with an emphasis on high educational standards, and maximum local control (ABC)
assessment and other information about expected achievement growth. I further obtained
information that detailed the free and reduced lunch data (North Carolina Department of
Public Education, 2010), which assisted me in measuring information relative to the
poverty rates at each school within the state for the same year. These measures will assist
in supporting the argument posed about whether poverty relates to variables (e.g.
leadership and culture) to influence student achievement.
75
Furthermore, this chapter includes initial summary calculations that include
descriptive statistics, variable generation and scale development that assists the reader in
gaining contextual understanding of demographics among the students and staff,
modifications occurring within the dataset, and validity and reliability of the survey tools.
Modifications/Manipulations to the Original Data
The original dataset was provided by the New Teacher Center (2010). The
dataset initially included survey responses from over 105,000 participants representing a
variety of educator roles including teachers, principals, assistant principals and other staff
(e.g. counselors and social workers). In order to ensure that the data included assessment
results that were typical of a kindergarten through twelfth grade setting, I then removed
special schools and charter schools, thus making it clearer in drawing conclusions about
the impact on student achievement outcomes. Further, I was advised by Keri Fiebelman
of the New Teacher Center (2014) to eliminate items that measured mentorship, as these
items were only administered to new teachers and would not be applicable for the
majority of the educators taking the survey.
The dataset revealed that there were some cases that did not include responses for
all questions. For some respondents this number was significant. As a result, I made a
decision to eliminate cases in which the respondent answered fewer than 85% of the 130
questions and followed a method for imputation to address missing values. I address
these processes below as I discuss the specific variables.
Lastly, each individual respondent’s answers were combined with others from the
specific school site to create an average school response for each question of the survey,
thereby generating the school as the basic unit of analysis. The result of all omissions
76
and creation of averages for each school resulted in a total of 2,362 schools (or cases)
included in the dataset for use in this study.
Descriptive Statistics
The research questions that I explored include the following,
achievement?
poverty schools?
In order to address the research questions for this study, it is important to have an
understanding of state and school demographics. This information will assist the reader in
gaining a perspective of the populations served, as well as strengths and challenges faced
in the process of analysis.
According to the state’s website North Carolina Department of Public Instruction
(DPI) website (Retrieved from http://www.ncpublicschools.org/fbs/accounting/data, Mar.
8, 2016) there were 2,518 schools in 2010. This number includes charter schools, which
were excluded from the dataset used for this study. Within the state there exist 214
school districts serving over 1.4 million students in grades K-12.
77
I obtained data relative to the race and ethnicity of the students that attend schools
within the state of North Carolina from the state’s DPI site. Like other data obtained
from this site, the data depicting the student demographics for 2009-10 is publically
accessible and downloadable as an Excel document. However, because there were some
modifications to the Teaching Working Condition Survey data (2010) resulting in
dropped cases, I omitted student demographic data for those same schools to ensure
alignment. This action resulted in student racial demographics that were slightly
modified from the information presented on the state website for school districts in North
Carolina.
Also, because the data used for this study did not provide total male/female
categories that included the total for all race categories within schools in the state, the
demographics related to the data were determined by first calculating the total males and
total females including all races (i.e., American Indians, Asians, Hispanics, Blacks and
Whites students). I then created a new variable for each sex resulting in a measure of
total males and females within the district. This allowed me to determine the total
percentage of male students (51.4%) and total percentage of female students (48.6%) in
schools within the state of North Carolina.
In terms of the racial groupings, because the dataset only included information
relative to the total males and females within each race category, I was not able to easily
determine the percentage of each race within the schools represented by the dataset. As a
result, I first determined the total number of students by combining the numbers of male
and female students for each race category to obtain the total number of students within
each category. Each category was then added together to obtain the total number of
78
students. In order to check the accuracy of this number, I also combined the total number
of males and females to ensure that this number aligned to the total number of students.
The two methods together resulted in a total of 1,331,744 students, a number representing
all students attending schools within the state of North Carolina. Table 1 which depicts
these numbers appears below.
As a next step the total students within each race categories were determined.
This was done by dividing the total race for both the male and female groups for each
race by the total number of students within the state. This resulted in a percentage for
each of the racial groups and represent the percentages for students attending the schools
included in the study. The percentages break down as follows: American Indians
(1.58%), Asians (2.56%), Hispanics (13.19%), Blacks (27.46%), and Whites (55%).
Information related to the student race percentages are included in the bar graph
appearing in Figure 4. One can obtain these percentages by also dividing the total
number of students in a race category by the total number of males and females.
Table 1
North Carolina Total State Gender and Enrollment Tabulations

Total Total Total
American Total Total Total Total Pacific Students
Male Female Indian Asian Hispanic Black White Islander (All
Students Students Students Students Students Students Students Students Races)
681101 650643 21053 34113 175727 365764 734039 1048 1331744
79
NC State Race Demographic
800000
600000
400000
200000
0
sum of total_ai sum of total_a

sum of total_h sum of total_b
sum of total_w sum of total_pi
Figure 4. North Carolina student racial demographics
In terms of the race demographics, there are some slight differences that exists
between information obtained from the data used for this study and that reported by the
state. I attribute these differences to be the result of deleted cases occurring as a result of
missing data and incomplete data removed from the dataset. Nonetheless, the differences
are small and demonstrate that the state data and the data presented for this study
represent similar percentages among the race categories (see Table 2 for comparison).
Table 2
Comparison of 2010 North Carolina Student Data and the Final Research Data Set
North Carolina
Race/Ethnicity State Data Research Data
American Indians 1.4% 1.6%
Asians 2.6% 2.6%
Blacks 31.0% 27.5%
Hispanics 11.1% 13.2%
Whites 53.8% 55.0%
80
Sex
The calculations determining the percentages of male (51.4%) and female
(48.6%) students appear above and include each race category (i.e., American Indian,
Asian, Hispanic, Black and White students).
Number of School Districts
During the 2009-10 school year, the state of North Carolina reports that there
were 115 school districts excluding charters (EDFacts State Profile, 2012). This number
corresponds to the numbers of school districts represented in this study. Additionally, the
average number of schools participating in the survey was determined by dividing the
number of schools responding to the survey by the total number of schools within a
respective district. This resulted in an average of 20 schools per district.
Number of Classroom Teachers within the District
The dataset obtained from the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction
(2010) represents the number of teachers within the school. This number was modified to
align to the dataset used for this research. Again, due to the data set modifications given
missing data and specialty schools, the total teachers included in the study’s dataset may
appear slightly different from the numbers included in the original dataset.
For this study the researcher used the state data to determine the average number
of teachers within each district by running a tabulation of the classroom teacher variable.
This produced the total of number of teachers within the district for 2010 at 96,092 with
the average per school being 40.95 teachers per school. The distribution of average
number of teachers in North Carolina has a positive skew and indicating that the average
81
number of teachers participating in the survey is clustered at the left tail of the graph as
indicated in Figure 5.
NC Avg. Number of Classroom Tchs.

.025
.02
.015
Density
.01
.005
0
0 50 100 150 200

class_teach_num
Figure 5. Histogram of average number of classroom teachers in North Carolina
Educators’ Years of Experience
The data indicate that most of the educators completing the Teaching and
Working Conditions survey had an average of 4.2 years of experience. A review of the
histogram for these data shows that the distribution has a slight negative skew indicating
that the years of experience clusters in the right tail of the graph as indicated in Figure 6.
82
Educators' Yrs. Experience
1
.8.6
Density
.4
.2
0
1 2 3 4 5 6
yrs_emp
Figure 6. Histogram of mean/average years of employee experience.

State Poverty
In terms of student poverty within the state, I used the state of North Carolina’s
2009-10 free and reduced lunch data obtained from the North Carolina Department of
Public Instruction (DPI) data site for 2010
(http://www.ncpublicschools.org/fbs/accounting/data). This measure is an indicator often
used to represent poverty levels in school (Aud et al., 2010). For school districts within the
state of North Carolina, the free/reduced lunch rates ranges from 0-100 with the mean
free/reduced lunch rate at 58.4%. The histogram below (Figure 7) clearly depicts this
distribution.
83
2.5
2 1.5
Density
1
.5
0
0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1
percent needy/school
Figure 7. Histogram of school poverty percentage within the state of North Carolina
As for the social economics within the state, these data suggest that about 37% of
the schools within the state are designated as “low need’ as measured by free and reduced
lunch rates at or below 50%. Additionally, about 34% of the schools within the state are
designated as having “some need.” These schools have free and reduced lunch rates
between 51-74%
Variable Generation
In this section, I introduce the primary dependent variable (DV) or outcome
endogenous variable, which measures student achievement, and provide details about
how I developed it. Within this study, I also treat leadership and culture as dependent
variables, specifically; I treat them as endogenous mediator variables. As such, the
analysis involves a set of hierarchical regressions and the causal model addresses
84
relationships to leadership and then to culture prior to the final exploration of
relationships to achievement, I also treat leadership and culture as independent variables.
In so doing, discuss these variables in the subsection addressing independent variables
where I share information related to my process for generating independent variables in
addition to providing information about other descriptive characteristics not previously
noted.
Dependent Variable
Student achievement acts as the primary dependent variable of interest (i.e.,
endogenous outcome variable). This variable comes from the 2009-10 ABC assessment
data attained through the Public Schools of North Carolina State Board of Education
Department of Public Instruction (2010). This is a publicly accessible database from
which the researcher was able to download the relevant dataset as an Excel spreadsheet.
It should be noted that I first thought about using a categorical variable that I created for
achievement. However, after acquiring and analyzing the ABC data, I determined that
the variable was continuous in nature, which would likely provide more comprehensive
information related to student achievement. Nonetheless, the categorical information was
retained to provide reference points for discussion purposes.
Categorical development of achievement. The achievement expectation
category was created considering previously determined expected growth and high
growth categories. These variables were originally coded as 1 (yes) indicating that the
school has met expected growth targets or 0 (no) indicating that the school has not met its
expected growth targets.
85
Additionally in terms of the high growth category, a similar coding structure was
used. Schools obtaining high growth are denoted with a 1 (yes) or 0 (no) for not having
high growth on the state assessment.
The researcher then created a new variable named achievement expected
(ach_exp), where the achievement expected was determined based on whether the school
met the expected growth targets and whether the school obtained high growth. Three
categories were created where “0” was coded to mean that the school did not meet its
expected growth targets, nor achieved high growth on the state assessment; 1 = expected
growth; and 2 = greater growth than expected. A table detailing schools falling into each
of the growth categories is detailed below in Table 3.
Table 3
Student Achievement Expected Growth Categories
Defined Expected Growth High Growth

categories Y/N Y/N Freq Percentage
Less than
Expected 0 0 276 11.8
Expected 1 0 844 36.2
Greater than
Expected 1 1 1213 52
Continuous dependent variable. The dependent variable representing
achievement was obtained from the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction
website (2015). The information includes the results of each school’s 2010 ABC student
assessment. The information listed in the dataset includes a compilation of scores
ranging from two to 100, which represents the average score of a participating school.
In terms of the generation of this variable, I was interested in understanding the
variability of this score as reported in the results appearing in Table 4.
86
Table 4
Interquartile Results for Continuous Dependent Assessment Variable (ABC results)
Std. Pseudo Std.

Mean Median Deviation Dev. n
74.02 76.9 14.23 12.68 2326
A histogram (see Figure 8) of this student achievement variable with a normal curve
overlay demonstrates that the variable has a negative skew. As result, the regression
models using this variable may not have normal i.i.d. errors. Once the models are
finalized, a decision will be weighed to determine whether to transform the independent
variable or consider another alternative (i.e., Huber-White Sandwich Estimator).
Student Achievement
.04
.03
Density
.02
.01
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
perfcompos
Figure 8. Histogram of school student achievement percentage within the state of North
Carolina
87
Independent Variables
In terms of the independent variables, I selected variables based on literature that
speaks directly to the factors that can affect student achievement; essentially, school
leadership through school culture. In the analyses presented later in this chapter, and as
noted above, I treat these variables both as independent and dependent variables; or more
explicitly, as endogenous mediator variables. A more comprehensive discussion related
to conceptualization of these variables and the supporting research was presented in
Chapter 2. Here I note that this study includes both a composite leadership and a
composite culture scale as measured from responses to the Teaching and Learning
Conditions Survey.
Each of these scales were assessed across eight separate constructs that include
the following: time, facilities and resources, community support and involvement,
managing student conditions, teacher leadership, school leadership, professional develop,
instruction practices, and support. These components are believed to impact on the
achievement. The composite variables identified for this study include school leadership
and school culture.
School leadership. School leadership was assessed using the questions related to
leadership on the Teachers Working Conditions survey. Because there are two aspects of
leadership assessed via these questions, I first determined whether the two measures of
leadership (i.e. leadership perception and leadership effort) were correlated. I run a
correlation between the two measures (see Table 5) and found that a high correlation
exists between the two measures of leadership. This suggests that the two leadership
scales are unidimensional and thus allows me to combine the two measures of leadership
88
into one measure of leadership and thus this combined measure represents the multi-item
leadership scale used in this study.
Table 5
School Leadership Scale Correlation
School Leadership Variable Correlation

School Leadership Perception 1.00
School Leadership Effort .9006
In order to generate this variable, I calculated the mean leadership survey result
for each school. This was obtained by adding the mean for each of the 11 leadership
questions and then dividing by the total number of questions. After obtaining the mean
leadership score for each school, I was then able to obtain the mean leadership results for
the total number of participants and found that the average leadership score for the 2364
participants is 3.148488 (where 1=poor and 5=high leadership quality). This indicates
that most schools agree that their school has average school leadership.
In order to determine whether the measure of leadership was symmetrical with
normal tails, I calculated the interquartile range (IQR), the standard deviation, the mean
and the median. Based on the results, I was able to determine that the measure of
leadership is symmetrical as indicated by the mean (3.13) and median (3.128) being very
similar to one another. Additionally an indicator of normal spread is evident by the
similarities that exist between the standard deviation of .2595 and the pseudo standard
deviation of .2415. A comparison of these values appear in Table 6. This is further
illustrated in Figure 9, which shows a relatively normal shaped distribution of multi-item
leadership scale. In addition to being a component that assesses school leadership as part
89
of the school culture scale, the construct of school leadership assesses the strength of
leader quality within the school. A Cronbach’s alpha of .923 was reported for this
measure by the New Teacher Center (2010).
Table 6
Interquartile (IQR) Results Table
Pseudo Standard
Mean Median Standard Deviation Deviation
3.13 3.128 .2595 .2415
School Leadership Construct Average

1.5
1
Density
.5
0
2 2.5 3 3.5 4
sch_ldrship
Figure 9. Histogram of school leadership construct variable
School culture. Another independent variable that I will introduce as part of this
study is school culture. Survey results from the 2009-10 Teacher and Learning
Conditions Survey determine the strength of the school culture within the state of North
Carolina. The survey assesses culture strength across eight separate constructs that
90
include Time, Facilities and Resources, Community Support and Involvement, Managing
Student Conduct, Teacher Leadership, Professional Development and Instructional
Practices and Support.
The New Teacher Center (2010) identifies this survey to be a reliable and valid
assessment of school culture. I calculated the Cronbach’s alpha for this total multi-item
scale to be .9217. This is confirmed by the New Teacher Center (2014) who indicates
that the survey typically produces Cronbach’s alpha coefficients within ranges from .86
to .96.
Validity. Explicitly in terms of its validity, the survey and each construct has been
assessed for validity as part of the 2014 North Carolina Teaching and Working
Conditions Survey (NTC, 2014). The authors reported that they conducted external
validity tests of the survey scale, as well as tested for the alignment between the survey
constructs and survey items using the Rasch rating scale. Researchers of the New Teacher
Center (2014) say that these tests assist in determining the correlations between item-
measure correlations, item fit, functioning of the rating scale, unidimensionality, and
generalizability of the instrument.
In addition to the above, New Teacher Center’s researchers also conducted
external validity test, which found that some constructs of the survey became more
reliable when separated into the separate constructs (NTC, 2010).
Reliability. The internal consistency of the Teaching and Working Conditions
Survey was tested and documented by the New Teacher Center (2010) in which
researchers ran Cronbach Alphas analysis to calculate alpha coefficients. The researchers
indicate that these ranges serve as indicators of the instrument’s high level of consistency
91
and reliability as confirmed by the eight survey constructs having alphas above .859. The
alphas for each construct have been summarize in Table 7 derived from information
provide in the analysis conducted by the New Teacher Center (2010).
Table 7
Cronbach Alpha summary for the North Carolina Teaching and Working Conditions
Survey
Constructs (Factors) Cronbach’s Cronbach’s Mean Inter- Number of
Alpha Alpha Based Item Items
on Correlations
Standardized
Items
Time .859 .860 .468 7
Facilities & Res. .883 .884 .458 9
Comm. Supp. & .896 .898 .524 8

Involvement
Managing Std. Cond. .903 .903 .570 7
Tch. Ldrship. .931 .933 .637 8
School Ldrship. .923 .924 .504 12
Prof. Dev. .951 .952 .603 13
Instruc. Prac. & .860 .865 .445 8

Supp.
Source: New Teacher Center, 2010
Because each of the constructs has previously been factor analyzed, the New
Teacher Center (2010) says that the constructs are valid measures for determining the
presence of positive teacher working conditions. As a result of the previous analysis
conducted by the New Teacher Center, I was able to average the Teaching and Working
Conditions Survey responses (NTC, 2010) to create means for each of the eight
components of the survey by school. I also averaged the comprehensive survey reports at
92
the school level by each individual survey question within the construct, thereby
obtaining an average survey response for each question.
Imputation when creating multi-item scales. The school culture variable was
generated from the related school culture constructs to create a single multi-item scale. I
managed the missing values at the subscale level. I did this based on the fact that each
scale had a high alpha coefficient of at least .859 (range = .859 to .951). I therefore
averaged across rows that had missing values. In so doing, I was able to create a mean
score for each culture subscale by dividing the appropriate row sum by its respective “n”
exclusive of missing values. As a result, missing values were replaced with the
determined average row mean by each subscale. Summing all mean subscales together
and dividing by the number of subscales provides a measure of school culture according
to the New Teacher Center (2010).
Educator experience. Clotfelter et al (2006) says that for educators, quality is
often defined by experience, licenses and graduation from competitive colleges and
universities. In terms of the experience of the staff, an analysis of the data finds that in
general a majority of the staff within the state are experienced educators with 72% being
an educator for more than four years as demonstrated in the summary statistics for this
variable appearing in Table 8. Additionally, the data reveals that only two schools
(.08%) have a high concentration of new teachers or teachers with less than two years of
experience. These data points suggest that the state has a workforce that would be
deemed high quality. Figure 10 illustrates the point in additional detail and shows the
variable to be generally a normal distribution.
93
Table 8
Summary Statistics for the Educator Experience
Variable Observation Mean Std. Dev. Min Max

Educator
Experience 2364 4.204249 0.44572 1.333333 6
Educator Experience
1
.8.6
Density
.4
.2
0
1 2 3 4 5 6
yrs_emp
Figure 10. Histogram of educator experience
Student teacher ratio. There are many research studies that have debated the
impact of reduced class size relationship to student achievement. In terms of the impact
for low income students Gamoran and Long (2006) says that resources like reduced class
sizes can improve outcomes for both low-income students.
In terms of the North Carolina state data, the average number of students to
teacher ratio is approximately 14 to 1. This suggests a relatively reasonable student to
teacher ratio. The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) finds that in 2011 the
94
national student teacher ratio was 16 students to 1 thus indicating that the state of North
Carolina’s student teacher ratios are lower than the national average.
In terms of calculating the student teacher ratio, I was able to do so by creating a
new variable from the existing data. Specifically I divided the total number of students
by the number of classroom teachers assigned to the school. This resulted in the average
ratio of teachers to students across the state as indicated in Table 9 below. Additionally a
histogram of teacher Student Ratios within schools in the State appears below in Figure
11.
Table 9
State Teacher Student Ratio Calculation
Linearized
Ratio Std. Error 95% Conf. Interval
2364 4.204249 14.12236 14.3535
400
300
Frequency
200
100
0
0 10 20 30 40
tch_std_ratio
Figure 11. Histogram of teacher student ratio
95
School poverty. Aud et al. (2010) says that free and reduced lunch rates are
indicators of poverty, the higher the percent of eligibility the higher the degree of
poverty. For schools in North Carolina, 50% of schools have free and reduced lunch rates
at .59. This suggests that there is a high degree of poverty within the state as previously
shown in Figure 12, which is generally symmetrically distributed as initially presented as
part of the descriptive statistics that begin on page 3.
Student Poverty Levels

2.5
2 1.5
Density
1
.5
0
0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1
Percent Needy/Poverty Students
Figure 12. Histogram of North Carolina high need schools
Summary of Variables
The above sections in this chapter provided an overview of the variables that I
included in this study. The dependent and independent variables were defined and
discussed in terms of measurement. Because the leadership and culture variables are
measured via multi-item scales comprised of multiple constructs, the above sections of
this chapter introduce the reader to the constructs associated with each multi-item scale.
96
The above sections also provide a summary of univariate statistics related to these
measures. This information assists the reader in gaining a high level overview of the
variables and their generation. For the reader’s convenience and ease, I have included a
table (see Table 10) including the list of dependent and independent variables for the
research. Additionally, I have included information relative to variable measurement and
coding.
Table 10
Summary of Variables
Continuous or Item
Variable Type Variable Name Categorical Coding
Endogenous
Outcome Achievement Continuous 0-100
Endogenous
Mediator School Culture Continuous (All) 1-4 (All)
• Time
• Facilities and Resources
• Community Support
• Student Conduct
• Teacher Leadership
• Professional
Development
• Instructional Practices
Endogenous
Mediator School Leadership Continuous 1-4
IV of Primary
Interest School Poverty Continuous 0-1
Control Variable Educator Exp. Continuous 1-20+
Control Variable Student Teacher Ratio Continuous 1-20+
Control Variable Student Race Continuous 1-20+
• Number Other Minority
Students
• Number of Hispanic
students
• Number of Black
students
• Number of White
students
97
Data Analysis
In this section of the chapter, I use the proposed causal models to assist in testing
the research hypotheses. First I look at relationships with leadership and then
relationships with school culture. I then explore relationships with student achievement.
Exploring Relationships with Leadership and School Culture
I begin by using ordinary least squares regression to test the hypothesis that the
eight independent variables (years as educator; years as an educator at a school; Hispanic
population; Black population; White population; other race/ethnic population; student
teacher ratio; and poverty) have an effect on leadership quality as measured by the
Teaching and Learning Conditions Survey (NTC, 2010) multi-item leadership scale.
Additionally, I hypothesize that the eight identified independent variables and school
leadership have a relationship to school culture. These hypotheses are captured below in
a causal model. Figure 13 highlights the assumed order of causality for the variables
appearing in the model.
98
Years Educator
X1
Years at School
bX9.1
X2
bY.1
Hispanic b X9.2 bY.2

X3
bY.3
bX9.3
Black
X4 bY.4
bX9.4
Leadership bY.9 School Culture
X9 Y
bX9.5
White b Y.5
X5 b X9.6
bY.6
1 . …
Other
X6 b X9.7 bY.7
UY
bY.8 Unmeasured Influence
Student÷Teacher
X7 bX9.8 1 . …
Poverty U9
X8 Unmeasured Influence
Figure 13. Causal model of school leadership and school culture
Ordinary least squares regression. After developing the causal model for the
research, I analyze the relationships and obtain specific information relative to the
available data. My exploration of the data begins by using an ordinary least squares
(OLS) regression model that also calculates the beta coefficients (i.e., standardized
coefficients). In so doing, I sought to determine the relationship between the variables
included within the model (i.e. leadership, culture and student achievement). To do this,
I first ran two separate regression models. The first model, explored the relationship
between the dependent variable of school leadership on the demographic variables (i.e.
99
years as educator; years as an educator at a school; Hispanic population; Black
population; White population; other race/ethnic population; student teacher ratio; and
poverty).
Next, I ran a second model using school culture as the dependent variable. As in
the first model, the dependent variable was regressed against the same demographic
variables with the addition of school leadership. I am further interested in learning how
much variability can be explained by adding the variable school leadership to the model.
I am also interested in determining if leadership imparts any mediating effects on the
demographic variables. To accomplish this I plan to use hierarchical (nested) regressions.
However, before running the nested regressions, I critique the full models to determine
whether the data fit these models.
Critique of school leadership and school culture models. I first ran the two
regression models and determined that there were two cases (ID-1434 and ID-1022) that
appeared as outliers. After investigating these cases in more detail, I realized that each
case has a very high student-teacher ratio and they most likely represent cyber schools or
another atypical school configuration. As a result, I made the decision to eliminate these
two cases.
I also investigated the existence of multicollinearity and whether influential cases
were impacting the findings. To test for multicollinearity, I calculated variance inflation
factors (VIF). Table 11 shows the presence of reasonable VIFs.
Then, in terms of the first regression model, I investigated if the errors reflected
the underlying model assumptions by exhibiting normal independent identically
distributed (i.i.d.) errors. The model produced normal i.i.d. errors with only slight
100
evidence of heteroskedasticity (see Figure 14). As a result, I ran the model both with and
without robust standard errors. This did not appear to affect the results. Therefore, given
only minor demarcation from the assumptions and no difference in results when using the
robust standard errors, I concluded that OLS regression was a reasonable tool to use for
this analysis.
Table 11
Test for Multicollinearity of Model Regressing School Leadership on Eight Independent

Variables
Variable VIF 1/VIF

Educators’ years in school 1.88 .533006
Number of White students 1.87 .535027
Poverty 1.85 .540503
Educators’ years of experience 1.84 .544824
Teacher student ratio 1.35 .740198
Number of Hispanic students 1.23 .813173
Number of Black students 1.23 .814360
Number Other minority students
pop. 1.06 .944783
Mean VIF 1.54
Next I ran a leverage versus squared residuals plot in order to determine whether
any leveraging effects are impacting the model. A review of the plot appearing as Figure
15 demonstrates that there is one case (ID-1817) that is exerting high leverage. However,
the case appears to have a good fit and therefore I determined that it does not have an
influencing effect. Upon closer exploration of case ID-1817, I found that it does not have
any unusual characteristics. Subsequently dropping this case seems unwarranted and
running the model without this case did not appear to result in any differences in the
findings. As a result, the case was retained as part of the analysis.
101
1
.5
Residuals
0-.5
-1
2.6 2.8 3 3.2 3.4 3.6

Fitted values
Figure 14. Residuals versus fitted plot for the regression model of school leadership on
eight independent variables
.25
1817
.2 .15
Leverage
1797
.1
1793
.05
17881794 772 996

2316 1301
1435
1433
8841796 2189
2339
1813
2109
1789
2128
2141
1814
610
1064 1443
6021716
1365
1870655 1777 1460
1069
1380
2204
215
645710
422
1629
1100
321
713 1791
1287
514
2088
1634
1992
1800
2285
2219
1136
737 1977
845
2082 1702 2364 326
622
361403
1171
700
1910
354 941
899
1937
2108
2176
1410
2138
2346
704
815
703 127
1453
1350
1707
352
765
2177
1285
601
1088
1385
2154 416
1927
948
1249
1450
2020
1344
1698
304
1808
1323
705
727 1396
9571160
1352
1139
1564
908
1178
1738 21073
115
1207 1220
2180 2137
642
958
1449
1324
1445539
1890
429 264
14462166
1840
663 87764 598 1170 404 1444 1209
1033
1398
2159
25574
1105
1419
2025
2132
2239
2041
744
1382
1750
302
1485
1448
2268
2190
488
1307
676
620
1674
1784
985
28
140
10101623
2028
2293
2103
1194
739
1753
2055
1351
1452
1375
439 803
898
188
2139
759
7011549
1751
1620
1128
986
9401533
1661
2349
509
8851197
1143
1278
797
628
5302248
503
698
1811
1332
2035
1169
15122116
1328
24
1487
1089
346
1094
537
458 1439
1516
2101
1072
1337
8492026
1348
9772145
1541
1463
112
1909
962
2044
1467
766
1212
2326 658
205
113
666
630
1277
1836
1068
871
1959
717
545
1413
822
1547
1632
214
526
1508
1320
144
894
2286
424
936892562
1108
2182
1368
1326
2022
1521
2065
1286
1859
572
1159
1199
1076
1322
7409821447
1294
3
2264
2037 342
502
1768
745
457
954
858
2167
1795
638
2123
1758
197 874
1633
1081
175
559
1896
654
1771
1191
361
732 20
2215
1785
2213
1130
1799
2067
505
2002
41
2201
561
229
1155
1509
794
2160
987 472
556
1806
2091
2240
1075
1525
1679 1534
690
2136
1496
1889
1358
708 826 1306
1372
1481
1018
615
2089517 237
1077
1510
1248
1703 989
956
2079
1442
248231
13414
1802
2174
1397
1598 76
1315
2262
2057
902 249
753
2085
722 1407
675
1801
1421
1779
15061618 709
1084
720
454
1381
1198 2352
2247
1066
2354
367 1095
1190
1253
1735 487
1816 1196
2238 639
694 1966
1539
89617823561257
791618 1339 1001277 859
2023
1617
2300
1625
91
1733
18
2274
1175
2038
906
523
1898
291
2019
910
2126
640
1314
380
926
204
971
873
728
868
177319
623
1926
706
2200
88
1767
662
2072
2104
2060
1455
1
33
707
903
988
1759
999
2220
2097
1386
939
1020
2073
217
1568
190
554
1567
1011
1688
1215
1345
2125
1299
1778
1614
1693
1330
1888
1021
1154
1047
2061
1458
1335
2062
1773
1353
1503
991
621
1392
403
101
102
1480
2096
1923
71
656
2295
2249
1831
2184
612
2098
1879
49
1036
604
1697
747
1212322
1431
106
1061
595
635
1378
733
129
841
1782
2224
1807
111
93
609
50
997
179
1004
233
1781
218
2071
8
320
490
980
1246
1331
528
1991
2077
964
1523
1979
723
1227
1842
1731
865
1755
1616
781
1180
359
714
2303
2094
20121267
1627
122
1424
1936
1409
1491
1502
381
2053
1558
1391
748
219
1786
13
2144
650
633
1163
1852
1436
267
2288
927
1981
2004
421
16
2083
647
546
2046
1104
1298
2131
141
1319
1090
13491566
273
799
1815
1065
1699
293
670
634
216
5081962
1422
1317
1660
578
7551310
1556
2127
2287
730 288
983
1846
364
9921063
26
863
1305
1437
327
55
715
209
976
754
734
949571
1050
789
410
1
2283
1967
168
474
206
521
2252
1686
1929
1952
731
2003
667
2261
220
1408
1414
1958
2054
915
1747
783
1426
247
2222
462
62
2183
879
2130
2170
159
339
1685
1264
258
685
2186
2157
1085
2307
1988
881
814
1266
725
1214
605
1963
752
1007
1451
1776
1342
657
382
1117
2018
450
1980
743
2284
2181
2263
806
1164
726
2152
447
606
1420
2218
1292
1416
1223
2254
1187
362
2266
2355
882
1370
331
145
2036
478
419
947
256
1258
548
431
1710
373
1367
1399
1255
1728
1920
1938
1430
1168
417
972
269
1960
1581
652
2258
470
1602
176
590
407
74
455
379887
2241
1101
1355
2291
2092
1737
2362
1377
1968
761
1752
2333
1630
1289
1499
924
592
1917
2317
1884
2297
1479
2112
1873
1118
2296
889
847
2318
716
586
1334
68
19992099
1338
518
1621
398
1922
514
888
1787
1624
1172
588
1313
1687
192
1113
2250
1700
1891
1359
2014
1
938
805
307
1390
2173
2221
212
584
702
534
54
872692
378
1601
34
1743
2056
1265
1982
1586
750
890
1951
2080
1906
1369
1772
465
2074
1438
1224
821
1445
2267
1639
856
1468
599
2117
45
2078
150
355
834
1886
2172
2235
810
1283
284
1127
2081
1691 1860
1151
1741
721182
1366
8781429
875
742
1401
1062
2199
1179
1683
1083
1742
664
1055
4131019
1070
1513
1327
1662
679
688
931
1766
689
2340
1976
92
2042
1626
683
1321
1067
840
2034
944
1371
395
853
1930
2070
1176
919
2146
686
637
475
1379
1548
1770
274
1079
760
1457
907
1990
862
2051
900
672
738
614
59
53
1518
414
751
223
1340
935
1111
1276
784
1361
42 1325
1
2
1383
1268
1082
137
1240
1329
1184
1280
1281
1293
5
2304
1080
800
963
444
681
2086
839
946
736
1411
923
1058
2030
557
1810
485 411
1803
1302
1232
1432
2209
2164
511
1462
1012
625762937
1017
2050
1195
137
210
2251
2162
1356
1647
1622
418
1678
1812
1690
547
782
583
1336
1520
2087
1201
1486
2075
245
2270
1882
2202
1071
2187 1
1269
1146
671
805
1517
63
2243
998
1024
440
1550
2198
1746
1613
2032
270
1705
775
651
1863
921
296
448
1714
1692
1839
627
1389
1284
2114
1526
1933
812
32
1858
2049
1871
468
294
636
1557
482
480
1203
796
975
1833
1790
1495735
79
494
2281025
1206
203
461
1945
170
150
1675
1008
1975
516
116
1230
522
153
552
1456
1984
2149
306
1646
1704
1272
370
310
1483
1297
1740
855
866
2313
318
1308
453
357
1671
1282
1507
2011
2133
1144
2336
1573
2306
711
131
328
580
64
201
677
246
110
2312
456
1894
2009
1941
1585
1478
283
1013
146
2294
2310
40
776
2168
1459
619
459
1141
126
1122
1271
425
19
99
929
396
282
257
1545
1749
165
1363
261
6781527
70
1500
830
1057
371
2047
298
1093
1985
589
2342
38
1610
250
774
1998
813
696
254
393
1892
1125
1165
1205
854
1364
2163
2236
1078
1944
1009
316
2337
1221
1645
1838
44
1914
227
279
2290
1834
804
1600
23 691
1918
2188
823
541
2113
876
565
758
1555
886
1615
200
568
1594
1761
2358
2320
289
1110
1412
617
1312
974
2196
1045
1775
1235
857
624
1748
2234
1254
1579
211
186
1964
1727
436
1097
1987
551
226
442
1636
2331
275 2192
1832
2216
756
2233
795
2135
1384
173
1649
1126
1942
415
1851
1511
1103
1054
1765
567
1489
2008
1177
1760
292
438
1680
952
2357
2119
12
660
2214
2151
148
329
1133
1650
837
1415
1847
577
1242
1989
1119
1857
2142
1948
1574
3
1222
1109
2211
1138
1972
1913
239
785
334
1872
1166
114
499
1654
1635
2068
1843
525
1418
1239
1473
1956
2281
1477
1002
1855
1546
1535
1818
1014
2280
498
433
608
195
345
1037
1560
1828
83
1656
613
80
495
2193
463
103
1640
2006
162
1866
788
1756
1123
69
115
118
323
2048
51
1115
569 955
1934
2066
230
1318
1780
1427
967
1192
1124
238942
1464
909
142
2245
540
39
1173
5242156
2323
2351
1957
818
1899
763
911
719430
905
850
1996
180
1900
1425
693
943
1204
712
587
854
14 504
1973
1466
684
471
1148
724
1211
1498
1288
1961
2
2059
1157
491
1809
1993
2279
1279
2169
281
1275
404
388
2359
2118
2007
1603
570
3011256
553
891
1612
95
1883
1174
1641
695
1162
147
1
1262
680
084
1454
2271
2013
3
1140
2107
460
271
287
1245
224
210
549
1853
1182
895
1059
2
2226
1102
302257
2229
965
400232
9
2311
2360
1826
154
1874
207
767
1792
1026
409
2129
1604
2005
6
1147
1730
844
1682
86
1218
994
2275
792
1666
31
2338
1202
770
779
385
2191
423
1347
500
198
1995
479
108
315
347
1954
73
1943
1668
843
2150
1488
2185
1669
1016
1718
2029
1540
1530221
1763
426
1643
1241
1
387
435
807
1820
768
970
1524
673
597
2348
746
1701
1997
2134
1156
793
446
1676
2110
596
626
533
2058
1939
1648
1528
1051
1994
869
77
2205
1053
1208
375
235
2343
428
1856
1916
1653
35
225278
467
951
974
914653
932
1
97
1729
665
1655
1
434
1536
1706
313
317
1469
1978
22829681291
1039
1040
12001114
1354
161
981
1764
1497
1107
9131924
1657
157
2319
851348
1393
1835
786
1919
2255
922
8
3082225
337
864
566
60
1346
1387
276
2121
199
1663
1720
1902
1263
158
2345
7 402
222
1754
166
350
324
529
2010
564
2265
1461
1259
65
1724
1931
48
89
2015
285
2329
1038
100
2102811
208
555
2347
242
1642
2043
1736
2308
848
125
263
1374
969
1553
1864
452
2361
374
1946
49
1476
641
1295
2231
1048
027
1739
1135
67
504
1569
27
594427
832
644
189
37
829
1049
659
550
22981309
1006
912
156
2344
1181
1915
1552
15
2195
573
1971
1611
2276
1589
312
464
581
1216
1225
236
2090
60777
1869
191
1142
476
46
1158
1505
507
1970
1
376
835
930
397
1732
1841
1953
1493
1658
47
1270
391
56
1028
560
1106
1887
2179
1628
2122
575 1300
1717
1031
1877
1664
916
1185
335
290
2024
1116
262
1238
1098
1744
1247
2327
1112
1595
576
1901
1949
299
1152
893
496
311 325
401
1713
2256
138
1849
1825
2321
993
1726
2033
344
1492
107
1
1226
1986
2277
1709
1950
486
757
333
917
130
1862
824
769
1153
109
241
1129
481
842
973
607
1829
84
1551
252 538 7 1897
877
1734
1273
303
2272
89
2095
1538
21438
960
901
1210
6691441
1373
2016
235380
591
1052
2325
1417
558
1042
377
1251
1572
314
1471
1515
1343
801
697
1878
501
244 1475
611
2017
1213
1947
1583
406
687
883
9591
1041
836
582
995
1723
1250
1659
978
16952253
64
353
644
497
1
1482
809
1880196
369
563
169
2148
1145
2197
1186
1670
1932
1850
1003
1590
1219
52
1757
1015
255
1908
2031
1543
668
1667 2
470
1715
1228
928
7
3
2217
1032187
2106
2309
1029
1865
2230
322
1405
420
1819
2289 3
762
816
1571
000
1722
1096
1311
1591
18
1928
1
63
1167
66
43
184
2140
1983
343
828
820
527
120
501
1
1233
2158
360
368
9
2206
408
1134
1867
1876
133
1023
1580
295
1681
1043
1472
2171
1696
1821
1903
1609
852 286778
213
399
8242153
1578
2302
907
1672
773
1537
1584
157623422
787358
790
405
33
1394
831
2324
1577
780
1940
147
1904
771
477
11 513
1149
96
1027
1434
616
489
1000
1231
104
3
1035
1837
260 1290
2093
729
1189
2207
2124
2335
2178
1400
2165
1893529
945
798
2363
300
741
827
870
2064
1783
1440
2039
18301804
15651234
2260
1362
1252
1606
1719
1121
49
392
1030
1822
515
1531
1074
2223
1969
1099
1684
904
21
1582
443
6 2203
2100
798
1665
1827
2161
1725
512
2052918
432
925
82 03 183
61
2111
1494
2155
867
2273
105
1554
2194
1087
1607
1708
1588
833
961
1608
41
1559
2040
336
1034
1605
1092
802
10
340
1912
243
1677
1091
1570
437
1905
483
2341 297
194330
309
1712 2021
2244
75
1721
1844
629
1845
1217
2227
1895
134
412
631338
386
1911934
1236
536
593
451
1652
2228
2299
2
1120
449356
1638
1823
1592
920351
1955 151
808
240
2208
1532
846682
819 152
1316
2330
132
1631
1229
1619
62175
49
372
648
2212
646 167
674
1060
984
85
1406
2301
643
280
469
1132
2332
163136
1861
1885
897
484
260600 72
1522
1563575
1465
2259
266
394
2242
1474
1637
1131
139
2328
1490
441
81 1542
1402
119
1428
57
268
1303
2076
1360
861
2105
1745
1875
661 29
98
171
1881
2334
117
1005
1868
1597 585
1304
2045
78
2315 493
365
950
953 2292
58
1086
1694
2269
2120
384
253
1651
259
1593 1689
535
2063
2246
979
532 544
1965
1519
1056
160
838
172
1544 202
305 383
251
1921
12962232
1046
1357
149 181
1388
1673
1274817
155
1587
531
520 1561
1711
4661183990
1188
2069
124265
542
2350
519 1044 1237 17 1562
1376
1395 2278
2305 632 1848
128 1423
0
0 .002 .004 .006 .008

Normalized residual squared
Figure 15. Leverage versus squared residuals plot for regression model of school
leadership on eight independent variables
102
I ran a similar set of analyses including a residuals versus fitted values plot and a
leverage versus squared residuals plot on the regression model that includes school
culture as the dependent variable. As determined in the previous model, I found no
multicollinarity, noted evidence for normal i.i.d. errors, and observed no influencing
cases (see Figures 16 and 17).
As previously noted in the other model, I observed in the leverage versus
residuals squared plot that case ID-1817 exhibits high leverage, but also has a good fit.
As a result, I determined that it is not influential. Upon further examination, I also
determined that there are no unusual characteristics associated with this case and thus no
reason to drop the case. The case is therefore included in the model.
.4
.2
Residuals
0
-.2
-.4
2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Fitted values
Figure 16. Residuals versus fitted plot for regression model of school culture on eight
independent variables and school leadership
103
.25
1817
.2 .15
Leverage
1797
.1
1793
.05
1794
1788 996
772
1301 2316
1433
1435
1796
884 1813
2189
2109 2339
1789
18141460
2128
1443
1777
2141
1069
1716
1365
2364 326 602 655
1870
1064
710
1977
321 610
1380
1100
1791
645713
1287
514
859
2088
404 2204
215
2082 1702
1209 845 1927 422 1629
1992
1800
2285
2137
2219
416
127642
1403
622
941
1171
948
2108
1937
87
958
1350
36
1410
354
1707
1352
1339
1249
815 1634
1170
2166
1001
1910
639
2138
352
1073
957
1324
2346
704
2180
2238
1446
1207539 737
700
899
264
2115
2177
663 764
1136
1840
1396
2176
1160
1139
765
703 1196
791 1449 145314441562 1220 1423 598
429
601
1445
1315
1088
1564
76
1407
2154
1178
1385
908
1698
304
2020
1534
618
675
690
898
849
2139
556
20
1909
759
2215
1018
720
1467
517472
1738
2247
178
1344
487
574
727
1323
1808
705
2159
1623
1105
1419
2293
2136
803
1306
2101
2028
896
1376
658
1095 1890
1439
1966
1033
2025
1801
1549
2103
2026
2356
2262
739 2132
1452
1481 188
1077
709
2055
962
1785
1510
701
1751
112
977
17
249
1421
632
1197
1375
1816
2091
1128
1143
205 1351
989
1541
2044 1463
1533
1750
4
1620
2278
744 956
2079
902
753 237
1084
2057
2326
1248
1382
439615
1130 1450
1516
1372
1348
1212
1848
1066
204118061285
1398
694
1337 2352
2771257
1753
2145
231 1539
1072
2239
2213 1194
454987 1889 766
885
2085
1277
986
1703
1190
1442
2089
630
666
1496
990
826
745
542
129
493
838
969
2349
698
2354
509
1278
2305
628
1561
1068
2067
1506
674
2300
910
595
2038
1378
2301
535
640
988
1631
1107
1017
1234
648
1846
216
2251
2131
1401
280
413
394
267
411
29
2046
2050
1104
2016
1504
1513
927
1195
1065
1349
1803
16
338
421
2121
1647
621
865
583
1172
1776
1336
2198
1523
625
491
588
113
1341
2292
797
1802
1198
1381
940
722
575
545
2201
1413
2116
1779
1618
1075
1512
248
620
954
2069
955
537
559
894
2167
1320
1094
2207
181
1733
18
841
2023
2019
1741
1200
2178
1061
179
901903
2288
1699
2004
742
2242
1371
611
578
964
1055
1745
2199
305
1062
2287
850
1651
631
1878
1687
2087
1330
1038
1652
1154
210
2260
1236
1342
1641
1809
2061
1000
1245
489
1624
1708
1724
1458
1583
1300
1131
782
1678
1979
451
285
1690
808
1607
2194
547
585
1335
1305
166
2240
2035
717
1811
1465
1294
1108
2264
1155
2021
676
2190
502
1485
1290251
2274
1625
2335
1455
1086
1926
1780
182
1192
1406
33
1124
1464
967
2060
1183
544
1318
2072
142
529
88
2272
662
706
1424
1427
1019
1759
2165
1786
1273
1711
2225
217
2220
219
880
2144
1568
1020
945
979
1734
799
1807
939
190 942
1499
1250
978
440
1882
1486
209
680
7
924
687
1961
2283
339
224
2252
139
1686
1929
2345
2183
1863
1988
2261
1275
258
1476
382
586
1663
570
1059
1746
814
2258
1454
1260
343
968
2045
2291
702
1644
1999
1832
2173
1117
1266
1007
1720
2130
749
2315
1603
441
716
309
783
1952
1613
1630
37
2054
189
1259
2013
330
1490
2359
1873
2249
656
1868
665
600
673
2342
1906
2098
644
1833
568
2161
812
970
45
1858
355
1923
360
692
2196
1468
2208
1036
897
1557
1820
1761
1755
777
1034
297
2040
426
1892
597
1594
2360
599
1885
2049
207
1706
1586
1790
294
378
1078
1389
781
916
27
728
1284
1524
221
1695
1717
1874
371
1987
2236
396
1615
436
2134
165
99
1941
44
855
866
929
425
1110
1126
154
131
1676
30
328
2149
126
1144
40
1573
2168
516
2327
1394
11561
530
503
2174
1689
1525
229
1328
24
302
1547
2286
2037
458
1633
1897
2093
132
906 140
1188
361144
2022
708
1395
1291
2160
1039
1896
732
18601175
1267
204
2126
1924
2076
591
2063
2095
1357
909
1431
50
89
721
2246
320
1538
1965
1422
1962
1360
218
381
93 268
490
2353
1466
1246
1815
1383
293
160
1179
664
811724
1996
818
1
1232
2363
931
1911
683
134
946
2164
891
2340
395
1356
222
587
1346
1204
679
1302
943
1256
308
1213
2156
1329
557
1462
1662
693
1565730
922
1835
1766
2351
259
935
888
751688
1082
137
1268
944
1067
1881
2034
1132
1361
1293
1027
2030
1518
1146
2043
536
125
1517
887
2070
1280
2100
1227
1830
42
1770
444
1606
1494
1355
1176
2162
53
1058
637
681
1805
1637
1411
1457
1875
1498
1269
55
900840
786
95 8
1137
1041
1090
1210
2077
1899
878
755
528
1854
2209
995
485
1957
276
836
2042
661
870
1327
992
1429
1621
1240
762
1976
553
934
511
1288646
083
950
2120
314
1723
2304
2146
1842
2039
5
911
1252
1012
2308
1050
1080
1548
800
1101
1922
592155
192
350
245
1700
349
1728
455
392
584
592
1426
1264
521
1602
641
287
1461
163
2170
2186
159
168
2222
1233
474
775
605
1685
462 873
1735
1836
2002
128
1542
1010
1674152 367
1169
1617
1694
523
238
707
1163
980
649
861 319
2224
997
122
609
1619
303
554
1845
2269
1491
1042
1310
1688
1567
1393
1660
913
1215
288
1345
2319
540
2245
2175
1317
634
23251502
1782
1391
1852
1004
1417
1173
670
1781
1011
1299
1778
466 1665
151
1946
695
1167
1967
270
1313
2118
388
206
1263
100
1752
653
2226
667
1931
2007
998
62
20036221332
2268
561
1307
1632
1487
526
1089
1768
2124
1326
1898
2123
2065
1859
1199
2322
161
424
1189
1159
1771
230
1758
1497
981
85
1040 1784
2182
1316
75
2330
926
1114
124
936
572
740984
1191 457
1795
1368
1076
1286
1314
1237
2244
2232
197
2332
2187
418
2241
725
2010
1614
1201
1902
1693
1712
1118
2231
2102
79
1593
832
2107
448
1182
805
1482
1715
691
104
1231
548
1891
2303
1960
2263
470
938
1420
1591
1334
1292
2032
1822
1255
1917
1879
2217
726
2192
1367
419
734
1187
1985
368
1928
1359
1311
1581
49
834
972
758
74
2036
1705
366
1918
2153
184
256
735
1638
889
228
2027
1527
408
1164
447
890
565
590
947
2181
1884
1722
1938
589
606
750
2081
1150
145915 346
157
1721
643
149
1767
1409
273
2259
348
2105
13731111844
1441104
1558
372
2071
15631627
1386
2097
1366
1400
189313
748
633
558
1319
5
647
242
1281
2347
853
2051
923
862
571
171
760
798
919
2086
738
784
616 233
1519
1063
5311981
365
741
875
1070
1056
253
524
863
1783
1432
1742
2212
208
566
1217
2064
1587
669 46
2255
1276
8
839
92
1387
7361474
1810
1340
2017
1440
412
1211
1754
2265
263
1079
1947
883
1993
1471
1719
1659
199
1451
1021
1787
1157
2062
1520
2279
2147
2253
1864
657
1279
971
2333
1113
2015
2270
1343
1295
1174
2059
752
501
1214
2202
1773
1731
2273
1888475
963
281
406364
1362
183
274
96
41460
1149
907
2111
2099
2203
848
1
686
2075
1812
1374
801
1087
2329
307
1837
685
494
212
1983
97
2092
1140
1958
2152
1390
2216
2218
2296
2056
2074
886
298
2250
1057
949
1980
203
1827
1035
445
830
1601
2094
170
1871
1180
71
550
627
1697
1616
1692
856
409
2267
796
975
387
317
434
1772
1643
1839
604
807
1203
358
747
1749
468
1608
1585
3368201392
1162
2084
1503
452
1968
2018
247
1737
1408
1714
2362
2334
754
895
1134
379
795
2355
1982
482
1470
746
1763
290
659
1831
1955531
025
8161437
2266
881
105
158
1005
2
1536
2348
768
1532
928
2295
872
2012
1185
594
1826
164
1103370
310
1579
767
19
1894
459
200
1545
2135
1824
1165
1235
9
318
2320
1122
467
1483
246
2185
831
1975
1701
1646
1740
110
254
2358
449
1997
289
1282
282
2229
1877
2223
2163
580
1031
1141
213
778
1459
64
1704
420
2009
283
1636
2257
1834
1507
2294
232
1792
2336
711
146
250
1271
1489
951
1569
1272
357
1008
522
1308
854
2011
677
1013
116
1116
1580
1765
965
279
351
41
415
1597
2133
626
1125407271
29
1661
1598
1509
729
175
1521
1151
119
62372
1354
1274
2227
11148
1325
937
2143
39
298
1973
1991
513
905
1475
2 508
1321
555
1572
1251
66
223
2323
1612
1990
719
17361900
671
827
1379
593
9301353
1289
932
8231049
362
81
756
1102
2254
1127
1571
359
2078
196
353
356
1304
2228
478
1416
1920
70
527
2
2014
1479
117
1258
461
331
806
2172
833
541
2
2206
2318
431
1283
809
1370
2221
1762
1168
2113
882
743
112
1945
1
714
876
2284
1093
718
373
363
847
465
284
1241
2096
435
1480
2080
1206
401
1412
868
497
480
1775
186
1384
1297
38
67
1363
1932
1867
1074
1819
2312
552
446
25776 697
1071
102
1550
1853
220
1886
317
2299
2114
1495
3
1799
1397
562
1253
871
488
265
1508
654
1764
1322
8771
2350
960
6 1046
1060
1229
291
1296
851
29
2125
1683
2083
202
471
1895
1338
1262
61
244
324
63 650
2169
723
1883
136
2328
1675
43
1526
1969
1369
313
1026
1743 1515
1553
1048
549
2188
1430
1030
1223
1933
32
93
682
2235
405
1729
194
534961
1
1559
484
2313
453
1312
1205
157854 681529
1747
460
389
921
879
296101
1085
1861
1377
301
1710
1265
335
1135
22
774
227
2110
1347
45634
821
1838
306
1727
261
1254
153
1009 2184
2297
228
1096
150
1679
342
1566
2210
1798
141
180
1804
374
2157
828
2158
240
810
1500
1655
1023
974 636
612
1851
1456
696 269
187
2311
1974
1984
295
1120
6
1605
678
19
787
874
985
733
205357
1626
1184
518
959
7891
98
1514
763
327 684
689
919
1642
1111
991 469
1024
2361
761
1121
731
1404
1554
417
1224
515
1438
2140 58
1044
2066
1303
1936
635
817532
1436
155
386
1331
377
430
2127
864
14
300
1544
410
614
715976
48
2243
2233
1959
892
450
120
1588
1739
1230
2256
776
596
504 1047
65
867
427
1555
2307
2117
651
790
2000
1671
914
813
2310
1478
1664 1501
121
1364
1713933
1744
533
846
383
167
638
1921
1402
380
1657
2200 91
2073
1052
337
1425 26
1556
1434
172
712
398822
25
403
1399
1469
1771691
78
1978
325
399
617
201
278
2306
1998
793
505
1358
1081
1522
1673106
519
384
402
953
2271
652
1951
10321963
1447
1448
982
193428
1388
1428
2047
2282520
672
1414
1639 999
983
564 341 214
582 7942248
858
169
1029
500
1142
1970
2309
73
211
1092
819
1582
1488
2148
1309
260
603
1669
1944
2106
1604
1904
1611
1592
1876
1247
1908
792
443
573
2290
1099
1218
1505
2197
1865
2150
191
770
1219
2129
1221
133
1181
563
1995
1054
397
512
2024
2191
1238
347
560
1628
1028
23381138
2031
1954
1943
1668
857
1045
581
1015
1589
1493
442
173
2068
920
1666
1732
1942
198
2324
86
1147
1953
1649
918
779
2234
930
2331
47
52
255
6
6681610
1730
1880
1098
925551
1748
316
1511
1270
385
1964
2005
844
31
1415
1949
1635
2142
773
1756
1696
1242
538
323
1091
1166
1537
2008
1681
438
1680
785
1112
1825
1972
2341
2321
1915
1828
1006
1986
1847
2195
1857
2357
1222
1043
1856
499
234
82
11581684
2090
1718
1186
1405
1239
1849
312
2275
340
1682
1003
1097525
108
10
1841
1225
479
1543
138
1
1843
1016
7
1670
2337
9521823
1677
2211
2119
1109
1051
1939
162
15
1912
46
1872
993
1907
2302
1956
1492
2151
275
1473
1418
2171
1905
23
329
1119
2277
1760
1595
2298
3
1472
835
1133
43360
239
236
660
1570
1866
1477
1115
1053
569
1648
2280
69
1855
2058
118
608
195
2193
495
103
1656
477 507
624
567
1869
1654
1971
4
2344
334
1940
1177
437
2006
77
80
498
1226
788
2205225725
2230
1202
994
71
540
400
1887
369
1577
2214
1560
1584
1528
51
2048
1002
613
852
83 1
2122
2179
1152
76
2052
1552
1
156
1640
115
1546
1916
1014
1653
1609
757
917
109
607
1829
1709
1153
486
481
130
1903 243
1901
235
2033
1821
1129
973 376
1850
869
2
2281
375
241
333 26
904
322
286
1667
1757
147
802
1590
1913
1574
1650
1994
345
1576 148
1535
463
84284 56
496
292
2343
11
428
1551
824 3
1862 843
1672
483
837
11432
2029
2289
423
1530
893
351575
912
1645
1216
804
114780
1145
1726262
1914
391
315
1948
1989
1208
1123
1037
769
252 1106
464
2276
577
576
19501818
299344 1658
107 1600
0
0 .002 .004 .006 .008 .01

Figure 17. Leverage versus residual plot for regression model of school culture on eight
independent variables and school leadership
Regression of leadership on demographic variables. I began the regression
analysis by examining the relationship between the eight independent variables and
school leadership. This model provides measures of the direct effects represented in the
causal model below by bX9.k. (See Figure 18).
104
Years Educator
X1
Years at School
bX9.1
X2
Hispanic bX9.2
X3
bX9.3
Black
X4
bX9.4
Leadership
X9
bX9.5
White
X5 bX9.6
Other
X6 bX9.7
Student÷Teacher
X7 bX9.8 1 . …
Poverty U9
X8 Unmeasured Influence
Figure 18. Causal model representing relationships between eight independent

variables and school leadership
105
The results of the regression show a relatively low R2 value (.1100) and adjusted
R2 value (.1069). Nonetheless, I find that the hypotheses related to this regression
analysis were supported by the data outcomes, which show statistical significance for
most of the independent variables as indicated by the p-values and Beta coefficients in
the below table.
Table 12
Regression Output of School Leadership on the Eight Independent (Demographic)

Variables
Independent Variables Coeff. P-Value Beta Coeff.

(Demographics)
Educators’ Experience .0838845 0.000 .1442996
Educators’ years in school -.0523523 0.000 -.1209264
Number Hispanic Students -.0002494 0.001 -.0731788
Number Black Students -.0003040 0.000 -.1985613
Number White Students -.0001265 0.000 -.1287602
Number Other Minority -.0000538 0.558 -.0118111
Students
Teacher Student Ratio .0071596 0.000 .0996641
Poverty -.1285017 0.000 -.1213177
R2 value =.1100; Adjusted R2 value= .1069
Most notably, all things being equal, the analysis demonstrates the largest
relationships exist between school leadership and educators’ experience, educators’ years
at the school, Black student population, White student population and poverty. In terms
of race, the results reveal that both number of Black students and number of White
students are significant and negatively correlated to school leadership. This seems to
suggest that higher leadership quality may exist in schools with more diverse populations.
Yet, as the number of Black students increase, the quality of leadership is lower despite
controlling for the other variables. This result deserves more emphasis in that the number
106
of Black students appears to have a greater relationship to school leadership quality than
do the other variables in the model.
Also in terms of the relationship between teacher student ratios and leadership,
the output demonstrates a significantly positive relationship. This suggests that as
teacher student ratios improve so does school leadership. Even though we do not actually
know the causal direction, we do see that a positive relationship exists and while it seems
probable that we find better leadership attracted to schools with higher teacher student
ratios, it also seems possible that school leaders are in positions to make decisions about
teacher student ratios and in turn these teacher student ratios impact quality of leadership.
The output from Table 13 also supports the key hypothesis that states a
relationship exists between poverty and school leadership. The results suggest a
significant and negative correlation between poverty and school leadership. Irrespective
of the other variables, as poverty increases the quality of school leadership decreases.
This is consistent with a breadth of research literature (Loeb et al., 2009; Papa, Lankford, &
Wyckoff, 2002; Rice, 2010; Branch et al., 2009) that speaks to the importance of leadership and
the unlikelihood that schools that educate disadvantaged students are least likely to have effective
leadership.
The beta coefficients provide information about the comparative effects of the
independent variables on the dependent variable. As previously noted, the Black student
population has the largest effect on school leadership (b*=.199). The second largest
effect is educators’ experience (b*=.144). Other effects to note in the model are the White
student population with a b*=.129, educators’ years at the school and poverty both with
b*=.121, student teacher ratio with a b*=.100, and lastly, Hispanic student population
107
with b*=.073. Figure 19 places the beta coefficients into the causal model providing a
visual of these regression results. Insignificant coefficients were noted a zero (.000).
Figure 19. Causal model representing relationships between eight independent variables
and school leadership including the direct effects
108
Nested regression with culture, leadership, and demographic variables. As a
next step and in order to determine whether a more complex model provides more
comprehensive information about the relationship between the dependent variables (i.e.,
endogenous mediator variables), school culture and school leadership, I conducted a
nested regression. Specifically, I am looking to determine whether Block 1, which tests
the relationship of school culture on the demographic measures, provides significantly
different explanatory power about the relationship than the information in the model
included in Block 2, which adds the additional variable, school leadership.
The results for the Block 1 model, return with both a low R2 (.1635) and adjusted
R2 (.1606). In terms of the significance of the independent variables, the nested model
for Block 1 finds that all variables with the exception of the “Total other students”
variable are significant as indicated in Table 13.
109
Table 13
Nested Regression Output of School Culture on the Eight Independent (Demographic)

Variables (Block 1)
Independent Coeff. P-Value Beta Coefficient

Variables
(Demographics)
Educators’ .0850159 .000 .1707650
Experience
Educators’ years in -.0479310 .000 -.1292759
school
Number Hispanic -.0002291 .000 -.0784793
Students
Number Black -.0003573 .000 -.2724827
Students
Number White -.0001166 .000 -.1385493
Students
Number Other .0000633 .407 .0162172
Minority Students
Teacher Student .0057056 .000 .0927395
Ratio
Poverty -.1259843 .000 -.1388823
R2 value=.1635
In terms of Block 2 of the nested regression, I find that the strength of the model
improves by adding the leadership variable. Precisely, as a result of the leadership
variable, the R2 value of the model significantly increases from .1635 to .8314
(F=9172.45; p-value < .000). This indicates that school leadership accounts for 66.79%
of the explained variability in the final model, which further suggests that leadership has
a substantial effect on school culture. Although the actual causal relationship is
unknown, these results are supported by several research studies (Leithwood and Levin,
2005; Loeb et al., 2009; Papa, Lankford, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2002; Rice, 2010; Branch et
al., 2009) that speak to the positive influence that school leadership has on improving
school culture.
110
The influence of leadership is further demonstrated by the beta coefficients from
Block 2 (as reported in Table 14) where leadership appears to have a mediating effect on
the demographic variables indicating that leadership is the mechanism through which the
demographic variables operate on school culture. This is a causal relationship supported
by the literature of several studies (Leithwood and Levin, 2005; Further, Pitner’s, 1998;
Papa, Lankford, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2002; Rice, 2010; Branch et al., 2009) that indicate
that leadership is a factor that can impact school culture in a way that impacts student
achievement outcomes. As a result of adding the school leadership variable, the beta
coefficients associated with the demographic variables from the Block 1 decrease.
Furthermore, three of the demographic variables that were previously significant become
insignificant when the leadership variable was added to the model.
Table 14
Nested Regression Output of School Culture on the Eight Independent (Demographic)

Variables with School Leadership (Block 2)
Independent Coeff. P-Value Beta Coefficient
Variables
(Demographics)
Educators’ .0227823 .000 .0457612
Experience
Educators’ years in -.0090911 .037 -.0245198
school
Number Hispanic -.0000440 .112
Students
Number Black -.0001318 .000 -.1004731
Students
Number White -.0000227 .021 -.0270070
Students
Total Other .0001032 .003 .0264490
Minority Students
Teacher Student .0003939 .520 .0064025
Ratio
Needy -.0306495 .004 -.0337873
School Ldrship .7418954 .000 .8662796
2
R value =.8314
111
Denoting the indirect effects, direct effects, total effects, and percent of mediation
provides a logical summary of the results associated with this causal model. Table 15
presents this information. I arrived at the indirect effects by multiplying the beta
coefficient for leadership from the Block 2 regression (.866) by each of the beta
coefficients for the demographic variables from the previous regression of leadership on
the demographic variables (see Table 12 and Figure 18). The direct effects correspond to
the Block 2 beta coefficients and the total effects equate to the sum of each variables
indirect and direct effect. The percent of mediation stems from the ratio of a variable’s
indirect effect to that variable’s total effect.
Table 15
Summary of Effects on School Culture and the Mediating Effect of School Leadership
Indirect Direct Total Percent of

Variable Effects Effects Effects Mediation
Educators’
Experience .125 .046 .171 73.10%
Educators’ Years in
School -.105 -.025 -.135 80.77%
Number Hispanic
students -.063 .000 -.063 100.00%
Number Black
Students -.172 -.100 -.272 63.24%
Number White
Students -.112 -.027 -.139 80.58%
Number Other
Minority Students .000 .026 .026 --
Teacher Student
Ratio .087 .000 .087 100.00%
Poverty -.105 -.034 -.139 75.54%
School Leadership -- .866 .866 --
112
Leadership appears to have a significant positive relationship with school culture
such that the presence of quality leadership appears tantamount to the presence of having
a healthy school culture. The idea that leadership influences school culture is a theory
that is well documented in the literature (Leithwood and Levin, 2005; Loeb et al., 2009;
Papa, Lankford, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2002; Rice, 2010; Branch et al., 2009) which speaks
explicitly to the leader’s ability to influence the school culture in a way that contributes to
improved student achievement outcomes.
Given the research support for the effect of leadership on culture, it is not
surprising to see the strong mediating effects that leadership has on the other variables.
The majority of the effects that a variable has on school culture operate through
leadership. For example, we know that poverty has a negative relationship with
leadership (see Table 13 and Figure 19) and leadership mediates 75.54% of this effect
such that nearly 76% of the total effect that poverty has on school culture comes through
leadership. The idea that disadvantaged students, as is the case of minority students and
those who are economically needy, are least likely to have effective leadership is
supported by research advanced by Andrews and Soder (1987). It would seem important,
therefore, to improve the negative relationship between poverty and school culture by
maximizing leadership in our high poverty schools. All of this points to the importance
of having strong leadership in our higher poverty schools. This notion, however,
deserves more research.
Similarly, the effect of teacher student ratio on school culture completely operates
through leadership. Because teacher student ratios have a positive relationship with
leadership and with school culture it would again seem reasonable to maximize
113
leadership to gain better teacher student ratios. The mediating effects of leadership range
from near 63% to 100%.
Figure 20. Causal model representing relationships between eight independent variables,
school leadership, and school culture
In addition to the mediating and direct effects of leadership to school culture, the
total effects of the independent variables are of interest. Race, and in particular being
Black, appear to have a significant and negative effect on the quality of the school
culture. This is true even more so than White or other minority races. However, I do not
114
know what exactly is associated with the Black experience that contributes to the
association with negative school culture. This observation deserves future investigation.
In terms of the positive impacts, the results show that educator experience and
teacher ratios have positive effects on school culture. The findings appear to lay out a
theory of action which posits that improved outcomes for high poverty students can be
obtained by increasing the number of experienced teachers, improving teacher student
ratios, increasing diversity among the student population and reducing poverty.
However, leadership has a strong mediating effect on all of these variables.
Analysis of Student Achievement
I also hypothesized that poverty had an effect on school achievement, which
contributed to a larger theory about the effects of school leadership acting through school
culture in a way that impacts student achievement. In this part of the paper I want to
explore the effect sizes of leadership and school culture on the student achievement
variable.
I explored the above hypotheses by conducting a second nested regression
analysis. I began the process by regressing the initial eight independent variables onto
the student achievement variable which appears in Block 1 of the model.
For Block 2 of the model, I wanted to include both the school leadership and
school culture variables. However, given the extremely strong relationship between
leadership and culture, including them in the same model would result in
multicollinearity. In a sense, leadership and culture are very similar variables. While I
was attempting to determine the effects of culture and the effects of leadership on student
achievement, controlling for the eight independent variables, I chose to examine the
115
impact of one of these variables at a time, but not the two together. Further, because the
principal emphasis of this study centers on the examination of school leadership, I
decided to concentrate on a model that includes only the leadership variable.
Nonetheless, I also explored a model that included culture and not leadership, the results
were nearly the same demonstrating that these highly related variables were nearly
identical in their measure.
Before interpreting the regression model, I determined the fit of the data. I did
this by critiquing the model in terms of its underlying assumptions. The first regression
used in the causal model (see Figure 20) came from the initial regression above that
examined the relationship between leadership and the eight independent variables. The
second regression was a nested regression that examined achievement on the eight
independent variables and then examined achievement on these same variables along
with leadership. This allowed for testing the degree to which leadership added to the
explained variability and help to determine if leadership served as a mediating variable.
Diagnostics for the student achievement analyses. I first validated that a model
including both leadership and school culture was multicollinear. Table 16 gives the VIFs
for such a model including school leadership and school culture and demonstrates that the
school leadership and school culture variables had very low tolerances. Including them in
the same model would actually reverse signs, so I remained with my approach to use at a
model that only included leadership.
116
Table 16
VIF for Model Regressing Student Achievement on School Leadership and School
Culture Variables
Variable VIF 1/VIF
School Cult. 5.90 0.169573

School Leadership 5.54 0.180575
Needy 1.91 0.522328
Number White Std. 1.91 0.522328
School 1.88 0.531406
Educators’
Experience 1.85 0.540711
Teacher Std. Ratio 1.37 0.729603
Number Black Std. 1.33 0.749268
Number Hisp. Std. 1.23 0.810258
Number Other 1.06 0.941618
_________________________________________
Mean VIF 2.40
I had previously conducted diagnostics for the regression of leadership on the
eight independent variables, but needed to examine the second model that regressed
achievement on leadership and the other eight independent variables. This model did not
show evidence of multicollinearity. This is confirmed by the VIFs and tolerances
reported in Table 17.
Next I examined the errors by using a residuals versus fitted values plot (see
Figure 21). This plot depicts the existence of heteroscedasticity and a departure from the
underlying assumption of normal i.i.d. error. Instead of transforming the dependent
variable, I use the Hubert-White Sandwich Estimator to calculate robust standard errors,
which lower the assumptions when errors diverge from assumptions made by theory
(Hamilton, 1992).
117
As in the other model diagnoses, I also investigated for influential cases. None
were found as indicated in Figure 22 below. I then established a causal model as seen in
Figure 23 that uses only the leadership variable.
Table 17
VIFs for Model Regressing Student Achievement on Leadership and Eight Independent
Variables (no multicollinearity)
Variable VIF 1/VIF
Needy 1.91 0.524204

Number White Stds. 1.91 0.524257
School 1.88 0.532674
Educators’
Experience 1.84 0.544269
Teacher Student
Ratio 1.37 0.729724
Number Black Stds. 1.27 0.785691
Number Hisp. Stds. 1.23 0.811141
School leadership 1.12 0.890641
Total Other Minority 1.06 0.945579
_________________________________________
Mean VIF 1.51
118
40
20
Residuals
-20 -40
-60 0
40 60 80 100 120
Fitted values
Figure 21. Residuals versus fitted plot for the model regressing student achievement on
school leadership and eight independent variables
.25
1817
.2 .15
Leverage
1797
.1
1793
.05
1794
1788
772 996
1301
2316
8841796
2339
2189
2109 1813 1435 1433
2128
2141
602
1870
610
1380
2204
215
710
1977
1443
1716
1814
2364 1789
1777
10641365
655
1629 1069 1460 422 1702
1791
321
642
4161100
1287
514
622
700 859
2082
2088
1209
1136
21371992
1800
2285
22191444
1927
737
1170
1403
948
941
598
899
2641171
1840
2166 127 845 764 1396 1634 404
2176
87
2108
1453
1001
1160
3041449
1937
1410
1196
1352
354
2346
791
2177
1698
48736
1339
1707
352
1249
704
539
815
1423
1088
601
76
1534
1738
2020
1398
1516
1623
690
1808
2101
2026
896 2138
2115
1285
1315
2154
15641446
1207
663
429
2352
703
1445
1450
1562
1178
908
1407
727
1344
2247
1385
277
1539
2293
1966
2159
2136
574
2025
1452
2132
2103
1351
1481
849
2145
2139
739
1753
2262
759
1372
1348
20551439
1105
618
1033
898
1419
2028
1072
6751323
705
1306
237958
1220
1139
1324
1073
803
188
1077
11942356
1801
1376
1 5102238
1890
472 1350
1257
2239
1549
1084
989
977 1910
957 639
1337
709 2180
765 694
962
17
20
1909
556
5172215
2057
720
1541
1467
1212
1750
1095
753
1848
2278
205
1375
1421
4391785
1066
112
956
701658
1620
698
1143
1799
1703
1382
630
744
2041
4
1661
2248
1735
113
2089
2349
1561
1341
2305
628
530
1496
797
1447
503
2085 1018
2213
615
1197
15331751
2326
1816
2044
1128632
1130
1442
885
454
2240
1277
2292 1806
509
666 249
766
2079
2354
1190 902 1463 2091
1525
1679
1413
1253
2067
1381
722
251
505
1278
1689
2035
1075
2174
2116
575
2201
1512
940
717
1198
1618
1332
367
1358
1290
1487
674
1307
1784
58
858
214
302
2021
346
620
28
85
1326
654
2160
1322
2093
1159
1151
732
1191
1189
1758
1046
2022
1395
1039
1354
181
1860
2207
721
1926
706
997
1673
1782
122
88
529
1273
1424
1427
1721
2060
1019
1711
748
2104
1538
33
1183
2095
89
967
2224
1124
2072
999
2063
93
609
2200
1296
1062
2127
308
1082
1587
253
1232
2323
950
1899
1371
208
587
755
14
2212
1783
2034
402
850
137
1346
611
1475
1991
818
741
646
1204
1854
528
1911
524
365
922
964
1289
1140
2092
2170
158
1414
1963
2173
915
783
224
1048
882
961
2186
2334
2045
120
1059
1085
474
1426
104
1686
1613
97
1853
2183
716
932
586
521
2362
775
653
998
1988
1490
968
734
2258
2266
1454
1985
735
1304
1602
1461
1260
814
805
349
74
1958
1873
343
1712
407
163
2261
754
570
1728
1967
667
749
1581
685
921
2226
820
1555
1593
1737
2192
1746
847
562
1959
1836
1448
2268
229
342
1485
2002
2264
1328
1294
152
822
241506
1674
1598
2182
457
1547
2286
2037
2244
230
1368
984
1314
2330
1076
124
2065
1237
906
161
1044
1733
623
1402
1497
1199
1898
291
1114
1965
182
662
1627
1388
1619
1780
1192
2097
1962
1734
2175
817
2246
13
320
218
1020
2144
381
372
2350
1786
1386
348
1163
217
960
219
1759
913
2105
337
558
421
1215
288
2050
1567
280
1660
1090
233
1366
2071
1781
1491
1745
2242
742
684
1217
1626
1321
860
840566
555
430
1766
836
953
1612
1881
1356
839
2209
263
943
946
1268
364
1327
1662
1947
736
2162
2351
1213
1835
2086
1240
223
98
2156
518
395
1976
553
314
1329
2164
811
1434
762
412
931
1067
1269
125
1494
891
172
934
557
300
944
222
688
800
1968
373
1035
307
731
2003
1705
515
1479
462
460
2329
1837
2054
43
1863
1117
465
776
31862
2250
2157
1861
2
1945
1531
833
876
68
2188
2221
947
1692
81
2172
2284
1917
1150
758
1691
269
2296
2158
461
2181
2184
405
298
2206
1283
331
1134
1164
1127
816
938
606
1367
830
1399
2216
478
355
1168
2027
1571
1938
872
2112
2140
368
1258
1879
379
2047
145
726
2299
612
1102
1334
1292
284
747
548
353
2317
2217
1438
228
2152
1430
150
890
652
834
363
1370
1960
806
656
972
2
1884
447
1591
796
1308
711
1221
227
1615
211
1597
370
819
787
1579
1235
2185
1271
2336
1580
1578
1312
2312
1676
516
1405
449
1610
1704
1074
778
1877
1511
201
310
1165
1205
1605
254
857
453
1023
153
951
351
165
793
246
110
1545
30
2294
44
1116
456
257
1122
1347
446
1120
1110
2106
2223
396
1507
1272
1941
38
965
2236
1851
1456
918
580
1068
1811
1465
871
488
1316
1267
1040
2322
572
936
2232
2335
942
1229
1286
2123
1631
197
204
544
149132
733
2687
1741
1086
2023
238
2126
2300
1061
319
2178
91
142
1175
157
877
2038
1378
1107
2274
910
129
2301
2019119
1357
1617
1200
640
1767981
1428
1807
540
939
1441
554
179
1568
2225
2220
1852
273
1393
2165
629
1391
901
979
2269
1688
1011
1815
647
1845
634
1893
1417
2325
466
532
216591
909
1432
1556
1895
992
2042
1288
2347
276
1900
689
485
1281
2340
582
511
95
712
870
1770
1678
1280
2043
763
1930
63
1523
2070
789
784
1622
1810
1518
53 878
578
1387
92
134
1621
1411
661
995
2121
715
1486
1361
697
398
593
2030
2253
1842
100
151
4914106
2102
4
1408
247
1275
1005
359
1144
262
282
2163
432
1141
2011
1103
420
1126
1671
1984
1646
369
1054
415
2320
2009
19
1013
1819
2256
1894
2230
2134
200 328
2
31
2000
366
1224
176
356
2228
1390
184
795
1482
2263
2153
1695
682
1980
728541
718
810
1824
2133
436
1230
255
126
2327
2
399
1834
186
1775
154
169131
624
626
678
328
9
1779
248
1108
167
1632
140
1188
745
954
144
2167
1509
1320
1291
175
1094
458
894
2069
72
955
708
1521
1795
1081
537
1859
1464
1694
841
643
1406
523
18
1924
535
1303
1431
595
635
1422
1318
1409
945
2053
303
1519
633
190
1400
531519
980707990
1155
2076
1004
650
2245
1173
1299
1504
546
2125
1310
1042
1195
1052
838
1563
1345
2319
2210
26
2131
160
1041
2227
1055
413
2199
1699
305
39
2046
16
377
2004
1056
1319
1298
937
1179
2288
1234
293
1325
155
29
1065
471
394
730
1996
266
1383
2143
648
1070
1063
2083267
8 1331
1429
1565
1425
631
1529
1647
907
911
501
883
2241
1343
2010
751
61
2260
1293
2100
2111
1227
848
585
1723
621
1875
1027
1131
1080
1440
136
1101
1457
1336
1379
42
1340
1146
1338
719
350
564
616
1642
1606
1830
475
782
687
1236
1071
1362
171
1176
327
2059
1392
2051
2187
451
888
1437
444
1058
244
923
1544
1514
1355
406
1079
59
959
2146
2099
672
637
5
414
1149
760
900683
827
1651
2203
1517
1548
935
919
1637
571
887
1498
1050
1805
1132
798
961888
2304
2265
2039
686
1087
1931
1641
829
1305
1264
2147
2231
976
1864
978
1929
1554
199
2315
1047
1720
1162
1154
2202
808
382
1614
1553
440
427
159
37
2062
641
374
1300
1520
1550
1201
2075
1690
2155
969
1279
494
1583
723
2061
2018
1330
1946
192
1607
695
1882
971
489
1693
2084
65
2307
588
1038
547
1113
1259
1214
1335
2087
625
752
210
79
1902
1476
1687
1503
1883
450
2222
2169
1979
7
1245
1776
2871012
2308
403
2252
2279
2194
102
1121
801
1157
583
1724
2243
680
2332
339
867
2198
879
1021
271
209
2270
1250
725
1295
1374
309 738
2007
1710
2355600
823
2233
297
470
1057
809
933
1359
2113
170
240
1885
445
2218
196
2056
714
2074
743
1416
691
1982
1978
1638
1096
2080
889
1772
1093
1369
1420
362
1616
2012
408
1762
2297
750
1839
790
2036
1311
1501
1500
1228
2303
2235
497
1831
1459
1755
221
1394
1282
1536
1036
1906
22
604
207
1241
290
2114
27
1364
335
1557
1585
2267
1933
1763
2096
482
261
32
480
1951
121
1643
325
1664
597
1749
659
1833
568
2040
99
317
1203
1594
434
2313
2311
868
552
781
1156
916
1608
812
2306
599
2348
1526
313
768
1125
2196
1468
1717
1559
2282
1470
767
970
45 1009
1974
1701
596
1254
866
1944
500
512
1865
1857
1225
920
1843
6507
1097
581
1725
1611
1092
86
1099
1667
147
2191
1592
2150
133
2214
1488
2148
1589
397
423
31
315
1658
780
1202
770
2331
1672
1684
437
239
1943
1682
771
1098
1876
442
1181
1666
2289
573
2337
1145
2197
1530
2031
1942
1016
1649813
551
1169
1768
826
1633
1897
638985
729
1060
40
1936
111
1317
490
1274
1466
1246
141
2251
2016
513
2353
180
493
411 50
1558
2259
670
1778
1401
2255
202
1683
1436
875
669 983
1803
9
1973
1083
905
1742
242
2120508861
1148
1513
338
7242287
2363
64
1990
259
1922
1624
1878
1353
1024
101
245
2361
1007
1377
285
1630
16525
2345
1708
1172
389
48
2283
1685
1118
1827
417
139
702
1952
330
756
2107
1231
1644
1999
441
1891
2130
881
1182
1263
258
1603
605
296
1663
895
2118
419
584
2032
168 549 469
1983
2013
1747
014
2081
821
1569
257
855
1582
1505
385
1216
316
1574
1668
1995
108
1238
668
1218
2290
994
1849
376
260
603
525 78
20
189
1987
1478
846
2029
391
347
1015
479
1309
173
1540
2129
1575
1247
1628
930
1850
912
286
843357
383
1397
251802
1896
1625
1657
1455
988
5421
57
851
1502
1373
1846
27
1804
1798
1349
386
1957
1184
1572
6712077
1276
274
183
1252
1174
1993
924
873
657418
36
681
1731
455360
206
392
1266
256
212
1752
301
270
1313
1832
1404
2271
1167
565
761 1700
832
491342
1527
589
203
1918
1223
401
1822
5
1886
117
358
70
949
2318
886
1469
025
692974
1389
644
1586
378
426
627
928
1078
1480
1601
1697
1532
897
409
1761
1412
1180
1206
71
550
54
1892
1284
1026
777
1034
232
1792
2342
1820
2168
484
1739
2208
459
435
194
387
975
1874
2049
2295
336
1729
34
1524
1969
2161
1790
294
1868
665
560
854
914 856
27
1826
594
2094
1655
1706
1858
1
2110
279
696
1997
504
1748
619
1838
467
64
2149
146
306
213
1823
2135
1483
41
1384
1744
774
1297
40
1363
617
289
278
1727
1573
831
929
425 534651
1730
1765
3402310
792
2122
563
1219
779
464
1142
1604
1757
1970
1841
322
1908
312
1493
802
2276
1166
191
1270
1543
1887
2024
1028
1106
2090
2234
1043
1003
1600
1880
138
1904
2179
567
1953
1940
2338
1242
1147
443
2309
2275
1669
1964
1590
226
21
1847
2341
1681
438
2277
243
344
1956
1677
2195
225
952
1948
1112
323
1492
613
1726
1091
1989
893
1537
1138
496
107
773
292
577
82
1595
1915
1418
1222
1552
345
869
1152
993
1051
329
538
148
1825
15
2321
2211
925
1415
2052
375
837
1939
1006
1907
1972
1177
1760
46
1756
162
660844
1732
10
1239
56
1186
1949
60
1869
499
1133
156
2344
2357
1828
311
1570
1473
483
835
2171
234
334
1577
2298
12
1109
1856
1158 1920
1928
2098
1031
283
746 673
1722
1955
1049
16
187
393
2249
19751675
2254
341
561
1089
265
880
2064
1251
1754
1736
1211
55
865
2015
1961
1773
2333
1787
18091265
1135
636
2229
804
295
250
2005
1029
1
904
1718
1670
1680
1872
2151
3
23
1913
2142
1656
114
1905
495
6081472
2008
1654
1037
2302
2033
1635
785
2119
1226
917
1648
115
1916
35
69
1477
118
109
2343
299
788
1123
1818
2058
1584
1208
77
1535
477
235
569
2281
103
11
576
84 1923
1743
1867
1740
67 590
1495
2358
1871
1932
1645
954
52
1971
2280
2193
236
1002
1546
83
1901
2205
1560
463
428
852
1855
51
80 47
1045
2068
1650
275
1912
1115
1653
498
1866
1053
2048
481
769
486
757195
1551
1153
241
1821
1829
1576
607
842 1986
1994
1640
1950
824
1129
1609
1903
130 2006
252
1862
1709
973
333
128
1934
987
2124 2073
1137
19811104
863
1302
679
853
693
2017
614
1499
452 166
18121719
862
2359
1714
1051187
1715
177
2360
1185
522
2324
1119
1014
1528
433 400677
1889
874
559
1921
384
1111
281
2273 991
1032
198
676
502
794
361
2066
380
649
388
2117
1639
468 2078
533 903
1030
1255
545
1542
526
1010982
1451 1844
799
1462
963
2291
592 1919 75986
1771
1764
1256 1508
1360
1210
3242190
106
2272 892 926
0
0 .005 .01 .015 .02

Figure 22. Leverage versus residual plot for the model regressing student achievement on
school leadership and eight independent variables
119
Figure 23. Causal model representing relationships between eight independent variables
and school leadership and student achievement
Regression analyses for student achievement causal model. In order to test the
causal model, I included the results of the previous regression analysis that regressed
leadership onto the eight initial independent variables. From this model, I am able to
secure the effects of the independent variable that are placed into the model below
(Figure 24). The effects of the independent variables on leadership are determined by the
results of the beta coefficients.
120
Figure 24. Causal model representing relationship between eight independent variables
and leadership variable with indirect effects
I then ran the nested regression model where achievement is regressed against the
initial independent variables in Block 1 of the model. For Block 2 of the model, school
121
leadership is added. The results for Block 1 reveal an R2 value of .5598, which indicates
that the model accounts for 55.98% of the model’s variance. The variables in this model
with the strongest effects include educators’ years at the school, teacher student ratio,
poverty, and Black students.
In terms of the Black student effect, it is important to call out the significant effect
of this variable irrespective of poverty and the other variables. The regression results of
this model appear in Table 18.
Table 18
Block 1 Nested Regression Output for Student Achievement Regressed onto the Eight
Independent Variables

(Demographics)
Educators’ Experience -.4834662 0.565 -.0151605
Educators’ years in school 3.943996 0.000 .1665526
Number Hispanic Students .0028088 0.272 .0151512
Number White Students .0045266 0.000 .0848661
Number Other Students -.001874 0.508 -.0075932
Teacher Student Ratio 1.100733 0.000 .2792255
Poverty -28.13241 0.000 -.4856782
_________________________________________________________________
R2 =.5598
In terms of the results for Block 2, I find that the R2 value improves only slightly
(.5934) as a result of adding the school leadership variable. Further, the addition of the
leadership variable, while significant has little mediating effect on the other variables.
The regression results from Block 2 of the nested regression appears below in Table 19.
122
Table 19
Block 2 Nested Regression Output for Student Achievement Regressed onto the Eight
Independent Variables and School Leadership

(Demographics)
Educators’ Experience -1.005905 0.239 -.0315431
Educators’ years in
school 4.278626 0.000 .1806838
Total Hispanic Students .0044705 0.074 .0241150
Number White Students .0052969 0.000 .0993077
Number Other Students -.0015628 0.572 -.0063324
Teacher Student Ratio 1.050893 0.000 .2665824
Poverty -27.38982 0.000 -.4728581
School Leadership 6.465199 0.000 .1178921
____________________________________________________________
R2 value =.5934,
Lastly the causal model is completed and includes the indirect and direct effects
as indicated in Figure 24. The indirect effects of this model were obtained by multiplying
the effects from the independent variables on leadership by the effect of leadership on
school performance (Hamilton, 2008). I also calculated the direct and the total effects.
Table 20 below highlights along with the percent of mediation.
123
Table 20
Summary of Effects on Student Achievement by the Eight IVs and the Mediating Effect of
School Leadership
Indirect Direct Total Percent of

Variable Effects Effects Effects Mediation
Educators’
Experience .000 .000 .000 --
School -.014 .181 .166 -8.57%
Number Hispanic
students .000 .000 .000 --
Number Black
Students -.024 -.135 -.158 14.82%
Number White
Students -.015 .099 .084 -18.08%
Number Other
Minority Students .000 .000 .000 --
Teacher Student
Ratio .018 .267 .278 4.24%
Poverty -.014 -.473 -.487 2.93%
School Leadership -- .118 .118 --
In terms of the effects of achievement on the independent variables, both poverty
and teacher student ratio have high total effect values and low percentages of mediation
(see Table 20). These variables appear to have significant impact on student achievement
with very little help from the mediating variable of school leadership, as indicated by
their direct effects. Despite the mediating relationship with leadership, each of these
variable offers significant influence on student achievement on their own.
Poverty appears to have a negative influence on student achievement and drives it
down. This suggest that irrespective of the impact of other variables that poverty will
still contribute negatively to student achievement. In contrast, Teacher Ratio appears to
positively impact student achievement and pushes it up. This suggests that irrespective of
124
the impact of other variables that teacher student ratio will have a positive effect on
student achievement.
Further in terms of other significant independent variables and their related
effects, I find that the variables Educators’ Years in School, Number of Black Students,
Number of White Students and Educators’ Years in School have very little mediated
effects, as indicated by the variables indirect effects (see Table 20). Additionally, Years
of school and Number of White may have suppression effects. MacKinnon, Krull &
Lockwood (2000) indicate that suppression effects can be determined by the sign
differences that occur between the direct and mediated effects (indirect effects). The
changes in signs suggest that leadership has a negative relationship to the independent
variables. Thus in the cases of the variables number of White Students and Educators’
Years in School adding the leadership variable to the model changes the total effects of
these variable to positive. MacKinnon, Krull, & Lockwood (2000) says that the changes
in sign are an indication of inconsistent mediation which suggests that the variable is
implementing a suppression effect on the dependent variable of student achievement.
125
Figure 25. Causal model representing relationship between eight independent variables
with indirect effects through school leadership and direct effect to student achievement
126
Chapter Summary
In this chapter I used a variety of analysis to assist me in answering key questions
related to the research’s hypotheses. Specially, the questions that are examined as part of
this work are as follows:
achievement?
poverty schools?
I relied on the Stata statistical software (StataCorp, 2013) to assist in analyzing
the models associated with the hypothesis for this study. Additionally, I developed
causal models that assisted in explaining the relationships between independent variables
and leadership, culture and school achievement. The results of these model revealed both
indirect and direct effects related to both leadership, culture and student achievement.
Particularly in terms of culture and its relationship to leadership, the outcomes of
the causal model show a significantly positive relationship between school culture and
leadership, thus indicating that healthy school culture is synonymous to high quality
leadership, a factor supported by extensive research (Leithwood and Levin, 2005; Loeb et
al., 2009; Papa, Lankford, Loeb, & Wychoff, 2002; Rise, 2010, Branch et al, 2009)
127
speaking to the impact of leadership on school culture and improvements to student
achievement.
Further through the analysis, I was also able identify mediating effects that
leadership had on other variables. Most of the effects that the independent variables had
occurred as a result of going through the leadership variable. This can be clearly seen
between poverty and leadership. In this case most of the effects observed between
poverty and leadership occurs as a result leadership, as leadership mediates 75.54% of the
effects and 76% of the total effects. Similarly in terms of leadership and its effects on
teacher student ratio, all effects appear to occur as a result of leadership. This suggests
that leadership mediates 100% of the effects.
In terms of the effects on achievement and the mediating effects of leadership, I
found highest total effect values to be associated with poverty and teacher student ratio.
Both appear to have significant influence on student achievement while also having little
mediation effects from school leadership as indicated by school leadership accounting for
only 2.93% and 4.24% of the mediation effects. This suggest that these variables offer
significant influence on the student achievement on their own with little influence from
school leadership.
Similarly, I find that other variables, Educators’ Years in School, Number of
Black Students and Number of White Students also have very small mediated effects.
Additionally, Educators’ Years in School and Number of White Students have
suppression effects as determined by the sign differences that exist between the direct and
indirect effects, which indicate a negative relationship between the leadership and the two
independent variables. The results show that when School Leadership is added to the
128
variables Number of White Students and Educators’ Years in School (which are negative)
the total effects of the variables become positive. MacKinnon, Krull & Lockwood (2000)
say that these sign difference indicate a suppression effect on student achievement.
For the Chapter five of this study, I will provide a more in depth review of the
findings and relative discussion as related to the theoretical underpinnings of this study.
Further, I will discussion any application or benefit that this study can offer to key
stakeholders, particularly school districts and school leadership preparation programs.
Additionally as part of this chapter I will detail information related to the limitations,
recommendations, opportunities for future study and related conclusions.
129
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION, RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
Chapter five will present an overview of the study’s research. This includes
revisiting the research problem, questions, methods and related findings of the study.
Further, I will share both the theoretical and practical applications of this work. Lastly, I
will reveal limitations, recommendations and opportunities for future research that are
associated with the study’s outcomes.
Recall that in chapter one I revealed concerns that have emerged in the US
relative to low student achievement and, in particular, its impact on high need student
groups as identified by both poverty and race. Further, the chapter provided context for
the reasons why schools that primarily educate high percentages of poor students often
receive resources that are of low quality, which include teachers and school leaders.
Research (Leithwood and Levin, 2005; Loeb et al., 2009; Papa, Lankford, Loeb, &
Wyckoff, 2002; Rice, 2010; Branch et al., 2009) was presented that speaks to the
importance of resources like school leadership and its ability to impact components of the
school environment (i.e. culture) that have an effect on student achievement. This
research begins to lay the foundation for the hypothesis posed for this study, one which
posits that high quality leadership can influence school environment factors in a way that
can improve student outcomes, particularly for low income students. The hypothesis
driving this study is one supported by the research of Clotfelter et al. (2006). The
researchers say that schools with high percentages of impoverished students usually
receive school leaders and other resources that are less experienced, less effective or of
lower quality than higher income schools.
130
Summary of Research Methodology
The parameters of this study explicitly focused on the influence of school
leadership for schools that educate high percentages of impoverished students in order to
determine if the influence of leadership is more significant for this student population.
Additionally, the study assisted in exploring whether the effectiveness of school culture is
more significant for high poverty groups and if the influence of leadership can change the
downward trend of student achievement for low income students. The research examined
the outcomes of student achievement for high poverty schools, the impact of leadership
on culture across socio-economic groups, and the impact of culture on achievement
across socio-economic groups.
In order to explore the questions related to this study, I used a secondary dataset
obtained from the New Teacher Center that included the results of the 2010 Teaching and
Learning Condition Surveys administered to over 100,000 educators within the state of
North Carolina. The results of this survey were used to perform quantitative analyses
that identified the cultural strength in over 2500 schools within the state. The research
relies on components within the same survey, which assess the strength of school
leadership. These two component measures of the Teaching and Learning Conditions
survey assist in examining the research hypothesis addressing how school leadership
influences school culture in order to improve student achievement outcomes for high
poverty students.
In terms of school leadership, the research posits that resources, and in particular
school leadership, are more impactful in schools where there exists an increased
percentage of impoverished students. In this study I used four research questions as
131
guides to examine the relationship between leadership, culture, achievement and the
influence of poverty. The research questions, related discussion, and an interpretation of
the findings are presented below.
Question 1. Do high poverty and low poverty schools vary in relation to student
achievement? This question was initially analyzed by using Ordinary Least Squared
(OLS) regression to explore the impact that poverty and other independent variables
including race (i.e. Black, White, Hispanic and other minority races), educators’ years of
experience, educators’ years in school and teacher student ratio have on student
achievement outcomes. The initial analysis found that in terms of the relationship
between student achievement and poverty that the two were negatively related such that
as the percentage of poverty increases among high school students, student achievement
decreases. This finding agrees with those of Kannapel and Clements (2005) and
Lippman et al (1996) thereby further supporting findings that link poverty to poor student
achievement outcomes.
Additionally this study sought to examine the presence of a more complex
relationship between student achievement and the independent variables including
poverty and school leadership. The relationship was explored by conducting a two block
nested regression analysis. In Block 1, student achievement was regressed against eight
independent variables that include poverty. For the second Block the school leadership
variable is added. In both blocks, poverty is significant and found to have a negative
relationship to school performance.
Through the use of Beta Coefficients obtained from the nested regression model, I
was able to identify the indirect, direct and total effects. I found that poverty’s total
132
effects on student achievement are -.487, (p-values, < α = .001). Thus, irrespective of the
influence of the other variables, the presence of poverty drives the influence of leadership
down. This suggests that the while leadership is significant and strengthens the model, it
has little mediating effect on the other variables. Precisely in terms of poverty and its
impact on student achievement, the power of poverty is so strong that even with the
addition of leadership, (a significant variable) it cannot mediate the negative effects of
poverty on student achievement.
The findings of this study related to the negative effects of poverty on student
achievement coincide with other documented research. Lippman et al’s (1996) research
supports the claim that as poverty increases, achievement decreases. This suggests that
high poverty and low poverty schools vary inversely relative to student achievement.
Question 2. Does leadership effectiveness differ among leaders in higher
poverty schools versus those in lower poverty schools? In terms of this question, the
research analysis explores how leadership is impacted when poverty exists. Similar to
the analysis in question 1, I first conducted an OLS regression where school leadership
was regressed on eight independent variables, which included poverty, educator
experiences, years in school, race, (i.e., Hispanic, Black, White, and other minority
students) and teacher student ratio.
The results from this model, while not strong as reflected by the low R2 value,
(.1100), reveal a relationship between leadership and poverty that is statistically
significant and negatively correlated as identified by both the coefficient (-.128) and the
Beta Coefficient (-.121, p-value < α = .001). These results suggest that as poverty within
schools increases, the quality of leadership decreases. The results further imply that the
133
best leaders exist in schools where the percent of student poverty is low, thus indicating
that leadership effectiveness differs between higher poverty schools and lower poverty
schools. This is most likely not the result of poverty changing leadership practices, but
more likely related to how principals (e.g. inexperienced and ineffective) are assigned to
high poverty schools.
Clotfelter et al (2006) finds that schools that have high percentages of low income
students often receive educators (e.g. teachers and principals) that have “weaker than
average qualifications” (p.13) as identified by years of experience, certification and
attending competitive undergraduate institution. The inequitable distribution of resources
appears to present challenges that inhibit academic success, particularly among low
income students. Additionally, Schmidt, Cogen & McKnight (2011) say that the absence
of suitable resources is negatively correlated with a student’s socioeconomics.
Question 3. Does a school’s culture differ among higher poverty schools versus
lower poverty schools? Question three explores whether poverty impacts school culture.
In order to explore this question, an OLS regression analysis was run finding a significant
relationship between the two variables. Poverty and school culture have a negative
relationship such that as the percentage of poverty increases within a school, the quality
of the school’s culture decreases. Additionally the results suggest that culture differences
exist among schools based on the degree of student poverty.
A nested regression model was run in which school culture was regressed on eight
independent variables of the model including school poverty. The model was run so that
school leadership was added in Block 2. I used the results of the nested model to
determine the indirect, direct and total effects. The total effect of poverty on school
134
culture is -.139 (p-values <α = .01). Leadership, however, mediates 75.54% of the total
effect that poverty has on school culture. The mediation effects of leadership on poverty
are strong, thus indicating that since the majority effect of poverty on culture runs
through leadership, one might surmise that improving leadership in poverty ridden
schools could minimize the impact of poverty. Kannapel and Clements (2005) indicate
that school culture is one factor that can be influenced by principal leadership. Thus,
while the results of this study indicate that differences in culture exist between high
poverty and low poverty schools, leadership significantly mediates the differences that
exists.
The above finding is also supported by the work of Clotfelter et al. (2007) who
say that improving the quality of resource inputs (e.g. school leadership) can help
overcome the educational disadvantages associated with poverty. Similarly, Heck (1992)
says that many of the environmental factors encountered by low-income students can be
overcome through “strategic school organization” (p. 5) and strong principal leadership.
Thus, I anticipate that leadership can temper poverty’s negative effect on a school’s
culture.
Question 4. Does a school’s culture differ as a function of leadership and doe s
that difference vary among higher poverty schools versus lower poverty schools? The
final research question examines whether culture differs as a function of leadership and
whether the differences can be attributed to the influence of poverty. Key to the
examination of this question is the relationship that exists between leadership and school
culture. A correlation analysis finds that the two are highly correlated (.9046).
135
In order to obtain a broader understanding of how the variables relate to one
another, I performed a nested regression analysis. As indicated above, the nested model
regresses school culture onto the eight independent variables that includes poverty for
Block 1 of the model. Next for Block 2 of the model, I added the school leadership
variable. The addition of the school leadership variable strengthened the model as
demonstrated by an increase in the R2 value from .1635 to .8314. The model that includes
school leadership accounts for 66.79% of the model’s explained variance and thus
indicates that leadership has a significant effect on school culture. As established above,
poverty has a significant and negative relationship with school culture, as well as a
negative effect on culture (-.139). Poverty has a similarly negative effect on leadership
(.121).
Additionally in examining the effects of the nested regression model, I found that
leadership as determined by the model’s beta coefficients has a mediating effect on the
independent variables, including poverty. This suggests that leadership is the vehicle by
which the independent variables operate through in order to impact culture, which is
evidence of a causal relationship between leadership and school culture. Leithwood and
Levin’s (2005) research speaks to a causal relationship that exists between school
leadership and components of school culture and student outcomes.
Additionally, Pitner’s (1998) Mediated Effects with Antecedent Model speaks
about the factors that interact or mediate leadership’s relationship to influence student
achievement. The research provides additional evidence of leadership’s effect on culture
and thus provides a foundation for understanding the mediating effects that leadership has
on other variables within the research model.
136
Furthermore, the results show that most of the effects that the independent variable have
on school culture occur as a result of the meditating effect of leadership. That is to say,
leadership is driving the influence of the variables.
The idea that leadership drives other factors to impact student achievement is
supported by the literature reflecting components of the causal model for this study. In
terms of leadership and the impact that it has on school culture, Kannapel and Clements
(2005) say that principal leaders coordinate components (e.g. school culture) that
contribute to improved student achievement outcomes. Further Leithwood and Levin
(2005) say that leaders impact student achievement by influencing factors such as school
culture which directly influence student achievement.
The authors’ hypothesis is that the other variable (e.g. culture) serves as the
mediating variable to student achievement. Their theory conflicts with the result of this
study, which finds that leadership is the mediating variable that all other independent
variables must go through to impact student achievement. Additionally, the results of
this study elevate the importance of leadership, particularly when interjecting a variable
like poverty that adds additional complexity in combating student achievement
disparities.
While the analysis results find that poverty negatively impacts student
achievement, it also shows that this effect can be mitigated by having effective leadership
in place. . Further because leadership does impact culture as confirmed by both research
and the results of this study, I assert that having effective leadership and a healthy school
culture are factors that begin to lay a foundation for improved achievement outcomes.
This implies that by not having effective leadership in high poverty schools, allows for a
137
less healthy school culture and thus allows poverty to have a more negative effect on
student achievement. The negative impacts of poverty on student achievement are
reflected in many research studies (Borman & Rachuba, 2001; Kennedy, Jung, Orland, &
Myers, 1986; Lippman et al., 1996; Myers, 1985) that speak to the disadvantages of high
poverty schools.
The finding in this study suggests that schools that have a lower percentage of
student poverty are most likely to also have better school cultures, which occur as a result
of effective leadership. This indicates that school culture is a function of school
leadership and that schools having lower percentages of student poverty have a greater
likelihood of having higher functioning school cultures than do schools with greater
percentages of student poverty. The finding is supported by the Alliance for Excellent
Education (2013), which indicates that high poverty schools often struggle to successfully
implement aspects of school culture (i.e. school climate).
Other Research Findings
In addition to the findings related to the research questions, this study also
revealed other findings noteworthy of reporting. The research results show that when
combined with school leadership, student teacher ratio has a positive effect on student
achievement. Leadership accounts for 4.24% of the mediating effect, thus indicating that
teacher ratio contributes most toward its total effect (.278) on achievement as indicated
by its direct contribution (.267). The benefits of reduced class size, particularly for low
income students is a practice supported by the research of Witmore-Schawzenback
(1998). The author’s research finds that reduce class sizes for low income students is a
predictor for improved academic outcomes.
138
Additionally, Educators’ Years in School and number of White Students show
suppression effects. This indicates that leadership has a negative relationship with these
independent variables (Number of White Students and Educators’ Years in School), yet
controls or suppresses the effects associated with these independent variables. Lancaster
(1999) says the suppression effect allows for a more accurate estimate of the relationship
between the independent variables and student achievement.
Limitations
The limitations of the study can be attributed to using secondary data, as was the
case of the Teaching and Learning Conditions survey data. Specifically the data was
limited to the initial collection criteria and thus presented some difficulty in assessing
other data not originally required by the initial researchers. Other limitations of the data
were related to the scale used for the Teaching and Working Conditions Survey. The
School Working Conditions Survey uses a Likert scale that limits the respondents’
response choice to either a 1, 2, 3, or 4. However, despite the above mentioned
limitations, these features provided some benefit in the analysis that allowed for ease in
correlating responses across participants and ensuring a reliable and valid rating scale.
Other limitations related to the survey is that it limited results to the perceptions
of teachers and principals participating in the study and does not include the input of
other stakeholders (assistant superintendent, parents, students, etc.). Nonetheless, the
results are restricted to persons found by the researchers to have the most significant
impact on student achievement outcomes and the learning environment (Wallace, 2004
and Hallinger and Heck, 1996) and thus increases face validity.
139
Delimitations
In terms of the delimitations of this study, one might assume that a natural path
might be to focus on the impact that leadership has on all students. This study chooses
instead to highlight those who are most vulnerable as measured by both poverty and
student achievement results. Research (Hallinger & Heck, 1996; Leithwood et al., 2004;
Leithwood & Jantzi, 2000) exists that confirms the effects that leadership has on
influencing general student achievement. Kannapel and Clements (2005) say that poor
children are overrepresented among the number of students scoring below the proficiency
level on state assessments. Because of this, the study further concentrates on strategies
that focus on improving the learning and achievement outcomes for students who are
both poor and low achieving.
Theoretical and Policy implications
In general, the findings related to this study provide an additional spotlight of the
weightiness of poverty and its ability to inhibit outcomes and deter supportive resources.
When examining the literature about poverty and student achievement, much of the
research speaks about paths to improving achievement for low income students to be
closely linked to the resources that are provided to the student groups. Yet, the same
research also references the difficulties faced by the schools that serve this student group
as they work to obtain the best resources or be assigned the most effective staff.
Strategies to combating these issues, particularly around staff assignment, are
related to the human resource policies that detail the practices for assigning school
principals and teaching staff. Clotfelter et al, (2007) say that principals, like teachers,
leave high poverty schools as they become more experienced in exchange for
140
opportunities to go to a more academically “advantaged schools” (p.20). This suggests
that school districts award placement in low poverty, high achieving schools to the more
experienced, and often most effective staff. While inexperienced and ineffective staff are
deployed to high poverty low, achieving schools. This research study supports this
theory by showing an inverse correlation between leadership quality and school poverty.
The implications of the finding related to the absence of effective school leaders
in the schools where they are most needed provides support for a change in human
resource practices, one that would assign the most effective leaders to high poverty
schools. This theory of action is advocated by Gamoran and Long (2006) who say that
current policies should be revised in a way that redistributes the best resources to high
poverty high schools.
The issue of resource allocation and its link to improved achievement outcomes
for students in high need schools is supported by a depth of research (Loeb et al., 2009;
Papa, Lankford &
Wykoff, 2002; Branch et al., 2009), which speaks to the disadvantages of schools
that educate high percentages of low income students in terms of leadership. In keeping
with the literature, the findings of this study confirm that attending a high poverty school
is significantly linked to limited access to the best resources – namely school leadership.
Andrews and Soder (1987) also advocate for approaches that would ensure
students who attend high poverty schools have access to the most effective leadership.
They find that while principal leadership does little to influence student achievement for
white and low poverty students, leadership (whether strong or weak) significantly and
consistently influences the student achievement outcomes for minority and high poverty
141
students, with the greatest differences occurring among students eligible for free lunch.
Thus policy implications as related to school leadership would include practices that
consider school leaders’ effectiveness results (i.e. leadership scores) coupled with student
need data to determine principal assignment as an alternative to seniority, as is typical for
most school districts. While it is unlikely that this will be an easy feat, especially within
a unionized culture, districts may also need to consider other incentives (e.g. pay, access
to high quality teaching staff) that encourage school leaders to accept more challenging
assignments.
Other considerations applicable to the research findings should also include an
examination of policies that advocate for diversified school options that would be
available to low income students. Researchers (Borman & Rachuba, 2001; Gamoran &
Long, 2006; Lippman et al., 1996) find that when poverty is concentrated, it can inhibit
student achievement gains. This is again supported by the current research findings,
which shows both a negative correlation between poverty and student achievement, as
well as negative effects associated with the presence of poverty that cannot be overcome
even when adding the mediating variable of leadership.
Additionally, because researchers (Aladjem et al., 2005; Shah, 2012) conclude that
students are most likely to attend schools in their neighborhood, it is assumed that
students from high poverty neighborhoods will likely attend schools with other low-
income students. Aud et al. (2010) say that low income students who often attend schools
in a neighborhoods where a high degree of poverty exists, attend schools with fewer
higher income classmates. Borman & Rachuba (2001) find that when students,
regardless of income, attended high-poverty schools, their achievement was negatively
142
influenced. The researchers attribute the negative impact on student achievement to be
explicitly linked to attending a high poverty school.
In contrast, Borman & Rachuba (2001) say that when both low-income and higher
income students attended low-poverty schools, the student achievement outcomes were
generally more positive. The authors say that schools’ compositions (as measured by race
and socio-economic makeup) can be used to predict student achievement and is a more
accurate indicator of student achievement than the student’s individual race. This
suggests that the characteristics associated with a school, particularly race and income are
more likely to impact student outcomes. The theory is one that is additionally supported
by the outcomes of this study, which point to the impact of race (specifically Black) that
is negatively correlated to student achievement; and poverty which was found to have
significant negative effects on student achievement.
As a result of the study’s findings, school systems should investigate
implementing programs that allow low income students to be educated with higher
income students. Such models exist in the way of magnet programs for which selection
is not typically based on the neighborhood that students live, but a more random selection
process providing an increased probability that low income students can attend schools
that are more economically and racially diverse. It is anticipated that this option, and
those that produce similar diversity, may provide additional opportunities for this student
group to be exposed to the advantages (i.e. quality principal resources) of their higher
income counterparts.
143
Recommendation and Future Research
While the results of this research assist in validating existing research related to
the availability of effective school leadership resources in high need schools, it also
continues to affirm the negative impact of poverty. Because of the pervasiveness of
poverty within our school systems and the need to continue to develop strategies to both
impact poverty and increase student achievement outcomes for disadvantaged groups,
there still exists the need to explore other research areas related to this topic that will
assist in expanding our learning related to this topic. As such, it is recommended that
future research be conducted that explores whether poor students attending low poverty
schools have higher achievement outcomes than a similar cohort of peers attending high
poverty schools. This is important to examine as both the research and the findings
related to this study confirm that poverty on its own has significantly negative effects on
student achievement regardless of the other variables or the mediating effects of
leadership. As a result it is hypothesized that removing or decreasing the influence of
poverty and promoting more economic diversity within schools may create school
environments that are more conducive to improving student achievement outcomes for
low income students.
Further, because the research study also confirms that leadership can affect the
effects of poverty on student achievement, it is important to continue further research to
examine other aspects of the school system (e.g. teacher practices) that can be combined
with leadership to further reduce the impact of poverty on student achievement.
144
Conclusion
Overall, this study’s findings reinforce existing research about poverty \and its
negative correlation to student achievement. Further the research finds that within
schools in the state of North Carolina that school leadership negatively correlates with
poverty. These findings demonstrate that schools with higher percentages of student
poverty are less likely to have either positive school leadership or healthy school cultures,
which are factors found to predict higher student achievement outcomes (Hallinger &
Heck, 1998; Leithwood et al, 2004; Michigan State University, 2004).
The results of this study also demonstrate that even when a positive relationship
exists, as in the case of the relationship between leadership and student achievement, that
poverty continues to have a negative influence irrespective of the influence of the other
variables. However, this study also demonstrates that effective leadership can mitigate
the negative influences of poverty. In essence, despite the degree of school poverty,
school leadership can make a difference in influencing the school culture. This is good
news for schools and school districts looking for strategies that assist in combating the
national crisis related to student achievement outcomes for disadvantaged students.
Because improved school cultures have been found to be correlated with improved
student achievement outcomes, one can assume that by getting effective principals in all
schools, healthy school cultures can develop and in turn foster growth in student
achievement.
For school districts serving high percentages of low income students, it seems
imperative to reexamine the hiring practices that assist in assigning school leadership to
schools with high percentages of low income students. Specifically, I recommended that
145
school districts develop criteria for measuring leadership effectiveness and use this
information combined with data related to student need to assist in assigning leaders to
high poverty schools. This strategy, along with strategies like the implementation of
magnet programming that diversify the student body, can assist districts in ensuring that
disadvantaged groups have access to the most qualified school principals and dilute the
impact of poverty thereby resulting in improved student achievement outcomes for this
student group.
146
References
Aladjem, D. K., Boyle, A., & Kurki, A. B. (2005,April 11-15). Beyond free lunch:
Alternative poverty measures in educational research and program evaluation. A
paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Montreal, Canada.
Andrews, R., &. Soder, R. (1987). Principal leadership and student achievement.
Educational Leadership, 44(6), 9-11.
Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2010). Kids count data book. Baltimore, MD: Author.
Aud, S. H. (2010). The condition of education 2010. Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education
Sciences.
Banks, A. B., Bodkin, C., & Heissel, J. (2011). Teacher working conditions and
turnaround efforts in low-achieving high schools: What works. Chapel Hill:
Public Schools of North Carolina, State Board of Education, Department of
Public Instruction. Retrieved from http://www.ncpublicschools.org/docs/intern-
research/reports/workingconditions.pdf
Barth, R. (2002). The culture builder. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 6-11.
Bidwell, C., & Kasarda, J. (1980). Conceptualizing and measuring the effects of school
and schooling. American Journal of Education, 88, 401-430.
Blau, P., & Scott, W. R. (1962). Formal organizations: A comparative approach. San
Francisco, CA: Stanford Business Books.
147
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1993). The path to school leadership: A portable mentor:
Roadmaps to success: The Practicing Administrator’s Leadership series.
Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.
Borman, G., & Rachuba, L. (2001). Academic success among poor and minority
students: An analysis of competing models of school effects (CRESPAR Report
No. 52). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University, Center for Research on the
Education of Students Placed at Risk. Retrieved from
http://www.csos.jhu.edu/crespar/techReports/Report52.pdf
Borman, G., & Dowling, M. (2010). Schools and inequality: A multilevel analysis of
Coleman's equality of educational opportunity data. Teachers College Record,
112, 1201-1246.
Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in capitalist America: Educational reform and
the contradictions of economic life.Chicago, IL: Haymarket Books.
Branch, G. F., Hanushek, E. A., & Rivkin, S. A. (2009). Estimating principal
effectiveness (CALDER Working Paper 32). Washington, DC: The Urban
Institute.
Burke, J., & Litwin, G. H. (1992). A causal model of organizational performance and
change. Journal of Management, 18, 532-545.
Burke, W. W. (2008). Organizational change: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Cantor, P. A., Smolover, D. S., & Stamler, J. K. (2010). Innovative designs for
persistently low-performing schools: Transforming failing schools by addressing
148
poverty-related barriers to teaching and learning.New York, NY: Aspen
Institute. Retrieved from http://turnaroundusa.org/wp-content/uploads/
2011/03/TFC-Aspen-Institute-Paper-1-0-Aug-2010.pdf
Center for Social and Emotional Education. (2010). School climate research summary,
January 2010. New York, NY: Author.
Clotfelter, C. L., Ladd, H. F., Vigdor, J., & Wheeler, J. (2007). High-poverty schools and
the distribution of teachers and principals (CALDOR Working Paper No.
1).Washington, DC: Urban Institute, National Center for the Analysis of
Longitudinal Data in Education Research. Retrieved from
http://www.caldercenter.org/PDF/1001057_High_Poverty.pdf
Cohen, J. P., Pickeral, T., & McCloskey, M. (2009). The challenge of assessing school
climate.Educational Leadership, 66(4). Retrieved from
http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-
leadership/dec08/vol66/num04/The-Challenge-of-Assessing-School-Climate.aspx
Coleman, J. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity (COLEMAN) study (EEOS). Ann
Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research
(distributor).
Cravens, X. (2008). The cross-cultural fit of the learning-centered leadership framework
and assessment for Chinese principals (Doctoral dissertation, Vanderbilt
University. Retrieved from
http://acorn.library.vanderbilt.edu/uhtbin/cgisirsi/?ps=EMOiFBWAxN/CENTRA
L/127540009/8/3315957/Cravens,+Xiu+Chen.
149
Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). Race, inequality and educational accountability: The irony
of No Child Left Behind. Race Ethnicity and Education, 10, 245-260.
Davis, S., Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M. A., & Meyerson, D. (2005). Developing
successful principals: Review of research. Stanford, CA: Stanford Educational
Leadership Institute, The Finance Project. Retrieved from
http://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/school-leadership/principal-
training/Pages/Developing-Successful-Principals.aspx
Deal, T., & Peterson, K. (1990). The principal's role in shaping school culture.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
English, F. W. (2006). The unintended consequences of a standardized knowledge base in
advancing educational leadership preparation. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 42, 461-472.
Etzioni, A. (1964). Modern organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Fullan, M. (Nov. 2006). Change theory: A force for school improvement. Seminar Series
Paper.
Gamoran, A., & Long, D. A.. (2006). Equality of educational opportunity: A 40-year
retrospective. Madison: University of Wisconsin, School of Education, Wisconsin
Center for Education Research. Retrieved from http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/
publications/workingPapers/Working_Paper_No_2006_09.pdf
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York, NY: Basic Books.
150
Goldring, E. P., Porter, A. C., Murphy, J., Elliott, S. N., & Cravens, X. (2007). Assessing
learning-centered leadership: Connections to research, professional standards,
and current practices. New York, NY: The Wallace Foundation. Retrieved from
http://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/school-leadership/principal-
evaluation/Pages/Assessing-Learning-Centered-Leadership.aspx
Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading educational change: Reflections on the practice of
instructional and transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education,
33, 329-351. Retrieved from
http://www.philiphallinger.com/papers/CCJE%20Instr%20and%20Trans%20Lshi
p%202003.pdf
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1996). Reassessing the principal's role in school
effectiveness: A review of empirical research, 1980-1995. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 32, 5-44.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1998). Exploring the principal's contribution to school
effectiveness: 1980-1995. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9(2),
157-191.Retrieved from
http://www.philiphallinger.com/papers/SESI_review_reprint.pdf
Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. (1985). Assessing the instructional management behavior of
principals. Elementary School Journal, 86(2), 217-247.
Hamilton, L. C. (2008). "Low-Tech Casual Modeling”
Hanushek, E. (1979). Conceptual and empirical issues in the estimation of educational
production functions. Journal of Human Resources, 14, 351-388.
151
Hanushek, E., & Rivkin, S. (2010). Using value-added measures of teacher quality.
Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
Heck, R. (1992). Principals' instructional leadership and school performance:
Implications for policy development. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 14(1), 21-31.
Hernandez, D. (2011). Double jeopardy: How third-grade reading skills and poverty
influence high school graduation. Baltimore, MD: Annie E. Casey Foundation.
Hirsch, E., & Emerick, S. (with Church, K., & Fuller, E.). (2007). Teacher working
conditions are student learning conditions: A report on the 2006 North Carolina
teacher working conditions Survey. Hillsborough, NC: Center for Teaching
Quality. http://www.teachingquality.org/sites/default/files/Teacher%20Working
%20Conditions%20are%20Student%20Learning%20Conditions-
%20A%20Report%20on%20the%202006%20North%20Carolina%20Teacher%2
0Working%20Conditions%20Survey.pdf
Hirsch, E., Sioberg, A., Robertson, J., & Church, K. (2010). Improving teacher working
conditions: Lessons from North Carolina schools. Santa Cruz, CA: New Teacher
Center. Retrieved from http://www.ncteachingconditions.org/sites/
default/files/attachments/NC10_brief_ImprovingTWC.pdf
Jaffee, D. (2001). Organizational theory: Tension and change. Boston, MA: McGraw-
Hill.
Jennings, J. L., & Corcoran, S. P. (2009). Beware of geeks bearing formulas: Reflections
on growth models for school accountability. Phi Delta Kappan, 90, 635-639.
152
Kannapel, P. J., & Clements, S. (2005). Inside the black box of high-performing high-
poverty schools: A report from the Prichard Committee for Academic Excellence.
Lexington, KY: Prichard Committee for Academic Excellence. Retrieved from
http://www.cdl.org/resource-library/pdf/FordReportJE.pdf
Kantor, H., & Lowe, R. (2004). Reflections on history and quality education. Educational
Researcher, 33(5), 6-11.
Kennedy, M. J., Jung, R. K., Orland, M. E., & Myers, d. (1986). Poverty, achievement
and the distribution of compensatory education services. Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
Kutash, J. G., Nico, E., Gorin, E., Tallant, K., & Rahmatullah, S. (2010). School
turnaround: A brief overview of the landscape and key issues. San Fransico, CA:
FSG Social Impact Advisors. Retrieved from http://www.fsg.org/Portals/0/
Uploads/Documents/PDF/School_Turnaround_Landscape.pdf?cpgn=WP%
20DL%20-%20School%20Turnaround%20BRIEF
Leithwood, K. (1994). Leadership for school restructuring. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 30, 498-518.
Leithwood, K. (2005). Understanding successful principal leadership: Progress on a
broken front. Journal of Educational Administration, 43, 619-629.
Leithwood, K., & Day, C. (2008). The impact of school leadership on pupil outcomes.
School Leadership and Management, 28(1), 1-4.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2000). The effects of transformational leadership on
organizational conditions and student engagement with school. Journal of
Educational Administration, 38, 112-129.
153
Leithwood, K., & Levin, B. (2005). Assessessing school leader and leadership
programme effects on pupil learning: Conceptual and methodological challenges
(Report No. RR662). Nottingham, UK: DfES Publications. Retrieved from
https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/RR662.pdf
Leithwood, K., Louis, K., Anderson, S. & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership
influences student learning. New York, NY: The Wallace Foundation.
Leithwood, K., & Riehl, C. (2003). What we know about successful school leadership.
Nottingham, UK: National College for School Leadership. Retrieved from
http://dcbsimpson.com/randd-leithwood-successful-leadership.pdf
Lewin, K. (1958). Group decision and social change. In E.E. Maccoby, T.M. Newcomb,
& E.L. Hartley (Eds.), Reading in social psychology (pp. 197-211). New York,
NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Lieberman, A., Falk, B., & Alexander, B. (2007). A culture in the making: Leadership in
learner-centered schools. In A. Danzig, K. Borman, B. Jones, & W. Wright (Eds.)
Learner-centered leadership: Research, policy, and practice (pp. 21-42). New
York, NY: Routledge Press.
Lippman, L. B., Burns, S., & McArthur, E. (1996). Urban schools: The challenge of
location and poverty (NCES Publication No. 96184). Alexandria, VA: Education
Publications Center.
Litwin, G. L., & Stringer, R. (1968). Motivation and organizational climate. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
154
Loeb, S., Kalogrides, D., & Horng, E. L. (2010). Principal preferences and the uneven
distribution of principals across schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 32, 205-229.
Louis, K. S., Leithwood, K. L., Wahlstrom, K. L., & Anderson, S. E. (2010).
Investigating the links to improved student learning: Final report of research
findigns. New York, NY: The Wallace Foundation.
Maehr, M. L., & Fyans, L. J. (1990). School culture, motivation and achievement (Project
report).Urbana, IL: National Center for School Leadership.
Maehr, M., & Midgely, C. (1996). Transforming school cultures: Lives in context.
Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Mann, Horace (1848). “The Fifth Report to the Massachusetts board of Education”, in
Republic and the School, p. 53.
McLaughlin, M., & Talbert, J. E. (1993). Contexts that matter for teaching and learning.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Center for Research on the Context of
Secondary School Teaching.
Milanowski, A. (2012). Resolving some issues in using value-added measures of
productivity for school and teacher incentives: Ideas from technical assistance
and TIF grantee experience. Madison: University of Wisconsin, Center for
Educator Compensation Reform.
Mortimore, P. (1993, January). School effectiveness and the management of effective
learning and teaching. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International
Congress for School Effectiveness and Improvement, Norrkoping, Sweden.
155
Nadler, D. A., & Tushman, M. (1977). A diagnostic model for organization behavior. In
E. L. J. R. Hackman, Perspectives in behavior in organizations (pp. 95-100). New
York, NY: McGraw Hill.
National Commission on Teaching and America's Future. (2003). No dream denied: A
pledge to America's children. Washington, DC: Author.
National Education Association. (2008). Changing role of school leadership.
Washington, DC: NEA Education Policy and Practice Department: Center for
Great Public Schools.
New Leaders for New Schools. (2010). Evaluating principals: Balancing accountability
with professional growth. New York, NY: Author.
New Teachers Center. (2012). Validity and reliability of the North Carolina teacher
working conditions survey. Santa Cruz, CA: Author.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6319 (2002).
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, Division of Financial and Business
Services. "Free & Reduced Meal Application Data." Available online at:
http://www.ncpublicschools.org/fbs/resources/data/.
Oyinlade, A. O. 2006. A method of assessing leadership effectiveness: Introducing the
essential behavioral leadership qualities approach. Performance Improvement
Quarterly, 19(1)25-40.
Papa, F., Lankford, H., & Wyckoff, J. (2002). The attributes and career paths of
principals: Implications for improving policy. Retrieved from
http://www.teacherpolicyresearch.org/portals/1/pdfs/Career_Paths_of_Principals.
pdf
156
Peterson, K., & Kelley, C. (2001). Transforming school leadership. Leadership, 30(3), 8-
11.
Porter, A. C., Polikoff, M. A., Goldring, E., Murphy, J., Elliott, S. N., & May, H. (2010).
Developing a psychometrically sound assessment of school leadership: The VAL-
ED as a case study. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(2), 135-173.
Protheroe, N. (2005). Leadership for school improvement, Principal, 54-55.
Public Schools of North Carolina, State Board of Education, Department of Public
Instruction. (2012). The ABCs of public instruction. Retrieved from
http://abcs.ncpublicschools.org/abcs/
Rice, J. (2010). Principal effectiveness and leadership in an era of accountability: What
research says. Washington, DC: The Urban Institue.
Robinson, V. M. J., Lloyd, C. A., & Rowe, K. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on
student outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 44, 635-674.
Sarason, S. (1982). Culture of the school and the problem of change (2nd ed.).Boston,
MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Schein, E. (1987). Process consultation: Vol. 2. Its role in organization development (2nd
ed.). Reading, MA: Addision-Wesley.
Schmidt, W. H., Cogan, L. S., & McKnight, C. C. (2011). Equality of educational
opportunity: Myth or reality in U.S. schooling. American Educator, 34(4), 12-19.
Scott, W. (1998). Organizations: Rational, natural and open systems. Upper Saddle
River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
157
Senge, P. (1990). The leader's new work: Building learning organizations. Sloan
Management Review, 32(1), 7-23.
Shah, N. (2012, April 24). Unequal opportunities. Education Week, 31(29), 5.
Shelton, S. (2010). Strong leaders strong schools: 2010 school leadership laws. Denver,
CO: National Conference of State Legislatures.
Smith, S., & Mickelson, R. A. (2000). All that glitters is not gold: School reform in
Charlotte Mecklenberg. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 101, 111-
117.
Stolp, S., & Smith, S. C. (1995). Transforming school culture: Stories symbols, values
and the leader's role. Eugene, OR: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational
Management.
Stolp, S. (1994). Leadership for school culture. Eugene, OR: ERIC Clearinghouse on
Educational Management.
Summers, A. & Wolfe, B. (1975). "Which school resources help learning? Efficiency and
equity in Philadelphia public schools,” Business Review, Federal Reserve Bank of
Philadelphia, issue Feb, pages 4-29.
Tableman, Betty (2004). Understanding how positive school culture and climate help
high poverty students (Best practice brief No. 31). Retrieved from
http://outreach.msu.edu/bpbriefs/issues/brief31.pdf
Teddlie, C. K., Kirby, P. C., & Stringfield, S. (1989). Effective versus ineffective
schools: Observable differences in the classroom. American Journal of Education,
97, 221-236.
158
Thacker, J., & McInermey, W. D. (1992). Changing academic culture to improve student
achievement in the elementary schools. ERS Spectrum, 10(4), 18-23.
Tichy, N. (1983). Managing strategic change: Technical, political and cultural
dynamics. New York, NY: Wiley.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2012). Eligibility manual for school meals:
Determining and verifying eligibility. Retrieved from http://www.fns.usda.gov/
cnd/Guidance/EliMan.pdf
U.S. Department of Education. (2008). Mapping America's progress. Retrieved from
http://ed.gov/nclb/accountability/results/progress/nation.html.
Vinovskis, M. (1992). Schooling and poor children in 19th-century America. American
Behavioral Scientist, 35, 313-331.
Voight, A., Austin, G., and Hanson, T. (2013). A climate for academic success: How
school climate distinguishes schools that are beating the achievement odds (Full
Report). San Francisco: WestEd.
Wallace Foundation. (2012). The school principal as leader: Guiding schools to better
teaching and learning. Chicago, IL: Author.
Waters, T. M., Marzano, R., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years
of research tells us about the effects of leadership on student achievement.
Aurora, CO: Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning. Retrieved from
http://www.sai-iowa.org/storage/BalancedLeadership.pdf
Weick, K.E.,& Quinn, R.E. (1999). Organizational change and development. Annual
Review of Psychology, 50, 361-386.
159
Weisbord, M. R. (1976). Organizational diagnosis: Six places to look for trouble with or
without theory. Group and Organization Studies, 1, 430-447.
Wheeler, J. (2006). An analysis of principal turnover, distribution, and effectiveness in
the state of North Carolina. Duke University.
160
Appendix A
Informal Request for Use of Dataset
From: "Andrew Sioberg" <asioberg@newteachercenter.org>

To: alyssaheywood@comcast.net
Cc: "Keri Church" <kchurch@newteachercenter.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 2:59:04 PM
Subject: Re: follow up
Hey Alyssa,
Attached is a copy of the template for data request as we had discussed. If you
read through it, you will see it is designed for NC data. If there are other data
sources you are interested in acquiring, you would need to change the template
to reflect those needs. I am championing that you use the NC database since it
represents every school across an entire state and is publicly shared. Some data
bases will require more formal permissions to use but can be done. Additionally, I
have cc'd my good colleague, Keri Church who handles all the formal requests
for data. Any questions about data acquisition, process, permission, and such
are technically addressed by her. If you have additional questions, just let one of
us know and good luck on your next steps.
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 3:47 PM, Andrew

Sioberg<asioberg@newteachercenter.org> wrote:
no problem, Alyssa. Happy to help. I have already reached out to get the
template for you. When I get it i will send it to you straight away. Don't forget to
speak with Errika or Eddie...and as I think about it Bill Hileman with PFT is also a
very well informed person on the survey process and its appropriate use to drive
school improvement planning.
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 3:45 PM, <alyssaheywood@comcast.net> wrote:

Dear Andrew:
Thank you so much for taking the time to speak with me about my dissertation
interest. I found the information that you provided to be very helpful. I look
forward to exploring these resources and having a future discussion about my
data needs as they relate to the research previously conducted by the New
Teacher Center. Again, I really appreciate the time that you took to speak with
me.
Best regards,
Alyssa Heywood
161
Appendix B
New Teacher Center Data Request Form
We ask that you address the following in your request:

1. What is your affiliation? If applicable: who is your advisor?
2. Be clear on the research question you are addressing and why/how the 2010 North
Carolina Teacher Working Conditions data is necessary and how it will be
utilized to answer your question.
3. Be specific about the data you need (whole state set, or select districts and survey
year if applicable). Also please address if you need demographic information
provided by the respondents as part of the database.
4. If demographics are requested you must also address the following question
below.
a. What assurances will you make to protect the anonymity of individual
responses while in possession of the data and in any publication?*
5. Ensure that you send any final product/publication to the New Teacher Center at
least one week prior to publication.
*You do not need to be overly extensive in your responses to these questions, but we do
ask that you ensure the anonymity of the survey responses is protected.
If you have further questions, please contact the Keri Church, Associate Director of the
Teaching and Learning Conditions Initiative at: kchurch@newteachercenter.org
162

Influence 2

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Influence 2

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP AND ITS INFLUENCE ON EDUCATIONAL

OUTCOMES FOR HIGH NEED STUDENT POPULATIONS

Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies and Research

in Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree

Indiana University of Pennsylvania

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

All rights reserved.

All Rights Reserved

We hereby approve the dissertation of

Candidate for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Randy L. Martin, Ph.D.

Author: Alyssa Ford-Heywood

Dissertation Chair: Dr. John A. Anderson

Dissertation Committee Members: Dr. J. Beth Mabry

poverty student groups, as well as accountability criteria mandated by the federal No

student achievement outcomes. Despite poverty’s negative impact, the researcher

student achievement for disadvantaged student groups.

In order to examine the proposed theory, the study employs a quantitative

disadvantaged student groups.

instilled in me the resilience to continue and complete this journey.

Additionally, I want to thank both my husband Patrick and my daughters, Aryell

listening ear, words of encouragement and unconditional love.

would have made you proud.

Darlene. Thank you for your love, support and encouragement.

so much for cultivating a desire in me to pursue higher education.

journey with you all.

not giving up on me.

Poverty, Race and the Achievement Gap ................................................................2

2 LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................................................30

Historic Context .....................................................................................................30

Setting/Data Frame ................................................................................................63

Modification/Manipulations to the Original Data................................................. 76

5 DISCUSSION, RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS.....................130

Summary of Research Methodology ...................................................................131

Appendix A- Informal Request for Use of Dataset .............................................161

1 North Carolina Total State Gender and Enrollment

2 Comparison of 2010 North Carolina Student

3 Student Achievement Expected Growth Categories ....................... 86

4 Interquartile Results for Continuous Dependent

5 School Leadership Scale Correlation .............................................. 89

6 Interquartile (IQR) Results Table ................................................... 90

7 Crombach Alpha Summary for North Carolina

8 Summary Statistics for the Educator Experience............................ 94

9 State Teacher Student Ratio Calculation ........................................ 95

10 Summary of Variables .................................................................... 97

11 Test for Multicollinearity of Model Regressing

12 Regression Output of School Leadership on the Eight

13 Block 1: Nested Regression Output of School Culture on the

14 Block 2: Nested Regression Output of School Culture on the

15 Summary of Effects on School Culture and the

16 VIFs for Model Regressing Student Achievement on School

17 VIFs for Model Regressing Student Achievement on

18 Block 1: Nested Regression Output for Student Achievement

19 Block 2: Nested Regression Output for Student Achievement

20 Summary of Effects on Student Achievement on the Eight

1 Adapted framework from Wallace Foundation supported

2 Principal impact framework for high-poverty schools ................... 58

3 Analytical model ............................................................................. 72

4 North Carolina student racial demographics................................... 80

5 Histogram of average number of classroom teachers in

6 Histogram of mean years of educator experience ........................... 83

7 Histogram of school poverty percentage within the state of