ArticlePDF Available

SMALL SCHOOL LEADERSHIP: A Q METHOD STUDY OF ELEMENTS OF LEADERSHIP SPECIFIC TO A SMALL SCHOOL SETTING

Authors:

Charis Sharp

Cedar River Montesssori

Content uploaded by Charis Sharp

Content may be subject to copyright.

SMALL SCHOOL LEADERSHIP: A Q METHOD STUDY OF ELEMENTS OF

LEADERSHIP SPECIFIC TO A SMALL SCHOOL SETTING

CHARIS EIRENE SHARP

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to the PhD in Leadership & Change Program

of Antioch University

in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

March, 2008

This is to certify that the dissertation entitled:

SMALL SCHOOL LEADERSHIP: A Q METHOD STUDY OF ELEMENTS OF

LEADERSHIP SPECIFIC TO A SMALL SCHOOL SETTING

prepared by

Charis Eirene Sharp

is approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy in Leadership and Change.

Approved by:

Dissertation Committee Chair date

Jon Wergin, PhD

Committee Member date

Elizabeth Holloway, PhD

Committee Member date

Pamela Kraus, PhD

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I owe a great deal to many people who helped me with this journey. First, I thank my

parents, who never expected me to do anything in particular, only to do what I do with integrity,

dedication, and passion. Second, I thank my husband, who joined me as I started this last piece

of the program and was my unwavering cheerleader, pushing me to the finish. Also I thank my

advisor and friend, Elizabeth, without whom I would understand a little less about myself, and

thus a lot less about my work. I am deeply appreciative of Billings Middle School, Ted Kalmus,

the head of school and my friend, and the staff, students, and parents who were so supportive and

willing to participate in this study. Several people in this program made a huge difference in my

life – Jacob, Joc, Lisa, Luane, and Muriel. Thank you for being my friends and colleagues. I’m

grateful for the help from my dissertation chair, Jon, whose practical nature, sense of humor, and

integrity made this part of the program the most exciting, fun, and educational. Heartfelt thanks

to all of you.

ABSTRACT

Smaller schools have become an extremely popular school reform model. Research that

connects them to student achievement is being used to support and create autonomous small

schools as well as schools-within-schools. While it would seem to be a logical application, the

schools-within-schools model is not performing at the levels expected as indicated by the small

schools research. Research on these two different school settings needs to be separated,

examined, and applied independently. Areas lacking research include questions about which

aspects of schools support the functioning of the school, such as leadership. This study used Q-

methodology to study leadership in a small private school in Seattle, Washington. The school has

84 students and ranks at high levels on several scales of leadership and climate that have been

correlated to high levels of student achievement. Q-method quantifies the opinions of study

participants in such a way as to find groups of similar responses represented by factors. This

study found an unusually high degree of consensus among the participants of the study and that

there were no clear distinctions between the perspectives of the groups. The resulting single

factor in this study is characterized by identifying the actions and leadership of the teachers as

being most important to smaller school leadership. Also, student leadership and making

leadership a part of the whole school program was given a high degree of importance.

Leadership by the head of school and leadership actions of the parents were rated lower,

respectively, in terms of importance for an effective smaller school. The electronic version of

this dissertation is at OhioLink ETD Center, www.ohiolink.edu/etd.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements.......................................................................................................................... i

Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... ii

List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. v

List of Illustrations......................................................................................................................... vi

Chapter I: Introduction.................................................................................................................... 1

Situating the Researcher ..................................................................................................... 1

Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................... 4

Research Question .............................................................................................................. 9

Description of Terms .......................................................................................................... 9

Small Schools and Smaller Schools........................................................................ 9

Schools Within Schools ........................................................................................ 11

Transformational Leadership................................................................................ 12

Learning Organizations......................................................................................... 13

Professional Learning Communities..................................................................... 13

Leadership Capacity.............................................................................................. 14

Summary of Chapters ....................................................................................................... 14

Chapter II: Review of the Literature............................................................................................. 16

Current Thinking About Leadership................................................................................. 16

Leadership in Small Organizations................................................................................... 23

Effective School Leadership............................................................................................. 27

Small School Leadership .................................................................................................. 34

Leader Effectiveness............................................................................................. 44

Teacher Communities ........................................................................................... 48

Transforming Organizational Structure ................................................................ 56

The Case for Research on Smaller School Leadership..................................................... 58

Chapter III: Methodology ............................................................................................................. 62

Rationale for Research Method ........................................................................................ 62

Research Design................................................................................................................ 64

Research Protocols............................................................................................................ 68

Q-Sample Statements............................................................................................ 68

Interviews.............................................................................................................. 72

Selection of Participants ................................................................................................... 74

Data Collection Procedures............................................................................................... 78

Chapter IV: Findings..................................................................................................................... 81

Organization of Chapter.................................................................................................... 81

The Participant Sample..................................................................................................... 81

Qualifications of Adult Participants...................................................................... 82

Qualifications of Student Participants .................................................................. 83

Interviews.......................................................................................................................... 84

Importance of Statements ..................................................................................... 84

Parent Involvement ............................................................................................... 85

Participant Response to Individual Statements..................................................... 86

“Teachers and staff should support the decisions of the head of school.”

and “Parents should support the decisions of the head of school.” .......... 87

“Parents should be dedicated to the learning of all students.”.................. 87

“Students should take opportunities to lead when offered.”..................... 87

“Students should have input and influence on class curriculum.”............ 88

“The head of school should include the community in developing and

refining the vision of the school.”............................................................. 88

Participant Characteristics for Factors.............................................................................. 88

Data Analysis.................................................................................................................... 89

Correlation ............................................................................................................ 89

Factor Analysis ..................................................................................................... 89

Factor Rotations and Factor Scores ...................................................................... 93

Factor Ranking of Statements........................................................................................... 95

Overview Description of Factor A........................................................................ 98

Overview Description of Factor D........................................................................ 99

Overview Descriptions of Factors H and I ........................................................... 99

Consensus Statements..................................................................................................... 100

Distinguishing Statements .............................................................................................. 101

Distinguishing Statements for Factor A.............................................................. 101

Distinguishing Statements for Factor D.............................................................. 102

Distinguishing Statements for Factor I ............................................................... 102

Summary......................................................................................................................... 102

Chapter V: Discussion ................................................................................................................ 104

Organization of the Chapter............................................................................................ 104

Developmental Phase of the School ............................................................................... 104

Characterization of Factor A........................................................................................... 107

Faculty and Staff Leadership .......................................................................................... 112

Head of School Leadership............................................................................................. 112

Student Leadership.......................................................................................................... 113

Parent Leadership............................................................................................................ 115

Preliminary Model for Small School Leadership ........................................................... 117

Relationship of Smaller School Leadership Model to The Transformational

Leadership Model ............................................................................................... 125

Relationship of Smaller School Leadership Model to The Leadership Capacity

Model .................................................................................................................. 126

Limitations of the Study.................................................................................................. 128

Recommendations for Further Study.............................................................................. 130

Appendices.................................................................................................................................. 132

Reference List ............................................................................................................................. 137

LIST OF TABLES

Table 4.1

Table 4.2

Table 4.3

Table 4.4

Table 4.5

Table 4.6

Table 5.1

Demographics of Participants........................................................................................... 82

Unrotated Factor Matrix ...................................................................................................91

Rotated Factor Matrix....................................................................................................... 94

Ranking of Statements by Factor...................................................................................... 97

Consensus Statements Between Factors ......................................................................... 100

Distinguishing Statements Between Factors................................................................... 101

Statement Rankings by Group ........................................................................................ 119

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Ilustration 2.1 Studies included in the literature illustrate the distribution of methods, areas of

focus, subjects queried, and project locations....................................................................40

Ilustration 3.1 Example of a completed participant response sheet ..............................................74

Ilustration 3.2 MLQ-5x scores for Billings Middle School, Spring, 2005....................................76

Ilustration 3.3 OHI-ML scores for Billings Middle School, Spring, 2005....................................76

Ilustration 3.4 SPES scores for Billings Middle School, Spring, 2005.........................................77

Ilustration 5.1 Percentage of Statements within Ranking Groups by Classifications. ................108

Illustration 5.2 Percentage of Statements Referring to Each Classification by Ranking Group..109

Illustration 5.3 Visual representation of small school leadership model.....................................122

Chapter I: Introduction

Situating the Researcher

I work for a very small school and consequently have developed a deep appreciation for

the power of these unique, intimate communities to promote exceptional teaching and learning.

This in turn, has sparked my curiosity about exactly how and why these schools are able to

support teaching and learning as well as they do. Small schools as a whole are showing marked

advancements in many indicators of effective education, such as greater student achievement,

decreased dropout rates, and higher teacher morale (Raywid, 1999; Wasley, Fine, King, Powell,

Holland, Gladden, & Mosak, 2000; Wasley & Lear, 2001). A direct consequence of these

advancements is that small schools are receiving more and more attention, and influential

political and educational organizations are beginning to champion their cause. Large,

comprehensive schools, once thought to be the most effective educational environments, along

with educational foundations and organizations, districts, and federal, state, and local education

offices are now trying to figure out how they, too, can realize the benefits of smaller schools and

learning communities.

All of this attention has essentially turned small schools into models of reform for larger

institutions, an ironic turn of events that poses a serious threat to their unique advantages. The

reform effort has focused more on creating small schools and learning communities within

already existing larger schools than on creating small, autonomous schools. Howley (2004)

notes, “Research on actually smaller schools has been cited by urban and suburban reformers

who have developed a strategy known as ‘schools-within-schools’ in the attempt to personalize

huge schools” (p. 2). While some of these projects are showing good results, the overall

impressions are that they are not performing as well as expected. Initial expectations, based on

small school research conducted in autonomous small school settings, are proving more difficult

to attain in the schools-within-schools system than was hoped (Shaw, 2006). The danger now is

that the use of research from one setting (small schools) to support the development of another

(schools-within-schools) will create a backlash, and the disappointments of larger schools’

efforts will affect the ability of truly autonomous small schools to survive and continue to

advance.

My passion is not for exploring and developing schools-within-a-school. My passion is

for researching and providing small schools the information necessary to support them in

creating exceptional educational experiences for students. As a student of leadership, I have

found that there is a great deal of research into areas of educational leadership, from teacher

leaders to principals and heads of schools to administrators and superintendents. However, I have

also learned that there is very little study, especially peer-reviewed study, that focuses

specifically on what leadership looks like and how it performs in smaller schools. This is

troublesome; in the same way that small school research has been applied inappropriately to

schools-within-a-school, traditional leadership practices could easily be misapplied to smaller

school settings with damaging results. Good leaders of large schools could be erroneously

assumed to be good leaders of small schools. Leadership practices, methods, traits, and styles

that are currently considered to be good and effective in general could prove, in smaller school

settings, to be inadequate. Likewise, aspects of good leadership considered secondary in larger

organizations could be found to be crucial to leading smaller organizations.

My own experience, along with research and opinions I have studied, leads me to believe

that small school leadership requires a more specialized approach than standard educational

leadership. The studies discussed in the literature review seem to indicate the necessity for

heavily shared or distributed leadership in a small school setting. While teacher leadership has

long been part of the school education discussion, the idea that everyone should share in the

leadership of the school is not common. Also, what shared leadership means for small schools

has not yet been clearly articulated. Carefully defining good small school leadership, including

those leadership roles specific to different constituent groups such as faculty, parents, and

students, might provide a countermeasure to the tendency to simply apply standard leadership

practices. Ultimately, a clear definition of what good leadership is at the small school level may

assist smaller schools to operate more effectively. It is my hope that this study will initiate this

process.

It is important as well to disclose here my relationship to the proposed subject school for

this study. The school is Billings Middle School, a small, private, independent middle school in

Seattle, Washington. For three years I was the director of community development at Billings.

This position entailed fundraising, marketing, and other duties connected with our larger

community. I recently resigned the position in order to focus on this dissertation, but I continue

to chair the curriculum committee, attend board of trustee meetings, and assist with development

and marketing projects as needed. My relationship to the school is an advantage in that I have a

solid working relationship with faculty, staff, parents, students, and board members. They know

my work and trust me with their opinions. In addition, I am deeply familiar with the school

culture and can add context to the data that would not be available otherwise.

Purpose of the Study

In order to understand, and put in context, the current climate of small school research, it

is important to examine the history of small schools and to gain insight into the development of

what has become a very popular school reform movement. Early in the development of the

public school system, smaller schools were the norm. However, in the middle of the last century

they fell into disfavor. In an overview of the history of school sizes, Hampel (2002) states that

until the 1970s, “the small school was seen as the problem, not the solution” (p. 357). In the

interest of progress, educational leaders attempted to solve this perceived problem. Hampel

found that in “1940 there were 114,000 one-room schools . . . 60,000 in 1950,” and finally, that

by 1970, “the one-room school house had almost vanished” (Hampel, 2002, p. 358). Sizes of

schools, particularly urban high schools, increased during this period. With only 25% of U.S.

high schools serving more than 200 students before World War II, “fifty years later, 53% of

American schools were in the 500-2,500 student range” (Hampel, 2002, p. 358).

Larger schools were seen as better because they could more easily track students

according to ability, include rooms specialized to particular subject areas, provide extra-

curricular offerings, attract better administrators and teachers, and reflect more cosmopolitan

values (Hampel, 2002). The assumption was that these reforms would, of course, lead to better

learning. Yet, almost forty years later, the assumption seems to no longer be in favor, as

educators shift towards a position from which they dedicate nearly one billion dollars nationally

to creating smaller learning communities.

In a review of recent research on small schools, Cotton (2001) found that “research

conducted in the past 15 years has convincingly demonstrated that small schools are superior to

large ones on many measures and equal to them on the rest” (p. 1). In another review of current

literature, Raywid (1999) reported that large quantitative studies in the 1980s and 90s established

small schools as beneficial.

These studies, involving large numbers of students, schools and districts,

confirmed that students learn more and better in small schools (Lee & Smith,

1995). Students make more rapid progress toward graduation (McMullan, Snipe,

& Wolf, 1994). They are more satisfied with small schools and fewer of them

drop out than from larger schools (Pittman & Haughwout, 1987). Students behave

better in smaller schools, which thus experience fewer instances of both minor

and serious infractions (Stockard & Mayberry, 1992). All of this is particularly

true for disadvantaged students, who perform far differently in small schools and

appear more dependent on them for success than do more fortunate youngsters

(Lee & Smith, 1995). All of these things we have confirmed with a clarity and at a

level of confidence rare in the annals of education research. (Raywid, 1999, p. 2)

Such statements are prevalent throughout the small school literature. The promising results for

disadvantaged students have been of particular focus for many interested in smaller schools.

These results, along with the push for school reform, particularly in large urban schools

where more disadvantaged students tend to be struggling in schools, have sparked a movement to

turn existing large, comprehensive schools into collections of smaller learning communities often

referred to as schools-within-a-school or SWAS. SWAS projects have been conducted in New

York, Seattle, Chicago, Los Angeles, and several other large urban centers, with the assumption

that they should perform at the same level indicated by small school research. Yet their ability, or

lack of ability, actually to perform at that same level has caused recent concern amongst small

school researchers and practitioners. Wallach (2002) notes that, “most research is based on free-

standing small schools, not those sharing the same traditional large school space or those which

were born from one comprehensive school” (p. 2). As many SWAS projects began, there was a

lack of research specific to their own models, causing SWAS projects to rely heavily on research

of small, fully autonomous schools. Appropriate research on SWAS simply was not available,

and while autonomous small school research has been a vital tool in swaying public opinion

regarding the considerable resources dedicated to creating SWAS, the findings do not seem to be

as transferable as implied. In fact, the record of success for SWAS grouping efforts is not as

good as it is in small schools (Raywid, Schmerler, Phillips, & Smith, 2003). Nevertheless, the

SWAS movement is pervasive.

The major efforts of school reformers to create urban small schools began in the early- to

mid-1990s, and the research on SWAS started appearing in published form in the late 1990s,

with the majority published in the last three to five years. These published documents are

primarily reports produced by the projects themselves, by outside research organizations

contracted by the projects, or by coalitions of multiple organizations such as universities and

school reform think tanks. Several new papers have been presented at conferences in recent

years, and a few published studies do exist that examine general leadership or include

comparisons to large schools, but what stands out is a lack of dedicated research focused on

small school leadership appearing in peer-reviewed publications.

Empirical literature is so lacking that some of the best information currently available can

be found in opinion pieces on leading small schools. One head of a small private school wrote

about his experiences in learning to lead small schools through the mentorship of another head of

school (Votey, 2002). His lessons included focusing on what’s best for students, clearly

communicating the vision for the school, and spending at least 60 percent of his time on internal

school matters. In another piece, Copland and Boatright (2004), discussing lessons for leaders of

large-to-small high school transformations, reference the reflections of a public school principal:

Pondering the question of leadership, Gering notes, “We’ve changed our view of

teacher leadership and administration. Small schools just take more leaders than

large schools, and more people to step up and provide the knowledge and skills

we need at any particular moment. You’ve heard how it’s important to have

teachers as generalists in small schools. Well, we also need leaders as

generalists.” (p. 762)

While these two examples are not based on empirical research, they are based, like the findings

on small school research from SWAS projects, on real-life learning. Which is not to say that the

data is less valid; it simply makes the lack of focused research on leadership that much more

pronounced.

The little that has been published on small school leadership has appeared primarily in

SWAS case studies and evaluations. In fact, the vast majority of research about small school

leadership being generated at this time comes from these sources. It seems that the field is simply

too young to have generated ample research-targeting questions regarding SWAS or smaller

school leadership, resulting in the majority of research on small schools being focused almost

entirely on indicators of student achievement. That is not to say that leadership doesn’t surface in

the research. In fact, it’s interesting to note that when examined carefully the data actually does

provide insight into leadership in a number of ways. As the literature review will show, lessons

on leadership have been culled from the experiences and reflections not just of the principals of

the schools, but of the teachers and students as well. Hopefully, as small schools and SWAS are

further examined, the unique aspects of small school leadership will become the topic of more

focused investigations.

So often leadership studies seem to focus, logically enough, on those at the top of the

organization. For instance, a widely-used instrument for studying leadership in both

organizations and in education, the Multi-factor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ-5x) (Avolio &

Bass, 2004), comprises a survey administered to the leader and a separate survey administered

to those being led. The first asks the responder to reflect on his or her leadership while the

second asks the responders to reflect on their perceptions of the leader. This is just one of many

such instruments and, consequently, most educational leadership studies have focused on those at

the top of the organizations, without reflecting on the roles of others within the system. In

educational research this translates to a focus on principals, superintendents, and other

administrators.

In contrast, studies on small schools and experiences of small school educators have

found that the smaller the school, the more the responsibilities of leadership need to be dispersed

(Copland & Boatright, 2004; Wasley et al., 2000). This research indicates that surveys keyed to a

central person may be an inadequate tool for studying leadership in smaller organizations, and

hints at an entirely different idea of what good leadership might be, especially in a small school.

However, simply distributing leadership responsibilities among the faculty may be too simplistic

a take on what effective smaller school leadership entails.

The purpose of this study is to begin to develop an understanding of what is specific

about good small school leadership. It will look at leadership from the perspectives of the whole

school community including staff and faculty, students and families, as well as the head of

school or principal. It will begin to create a model of good small school leadership that might

help small schools continue to develop as one of the most effective ways of meeting the

educational needs of students.

It will be important to look at what is considered to be good school leadership so that it

can be differentiated from the findings about small school leadership. While leadership of and in

schools is an extremely broad subject, there is some consensus about what makes for good

educational leadership today. In general, this study embraces the idea that all members of a

school community should be learners, not just the students. It also puts much of the

responsibility for the performance and improvement of a school in the hands of the teachers in

addition to the principal or head of school. It will also be important to enable participants to think

beyond their reflexive answers to “what is good leadership” and explore what good leadership is

in specific reference to the small school and how that might be different from large schools.

Research Question

This study seeks to identify key characteristics of leadership specific to small schools. It

does not seek to simply reiterate or reinvent what good leadership looks like in general. Thus the

question under investigation is based on the assumption that small school leadership is different

from large school leadership. The question of this study, then, is, “What are the characteristics of

leadership specific to an effective smaller school, as identified by leaders, staff, faculty, students,

parents, and board members?”

Description of Terms

Small Schools and Smaller Schools

Throughout the literature, the definition of small school varies considerably and reviews

of research offer student population levels ranging anywhere from 100 to 1,000. In the literature

review chapter for this study, several of these designations are included so as to offer a broad

overview of the conversation and data. The methods chapter will set forth a specific size for

purposes of selection of subjects. This section offers a more philosophical description of small

and smaller.

Because the definition of small varies in the literature, researchers such as Howley (2004)

prefer the term smaller. He states, “Smaller schools is the term the present author and colleagues

prefer, precisely because it represents a relative concept related to the variability of school size as

it actually appears . . . Smallness is not a particular enrollment or a particular enrollment

category” (Howley, 2004, pp. 2-3). A more fluid perspective of smaller versus larger, instead of

various sizes of small, allows data to be understood in trends instead of in various small school

categories, e.g. “SES [socioeconomic status] explains less of the variance in school achievement

among smaller schools than it does among larger schools” (Coladarci, 2006, p. 3). The term

smaller makes more sense for two reasons. First, one can compare data more easily across

several studies and identify trends in variations of school size. Second, schools are not subject to

categorization as small or not small, and therefore avoid the labels of good or not good.

Another definition of small that complements this perspective is an operational one.

It helps if schools are of a reasonable size, small enough for faculty members to

sit around a table and iron things out, for everyone to be known well by everyone

else, and for schools and families to collaborate face-to-face over time. They

should be small enough so that children belong to the same community as the

adults, not abandoned in adultless subcultures; small enough to both feel safe and

be safe; small enough so that phony data can easily be detected by any interested

participant; small enough so that the people most involved can never say they

were not consulted . . . (Meier, 1997, p. 198)

This definition is particularly useful in the context of this study due to the fact that it speaks to

leadership specific to smaller school environments. This study operates under these definitions

and uses the term smaller rather than small as appropriate. Smaller schools can also be

differentiated by the term naturally small schools as coined by Swidler (2004), in that naturally

small schools are autonomous schools, separate both geographically and administratively from

other schools as opposed to the now very popular model of schools within schools.

Schools Within Schools

Howley (2004) defines schools within schools as

Administrative simulations of smaller size that amount to a family of grouping

arrangements within existing mega-school schools, whose culture and

administration remain dominant. They are called “schools,” but have lacked the

autonomy and operational distinctiveness inherent in actual schools (Meier, 1995;

Raywid & Schmerler, 2003). (p. 3)

These schools have become extremely popular. “The story of the effort to downsize our schools–

to create small schools and schools-within-schools and small learning communities–is

remarkable. In approximately the last dozen years, this idea has become one of the most favored

of school reform strategies” (Raywid et al., 2003, p. vii). As previously stated, the impetus for

the SWAS movement is the extremely promising data regarding student gains from research on

naturally small schools. McCluskey (2002) notes that, “In fact, the efficacy of small schools has

begun to become so clear that The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has dedicated more than

$345 million to help create more small schools across the country” (p. 4). That figure has

increased considerably since the 2004 report and several other major supporters have joined The

Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. “Major foundations have targeted smaller schools for an

unprecedented infusion of money. The federal government and many states, as well as dozens of

large municipalities, have declared their core support for the development of ‘small learning

communities’” (Raywid et al., 2003, p. ix). Funding for these efforts is significant, and major

programs are in progress in New York City, Chicago, and in many other urban centers.

Typically, a large high school redesigns itself into smaller groupings, as the definition

above indicates, with differing degrees of autonomy from their larger hosts depending on the

adopted design. The resulting small schools range from being completely autonomous, sharing

no programs, personnel, or students, to being simply departments of the larger school, sharing

administration, teachers, students, extra- and co-curricular programs, etc.

This study will focus on naturally smaller schools and not on SWAS. However, it is

important to include them here because the lessons from these projects speak to the subject at

hand. Findings from studies on SWAS can contribute significantly in a variety of ways to the

discussion of naturally small schools. The effects that SWAS are having on these conversations

should not be overlooked because SWAS are dominating the educational landscape in terms of

attention, resulting in their limited success starting to color the perception of small schools in

general. For this reason, it is important to both focus on what works in small schools and why,

as well as to recognize the effects SWAS projects are having on current reform efforts.

Transformational Leadership

“The term transformational leadership was first coined by Downton (1973); however, its

emergence as an important approach to leadership began with a classic work by the political

sociologist James McGregor Burns titled Leadership (1978)” (Northouse, 2001, p. 132). It is a

model of leadership that has grown rapidly in popularity in both business and educational

applications. Burns’ publication ignited several scholars who further developed his ideas into

more complex models (Bass & Avolio, 1994; Rost, 1991; Tichy & Devanna, 1990). In general,

transformational leadership focuses on the relationship between leader and follower and the

actions of the leader to engage, inspire, and teach followers. According to Bass and Avolio’s

(1994) most popular model, the highest level of Transformational Leadership involves inspiring,

challenging, and providing learning for followers in order to better themselves in order to better

the work of the organization. The next level down, transactional leadership, involves trading as

the main source of motivation or coercion, e.g. work for pay. The lowest level, laissez-faire

leadership, is the absence of action on the part of the leader. The Transformational Leadership

model is primarily concerned with the actions and behaviors of the leader.

Learning Organizations

The concept of learning organizations has grown in popularity alongside

Transformational Leadership and shares many overlapping qualities with it. However, the focus

of learning organizations is on the organizational culture and capacity to learn and work together

rather than on the leader’s particular behaviors. Popularized by Senge (1990), learning

organizations have been further developed by multiple scholars and practitioners in several fields

(Kotter, 1996; T. J. Sergiovanni, 1995; Vaill, 1996). As of this writing, a quick search for book

titles that contain the term returns 50 or more references. Generally, a learning organization is

one in which there is a culture of learning, a shared vision, a shared understanding of the current

structure, and a continual questioning of and reflection on practice.

Professional Learning Communities

Professional learning communities (Dufour & Eaker, 1998) are similar to learning

organizations in that they are focused on a culture of learning for all members. As a model, it is

specific to the field of education and focuses on the professional development of faculty and the

shared work of school reform and improvement. It has become a popular model in education

reform and improvement and is well researched. “Rarely has research given school practitioners

such a consistent message [regarding the positive effects of professional learning communities]”

(Dufour & Eaker, 1998, p. 25).

Leadership Capacity

Leadership capacity (Lambert, 2003) is a model of school leadership that includes the

participation of the entire school community in helping schools learn about, reflect on, and

improve instructional practice. It is different from professional learning communities in that it

includes the participation of students and parents in the leadership of the school and expands

areas of influence beyond instruction to other areas of school leadership.

Summary of Chapters

The chapters that follow, the Literature Review and the Description of Method, seek to

lay a foundation for the need for this study as well as for the method chosen. The literature

review will also examine current models of leadership that embrace a post-industrial, process-

based model of leadership that involves the learning and development of organization members.

These leadership models are highlighted not only because they represent the basis for

contemporary thinking of both scholars and practitioners on effective leadership, but also

because they form the foundation for contemporary thinking by practitioners and scholars of

school leadership. The literature review then examines professional learning communities and

leadership capacity, models that embrace concepts complementary to Transformational

Leadership and learning organizations. From there it will review specific studies that have shed

light on leadership in small schools and connect the findings to the previously reviewed

leadership models. The Description of Method will explain Q-methodology, a quantitative

method that quantifies subjectivity by correlating how participants rank the importance of certain

statements on leadership. It is particularly appropriate to the study of small schools in that it

relies on the opinions and thinking of the participants, but does not rely on high numbers of

respondents in order to achieve statistical significance. This chapter will also describe the

proposed school and participants and the protocol. Finally, it will summarize the argument for

the topic, question and method of this proposed study.

Chapter II: Review of the Literature

Current Thinking About Leadership

One of today’s most popular leadership thinkers, Senge (1990) states, “our traditional

views of leaders–as special people who set the direction, make the key decisions, and energize

the troops–are deeply rooted in an individualistic and non-systemic worldview” (p. 340). As

organizations are striving to be more responsive and adaptable to the rapid changes they

experience, concepts of leadership are shifting away from those that are based on the individual

to those that are more inclusive of the organization as a whole. Northouse (2001) explains that

many scholars and practitioners of leadership now view it more as a process than a collection of

traits (pp. 4-5). This process is particularly important to organizations that must adapt to changes

in their environment and where the success of the organization relies on the performance of all

members. Given the demands of No Child Left Behind and high-stakes testing, schools in the

United States are deeply familiar with the challenge of rapid change. This study is founded on

two models which embrace leadership as a process: Transformational Leadership, which speaks

specifically to the leader’s actions in creating a culture of learning, and learning organizations,

which speaks to the organizational interactions that occur around learning. These models are

intentionally examined in this discussion because they speak directly to what has previously been

largely the province of education, teaching, and learning, namely, the process of teaching and

learning.

Rost (1991) states, “Confusing leadership and management and treating the words as if

they were synonymous have a long and illustrious history in leadership studies” (p. 129). In more

recent work, several scholars have begun their definitions of leadership by differentiating it from

management (Bass & Avolio, 1994; Gardner, 1990; Kotter, 1999; Northouse, 2001; Rost, 1991;

Vaill, 1989). Leadership and management are, of course, strongly linked. Northouse (2001)

states, “Leadership is a process that is similar to management in many ways. Leadership involves

influence, as does management. Leadership requires influences with people, which management

requires as well. Leadership is concerned with effective goal accomplishment and so is

management” (p. 8). However, teasing out the differences between leadership and management

is useful in examining leadership as a process because it defines and sets aside management tasks

and actions that are often defined as part of leadership.

Gardner (1990) defines management as a collection of tasks, such as planning, decision

making, building the institution, coordinating, exercising judgment, and so forth (pp. 15-16).

Kotter (2000) states, “leadership sets direction, often a new direction, for a firm; clarifies the

vision; gets people to share the vision and line up in the right directions; and motivates them to

want to make the vision happen despite sacrifices and difficulties” (p. 7). Leadership is defined

as including elements of management such as those listed by Gardner, but also as the process of

interaction and the building of relationships within the organization. “The consensus that

leadership is [only] good management has, to some degree, broken down” (Rost, 1991, p. 90).

One extremely popular leadership model that extends the idea of leadership as process is

Transformational Leadership. One of the first to develop the concept, Burns (1978) defines a

transformational leader as one who “recognizes and exploits an existing need or demand of a

potential follower... [and] looks for potential motives in followers, seeks to satisfy higher needs,

and engages the full person of the follower” (p. 4). He differentiates this from transactional

leadership, which seeks to influence through an exchange such as the exchange of work for pay.

There are two key differences between this way of thinking about leadership and those

that came before it. One is the focus on the relationship between leaders and follower. The

process of leadership is a result of what goes on between the leader and follower, not just what

leaders and followers do. Another is the change in what is believed to motivate followers.

Instead of followers doing what they are told based upon various external forces, both leader and

follower recognize and leverage internal motivations. Burns (1978) contrasts this with power

leadership, which “objectifies its victims; it literally turns them into objects,” whereas

Transformational Leadership, at the other extreme, can be “so sensitive to the motives of

potential followers that the roles of leader and follower become virtually interdependent” (p. 21).

His work signaled a significant change in thinking about leadership up to that point and his ideas

were significantly expanded by other scholars such as Rost (1991) and Bass and Avolio (1994)

who followed.

Rost examined Burns’ definition of Transformational Leadership and used it to develop

his own. He defines leadership as “an influence relationship among leaders and followers who

intend real changes that reflect their mutual purposes” (Rost, 1991, p. 102). This definition

includes four elements, all of which, according to Rost (1991), must be present in order for

leadership to occur:

1. The relationship is based on influence.

2. Leaders and followers are the people in this relationship.

3. Leaders and followers intend real changes.

4. Leaders and followers develop mutual purpose. (p. 104)

In this definition is the recurrence Burns’ concepts of leadership as a function of the leader-

follower relationship and of mutual purpose as the tie that binds them. Rost wrote this at a time

when, as he puts it, leadership studies were on the brink of moving from an industrial paradigm

to a post-industrial paradigm and, consequently, the definition(s) of leadership were undergoing

considerable change. Not long after, other scholars created new definitions and models of

leadership. Like Rost, Bass and Avolio chose to expand Burns’ original work on

Transformational Leadership.

In an overview of the development of the Transformational Leadership model, Northouse

(2001) states, “Bass extended Burn’s [sic] work by giving more attention to followers’ rather

than leaders’ needs, by suggesting that transformational leadership could apply to situations in

which the outcomes were not positive, and by describing transactional and transformational

leadership as a single continuum . . . rather than mutually independent continua (Yammarino,

1993)” (p. 135). The continuum of leadership as developed by Bass and Avolio contains seven

factors, four ascribed to transformational leadership, two to transactional leadership and one to

laissez-faire leadership. According to this model, transformational leaders employ one or more of

the following factors:

1. Idealized influence: leaders who are admired, respected, and trusted are role models

for followers.

2. Inspirational motivation: leaders motivate and inspire by providing meaningful

challenge to followers’ work.

3. Intellectual stimulation: leaders inspire followers by questioning assumptions and

reframing problems.

4. Individual consideration: leaders act as a coach or mentor to individual followers.

(Bass & Avolio, 1994, p. 3)

“Transactional leadership depends on contingent reinforcement, either as positive contingent

reward (CR) or the more negative active or passive forms of management-by-exception (MBE-A

or MBE-P)” (Bass & Avolio, 1994, p. 4). Laissez-faire leadership is essentially the lack of

action, direction, or taking of responsibility on the part of the leader (Bass & Avolio, 1994).

In this definition of transformational leadership, the focus on the leader-follower

relationship is strengthened by a deeper appreciation of the perspective of the follower. For

example, three of the four factors associated with transformational leadership involve direct

interaction between leader and follower, resulting in the idea that “leadership is not the sole

responsibility of the leader, but rather emerges from the interplay between leaders and followers”

(Northouse, 2001, p. 146). This relates to small school leadership in that, as the literature will

reveal, effective smaller schools are characterized by teacher professional communities that,

together with the school leadership, take responsibility for ensuring the effectiveness of the

teaching and learning that goes on in the school.

Transformational Leadership also expands on the new idea of what is considered to be

effective motivation of followers. Transformational leaders do not impose their vision on their

followers. Instead, they build it with them. They challenge their followers in ways that engage

them meaningfully with their work. They mentor them, supporting them in learning what they

need to know in order to do their work. This enables organizations to be adaptive and creative in

responding to both planned changes and unforeseen challenges. It also requires that followers in

effective organizations be responsive and rise to challenges, growing and learning for not only

their benefit, but also the benefit of the whole.

Senge’s (1990) concept of the learning organization caught hold and spread rapidly as an

organizational improvement program in the early 1990s and has continued to be used in

organizational and educational research. In some ways, it is similar to the Transformational

Leadership model, but it looks at the concepts from an organizational perspective rather than the

more top-down leadership perspective. A learning organization, according to Senge (1990), is

one that “is continually expanding its capacity to create its future” (p. 14). It does so by

incorporating five specific technologies, “each [of which] provides a vital dimension in building

organizations that can truly ‘learn,’ that can continually enhance their capacity to realize their

highest aspirations” (Senge, 1990, p. 6). These technologies are:

1. Systems thinking: a conceptual framework that enables one to see full patterns of

change rather than snapshots of parts and create more effective change.

2. Personal mastery: a discipline of continually clarifying and deepening one’s personal

vision, focusing energies, and learning.

3. Mental models: deeply ingrained assumptions, generalizations, or images that

influence how one understands the world and takes action.

4. Building shared vision: the capacity to hold a shared picture of the future one seeks to

create.

5. Team learning: the ability of a group of people, through dialogue, to suspend

assumption and “think together” (Senge, 1990, pp. 7-10).

All five technologies are crucial to the healthy functioning of a learning organization.

This description of leading a learning organization bears a strong resemblance to

transformational leadership. “In a learning organization, leaders are designers, stewards, and

teachers. They are responsible for building organizations where people continually expand their

capabilities to understand complexity, clarify vision, and improve shared mental models–that is,

they are responsible for learning” (Senge, 1990, p. 340). In both of these models it is the

responsibility of the leaders to help the follower learn and grow. In the Transformational

Leadership model, the leader is seen to take direct action on the follower’s behalf, creating

challenges, asking questions, and offering opportunities for professional development. In the

learning organization model, the responsibility of the leader is to create the culture where

learning occurs at all levels.

These models and ideas make clear a concept common to current thinking about

leadership, that leadership and change are inextricably linked. While this may seem obvious, it is

important. It is easy to see that change is a major part of the general business environment, where

these models developed. Influences such as changing technology, increasing globalization,

shifting politics, etc., make the operation of a company a challenging practice in negotiating

multiple changes. In an updated preface to a new edition of The Transformational Leader, Tichy

& Devanna (1990) note that when they wrote the first edition, they had “talked about the

accelerating pace of change. But in looking back on the past four years, we admit that change

took place far more rapidly than even we would have predicted” (p. iii).

The case is no different in education. Since the publication of A Nation at Risk: The

Imperative for Education Reform (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983),

educators, politicians, the media, and the public have felt pressure to do something different to

make certain that our students measure up to global standards. Many educational reform efforts

have ensued, and several of those have concerned leadership. Leadership reforms have seen the

implementation of several models developed in the business world such as total quality

management, situational leadership theory, and Transformational Leadership. Other reform

efforts have shifted leadership responsibilities from the principal or head of school to the faculty

on site with practices such as site-based management, teacher leadership and empowerment, and

team-based leadership. Yet other efforts attempted to shift conceptions of schools as learning

institutions to schools as learning organizations (Dufour & Eaker, 1998; Huberman, 1995;

Lambert, 1998; T. Sergiovanni, 1999). All of these have helped develop school leadership

models that, like the shift in organizational models before them, are based on leadership as a

process rather than leadership as action.

Leadership in Small Organizations

Research in smaller organizations has focused on a variety of elements regarding

leadership. The for-profit sector uses the term small to medium enterprise (SME) in discussions

of smaller organizations. However, as Beaver (2003) notes, size is as defining a factor between

small and large organizations as ownership. “Business ownership is one of the factors at the very

heart of what characterises [sic] and differentiates a small business and is probably the key

feature of difference (apart from size) between small and large firms and their management

(Stanworth and Curran, 1973; Curran et al., 1986; Stanworth and Gray, 1991; Storey, 1994)”

(Beaver, 2003, p. 63). While nonprofits have played a small part in the discussions of leadership

and size, this field of research has primarily focused either on board and volunteer leadership or

on elements of creating and building a nonprofit, such as strategic planning and human resource

management.

The differences between large and small organizations have not gone unnoticed. Handy

(2001) describes the growing distinctions relative to size.

The world of organizations is fast dividing itself into fleas and elephants. The

elephants are the large organizations of business and government; the fleas are the

technological start-ups and the new dot-coms, they are the small consultancies

and professional firms . . . [and] include the little businesses that pepper our main

streets with restaurants, family-run stores . . . not to mention the hundreds of

thousands of small not-for-profit organizations, as well as all our local schools

and churches. (p. 29)

Handy goes on to note that the empirical research that has been performed has focused

primarily on the elephants. Jensen and Luthans (2006) state, “yet, while the call for expanding

the study of leadership within the context of newer, smaller organizations has existed for over a

decade (Cooper, 1993), to date–especially as related to positive psychological capacities such as

hope, optimism, and resiliency–no empirical research exists” (p. 255). Handy (2001) echoes this

sentiment and proposes a number of questions facing practitioners and researchers in leadership

and organizations. “Fleas, therefore, provide the new challenges for leadership, at all levels in

society. What sort of leadership does a flea organization require, particularly an innovative flea?

What are the characteristics of successful flea organizations? Can they, should they grow into

elephants?” (p. 30) In a review of the literature regarding management and small organizations,

Beaver (2003) takes Handy’s statement a step further. “It is now widely accepted that the

particular characteristics of small firms require a different appreciation of management

understanding and that the methods and techniques in the corporate sector are neither applicable,

valid nor relevant (Carson and Cromie, 1990; Storey, 1994; Jennings and Beaver, 1997; Beaver

and Jennings, 2000)” (p. 63).

Despite Jensen and Luthans’ claim that there has been no empirical research on

leadership in smaller organizations, a careful review reveals that some research has incorporated

organizational size into studies of leadership. For instance, several scholars have noted that

simply the level of resources available in smaller organizations is a factor in leadership and

management practices. (Beaver, 2003; Handy, 2001; O'Regan & Ghobadian, 2005). Others have

noted that the difference in the amount of face time between leaders and followers is a significant

factor in building working relationships and other elements of leadership (Bass & Roggio, 2006;

Berson, Shamir, Avolio, & Popper, 2001).

Specific findings on leadership in smaller organizations have found that the new, post-

industrial view of leadership is particularly applicable in smaller organizations. Grinnell (2003)

looked at leadership styles of CEOs of two small firms and determined that “the findings provide

a tentative profile of an ideal small business leader–one who makes moderate use of visionary,

transactional, and empowering behaviors, while avoiding autocratic behaviors” (p. 40). Another

study found that the impact of a transformational leader's vision on followers was more positive

in smaller as opposed to larger organizations and proposed that this was because the leader had

more direct contact with and influence on followers in the smaller organizations (Berson et al.,

2001). Handy (2001) examined characteristics of leaders of small organizations and found that

while “the sample was small and could not therefore be definitive . . . it did provide some clues

to the nature of these leaders and the organizations that they had created, all of which were

successful in their own terms. The one defining and common characteristic was passion”

(Handy, 2001, p. 31).

These findings are closely related to elements found in the Transformational Leadership

and learning organization models. Handy’s (2001) identification of passion as an effective

leadership characteristic could be seen as a translation of the commitment both leaders and

followers demonstrate in effective organizations. Berson et al. (2001) specifically use the

transformational model in their investigation and identify vision and the commutation of it as

being facilitated in smaller organizations. Grinnell (2003) also describes visionary leaders as

being more effective in smaller organizations as well as being leaders who empower their

followers and who include all in generating ideas and making decisions. Beaver (2003) defines

the differences as a “contrast between the informal, particularistic management style of the small

firm and the more formal, bureaucratic administration of many large enterprises” (p. 65).

While the scholarship on leadership in smaller organizations is far from conclusive, it

does reveal that there are differences in leadership characteristics. Smaller organizations provide

more day-to-day contact between leader and follower. Development and communication of

vision are significant components of leadership in effective smaller organizations. From these

studies it is impossible to determine whether smaller organizations support leadership that is

transformational in nature or if transformational leaders tend to gravitate to smaller

organizations, but it is clear that the two are correlated. These themes are explored more deeply

in the literature on leadership in smaller schools.

Effective School Leadership

The leadership models discussed above are particularly applicable to schools because

they are founded on the main business of schools: learning. If viewed from a systems

perspective, it is important that learning occurs at all levels in a school by all members of the

school community, not just by the students with the classroom. Wheatley (1999), a systems

thinker, states that “all organizations are fractal in nature,” that behaviors exhibited at one level

of the organization are repeated throughout the organization (p. 128). Vaill (1996) talks of

learning as “changes a person makes in himself or herself that increase the know-why and/or the

know-what and/or the know-how the person possesses with respect to a given subject” (p. 21).

At this point it becomes difficult to separate the ideas of Transformational Leadership, learning

organizations, and professional development. This is not to say that in schools, leadership is only

concerned with the professional growth of faculty. However, given that the main business of

schools is educating students, the central focus of leadership is to increase the quality of

education that happens in the school. Thus, professional development becomes one of the main

responsibilities of school leadership. This being the case, it is no surprise that Transformational

Leadership, learning organizations, and models similar to them, such as professional learning

communities, have dominated the dialogue regarding educational leadership.

Sergiovanni (1999) names Transformational Leadership as the most powerful leadership

method to promote learning communities and deep change in school reform. He describes public

“schools as culturally tight but structurally loose” (p. 83). This means that there is little

connection between teachers and students and the rest of the managerial structure of the

organization. There is, however, a strong culture that is shared among students and teachers that

governs their actions. In a school, a principal who seeks to govern by management, especially

when it comes to teachers and student performance, may be challenged or thwarted by the

culture of the school. In this situation, Transformational Leadership can be much more effective

than a more traditional leadership model. Transformational Leadership asks leaders and

followers to work together within the culture of the school to create an idea of what must be

done. Transformational leaders, claims Sergiovanni (1990), are much more effective because

they know how to take advantage of the power of the culture to effect needed change.

Transformational Leadership is also particularly appropriate and often applied in

educational settings because of the focus on learning. Systems theory, as previously stated,

claims that organizations are fractal in nature–behavior at one level is repeated at all levels. If

quality teaching and learning are going on at the leadership level, quality teaching and learning

should be going on at the classroom level. Or, put another way, transformational leaders are

helping teachers to teach by leading by example, employing Bass and Avolio’s (1994) first factor

of transformational leadership and modeling the teaching behaviors they want to see in the

classrooms. In fact, the other three factors of the model, inspirational motivation, intellectual

stimulation, and individual consideration, are considered best practices in classroom teaching.

Good teachers inspire students with meaningful work, challenge their thinking with probing

questions, and give attention to students’ individual needs.

It is interesting to note, however, that Sergiovanni’s (1990) call for Transformational

Leadership is focused specifically on building and using the culture of the school. As previously

noted, the Transformational Leadership model concerns itself more with the relationship between

the leader and follower while the model of learning organizations is more concerned with the

learning culture. This is not to say that Sergiovanni is wrong, just that it would be more accurate

to say that the learning organization model is extremely applicable to the culturally tight but

structurally loose nature of schools and that transformational leadership is a good way to

implement it.

Researchers and practitioners have translated ideas of learning organizations from the

corporate world to the educational environment and often renamed them, for example, as

communities of instructional practice or professional learning communities (PLCs) (Dufour &

Eaker, 1998; Huffman, 2001; Lieberman & Miller, 2002; Supowitz, 2002). Senge et al. (2000)

recognized this and in response assembled a collection of work by educational scholars and

practitioners that apply the learning organizational model to schools. In it, Joyner (2000) is

quoted as saying that “staff development and team learning should be synonymous” (p. 391).

PLCs are designed specifically to support teachers in working together to improve both their

personal teaching practice as well as the overall quality of instruction within a school. Dufour

and Eaker (1998) offer a list of characteristics of a PLC:

1. Shared mission, vision, and values: a collective commitment to guiding principles

that articulate what the faculty believe and seek to create.

2. Collective inquiry: the seeking and testing of new teaching methods and reflection on

the results.

3. Collaborative teams: groups of people who are able and willing to learn with and

from each other and who are focused on organizational renewal.

4. Action orientation and experimentation: acknowledgement that learning occurs in the

context of taking action and experience is the most effective teacher.

5. Continuous improvement: discomfort with the status quo and a constant search for a

better way.

6. Results orientation: efforts are assessed in terms of results rather than intentions. (pp.

25-29)

This definition holds much in common with both transformational leadership and

learning organizations, particularly in the idea that a shared vision is important.

Another perspective on the importance of shared vision in teacher communities examines

how the characteristics of that vision are as important as having a vision in the first place.

Westheimer (1998) states that, “The most commonly identified features of community, when

explored empirically, leave tremendous room for variation” (p.128). He sets forth a model in

which teacher communities are placed on a continuum identifying them as either more liberal or

more collective. Liberal generally refers to a sense of individual responsibility and independence

while collective refers to a sense of interdependence and joint responsibility. These ideals mark

not only the characterization of the teacher community, but of the entire school. In a liberal

school community the independence of students is encouraged and valued while in a collective

school students are encouraged to recognize their connections to one another and the

communities of which they are a part. It is not enough to simply have a strong teacher

community dedicated to a shared vision. In questioning why it is so difficult to create the

collegial community that many educational reform models and efforts say is so crucial,

Westheimer argues that it is “Because there are no agreed-on models: These reformers are

talking about very different kinds of professional communities” (1998, p. 137). According to this

model, what the community is dedicated to is just as important as the fact that the community is

dedicated to a single vision.

There is much overlap in the ideas of learning organizations, PLCs and Transformational

Leadership, and collective communities. It could be argued that these models are different

perspectives on a collection of ideas about effective schools. This collection includes the

following:

1. Effective schools should be involved in learning as a whole community that includes

administration, principals or heads of school, and faculty.

2. The principal or head of school and each member of the faculty are responsible for

participating individually and collectively in creating the vision, questioning the

status quo, learning, reflecting, and affecting positive change.

3. The ideas or vision embraced by the community must reflect a sense of collaboration

and interdependence as opposed to independence and individualism.

4. The community as a whole is effectively engaged in the post-industrial idea of

leadership in which leadership is a process involving the organization rather than the

role of a single individual.

However, all of the above models are leaving out two important groups who could also

participate in the leadership of the school: students and parents.

One model that addresses an even wider view of school leadership is leadership capacity

(Lambert, 1998). Leadership capacity refers to the ability of all members of the community to

provide leadership and requires not only the participation of the faculty and the administration,

but of the students and parents as well. It requires that participation must be skillful in that

people know how to contribute, collaborate, and learn together (p. 4).

Lambert (2003) states, “By ‘leadership capacity’ I mean broad-based skillful

participation in the work of leadership” (p. 4). By skillful she means that organizational

members know how to work and learn together. For example, in a school of low-level

participation, a member’s “interactions with others are primarily social . . . . [whereas a high-

level participant] facilitates effective dialogue among members of the school community”

(Lambert, 1998, p. 114). Lambert’s (2003) Leadership Capacity Matrix further explains how

members of a school community can move from one quadrant to another as the school as a

whole increases its leadership capacity. In it, members of the school community help the school

move from low degrees of skill and participation to high degrees of skill and participation by

improving their individual and group leadership abilities. The following are selected leadership

behaviors from each of the quadrants of the matrix:

Low degree of skill – low degree of participation

!Principal as autocratic manager

!One-way flow of information; no shared vision

!Little innovation in teaching and learning

Low degree of skill – high degree of participation

!Principal as laissez-faire manager, many teachers develop unrelated programs

!Norms of individualism; no collective responsibility

!Undefined roles and responsibilities

High degree of skill – low degree of participation

!Principal and key teachers as purposeful leadership team

!Limited use of school wide data; information flows within designated leadership

groups

!Efficient designated leaders; others serve in traditional roles

!Student achievement is static or shows slight improvement

High degree of skill – high degree of participation

!Principal, teachers, parents, and students as skillful leaders

!Shared vision resulting in program coherence

!Broad involvement, collaboration, and collective responsibility reflected in roles

and actions

!Reflective practice that leads consistently to innovation (Lambert, 2003, p. 5)

Several of these elements are in accordance with the models previously discussed. For

instance, shared vision, reflective practice, and continual innovation, and even lassez-faire

leadership are all concepts found in the descriptions of Transformational Leadership, learning

organizations, and PLCs. However, one element in the last grouping is specific to this model:

parent and student participation in leadership. Parent involvement is often seen as a double-

edged sword in that faculty and staff often fear what parental involvement might mean and are

hesitant to give up power over curriculum, policy, and practice. Student involvement is seldom

given serious consideration or responsibility. The leadership capacity model, though, believes

that parents and students are integral to the school community and thus play a significant role in

the leadership of the school. This has also been supported by research. “The evidence is

consistent, positive, and convincing: families have a major influence on their children’s

achievement in school and through life” (Henderson & Mapp, 2002, p. 7).

Small School Leadership

Smaller schools have been extensively researched and are widely recognized as one of

the most effective ways of improving student achievement. Several reviews of the research of the

last 20 years show that small schools improve attendance, decrease dropout rates, improve

student attitudes, decrease discipline problems, and increase academic performance (Cotton,

2001; McComb, 2000; Raywid, 1999). As previously described, SWAS, as a result of the

research, are being carved from larger schools in major urban communities in order to combat

the perceived ills of the educational system in this country. Howley (2002) states

In cities and suburbs, ‘small schools’ has recently become a reform movement.8

Rural communities, however, struggle to maintain small schools in the face of

states’ attempts to close them on business principles based on cheap inputs.9

These differing interpretations have practical significance because confounding

new, reformist small schools with extant, traditional small schools obscures the

salient structural issues that are the actual object of most research related to small

schools. (p. 3.3)

McAndrews and Anderson (2002) also state that, “Although few studies have been conducted on

the school-within-a-school model itself, proponents infer that the benefits of a school within a

school closely parallel those found in small schools . . . ” (p. 1).

These statements are indicative of a major hurdle facing smaller schools today. The field

of education is finding that it cannot reliably generalize lessons from small schools to SWAS.

Howley (2002) also says

Educators tend to believe that a practice proven effective in one setting can be

transferred to another. . . .When, however, the practice itself and the setting

(smaller school size) are one and the same, the assumption seems more especially

dubious than usual. Can one transfer a setting out of its setting? It seems illogical.

(p. 3.7)

It is, in fact, illogical. In addition, the enormous amount of resources dedicated to the SWAS

reform movement which is based on "transferring a setting out of its setting” may also be ill-

advised.

SWAS do not necessarily show the strong gains in student achievement evidenced by

naturally small schools. For instance, an evaluation (Rhodes, Smerdon, Burt, Evan, Martinez, &

Means, 2005) of the results of The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation’s High School Grants

Initiative reports that

Trends in student-level achievement data for math were mixed. In one of the two

districts where trends on state assessment data could be examined, we saw

moderately larger improvements in math over time in foundation-supported

schools than elsewhere in the district. The other district experienced moderately

smaller improvements in math. (p. 2)

A newspaper article discussing The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundations efforts reports that, “the

changes [resulting from transforming a large school into smaller schools] were often so divisive

— and the academic results so mixed — that the Gates Foundation has stopped always pushing

small as a first step in improving big high schools” (Shaw, 2006, ¶ 5). Howley (2004) simply

states, “The record of success for such within-school grouping efforts is not good (Lee, Ready, &

Johnson, 2001; Raywid & Schmerler, 2003)” (p. 2).

The use of research from one school structure in the implementation of another is

problematic. Because SWAS projects have been equated with small schools in the research, the

less than stellar results from SWAS might be applied in reverse and inhibit the development of

naturally small schools. Raywid notes that both small schools and SWAS must fight

environments not designed to support them. “The effort to create and sustain small schools,

which has for the last several decades been bedeviled by bureaucratic resistance, public

misunderstanding, and a mighty struggle for resources and autonomy, does not get much easier”

(Raywid, 2002, p. ix). In the same light, negative feedback from SWAS will not make it any

easier for naturally small schools to survive, much less thrive. SWAS remain extremely popular

and major projects to implement them are ongoing in New York City, Chicago, Philadelphia,

Denver, Oakland, Boston, and many other large urban centers.

The popularity of both small schools and educational leadership as research topics would

suggest that leadership in small schools would have received attention as well. The research on

small organizations reveals that there are differences between leadership in large and small

organizations. Clearly small and large school leadership should be examined as well. However,

the amount of research directed at this issue has remained minimal. Raywid et al. (2003) states

Much has been written about the virtues and advantages of downsized schools,

and some advice has been developed on how to bring about the transformation of

the comprehensive high school or the oversized elementary school into humanly

sized units. But very little has been written about what we need to do in order to

permit small schools and SWAS to succeed. What kinds of conditions, controls,

and supports external to these new units are essential to sustaining them? (p. 2)

In an article entitled “Leading Small: Eight Lessons for Leaders in Transforming Large

Comprehensive High Schools,” Copland and Boatright (2004) do not reference studies of

leadership of small schools. They do, however, attempt to present information useful for large-

to-small school conversion projects, asking, “what leadership lessons can those who seek to

transform large comprehensive high schools derive from the knowledge base that is emerging on

small schools?” (Copland & Boatright, 2004, p. 763) The authors answer with statements such

as, “In what follows, we synthesize what is known about the nature of leadership in successful

small schools . . .” (p. 764) and, “leadership lessons gleaned from studies of successful small

schools offer insights for those engaged in converting large schools . . . ” (p. 768). Specific

studies are not cited and it is not clear if the lessons they derive are from naturally smaller

schools or from large to small school conversion. This supports the claim that small school

leadership simply has not been studied in such a way as to provide clear guidelines for either

naturally small schools or SWAS.

While most research on indicators of educational effectiveness has focused on naturally

small schools, the findings on leadership have mainly come from research on SWAS or large-to-

small school conversions. In the examination of leadership in small schools, it is important to

differentiate between leading a small school and leading SWAS or even the conversion of a large

school. To see them as the same would mirror the mistakes being made in using naturally small

school research to argue the case for SWAS. Effective leadership of one might look very

different from the other, or it might look quite similar. However, research on naturally small

schools has been primarily concerned with student achievement. Research on SWAS has painted

a larger picture. Thus, a study of leadership in smaller schools relies on the SWAS literature to

provide a base from which to work.

The research herein looks at how leadership of smaller schools has been examined in

urban smaller schools, both naturally small and SWAS. Rural small school studies have not been

targeted. “The tendency for the school to be at the heart of the community, especially in a rural

or remote area, can present additional challenges for its leader” (Clarke & Wildy, 2004, p. 558).

The authors state that these challenges can include an underestimation of the effects of poverty

and disadvantage as well as a high expectation that the school administrator focus on and build

relationships with the community (p. 358). This is not to say that rural and urban schools cannot

learn from one another. However, as Howley (2004) claims, it is difficult to automatically

transfer research from one setting to another when the subject of the research is the setting itself.

Also not included are studies of small schools in other countries. The current issues with high-

stakes testing and school district policies that tend to favor large schools create enough of a

difference between what leadership is and how it is studied in small schools in the United States

that the inclusion of international studies would expand the focus beyond the intention of this

review. Furthermore, self-published reports by reform projects that do not fully explain research

methods have been excluded from this discussion because the quality of the study could not be

determined. In addition, two dissertations that were of high enough quality to offer a significant

contribution to the knowledge base regarding leadership in small schools have been included in

this discussion.

While the definition of small schools varies considerably, recent literature suggests that

schools of about 300-400 students, especially at the secondary level, are optimal for realizing

student gains and other advantages. (Darling Hammond, Ancess, & Ort, 2002; Wasley et al.,

2000). Several studies, which did include size in their study, have been excluded from this

discussion because size does not necessarily classify small schools. For instance, one study

looked at the role of the leader in urban high schools (Blank, 1987) and while it examined

leadership characteristics and how they varied in terms of school size, the smallest school

included was more than 800 students. The sample of high schools was also small, leading the

author to admit that “several other leadership indicators, such as decisions on curriculum,

number of meetings with teachers and teacher assignment and scheduling, may show a

significant association with school size with a larger sample of schools” (Blank, 1987, p. 76).

This review includes studies that define smaller schools as having no more than 400 students

distributed over several grades; schools with over 400 students in a single grade level are not

considered small due to the challenge of creating a cohesive community. As pointed out by

Howley (2002)

Enrollment per grade is a better metric of size than total enrollment. With this

measure it’s easy to see that a ninth-grade academy with 1,500 students is really

four times as large as a 9-12 high school with exactly the same total enrollment,

just as a K-2 school enrolling 800 students is at least three times the size of a K-8

school enrolling 800 students. (p. 3.5)

As stated previously, most research that examines naturally smaller schools does not

include leadership in the research focus. Likewise, reports on large-to-small school and learning

community conversions focus primarily on student achievement. However, some reports include

examination of leadership and related issues such as building collegial cultures, providing

teacher support, and developing professional communities as factors in the conversion effort.

These reports form a small body of data that provides the basis for generating a number of

questions and suggestions about leading small schools.

The research on smaller school leadership comprises several different kinds of

publications, incorporates several different research methods, and looks at leadership from

several perspectives (See Illustration 2.1). These are reviewed briefly here in order to provide a

context for how information on leadership has been presented.

QualitativeQuantitative

Methods Methods

Leadership

Perspective

Publication Type Participant Groups Project

Location

Author(s)

Analysis of

school data

Analysis of

survey data

Case study

Action

Research

Document

Analysis

Interview/

Observations

Effective

Leadership

Teacher

Community

Organizational

Change

Conference

Paper

Project Report

Dissertation

Administrators

Teachers

Parents

Students

NY Networks for

School Renewal,

2001

"!"!"!"!"!"!"!"!"!! ! New York,

Carrico, 2003 "!"!"!"!"!!"!"!"!

Hausman & Goldring,

1996 "!"!"!"!

Kahne et al., 2006 "!"!"!"!!"!!"!

Chicago, IL

Maniloff, 2004 "!"!"!"!"!

Peterson, Marks, &

Warren, 1996 "!"!"!"!"!"!"!"!! ! National:

SBDM

Reed, 2003 "!"!"!"!"!"!"!

Tighe, Wang, &

Foley, 2002 "!"!"!"!!"!! ! Philadelphia,

Wallach, 2002 "!"!"!"!"!"!"!"!"!Seattle,

Wasley et al., 2000 "!"!"!"!"!"!! ! Chicago, IL

Zheng, 1996 "!"!"!"!"!

Totals 7 7 4 1 2 7 3 6 2 3 6 2 7 11 2 2

Illustration 2.1 Chart of studies by distribution of methods, areas of focus, subjects queried, and project locations.

As evidenced in Illustration 2.1, these studies represent a balanced use of methods in

terms of quantitative, qualitative, and mixed method designs. A quick overview reveals some

basic trends in this collection of research.

Across all included studies, the quantitative methods employed were analysis of school

data and analysis of survey data. School data included demographics, size of school,

socioeconomic status (SES), and standardized test scores. Educational research is almost always

concerned, as it should be, with student achievement. Achievement is most easily measured by

standardized test scores, particularly in study samples that include large schools or large numbers

of schools. These studies also used test scores as the primary method of measuring student

achievement and often adjusted for the effects of SES. Survey data always included surveys

administered to teachers, and usually included administrators. Teachers were the primary targets

of surveys because in most studies the focus of investigation was either on the professional

climate of the school or on the teachers’ perceptions of leader effectiveness.

Qualitative methods included case study, action research, document analysis, and

analyses of interviews and observations. Case studies constituted either the entire report or were

created and then analyzed for answers to research questions for a larger, more comprehensive

report and incorporated both quantitative and qualitative data collection methods such as

surveys, document review, observations, and interviews. Documents reviewed included staff

meeting minutes, directives from projects, and school district policy statements. Interviews were

always conducted with teachers and sometimes conducted with administrators, students, and

parents in either individual or focus group settings. Observations were primarily of staff

meetings or other group work and sometimes included classroom observations. One study

employed action research to work with teachers to discover phenomena related to leadership and

other aspects of their small school. The primary focus of these studies was on the impressions,

perceptions, and opinions of the teachers in these schools.

The heavy use of quantitative methods supports the tendency of education to define

student achievement in terms of test scores. The extensive use of qualitative methods of

interviews and observations demonstrates the tendency to focus on larger questions of school

environment in terms of faculty impressions. There is little representation of quantitative

methods used to develop models of smaller school leadership. There is also a lack of studies that

examine attitudes of students and parents regarding the leadership of the school.

A great deal of research looks at teacher leadership, leadership behaviors, leadership

models, and leadership challenges in schools. However, it does not relate these elements

specifically to school size or, in particular, how leadership models translate into smaller school

settings. There is also a great deal of peer-reviewed, published research on smaller schools, most

of which focuses on student issues such as safety, test scores, or graduation rates. Leadership

research and smaller school research do not intersect very often. The literature contains very few

peer-reviewed, published studies that identify small schools or school size and leadership as key

concepts. Three of the studies included in this review were presented at conferences of research-

oriented organizations. Two studies were dissertations. Six studies, the majority, were larger-

scale project reports, either mid-term or final evaluations of small school design or

transformation efforts. They are generally large, heavily funded, collaborative efforts that include

a large urban school district such as New York City or Chicago, a large granting organization

such as The Annenburg Foundation or The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, an office of the

Department of Education or Regional Educational Laboratory, or all of these. The large number

of studies that are self-published by reform projects have a broad focus in their research

intentions and include leadership and leadership-related issues as part of the subsequent findings.

This shows that small school leadership is in its early stages as a specific field of inquiry.

A review of project locations reveals that the greatest efforts at creating small learning

communities and studying them have occurred in the largest urban centers. The studies reviewed

here are project reports from New York (Final report of the evaluation of New York Network for

School Renewal: An Annenberg Foundation challenge for New York City, 2001), Chicago

(Kahne, Sporte, Torre, & Easton, 2006; Wasley et al., 2000), Philadelphia (Tighe, Wang, &

Foley, 2002), and Seattle (Wallach, 2002). Several other cities have similar projects and have not

published reports as they are still in progress. Most began in 2000 or 2001 and have not yet been

completed. Other completed projects have also published reports but have not been included here

because they do not include reflections on leadership or for other reasons such as lack of

explanation of method. The review of project reports shows a tendency on the part of

researchers, lawmakers, and the public to focus on larger schools located in urban centers.

While most smaller school research focuses on student-achievement measures, project

reports and more comprehensive examinations of both smaller schools and SWAS recognize that

leadership issues have a strong role in realizing the student benefits. These can include the

actions, behaviors, styles, and traits of leaders; the manner and extent to which leaders include

teachers and other community members in decision making processes; the leadership specific to

transitioning larger schools to smaller ones; and the collegial and collaborative atmosphere

leaders engender in their schools. The literature reveals a wide number of school elements that

are directly influenced by leadership. Studies included look at not only specific leadership

behaviors and attributes, but also at elements attributed to or heavily influenced by leadership

such as teacher leadership, school professional climate, collegiality, and communication of

vision. These are echoes of concepts previously discussed in this literature review. The reviewed

articles are divided into three major categories. The first category focuses on the perceived

effectiveness of leaders as it relates to small schools. The second concentrates on leading

teachers in small schools and includes developing a professional community, encouraging

teacher leadership and collaboration, and communicating vision to teachers. The third focuses on

the process of transforming large schools into smaller schools and learning communities. Most of

the studies included in this review, particularly the large project reports, ask many research

questions that examine everything from student achievement to accountability structures. Only

those questions that focus on leadership are examined here.

Leader Effectiveness

Hausman and Goldring (1996) in a study of magnet versus non-magnet schools in

Cincinnati asked, “(1) Do differences exist between magnet and non-magnet teachers’ rating of

effective leadership? and (2) What influence do school background characteristics, student

achievement, teacher professionalism, and other workplace conditions exert on teachers’ ratings

of effective principal leadership?” (p. 7) The study includes full magnet schools that had not

added or dropped a magnet program or undergone some sort of transition such as renovation or

significant increases in student population within the previous two years. Ten selected magnet

schools were matched with ten non-magnet schools according to racial balance of African-

American students. Teachers at these schools were asked to complete a six-item modified survey

on principal effectiveness that was originally developed for determining gender-related

perceptions of leadership and power in secondary schools. The study had a clear focus, a

substantial sample and a high response rate, and thorough analyses of data (Hausman &

Goldring, 1996, pp. 10-11). However, it is difficult to know if the strength of the survey was

weakened by the modifications. It seems that it originally measured several factors using a

number of items, and that this study only used the items pertaining to leadership effectiveness.

The exclusion of the other items might have affected how participants answered.

Hausman and Goldring (1996) state that among magnet schools, “school size was the

only significant predictor of effective principal leadership. As the total student enrollment

increased, magnet principals were perceived by their teachers as less effective” (p. 14). School

size in the non-magnet schools studied was not significant. The researchers offer a potential

explanation by suggesting that the non-magnet schools had significantly higher enrollment

overall than the magnet schools and thus had greater demands on their time in terms of external

management issues (1996, p 17).

The findings highlight the need to define effective principal leadership. The researchers

acknowledge that “the study of leadership has led to a plethora of conclusions and little

consensus about what effective principal leadership entails” (Hausman & Goldring, 1996, p. 4).

The items on the survey that defined effective principal leadership refer to the principal’s interest

in innovative ideas, awareness of what goes on in classrooms, visibility throughout the school,

ability to secure resources, acknowledgement of staff effort, and ability to handle outside

pressures. These items focus specifically on the leader’s behavior and seem to embrace the idea

of leadership as a role of the person at the top of the organization. However, they at least

acknowledge that followers’ input is important to the function of the school.

Zheng (1996) used an instructional leadership model based on the position that while a

principal’s management behaviors do not directly impact student learning, they do affect “two

features of a school’s social organization–climate and instructional organization” (p. 5). The

study asked one question that pertained to school size: “what are the influence of school contexts

on principals’ perceived effectiveness in instructional management?” (Zheng, 1996, p. 12) The

study used data from the 1993-1994 collection of the Schools and Staffing Surveys (SASS)

conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics. The sample is national and includes

principals from public and private schools of different sizes, locations, levels, affiliations, etc.

The study found that in terms of school size, “enrollment size seems to be a significant factor

only in public schools . . . for the increase of every student in the total enrollment size, the

perceived effectiveness of the public school principal’s instructional leadership drops 0.0001

point, and it is statistically significant” (Zheng, 1996, pp. 19-20). However, the study was only

exploratory in nature and, given the national sample, lacks the personal context that could offer

further insight into how size of school affects perceived leadership effectiveness. Like Hausman

and Goldring, Zheng found that defining leadership effectiveness was tricky and was affected by

a number of personal conditions, such as education, organizational conditions, SES, and school

demographics.

The third study (Carrico, 2003) of leader effectiveness is a dissertation that examined

specific leadership characteristics in small secondary schools that improved student achievement.

The study sought to answer questions regarding the similarities and differences across three

small schools in terms of instructional leadership, communication, and empowerment. It also

asked what communications practices had an impact on instructional leadership and

empowerment (Carrico, 2003, pp. 4-5). The researcher equated student achievement with school

effectiveness and used data from the Pennsylvania System of School Assessment (PSSA), a

standardized test, to determine school effectiveness. Test data were correlated with data from

teacher surveys and supplemented with information from interviews with principals.

In terms of what is relevant to smaller school leadership, the study finds that

empowerment is dependent on the levels of leadership and responsibility assumed by faculty

members within the school. “The importance of the difference [between different levels of

empowerment] is that staff members need to have the opportunity to internalize and build the

feeling of ownership” (Carrico, 2003, p. 181). Both the learning organizational model and the

leadership capacity model acknowledge the importance of everyone’s commitment to and

involvement in the leadership of the organization. The idea here, that staff members need to feel

a sense of ownership, is very similar. Interestingly, this also echoes the main characteristic, other

than size, named in the literature that differentiates small from large businesses. Carrico (2003)

also finds that including other stakeholders such as parents in leadership roles in the school “can

provide a holistic approach to goal attainment [such as student achievement]” (p. 182). Parent

involvement in schools is specifically acknowledged by Lambert (1998) as the leadership

capacity model important to effective schooling.

The first two studies address leadership effectiveness and include the factor of school size

in their analyses. They reveal that in smaller schools leaders tend to be viewed as more effective,

though the reasons why are not explored. Both of these studies occurred early in the surge of

interest in small schools. The third study displays a perspective of leader effectiveness that is

more in line with the post-industrial view of leadership as process, but places the responsibility

for that process with the principal in terms of how he or she communicated and worked with

others in the school. Leadership effectiveness, particularly in the more organizationally focused

models of learning organizations and leadership capacity, is the responsibility of the whole

community.

Teacher Communities

Wasley et al. (2000) conducted a study “at a time when the small schools movement was

just gaining momentum nationwide. It began in New York, spread to Philadelphia, then to

Chicago and other cities” (p. 3). This was a two-year, three-part study which included: an

identification and classification of Chicago’s small schools; an analysis of several sets of

quantitative data such as student test scores, drop out rates, and absenteeism; and an

ethnographic analysis of a subset of eight schools. This study asked one question that yielded

findings related to leadership: “what changes are teachers and principals making in small schools

that they believe have a positive effect on student performance?” (Wasley et al., 2000, p. 5) A

survey administered to both teachers and administrators provided information that was presented

under the heading, “teachers felt more efficacious in small schools” (Wasley et al., 2000, p. 38).

Wasley et al. (2000) find that “small-high-school teachers tended to report a stronger

professional community than teachers working in other high schools, . . . teachers are more likely

to collaborate with colleagues in small schools,” . . . and “teachers [in smaller schools] are more

able to build a coherent educational program for students between disciplines and across grade

levels” (pp. 38, 44, 45-46).

The main weakness of the study is in the research question, “what changes are teachers

and principals making in small schools that they believe have a positive impact on student

achievement?” (Wasley et al., 2000, p. 5) There are problems here. What difference does it make

if the teachers and principals believe the changes are making a difference if they actually do not?

Do the changes have an impact on student achievement or not? If so, how can one determine

that? Another weakness is that the development of the teacher survey is not described, so there is

no way to evaluate its validity. Also, the small sample of schools that were studied in depth

means that the statistical power was low. However, the study used a broad collection of both

quantitative and qualitative data that allowed for initial findings from teacher surveys to be

confirmed by interviews and observations.

The findings by Wasley et al. regarding leadership in small schools are significant and

highlight themes often found elsewhere in the research. For instance, this study, like several

others, challenges conventional assumptions of who the leader is and what he or she does.

Leadership in smaller schools is a shared responsibility, particularly in the realm of instruction.

Leadership is not just a question of what the head or principal of a school is doing, it concerns

what the faculty is doing as well. In this study, the leadership findings support this by revealing

several characteristics about the leadership community of teachers in smaller schools. First, they

report simply that smaller schools have a stronger professional community (Wasley et al., 2000,

p. 38). The concept of professional community as defined here includes a high degree of trust,

openness to change, and commitment to professional development. The researchers also state

that small-school teachers tend to collaborate with and learn more from fellow teachers and that

they work together to build a coherent educational program for students (pp. 46-47).

Instructional leadership, as will be emphasized later, is considered to be a key component of

strong leadership in small schools. When the teaching culture is one that is collaborative,

learning-oriented, and focused on building a cohesive curriculum, the teachers are taking the lead

in terms of instruction.

The evaluation of the New York Networks for School Renewal (NYNSR) project (Final

report, 2001) also focused on teacher communities. The project involved four organizations in a

major reform effort that began in 1993 to create and support the development of smaller schools.

These sponsor organizations included the Center for Collaborative Education, the Center for

Educational Improvement, New Visions for Public Schools, and the Association of Community

Organizations for Reform Now. The study was conducted by a group of research organizations

led by New York University’s Institute for Education and Social Policy, which had been

studying and evaluating aspects of the project since 1995. The report states, “The sponsor

organizations posed broad questions for the Research Consortium about the implementation of

the NYNSR project, the nature of the project’s academic outcomes in comparison to citywide

results, and the costs and equity implications” (Final report, 2001, p. 1). The question that

revealed lessons about leadership focused on “the extent to which the NYNSR goals and

principles were carried out in the participating schools” (Final report, 2001, p. 27).

The findings pertaining to leadership and teacher communities relate to three of the

principles of the NYNSR project: small school size and school autonomy, professional

development, and parent and community support. While the report does not explain these in

detail, it discusses School Leadership Teams made up of school personnel, parents, and students.

These teams were in place in 85% of the project schools. Teachers at these schools “meet

frequently to collaborate on curriculum design; to discuss individual students; to plan staff

development activities; and to share general information” (Final report, 2001, p. 28). The

teachers in these schools also describe the teams as collegial and collaborative. Because the

study reports findings on the group of schools as a whole and not individual schools it is difficult

to draw specific conclusions, but it seems to be describing schools in which teachers act as a

collective and take responsibility for instructional leadership. They make decisions about

instruction, collaborate on curriculum, and figure out their own professional development in

environments that are supportive of these ends. The study also finds that professional

development is not only planned by the school leadership committees, but is “built into the ‘daily

work of teaching’ and thus permeate(s) the school culture” (Final report, 2001, p. 31). Again the

theme of collective leadership is recognized as a component of effective smaller schools.

Another finding related to the participation of everyone is that parent and greater

community involvement is valued and that at NYNSR schools the staff “are generally open to

parents and their concerns and eagerly seek parental cooperation in their educational endeavors”

(Final report, 2001, p. 31). This, combined with the finding that “Parental support of the

administrator as the leader of the school was reported to be a key aspect of a school being able to

carry out it’s educational mission” (Final report, 2001, p. 31), creates a complex picture of

teacher and administrator leadership. Efforts on the part of both teachers and administrators to

include parents in the school’s work seem to translate into parental acknowledgment of school

leadership, which, in the eyes of the school, help greatly in doing that work. This was one of only

two studies in this collection to look at the involvement of parents and students in the leadership

of the school, a characteristic of high levels of leadership capacity as defined by Lambert (2003).

Tighe et al. (2000) looked at school based management in a study of the Children

Achieving project in Philadelphia. This project decentralized district control and resources and

allocated them to smaller pockets of schools. While several schools used small learning

communities as part of their reform efforts, small learning communities were not adopted as a

system-wide program. This particular report was a quantitative analysis of several sets of data

that included school size and focused primarily on student achievement. One of the study’s

questions touched on leadership in terms of teacher communities, asking, “do identified school-

level characteristics, fourth grade reading achievement, and certain Children Achieving reform

variables significantly relate to teacher-reported school conditions and other aspects of Children

Achieving?” (Tighe et al., 2002, p. 26) The researchers state that “schools with Small Learning

Communities were more likely to have fewer Obstacles to Student Learning and more Teacher

Professional Community” (Tighe et al., 2002, p. 30, italics in original), which were specific

variables examined in the analysis.

The study employed a complex quantitative design that used a variety of sets of data

including student test scores, demographics, and, particular to the data regarding leadership, a

teacher survey. A team of researchers from the Consortium for Chicago School Research along

with teachers from Philadelphia schools constructed the survey. The survey incorporated revised

items from other teacher surveys as well as ones specifically constructed for the context of the

Philadelphia reform effort. The survey items were tested for reliability and a series of factor

analyses were performed. It was administered to over 12,000 teachers with a 63% return rate,

resulting in very solid data.

The study did not specifically define teacher professional community; this may be

because it was a small aspect of a larger study. However, it is possible to infer what might be

meant. The study (Tighe et al., 2002) asserts that

Higher poverty, larger school size, and dissatisfaction with Small Learning

Communities all significantly increased the odds of being in an unsafe school, a

school with more Obstacles to Student Learning, and schools with a weaker sense

of Teacher Professional Community. (p. 29)

From this it might be surmised that “teacher professional community” means that teachers are

satisfied with the school and the other teachers in it and have a sense of knowing what they are

doing. Also, given the name of the variable, it likely includes a focus on instructional practice

and possibly on collegiality. It also seems a safe assumption that a higher sense of teacher

professional community in a school is a good thing in the eyes of the researchers. Again, the

acknowledgement of the professional community as being an important part of effective

organizations is found in both the literature on organizational leadership, particularly in

discussion of learning organizations, and on school leadership, particularly in the leadership

capacity model. For instance, the leadership capacity model identifies teacher actions such as

“engages colleagues in identifying and acknowledging problems” and “actively seeks to involve

others in designing programs and policies” (Lambert, 1998, pp. 117, 120). These specific

actions, though, have not been researched in terms of importance to student achievement,

perceptions of school climate, or other indicators of school effectiveness.

Reed (2003) took a close look at one particular school (CASE) in the Chicago public

school system in order to “determine why CASE students had experienced achievement gains

while students at other small schools within the host site [project] did not” (p. 3). The study

asked, “did the CASE school achieve distinctiveness as defined by characteristics identified in

recent literature about successful small schools?” (Reed, 2003, p. 12) A case study approach

used interviews of the teachers, principal, and classroom volunteers, plus observations and

surveys. Initial data gathering was followed up with further meetings to pursue emerging issues

and clarify previous answers. Data were analyzed based on categories culled from recent

literature on small schools.

The study found that the school had a number of factors that strengthened program

leadership, namely, “co-teaching and the spirit of collaboration that was everywhere present in

CASE . . . and a strong sense of professional dedication that every CASE teacher exuded” (Reed,

2003, pp. 19-20). Lambert (2003) speaks of teachers who do not see themselves as leaders nor as

being embedded in “old definitions of leadership as tied to role, position, and formal authority”

(p. 18). She further states that participation in leadership by every teacher is an important

characteristic of high-functioning schools. The description of every CASE teacher as having a

strong sense of professional dedication is an example of this principle. This was supported within

the school by the finding that vision and mission, characteristics named throughout the

leadership literature as part of effective organizations, were prevalent throughout the school in

both action and environment. It was also supported by the finding that the parents and the

extended community were as supportive and dedicated to the success of the school as the faculty

(Reed, 2003, p. 19). These findings pertain to leadership of small schools in that this school

appears to have a high degree of shared leadership, not only among the teachers, but with the

parents and community as well. This is the second study in this collection to look at parents as

part of school leadership. While these findings were not deeply explored in the study, the overall

impression is that the whole school was dedicated to helping students achieve and would be rated

as having extremely high leadership capacity. “The people of CASE exhibited unity of purpose,

high expectations, and strong aspirations for success for all students. At CASE students were the

first priority” (p. 19).

Another perspective on leadership in smaller schools as related to teacher community is

found in a study by Maniloff (2004), which examined teachers’ perceptions of working

conditions in relation to the size of schools. The study examined responses of 7,601 high school

teachers in North Carolina to the Teachers Working Conditions Survey developed by the North

Carolina Professional Teaching Standards Commission. The survey was administered at the end

of the year, and “the timing of the survey may have made the responses more negative, due to the

fatigue of the teachers” (Maniloff, 2004, p. 47). Also, when looking at the respondents by size of

school, the power of the study is compromised. Of the total number of high school teachers who

responded, 99 were from a total of 9 small schools, 1,522 were from a total of 54 medium-sized

schools, and 5,980 were from a total of 152 large schools. The small school responses both in

number and in number of schools represented are far outnumbered. However, the study does

support the idea that small schools and positive teacher communities are correlated.

The study found that teachers generally rated all factors as unfavorable, which the

researcher attributes to the fact that the survey was administered at the end of the school year

when teachers may have been tired. However, the teachers in smaller schools rated all factors

slightly more favorably than teachers in medium-sized or large schools, but the differences were

small. Maniloff (2004) concludes that “although more research is needed in this area, it may be

that very small organizations support stronger, more meaningful relationships which translate

into more positive views of relationships at work” (p. 71). While this study did not examine

teacher community specifically, it did look at factors that may act as indicators of the quality of

relationships that teachers have at work. This study tends to support the idea that while small

schools do not guarantee positive teacher communities, they do make it easier for them to

happen.

Kahne et al. (2006) recently released a study of the first three years of the Chicago High

School Redesign Initiative (CHSRI). The study found that CHSRI teachers in small high schools

“were much more likely to report working in contexts characterized by teacher influence,

innovation, collective responsibility, and teacher-teacher trust than similar teachers in other

Chicago high schools” (Kahne et al., 2006, p. 2). It also found that these teachers were “slightly

more likely to report . . . opportunities for reflective dialog, professional development and other

facilitators of instructional improvement” (Kahne et al., 2006, p. 2). This most recent study is

also most indicative of elements of leadership models that focus on the organization. In

particular, items such as reflective dialog, collective responsibility, and trust are highlighted as

elements of both strong learning organizations and of schools with high leadership capacity.

(Lambert, 2003; Senge, 1990)

Oddly enough, the researchers also found that “student and teacher reports of instruction

in small schools were generally quite similar to reports in other schools with comparable

students” (Kahne et al., 2006, p. 2). The findings here reveal that while small schools tend to go

hand in hand with teacher cultures that are open to innovation of practice, instruction in these

schools is not necessarily any different from instruction in larger schools. The researchers do not

offer any possible explanations for this, but it raises an interesting question: if instruction is

similar in small and large schools, what is it about a smaller school setting that is more

conducive to increased student achievement? Unfortunately, the project has only been underway

for three years and many schools within the project had only just begun the process of becoming

a small school. It may be that the establishment of teacher community has not yet led to changes

in instruction, or it may be that differences in instruction are not the only thing that makes a

difference in student learning. Regardless, the results from this study do indicate that in smaller

schools teachers are more likely to report more collegial atmospheres that support continual

instructional improvement.

Transforming Organizational Structure

Before conversions to small schools became popular, reform efforts related to

organizational structure, particularly in the early 1990s, tended to focus on putting more power in

the hands of the teachers. Peterson, Marks, and Warren (1996) examined highly effective schools

employing School-Based Decision Making (SBDM). SBDM involves the establishment of

decision-making structures that include staff and may cover areas such as budgeting, personnel,

curriculum, or all of these. The researchers (Peterson, et. al., 1996) recognize that SBDM and

organizational features of the school are influenced by each other, though “some features may

shape the impact of school reforms” (p. 4). One of these features is school size. In setting up the

premise for the study they state, “As organizations increase in size they tend to increase the

centralization of decision making . . . We might expect larger schools to be different in how they

implement and use SBDM and the nature of power and authority in the school” (p. 5).

Peterson et al. (1996) very carefully constructed the study to look at a wide variety of

schools and implementation methods of SBDM. The quantitative data produced by the survey

were checked for validity through thorough investigation of the school culture and individual

teacher and administrator perceptions. The researchers found that although school size seemed

unrelated to variations in SBDM, it did relate to variations in power relations (p. 17). These

relations include consolidated principal power, consolidated small group power, power shared

among teachers, and power shared among teachers and administrators (Peterson et al., 1996, p.

28). While there was no single particular model of SBDM employed by schools of any particular

size, Peterson et al. found that “when the schools were comparatively large, power more often

rests with the principal . . . When the school size is comparatively small power more often rests

with the teachers” (p. 20). Again this supports the argument that elements now recognized as

characteristic of good leadership such as distributed power are more easily created in smaller

school settings.

The SWAS movement has also offered lessons in smaller school leadership. It has been

noted that the foundation of the SWAS movement may be unreliably founded on the research

regarding naturally small schools. Reversing the process would not be wise. However, these

lessons can be taken as additions to the findings from other research and enrich the process of

developing and testing ideas about smaller school leadership. In a 2002 study documenting the

conversion of Mountlake Terrace High School into four small learning communities, Wallach

asked a number of questions related to what the leaders of the restructuring process at the school

did to meet the challenges of transforming from a large school into small learning communities.

While Wallach (2002) focused on the conversion process and not on leadership of small schools,

the study is included because some of the findings underscore others discussed in this literature

review. Those questions that pertain directly to leadership are: (1) How can the administrative

team share decision-making power and plan for leadership changes, and (2) how can the Steering

Team build staff buy in and adequately address concerns? (Wallach, 2002, p. 33)

To address these questions the researcher conducted five months of interviews, focus

groups, and observations that included sessions with teachers, administrators, students, parents,

and district personnel. Wallach (2002) found that the administration had made certain that

teacher input was a top priority in all work done on the process from the very beginning. They

constantly asked for teacher input and made changes in the conversion plan accordingly. In

addition, they created a Steering Team that included seven teachers and all decision-making

power rested with the team. She found that this seemed to enable teachers who were hesitant

regarding the change to the school to not only air their fears and concerns, but act on them as

well. These findings relate organizational restructuring leadership to the teacher community,

which is crucial to effective leadership. Although this study specifically examined the conversion

process and not the leadership of established small schools, it still demonstrates that teacher

participation is an important element of small school functioning.

The Case for Research on Smaller School Leadership

The promise of small schools is exciting. Student achievement, especially among

disadvantaged students, clearly increases in smaller school settings as do other indicators of

school effectiveness. Enormous resources have been dedicated to the process of creating small

schools either from scratch or by converting large schools into smaller ones, and the information

that has been produced by these efforts creates a strong base on which to build further studies in

small school leadership. However, as Howley (2004) notes, “Because ‘not all small schools are

successful” (Darling-Hammond et al, list all in first citation 2002, p. 642), what it takes to make

a small school successful becomes a compelling research question” (p. 10).

Several themes emerge from the literature. One is that the smaller the school, the more

leadership needs to be shared among the staff. This idea has been around in education for quite a

while in various iterations. SBDM is just one example of a reform effort that places the power of

the school in the hands of the teachers. Raywid et al. (2003) also recognizes efforts to move

power from the district to the school level, acknowledging that “the concept of shared decision

making is linked occasionally to the idea of school-based management, but in practice, this idea

rarely gets past a rhetorical mention” (p. 96).

Another theme, one that builds on the above, is the importance of a strong teacher

community that displays a climate of trust, professionalism, collaboration, and collegiality. If the

decision is to be in the hands of the teachers as a whole, then that whole should be cohesive and

have a collective understanding of the vision and mission of the school. Small schools seem to be

places where teacher collegiality, climates focused on professionalism, and strong instructional

leadership develop and are nurtured.

A third theme, related to the second, is that the school needs to have a strong focus on

instruction and its improvement. A school’s vision and mission are about teaching students well.

Instructional leadership has a strong impact on the quality of instruction and, thus, on student

learning. This leadership should come not only from the administration, but also from the

faculty.

Finally, the promotion of greater parent and student participation in school leadership

could be an important aspect of creating more effective smaller schools. Parent leadership can

take the form of serving on committees, working in classrooms, and, in the case of private

schools, serving on the board of trustees. Student leadership can take the form of initiative on

behalf of the student body, developing service-learning projects for the school, and taking their

learning outside the classroom and into the community.

Future research could focus on a number of possible avenues of inquiry. One avenue

could be the exploration of what principals, heads, and other administrative leaders can do to

build these teacher leadership communities within small schools. Another avenue might follow

teacher leadership communities and the building of models therein for better understanding and

implementation. Another avenue could explore the participation of parents in school leadership.

The study proposed here addresses all three of these possibilities. This study seeks to look at

what each member of the school community does that is important for effective teaching and

learning. Rather than examining roles, it focuses on specific actions and what the entire

community believes is most important to an effective school. These actions are based in the

current literature on leadership and are founded in the idea that leadership is a process of

relationship, not a role of a single individual. This study seeks to connect the bits of learning

about leadership that have cropped up in previous studies and begin to weave them into a

coherent concept of smaller school leadership.

Smaller schools work. They work for students and for teachers. However, positive

outcomes are not a sure thing. Change is difficult and educational reform efforts, even ones that

seem to be working well, have often fallen by the wayside because climates, cultures, policies,

and people have been resistant to doing something different. Even for-profit companies and

government agencies resist major changes in management practices and organizational models.

If small schools are going to have the chance to prove their worth, reform advocates and

supportive organizations need to provide schools with the knowledge and practices to ensure

success. Leadership is the next area that should receive the focus of practitioners and researchers

alike.

Chapter III: Methodology

Rationale for Research Method

This study explores the question, “what are the characteristics of leadership specific to an

effective smaller school as identified by leaders, staff, faculty, students, parents, and board

members?” To answer this question, the study employs Q methodology, the heart of which is the

Q-sorting technique. The primary text for reference in constructing this study is Q Methodology

by McKeown and Thomas (1988). Q method, in short,

Entails a method for the scientific study of human subjectivity. Subjectivity, in the

lexicon of Q methodology, means nothing more than a person’s communication

of his or her point of view. . . . and it is at issue anytime an individual remarks, “It

seems to me . . . ” or “In my opinion . . . ” In speaking thus, an individual is

saying something meaningful about personal experience, and what Q

methodology provides is a systematic means to examine and reach understandings

about such experience. (McKeown & Thomas, 1988, p. 12)

In this method, a Q-sample, consisting of a number of items, in this case, statements about small

school leadership, is generated. For example, one item for this study is, “the head of school

should provide coaching to help people do their work better.” The items are given to the

participant for sorting, which results in a rank ordering according to a specific condition. In this

case the condition is how important the participant thinks the statement is to an effective small

school setting. Quantitative methods would then examine which statements receive the highest

and lowest ranking. However, in this method, the researcher analyzes how statements are ranked,

by either an individual or by groups of individuals, for patterns to support existing or emerging

theories or models.

There are several reasons for employing Q methodology to study leadership in smaller

schools. First, leadership is a concept with more than a single definition. There is no lack of

theories, books, models, thoughts, ideas, perspectives, and opinions on the subject. There are also

many common understandings of leadership that range from traditional top-down, autocratic

concepts with charismatic leaders-in-charge to more horizontal models where leadership is

shared among a group of highly capable and collaborative people. This Q-method study

examines the opinions of the members of the community and what they think members of the

community should do in order for the school to be effective.

Second, studies of leadership and administration tend to focus on the actual head of

school or on the principal. If teachers or others are queried about leadership, it is almost always

about the behaviors of the person in charge. The literature on smaller school leadership has not

included the impressions, ideas, and perspectives of faculty on leadership as a school-wide

responsibility beyond their perceptions of the professional or collaborative culture. Nor has this

literature included the perspectives of students, parents, or in the case of private schools,

members of the boards of trustees. All of these groups would seem to have some important

things to say about the topic. Q-method allows for the collection and comparison of data from

these groups.

Third, research in smaller schools is challenging. Research done within single schools is

almost always in the form of qualitative case studies. While this is informative, it limits the

ability to create models that can be applied to other smaller school settings. In order to use

common quantitative methods, either the entire population of a school or of several schools must

participate in order to reach levels of statistical significance, or data regarding standardized test

scores, demographics, etc. must be collected. Because Q-method does not require any particular

sample size for statistical significance and because the Q-sort instrument can be applied to other

school settings easily for comparison, it is a particularly effective method for use in smaller

school research.

Q-method not only addresses these challenges, but also offers additional advantages.

First, it allows for the development of a set of statements that go beyond the common general

understanding of leadership and begins to address the specifics of smaller school leadership. The

methodology uses the word concourse to identify the sources of the statements for a particular

study. Concourse refers to the literature, letters, individual conversations, focus groups, or other

written or verbal sources from which statements are generated. Based on the concourse around a

particular issue, the Q-sort statements can be developed in order to infuse participants’

instinctual perspectives with ones that may not necessarily be intuitive. Second, Q-method can

be administered to any number of respondents without changing the Q-sort statements. This is

advantageous in that not only the head of school or principal and teachers but also students,

parents and other members of the school community will see and respond to the same statements.

Typical quantitative survey methods of studying leadership often have a leader version and a

follower version, creating an almost evaluative atmosphere. With Q-method, there is no right or

wrong answer and no one is evaluated as having done well or not.

Research Design

The data collection was conducted in two stages: the Q-sort statement generation and the

Q-sorting by participants. The Q-sort generation used a hybrid of methods. First, the literature on

general leadership, school leadership, and smaller school leadership in urban U.S. schools was

reviewed for statements regarding the topic. In addition, two focus group sessions, one with

faculty and one with students, and one smaller conversation with members of the Board of

Trustees, generated further items to include in the Q-sort. Q-method researchers refer to the first

method as ready-made and the second as naturalistic (McKeown & Thomas, 1988, p. 25).

Other research methods might be concerned with the validity of the statements generated

in this manner. However, in Q-method this is not a concern. Because the intent of this study is to

explore a possible foundation for a model of small school leadership, the use of both the

literature and the focus groups and conversation ensures a wide variety of perspectives and ideas

about what is important in small school leadership. Leading Q-method researcher Steven Brown

stated in response to a question on this, “The key principle is representativeness; i.e., the

statements should be representative and the participants should be also. Whether the P set

includes persons who also generated the statements is of lesser concern” (2007, p. 1).

The Q-sort statements for this study were generated with the following guidelines:

1. Elements of the leadership models cited in the literature review form the initial basis

for statement generation. This was followed by two focus group exercises and one

less formal conversation to identify missing ideas or elements. These groups

generated several more statements.

2. Statements were edited so that participants could sort them in response to the question

of what they think is most important for a small school to be effective and what they

think is most unimportant.

3. Statements that were too vague or that did not relate specifically to leadership of the

school were not included. For instance, while instructional leadership is a main theme

in the literature, the statement, “Teachers should build coherent programs across

subjects (language arts, math, sciences, social studies, etc.) in any single grade level,”

was excluded because it is not a direct leadership action, but a result of leadership.

4. Statements that duplicate ideas in more than one model were reduced to one

statement. For instance, the idea that faculty should know and be committed to a

common vision of the school appeared once.

5. Statements were constructed as simply as possible to increase clarity and allow for

the same set to be used with both students and adults. For instance, instead of, “the

head should provide clarity of vision for the school,” the statement became, “the head

of school should clearly communicate the vision of the school.”

6. Statements were framed, whenever possible, as specific actions or behaviors in order

to determine what people in smaller schools do in terms of effective leadership. For

instance, instead of “the head of school believes everyone should be a leader,” the

statement was, “the head of school should provide opportunities for teachers to take

the lead on projects or programs.”

7. Statements were phrased, whenever possible, to avoid using the word “leadership.”

For instance, instead of, “The head of school practices good leadership,” the

statement was, “the head of school should provide coaching for people to do their

work better.”

8. Statements were phrased in terms of what people in a school “should” do rather than

what they already do. This phrase is more conducive to building models and allows

participants to apply their thinking outside of their personal experiences to an ideal

smaller school setting.

In the second phase, the Q-sorts were performed by individuals in the presence of the

researcher who provided instruction and clarification and recorded the results. The participants

sorted the statements according to a Likert-style scale of nine ratings ranging from +4 to -4. The

participants were only allowed to place a certain number of statements under each rating. The

instruction to participants was to “sort the items according to those you think are most important

to an effective small school (+4) to those you think are most unimportant (-4),” with a specific

number of statements under each value heading (see Research Protocols). Results were analyzed

in accordance with Q-method procedure (see Data Analysis).

As a part of this process a pilot study was also conducted, the purpose of which was

several-fold. First, it allowed the researcher to become familiar with the process and refine

instructions in order to facilitate the sorting process. Second, it allowed the researcher to refine

the statements to make them clear and easy to understand. Third, it helped the researcher to

develop a list of questions to use to help the participant think more about their sort. Fourth, it

provided an initial collection of data that, while not proving definitive, offered some initial

themes, ideas, and questions to explore in the data analysis and discussion of findings. The pilot

study revealed that:

!The overall design of the study in terms of the participant’s process is sound.

!The wording on some statements needed refinement.

!The board of trustees as a group did not need to be represented as part of the

leadership community within the sort statements. While their perspectives on

smaller school leadership are important and were included in the concourse, the

purpose of the board of trustees is not to provide program or instructional

leadership for the school. The trustee responsibilities are primarily the fiscal

stability of the school and the supervision of the head of school, much like the

school district’s role in a public school setting.

Research Protocols

Q-Sample Statements

The leadership, school leadership, and smaller school literature offered a majority of the

statements for the Q-sample. They came primarily from elements and models of transformational

leadership, learning organizations, professional learning communities, and leadership capacity

within schools.

According to McKeown and Thomas (1988), there are several possibilities of design of

the Q-sample statements. An unstructured sample includes the statements that are simply taken

from the concourse without attention to any categorization of the statements. Structured samples

are more systematic in that the statements are assigned to conditions or categories defined by the

researcher. For instance, a structured sample in this case might define statements either as actions

or as beliefs and then apply those to heads of school, teachers, and parents. The result would be

six different types of statements: head of school action, head of school beliefs, teacher actions,

teacher beliefs, and so on. The researcher would then develop statements so that each category

would contain the same number of statements. Structured samples can be of a deductive design,

which is based on particular hypotheses or theories or of inductive design, which emerges as

statements are generated. “The risk with unstructured samples is that some issue components will

be under- or oversampled and, consequently, that a bias of some kind will be incorporated into

the final q-sample” (McKeown & Thomas, 1988, p. 28). However, the risk with structured

statements is that statements that might not otherwise be there may be forced into development.

The statements for this study did not constitute a structured format. However, care was taken to

balance statements that referred to the head of school, faculty, students, and parents. There was

not an even number of statements for each group, however, because that tended to force the

creation of statements that did not make sense. Instead, major ideas were represented as they

applied to each group.

The statements for the Q-sample are as follows:

1. The head of school should challenge teachers and staff to do better work.

2. The head of school should coach people to improve their work.

3. The head of school should provide support, time, and resources for others to be

leaders.

4. The head of school should help teachers work together.

5. The head of school should communicate with the teachers about what is important to

the school.

6. The head of school should include the community in developing and refining the

vision of the school.

7. The head of school should clearly communicate the vision of the school.

8. The head of school should be inspirational.

9. The head of school should question assumptions about how things should be done.

10. Teachers should explore the effectiveness of different teaching methods.

11. Teachers and staff should have opportunities to lead projects and/or programs.

12. Teachers should have the power to make decisions about curriculum.

13. Teachers should continually work to improve their knowledge and skills about

teaching.

14. Teachers should take the lead in determining the methods and topics of instruction in

the school.

15. Teachers and staff should respect each other.

16. Teachers should take time to talk with each other about students and teaching.

17. Teachers and staff should suspend their assumptions and talk to each other to explore

ideas and questions.

18. Teachers and staff should be dedicated to the learning of all students.

19. Teachers and staff should know and be committed to the vision of the school.

20. Teachers and staff should support the decisions of the head of school.

21. Teachers and staff should have input about major school decisions.

22. Teachers and staff should be role models for the behaviors they expect from others.

23. Teachers and staff should question assumptions about how things should be done.

24. Teachers should collaborate to improve the educational program.

25. Teachers and administration should be passionate about providing quality education.

26. Non-teaching staff should work with and get to know the students and parents.

27. People should take responsibility for their own actions and hold others accountable

for their actions.

28. Teachers and staff should be committed to working together.

29. Parents should learn from each other.

30. Parents should continually work to improve their own knowledge and skills about

parenting.

31. Parents should know and be committed to the vision of the school.

32. Parents should be role models for the behaviors they expect from others.

33. Parents should have opportunities to lead projects and/or programs.

34. Parents should support the decisions of the head of school.

35. Parents should suspend their assumptions and talk to each other to explore ideas and

questions.

36. Parents should be dedicated to the learning of all students.

37. Parents should have input into the educational program.

38. Students should take opportunities to lead when offered.

39. Students should be involved in addressing emerging issues in the student body.

40. Students should be provided with leadership opportunities as a part of the educational

experience.

41. Students should learn from each other.

42. Students should be role models for the behaviors they expect from others.

43. Students should have input and influence on class curriculum.

44. Students should suspend their assumptions and talk to each other to explore ideas and

questions.

45. Students should know and be committed to the vision of the school.

The statements were printed on individual cards with the identifying numbers printed on

the back. In one-on-one interviews each participant sorted the statements according to his or her

opinion from what is most important in a small school setting to what is most unimportant. Even

if the participant believed all of the statements are important, he or she sorted the statements

relative to each other.

Once data were recorded, responses of participants were analyzed according to Q-method

principles to find groups of participants who responded similarly. The data were then examined

in order to uncover general themes. See Data Analysis for further explanation.

Interviews

The following specific interview protocols were adapted from the recommended

protocols described in Q Methodology (McKeown & Thomas, 1988). This is a detailed

expansion of what is outlined above.

1. The researcher briefly explained the purpose of the study to the participants, emphasizing

that their responses would be used to help determine what is most important for effective

smaller schools. The term leadership was avoided in this discussion.

2. The participant was asked to review and sign a statement approved by the Antioch

Institutional Review Board. It stated that the responses of individuals would be kept

confidential and not included in the final report. In the case where students were

interviewed, parents were also asked to review and sign a statement giving permission for

their child’s participation prior to the interview.

3. The participant was asked to read through the items and sort them into two piles:

statements that are important and statements that are unimportant in smaller school

settings. Participants often created a third middle pile.

4. The researcher placed the +4 and -4 markers on the table, spread some distance apart.

The participant selected the three items that were most important and placed them

vertically under the +4 marker. The order of the items under the markers was not

important; all three items beneath the +4 marker received the same score.

5. The participant then placed the three most unimportant under the -4 marker.

6. Returning to the plus side, the participant chose four items judged to be important from

the statements remaining but not as important as the three already set (located under +4),

and placed them under the +3 marker. The participant was free to switch statements

under markers as the process continued.

7. The process was repeated on the other side, with the participant working toward the

middle 0 position, until all of the Q-sort statements are positioned under markers

distributed from -4 to +4. The reason for having participants work back and forth is to

help them analyze the significance of each item in relation to the others.

8. Once completed, the Q-sort was reviewed, the participant making adjustments among

items that, upon rearrangement, more accurately portrayed his or her beliefs.

9. Occasionally the participant altered the method to suit his or her personal style. However,

the final result of the predetermined number of statements given each rating was insured.

The Q-sort was recorded by writing the item numbers on a score sheet that reproduces the

Q-sort distribution. When the data were prepared for analysis, the statements for each rank were

given the same value. Thus, in a continuum ranging from -4 to +4, each item under -4 received a

1, those under -3 were given a 2 and so forth to +4, which was scored 9. Some demographic data

was also included on the score sheet.

Participant Response Sheet

Most important in

effective small schools Neutral Most unimportant in

effective small schools

+4 +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3 -4

2 0 6 3 0 1 9 2 8 2 5 4 3 2 2 2

1 7 7 1 3 2 9 9 2 1 3 9 2 6 3 1

8 1 8 2 4 4 1 4 3 7 1 5 3 8 5

3 5 3 6 3 4 0 1 0 4 1 1 6

2 4 4 5 1 1 1 3 3

3 4 2 7 4 2

4 3

2 3

Date: Name: R u by S h a m a h Age: 3 6 Sex: X F " M

X Faculty " Staff " Student Grade: " 6 " 7 " 8 " Parent " Board Member

Number of years with Billings: 3 Number of years (total) with (a) smaller school(s): 6

!Notes:

Illustration 3.1 Example of a completed participant response sheet

Selection of Participants

Participants were drawn from the community of Billings Middle School, a single, private

independent school located in Seattle, Washington. The school is approximately ten years old,

having transitioned from The Intermediate School, which served students in grades four through

six. The Intermediate School was founded by Luanne Billings as a small, student-focused school.

It operated for nineteen years before changes in other private schools in the area required it to

either become a full elementary school or a middle school. The parents, board members, and

faculty decided that it would be best to transition the school into a middle school that

incorporated the same small community student-centered values as The Intermediate School.

Luanne also agreed to see the school through its transition before she retired. She now serves on

the Board of Trustees for Billings.

Billings Middle School was chosen for a number of reasons. First, it is by all definitions a

smaller school. The student population at the time of the study was 84, and the grade levels were

split into two sections, with a nearly equal number of boys and girls. It is also an urban, naturally

small school with no designs to become a large one, though it is now in the process of adding

one more section per grade level. The history of the school provides it with a strong sense of

identity as a small school that understands and embraces the strengths of being so.

Billings Middle School is also highly functional in terms of leadership, climate, and

teacher satisfaction. This was determined in part by a study that examined the intersections of

transformational leadership, organizational health, and teacher empowerment within the Billings

faculty (Sharp, 2005). Sharp employed three surveys administered to faculty and administration.

They were the MLQ-5x (Avolio & Bass, 2004), the Organizational Health Inventory–Middle

Level (OHI-ML) (Hoy & Hannum, 1997), and the School Participant Empowerment Scale

(SPES) (Short & Rinehart, 1992). All three of these surveys have been used in previous school-

based studies. High scores in transformational leadership, organizational health, and teacher

empowerment have been correlated to higher levels of student achievement as well as other

indicators of effective schools. Billings Middle School performed exceedingly well on all

measurements. Illustrations 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4 show the averaged scores on each factor of these

three surveys.

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

Collegial

Leadership

Academic

Emphasis

Principal

Influence

Resource

Support

Institutional

Integrity

Teacher

Affiliation

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

Idealized

influence

(attributed)

Idealized

influence

(behavior)

Inspirational

motivation

Intellectual

stimulation

Individual

Consideration

Management-

by-exception

(active)

Management-

by-exception

(passive)

Contigent

reward

Laissex-fare

leadership

0=Not at all 1=Once in a while 2=Sometimes 3-Fairly Often 4=Frequently if not always

Illustration 3.2 MLQ-5x scores for Billings Middle School, Spring, 2005

1=Rarely Occurs 2=Sometimes Occurs 3=Often Occurs 4=Very Frequently Occurs

Illustration 3.3 OHI-ML scores for Billings Middle School, Spring, 2005

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

Decision

making

Professional

growth

Status

Self-Efficacy

Autonomy

Impact

1= Strongly Disagree 2=Disagree 3=Neutral 4=Agree 5=Strongly Agree

Illustration 3.4 SPES scores for Billings Middle School, Spring, 2005

These results show that Billings is a highly functional school in terms of these

measurements. The faculty survey results from the MLQ-5x indicate that the types of leadership

most often experienced in the school are those associated with transformational leadership, less

often with transactional leadership, and very little with laissez-faire leadership. The OHI-ML

registers high scores for all factors of organizational health. Incidentally, Billings scored in the

84th percentile on three factors and in the 97th percentile in the other three compared to the large

sample of New Jersey schools used to create and test the instrument. The SPES shows that all six

factors are rated above neutral and most factors are rated at a high level, indicating that teachers

are empowered and supported in their work. The combination of the data from these surveys

suggests that both leadership by the head of school and the culture of leadership among the

faculty are strong and healthy. Thus, Billings is a particularly appropriate choice of environment

in which to begin to build a model of effective school leadership.

As stated in the protocols, participants signed a consent form indicating that they

understood the implications of participating. Students who were selected to participate also had a

permission form signed by a parent prior to participation. Ethical concerns were few as

participants were giving their opinions about leadership in any small school, not specifically

Billings. Nothing came up in interviews that presented a problem to the researcher or the

participants. Participants were informed in the consent form and at the beginning of the interview

that the researcher would make every effort to keep individual responses confidential and that

individual responses would not be discussed in the final report.

Data Collection Procedures

Q-sort statements were created from the concourse and were derived from both the

literature and from the three faculty, student, and board member group sessions. The student

group was assembled by asking for volunteers. The purpose of the group process was to explore

the topic of leadership in smaller school settings in order to determine if any concepts or

perspectives were missing from the Q-sort statements generated from the literature. The nominal

group technique (NGT) was used in the sessions with teachers and students. The session with

board members did not have enough participants required to conduct the technique. It was

intended that this session would be conducted during a regular board meeting, but ended up

being scheduled just prior to a meeting. The board was dealing with an unexpected challenge and

meeting time had to be dedicated to that issue. Board members who came early participated in a

less formal discussion that was conducted and recorded instead of the intended NGT.

A proven group meeting technique, NGT facilitates the generation of a list of ideas or

statements about a particular topic. It was first developed in 1968 by André L. Delbecq and

Andrew H. Van de Ven and has been used extensively in a variety of studies and other

applications by many different types of organizations including business and education. Van de

Ven and Delbecq (1974) outlined the process with the following steps:

(a) Individual members first silently and independently generate their ideas on a

problem or task in writing. (b) This period of silent writing is followed by a

recorded round-robin procedure in which each group member (one at a time, in

turn, around a table) presents one of his ideas to the group without discussion. The

ideas are summarized in a terse phrase and written on a blackboard or sheet of

paper on the wall. (c) After all individuals have presented their ideas, there is a

discussion of the recoded ideas for the purposes of clarification and evaluation.

(d) The meeting concludes with a silent independent voting on priorities by

individuals. (p. 606)

The faculty and student group sessions followed these procedures. The initial discussion offered

an idea of leadership as a process rather than a role and included Lambert’s (2003) assumption

that “everyone has the right, responsibility and capability to be a leader” (p. 4). Following this,

participants were asked, as step (a) from the procedures above instructs, to list what people do in

a small school that makes the school most effective at teaching and learning. These sessions and

the board of trustees’ conversations provided additional statements to those already generated

from the literature.

After Q-sort statements were generated, Q-sorts were performed in one-on-one

interviews with the participant and researcher. The interviews were digitally recorded so that the

researcher could focus on the participant and the process. “There are many features to this subtle

matter, but the bottom line is that meanings are not to be found solely in the categorical

cogitations of the observer, but as well (and even more importantly) in the reflections of the

individual as he or she sorts the statements in the context of a singular situation” (Brown, 1991,

pt. 3 ¶ 7).

Chapter IV: Findings

Organization of Chapter

This chapter describes the collection and analysis of both quantitative and qualitative

data. Q method is primarily a quantitative method, but the manipulation of the data relies on the

judgments, perspectives, and hunches of the researcher. Therefore, the impressions given during

the interaction between the researcher and the participants are important to the process. In this

study, the interviews were recorded in order to help with the factor rotations and analysis.

However, given the resulting data, the researcher used the comments and trends that appeared in

the interviews to shed more light on the results instead of helping to guide the factor rotations. In

this chapter, the data regarding the participants and the interviews are presented first. Second, the

initial data from the Q-sorts are laid out. The analytic procedures and factor rotations are

described in depth due to the fact that Q method varies somewhat from more common statistical

methods. Third, the resulting rotated factors are presented and discussed in terms of strength,

characteristics, similarities, and differences.

The Participant Sample

The 51 participants in this study were the head of school, all full- and part-time faculty

and staff, a sample of twelve students, a sample of eight parents, and all board members. The

group of students comprised four randomly selected students from each of the three grades, two

boys and two girls. The group of parents included those most closely involved with the school,

the parent association members, two for each grade, a chair and co-chair, for a total of eight. In

one case the selected parent was not available for the study and a replacement whose child was

in the same grade as the non-participating parent and who was also deeply involved with the

school was chosen. The demographics are presented in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1

Demographics of Participants

Adults Students

Staff Faculty Board Parents 6th gr. 7th gr. 8th gr. Total

N 6 14 11 8 4 4 4 51

Age 11 1 1

Age 12 2 1 3

Age 13 1 2 3

Age 14 1 4 5

Ages 20-35 2 4 6

Ages 36-50 5 1 5 11

Ages 51-65 4 5 10 3 22

Male 2 5 5 3 2 2 2 20

Female 4 9 6 6 2 2 2 31

Average # years 4.3 3.9 5.2 2.5 1 2 3 4

at Billings

Average # years 7.3 10.9 9.9 7.8 4 4 3 9

in small schools

Current Parents 1 3 8 12

Alumni Parents 1 1 6 8

Qualifications of Adult Participants

The adult participants of the study as a group have a strong sense of the history of the

school and a deep connection to its community. This group included a broad historical

perspective in that several parents and teachers had been present from the first years of Billings

as a middle school and even a few parents who had seen the school through its transition from

The Intermediate School to the middle school it now is. The two board members who are not

current or alumni parents of students at the school have also known Billings since the early days

of its transition. Current board members, teachers, and parents who had not seen the school

through that transition had participated in the recent self-study the school underwent as part of

the accreditation process.

The adult participants also included everyone who is involved in the leadership of the

school. All part- and full-time faculty and staff and board members participated in the study, and

the parents were either representatives of the Parent Association or, in one case, a parent who

was deeply involved with the life of the school. All of the adult participants are committed to the

success of the school. All have chosen to be a part of a small school community. All had, at the

time of the study, been involved with the school for at least a year and many for several years.

The demographic data were collected in order to provide potential additional information

regarding the factors resulting from the data analysis. However, because the results provided

only a single strong factor, the demographics are important in another sense. The demographic

data show that this group of people is particularly dedicated to small schools in general and

Billings in particular. The board consists primarily of current and alumni parents who show their

dedication to the idea of a smaller school with their commitment of time and energy. The faculty

and staff have spent, on average, half of their total working years in smaller schools or at

Billings. Parents also show that on average they have been involved in and appreciate smaller

schools and thus have chosen to continue their students’ education at Billings.

Qualifications of Student Participants

While students are more immersed in the philosophy of the school than they are in the

process of creating it, having their views represented equally in the data was an intentional

choice. Again, because the data analysis revealed a single strong factor regarding what is

effective leadership for small schools, the students’ participation served to further strengthen this

finding. The students, who are experiencing the effects of the combined leadership in the school

more directly than anyone else, express very similar ideas in terms of what effective leadership

is. Simply put, student participation strengthens the findings in a way that could not be done with

only adult participation.

Interviews

The interviews reveal some common themes, statements, and questions expressed by the

participants that serve to further shed light on the interpretation of the factor rankings. The

strongest by far was the opinion that all of the statements were important to effective small

schools. Another was that parents, particularly at the middle school level, did not have as much

of an impact or did not need to provide as much in terms of leadership to the school in order for

it to be effective. Third, there were several statements that drew very similar comments and

questions by both students and adults and deserve some attention here.

Importance of Statements

When the data analysis revealed a single strong factor that completely overshadowed the

others, one question that came up was whether or not the statements were such that only one sort

was possible. When the statements were developed, they came from several sources including

multiple leadership models as well as several focus groups. Care was taken to ensure that the

widest variety of perspectives was represented. In addition, statements were all framed in a

positive voice in order to make the sorting process as varied as possible. For instance, the

statement, “The head of school should be inspirational” could have been expressed as, “The head

of school need not be inspirational.” If it had been, most participants would have probably placed

it much lower in the sort no matter how important they think the inspirational qualities of the

head of school are to overall school effectiveness. By framing all statements in a positive voice

participants were forced to more deeply consider what they thought was most important.

Another ramification of the opinion of participants that all the statements have

importance is that the ideas presented in current theories of both leadership in general as well as

school leadership are pertinent to small school leadership. In other words, it is no surprise that

the ideas at the heart of shared leadership, staff leadership, transformative leadership, etc., make

sense to those involved in leading and learning in a small school community. What is interesting

is that the ideas that came up in the focus groups, above and beyond those presented in the

current literature, were considered just as important. Current leadership theory is on the right

track, but it might be missing an important concept or two specific to smaller school settings.

Parent Involvement

In private schools the idea of parent involvement is often complicated. Parents in private

schools often have more resources than parents in public schools and thus have more time,

energy, and knowledge to devote to the education of their child. This is not to say that public

school parents ignore their children’s education. However, private school families, even those

who receive financial aid, have at least some financial ability to pay tuition and are thus, on

average, at a higher socio-economic level than the average public school family. In the best-case

scenario, private school parents who take advantage of these resources and become involved in

their child’s education are a boon to the school in that they give their time and energy in support

of the school. In the worst-case scenario they and the school find themselves in conflict over

curriculum, methods, grades, and other decisions that affect their children.

In the interviews, every adult who commented on the fact that they were placing

statements regarding parents lower than anything else did so in an apologetic way. What was

most interesting about this was that parents did so as much as faculty, staff, and board members.

A typical comment was, “Well, I think all these statements are important, but I tended to put

parents down here (at the lower end of the sort) because they are not as involved in the daily life

of the classroom.” While this does not necessarily negate the ideas presented in Lambert’s

(2003) work regarding strong parent involvement and leadership capacity in schools, it does help

put it into perspective in this particular setting. There were also several parent participants who

acknowledged that part of the reason for placing parents lower in the sort was that middle school

is a the beginning of the time for a decreased presence of the parent in the daily life of their

child. They recognized that their children are at an age when they may need more space and a

chance to practice independence, and thus, as parents, they pulled back from the level of school

involvement they might have had at the elementary level.

Participant Response to Individual Statements

Several comments attracted the attention of the participants. When more than one

participant made a similar comment on or asked a similar question about a particular statement it

was noted for discussion below. What follows are summations of the comments and questions

about individual statements.

“Teachers and staff should support the decisions of the head of school.” and “Parents

should support the decisions of the head of school.” Both of these statements attracted similar

questions and comments, though most were made about the first one. Those comments focused

on what it meant to “support decisions.” Several participants (all adults) said that they would rate

it higher if it meant that “supporting” also included questioning the decision when necessary. To

unequivocally support all decisions of the head of school was not considered good for the

effectiveness of smaller schools. However, many participants also followed this up with the

statement that to continually question the head of school, especially publicly, could be

destructive to the culture of the school. On two occasions the researcher was asked to further

clarify the statement. In this case the researcher instructed the participants to place it where they

wanted to but to explain their thinking. In both cases the participant placed it lower stating that it

sounded to them like the statement was saying that all decisions should be supported.

“Parents should be dedicated to the learning of all students.” Participants often rated this

lowest in relationship to all other statements in general and to parent-focused statements in

particular. They also commented that a parent’s first responsibility and concern should be the

learning process and experience of their child.

“Students should take opportunities to lead when offered.” Several adult participants

made the comment that while it is important that students be offered leadership opportunities, the

idea that they should always take the opportunities is not in line with the educational philosophy

of the school. They stated that it is the school’s work to help students prepare to take on

leadership and encourage that, but not to force it on the students.

“Students should have input and influence on class curriculum.” Several faculty

participants stated that students should have influence on the curriculum especially in that

teachers should be responsive to the needs and interests of the students, but that this statement

and the way it is worded indicated to them a greater degree of control over the curriculum by

students than they thought was appropriate. Thus they rated it lower than they would otherwise.

“The head of school should include the community in developing and refining the vision

of the school.” When questioned by participants as to what was meant by “community,” i.e.,

whether it referred to the school community or the greater community, the researcher replied that

is was the school community. This question probably came out of the fact that the school is

located in the center of a very active retail and residential area as well as a block away from one

of the most heavily used public parks in the nation and is also very involved in being an active

participant in the neighborhood and its various organizations. However, the clarification by the

researcher that the statement referred to the tighter school community always caused the

participant to place the statement higher in their sort. Sometimes they followed this with a

comment that indicated that the more immediate school community should be responsible for

refining a vision that was responsive to the greater community, but that it could not effectively

be all things to all people.

Participant Characteristics for Factors

Factor A is the dominant factor in the data analysis. As previously stated, 43 sorts loaded

significantly on Factor A, representing 77% of the total number of participants. Breaking this

down into groups, 81% of board members, 90% of the faculty, 100% of the parents, and 75% of

the students loaded significantly on Factor A. The sort that loaded significantly on Factor D was

by a student. The sorts that loaded significantly on Factors H and I were by board members. The

sort that was confounded on Factor A and another factor, and thus excluded from the data

analysis, was by a faculty member. Those sorts that did not load significantly on any factor were

by two staff members and two students. For the three sorts that only loaded on one factor, the

one sort that was confounded, or the four sorts that did not load on any factors, demographic data

cannot be revealed in order to protect the promise of anonymity given to participants.

Data Analysis

Data analysis in this study occurred in four major steps: correlation, factor analysis,

factor rotation and scoring, and interpretation. PCQMethod software (PCQM), created for the

purpose of conducting Q-method studies, was used for data analysis in this study.

Correlation

Correlation in Q-method refers to the correlation of participants rather than items. The

correlation between participants was calculated by determining the difference in scores of sort

items, squaring the differences and summing them, dividing that by the sum of squares of the

items for each participant, and subtracting that from zero. Or, r = 1 – (sum of squared differences

of scores/sum of squared scores per participant). As Brown (1991) explains,

Just as a perfect positive correlation is registered as +1.00, a perfect negative

correlation is -1.00, and so the correlation . . . of r = -0.67 indicates a quite high

level of disagreement, the statements which the one embraces tending to be the

ones which the other rejects, and vice versa. (pt. 5 ¶ 5)

A correlation matrix was then created of all participants in preparation for factor analysis and

rotation.

Factor Analysis

In more common factor analysis, factors are generated from the correlational matrix until

all variance has been accounted for. In Q-method, however, the generally accepted number of

factors deemed necessary for judgmental rotation is seven. In this study, fifteen factors were

originally generated in order to ensure that the data were thoroughly mined. These were

generated using the centroid method, commonly used in Q-method.

Following the initial generation of factors, the number of factors to use in factor rotation

was determined. There are three common methods used to determine the number of factors used

in judgmental rotation. “Perhaps the most widely used method to determine the number of

factors is to extract the number which have eigenvalues in excess of 1.00” (Brown, 1980, p.

222). In this study the first nine factors had eigenvalues greater than 1.00. “Another method for

determining the number of factors is to accept those that have at least two significant loadings”

(Brown, 1980, p. 222). This study used the highest level of significance (p<.01) in order to

determine the factors for rotation. By this method the first five factors would qualify. Third,

"Humphrey's rule (Fruchter, 1954: 79-80) states a factor is significant if the cross product of the

two highest loadings (ignoring sign) exceeds twice the standard error…” (Brown, 1980, p. 223).

In this study only the first factor met this criteria. Table 4.2 displays the nine unrotated factors

selected for judgmental rotation based on the eigenvalue method.

Table 4.2

Unrotated Factor Matrix

Factor

Q-Sort A B C D E F G H I h2

1 0.43 * 0.00 -0.28 0.14 0.42 * -0.16 0.17 0.09 0.23 0.57

2 0.61 * 0.04 0.25 0.03 -0.24 -0.28 0.02 -0.04 0.13 0.59

3 0.62 * 0.18 -0.30 0.25 0.03 -0.09 -0.12 -0.24 -0.16 0.68

4 0.43 * -0.32 0.04 -0.34 0.07 -0.11 -0.19 0.03 0.13 0.48

5 0.44 * 0.08 0.24 -0.17 0.09 -0.10 -0.04 -0.08 -0.11 0.32

6 0.84 * 0.27 0.02 0.12 0.04 -0.03 0.06 0.15 -0.01 0.82

7 0.72 * 0.31 -0.25 0.10 0.12 -0.04 0.15 -0.05 0.03 0.73

8 0.71 * 0.05 -0.12 0.11 -0.26 -0.12 -0.26 -0.15 -0.04 0.71

9 0.67 * 0.21 0.13 -0.05 0.07 -0.07 0.25 -0.15 0.12 0.62

10 0.39 * 0.10 -0.28 0.06 -0.34 -0.16 0.09 -0.13 0.18 0.44

11 0.64 * 0.15 0.18 -0.15 0.02 -0.11 0.11 -0.30 0.17 0.63

12 0.40 * -0.16 -0.08 0.10 0.41 * -0.28 -0.16 -0.03 0.01 0.48

13 0.65 * -0.08 0.20 -0.28 -0.11 -0.10 0.12 0.19 -0.01 0.62

14 0.70 * -0.14 -0.02 -0.15 -0.03 -0.27 -0.11 0.15 0.05 0.64

15 0.35 -0.04 -0.41 * -0.19 -0.04 -0.17 -0.18 -0.15 -0.02 0.41

16 0.63 * -0.14 0.21 0.27 -0.24 -0.26 0.00 0.10 0.07 0.67

17 0.37 -0.55 * -0.07 -0.06 0.13 -0.34 -0.14 0.18 -0.04 0.63

18 0.63 * -0.31 0.05 0.23 -0.05 -0.10 -0.03 -0.35 -0.01 0.68

19 0.76 * 0.27 0.12 0.20 0.00 0.02 -0.06 -0.20 -0.09 0.76

20 0.63 * -0.22 0.07 0.15 -0.23 -0.16 -0.20 0.20 -0.23 0.68

21 0.46 * 0.08 -0.43 * -0.11 0.09 0.25 0.09 -0.08 -0.23 0.55

22 0.77 * -0.20 -0.08 0.06 0.13 -0.07 0.03 -0.02 -0.25 0.73

23 0.33 -0.01 -0.22 0.12 -0.55 * 0.11 0.10 0.26 0.09 0.57

24 0.59 * 0.51 * -0.15 -0.08 -0.09 0.13 0.05 -0.13 0.17 0.71

25 0.54 * 0.22 0.08 0.03 0.14 0.16 -0.09 0.22 0.26 0.52

26 0.68 * 0.17 0.13 0.10 0.02 -0.08 -0.22 0.10 -0.04 0.59

27 0.82 * 0.24 -0.02 0.13 -0.10 0.23 -0.06 0.00 0.14 0.83

28 0.30 0.04 0.06 -0.36 -0.32 -0.03 -0.01 0.24 0.19 0.42

29 0.75 * 0.24 0.15 0.03 0.15 -0.16 0.05 -0.05 -0.19 0.73

30 0.52 * 0.46 * 0.13 -0.06 0.05 -0.08 0.25 0.14 0.16 0.62

31 0.59 * 0.41 * 0.13 0.12 0.28 0.10 0.10 0.28 -0.10 0.73

32 0.72 * -0.10 -0.12 0.02 0.09 -0.03 0.15 0.13 -0.24 0.65

33 0.37 -0.13 -0.20 -0.16 -0.15 0.24 0.14 0.09 -0.22 0.38

34 0.56 * -0.15 -0.23 0.17 0.18 0.36 0.12 -0.15 0.02 0.62

35 0.56 * 0.43 * 0.07 -0.03 0.08 0.07 -0.30 0.03 -0.28 0.68

36 0.48 * -0.45 * 0.07 0.37 0.19 0.18 0.10 0.22 0.06 0.71

37 0.46 * -0.43 * 0.10 -0.05 -0.15 0.10 0.15 -0.30 -0.23 0.61

38 0.53 * 0.50 * 0.26 0.09 -0.20 0.02 0.25 0.00 -0.06 0.71

39 0.61 * 0.13 0.18 0.24 0.24 0.19 -0.11 0.06 -0.15 0.61

40 0.50 * -0.08 0.17 -0.14 -0.10 0.26 -0.25 0.03 0.09 0.45

41 0.49 * 0.03 -0.20 -0.40 0.00 -0.06 0.00 0.08 -0.13 0.47

42 0.36 -0.09 0.28 -0.21 -0.13 0.28 0.28 -0.07 -0.03 0.44

43 0.08 -0.21 -0.13 0.07 -0.43 * 0.21 -0.18 -0.16 -0.03 0.36

44 0.67 * -0.28 -0.07 -0.11 0.11 0.08 0.21 0.09 0.23 0.67

45 0.60 * -0.18 0.04 0.23 0.07 0.33 -0.12 0.10 0.23 0.64

46 0.44 * -0.16 0.31 -0.26 0.27 0.25 -0.21 -0.19 0.12 0.61

47 0.42 * 0.17 -0.04 -0.20 0.23 0.08 -0.34 0.17 0.10 0.46

48 0.62 * 0.04 -0.31 0.00 -0.05 0.16 0.23 0.13 -0.17 0.61

49 0.35 -0.26 -0.13 0.13 0.16 -0.03 0.13 -0.07 0.28 0.35

50 0.46 * -0.30 0.42 * 0.23 0.08 0.03 0.01 -0.36 0.07 0.67

51 0.34 -0.31 0.15 -0.35 0.00 -0.28 0.21 0.09 -0.28 0.57

Eigenvalues 16.13 3.23 1.93 1.70 1.95 1.58 1.32 1.36 1.24 30.44

% of variance 32 6 4 3 4 3 3 3 2 60

h2=communality (sum of squares of factor loadings by rows)

*=p<.01

Factor Rotations and Factor Scores

Factor rotations are conducted based on avenues of inquiry determined by the researcher.

Brown (1991) states, “There is an infinite number of ways in which the factors can be rotated . . .

and the investigator probes this space in terms of preconceived ideas, vague notions, and prior

knowledge about the subject matter, but with due regard also for any obvious contours in the

data themselves” (pt. 6 ¶ 9). In this case the ”obvious contour” was the large number of sorts that

loaded significantly on the first factor and thus became the primary focus of factor rotation.

Factors were rotated to clarify these unusual initial results, as the intent of the study was to begin

to build a model for understanding leadership in smaller schools. Clarification entails rotating

factors in order to decrease the number of sorts that either do not load on a factor or only load on

one factor (confounded).

The ability to possibly reduce the unrotated factors to a single factor on which to focus

interpretation was unexpected. In order to thoroughly explore the possibilities, a Varimax

rotation was performed from the original factors. Manual rotation then followed to see if the

resulting factors could be clarified. This served only to muddy the waters. Another attempt was

made to ensure adequate exploration in which, after the manual rotations were performed on the

original factors, all sorts that were confounded or did not load on a factor were discarded and the

process run again. The results were virtually identical to those of the original process. While the

resulting data are highly unusual in that they show a remarkable degree of agreement among the

participants, it is also difficult to draw any other conclusion.

Table 4.3

Rotated Factor Matrix

Factors

Sort A B C D E F G H I h2

1 0.42 * 0.14 -0.36 0.14 0.24 -0.22 0.11 -0.30 -0.13 57

2 0.55 * -0.27 0.18 0.10 0.05 -0.23 0.18 0.20 0.10 55

3 0.63 * 0.04 -0.07 -0.09 -0.16 -0.33 -0.21 -0.01 -0.28 66

4 0.46 * -0.25 -0.11 -0.10 0.20 0.15 -0.05 -0.11 0.33 48

5 0.43 * 0.01 0.28 -0.07 0.14 -0.09 -0.04 -0.02 0.15 32

6 0.78 * 0.20 0.02 0.12 0.17 -0.25 0.05 0.20 -0.06 80

7 0.69 * 0.28 -0.11 0.11 -0.03 -0.36 0.00 0.01 -0.07 71

8 0.69 * -0.22 -0.04 -0.08 -0.13 -0.20 -0.16 0.24 -0.09 68

9 0.66 * 0.10 0.20 0.23 0.00 -0.24 0.12 -0.09 0.09 62

10 0.38 -0.13 -0.21 0.06 -0.32 -0.28 0.12 0.17 0.05 43

11 0.64 * -0.05 0.25 0.19 -0.06 -0.23 0.03 -0.15 0.18 62

12 0.39 * -0.15 -0.13 -0.12 0.35 -0.19 -0.10 -0.31 -0.14 49

13 0.63 * -0.03 0.11 -0.05 0.17 0.02 0.23 0.11 0.31 60

14 0.68 * -0.19 -0.13 -0.15 0.25 -0.08 0.06 0.08 0.20 65

15 0.38 -0.08 -0.28 -0.24 -0.17 -0.19 -0.17 -0.04 0.14 40

16 0.60 * -0.36 0.06 0.08 0.15 -0.10 0.27 0.26 -0.15 69

17 0.39 * -0.37 -0.27 -0.33 0.33 0.12 0.14 -0.14 0.02 63

18 0.66 * -0.37 0.08 0.01 -0.12 0.03 0.03 -0.13 -0.27 68

19 0.73 * 0.06 0.26 0.13 -0.02 -0.24 -0.15 0.10 -0.19 74

20 0.63 * -0.25 -0.02 -0.26 0.17 0.05 0.09 0.34 -0.15 70

21 0.50 * 0.36 -0.18 -0.19 -0.23 0.02 -0.11 -0.07 -0.05 52

22 0.78 * -0.01 -0.02 -0.22 0.12 0.02 0.07 -0.09 -0.17 71

23 0.30 -0.04 -0.28 0.08 -0.24 0.04 0.24 0.52 -0.01 * 56

24 0.54 * 0.28 0.00 0.28 -0.22 -0.33 -0.16 0.17 0.16 68

25 0.48 * 0.19 -0.08 0.34 0.27 -0.05 -0.11 0.17 0.08 51

26 0.64 * -0.01 0.10 0.02 0.24 -0.19 -0.13 0.26 -0.03 59

27 0.79 * 0.13 -0.02 0.30 -0.04 -0.10 -0.13 0.26 -0.06 83

28 0.26 -0.06 -0.07 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.13 0.28 0.47 39

29 0.72 * 0.15 0.27 -0.08 0.18 -0.28 -0.01 0.00 -0.06 73

30 0.48 * 0.28 0.14 0.27 0.13 -0.35 0.14 0.13 0.19 61

31 0.52 * 0.47 * 0.14 0.14 0.37 -0.20 0.00 0.18 -0.09 74

32 0.72 * 0.17 -0.07 -0.21 0.12 0.00 0.17 0.02 -0.11 65

33 0.40 * 0.19 -0.12 -0.21 -0.18 0.27 0.11 0.12 0.04 38

34 0.56 * 0.19 -0.17 0.15 -0.13 0.19 -0.06 -0.18 -0.26 55

35 0.53 * 0.26 0.23 -0.12 0.15 -0.21 -0.37 0.26 0.00 68

36 0.48 * -0.05 -0.17 0.17 0.28 0.37 0.20 -0.03 -0.37 68

37 0.53 * -0.19 0.20 -0.19 -0.25 0.31 0.16 -0.13 -0.09 60

38 0.46 * 0.26 0.36 0.22 -0.04 -0.30 0.17 0.33 0.00 68

39 0.59 * 0.20 0.19 0.11 0.26 0.05 -0.19 0.08 -0.27 62

40 0.50 * -0.07 0.07 0.12 0.05 0.26 -0.22 0.16 0.15 44

41 0.49 * 0.17 -0.12 -0.26 -0.03 -0.03 -0.01 0.01 0.32 45

42 0.39 * 0.13 0.28 0.14 -0.15 0.31 0.19 -0.01 0.19 45

43 0.12 -0.25 -0.09 -0.06 -0.36 0.25 -0.11 0.25 -0.07 36

44 0.69 * 0.00 -0.23 0.17 0.09 0.17 0.23 -0.16 0.14 69

45 0.56 * -0.05 -0.15 0.35 0.14 0.25 -0.11 0.07 -0.18 60

46 0.47 * -0.06 0.22 0.20 0.17 0.28 -0.30 -0.22 0.22 60

47 0.40 * 0.12 -0.12 0.04 0.30 -0.05 -0.34 0.07 0.22 45

48 0.63 * 0.33 -0.20 -0.12 -0.13 0.03 0.15 0.10 -0.07 61

49 0.36 -0.15 -0.26 0.20 0.03 0.03 0.13 -0.22 -0.11 33

50 0.48 * -0.36 0.36 0.23 0.05 0.18 0.05 -0.21 -0.24 68

51 0.36 -0.09 0.15 -0.41 * 0.12 0.09 0.35 -0.14 0.26 56

Eigenvalues 15.52 2.19 1.78 1.78 1.84 2.15 1.4 1.79 1.72 30

% of variance 30 4 3 3 4 4 3 4 3 58

h2=communality

*=(p<.01)

Table 4.3 shows that 43 sorts loaded significantly (p<.01) on Factor A and one sort each

loaded on Factors D, H, and I. Factors B, C, E, F and G contained no loadings significant at the

.01 level. Sort 31 was confounded (Factors A and B) and sorts 10, 15, 43, and 49 did not load on

a factor. The rotated factors account for 58% of the variance as compared to the original nine

factors that accounted for 60% of the variance.

The final step in the data analysis is to determine factor scores for each item for each

significant factor. “A factor score is the score for a statement as a kind of average of the scores

given that statement by all of the Q sorts associated with the factor” (Brown, 1991, pt. 7 ¶ 1).

Factor scores are determined by multiplying the score of an item in a particular Q-sort by the

factor weight of that Q-sort on that particular factor, and then summing the products. The result

is a model sort for that factor.

Factor Ranking of Statements

In Q-method, the final step in analysis is the generation of statement rankings according

to each factor. This results in a sorting of statements similar to that of individual participants, but

representative of the perspectives of the participants that loaded on that factor as a whole, rather

than any particular participant sorting. Usually, any factors that only have one sort that loads

significantly are discarded. However, given the unusual nature of the resulting data with the

overwhelming weight on one factor, the other three factors that contained a significant sort are

included for the purposes of discussion. This means that the heavy majority of the school

community members are in general agreement with the resulting ranking in Factor A.

Table 4.4 shows the ranking of the statements of each factor. They are listed according to

the ranking of Factor A in order to facilitate discussion. Factor A was the dominant sort. Items

with the same factor scores are listed in order of item number. For example, items 18, 22, and 25

all received the same factor score of 4. They are listed in numerical order within that score.

While the calculations that determine the factor scores can further rank statements that received

the same factor score, the method states that all items receiving the same factor score are

considered of equal importance in the interpretation of the factor. This follows the instructions

given to participants in that once they sort statements into factor scores, they do not need to

further rank the statements within each score.

Table 4.4

Ranking of Statements by Factor

Statements in order of ranking in Factor A Factors

A D H I

18. Teachers and staff should be dedicated to the learning of all students. 4 -2 4 2

22. Teachers and staff should be role models for the behaviors they expect

from others.

4 -3 2 3

25. Teachers and administration should be passionate about providing quality

education.

4 -3 3 0

15. Teachers and staff should respect each other. 3 0 -1 1

16. Teachers should take time to talk with each other about students and

teaching.

3 1 1 2

24. Teachers should collaborate to improve the educational program. 3 -1 2 0

40. Students should be provided with leadership opportunities as a part of the

educational experience.

3 -2 0 1

8. The head of school should be inspirational. 2 3 1 -2

12. Teachers should have the power to make decisions about curriculum. 2 -1 0 -4

13. Teachers should continually work to improve their knowledge and skills

about teaching.

2014

19. Teachers and staff should know and be committed to the vision of the

school.

2 2 -1 1

28. Teachers and staff should be committed to working together. 2 1 -2 2

7. The head of school should clearly communicate the vision of the school. 1 4 4 4

10. Teachers should explore the effectiveness of different teaching methods. 1 -4 0 3

21. Teachers and staff should have input about major school decisions. 1 -1 0 0

27. People should take responsibility for their own actions and hold others

accountable for their actions.

1 -2 0 -1

39. Students should be involved in addressing emerging issues in the student

body.

1 -4 2 -1

41. Students should learn from each other. 1 -1 1 2

3. The head of school should provide support, time and resources for others

to be leaders.

0 0 -1 -1

5. The head of school should communicate with the teachers about what is

important to the school.

0130

6. The head of school should include the community in developing and

refining the vision of the school.

0 4 2 -3

9. The head of school should question assumptions about how things should

be done.

0000

11. Teachers and staff should have opportunities to lead projects and/or

programs.

0 0 -2 -2

14. Teachers should take the lead in determining the methods and topics of

instruction in the school.

0 -3 -4 -3

17. Teachers and staff should suspend their assumptions and talk to each other

to explore ideas and questions.

0101

23. Teachers and staff should question assumptions about how things should

be done.

0 -2 -1 -3

31. Parents should know and be committed to the vision of the school. 0 3 3 0

1. The head of school should challenge teachers and staff to do better work. -1 0 -4 0

2. The head of school should coach people to improve their work. -1 0 -2 -2

4. The head of school should help teachers work together. -1 0 -3 0

20. Teachers and staff should support the decisions of the head of school. -1 0 -3 3

26. Non-teaching staff should work with and get to know the students and

parents.

-1 -4 1 -2

42. Students should be role models for the behaviors they expect from others. -1 -1 0 2

32. Parents should be role models for the behaviors they expect from others. -2 -3 2 1

34. Parents should support the decisions of the head of school. -2 -1 -4 3

38. Students should take opportunities to lead when offered. -2 -2 -1 0

43. Students should have input and influence on class curriculum. -2 3 -3 -1

44. Students should suspend their assumptions and talk to each other to

explore ideas and questions.

-2 1 -2 -2

30. Parents should continually work to improve their own knowledge and

skills about parenting.

-3 2 1 4

33. Parents should have opportunities to lead projects and/or programs. -3 4 -2 -4

35. Parents should suspend their assumptions and talk to each other to explore

ideas and questions.

-3 2 -1 -1

45. Students should know and be committed to the vision of the school. -3 2 3 -3

29. Parents should learn from each other. -4 1 0 -1

36. Parents should be dedicated to the learning of all students. -4 2 4 1

37. Parents should have input into the educational program. -4 3 -3 -4

Overview Description of Factor A

Factor A is defined by a clear focus on the actions and attitudes of the faculty and staff as

being the most important leadership elements for effective small schools. The majority of

statements regarding faculty and staff show up in the top half of the sort. This is followed by a

focus on the head of school, then students, and then parents. The top-ranked statements also

focus on collective perspectives, such as being dedicated to the learning of all students and

passionate about providing quality education. The statements regarding the head of school

ranked highest focus on being inspirational and developing and providing vision for the school.

The lowest ranked head of school statements focus on working with faculty in order to improve

their individual and collective work. Statements regarding parents do not appear in the ranking

until the middle and then only state that they should be committed to the vision of the school.

The lowest ranked items of all regard parental involvement in the educational programs and the

learning of all students. Statements regarding students are dispersed throughout the ranking and,

of these, the two highest ranked statements refer to providing students with leadership

opportunities. The rest of the statements, ranking lower, focus on the leadership actions and

perspectives of students. Thus, it could be argued that the two highest ranked statements

referring to students actually refer to the actions of the teachers in that they are responsible for

providing space in the school program for student leadership and the addressing of student

issues.

Overview Description of Factor D

Factor D is not nearly so clear in its trends. Statements regarding parents are ranked much

higher than in Factor A. Again, the statements regarding the head of school tend to fall in the

middle of the ranking. Student statements tend to fall in the lower half of the ranking. Statements

regarding teachers also tend to concentrate in the lower half of the ranking.

Overview Descriptions of Factors H and I

Factors H and I are also not as clear in their trends as Factor A. Trends are not evident in

the ranking of statements. More information is revealed in the consensus and distinguishing

statements listed below.

100

Consensus Statements

Table 4.5 shows the three consensus statements resulting from the factor analysis.

Table 4.5

Consensus Statements Between Factors

Factor Scores

Statements A D H I

3. The head of school should provide support, time and resources for others

to be leaders.

0 0 -1 -1

9. The head of school should question assumptions about how things should

be done.

0 0 0 0

17. Teachers and staff should suspend their assumptions and talk to each

other to explore ideas and questions.

0 1 0 1

Consensus statements are those that have similar rankings across all factors. In this study

the three statements not only share similar rankings across factors, they also share similar

rankings among each other. The four factors only agree on rankings of statements that they place

in the middle of the ranks. All three of these statements speak to collegiality and shared

leadership, which all factors place solidly in the middle of the rankings of the statements. Again,

all statements are ranked relative to each other. Because of that it is impossible to say that all

four factors give them the same level of importance. However, all four do give them more

importance than roughly half of the other statements.

101

Distinguishing Statements

Table 4.6 shows the statements that distinguish each factor from the other three.

Table 4.6

Distinguishing Statements Between Factors

Factor Scores

Statements that distinguish Factor A from other factors A D H I

30. Parents should continually work to improve their own knowledge and

skills about parenting.

-3 2 1 4

36. Parents should be dedicated to the learning of all students. -4 2 4 1

Statements that distinguish Factor D from other factors

33. Parents should have opportunities to lead projects and/or programs. -3 4 -2 -4

37. Parents should have input into the educational program. -4 3 -3 -4

43. Students should have input and influence on class curriculum. -2 3 -3 -1

18. Teachers and staff should be dedicated to the learning of all students. 4 -2 4 2

22. Teachers and staff should be role models for the behaviors they expect

from others.

4 -3 2 3

10. Teachers should explore the effectiveness of different teaching methods. 1 -4 0 3

Statement that distinguishes Factor I from other factors

34. Parents should support the decisions of the head of school. -2 -1 -4 3

Distinguishing Statements for Factor A

Distinguishing statements for Factor A seem to further highlight the relatively lower

emphasis placed on parent leadership in the school. However, it is important to remember that

the common comment regarding parents being dedicated to the learning of all students was that

parents should be more concerned with the learning of their own children. Two factors placed

each of these statements at the top of the ranking of importance, demonstrating the discrepancies

in terms of importance of parent leadership among the factors. It is also important to remember

here that the last three factors are each only represented by one participant. The overwhelming

majority of participants placed these statements lower in the rankings.

102

Distinguishing Statements for Factor D

Distinguishing statements for Factor D demonstrate how different this Factor is from the

others. For instance, this factor places several parent statements at the top of its ranking where

the other factors rank them relatively low. It also gives student influence on class curriculum

more importance and ranks several teacher statements much lower, in particular the statement

regarding trying new methods.

Distinguishing Statements for Factor I

Factor I only has one distinguishing statement. That statement, that parents should

support the decisions of the head of school, is interesting but does not provide enough

information about the philosophy of that statement to make any meaningful observations.

Summary

In Q-method, it is customary to drop any factors that have only one significantly loaded

sort. In this case, the three factors that had one sort were included for initial analysis due to the

extremely unusual results of that analysis. Factor A was so heavily weighted with significant

sorts that the inclusion of other factors was important in order to show what other perspectives

were revealed in the analysis.

However, the lack of defined perspectives in the other three factors only served to

highlight the strength of the perspective exhibited in Factor A. Not only was there a large

number of sorts that loaded significantly on that factor, there was also a clearer grouping of types

of statements within the factor’s ranking of statements. Also, the participants responsible for the

single sorts that loaded on the factors other than Factor A, a student and two board members,

could be considered further from the day-to-day leadership than most of those who loaded on

Factor A. The board members, especially those who come from backgrounds other than

103

education, bring significantly different perspectives to their work with and understanding of what

makes for effective education. The students, especially given their ages, may be in very different

places in their ability to reflect on how they and others influence school leadership.

This is not to say that their perspectives are not important. In fact, there is a case to be

made that a diversity of perspectives is important in the functioning of any small organization,

and that those perspectives help strengthen the ability of the organization to think differently and

creatively about how it approaches problems and challenges. However, in this case, where the

intent of this study is to establish a place from which to begin building a model for small school

leadership, the strength of the findings concerning Factor A cannot be ignored. For this reason,

the discussion will focus solely on Factor A and what it means for effective small school

leadership.

104

Chapter V: Discussion

Organization of the Chapter

Factor A will be the focus of this chapter. First, the school’s current state in terms of its

development and growth will be discussed in order to set the stage of the findings. Second, the

characteristics of the ranking of statements as offered by the factor will be identified and

discussed. Third, a number of influential factors of this particular school setting will be

investigated in order to further probe the factor for meaning. Fourth, an initial model for small

school leadership will be offered. Finally, limitations for this study and recommendations for

further study will be presented. This discussion rests on the understanding that this is a limited

initial probe into what is important for small school leadership and is intended as a starting place,

not a final word, on what is important to realize the promise of smaller school settings.

Developmental Phase of the School

This school is both ten and thirty years old. As previously discussed, Billings was

originally established as The Intermediate School serving grades four through six. Ten years ago,

due to changes in school structures throughout Seattle, the school transitioned into a middle

school, serving grades six through eight. Several of the current board members are parents of

Intermediate School alumni and the founder, Luanne Billings, for whom the current school is

named, also serves on the board of trustees.

This is important to the discussion of the data for two reasons. One, the school is at an

important developmental phase, becoming established in its new identity as a middle school and

enjoying an expanding reputation for excellence throughout the city and the region. As such it

has also been working in recent years to better define itself, both in terms of marketing and by

105

entering into the process of becoming formally accredited (the school completed a self-study in

the year previous to this study and underwent an accreditation visit at the beginning of the school

year in which this study took place). Two, the parent body has been central to the development

of the school not only in that parents made the decision to transition to a middle school but in the

level of involvement parents have had in helping the school become more secure. In addition, the

parents who participated in the study have a duel role of being both the parent of a child in the

school and being a locus of communication between the greater parent body and the faculty and

administration. Thus, the identity of Billings Middle School has been a major focus of not only

the faculty and administration, but also the parent community, since the transition.

It could be said that Billings itself is at an early adolescent phase in terms of its

organizational development. The school spent its early years figuring itself out and building an

identity for itself as an organization. In more recent years, it has been working to define a role for

itself in terms of the communities of which it is a part. The last five years has seen the

development of a new mission and vision statement, a new strategic plan, and new marketing

materials including a website and a brochure type booklet called a view book. Most recently,

Billings underwent an extensive self-study, a year-long project where the school responds to

questions concerning everything from emergency procedures to overall curriculum philosophy.

Because of these activities there have been many discussions, both formal and informal, between

administration, faculty, students and parents about the identity of the school, about what makes it

so effective, and what can be done to increase its effectiveness.

In this study the parents who were selected to participate were the grade level

representatives and co-chairs for the parent association. In this role they are primarily responsible

106

for organizing the parent body around the volunteer needs of the school. For instance, a faculty

member or administrator will need parent support for a particular program and the parent

representatives will organize the parents. In addition, the parent representatives are often the first

point of contact for a parent who has an issue or problem with the school or its programs. As

such, they are more involved in the day to day operations of the school than are most parents and

they have more contact with school employees, particularly administration. Parents in general

have also been very involved in the school both before and after its transition into a middle

school. From helping find, renovate and care for the current permanent facility to serving on the

board, parents have been deeply involved in supporting the school during the first ten years of its

growth and development.

In one respect, these two characteristics, that the school as a whole has been consciously

defining and communicating its identity and that the parent body has been deeply involved in the

development of the school, could explain some of the high degree of consensus among the study

participants about what is important to leadership in an effective small school. It would make

sense that those that have shared in this experience would come to think in a similar way about

how a smaller school should be. However, it is also important to note that two of the parent

representatives had only been at the school for a year. Two more were finishing their second

year. In addition, several of the faculty had only been at the school for a year. Also, while the

school had been discussion its identity, it had not been discussing leadership in the way it was

framed in the study. Nevertheless, it is important to keep in mind that this school, in part due to

its smaller size, has been involved in a great deal of dialog about what it is ,what it does, and

how it does it.

107

Characterization of Factor A

The ranking of statements in Factor A is a combination of the ranking in the sorts of all

the participants who loaded on that factor. Simply looking at the number of statements

referencing each group of people involved in small school leadership reveals a clear breakdown.

This breakdown falls along the lines of who is doing the leading, and within that grouping, what

kinds of things are important to leadership, such as behaviors, attitudes and responsibilities. As

shown in Illustration 5.1, the greatest emphasis in the two highest ranked groups of factor scores,

+4 and +3 or +2 and +1, is on statements regarding teacher leadership. In the middle ranking

group of factor scores of 0, the emphasis is on statements regarding teachers and the head of

school. In the ranking group of -1 or -2 the emphasis is shared between students and parents. The

lowest ranking group, -3 and -4, contains statements primarily regarding parent leadership.

Student-focused statements do not have as reliable a trend, but do show a general increase in

importance lower in the ranking groups. Illustrations 5.1 and 5.2 illustrate these descriptions.

108

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Teachers Head of School Students Parents

Classifications

+4 or +3

+2 or +1

-1 or -2

-3 or -4

Illustration 5.1 Percentage of Statements within Ranking Groups by Classifications. The

percentage is determined by taking the number of statements referring to a classification within

each ranking group and dividing it by the total number of statements within that group. For

instance, the total number of statements with a score of +4 or +3 is seven. The total number of

statements referring to the classification of “teacher” is 6. The percentage of statements within

that ranking group referring to teachers is 86%.

109

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

+4 or +3 +2 or +1 0 -1 or -2 -3 or -4

Ranking Groups

Teachers

Head of

School

Students

Parents

Illustration 5.2 Percentage of Statements Referring to Each Classification by Ranking Group.

Percentage is determined in the same manner as in Illustration 5.1.

The rankings place teachers and staff at the forefront of leadership in effective smaller

schools. Within the highest ranked statements that focus on teachers is an additional emphasis on

collegiality and creating a collaborative atmosphere. The three highest ranked statements assert

that teachers and staff should, “be dedicated to the learning of all students, be role models for the

behaviors they expect from others, and be passionate about providing quality education.” Three

of the next four assert that they should, “respect each other, take time to talk with each other

about students and teaching, and collaborate to improve the educational program.” While it is no

surprise that there is a focus on community within any smaller school, the weight given to

teacher and staff responsibility for creating this community is very important. This seems to

110

place the responsibility of culture squarely on the shoulders of the faculty, not on the head of

school as might be assumed in much of the thinking regarding school leadership.

The focus on statements regarding the head of school is greatest in the middle of the

rankings. The first of these statements is that the head of school should be inspirational and the

second is that he or she should clearly communicate the vision of the school. This is in sharp

contrast to the type of statements occurring at the top of the rankings concerning faculty and

staff. Instead of a responsibility to working together, the emphasis here is on providing more of

the charismatic leadership spoken of the Transformational Leadership model. The next

responsibility of the head, according to these rankings, is to work with faculty and staff to

develop and communicate the vision of the school and to provide opportunities for them to work

together and take on leadership opportunities within the school. Again, the faculty and staff are

key to the effectiveness of the school not only in terms of their ability to work together, but also

in terms of their participation in leadership and setting the direction for the school. The head of

school then supports them by providing support for their efforts and communicating the resulting

shared vision. The final responsibility of the head of school is individual work with faculty and

staff to challenge and coach them in their work. Again, it is important to remember that

participants said that all of these statements were important, but there seems to be a fairly clear

ranking of the head of school’s responsibilities.

The highest ranked statement that refers to students is that they should be provided with

leadership responsibilities as part of the school program. The next two statements about students

concern actual leadership behaviors, “learning from each other” and “addressing emerging issues

within the student body.” Student-focused statements do not appear again until the second to last

111

ranking grouping. At that point they are concerned with a variety of aspects of student

leadership, including “being role models” and “taking on leadership opportunities.” The lowest

rated student statement is that “students should know and be committed to the vision of the

school.” With students, too, it seems that there is a hierarchy of responsibilities. The first

statement, though, is about the school community’s responsibility to the students, to provide

them with leadership opportunities. After that, it seems that it is important that students are

practicing leadership skills and behaviors and that at the last they are concerned with the greater

issues of leadership of the school.

Parent-focused statements tend to fall toward the bottom of the rankings. The first of

these statements to appear is in the middle group of the rankings and is that “parents should

know and be committed to the vision of the school.” The next two are that parents “should be

role models,” and that they “should support the decisions of the head of school.” The rest of the

statements regarding parents are in the last ranking group, supporting the many statements by

participants that, although they thought parents were important, they tended to put most of those

statements at the end of their rankings because the other statements were simply more important

to an effective smaller school.

Factor A turns out to be interesting not only because it was so strong in the number of

significant loadings, but also because the resulting rankings reveal interesting ideas in terms of

the groups represented within the school community and the behaviors, roles, and responsibilities

that the participants feel are important to smaller school effectiveness. The ranking in Factor A

seems to reveal that the participants have somewhat different ideas about the behaviors and roles

112

of each group in terms of effective leadership of the school. These ideas shall now be explored

particularly in terms of the context of this school’s culture.

Faculty and Staff Leadership

The ranking of statements in Factor A clearly indicates that the community believes that

faculty and staff leadership is important for an effective small school. What is included in this

idea of leadership is a balance between specific behaviors and overarching values. These values

focus on providing a quality educational experience for all students. The behaviors address how

the faculty should go about this endeavor and incorporate elements of collaboration. They

include working together, talking to each other, respecting each other, and being role models in

their own behavior. These are ranked highest in importance. Those statements ranked lowest in

importance that focus on faculty are more concerned with more of the day-to-day decisions and

work on curriculum and teaching methods.

Billings is a very small school that has always worked to reach each student. It is not a

surprise that the community expects the faculty to hold student learning and quality education at

the forefront of the school’s development of curriculum and the continued honing of teaching

practices.

Head of School Leadership

The first appearance of statements relating to the head of school in the rankings calls for

the head to be inspirational. This is followed by the assertion that the head of school should

clearly communicate the vision of the school. These two statements, which stand out in the

ranking in Factor A, are very much in line with the ideas of the Transformational Leadership

model. These statements are then followed by a combination of assorted responsibilities that

113

include providing opportunities and support for others to be leaders, questioning the status quo,

and communicating with faculty and community regarding school vision. The ranking places the

responsibility of the head of school to work with individual teachers to improve practice at the

lowest levels of importance in terms of the head of school’s leadership priorities.

The school has been going through several processes that may contribute to these

opinions. Over the past several years, the school has been working to increase the awareness and

reputation of the school through a major marketing effort. This effort has included the creation of

a new logo, brochure, admissions information packet, and website. A great deal of reflection on

and development of the identity of the school has gone into the process. The school has also

completed a five-year strategic plan and is currently developing the next one. This has included

the participation of the board, faculty, staff, and parents. Finally, the school engaged in and

completed its self-study and visit to attain accreditation. This also included participation on the

part of the entire community and took over a year to complete. Through all of this, though many

people took on leadership roles in individual parts of the process, the head of school has been at

the center. In addition, the lower ranking of statements regarding personal work with faculty

members might be credited to the fact that there is a lead teacher who works with individual

faculty. This is a possible explanation for why the school community sees the visionary and

inspirational leadership of the head of school instead of his or her efforts at staff development as

most important.

Student Leadership

Student leadership receives a very different treatment by the rankings in Factor A. The

first statement, that students should be provided with leadership opportunities as part of the

114

school program’ is more about the responsibilities of the faculty than it is about the students. The

next statements refer to students practicing leadership or learning how to be leaders by

addressing emerging issues among the student body and learning from each other. More

advanced leadership practices such as taking opportunities to lead, influencing class curriculum,

suspending assumptions, and contributing to the vision of the school appear lower in the

rankings.

The middle-school setting for this study has a significant impact on these findings. First,

the developmental level of middle-school students is a major consideration when thinking about

student leadership within the school. Students in the early adolescent stage are beginning to

define who they are in relation to the people and the world around them. These three years are a

major transition from learning and knowing themselves to learning and knowing themselves in

relationship, and this has a significant impact on the kinds and levels of leadership that they are

able to practice. It is understandable that the faculty and parent participants in the study, as well

as the students themselves, believe that a student’s primary responsibility in terms of school

leadership is to learn how to be a leader. Second, it is generally the middle school level where

students are no longer in self-contained classrooms and are interacting much more with the

whole class and whole school.

The top-ranked student statement was generated by the focus groups and not the

literature, and so it comes directly out of this specific school community. It states that students

should be provided with leadership opportunities as part of the school program as opposed to

part of the curriculum or classroom methods. This is not to say that Billings does not have

traditional student leadership roles such as student government representatives or use student

115

leadership models in class management. However, because Billings values student leadership so

highly and because the size of the school easily facilitates taking advantage of unique situations,

students often have the opportunity to practice leadership in ways that would be more difficult to

offer in a larger school. For instance, when students became aware that a local grocery store was

shutting its doors unexpectedly, they not only were able to investigate the impact it had on the

surrounding community, but also organize a demonstration that brought media attention to the

situation and its impact on the neighborhood. Another example is the group of students who,

while investigating air particulates, discovered a connection with rain and phosphate levels in the

nearby public park’s lake. They were able to not only present their findings to Seattle City

Council, but also to affect the city policy regarding the use of chemicals in the surrounding park.

The school community, particularly the faculty, deeply values giving students the opportunity to

practice leadership whenever possible. When adjustments need to be made in class schedules,

teachers are more than willing to do what it takes to make it happen, and the size of the school

makes this much easier both in terms of logistics as well as the shared commitment to providing

students these opportunities.

Parent Leadership

Two perspectives regarding parent involvement in the school can explain the ranking of

parent-focused statements in Factor A. First, parent involvement in middle school tends to look

very different from parent involvement in elementary school. It is important for middle-school

parents to begin to give their child space to practice independence while providing support on

which their child can rely for acknowledgement and assurance. This requires a significant shift

for parents who had been accustomed to spending a great deal of time in their child’s elementary

116

classroom. Second, as repeatedly stated in the interviews, parents are important, but do not need

to be as influential or visible in the leadership of the school. While it is good to have parents on

board and willing to help the school, their role is not to challenge curriculum decisions or to be

concerned with the learning of all students in order for the school to function. These are both

facets of the same idea, that parent participation is important to an effective small school, but it is

their support rather than their leadership that is important.

The specific rankings of the parent-focused statements shed some light on what the

participants think are the primary responsibilities of parents within the school. The highest

ranked statement regarding parent leadership is that parents should know and be committed to

the vision of the school. In private schools, this is considered to be a key component of the

admissions process. The goal from the school’s perspective, particularly at Billings, is not to find

the “smartest” students, but to find the families that are the best fit with the school’s culture and

the school’s ability to meet the student’s educational needs. Parent understanding and support of

the vision of the school is particularly important for obvious reasons. If the parents do not

understand or support what the school is trying to do or how it is trying to do it, the school is

setting itself up for a relationship with the family that will most likely be problematic for both

parties.

The next two statements regarding parents address parent behaviors that also support the

community as a whole. The first states that they should be role models for the behavior they

expect from others, and the second that they should support the decisions of the head of school.

The second of these statements tended to elicit comments from parent participants. They said

that it was important for parents to support the head of school, but only if the head of school was

117

making good decisions, and that sometimes support included appropriately challenging the head

when necessary (by talking to him or her directly) when said parent had a concern. They

considered unquestioning support to be ultimately dangerous for the healthy functioning of an

effective school.

All three of the lowest ranked statements in Factor A concerned parents. The first of

these, that parents should learn from each other, seems to be ranked lowest due to the fact that

parents are in more contact with the school and teachers than they are with each other and that

the community of learning created by the school is primarily for the students and staff. This is

not to say that parents shouldn’t learn from each other, but that it is not as necessary to the

effective functioning of a small school. The second statement, that parents should be dedicated to

the learning of all students, often received the comment from participants that they ranked it low

because parents should first be concerned with the learning of their own child. The third

statement, that parents should have input into the educational program, was consistently ranked

low by most participants, and some commented that if parents chose the school for their child,

they should support the program that the school creates.

Preliminary Model for Small School Leadership

The intent of this study is to provide a spark for continued investigations of small school

leadership and other keys to smaller school success. Consequently, the model presented here is

by no means refined enough to use prescriptively. It is offered instead as a conceptualization of

smaller school leadership against which educators and researchers can check their thinking,

experience, and data.

118

Many participants commented at some point during their sort that all the statements are

important to an effective small school. It was the most commonly shared opinion by the

participants. The model uses that statement to look at not only what the participants rated as

important overall, but also what they rated as important within each constituent group. For

instance, the statements that referred to teachers, when pulled out from Factor A, show that

participants think that teachers should be concerned primarily with leadership actions and

behaviors that pertain either directly to the students and curriculum, or to their personal skills and

relationships with others in the school. Heads of school, on the other hand, should be more

concerned with the school community as a whole. Table 5.1 shows the ranking of statements by

group, i.e. teachers and staff, head of school, students, and parents.

119

Table 5.1

Statement Rankings by Group

Score Statements regarding teachers and staff

+4 18. Teachers and staff should be dedicated to the learning of all students.

22. Teachers and staff should be role models for the behaviors they expect from others.

25. Teachers and administration should be passionate about providing quality education.

+3 15. Teachers and staff should respect each other.

16. Teachers should take time to talk with each other about students and teaching.

24. Teachers should collaborate to improve the educational program.

+2 12. Teachers should have the power to make decisions about curriculum.

13. Teachers should continually work to improve their knowledge and skills about

teaching.

19. Teachers and staff should know and be committed to the vision of the school.

28. Teachers and staff should be committed to working together.

+1 10. Teachers should explore the effectiveness of different teaching methods.

21. Teachers and staff should have input about major school decisions.

27. People should take responsibility for their own actions and hold others accountable for

their actions.

0 11. Teachers and staff should have opportunities to lead projects and/or programs.

14. Teachers should take the lead in determining the methods and topics of instruction in

the school.

17. Teachers and staff should suspend their assumptions and talk to each other to explore

ideas and questions.

23. Teachers and staff should question assumptions about how things should be done.

-1 20. Teachers and staff should support the decisions of the head of school.

26. Non-teaching staff should work with and get to know the students and parents.

Score Statements regarding the head of school

+2 8. The head of school should be inspirational.

+1 7. The head of school should clearly communicate the vision of the school.

0 3.

The head of school should provide support, time and resources for others to be leaders.

5. The head of school should communicate with the teachers about what is important to

the school.

6. The head of school should include the community in developing and refining the

vision of the school.

-1 1. The head of school should challenge teachers and staff to do better work.

2. The head of school should coach people to improve their work.

4. The head of school should help teachers work together.

Score Statements regarding students

+3 40. Students should be provided with leadership opportunities as a part of the educational

experience.

+1 39. Students should be involved in addressing emerging issues in the student body.

120

41. Students should learn from each other.

-1 42. Students should be role models for the behaviors they expect from others.

-2 38. Students should take opportunities to lead when offered.

43. Students should have input and influence on class curriculum.

44. Students should suspend their assumptions and talk to each other to explore ideas and

questions.

-3 45. Students should know and be committed to the vision of the school.

Score Statements regarding parents

0 31. Parents should know and be committed to the vision of the school.

-2 32. Parents should be role models for the behaviors they expect from others.

34. Parents should support the decisions of the head of school.

-3 30. Parents should continually work to improve their own knowledge and skills about

parenting.

33. Parents should have opportunities to lead projects and/or programs.

35. Parents should suspend their assumptions and talk to each other to explore ideas and

questions.

-4 29. Parents should learn from each other.

36. Parents should be dedicated to the learning of all students.

37. Parents should have input into the educational program.

As stated in the methodology chapter, this study did not categorize the statements before

the sorting process in order to allow categories, if they existed, to be revealed in the data. The

rankings by group suggest a categorization of the statements by the focus of the statements.

There are three main foci: (a) students and curricular program, (b) school community, and (c)

personal traits and relationships.

The statements that focus on students and curricular program require the group in

question (teachers, head of school, students, or parents) to attend either to specific needs of

students or of the school’s educational program. For example, two of the three highest rated

statements regarding teachers and staff are (a) teachers and staff should be dedicated to the

learning of all students, and (b) teachers and administration should be passionate about providing

quality education. The top rated statement regarding students asserts that students should be

provided with leadership opportunities as a part of the educational experience.

121

The statements that focus on school community look at elements such as creating and

communicating vision, and contributing to the leadership of the school as a whole. For example,

the highest rated parent statement says that parents should know and be committed to the vision

of the school. The two highest rated head of school statements are (a) the head of school should

be inspirational and (b) the head of school should clearly communicate the vision of the school.

The statements that focus on personal traits and relationships include building one’s own

leadership abilities and developing relationships, particularly within one’s own group, that

support both personal leadership and the well being of the school as a whole. For example, the

third of the top three rated statements for teachers and staff says that teachers and staff should be

role models for the behaviors they expect from others. This speaks not only to the individual

teacher’s own leadership abilities, but helps build their credibility in the eyes of others,

strengthening their relationships. Other examples are the second highest ranked statements for

students, that (a) students should be involved in addressing emerging issues in the student body,

and (b) students should learn from each other. The first can be categorized both as a statement

focused on students and curricular program as well as on personal traits and relationships.

By looking at the statements as belonging to one or more of these three groups, a pattern

emerges. While not every statement falls neatly into one pile or the other, it is clear that

according to the rankings of Factor A, there is an agreed-upon priority or priorities for each

group. For teachers, staff, and students, the priorities for what they should be doing in terms of

leadership center around students and curriculum, and on personal traits and relationships. The

priority for the head of school and for parents is the school community. This is not to say that

these groups should not focus on the other categories, simply that the ranking indicates that these

122

are most important for an effective smaller school setting. A graphical representation is depicted

in Illustration 5.3.

Illustration 5.3 Visual representation of small school leadership model. The shaded areas

indicate the priorities in terms of leadership traits and behaviors for each demographic group in

the school.

In the construction of the instrument, the statements were phrased as what members of

each group should do in terms of leadership for an effective smaller school. This was intentional

in order to help participants think not only about what this particular school does well, but what

any smaller school should do in terms of leadership. Based on the rankings in Factor A, this

model illustrates the priorities for smaller school leadership for each of the demographic groups

123

within the school. As Table 5.1 and Illustration 5.3 demonstrate, the priorities for teachers, staff,

and students are the students, curricular programs, personal abilities in terms of leadership, and

the relationships within the school community. The priority for the head of school and the

parents is the support and development of the school community as a whole.

The first priority for teachers should be, of course, to educate students. The priorities

stated in this model are in terms of educational leadership. However, the education of students

and the priorities indicated in this model are not only compatible, they are strongly linked.

Teacher leadership relies on a collegial environment where professional relationships are based

on trust and respect, and are concentrated on developing and improving teaching and learning.

The educational program cannot be improved if the faculty is not focused on continually

assessing the needs of students and their responses to various methods and curricula. What

makes this model interesting, though, is that the responsibility for the quality of education overall

at a small school, not just what occurs in individual classrooms, is placed on the shoulders of the

faculty and staff as a whole.

The highest ranked statement for students is not about what the students should do, but

what should be done for students, namely that they should be provided with leadership

opportunities as part of the educational program. It is the only statement in the passive voice and

should be changed in future studies (see Recommendations for Further Study). That aside, the

other statements regarding student leadership traits and behaviors echo those of the teacher

group. The rankings of student statements give priority to the two statements that are related to

providing students with leadership opportunities within the school program. The first statement,

that students should be involved in addressing student issues, places the responsibility for

124

creating a collegial student environment on the shoulders of the students in much the same way

that the teacher responsibilities are so defined. The second statement, that students should learn

from each other, echoes this recognition of a collegial student environment. Both of these also

require a focus on student learning and a curriculum that supports this type of student learning.

The priority for the head of school as shown in Factor A is clearly to set and

communicate the vision of the school. It is interesting to note that the rankings place the

responsibility for the professional development of the faculty and staff much more with the

faculty and staff themselves than with the head of school. Again, the participants agreed that all

the statements were important, indicating that the head of school does have a role in maintaining

the professionalism of the staff.

The priority of parents, as indicated by the findings, should be the school community as a

whole. After they have accepted the school and its program for the education of their child, their

role is to support and maintain the culture of which they have chosen to be a part. Being

committed to the school’s vision, being role models for behavior they would like to see in others,

and supporting the decisions of the head of school (providing that they are in keeping with the

school’s vision) are the most important leadership activities that parents can perform for an

effective small school. Factor A also places parent statements that show a more direct

relationship between parents and the school higher than statements that emphasize parent

relationships with each other. This is in contrast to teacher and student statements that emphasize

a collegial teaching and learning environment.

The simplicity of this preliminary model affords two advantages. First, it reveals that the

two groups that appeared first in the rankings in Factor A, teachers and students, have similar

125

priorities in terms of their leadership in an effective small school. Likewise, the two other

groups, heads of school and parents, share similar sets of priorities. Second, it allows for a

building of a more complex model. Future studies could expand the areas of focus, balance the

number of statements for each area and confirm or alter the findings of this study, and explore

the makeup of the groups by breaking them down into sub-groups or determining if these are

adequate for understanding leadership in small schools. This will be explored in the

Recommendations for Further Study section.

To further explore the smaller school leadership model it is useful to compare it to the

two models of leadership under which this study was framed, Transformational Leadership and

leadership capacity. Both of these models contain strong similarities to the model suggested by

the data in this study, and there are also a few key differences. The comparison of the smaller

school leadership model to these two models not only helps to further define it, it also informs

the discussions of the limitations of this study and the recommendations for further study.

Relationship of Smaller School Leadership Model to The Transformational Leadership Model

Northouse’s basic definition of Transformational Leadership offers two key concepts of

leadership and teacher development. “Transformational leadership involves assessing followers’

motives, satisfying their needs, and treating them as full human beings. It is a process that

subsumes charismatic and visionary leadership” (2001, p. 131). Framing the first concept in

terms of school leadership, a transformational head of school gives attention to teachers and

works to ensure that their growth as teachers is personally satisfying. The second concept

suggests that heads of school must inspire and connect teachers with the vision of the school.

Both of these have strong parallels in the smaller school leadership model.

126

Both models emphasize professional growth and learning. Transformational Leadership

deems this necessary for personal satisfaction with work as well as necessary for the overall

health of the organization. Factor A also values professional growth. The difference lies in who

is believed to be responsible for leading that growth. In Transformational Leadership, it is the

head of school who ensures that the teachers are challenged and are professionally fulfilled in

their work. According to the ranking of the statements, Factor A seems to place more of that

responsibility on the teachers themselves and on the collegial community.

This raises the question of who initially builds that community, the teachers or the head

of school? The answer is probably different for each school, depending upon such factors as

when the head was hired to who is on the faculty and the levels of experience and ability they

hold. However, the smaller school leadership model supposes an established school and culture,

and the transformational model seems to suppose the ongoing actions of the leader. If both are

intended to define established organizations, then the key difference is that in the smaller school

model the teachers collectively are responsible for the collegiality that supports each individual’s

professional growth and development. Transformational Leadership, while working to create

leaders among the staff, is still a relatively top-down model.

Relationship of Smaller School Leadership Model to The Leadership Capacity Model

The leadership capacity model takes a much more teacher-centric stance. Lambert

describes teacher leaders as “those whose dreams of making a difference have either been kept

alive or have been reawakened by engaging with colleagues and working within a professional

culture” (2003, p. 33). This echoes the smaller school model where the primary leadership

activities for teachers have to do with increasing their professional capacity, creating a collegial

127

environment, and focusing on students and the curriculum. The leadership capacity model, like

Transformational Leadership, tends to put a significant amount of the responsibility for at least

initially building the collegial culture on the head of school. However, like the smaller school

model, the head must first establish and communicate the vision of the school in order for an

effective culture to develop.

The leadership capacity model also understands that leading and teaching are connected

and that when focusing on students, leadership should be part of the curricular program. Lambert

states that “student leadership emerges from democratic classrooms and schools in which student

voices are invited and heard” (2003, p. 56). Like the smaller school model that highly values the

statement that students should be provided with leadership opportunities as part of the

curriculum, the leadership capacity model understands that student leadership is part of the

system of leadership in an effective school.

While both models include parent participation as an important aspect of an effective

school, the leadership capacity model suggests giving them more power than the participants in

the study indicated was necessary. Lambert (2003) argues that the level of parent leadership as

defined by Factor A is not full parent leadership as defined by her model. The leadership

capacity model challenges schools to see parents as full partners in developing the school

program with all the rights and responsibilities thereof. The participants in the study often

commented on the statements that parents should be concerned with the learning of all students

and that parents should have input into the school curriculum. If they disagreed with any

statements in the sort, it was one or both of these. In disagreeing, participants stated that parents

should be more concerned with the learning of their own children and that they could question

128

teachers about curriculum, but should leave the development of the curricular program to the

school.

Limitations of the Study

This study is one of the first to specifically examine leadership in a smaller school

setting. As such, it has several limitations, particularly in scope and, consequently, in

applicability. The cultures of the various communities of which it is a part, such as the northwest,

Seattle, private school, etc., most likely color the perceptions and opinions of the participants.

Additionally, the researcher’s unique closeness to the school and its community could be viewed

as a double-edged sword. And, the fact that the study took place at a single small school is an

obvious limitation. These elements are all important to explore to help put the study into context.

The communities that overlap around Billings play a part both in how it operates and how

it sees itself. Due in great part to where it is and what it does, Billings embraces a pioneering

experimental spirit and a sense of environmental stewardship. At first glance, this may not seem

to contribute to the limitations of the study. However, because of this Billings as an institution

already leans towards the sense of community awareness and interconnectedness highlighted in

the findings. Other schools in other communities may not have these natural inclinations and

may not be able to connect with or find themselves in these findings. In fact, they might come up

with a very different set of statements and thus a very different model of effective small school

leadership.

The intimacy between the researcher and the school can be seen both as an advantage and

as a limitation. The community knows and trusts the researcher. The researcher is familiar with

the organization and the language it uses to describe itself. The researcher is familiar with the

129

history of the school and with many of the participants. This familiarity aids the researcher in

understanding and interpreting the findings. However, this familiarity may also allow the

researcher to give more weight to some perspectives or ideas than they might warrant.

That the study took place at a single school may have limited the generation of the

statements as well as the responses. While the strong consensus around Factor A was

unexpected, it was not unbelievable given the closeness of the community and the strength of the

shared vision. As such, it is almost like a case study and thus, while others might be able to draw

parallels to their own situations, one cannot simply say that this is the model by which smaller

schools should operate. However, the design of the study did ask participants to think about what

is important for effective small schools in general, and not specifically in regards to Billings.

While this does not necessarily expand the applicability of this study to other smaller schools at

this point, it does allow this study to be used as a foundation for further development of a smaller

school leadership model.

In short, this study offers a model of smaller school leadership that is simple and clear.

The people who are most important in smaller school leadership are the teachers, and they should

be focusing on the students, school program, and their own personal leadership abilities and

relationships. The students, as well, should be focused on the school program and on their own

leadership abilities and relationships. The head of school, then, is responsible primarily for the

school community as a whole and in creating and communicating vision. The parents, too,

though they do not have as central a role in daily school life, are responsible for leadership in

terms of the whole school community. However, the refrain that the participants nearly

unanimously stated, that all the statements were important, reinforces the idea that smaller school

130

leadership is truly a joint effort and that everyone is a vital contributor to an effective smaller

school.

Recommendations for Further Study

Clearly this is just part of what is needed in order to understand the leadership that will

help realize the best of what smaller school models have to offer. The advantages for students

and faculty, such as higher achievement, lower dropout rates, less disciplinary problems, and

greater professional satisfaction, are far too exciting to be ignored. It is also important to

recognize the differences and to separate the studies between smaller schools and SWAS. It is

neither appropriate nor effective for the further development of either model to treat them as

similar. Aside from these general recommendations, there are some specific recommendations

for further study of this particular topic and for using this method.

First, the study should be expanded. To completely develop the model for smaller school

leadership, other schools, both public and private as well as elementary, middle, and high

schools, should be included. In order to determine if there is a difference between large school

and smaller school leadership, larger schools in these categories should also be added to the

sample. It would also add to the strength of the findings if schools that represented these

categories were sampled from a variety of locations and communities.

The concourse from which the statements are developed should also be explored and

possibly expanded. While the literature was mined for perspectives and ideas about leadership in

general and about school leadership in particular, the school community focus groups that

offered additional information were confined to the Billings community. Including larger

schools, public schools, elementary and high schools, and schools from other areas and

131

communities in further studies should also entail conducting several more focus groups to ensure

the widest range of perspectives is represented.

The results of these data in terms of the categorization of the statements can also be used

to further refine the study. The categories represented in the final suggested smaller school

leadership model are not represented equally in terms of numbers of statements. Further

refinement of the instrument could include a move from an unstructured sort, where statements

are included without regard to any sort of categorization, to a structured sort. As briefly defined

in the methods section, a structured sort is one in which there is an equal number of statements

per category. This helps ensure that any prevalent philosophy represented by the factor sort(s) is

not skewed due to that philosophy simply having more statements to represent it. In this case that

would mean having an equal number of statements that refer to students, faculty, parents, and

heads of school, and addressing leadership traits and behaviors regarding self and relationships,

school community and students, and curriculum.

132

APPENDICES

133

Appendix A: Adult Participant Informed Consent Form

Leadership in Small Schools

You have been asked to participate in a research study conducted by Charis Sharp, a doctoral

candidate in the Leadership and Organizational Change program at Antioch University, Yellow

Springs, Ohio.

This research involves the study of perceptions of the process of effective leadership as

experienced by members of a small school community. I wish to conduct this study with faculty,

staff, board members, and a sample of parents and students of Billings Middle School.

The study involves, at a minimum, one conversational interview which will be arranged at your

convenience and which is expected to last about 1 hour. The interview will be taped. During the

interview you will be asked to rank a number of statements about effective small schools. Your

rankings and some demographic data will be recorded.

Your name, individual responses, data, and comments will be kept confidential. In addition, the

recordings and all related research materials including the Informed Consent Forms will be kept

in a secure file cabinet and destroyed after the completion of my study. The results from these

interviews will be incorporated into my doctoral dissertation.

I hope that through this interview you may develop a greater personal awareness of your own

experience as a result of your participation in this research. The risks to you are considered

minimal. You can withdraw from the study at any time. Should you withdraw, your data will be

eliminated from the study.

There is no financial remuneration for participating in this study.

If you have any questions about any aspect of this study or your involvement, please contact

Carolyn Kenny, Ph.D., Chair, Institutional Review Board

Tel: 805-565-7535 e-mail: ckenny@phd.antioch.edu

Ph.D. in Leadership & Change

150 E. South College

Yellow Springs, OH 45387

Two copies of this informed consent form have been provided. Please sign both, indicating that

you have read, understood and agreed to participate in this research. Return one to me and keep

the other for yourself.

Name of researcher (please print) Date

Signature of researcher

Name of participant (please print) Date

Signature of participant

134

Appendix B: Parent of Child Participant Informed Consent Form

Leadership in Small Schools

Your child, ________________________________, has been asked to participate in a research

study conducted by Charis Sharp, a doctoral candidate in the Leadership and Organizational

Change program at Antioch University, Yellow Springs, Ohio.

This research involves the study of perceptions of the process of effective leadership as experienced

by members of a small school community. I wish to conduct this study with faculty, staff, board

members, and a sample of parents and a sample of students of Billings Middle School.

The study involves, at a minimum, one conversational interview which will be arranged at your

child’s convenience during the school lunch hour and which is expected to last about 1 hour. The

interview will be taped. During the interview your child will be asked to rank a number of

statements about effective small schools. His or her rankings and some demographic data will be

recorded.

Your child’s name, individual responses, data, and comments will be kept confidential. In

addition, the recordings and all related research materials including the Informed Consent Forms

will be kept in a secure file cabinet and destroyed after the completion of my study. The results

from these interviews will be incorporated into my doctoral dissertation.

The risks to your child are considered minimal. You can withdraw your child from the study at

any time. Should you withdraw your child, his or her data will be eliminated from the study.

There is no financial remuneration for participating in this study.

If you have any questions about any aspect of this study or your involvement, please contact:

Carolyn Kenny, Ph.D., Chair, Institutional Review Board

Tel: 805-565-7535 e-mail: ckenny@phd.antioch.edu

Antioch University

Ph.D. in Leadership & Change

150 E. South College

Yellow Springs, OH 45387

Two copies of this informed consent form have been provided. Please sign both, indicating that

you have read, understood and agreed to participate in this research. Return one to me and keep

the other for yourself.

Name of researcher (please print) Date

Signature of researcher

Name of parent (please print) Date

Signature of parent

135

Appendix C: Student Participant Informed Consent Form

Leadership in Small Schools

In this project we will be interviewing you so that we can learn more about what

you think is important for a small school to work well. Your participation is

completely voluntary.

As you know, it is very important that you understand what you will be doing in

this research project, that you have discussed the project with your parents and/or

teachers, and that you ask questions about our project if anything seems confusing

or unclear to you. Is it also very important to the researcher, Charis Sharp, and

Billings Middle School that this research benefits you and the school community. I

hope to learn something that will help support and improve the work of people in

small schools. And I hope to share the knowledge with other educators and people

in small schools. In order to share, I will be writing a dissertation and perhaps

writing and publishing material from this dissertation report.

This form is given to you to make sure that you understand this project and your

participation in the project. Your name, information, responses and comments will

remain confidential. Confidential means that your name and information will not

appear in the report or shared with any other person. Please discuss this with your

parents and/or teachers. They will be able to help you with the decision and sign

for the choice you make.

PLEASE READ CAREFULLY AND SIGN IN THE PRESENCE OF YOUR

PARENTS AND/OR TEACHERS.

I have read this form and discussed the project with my parents and/or teachers and

I understand everything about my participation in this research project.

Sign both copies and keep one for your records.

Signature: _________________________________Date: ___________________

Name: (print) ______________________________________________________

Address: ___________________________________________________________

Witness:__________________________________________Date:_____________

136

Appendix D: Participant Response Sheet

+4 +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3 -4

Date: Name: Age: Sex # F # M

# Faculty # Staff # Student Grade: __6 __7 __8 # Parent # Board Member

Number of years with Billings: Number of years with a smaller school:

137

REFERENCE LIST

Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (2004). Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (3rd ed.). Melo Park,

CA: Mind Garden.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through

transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bass, B. M., & Roggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational Leadership (2 ed.). Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Beaver, G. (2003). Management and the small firm. Strategic Change, 12(2), 6.

Berson, Y., Shamir, B., Avolio, B. J., & Popper, M. (2001). The relationship between vision

strength, leadership style, and context. The Leadership Quarterly, 12(1), 21.

Blank, R. K. (1987). The role of principal as leader: Analysis of variation in leadership of urban

high schools. Journal of Educational Research, 81(2), 11.

Brown, S. R. (1980). Political subjectivity: Applications of q method in political science. New

Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Brown, S. R. (1991). A Q methodological tutorial. Retrieved February 13, 2007, from

http://facstaff.uww.edu/cottlec/QArchive/Primer1.html

Brown, S. R. (2007, March 13). Elementary questions [Msg 3]. Message posted to

http://listserv.kent.edu/archives/q-method.html.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership (1st ed.). New York: Harper & Row.

Carrico, J. L. (2003). Leadership practices of small schools, secondary principals that improve

student achievement. University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh.

Clarke, S., & Wildy, H. (2004). Context counts: Viewing small school leadership from the inside

out. Journal of Educational Administration, 42(5), 17.

Coladarci, T. (2006). School size, student achievement, and the "power rating" of poverty:

Substantive finding or statistical artifact? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the

American Educational Research Association.

Copland, M. A., & Boatright, E. E. (2004). Leading small: Eight lessons for leaders in

transforming large comprehensive high schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 85(10), 762.

Cotton, K. (2001). New small learning communities: Findings from recent literature. Portland,

OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.

138

Darling Hammond, L., Ancess, J., & Ort, S. W. (2002). Reinventing high school: Outcomes of

the Coalition Campus Schools Project. American Educational Research Journal, 39(3),

639-673.

Dufour, R., & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work: Best practices for

enhancing student achievement. Bloomington, IN: National Education Service.

Education, N. C. o. E. i. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform

[Electronic Version], 72. Retrieved July 7, 2007 from

http://www.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/title.html.

Final report of the evaluation of New York Network for School Renewal: An Annenberg

Foundation challenge for New York City. (2001).). New York, NY: Institute for

Education and Social Policy - Steinhardt School of Education - New York University.

Gardner, J. W. (1990). On leadership. New York: Free Press.

Grinnell, J. P. (2003). An empirical investigation of CEO leadership in two types of small firms.

S.A.M. Advanced Management Journal, 68(4), 6.

Hampel, R. (2002). Historical perspectives on small schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(5), 357-363.

Handy, C. (2001). A world of fleas and elephants. In W. Bennis, G. M. Spreiter & T. G.

Cummings (Eds.), The future of leadership: Today's top leadership thinkers speak to

tomorrow's leaders (pp. 29-40). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hausman, C. S., & Goldring, E. B. (1996). Teachers ratings of effective leadership: A

comparison of magnet and nonmagnet schools. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of

the University Council for Educational Administration, Louisville, KY.

Henderson, A. T., & Mapp, K. L. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school, family,

and community connections on student achievement. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational

Development Laboratory: National Center for Family and Community Connections with

Schools.

Howley, C. B. (2002). Small schools. School reform proposals: The research evidence

Retrieved February 5, 2007, from

http://www.asu.edu/educ/epsl/EPRU/documents/EPRU%202002-101/epru-2002-101.htm

Howley, C. B. (2004). Small by design: Critiquing the urban salvation of "small schools". Paper

presented at the School Structure: The Rural-Urban Divide.

Hoy, W. K., & Hannum, J. W. (1997). Middle School Climate: An Empirical Assessment of

Organizational Health and Student Achievement. Educational Administration Quarterly,

33(3), 290-311.

139

Huberman, M. (1995). Professional careers and professional development. In T. R. Guskey & M.

Huberman (Eds.), Professional development in education. New York: Teachers College

Press.

Huffman, J. B. (2001). The role of shared values and vision in creating professional learning

communities. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.

Jensen, S. M., & Luthans, F. (2006). Relationship between entrepreneur's psychological capital

and their authentic leadership. Journal of Managerial Issues, 18(2), 22.

Joyner, E. T. (2000). No more "drive-by staff development": The five learning disciplines as a

path toward comprehensive school change. In P. M. Senge (Ed.), Schools that learn: A

fifth discipline fieldbook for educators, parents, and everyone who cares about education

(pp. 385-395). New York: Doubleday.

Kahne, J. E., Sporte, S. E., Torre, M. d. l., & Easton, J. Q. (2006). Small high schools on a larger

scale: The first three years of the Chicago high school redesign initiative. Chicago:

Consortium on Chicago School Research - University of Chicago.

Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Kotter, J. P. (1999). John P. Kotter on what leaders really do. Boston: Harvard Business School

Press.

Kotter, J. P. (2000). Leadership engine. Executive Excellence, 17(4), 1.

Lambert, L. (1998). Building Leadership Capacity in School. Alexandria, VA: Association for

Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Lambert, L. (2003). Leadership capacity for lasting school improvement: Association for

Supervision and Development.

Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (2002). Transforming professional development: Understanding and

organizing learning communities. In W. D. Hawley (Ed.), The keys to effective schools:

Education reform as continuous improvement (pp. 99-116). Washington DC: National

Education Association.

Maniloff, A. H. (2004). High school size and teachers' perceptions of working conditions. East

Carolina University, Greenville, NC.

McAndrews, T., & Anderson, W. (2002). Schools Within Schools. Eugene, OR: ERIC

Clearinghouse on Educational Management.

McCluskey, N. (2002). Sizing up what matters: The importance of small schools: Center for

Education Reform.

140

McComb, J. (2000). Small Schools. Salem: Oregon State Legislature. Legislative Policy,

Research, and Committee Services.

McKeown, B., & Thomas, D. (1988). Q methodology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Meier, D. W. (1997). Can the odds be changed? Educational Policy, 11(2), 14.

Northouse, P. G. (2001). Leadership: Theory and Practice (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publishing.

O'Regan, N., & Ghobadian, A. (2005). The link between leadership, strategy and performance in

manufacturing SMEs. Journal of Small Business Strategy, 15(2), 13.

Peterson, K. D., Marks, H. M., & Warren, V. D. (1996). SBDM in restructured schools:

Organizational conditions, piece and student learning. Madison: Center on Organization

and Restructuring of Schools and Wisconsin Center for Educational Research.

Raywid, M. A. (1999). Current literature on small schools. Charleston, WV: ERIC

Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools.

Raywid, M. A. (2002). The policy environments of small schools and schools-within-schools.

Educational Leadership, 59(5), 47-51.

Raywid, M. A., Schmerler, G., Phillips, S. E., & Smith, G. A. (2003). Not So Easy Going: The

Policy Environments of Small Urban Schools and Schools-within-Schools (No. 1-880785-

26-9). Charleston, WV: Institute of Educational Sciences.

Reed, L. C. (2003). Striving for distinctiveness: A small schools case study. Paper presented at

the Annual Hawaii International Conference on Education.

Rhodes, D., Smerdon, B., Burt, W., Evan, A., Martinez, B., & Means, B. (2005). Getting to

results: Student outcomes in new and redesigned high schools. Washington, DC:

American Institutes for Research - SRI International.

Rost, J. C. (1991). Leadership for the twenty-first century. New York, NY: Praeger.

Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organization. New

York, NY: Doubleday.

Senge, P. M., Cambron-McCabe, N., Lucas, T., Smith, B., Duton, J., & Kleiner, A. (2000).

Schools that learn: A fifth discipline fieldbook for educators, parents, and everyone who

cares about education. New York: Doubleday.

Sergiovanni, T. (1999). Rethinking leadership: A collection of articles. Arlington Heights, IL:

SkyLight Training and Publishing.

141

Sergiovanni, T. J. (1990). Why transformational leadership works and how to provide it. In

Advances in Educational Administration (Vol. 1, pp. 176). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Sergiovanni, T. J. (1995). Small Schools, Great Expectations. Educational Leadership, 53(3),

48-52.

Sharp, C. E. (2005). Billings Middle School: Leadership, organizational health, and teacher

empowerment. Unpublished PowerPoint Presentation. Antioch University.

Shaw, L. (2006, November 5). Foundation's small schools experiment has yet to yield big results.

Seattle Times.

Short, P. M., & Rinehart, J. S. (1992). School participant empowerment scale: Assessment of

level of empowerment within the school environment. Educational and Psychological

Measurement, 52(4).

Supowitz, J. A. (2002). Developing Communities of Instructional Practice. Teachers College

Record, 104(8), 1591-1626.

Swidler, S. A. (2004). Naturally small: Teaching and learning in the last one-room schools.

Charlotte, NC: Informational Age Publishing.

Tichy, N. M., & Devanna, M. A. (1990). The transformational leader: The key to global

competitiveness. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Tighe, E., Wang, A., & Foley, E. (2002). An analysis of the effect of Children Achieving on

student achievement in Philadelphia elementary schools. Philadelphia: Consortium for

Policy Research in Education - University of Pennsylvania - Graduate School in

Education and Pew Charitable Trusts.

Vaill, P. B. (1989). Managing as a performing art: New ideas for a world of chaotic change. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Vaill, P. B. (1996). Learning as a way of being: Strategies for survival in a world of permanent

white water. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ven, A. H. V. d., & Delbecq, A. L. (1974). The effectiveness of nominal, Delphi, and interacting

group decision making processes. Academy of Management Journal, 17(4), 17.

Votey, S. (2002). Getting help heading the small school. Independent School.

Wallach, C. A. (2002). Converting a comprehensive high school into small learning

communities: A case study of Mountlake Terrace High School. Seattle: The Small

Schools Project - University of Washington - Center on Reinventing Public Education.

142

Wasley, P. A., Fine, M., King, L. P., Powell, L. C., Holland, N. E., Gladden, R. M., et al. (2000).

Small schools, great strides. Chicago: Bank Street College of Education.

Wasley, P. A., & Lear, R. J. (2001). Small schools: Real gains. Educational Leadership, 56(6), 5.

Westheimer, J. (1998). Among schoolteachers: community, autonomy, and ideology in teachers'

work. New York: Teachers College Press.

Wheatley, M. J. (1999). Leadership and the new science: Discovering order in a chaotic world

(2nd ed.). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Zheng, H. Y. (1996). School contexts, principal characteristics, and instructional leadership

effectiveness: A statistical analysis. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the

American Educational Research Association.

Nonprofit Fraud Detection and Prevention Techniques From A Leader’s Perspective: A Q-Methodology Study

Article

Jan 2021

DiMaris Medina-Cortes

The Culture of the Independent Progressive School

Article

Feb 2018

Dean Kloss

Development of Educational Management System in Small Primary School

Article

Full-text available

Nov 2016

The purposes of the research were: 1) to study the factors of Educational Management System in Small Primary School; 2) to investigate current situations problems and guidelines of developing educational management in small primary school, 3) to develop Educational Management System in Small Primary School and 4) to examine the results of usage Educational Management System in Small Primary School. The research was comprised of four phases: Phase1 studying the factors of educational system in small primary school; Phase 2 Investigating current situations problems and guidelines of developing Educational Management System in Small Primary School; Phase 3 Developing educational system in small primary school and Phase 4 Examining the results of usage educational system in small primary school. The instruments used for data collection in this study were a note- taking form, a questionnaire, an interview and an observation form. The statistics used for data analysis were mean, percentage, standard deviation and content analysis.The results of the research found that:1) The factors of educational system in small primary school comprised of 4 main aspects: (1) Input including with eight sub-factors; (2) Process including with two sub-factors; (3) Output including with two sub-factors; (4) Feedback including with one sub-factor.2) The results of studying current situations and problems revealed that:There are 10,877 small primaries.The problems revealed that administrators lacked of supervision and did not followed up development of student’s quality, teachers did not clear about student-centered learning, parents and community lacked of cooperation in development of student’s quality and students’ quality were lower than benchmark.The guidelines to develop found that both administrators and teachers needed to develop teachers in student-centered learning, curriculum in learning of teachers, media and technology, learning sources for learner’s learning and to ask for parents’ cooperation in development of student’s quality.3) Educational Management System consisted of 4 main aspects, 13 sub-factors including with 42 indicators4) Evaluating system factors by experts, the results revealed that there were the highest in every factor in 80%. The findings of evaluation system and manual of Educational Management System found that it was higher than 80%.5) The examining of usage Educational Management System revealed that pre- treatment of usage educational management system was in the ‘least’ level. However, post- treatment of usage educational management system was in the ‘most’ level.

Among schoolteachers: Community, autonomy, and ideology in Teachers' work

Book

Jan 1998

Joel Westheimer

Q Methodology

Article

May 1989

Teachers’ ratings of effective principal leadership: A comparison of magnet and nonmagnet schools

Conference Paper

Jan 1996

Teacher professional development

Article

Jan 2014

M. Kedzior

Transforming Professional Development: Understanding and Organizing Learning Communities

Chapter

Jan 2007

Small schools, real gains

Article

Mar 2001
EDUC LEADERSHIP

Research shows that small schools can help students achieve. To create more small schools, however, we must first overcome some significant barriers.

Can the odds be changed?

Article

Jun 1997

D.W. Meier

There are plenty of examples of small, self-governing schools of choice that successfully serve high-risk students in both the public and the private sector. If we pose the problem differently, their examples can offer systemic solutions. To do so we need to rethink how public institutions are held accountable. We need, for example, to rely on instruments of accountability that are consistent with our ends: increasing the intelligent and responsible behavior of the people closest to (and including) the learners. In New York City, an experiment in developing such a systemic alternative is currently under way with support from the Annenberg Foundation. Unless we find a way to match what we know works on a small scale with what we do on a large scale, we are likely to end up concluding that public education itself is the culprit.

Transformational leadership in teams. B. M. Bass, B. J. Avolio, eds. Improving Organizational Effectiveness Through Transformational Leadership. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA

Article

An empirical investigation of CEO leadership in two types of small firm

Article

Jan 2003

J.P. Grinnell

Relationship between entrepreneurs' psychological capital and their authentic leadership

Article

Jun 2006

Entrepreneurship and leadership have arguably been among the most explosive fields of study within recent years, yet little research attention has been given to entrepreneurs as leaders or the psychological strengths that may be related to their leadership behaviors. Using a sample (N = 76) of business founders of relatively new, small organizations, this study examined the relationship between their psychological capital (Luthans and Youssef, 2004) and their self-perceptions of authentic leadership (Avolio et al, 2004; Luthans and Avolio, 2003). Results indicate initial empirical support for this relationship. Limitations and recommendations for practice and future research conclude the article.

SMALL SCHOOL LEADERSHIP: A Q METHOD STUDY OF ELEMENTS OF LEADERSHIP SPECIFIC TO A SMALL SCHOOL SETTING

Recommended publications

Leadership, Headship and Effective Primary Schools

Challenges and research agenda of school leadership in Taiwan

Middle School Leadership: Is Teacher Leadership an Integral Part of Your School?

Generational Identity, Educational Change, and School Leadership