Date of Award

Fall 12-2008

Degree Type

Dissertation

Degree Name

Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)

Department

Educational Leadership and Research

Committee Chair

Michael Ward

Committee Member 2

James T. Johnson

Committee Member 3

Portia Hull

Committee Member 4

David E. Lee

Abstract

The two major components of school accountability, under the Mississippi Schools Accountability System, are growth expectation and school achievement. Mississippi schools are assigned a school performance classification based upon student achievement and whether schools did not meet, met, or exceeded their growth expectation. The primary purpose of this study was to determine if there is a statistically significant relationship between principals' ratings of self-efficacy, school performance, and school growth status. In addition, this study sought to determine if there is a statistically significant relationship between principals' ratings of delegatee performance, school performance and school growth status.

The participants for this study included 102 high school and/or attendance center principals in the state of Mississippi. Of the 102 high school principals who responded to the survey, 78.4% were male and 21.6% were female. The mean length of time in education for the sample was 22.9 years (SD = 9.2). The mean length of time as principal was 8.17 years (SD = 6.59). Of the 102 school principals who responded to the survey, 15%o were principals of Level 2 (Under-performing) schools, 33%) were principals of Level 3 (Successful) schools, 29% were principals of Level 4 (Exemplary) schools, and 25% were principals of Level 5 (Superior-Performing) schools. There were no participants in this study who were principals of a Level 1 or Low-performing school. In addition to school performance levels, school's growth status was also noted. Of the 102 school principals participating in this study, 88.2% are principals of schools that did not meet their growth expectation and 11.8% are principals of schools that met their growth expectation. There were no participants in this study who served at a school that exceeded their growth expectation.

The research study was guided by the following questions: 1) Is there a statistically significant relationship between Mississippi high school principals' ratings of self-efficacy relative to the elements of the Balanced Leadership Framework and their schools' performance classifications? 2) Is there a statistically significant relationship between Mississippi high school principals' ratings of self-efficacy relative to the elements of the Balanced Leadership Framework and school growth status? 3) Is there a statistically significant relationship between Mississippi high school principals' ratings of self-efficacy relative to the elements of the Balanced Leadership Framework and student achievement? 4) Is there a statistically significant difference between Mississippi high school principals' perception of change and school performance classification? and 5) Is there a statistically significant relationship between efficacy of delegates' performance as rated by principals using the elements of the Balanced Leadership Framework and schools' performance classification, schools' growth status, and student achievement? Both the leadership self-efficacy rating and delegate performance rating was acquired using the Principal Leadership Self-Efficacy survey. The Principal Leadership Self- Efficacy survey is a 21 question survey adapted from the 21 leadership responsibilities outlined in McREL's Balanced Leadership Framework. Based on these guiding questing a total of 13 hypotheses were tested using Discriminant Function Analysis, Multiple Linear Regression, and Chi-Square tests. Each of the 13 hypotheses was rejected.

Although none of the 13 hypotheses were statistically significant, descriptive statistics of the hypotheses did offer valuable insights into principals' ratings of self-efficacy relative to the elements of the Balanced Leadership Framework and school performance. First, it was noted that four of the 21 leadership responsibilities efficacy ratings increased parallel to school performance classifications. Those four responsibilities were Discipline, Order, Outreach, and Visibility. Secondly, regardless of school performance classification or growth status, principals' efficacy rating for the Outreach responsibility was higher than any other leadership responsibility. Thirdly, principals of Level 5 (Superior-performing) schools Knowledge of Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment efficacy rating was rated lower than any other school performance classification. Finally, principal efficacy ratings of schools who met their growth expectation were lower than those who did not meet their growth expectation in four responsibilities. Those responsibilities were Ideals/Beliefs, Intellectual Stimulation, Involvement in Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment, and Knowledge of Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment.

Download

Share

COinS