School Leadership in Belize

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
School Leadership in Belize the interrelationships of context, cognitive frames, and leader characteristics
Physical Description:
xii, 145 leaves : ill. ; 29 cm.
Language:
English
Creator:
Hodge, Emilia Mahmud
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Educational Leadership, Policy, and Foundations , thesis, Ph.D   ( lcsh )
Dissertations, Academic -- Educational Leadership, Policy, and Foundations -- UF   ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2003.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Emilia Mahmud Hodge.
General Note:
Printout.
General Note:
Vita.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 030442377
oclc - 83789128
System ID:
AA00013629:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text










SCHOOL LEADERSHIP IN BELIZE: THE INTERRELATIONSHIPS
OF CONTEXT, COGNITIVE FRAMES, AND
LEADER CHARACTERISTICS














By

EMILIA MAHMUD HODGE


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA































Copyright 2003

by

Emilia Mahmud Hodge































This dissertation is dedicated to the memory and honor of my mother, who was known to
those who loved her as Ms. Candy. Her strength and love, her courage in the face of
adversity, and her unwavering devotion to family and friends are qualities for which she
will always be remembered. Many times the thought that she was watching over me, the
memory of her staunch endurance through hard times, and the desire to continue to make
her proud, inspired me toward completion of this study. Although passed from this earth,
she lives in my heart forever.














ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

It is with much gratitude that I express heartfelt thanks to members of my

dissertation committee. I owe Dr. David Honeyman much gratitude for the guidance,

support, and "room to grow" that he provided as my committee chair. He was a true and

constant beacon of hope during this challenging exercise. My deep appreciation goes to

Dr. James Doud for the detailed feedback and encouraging words that he provided. All

his suggestions proved helpful in guiding my writing. My sincerest thanks also go to Dr.

Phillip Clark for the valuable suggestions that kept the dissertation on track. His

questions did much to sharpen my focus on what was truly important. I am grateful to Dr.

Anne Seraphine, an excellent teacher and model, whose statistical expertise clarified and

helped develop my skills as I faced the challenges of writing. I thank her also for the

timely advice and support she provided, as well as for her faith in me.

Special gratitude is expressed to the Minority Education Scholarship program at the

University of Florida for the moral and financial support throughout the years of graduate

study, particularly during the time of data collection and writing of the dissertation. My

deep appreciation goes to Drs. Bolman and Deal for permission to use their survey

instrument to collect data. I particularly thank Dr. Bolman for his patience and prompt

responses to my questions. My thanks go to Dr. Anne Donnelly at the Particle

Engineering Research Center for her kind advice, emotional support, and encouragement

during this entire scholarly exercise. I also thank my friends and colleagues at the

University of North Florida, particularly Drs. Lehman and Marianne Barnes whose








kindness and understanding I value highly. I especially want to express heartfelt gratitude

to Dr. Betty Flinchum, Dr. Santos Mahung, Dr. Kathe Kasten, and Dr. Pritchy Smith for

the contributions they made to my development and the development of education in

Belize.

Many thanks go to the Chief Education Officer in Belize, and the General

Managers of Catholic and Government primary schools, whose endorsement of this study

did much to facilitate the data collection process. I thank all my friends in the districts

(especially the District Education Officers, Ministry of Education personnel, and Local

Managers of Catholic primary schools) for advice and assistance during the time of data

collection. Special gratitude goes to my family in Belize for their warm, unwavering

hospitality, love, and support. I especially thank my niece Tarah for her continued

willingness to assist in the data collection process. I sincerely thank all Belizean school

principals whose participation in this study was a demonstration of their commitment to

excellence in education.

My heartfelt thanks and appreciation go to Warren, my husband, for his enduring

support and encouragement throughout the entire process. His knowledge and

understanding of the demands of the research process (and especially his deep and

abiding love) inspired me throughout this scholarly exercise. Last, but by no means least,

thanks go to my amazing daughter Miriam, for her loving concern and invariable words

of encouragement; and to my extraordinary son, David, whose constant concern and

loving home many times served as a refuge from the stresses of the dissertation process.

Finally, I thank Almighty God for the blessing of the many wonderful people in my life,

especially as I return to Him the fruit of the gifts He has given me.















TABLE OF CONTENTS



ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.................................................... ......................... iv

LIST OF TABLES .................................................................. ........................ix

A B STR A C T .............................................................................. ........................... xi

CHAPTER

I INTRODUCTION ........................................................ ..............................

Country Background................................... .... ...........................3
Church-State Partnership in Education........................ ..........................4
Statement of the Problem....................................................5
Purpose of the Study ....................................... ........................6
Definition of Term s........................... ................................. ..........................7
Assum ptions..................................... ..........................................................8
Delimitations and Limitations..................................................8
D elim stations ................................................ ........ .......... ........... 8
Lim stations ................................................................ ...........................9
Significance of the Study ................................................9
Sum m ary ................................. ............................. ................. ......... 10

2 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE......................... ...................... 12

The Setting of the Study........................................................... 12
Belize's Cultural Diversity ................................................................. 12
The Economy.............................................................. 16
Migration and Immigration...................................... .......................... 18
Belize in Central America and the Caribbean Region........................................... 18
Politics ........................................................... ......... ..... ....................... 19
The Education System ..................................................... ......... ....................20
Education development .....................................................................21
Access to primary and secondary education........................... ........... 24
Quality of educational service........................... ...................... 26
Internal efficiency of the school system ................................................... 28
Institutional arrangements for school management............................ 31
The Four Fram es ............................................................... ........................... 33









Fram es Research ........................................................... .......................... 36
Frame Use among School Administrators ...................................................38
Leadership, Management, and the School Principal ..............................................44
Leadership and Management ................................... ........................44
The School Principal.......................... ...............................46
The Context of School Leadership............................ ........................... 54
Sum m ary........................................................................... ...........................57

3 DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY ................................... .....................59

Research Questions.................................. .....................................................60
Study Population............................................ ............................................... 60
Instrum entation ................................................................... ........................... 61
Reliability of the Leadership Orientations (Self) Survey...................................63
Validity of the Leadership Orientations (Self) Survey.......................................64
Scoring the Leadership Orientations (Self) Survey.................................... ..65
D ata C collection ........................................... .................................................. 65
D ata Analysis ............................................. ..................................................67
Sum m ary .............................................................................. ...............................69

4 RESULTS AND DATA ANALYSIS......................... ................................71

D descriptive D ata................................................ ............................................72
D em graphics .......................................... ................................................ 72
Participants' Use of Cognitive Frames ....................... .............................75
M multiple Regression................................... ................................................... 80
A analysis and Results............................ .................................... .......................81
Analysis of Qualitative Data...........................................................86
School Management................................................................87
Rural and urban government primary schools......................................87
Rural Catholic primary schools................................. ..............................89
Urban Catholic primary schools.......................... ...............................90
High schools ........................ .....................................91
School Size and School Location ................................. .......................92
School size....................................... .................. ......... ...............92
The urban setting .................................................. ......................... ... .... 93
The rural setting......................... .......... ...........................93
Sum m ary ............................................................................. ...............................95

5 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS..........................97
D discussion ........................................................................ ...........................99
Dem ographics................................................................. .........................99
Frame Use among School Leaders in Belize .................................................. 102
Factors Associated with Frame Use...................... .................... ... 109
C onclusions............................................................................................................. 112








Im plications of the Findings ........................................... .................................. 114
Recommendations for Further Study ......................... .......................... 115

APPENDIX

A M AP OF BELIZE ............................................................ .......................... 118

B PERMISSION TO USE SURVEY INSTRUMENT............................................ 120

C ENDORSEMENT OF STUDY ...................................................... 122

D LETTER OF INFORMED CONSENT (SURVEY)............................................ 124

E LEADERSHIP ORIENTATIONS (SELF) SURVEY.......................................... 125

F LETTER OF INFORMED CONSENT (FOCUS GROUPS)................................. 131

G FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION GUIDELINES ................................................ 132

REFERENCE LIST ................................................... 133

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .................................................. ........................... 145














LIST OF TABLES


Table page

1 Frequency of frames used by school administrators in schools in the
U united States........................................... ............................................................... 43

2 Number of hours spent on principals' activities ........................................................52

3 The study population........................................ ................................................61

4 Description of dimensions of leadership of the Leadership Orientations
(Self) Surve ...................... .......... ............... ........................... 62

5 Reliability of the Leadership Orientations (Self) Survey.................................. ...63

6 Age, gender, and years of experience of principals of government
primary schools, Catholic primary schools, and high schools in urban
and rural Belize........................................... ........ ............ .......................... 73

7 Ethnicity and highest level of academic qualification of principals of
government primary schools, Catholic primary schools, and high schools
in B elize ........................................ .......................... ............................................75

8 Descriptive statistics of frames used by principals of government
primary schools, Catholic primary schools, and high schools
in B elize ........................................ .........................................................................76

9 Mean scores for frames used by male and female principals and
principals of urban and rural schools in Belize.........................................................78

10 Number of cognitive frames used by male and female principals of
government primary schools, Catholic primary schools, and high
schools in urban and rural Belize......................... .........................................79

11 Summary of multiple regression analyses for variables related to the
principals use of the Structural, Human Resource, Political, and Symbolic
fram es............................................................................ ....... ...................................82

12 Summary of multiple regression coefficients for variables related
to Belizean principals' use of the Structural frame..........................................83









13 Summary of multiple regression coefficients for variables related
to Belizean principals' use of the Human Resource frame........................................84

14 Summary of multiple regression coefficients for variables related
to Belizean principals' use of the Political frame .......................... ................85

15 Summary of multiple regression coefficients for variables related
to Belizean principals' use of the Symbolic frame ...................................................86

16 Focus group participants..................................................... ........................... 87

17 Mean scores on Section I of the Leadership Orientations (Self) Survey
and pattern of frames used by school principals in Belize and the
U united States.......................... ..... ................................................................ 104














Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

SCHOOL LEADERSHIP IN BELIZE: THE INTERRELATIONSHIPS
OF CONTEXT, COGNITIVE FRAMES, AND
LEADER CHARACTERISTICS

By

Emilia Mahmud Hodge

August 2003

Chair: David S. Honeyman
Major Department: Educational Leadership, Policy, and Foundations

This study investigated the cognitive frames of school leaders in Belize. The

theoretical framework used to guide the study was defined and developed by Bolman and

Deal's (1997) four-frame typology. These four leadership perspectives were the

Structural, Human Resource, Political, and Symbolic frames. The study also investigated

the influence of contextual factors (school location, school management, and school

size); and leader characteristics (age, gender, ethnicity, years of experience as principal,

and academic qualification) on principals' cognitive frame use. The study addressed two

overarching questions: What are the leadership perspectives (cognitive frames) of

Belizean school administrators? What influence do contextual and leader characteristics

exert on their cognitive frames?

Of the 192 Leadership Orientations (Self) Survey distributed to the population of

principals of government primary schools, Catholic primary schools, and high schools,

74% (143) were returned. Principals of government primary schools completed 29% of








the returned instruments, 53% were returned by principals of Catholic primary schools,

and 18% by high school principals. In addition, 14 principals participated in focus group

discussions, the data from which were used to complement the quantitative findings in a

mixed method design.

Demographics regarding school location, school size, and ethnicity were

reflections of demographics in the larger population in Belize. Despite school level, type,

and location, the pattern of frame use (Human Resource, Structural, Symbolic, and

Political, in that order) was the same for the study participants. Over 50% of the

principals used three or more frames frequently. Frame use implied that Belizean

principals were effective school managers. Regression analysis results suggested that

factors other than those investigated in this study may account for principals' cognitive

frame use.

The findings have implications for professional development of school leaders,

particularly with regard to use of the Political frame. Results also underscored the need

for further studies on the influence of school size on school leaders' performance, the

management-school leader relationship, and the disparities in educational attainment in

urban and rural settings. All these factors have implications for developing and

implementing functional education policies that reflect the multicultural nature of Belize.













CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Considering the daunting task of schools, it is important for these organizations to

have effective leadership. Barth (1990), in summarizing findings from studies on the

school principal, noted that the principal, as the key to a good school, determined the

quality of the educational program, promoted teacher growth, and set the school climate.

He further emphasized that good schools were reflections of good leadership. Others who

examined the nature of the principalship and its influence on school success also stressed

the importance of the school leader (Blumberg & Greenfield, 1986; Fullan &

Stiegelbauer, 1991; Hodgkinson, 2000; Sergiovanni, 2001; Slaughter, 1989). It is

imperative, therefore, for education systems to be continually focused on understanding

indicators of successful school leadership and increasing the leadership capacity of

school administrators who are key contributors to the education enterprise.

The need to direct attention to school leadership has been critical for small, newly

independent developing countries, which, while dealing with issues that linger from a

colonial past, also face the challenges of globalization that have resulted in greater

competition in the world market (Newton, 1996a; Girvan, 1997). Small nations like

Belize, the country setting for this study, must pay heed to the implications arising from

the technological revolution, knowledge explosion, and other forces of integration that

have resulted from living in an increasingly smaller world (Sutherland, 1998). As Louisy

(2001) observed, small Caribbean countries "face very stiff challenges of economic and

social development and significant threats of greater marginalization from the








mainstream of global economic activity" (p. 429). In 1994, Prime Minister Manuel

Esquivel reminded Belizeans of the pressures of globalization and cautioned that those

who did not adjust would be adjusted by world events (Barry & Vernon, 1995). Indeed,

economic investment in education should be of utmost importance for small nation states

where the need for excellence in school leadership must be addressed, especially since

expectations of a quality education were increasingly being defined globally rather than

locally (Hallinger & Leithwood, 1998a). Braun (1993) and Hallak (2000) argued that the

level of education and skills of its people were major determinants of where a country

would fit in the global economy. Considering the lack of "critical mass of talent and

resources" (Marshall, 1998, p. 123) in developing countries, it has been imperative to

develop available human resources and maximize their potential (Leo-Rhynie, 2001;

Stephens, 1991).

This study investigated the leadership orientation frames, also called cognitive

frames, from which school leaders in Belize operated; and also investigated factors that

influenced frame use. Frames refer to four perspectives of organizations (Structural,

Human Resource, Political, and Symbolic) that reflect the way leaders think and act as

they respond to everyday issues and problems (Bolman & Deal, 1995). The Structural

frame focuses on a rational view of the organization with an emphasis on goals, roles,

policies, procedures, use of rational analysis, formalized organizational structure, and

planning for effectiveness and efficiency. The Human Resource frame holds that

organizations exist to serve human needs and not vice versa (Bolman & Deal, 1997).

Therefore, in aligning organizational needs and human needs, the focus is on developing

skills and relationships leading to empowerment. The Political frame views organizations

as arenas or jungles. As such, interest groups compete for power and resources; conflict is








commonplace; and bargaining, negotiation, and compromise are part of everyday life.

Finally, the Symbolic frame holds that symbols, myths, rituals, ceremonies, and stories

are some of the ways by which meaning is brought to the complexity and ambiguity

within organizations. The concept of rationality is not as pervasive in this frame as it is in

the other three leadership perspectives.

This study also sought to identify the influence of contextual factors (school

location, school management and school size); and leader characteristics (age, gender,

ethnicity, years of experience as principal, and academic qualification) on school

principals' frame use. This study addressed two overarching questions: What are the

leadership perspectives (cognitive frames) of Belizean school administrators as defined

by the Bolman and Deal (1997) frame typology? What influence do principals' personal

and professional characteristics and school and community contextual factors, exert on

their cognitive frames? Since the setting for this study is the Caribbean country of Belize,

some basic information on the country's background and its system of education is

provided here in Chapter 1. A more in-depth treatment of the country and its education

system are presented in Chapter 2.

Country Background

Belize is situated on the Caribbean coast of Central America, bordered on the

north by Mexico, and on the west and south by Guatemala (Appendix A). A number of

small islets (cayes) that extend almost the length of the country are sheltered in the inner

coastal waters by the Belize barrier reef, the longest in this hemisphere (Belize

Government, 1997). The country's low coastal plain, much of which is covered with

mangrove swamp, gradually rises toward the interior (Geography of Belize, 1997). The

backbone of the southern part of the country consists of the Maya Mountains (the origin








for many of Belize's rivers) and the Cockscomb Range, with the highest point about 1124

meters above sea level. In the west, the Mountain Pine Ridge rises to about 914 meters

above sea level. The northern districts consist of much tableland comprising the region

where most of the country's sugar cane is grown. The mainland is divided into six

districts-Corozal, Orange Walk, Cayo, Belize, Stann Creek, and Toledo. The combined

area of mainland and cayes is 8,867 sq mi (22,700 sq km). The greatest length of the

country is 174 miles and the greatest width is 68 miles (Geography of Belize, 1997).

According to Barry and Vernon (1995), Belize is about the size of New Hampshire; and

twice the size of Jamaica. The climate is subtropical with a wet season usually from June

to November resulting from tropical waves, storms, and hurricanes (Geography of Belize,

1997). The dry season occurs during the rest of the year. After the devastation of Belize

City (the former capital) by Hurricane Hattie in 1961, the new capital of the country

moved to the interior location of Belmopan (Peedle, 1999).

Church-State Partnership in Education

The education system in Belize was founded on a church-state partnership, which

began when a "free school" was established in 1816 (Bennet, 1973a). In 1962 the New

Education Ordinance retained the traditional State/Church partnership but allowed

government greater control over the system (Bennet, 1973b). The denominational system

with state support gave way to more of a state system with church involvement (Miller,

1999). In this church-state partnership, the government (through the Ministry of

Education) is responsible for policy making, establishing objectives for education, paying

teachers' salaries, funding half the cost of facilities and maintenance, developing

curricular and administrative standards, training teachers, and administering national

examinations (Planning Unit, 1999). The church, on the other hand, is responsible for








overseeing the general administration and management of the denominational schools,

addressing personnel matters, funding half the cost of facility and school maintenance,

and supplementing salaries for general and local managers of elementary and secondary

schools. This partnership, established over a century ago, continues to play a significant

role in the way education is funded and managed in Belize.

Statement of the Problem

School principals in any setting face the challenges inherent in the role of the

principalship and "the problematic nature of leadership" itself (Kowalski & Reitzug,

1993, p. 200). However, principals in Belize (like those in other developing countries) are

"expected to do more with less" (Newton, 1996b, p. 39) in a situation where the

challenges of leadership are compounded by conditions characteristic of small developing

countries. Newton (1996b) observed that such conditions included a "lack of financial

resources; inadequate technical and technological resources, knowledge, and skills,...

[and] inadequate and inappropriately trained and qualified teaching and administrative

staff' (p. 31). In addition, school administrators must contend with the reality of poor

transportation services (especially in the rural areas), and cultural and linguistic

differences within their school communities. Furthermore, the education management

system was described in the 1994-1998 Education Sector Review as "highly centralized,.

.. [and] with central control of resources and decision-making, [an] unreliable mode of

communication, and limited opportunities for interventions by community stakeholders"

(Ministry of Education and Sports, 2000b, p. ii). School leaders must also address

implementation issues under the new Education Rules set out in the Handbook of Policies

and Procedures for School Services (Ministry of Education, 2000), which provides the

legal framework for educational policy development and implementation.








Principals of primary and secondary schools operate within this complex

environment as they face daily challenges that make demands on their abilities as leaders.

This study investigated the cognitive frames used by these principals in response to

demands placed on them by a multiethnic, multicultural society and by policymakers and

special interests representing the church-state partnership.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to investigate the applicability of Bolman and

Deal's (1997) leadership frame typology as a means of explaining the way school

principals exercised leadership in primary and secondary schools in Belize. This study

also examined the influence of contextual factors (school location, school management,

and school size) and principals' individual characteristics (age, gender, ethnicity, years of

experience as principal, and academic qualification) on their frame use. Contextual

factors and leader characteristics were the explanatory (independent) variables; and the

four frames, Structural, Human Resource, Political, and Symbolic were the outcome

(dependent) variables. The effect of contextual factors on principals' leadership

perspectives was examined because the settings of education in developing and

developed countries are different (Hallak, 2000; Yin Cheong, 2000). Four research

questions helped frame and structure this study:

* Is there a relationship between the explanatory variables, and the outcome variable,
Structural frame, among principals of government primary schools, Catholic primary
schools, and secondary schools in Belize?

Is there a relationship between the explanatory variables, and the outcome variable,
Human Resource frame, among principals of government primary schools, Catholic
primary schools, and secondary schools in Belize?

Is there a relationship between the explanatory variables, and the outcome variable,
Political frame, among principals of government primary schools, Catholic primary
schools, and secondary schools in Belize?








* Is there a relationship between the explanatory variables, and the outcome variable,
Symbolic frame, among principals of government primary schools, Catholic primary
schools, and secondary schools in Belize?

Definition of Terms

* Primary schools: Schools in Belize that provide primary education from Infant 1
(Grade 1) through Standard 6 (Grade 8).

* Secondary schools: Schools in Belize that provide secondary education from First
through Fourth Form (Grades 9 through 12).

* School administrator, school leader, and school principal: The individual
responsible for the operation of the school.

* Catholic managed primary school, or Catholic school: Schools in Belize that are
owned and managed by the Catholic denomination; and where the local manager of
the school is an individual (usually a priest or lay minister) affiliated with that
denomination.

Ministry of Education Schools: Schools in Belize that are owned by the
Government and are fully funded through the Ministry of Education, and that have a
local manager of the school who is an employee (the District Education Officer) of
the Ministry of Education.

Manager, Board of Management: A person or committee appointed to oversee the
operations of the school, including the performance of the school principal.

Management: The entity that owns the school (such as the Catholic management
which owns and oversees Catholic schools).

Local Manager: The person who oversees the operations of a specified number of
primary schools in that management.

Frame: A set of beliefs, attitudes, predispositions, and perceptions (mental models)
used as both windows and lenses that help determine how experiences are perceived
and ordered, thus informing the individual's actions (Bolman & Deal, 1997).

Structural Frame: The perception of organizations as hierarchical entities with
established lines of authority, roles, responsibilities, procedures, and policies.

Human Resource Frame: The perception of organizations as entities that focus on
aligning human and organizational needs.

Political Frame: The perception of organizations as political arenas where coalitions
use power to control decisions about scarce resources.








* Symbolic Frame: The perception of organizations as cultural systems with shared
meanings and beliefs.
Assumptions

Three assumptions were made in conceptualizing and conducting this study.

First it was assumed that principals in government-managed primary schools, Catholic-

managed primary schools, and high schools would participate in this study.

Second, it was assumed that the validation process would identify terminology

and items that needed revision. Given that Belize's official language is English (no back

translation needed) and because the same framework has been used to investigate

principals' leadership frames in the US and other countries, it was assumed that

functional equivalence was sufficient for using Bolman and Deal's frame theory in Belize

(Peng et al., 1991).

Third, it was assumed that these principals possessed sufficient self-understanding

to identify their cognitive frames; and therefore to provide an accurate assessment of

these constructs as measured by the Leadership Orientations (Self) Survey (Bolman &

Deal, 1990).

Delimitations and Limitations

This section addresses the delimitations and limitations under which this study

was conducted. Delimitations are boundaries imposed on the investigation by the

researcher. Limitations are existing restrictions and constraints on this study beyond the

control of the researcher.

Delimitations

This study was delimited to the total population of 192 principals of government-

managed primary schools, Catholic managed primary schools, and secondary schools, in

Belize. Another delimitation was that contextual variables included only school size,








school location, and school management. This study was also delimited to only those

leader characteristics (age, gender, ethnicity, years of experience as principal, and

academic qualification) considered relevant to the inquiry. In addition, this study was

delimited to the quantitative data collected though use of the Leadership Orientation

(Self) Survey (Bolman & Deal, 1990) and the qualitative data collected through focus-

group interviews.

Limitations

While the focus of this study was the population of high school principals and

principals of Catholic and government managed primary schools, the number of

participants was further limited to those school administrators who participated in this

study by providing quantitative or qualitative data. Although Belize is a multicultural

nation, cultural diversity was limited to the ethnicity of principals who participated in this

study. Ethnic-group information was limited to those groups with sufficient numbers of

respondents who subscribed to a particular ethnicity.

Since this study was site specific, and limited to the population of high school

principals and principals of Catholic- and government-managed primary schools in

Belize, it was not possible to generalize quantitative findings to principals of other

denominational schools in the country or to those in other countries. Focus group results

were generalizable to those who participated in the discussions. The results, then, were

applicable only to the population of study within the setting of the country studied.

Significance of the Study

This study was the first to investigate the usefulness of Bolman and Deal's (1997)

leadership frame typology as a means of explaining the way school principals exercised

leadership in primary and secondary schools in Belize. This study also examined the








influence of contextual factors (school management, location, and size) and principals'

individual characteristics (age, gender, ethnicity, academic qualification, and years of

experience) on their frame use. Findings from this study will help build a knowledge base

and serve as a possible point of departure for future studies on school leadership in

Belize. In addition, examining principals' use of frames should provide valuable

information for policy development and implementation, especially as they relate to

professional development. This was important since the continual building of

management capability and capacity were identified as necessary for improving

efficiency and effectiveness within the Belizean education system (Wessex Trust for

International Education, 1999). Findings with regard to the reliability of the Leadership

Orientations (Self) Survey for use in a developing country; and the influence of the rural

and urban context, and school management under the church-state partnership, on school

leaders' cognitive orientations will add to the literature on frame theory because the

setting in Belize, a small Caribbean nation state, is much different from the context of

school leadership in developed nations.

Summary

Chapter 1 provided information on Belize, identified the purpose and significance

of this study, and set the parameters and boundaries that delimited and limited the

investigation. Belize, a small developing nation continues to face many economic,

political, and social challenges in its struggle to keep up with the rapid pace of change in

a shrinking world.

Education has provided the greatest opportunities for preparing the workforce

with skills and abilities necessary to compete on a regional and global level. The church-

state partnership has ensured the continuation of education provision and governance.





11


Chapter 2 provides further information on Belize and the education system; and reviews

related literature regarding the use of leadership orientation frames, the nature of school

leadership and management, and the school context. Chapter 3 explains the methods and

procedures used in conducting this study. Chapter 4 presents the data analysis procedures

and results of this study. Finally, Chapter 5 discusses results, presents conclusions and

implications of the findings, and proffers suggestions for future research.













CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

This study investigated the cognitive frame orientations of school leaders in

Belize; and the contextual and demographic factors that influenced their leadership

perspectives. The first section here in Chapter 2 establishes the background of this study

by presenting a synopsis of information on Belize and its education system. The second

section examines the development of the leadership orientation frames as the framework

used in this investigation; and examines relevant frame studies. This is followed by an

examination of related literature on management; leadership; the school principal; and

finally, the importance of the context of school leadership. In addition to the related

studies conducted in Belize, pertinent literature from developed countries is also

examined.

The Setting of the Study

Unlike its Latin American neighbors, and similar to other countries in the

Commonwealth Caribbean, Belize was colonized by the British. Formerly known as

British Honduras, this country peacefully gained its independence from Great Britain in

1981 (Belize Government, 1997). Partly as a result of colonialism in the region, Belize

became a nation of people from many parts of the world. Barry and Vernon (1995)

described this multiethnic, multilingual society, as a potpourri of cultures.

Belize's Cultural Diversity

The Census 2000 (Central Statistical Office, 2000) data on ethnicity, language,

and religion revealed information on the diversity that continues to exist in this culturally








pluralistic society. Census figures showed that the largest ethnic group was the Mestizo,

who comprised approximately 49% of the total population and were mainly concentrated

in the northern and western areas of the country. The Mestizo population included

descendants of those who fled the Caste War in Yucatan in the mid 1800s. The more

recent influx of refugees from Central American countries like Guatemala, Honduras, and

El Salvador accounted for the increase in the Mestizo population (Barry & Vernon,

1995).

The second largest ethnic group, the Creoles, comprise approximately 25% of the

population, with most living in the eastern part of the country. The Creoles descended

from the intermingling of early British settlers and African slaves (Barry & Vernon,

1995). The Creole language, spoken by most of the population, is "a derivative of English

with some African words and grammar" (Peedle, 1999, p. 64).

The Maya (Yucatec, Mopan, and Kekchi) who inhabited southern Mexico,

Guatemala, northern Honduras, and El Salvador are also the indigenous people of Belize

and represent approximately 11% of the population. The Yucatec Maya of the North have

assimilated more into the Belizean way of life than have the Kekchi and Mopan Maya,

many of whom have continued to live in isolated villages in southern Belize (Peedle,

1999). The Garinagu, mainly living along the southeastern coast of Belize, comprised

approximately 6% of the population. Most of the Garinagu, a mixture of African slaves,

Carib Indians, and some Europeans, came from Honduras to Belize in 1932 (Barry &

Vernon, 1995). Every November, the Garinagu re-enact their first arrival to Belize as a

time of celebration and affirmation of their cultural identity (Peedle, 1999). Even though

most of the members of an ethnic group may have settled in a particular region of the

country, representatives from these groups were found in all six districts. In the 1990s








many Taiwanese and Chinese settled in Belize under its economic citizenship program

(Barry & Vernon, 1995). These groups as well as East Indians, Lebanese, Mennonites,

Whites, and others comprised the rest of the population. The National Population Census

2000 reported the total enumerated population of the country as 240,204 (Central

Statistical Office, 2000).

Although urbanization has been a pattern in many developing countries

(Schwartzman, 2001), in Belize the population shift has been toward the rural areas.

Population census figures showed that 52% of the population live in rural locations; and

the other 48% live in urban areas (Central Statistical Office, 2000). The Mestizos

(50.2%), Mennonites (5.8%), and the Mayas (18.7%) comprised approximately 75% of

the rural population. Immigrants from Guatemala, El Salvador, and Mexico who settled

mainly in Belize rural areas accounted for this increase in its rural population. Creoles

(44%), Mestizos (36%), and Garinagus (11%) comprised most of the urban population.

Most immigrants from the USA, China and Taiwan also settled in urban areas (Central

Statistical Office, 2000).

Despite its cultural diversity, since its independence, Belize-like former

colonies-has sought to establish its national identity (Education Task Force, 1987).

Belizean history was added to the school curriculum, the regional Caribbean

Examinations Council (CXC) examinations were adopted, and national symbols (such as

a national bird, prayer, anthem, and flag) helped define the national character (Rutheiser,

1990). The idea was that a "collective programming of the mind" (Hofstede, 2001, p. 13)

in the form of a national culture would eliminate prejudice among the different ethnic

groups in the country (Education Task Force, 1987; Krohn, 1991). According to Miller

(1984), a Caribbean writer, after independence, national identity in Caribbean countries








became associated with the Creole culture. Although this may be true in many Caribbean

countries, because of its ethnic diversity, it has still been difficult to identify a uniquely

Belizean culture. In one study of identity and ethnic nationalism in Belize, Reinhart

(1996) concluded that no overarching national identity has yet developed. Belize a

multicultural, multiethnic, and multilingual nation, may best be understood and regarded

as a country that has continued to be truly pluralistic in every sense of the word. lyo

(2000) has argued that intermarriages among the different cultural groups have brought

about a change in the character of the separate ethnic groups in Belize. He suggested that

the concept of a "mixed race" might capture, to a certain extent, the different forms of

multiculturalism that has been "created and recreated" within Belize (p.196). In sum,

issues regarding ethnicity, language, and identity have been systemic in communities and

schools, and continue to pose challenges for Belizean school leaders.

Although located in Central America, Belize has always identified with the

English-speaking Caribbean rather than Spanish-speaking Central America (Phillips,

1998). Even though the official language in Belize is English, Census 2000 data revealed

that only 54% of the population spoke this language very well, and 20% did not speak

English at all (Central Statistical Office, 2000). Those who spoke Spanish well

comprised 52% of the population. This was not surprising since Mestizos comprised the

largest segment of the population.

The Census data did not report on the other languages, such as the Maya

languages, German, Chinese, Garifuna, and Creole English (Bolland, 1987). With regard

to religion, 49.6% of the population subscribed to Roman Catholicism. Other members of

the population followed other denominations including Pentecostal (7.4%), Anglican

(5.3%), Mennonite (4.1%), and Methodist (3.5%) (Central Statistical Office, 2000). Not








surprisingly, the Roman Catholic Church has established and continue to administer the

majority of primary schools in the country.

The Economy

Iyo (1998) described the Belizean economy as small, open, and reliant upon

agricultural production. In fact, bananas, sugar, and citrus accounted for 13% of the

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and 68% of exports in 2000 (The World Bank Group,

2002). Other exports included marine products and garments. Tourism has also become

an important contributor to the economy. Belize has been portrayed by The Belize

Tourism Board (2002) as the land of many adventures and many faces, inviting visitors to

enjoy Belize's rainforests, longest barrier reef in the hemisphere, numerous Maya ruins,

and other natural attractions. Indeed, between 2000 and 2001, the tourist industry grew

by 8%. However, after the September 1 Ith tragedy in the U.S., the rate declined to 2.2%

(Musa, 2002a). Devastation in different parts of the country by hurricanes Keith and Iris,

and tropical storm Chantal also contributed to a drop in the economy.

Estimates from the 1999 Labor Force Survey (Central Statistical Office, 1999)

indicated an unemployment rate of 12.8%, which was comparable to several other

Caribbean countries (Girvan, 1997). Agriculture has been the major industry in the rural

areas as compared to wholesale and retail trade and employment in government services

in urban areas (Central Statistical Office, 2000).

Of the employed population, 25% engaged in agriculture and forestry activities.

Sixteen percent of the population worked in wholesale and retail trades, 13% were

employed by government offices, 9% in construction, and 9% in tourism (Central

Statistical Office, 2000). The growth in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2001 was

4.6% with a Gross National Income (GNI) per capital of U.S. $3,110. in the same year








(Musa, 2002b). Exports of goods and services in 2000 were 49.8% of GDP, whereas

import of goods and services in the same year was 67.7% (The World Bank Group,

2002). Obviously this high dependence on importation of goods has increased the

vulnerability of the Belize economy to outside forces (Brown-Johnson et al., 2001; Iyo,

1998). Nevertheless the exchange rate of the Belize dollar to the US dollar (BZ $2 for

U.S. $1) has held the same position since 1976 (Brown-Johnson et al., 2001). However,

an increase of the external public debt (37% of GDP in 1997 to 67.5% in 2000) has

threatened the stability of the exchange rate between the US dollar and Belize dollar (The

World Bank Group, 2002).

A disparity continues to exist between the wage earnings of those who work in

rural areas and those who work in urban areas. Although the size of the household was

larger in rural than in urban areas, 6% of the rural population earned less than $1,440

($720 U.S.) while only 1% of those in urban areas were in the same income bracket

(Central Statistical Office, 2000).

Of special interest was the fact that, of the rural population between ages 14 and

19, only 33.7% attended school and 29% were employed. On the other hand, of the

57.9% urban population between ages 14 and 19 who attended school, only 18% were

employed. More young people in rural areas were employed and fewer continued their

education than their urban counterparts.

Poor access to education, employment, water and sanitation, transportation, and

communication were some reasons why the level of poverty in rural areas was higher

than that of urban areas. In addition, although pockets of poverty exist throughout the

country, the Toledo and Stann Creek districts of the south continue to be more

marginalized than the other districts (Brown-Johnson et al., 2001).








Migration and Immigration

The migration of Belizeans to other countries (particularly the USA) as well as

the influx of immigrants into Belize has adversely affected the economic sector. The total

number of emigrants for the year 2000 was over 2000. Population Census figures

(Central Statistical Office, 2000) showed that up to the year the census was taken, the

greatest numbers of emigrants were females (55%), with the emigration rate higher in

urban than in rural areas.

Most of the emigrant population held at least a high school diploma. However,

many others who left the country had already acquired a tertiary level education-an

indication of the continuing brain drain on the country. Nevertheless, Rutheiser (1990) in

a study of culture, schooling and neo-colonialism in Belize, found that education was the

major reason why most Belizeans intended to move to another country. On the other

hand, the influx of new immigrants from Central America has placed additional stresses

on the social services sector, especially with regard to education and health (Salazar,

2000; Shoman, 1994).

Belize in Central America and the Caribbean Region

In addition to the social, economic, and cultural challenges confronting Belize, the

country must contend with the ever-present threat of the Guatemalan claim. Even though

Belize has been a sovereign and independent nation since 1981; the Guatemalan claim to

Belize continues to be an issue of dispute. Guatemala claimed that it inherited Belize

from Spain when it gained its independence from that country (Shoman, 1992). Proposals

for the settlement of this controversy were discussed throughout Belize and at the United

Nations in preparation for a referendum to settle the issue (Musa, 2002a). However, the

referendum, set to take place in November 2002 simultaneously in Guatemala and Belize








did not happen; and a final resolution to the controversy has not yet been reached

(http://www.belizetimes.bz/news/story/1418.sthtml).

As a member of the Commonwealth Caribbean, Belize established a number of

partnerships in the region and with other governmental and international agencies. These

included the Caribbean Development Bank, European Economic Community, the Inter-

American Development Bank, and the Canadian, Taiwanese, Mexican, and Cuban

governments (Government of Belize, 1999). Belize also has membership in the United

Nations, the Nonaligned Movement, the Organization of American States, and the

Caribbean Community (CARICOM) (Government of Belize, 1999).

Watson (1982) has argued that post-colonial countries (such as Belize) are still

dominated by the richer world and depend on external agencies to fund major projects

Even though they do not directly occupy the developing country; advanced nations still

exert subtle control over small nation states through the inequalities of wealth and power.

This situation exists because of the poor economic state in which many developing

countries remained after independence. In fact, the World Bank's assistance strategy for

Belize until the year 2005 includes a focus on poverty reduction; improvement of access

to, and the quality of basic services; and improving the environment to promote economic

diversification and growth among members of the private sector (The World Bank

Group, 2002).

Politics

Politically, Belize operates under a two-party system. The parties are the People's

United Party (PUP) and the United Democratic Party (UDP). Since 1998, the PUP has

been the ruling party and the UDP the opposition party. National elections are held every

five years. The recent general elections on March 5, 2003 resulted in the present PUP








government remaining in power for the next five years (http://www.belize-

elections.org/elections2003/). The next elections will be in the year 2008. The Prime

Minister is the leader of the country and head of a cabinet of ministers responsible to the

legislature (The Economist Intelligence Unit, 1999). The legal system continues to reflect

the British judicial system with the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the United

Kingdom as the final court of appeals. The judges of the Privy Council, because they

reside in England, on the one hand, are free from Commonwealth Caribbean political

pressure and interference; however, on the other hand, they are removed from the social

and economic conditions in the Caribbean region. Consequently, there has been the move

to create a Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) to serve as a final court of appeals for the

member states of the Caribbean community (CARICOM). Nonetheless, there would still

be recourse for appeal to the Privy Council in England (CARICOM, 2000).

The Education System

Primary education (Grades 1 through 8) is compulsory for children between the

ages of 5 and 14 (Ministry of Education, 2000). Those fortunate enough to have sufficient

sponsorship and academic qualifications may afterward enter high school because

education at this level is not compulsory nor fully government sponsored. Post secondary

education in Belize is accessible through a number of Junior Colleges or Sixth Forms and

the University of Belize (Planning Unit, 1999). In August 2000, the amalgamation of five

pre-existing tertiary level institutions formed the University of Belize ("Education

Minister," 2000).

The overall management of the education system continues to be the

responsibility of the Ministry of Education (MOE), headed by the Minister of Education.

The Chief Executive Officer for this Ministry, among other duties, serves as advisor to








the Minister of Education. The Chief Education Officer, in collaboration with other

Education Officers and school managers has responsibility for co-coordinating and

supervising the education system (Ministry of Education and Sports, 2000a). The general

function of the Ministry of Education in Belize is to

work in partnership and in consultation with the churches, communities, voluntary
organizations, private organizations and such other organizations and bodies
which the Ministry may identify and recognize as education partners for the
sufficient and efficient provision of education in Belize. (Ministry of Education,
2000, p. 5)

Partners of the MOE include organizations such as the Social Investment Fund

(SIF), Raleigh International, Basic Needs Trust Fund, and Managing Authorities

(Elrington & Morter-Lewis, 2001). Other partners comprise various educational

institutions in Cuba and Mexico. These two countries provided technical assistance in the

establishment of Centers for Employment Training (CETs) in Belize, which were funded

through a loan from the Caribbean Development Bank (Elrington & Morter-Lewis,

2001). Belize has also received assistance from Peace Corp and British volunteers who,

among other projects, helped provide training in information technology for teachers.

Education development

The ruling political party, according to its political agenda, is the major

determinant of the direction and development of the education system in Belize. In 1989,

the PUP government negotiated with the World Bank and the UK government for

funding (BZE $25 million) of the Belize Primary Education Development (BPED)

project; the implementation of which began in 1992 (Thompson, 1999). The three major

components of this project included teacher education; development of education-

particularly in the areas of curriculum assessment and evaluation; and planning and

management, including improvement of school facilities (Thompson, 1999). As a








component of the BPED project, primary principals participated in professional

development training. Additionally, the government initiated the establishment of District

Education Centers and District Education Councils.

In 1993, the United Democratic Party (UDP) won the national elections. The

campaign promise of free education was translated to mean free tuition for secondary

students and students in the second year of Sixth forms and Junior colleges (Thompson,

1999). The UDP government continued the implementation of the BPED during its term

of office, which ended in 1998 when the PUP prevailed in the national elections. In 1999

the BPED project came to an end and with it the funding that had supported the education

initiatives. During this time the development of the Handbook of Policies and Procedures

for School Services was completed and signed into law in August 2000 ("Education

Rules," 2000). Since that time, the Education Rules has provided the legal framework for

the policies and procedures for the system of schooling, including responsibilities of

educators and new licensing requirements for teachers.

The current education administration under the PUP government expressed two

major concerns in its education charter-"universalisation of access, and quality

education" (Ministry of Education and Sports, 2000b, p. 12). To address these concerns, a

"comprehensive Education Sector Transformation" program (Ministry of Education and

Sports, 2000b, p. 26) was developed to address policy in the areas of: (a) access and

equity-at both primary and secondary levels, (b) curriculum-including development of

computer skills, (c) finance, (d) management and governance-including decentralization

of decision making to regional centers, (e) efficiency-maximizing use of educational

resources, (f) teacher development, and (g) student achievement (Wessex Trust for

International Education, 1999). The intent of this Belize Education Sector Improvement








Project (BESIP) is to continue reform of the education sector. The scope of the BESIP

would be much broader than the BPED project, which had mainly addressed reform at

the primary level. However, to date, reform under the BESIP has been minimal because

the government has not yet secured funding for its implementation.

The Belize government has been hoping to secure financing for the nine-year

BESIP from the World Bank (WB) and UK's Department for International Development

(DFID) by means of a phased Adaptable Program Loan (APL) (Ministry of Education

and Sports, 2000b). Small countries, by necessity, must depend on external funding

agencies, with the reality that such dependency affords the funding agency a certain

degree of control over the country's development (Louisy, 2001). Evidently, the

conditions set by any lending agency must be met before any loan may take effect

(London, 1993). Requested funds from the World Bank for the BESIP would amount to

$U.S. 12.4 million, with additional requests from the United Kingdom of 3 million. The

Government of Belize would provide an additional BZE $4.5 million. In anticipation of

funding, an upper primary curriculum has been developed as well as a manual for the

inspection of schools. In an effort to keep up with technological advances, the MOE has

established computer labs in the six district education centers and has facilitated the

provision of computer training for teachers (Elrington & Morter-Lewis, 2001). In

addition, computers have been supplied to those primary schools with the infrastructure

to support their installation.

The preceding section provided an overview of the system and the movement

towards education improvement in Belize. This study focused on the principals of

primary and secondary schools. Therefore, the next section will provide a review of

education at these two levels. The description of the primary and secondary schools is








organized using one element of the policy analysis framework suggested by Haddad and

Demsky (1994) in their work on developing countries. Information is organized under

four headings: (a) access to primary and secondary education, (b) quality of educational

services for primary and secondary students, (c) internal efficiency of the education

system, and (d) institutional arrangements for the management of primary and secondary

education. In providing an organized account, this description treats access, equity, and

efficiency separately, however, as cautioned by The World Bank Group (2002) one must

remain aware of the overlap in these areas.

Access to primary and secondary education

Education in Belize has been compulsory for children between the ages of 5 and

14 years (Ministry of Education, 2000). This policy challenges the system to deliver basic

education (primary level education); especially since Population Census figures reported

that 41% of the population was below the age of 15 (Central Statistical Office, 2000).

School age children comprised 26.6% (approximately 61,742) of Belize's population. Of

this number, 56,767 students were enrolled in the 233 primary schools in the 2000-2001

school year (Planning Unit, 2001). This figure represented approximately 92% of the

population between 5 and 14 years of age (Planning, Projects, and Performance

Management Service Area, 2002). The remaining 8% were either students enrolled in

secondary schools, or students who may have dropped out of school. As Cayetano (1992)

observed, the rate of enrollment was bound to be higher than attendance rates.

Nevertheless, in his assessment of primary education in the Caribbean, Miller (1989)

argued that basic education standards and enrollment patterns in Commonwealth

Caribbean countries, including Belize, overlapped with those in industrialized countries.

This was evident in the fact that, despite the weaknesses in the system, level of teacher








and principal training, and school accommodations; the region had reached universal

basic education with the percentage of enrollment in primary education over 90%.

The rural/urban distribution of primary schools has always posed a great

challenge to the education system and has been the cause of grave disparities in access to

education. Of the 233 primary schools, 173 (74%) were located in rural areas, with the

remaining 60 (26%) in urban areas (Planning Unit, 2001). Given that most primary

schools are located in rural areas; distance and a poor transportation system limit

students' access to schools. In many cases, teachers and principals experienced a difficult

time reaching these rural schools every day, especially in communities without teacher

housing and where the teaching staff, and sometimes the principal, commuted daily

(Chulin, 1990).

According to the Abstract of Education Statistics (Planning Unit, 2001), there

were 35 secondary schools during the 2000/2001 school year with a total enrollment of

13,143 students. The government managed 37% of these schools, while the other 63%

were denominational, private or community managed schools. The limited spaces

available in secondary schools is a factor that has prevented automatic entry into high

schools. The 1994-98 Education Sector Review described the capacity of secondary

schools as grossly inadequate, allowing access to only 60% of those who graduated from

primary schools (Ministry of Education and Sports, 2000b). However, Elrington and

Morter-Lewis (2001) in their report on the state of education, noted that the establishment

of two new government secondary schools and the introduction of a shift system had

increased access to high schools. Additionally, the new Centers for Employment Training

(CET) in the six districts have increased access to technical and vocational education

(Elrington & Morter-Lewis, 2001).








Regardless of increased spaces at the secondary level, parents of secondary

students must still find a substantial amount of money for secondary education (despite

the free education policy that was implemented in 1993). Parents fund the costs of school

uniforms, textbooks, and all other fees charged by the school. The fact that many parents

have been unable to meet these expenses has denied access to secondary education for

many children (Brown-Johnson et al., 2001). Under the proposed BESIP, universal

access to education would be realized for all children between the ages of 3 andl6

(Ministry of Education and Sports, 2000b). Although there will be an increase in the

numbers of schools, there will still be the need to take into account those elements such

as geographic location and social factors that may still limit access to education.

Quality of educational service

Inequities have existed in the quality of education at the primary level in urban

and rural areas because schools in rural areas were those with fewer trained teachers, less

support for resources from the MOE, and a poor infrastructure (Ministry of Education

and Sports, 2000b). As Cayetano (1992) observed, it was general knowledge that "urban

schools were favored over rural ones in terms of the necessary inputs, including quality

teachers, school facilities, equipment, and teaching/learning materials" (p. 2). Although

this observation was made in 1992, and there have been improvements in basic education

brought about through the BPED project, the disparities between these schools have

continued to exist. In fact, Cayetano's observations about rural education were echoed by

a 1994-1998 appraisal of the education sector. The report found the education system in

Belize to be "highly inequitable" with unequal distribution of resources that favored the

"advantaged" (Ministry of Education and Sports, 2000b, p. 7). Many of the advantaged

were those in urban areas.








Many teachers and principals have not been formally trained for the position-

especially those who work in rural primary schools. For the 2001-2002 school year,

55.6% of the teaching force at primary level was trained (Planning, Projects, and

Performance Management Service Area, 2002). With regard to secondary teacher

qualifications, the same Diges reported 19.9% of secondary teachers had received

teacher training as well as held undergraduate or graduate degrees in a particular content

area, 35.7% were undergraduates with degrees in their subject areas, 8.9% held teacher-

training certificates, and the other 35.5% were teachers with Associate Degrees. In

addition, the 1994-98 Education Sector Review (Ministry of Education and Sports,

2000b) indicated that many high school principals were not trained in education

leadership and management. This however, has been addressed to a certain extent since a

number of principals have received Master's degrees in Educational Leadership through a

joint program between the University of Belize and the University of North Florida

("Address of Hon. Cordel Hyde," 2002).

Under the BPED project's textbook loan scheme, textbooks were supplied to

those schools that needed them (Moguel, 1998). However, the BPED project ended in

1999 and the development of a new national curriculum for primary schools brought

about the need for new materials and the use of different teaching strategies. The

National Comprehensive Primary School Curriculum was founded on the four pillars of

learning-learning to live together, learning to be, learning to know, and learning to do-

proposed by the UNESCO International Commission on Education for the Twenty-first

Century (Ministry of Education, 2000). The curriculum was developed with the intent to

prepare students to become "innovative, literate, numerate, and critical thinkers"

(Elrington & Morter-Lewis, 2001, p. 61). However, effective delivery in the classroom








continues to depend on many factors; including the necessary textbooks, materials,

facilities, and adequately trained teachers and principals.

At the secondary level, the curriculum has been driven by the Caribbean

Examinations Council (CXC) and Caribbean Secondary Examinations Council (CSEC)

regional examinations, which most students take in the senior year of high school. The

1994-98 Education Sector Review (Ministry of Education and Sports, 2000b) reported

that overall, Belizean students who took the CXC examinations did not do very well,

especially in English, Mathematics and Science.

Internal efficiency of the school system

According to a Ministry of Education official, efficiency meant that funds were

expended properly and that human resources were used to the maximum capacity (E.

Raymond, personal communication, August, 2000). Two other indicators of internal

efficiency are student flow through school and the student/teacher ratios. A description of

the relevance of these factors to primary and secondary education in Belize follows.

Funding for education in school year 1999/2000 was a little more than $74

million, which constituted 22.5% of the government's annual recurrent budget (Elrington

& Morter-Lewis, 2001). However, MOE officials acknowledged that "budgetary

constraints" still limited the effective delivery of education services" (Elrington &

Morter-Lewis, 2001, p. 81). School supplies and materials for government-managed

schools were not adequately provided, and managing authorities were not reimbursed the

70% cost for new buildings, extensions, and repairs as promised.

The budget allocation of $43.3 million for primary education was more than the

$20.2 million for secondary schools. Even though much more was spent on primary than

secondary education, recurrent expenditure per primary student for 2001-02 averaged








$829 (U.S. $414.50) whereas the spending per secondary student was a little more than

twice that amount (BZE $1,752 = U.S. $876) (Planning, Projects, and Performance

Management Service Area, 2002). Of the budget allocation for primary education, 95.7%

was used to cover salaries; and at the secondary level, 78.2% of the budget was used for

salaries. However, government high schools are fully funded by the government. The

government also pays tuition fees for all secondary students in the country. More money

was spent per student at secondary level than at the primary level. However, for many

students, primary schooling becomes the highest level of formal education attained.

With regard to student flow through school, the 1994-98 Education Sector Review

reported high grade level retention (in Belize referred to as grade repetition) rates at

secondary and primary level and a high dropout rate at secondary level (Ministry of

Education and Sports, 2000b). The average primary school grade level retention rate for

2000-01 was 8.3% with the rate for males (8.9%) being higher than the rate for females

(7.7%). The average secondary school grade level retention rate for 2000-01 was 8.4%

with the rate for males (9.5%) being higher than the rate for females (7.3%). The overall

primary school completion rate for 2000-01 was 32.7%. This was the percentage of

students who completed primary school in eight years. The remaining 67.3% were either

retained in some grade or dropped out of school.

The average dropout rate of 0.7% at the primary level for school year 2000-01

was relatively low. However, this figure may not have been accurate since the distinction

between actual student dropout and transfers to other schools was unclear (Planning,

Projects, and Performance Management Service Area, 2002). The average dropout rate

for secondary school students was higher than for students at the primary level. The

average secondary school dropout rate for 2000-01 was 9.7%, with the dropout rate for








males (11.5%) higher than the dropout rate for females (8.1%). Dropout and grade level

retention rates, especially for boys at the secondary level were issues that led to

inefficiency within the education system.

Although the rate of transition (87.4%) from primary to secondary schools

decreased in Toledo district (a highly rural area) during 2000-01, it increased in the urban

areas of Belize, Cayo, and Corozal districts (Planning, Projects, and Performance

Management Service Area, 2002). Population census figures showed that in the year

2000, 17.4% of those in urban areas were enrolled in secondary schools and only 7.4% of

the rural population had reached the secondary level. As reported by Elrington and

Morter-Lewis (2001), the results of the Primary School Examination (PSE) for rural

schools were lower, and secondary education was less accessible than for those who

graduated from schools in urban areas. High schools did not have to contend with

urban/rural disparities as much as primary schools since only 10 (28%) high schools were

located in rural Belize and the other 25 (72%) were located in urban areas of the country

(Planning Unit, 2001).

The Education Statistical Digest (Planning, Projects, and Performance

Management Service Area, 2002) indicated that the overall student-teacher ratio for

primary schools was 25:1. The 1994-98 Education Sector Review reported that this was a

generous student/teacher ratio, which, when coupled with relatively high salary levels

compared to other Latin American and Caribbean countries, caused inefficiency in the

education system (Ministry of Education and Sports, 2000b). However, in large high

schools and primary schools there were still many classes with more than 25 students. In

rural primary schools, where classes were sometimes combined, one teacher was

frequently assigned to more than 25 students (Brown-Johnson et al., 2001).








Institutional arrangements for school management

The General School Services (GSS) division of the Ministry of Education is

responsible for overseeing school support services-including transportation,

instructional materials, and disbursement of funds for primary and secondary schools

(Elrington & Morter-Lewis, 2001). Government schools at both primary and secondary

levels are fully funded by the Ministry of Education and managed by Ministry of

Education personnel Since the review of the Education Sector for 1994-1998, which

described the organization, governance, and administration of education as ineffective,

the Ministry of Education has continued to establish the institutional mechanisms to

support decentralization of the management of education (Ministry of Education and

Sports, 2000b). In preparation for this, the MOE constructed District Education Centers

in each district in Belize, increased personnel in each Center, and established Regional

Councils in each district (Elrington & Morter-Lewis, 2001).

In a study of decentralization in Venezuela, Tracy (1997) cited Rondinelli and

Cheema's distinction between two types of decentralization. In deconcentration, a limited

amount of decision-making and authority was given to officials at the local level, whereas

in devolution, officials were allowed extensive decision-making authority.

Deconcentration, according to McGinn (1992), occurred when officials were moved from

central to local offices, whereas, in devolution, responsibilities at the local level included

responsibility for budgetary decisions. In Belize, although more decision-making has

occurred at the local level through the District Education Centers and the Regional

Councils, "the system [was] still pretty much centralized" since Central Education

Administration continued to make major decisions with regard to education funding

(District Education Officer, personal communication, October, 27, 2002). Although








deconcentration of authority has taken place, it remains to be seen to what stage

decentralization of the education system will evolve.

Either the MOE or the Catholic Church managed the primary schools in this

study. The Roman Catholic Church managed 49% of all primary schools, the government

managed 18%, and 33% were managed by smaller religious denominations (Methodist,

Anglican, Nazarene, Assemblies of God, Pentecostal, and Seventh Day Adventists).

According to the Handbook of Policies and Procedures for School Services (Ministry of

Education, 2000), primary school management has been responsible for maintaining the

school building as well as ensuring that schools were equipped with the necessary

furniture, materials, equipment and other support necessary for provision of education. In

addition, school managers were responsible for establishing and carrying out procedures

for personnel management. School management continues to be the "main conduit for

communication between the Ministry of Education and schools" (Ministry of Education,

2000, p. 57). School management, through the local managers for primary schools, was

also responsible for ensuring appropriate disbursement of school funds; and reporting

results of annual school inspections to the Regional Education Councils.

For Catholic- and government-managed primary schools, there is a General

Manager in a central office in Belize City. However, local managers in the districts are

assigned the oversight of specific schools. Catholic priests or Catholic lay ministers are

usually the local managers for Catholic schools. The District Education Officers,

employees of the Ministry of Education, are the local managers for government schools.

High schools are managed by committees referred to as boards of management.

The "rules of procedure" for these boards are detailed in the Handbook of Policies and

Procedures for School Services (Ministry of Education, 2000, pp. 202-206). In general,








the purpose of the board of management was to "oversee the effective management and

operation of the school," and must distinguish "its responsibility for the mission and

management of the school from the responsibility of the school administration" (Ministry

of Education, 2000, p. 202). The day-to-day affairs of the school must be left to the

school principal.

This section provided a review of Belize's education system, with emphasis on

primary and secondary education and the rural and urban school setting. Of particular

interest was the duality of responsibility for educational governance and policymaking

shared by the church and government. Both entities have contributed and continue to

contribute to the development of education in Belize.

The Four Frames

To arrive at their cognitive frames typology, Bolman and Deal (1995)

consolidated the major schools of organizational thought into four perspectives, which

they called frames or vantage points. These frames, or perspectives of organizations,

helped leaders filter information and perceptions, assisting them in ordering the world

and deciding what action to take.

Frames are similar to what Senge (1990, p.175) referred to as "mental models"

that consist of the "images, assumptions, and stories" in the heads of leaders, determining

how they made sense of the world and what action they took as a result of their mental

models. The "head" of leadership, which has to do with the "theories of practice" that

leaders have developed and which inform reflection in different situations, are also

similar to frames and mental models (Sergiovanni, 1999, p, 21). Weick and Bougan's

(2001) cognitive maps described as concepts and relations used to understand

organizational situations, are also analogous to frames.








Bolman and Deal (1997) theorized that leaders who understood what frame they

used, especially those who were not limited to only one perspective, were better able to

understand and manage the day-to-day complexities and ambiguities within

organizations. Morgan (1997), in agreement, described the organization as complex,

multifaceted, and paradoxical; and contended that leaders needed the ability to use

different perspectives or metaphors in order to meet the challenges posed by

organizations and the demands of leadership. In fact, chaos theory suggested that

organizations mirrored natural organisms and systems; and were chaotic places where the

environment was constantly changing (Snyder et al., 2000). In conditions like these,

especially in a newly independent developing country like Belize where school leaders

are expected to be active in preparing students to function in a technologically advanced

and global economy; principals must be versatile and flexible in responding to the

environment. They need to have conceptual maps or mental models that help them

understand problems and issues from multiple perspectives. This study examined whether

the Bolman and Deal (1997) typology was among the frames or vantage points that

Belizean principals used to understand and solve problems in their schools.

The Structural frame emphasized roles and relationships where players operate

within a formal structure created to fit the environment of that organization.

Responsibilities were assigned to employees, rules and policies were created, and

management hierarchies coordinated the activities of subordinates in the organization

(Bolman & Deal, 1995). Restructuring of the organization was perceived as the means by

which problems were remedied. The view of organizations from a structural perspective

was that of factory or machine where functions, tasks, and processes were highly ordered

and routinized (Bolman & Deal, 1997). The Structural frame was supported by the work








of theorists such as Blake and Mouton (1964), Fayol (1919/1949), Gulick (1937), Taylor

(1911), and Weber (1947).

The Human Resource frame viewed organizations as inhabited by individuals

with needs, emotions, prejudices, skills, and limitations. This frame was built on the

assumption that organizations existed to serve human needs because people and

organizations were intricately linked- in a sort of symbiotic relationship- to fulfill the

other's needs (Bolman & Deal, 1995). In such a relationship, when the fit between the

individual and the organization was a match, both benefited. However, the opposite was

true when a mismatch occurred (Bolman & Deal, 1997). The Human Resource

perspective viewed organizations as families. This frame was based on the work of

human resource theorists like Alderfer (1972), Argyris (1957), Maslow (1954),

McClelland (1985), and McGregor (1960).

The Political frame viewed the organization as a jungle or arena where there were

scarce resources and where power and influence continually determined how resources

were allocated among individuals and groups (Bolman & Deal, 1995). Conflict was part

of the daily routines within the organization, and power was the most important resource.

Coalitions formed as issues were addressed; and decisions were made through

bargaining, negotiating, and jockeying for positions (Bolman & Deal, 1997). Political

skill and acumen were useful in devising solutions, much like what Machiavelli

(1513/1994) proposed over four centuries ago. Bolman and Deal (1997) used the work of

theorists such as Etzioni (1961), Kotter (1985), and Pfeffer (1992) to develop this

perspective.

The Symbolic frame regarded the organization as a theatre or a carnival held

together more so by shared values and culture than by policies and goals. Because of








ambiguity and uncertainty; symbols, rituals, ceremonies, stories, heroes, and myths

provided meaning, direction, and purpose for the players in the organization's dramatic

production (Bolman & Deal, 1995). Life was perceived as more fluid than linear and

things were complex and always changing in the organization. Problems arose when

symbols lost their meaning, and ceremonies and rituals were not potent any more. The

solutions to these problems came in reviving symbols, myths, and metaphors. In

developing this frame, Bolman and Deal (1997) relied on the work of theorists such as

Cohen and March (1974), Fulghum (1995), and Schein (1992).

Frames Research

Bolman and Deal (1995) contended that it was only when leaders and managers

viewed organizations from these four perspectives that they were better able to appreciate

and deal with the complexity that existed in organizational life. While developing their

theory, the authors conducted studies where they collected both qualitative and

quantitative data. Two general assumptions undergirded their studies. First, the ability to

reframe in an increasingly complex and ambiguous world led to clearer judgment and

effective actions. Second, because leadership was contextual, different situations required

different patterns of thinking. The studies sought to discover what frames leaders used

and also validated the different forms of the Leadership Orientations Survey (Bolman &

Deal, 1990) instruments.

In one article, Bolman and Deal (1991a) reported the results from qualitative and

quantitative studies they conducted to discover what frames leaders used and to verify the

usefulness of the Leadership Orientations Survey. Qualitative data were collected from

leaders' (145 U.S. higher education administrators, 48 U.S. school principals, 15 U.S.

school superintendents, and 220 Singaporean school administrators) written descriptions








of a critical incident regarding leadership in a particular situation. After coding the data,

the narratives showed that leaders rarely used two frames and almost none used four. The

greatest difference was that American administrators wrote more about politics when

compared to administrators in Singapore. Quantitative data were also collected from 90

senior managers in multinational corporations in the U.S., Europe, Africa, Asia,

Australia, and Latin America; 145 U.S. higher education administrators, 140 U.S. school

administrators, and 229 school administrators and Ministry of Education personnel in

Singapore.

Contextual differences in frame patterns were evident in that the Americans

scored higher on the Structural and Human Resource frames than on the Political and

Symbolic frames, whereas Singaporean administrators scored higher on the Symbolic

frame. For both Singaporean and U.S. administrators, results of regression analysis

showed that the Symbolic and Political frames were reliable predictors of leadership

effectiveness, whereas the Human Resource and Structural frames predicted managerial

effectiveness. Context referred to country setting and included the general differences

that existed in language and culture between the U.S. and Singapore. With regard to

gender, there were no significant differences in frame use among male and female

administrators. That study was also significant because the Cronbach's alpha reliability

for the Leadership Orientations (Self) Survey was found to be between .91 and .93.

In another study, Bolman and Deal (1992) collected quantitative data from 50

principals in Broward County, 90 principals and central office administrators from

Beaverton, Oregon, and 274 principals from the Republic of Singapore using the

Leadership Orientations (Self) Survey instrument. In addition, different groups rated each

leader using the Leadership Orientations (Other) Survey. Results of factor analysis








demonstrated that clusters of responses were consistent with the frames. Using regression

analysis, they demonstrated that for both samples the Structural frame was a better

predictor of managerial effectiveness, while the Symbolic frame was the best predictor of

leadership effectiveness.

The different contexts referred to in these studies were the country settings of

Singapore and the U.S. The dominant frame for Singaporean principals was the Structural

frame, whereas the Human Resource frame was dominant for Americans. The Symbolic

frame was the best predictor of leadership effectiveness and was most frequently used by

leaders in Singapore, whereas those in America used the Political frame. With regard to

gender, in Singapore the Human Resource and Political frames were related to

effectiveness in women but not in men. In the U.S. these same two frames were better

predictors of success for men than women. Results from both quantitative and qualitative

studies suggested that the ability to use multiple frames was critical for effectiveness as

manager and leader.

The fact that the Leadership Orientations (Self) Survey was useful in a context

different from the U.S. was encouraging since this questionnaire was the instrument used

to collect quantitative data for this dissertation. This researcher also collected qualitative

data through focus group interviews. However, unlike Bolman and Deal (1991a) who

used the qualitative data as a major part of their study to identify the frames used by

participants, this study used the qualitative data to provide a more detailed picture of

participants' perceptions of the contextual setting of leadership in Belize.

Frame Use among School Administrators

Some of the frame studies conducted have investigated the leadership orientation

of U.S. college and university presidents (Bensimmon, 1989; Borden, 2000; Echols Tobe,








1999), students in a management program in Sydney (Dunford & Palmer, 1995), chief

executives of non-profit organizations in America (Heimovics et al., 1993), and school

superintendents in the U.S. (Flak, 1998; Harlow, 1994; Strickland, 1991). However, this

section will examine five studies that were directly related to school administrators since

that is the population of study for this dissertation.

Cote (1999) investigated the leadership orientation frames of a stratified random

sample of 382 elementary principals in Florida using the Leadership Orientations (Self)

Survey. Principals (N= 214) responded that the Human Resource frame was used most

frequently, followed by the Symbolic, Structural, and Political frames, respectively.

Statistical operations of ANOVA, Chi-square, and Linear regression were used to analyze

the data. With regard to frame use, the findings showed that the Symbolic and Structural

frames were significantly related to effectiveness as a leader, whereas effectiveness as a

manager was significantly related to use of the Structural, and Political frames.

Approximately 28% of the participants reported use of three or more frames. Use of three

or more frames was an indication of multi-frame use. Female principals were more likely

to use the Structural, Human Resource, and Symbolic frames and males seemed to rely

more on the Human Resource frame.

Johnson (1995) surveyed a random sample of 100 principals and 60 teachers in

public and Catholic schools in Los Angeles, California. Sixty-two principals responded to

the Leadership Orientations (Self) Survey. With regard to management behavior, the

majority of principals used the Human Resource frame. Sixty-nine percent of the

principals reported use of more than three frames. Sixty-three percent used the Human

Resource frame as their first choice, followed by the Symbolic, the Structural, and the

Political frames, respectively. With regard to leadership behavior, 40% of the principals








used more than two frames. The Human Resource frame was the first choice, followed by

the Structural, and then the Symbolic frames. The least used was the Political frame.

In another study, Rivers (1996) identified leadership orientation frames of 123

elementary, middle, and high school principals in Orange County, Florida and related

factors that influenced frame use. The response rate on the Leadership Orientations (Self)

Survey was 91.8%. Fifty-three percent of the principals used multiple frames. The most

dominant frame used was the Human Resource frame. This was followed by the

Structural, Symbolic, and Political frames, respectively. Fifty-eight percent rated

themselves as top leaders, and 43.4% rated themselves as top managers.

In 1994 Suzuki investigated the leadership frames used by 124 Asian American

K-12 principals in California. The largest percentage of principals used the Human

Resource frame, followed by the Structural, Symbolic, and Political frames, in order of

preference. Forty-eight percent of the principals used three or more frames. Females used

the Human Resource frame more than males. The predictor variables of age and number

of Asian students in schools had no significant effect on leadership orientation.

In another study, Durocher (1995) examined the leadership orientations of 70

public school administrators identified in the February 1993 issue of The Executive

Educator to determine common cognitive orientations that may have accounted for their

success as leaders. Participants completed the Leadership Orientations (Self) Survey.

Leaders showed greatest use of the Human Resource frame, followed by the Political,

Symbolic, and Structural frames, in order of preference. That study found that 45.7% of

the administrators used three or more frames most of the time. Seventy-six percent rated

themselves as top managers and 93% rated themselves as top leaders. Females used the

Structural and Human Resource frames to a significant extent more than males and








showed greater use of multiple frames than males. Male and female administrators used

the Human Resource frame most of the time. There was no relationship between years of

experience and use of frames. When compared with those administrators in seven other

studies, the 70 successful administrators showed highest use of the Political and

Symbolic frames, and lowest use of the Structural frame. Male administrators showed

least use of the Structural Frame.

These five studies (Cote, 1999; Durocher, 1995; Johnson, 1995; Rivers, 1996;

Suzuki, 1994) were conducted in the United States, which was a different context from a

developing country like Belize. It was especially interesting to note that all principals in

these five studies made the greatest use of the Human Resource frame and in four of the

studies the Political frame was least used.

Of great interest was the finding from Durocher's (1995) study that showed

school administrators using the Political frame much more frequently than those in the

four other studies. Of particular note was the fact that Durocher's sample was comprised

of those public school administrators who were already identified in The Executive

Educator as successful leaders. Bolman and Deal's finding (1991a, 1992) that the Human

Resource and Political frames were predictors of success for managers and leaders were

confirmed in Durocher's study of effective administrators.

In scoring the Leadership Orientations (Self) Survey, four studies (Durocher,

1995; Johnson, 1995; Rivers, 1996; Suzuki, 1994) reported means of the four subscales in

Section I of the instrument as the score for frame use. Among these, five was the highest

score possible. Durocher (1995) used the mean score of 4.0 or greater to indicate

consistent use of that frame. In Cote's (1999) study the score was calculated using ratings

from items in Sections I and II. Her study showed the least number of principals using








three or four frames even though her study was the largest sample of the five studies. The

difference may have been due to the alternative method of scoring used in that study

when compared to the others.

Three of these studies (Cote, 1999; Durocher, 1995; Rivers, 1996) found that

some principals did not use any particular frames. Apparently these were principals who

scored less than the cut off score used to indicate frame use. Nevertheless, in view of the

fact that these participants were administrators in their schools, there must have been

some leadership perspective that these principals used in carrying out their role as leaders

(Table 1). This finding underscored a limitation of using the Bolman and Deal (1997)

typology to study leadership perspectives-the confinement of leader orientations to four

perspectives.

Although limited to four perspectives, the use of frame theory as the organizing

framework that undergirded this study was sufficiently broad, yet discriminating enough

to provide insight into the cognitive perspectives of Belizean school administrators,

especially since this study was exploratory, considering it was the first study of its kind

conducted in Belize.

These five studies also examined contextual and personal variables in relation to

school administrators' frame orientation. In these studies, gender seemed to be the factor

that was the greatest determinant of frame preference. Both Johnson (1995) and Suzuki

(1994) found that male and female principals preferred the Human Resource frame,

however, more females used this frame than did males. Similarly, Rivers (1996) found

that male and female principals showed greater use of the Human Resource frame, but

females used the Symbolic frame to a greater extent than males, and males used the

Political frame more than females. Durocher's (1995) study also showed that female








administrators made greater use of the Structural and Human Resource frames than did

male administrators.

Table 1

Frequency of Frames Used by School Administrators in Schools in the United States
Frames"
Studies Structural Human Resource Political Symbolic


Cote (1999) N= 214
Elementary Principals (FL)


Johnson (1995) N= 62
Elementary Principals (CA)


Rivers (1996) N= 113 Elem.,
Mid. & H.S. Principals (FL)


Suzuki (1994) N= 124 Elem.,
Mid. & H.S. Principals (CA)


Durocher (1995) N= 70 Public
School administrators (U.S.)

SFrame use was ranked from 1 =


3 1 4 2
(27.5% used 3 or more frames; 6.5% used four)
(2.85% used no frames)

3 1 4 2
(45 % used 3 or more frames; 8.3% used four)
(All used frames)

2 1 4 3
(49.4% used 3 or more frames; 21% used four)
(8% used no frames)

2 1 4 3
(48% used 3 or more frames; 11% used four)
(All used frames)

4 1 2 3
(45.7% used 3 or more frames; 24.3% used four)
(12.9% used no frames)
frame most used, to 4 = frame least used.


With regard to contextual factors, Cote (1999) found that although school

enrollment did, school socioeconomic status did not significantly influence principals'

frame use; however, those principals with lower levels of education relied mostly on the

Structural frame. In Durocher's (1995) study there was no relationship between

administrators' age and frame use.

Additionally, Johnson (1995) found no significant difference in frame use

between public school and Catholic school principals. However, Catholic school

principals made greater use of the Symbolic frame with no significant relationships noted

between specific contextual factors and frame use.








This study examined the influence of socioeconomic and political factors in the

Belizean context on principals' leadership orientation. Some of the contextual variables

were similar to and others were different from those identified in these five studies (Cote,

1999; Durocher, 1995; Johnson, 1995; Rivers, 1996; Suzuki, 1994) because the contexts

of education for these five studies were different from that in Belize. One objective of

this study was to investigate the influence of urban and rural settings, school

management, and school size on principals' cognitive frame use.

Leadership, Management, and the School Principal

Leadership and Management

Many authors have distinguished between the processes of leadership and

management. Bennis and Nanus (1985) observed that leaders focused on vision and

operated using spiritual and emotional resources, such as value commitment, to influence

others. The manager, however, operated using the physical resources of the organization,

which included the capital, human skills, raw materials and technology.

Bennis (1994) proposed that managers were administrators and leaders were

innovators; the managers were copies and the leaders originals; the managers maintained

while leaders developed; managers relied on control, had a short range view, and asked

how and when; while leaders relied on trust, had a long-range perspective, and asked

what and why. The managers had their eyes on the bottom line while the leaders had

their eyes on the horizon; and the managers did things right, while leaders did the right

things.

In describing the difference between leadership and management, Kotter (1995)

suggested that management was about coping with complexity, whereas leadership was

about coping with change. To deal with complexity, managers planned, budgeted and set








future targets, whereas a leader addressed complexity by setting direction. Managers, to

achieve their plan, organized and selected staff; whereas leaders worked to bring about

the alignment of people. Managers implemented plans through control and problem

solving, while leaders achieved vision by motivating and inspiring others. Hersey,

Blanchard, and Johnson (2001) contended that the concept of leadership was broader than

the concept of management. Managers specifically focused on achieving goals of the

organization, whereas leaders' influence on others did not have to occur in an

organizational setting.

In reporting results from studies on college presidents, senior administrators, and

central office and school district administrators, Bolman and Deal (1991a) found that the

Structural frame-which emphasized adherence to rules, procedures, and policies-was

the best predictor of managerial effectiveness but the worse predicator of leadership

effectiveness. The Symbolic frame, where the focus was on establishing shared values,

culture, and meaning through use of rituals, ceremonies, myths, and stories was the best

predictor of leadership effectiveness, but the worse predictor of effectiveness as a

manager. These results seemed to support the differences between managers and leaders

as indicated above.

Gardner (1990) argued that there was overlap in the roles of leader and manager

and that it was not wise to contrast managers and leaders too sharply. The effective

leader/manager was different from the "general run of managers" (p. 4) in that such

leaders thought long-term and looked beyond their unit to the larger world, reaching out

and influencing constituents beyond their immediate jurisdiction. Leaders emphasized

both vision and renewal and had the political skills to cope with challenging questions of

multiple constituencies. Hersey, Blanchard, and Johnson (2001), although suggesting that








activities of leadership and management may be different; noticed an overlap in these

processes because everyone was a manager in certain situations and a leader in others. In

fact they argued that "achievement of organizational objectives through leadership"

constituted management (Hersey, Blanchard, and Johnson, 2001, p. 9).

Newton (1996a) contended that schools needed management to establish and

maintain daily routines to carry out the basic purpose for their existence; however,

leadership that went beyond management was needed to infuse the school with

excitement, innovation, and freshness. Lunenburg and Omstein (2000) further argued that

the organization needed good management to survive, for good management ensured that

day-to-day activities and routines kept the organization together. Leaders, they observed,

created a broader vision. Consistent with this line of thinking, Greenfield (1995)

proposed that leadership, more so than management, was particularly important for

effective school administration because of the school's environment that placed demands

on the principal.

The School Principal

This study investigated the usefulness of Bolman and Deal's (1997) leadership

frame typology as a means of explaining the way school principals exercised leadership

in primary and secondary schools in Belize. This study also examined the influence of

contextual factors and principals' individual characteristics on their frame use.

Greenfield (1995) described the work of the school principal as action-oriented,

reactive, and involving much face-to-face communication. The principal faced many

unpredictable situations in an environment where the work occurred at a rapid pace with

frequent interruptions. All this was compounded by constant pressure to maintain a

school that ran smoothly in an atmosphere of complexity and uncertainty. This








observation was demonstrated by a number of studies, both quantitative and qualitative,

that provided a deeper understanding of the role of the school administrator.

One such seminal study was Wolcott's (1973) ethnography on the job of the

principal, which showed, among other things, that Ed Bell, the elementary principal of

study, spent the greatest part of the time at school on a series of seemingly endless

encounters. Greenfield (1995) observed that Bell did not systematically differentiate and

prioritize problems, but saw every problem as having the same degree of importance and

responded in whatever way he perceived to be the most appropriate. Similarly,

Mintzberg's (1973) study of five managers showed that they did a substantial amount of

work that was taxing and occurred at an unrelenting pace. Most of the activities in which

they engaged were brief in duration and managers did not spend much time on planning.

Martin and Willower (1981) later used Mintzberg's technique to examine the work

activities of five high school principals in a northeastern state over a period of one week.

A year later, Kmetz and Willower (1982), conducted a similar study of the behavior of

five elementary principals (four males and one female) in two northeastern states in the

U. S. and compared the behavior of both groups of principal. Results from these two

studies are relevant to this dissertation because they revealed details of the work behavior

of elementary and high school principals.

Observations of elementary (Kmetz & Willower, 1982) and high school principals

(Martin & Willower, 1981) yielded information about the percentage of time spent in

various activities including desk work, phone calls, unscheduled meetings, and scheduled

meetings. High school principals and elementary principals worked approximately 50

hours per week, and spent the greatest percentage of their time on unscheduled meetings

(27.5 % for high school principals and 32.5% for elementary principals). These sessions








were very short, spontaneous, arranged in haste, and most of the time involved internal

school personnel. Elementary principals spent a greater percentage of time (18.6%) on

deskwork when compared to high school principals (16.0%). In general, principals'

activities were often interrupted and these interruptions led to their engagement in more

than one activity at the same time because of the hectic work pace. The picture that

emerged from these studies showed that the principal performed a high volume of tasks

that were for the most part varied, fragmented, and brief (lasting approximately 4

minutes). Their work was interrupted over 50% of the time. However, these studies

showed that the activities and interruptions were fewer for elementary than high school

principals. The work pace of the elementary principal was observed to be less hectic than

the work pace of the high school principal, and elementary principals had more contact

with parents and superiors than did high school principals.

It seemed that the principals' behavior was controlled by external events rather

their deliberate decision on where to allocate and spend their time. In their review of

studies on the principalship, Fullan and Stiegelbauer (1991) supported this observation

when they concluded that overload and fragmentation were typical of the school

principal's work.

Other studies on the principalship examined the influence of personal and

contextual factors on principal behavior. In a study of 619 school principals selected by

purposive sampling from schools in seven states in the U.S., Salley et al. (1979)

examined the principal's occupation through analysis of their responses on the Job

Functions Inventory. Multivariate Analysis of Variance was used to compare the groups

of principals at the 0.01 level of significance. The type and size of school accounted for

the greatest number of differences in the way the principals described their jobs. There








were no significant differences with regard to principals' age and years in present

position. Hence, contextual factors were more significantly related to the principals' job

than personal characteristics.

In another study, Smith et al., (1992) examined the effects of personal and

contextual factors on the administrative behavior of 160 school principals (74 elementary,

36 middle/junior high, and 50 senior high). The data were collected using the

Instructional Leadership Inventory (ILI), which indicated the frequency with which

principals performed 48 tasks in five categories. Three subscales elicited administrators'

perceptions of different aspects of the work environment. A second instrument, the

School Administrator Assessment Survey (SAAS) used four scales to measure the values

administrators considered important to their work life. Regression analysis procedures

were used to analyze the data. Principals' personal characteristics, including age, gender

and experience, accounted for 14% of the variance in administrative behaviors. Older

principals spent more time establishing an instructional climate than those principals who

had been on the job fewer years.

With regard to contextual variables, school, district, and community

characteristics accounted for 15% of the variance in principals' administrative behavior.

Results showed that neither school environment, nor community involvement influenced

principals' behavior as much as staff involvement and interaction. Leadership behaviors

(establishing school mission and promoting instructional climate) were more influenced

by personal characteristics than by school context, community, or district forces. Those

principals with greater years of experience focused more on management than leadership

activities. This study provided an indication of the relationship of personal and contextual

factors on principals' behaviors.








According to Lockheed and Verspoor (1991), the job of primary school principals

in developing countries was similar to that in other countries in that it was multifaceted

and complex. The principal was expected to "maintain relationships among the schools,

community, and parents; supervise teachers, oversee maintenance of facilities and

equipment, manage a range of reporting and record keeping duties, and in small schools,

teach as well" (Lockheed and Verspoor, 1991, p. 125). However, in developing countries,

all these tasks were carried out in conditions where there was a chronic shortage of

clerical support, operating funds, and resources for staff development. In developing

countries such as Belize, principals were selected from among teachers and formal

training before appointment did not exist, however, as assistant principal, the principal

would have been informally trained for the job of school administrator. In developed

countries, the situation was far different in that principals engaged in formal training

before taking up the principalship.

In Belize, training for primary principals was one of the components of the

BPED project. However, this project came to an end in 1999 and so did the formal

training for primary principals. The school effectiveness studies (Ministry of Education

and Sports, 1999a; 1999b) that were conducted to develop a monitoring instrument for

primary and secondary schools in Belize provided some insight into the principalship at

these levels.

The results of these studies have been interpreted with caution, since reliability

figures for the subscales were not provided for the instrument. In addition, the results for

the primary principals were based on 40 respondents selected through convenience

sampling. This dissertation will help to fill the gap in the literature on school leadership

and provide a deeper understanding of the principalship in Belize.








The school effectiveness studies conducted by the Belize Ministry of Education

and Sports (1999a, 1999b) surveyed the total population of 29 high school principals in

the country, and 40 (16% ofN= 247) primary school principals. The survey instrument

gathered data on context indicators (school location, management, size, home language of

students, parents' educational level and socioeconomic status), input indicators

(quantity/quality of resources-including financial, material and human), process

indicators (school operations/procedures, educational leadership and curriculum), and

output indicator (student achievement). Data were also collected on the quantity of time

principals spent on activities as shown in Table 2.

Educational leadership activities included issues related to the instructional

program (curriculum, timetabling, textbooks, educational technology, performance

review), record keeping, and teacher professional development. Although these activities

were described as leadership activities, they were mostly concerned with maintaining the

operations of the school.

The high school principals were more involved with student affairs,

administrative duties, and educational leadership activities than were primary principals.

It was obvious, however, that primary principals spent more time than high school

principals on teaching activities. Most high school principals did not teach and had

secretaries and assistant principals. However, this was not the case in most primary

schools.

Similar to principals in studies by Martin and Willower (1981) and Kmetz and

Willower (1982), the principals in Belize also worked more than 40 hours per week.

However, the primary school principals in this study, particularly those in small schools,

spent over 50% of their time teaching.








Table 2

Number of Hours Spent on Principals' Activities
Activity High school principal Primary principal
Educational leadership 13 4
Administrative/organizational duties 16 4
Student affairs 9 3
Contact with parents 4 4
Professional development 4 4
Other 4 1
Teaching/Supervising 6 24
TOTAL number of Hours 56 44

With regard to primary schools, the Handbook of Policies and Procedures for

School Services (Ministry of Education, 2000) provided guidelines on whether principals

were expected to teach as well as administer. If the school's enrolment was 210 or below,

principals were to administer and teach. In small multigrade schools, mostly found in

rural areas, principals were responsible for performing both roles. They administered and

managed the day-to-day affairs of the school and taught one, two, or perhaps even three

grade levels. Schools with enrollment between 210 and 330 students were administered

by one principal who was not required to teach. Schools with more than 330 students had

a non-teaching principal and one, two, or three assistant principals depending on the size.

There has been no budgeted position of secretary for these schools. Primary schools with

secretaries were those that raised funds to hire someone for this position. Note, however,

that most high schools have had secretaries and non-teaching principals. Cathers (1998)

described the harried nature and multiplicity of roles that belonged to the primary school

principal in Belize. In his visit to schools, he observed the principal being

a nurse for scrapes, bruises, headaches.....social workers and counselors for
abused and neglected children...fund raisers and bookkeepers...contractors and
maintenance persons...vendors. They have to attend numerous meetings and
workshops... supposed to be teacher trainers and teacher evaluators. They have
considerable paper work. When teachers are absent, principals are substitute








teachers. They must do all the above without a secretary/receptionist. In small
[rural] schools, principals must [also] travel, and teach full time. (p. 25)

This description seemed congruent with Harber and Davies' (1997, p. 65)

observation that the role of principals in developing countries was "messy, fragmented,

untidy, and event-driven." They illustrated the "general dogsbody" aspect of the head

teachers' job with an example of the principal in Botswana who fixed the leaking roof

and water pipe.

The Handbook of Policies and Procedures for School Services (Ministry of

Education, 2000) provided a detailed description of the formal roles and responsibilities

of the principals of schools in Belize. Principals were responsible for "implementation of

management decisions and policies, ... [and] day-to day school administration;

provision of educational leadership; and leading development in the school" (p. 60). For

this to happen, principals were expected to engage in activities that included, among

other things, the overseeing of student placement and progression through school;

enforcing school codes; maintaining a safe environment; managing, assessing, and

directing staff; maintaining school records; monitoring facilities; and preparing reports.

Furthermore, principals were required to provide educational leadership with

regard to pedagogy, curriculum, and assessment. To do this, they were expected to direct

the formulation and implementation of the curriculum; conduct clinical supervision of

teachers; and liaison with the school management, the MOE, and other external agencies.

They were also required to coordinate staff development activities. The role of the

principal seemed to be more consistent with that of a manager, than with that of a leader.

This observation was in keeping with Stephens' (1991) description of the head

teacher in developing countries as one who managed rules and procedures and was so








caught up in doing this that there remained little time for innovation and improvement.

The details of duties were clearly prescriptive with the emphasis on ensuring that things

were done right (Bennis, 1989).

The Context of School Leadership

Although the principal has been deemed important for the success of the school,

Sergiovanni (2001) has argued that the mere presence of the principal did not ensure that

the required leadership was being provided since the circumstances in which they found

themselves may have prevented them from being the leaders they wanted to be. Other

theorists and researchers (Bolman and Heller, 1995; Dimmock & Walker, 2000; Scott,

1992) have argued that school leadership should not to be studied in a vacuum for it was

not disconnected from physical, cultural, and social factors in the environment. The fact

that leadership did not occur in isolation from followership has been well documented

(Boylan, 1995; Hersey, Blanchard, & Johnson, 2001). This study concentrated on

variables in the school and community that were relevant to the setting in Belize.

In a secondary analysis of data from 98 elementary principals in Tennessee,

Hallinger and others (1990) used the Far West Lab model of principal leadership, which

located the leader within the context of the school and broader community to investigate

what factors influenced leadership behavior. Both parental involvement and student

socioeconomic status (SES) were shown to have a positive impact on principal

leadership. The researchers concluded that school leadership was complex and context-

dependent and that examination of exogenous variables was critical to the understanding

of principal leadership.

Pfeffer and Salancik's (1978) theory of resource dependency has contributed to

the understanding of the context-dependent nature of the principalship. These researchers








postulated that organizations could not escape from their contextual settings for they

needed to engage in relationships and transactions with others in the environment to

acquire needed resources. In fact, Harber and Davies (1997) went so far as to suggest that

schools in developing countries were ineffective because of their "context-specific

fragility" (p. vii). They contended that this situation existed because schools in

developing countries were "essentially contextually driven" since they were shaped by

"colonial history, global economic relationships, local cultural interaction, and post-

independence political needs" (Harber and Davies, 1997, p. 2).

The school leader, in addition to dealing with the internal environment of the

school, must also pay attention to the external environment. The view of the school as an

open system has been the perspective taken in this dissertation. This perspective was

appropriate because of the obvious dependency on partnerships that have been important

for education development in Belize.

The two school effectiveness studies (Ministry of Education and Sports, 1999a;

1999b) that were conducted to develop a monitoring instrument for primary and

secondary schools in Belize provided some perspectives into the context of the

principalship at these levels. These studies surveyed the total population of 29 high

school principals, and 16 % (40) of primary school principals. The data on context

indicators presented a glimpse into the setting in which principals in Belize operate.

Both studies found that the dominant language spoken at home was Creole, then

Spanish. Nevertheless, Phillips (1998) found that the use of Creole in the classroom was

discouraged. The argument for teaching Creole in schools has been advanced by several

influential Belizeans, including Sir Colville Young, the Governor General of Belize.

However, English has remained the official language of instruction in schools although








many of the students in Belize have started primary school with a different home

language from that used in the school (Ministry of Education and Sports, 2000a).

With regard to school resources, results from these studies showed that high

schools were much better off than primary schools. For example, libraries with updated

materials were found in 85% of the high schools and in only 20% of the primary schools.

Whereas 64% of high school teachers had adequate teaching materials, this was true for

only 35% of the primary schools. All high schools had a principal's office, whereas a

principal's office was found in only 35% of the primary schools. While 82% of the high

schools had a staff room, only 15% of the primary schools had a staff room.

Overall, although only 16% of the primary schools were surveyed, the results

showed a greater lack of resources in primary than in high schools. While the government

has provided the significant proportion of the funding for operating expenses at primary

and secondary levels, schools are still compelled to raise much of their operating budget.

According to the two studies, the government provided about 77% of the funding for

primary schools, the schools raised about 12% of the funding, 2% came from school

management, and the remaining 9% from other sources.

For high schools, those study results showed that the government funded 86% for

salaries and tuition leaving the schools to find the means to fund the balance. Schools'

success with fund raising depended mostly on the affluence of their communities and the

fundraising abilities of the principal and teachers. Bennis (1994, p. 44) argued that

leaders were those who "mastered" the context, whereas managers "surrendered" to the

context.

Furthermore, Gardner (1990) observed that different settings provided different

degrees of support for the leader. Obviously then, the leader would be more likely to look








best in a supportive context. In Belize the more supportive context, with regard to

availability of resources, would most likely mean the urban setting.

Researchers such as Heck (1998) and Hallinger and Leithwood (1998b) have

surmised that leadership studies in different cultural settings have not paid adequate

attention to their environmental context. This study investigated the usefulness of Bolman

and Deal's (1997) leadership frame typology as a means of explaining the way school

principals exercised leadership in primary and secondary schools in Belize and focused

particularly on the influence of school location, school size, and type of school

management on school principals' frame use. However, more in-depth information on

school leaders' perceptions of their environment with respect to these contextual

variables was elicited from principals in focus groups, the results of which are presented

and discussed in later chapters of this dissertation.

Summary

Chapter 2 provided an overview of the setting within which school principals

functioned in Belize. Belize has managed to provide access to primary education for over

90% of its school-age children. Partnerships with other agencies have been one way that

resources have been maximized in Belize. Chapter 2 here also presents a description of

the development of the frames and the usefulness of this framework to inform this study,

as well as a review of relevant frame studies on the principalship. These studies

demonstrated that Bolman and Deal's (1997) four-frame typology was a useful

framework for investigating the way school principals exercised leadership. The third

section of Chapter 2 examined the relationship between leadership and management as it

related to the school principal. The last section established the importance of the

environment in which the school leader worked, with particular reference to resource





58


dependency theory as important for understanding school leadership in developing

countries. This review of related literature provided a foundation for this inquiry into the

leadership perspectives of principals in the Belizean setting. Chapter 3 presents the

methodology used in conducting this study.














CHAPTER 3
DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

This study investigated the applicability of Bolman and Deal's (1997) leadership

frame typology as a means of explaining the way school principals exercised leadership

in primary and secondary schools in Belize. This study also examined the influence of

contextual factors and principals' individual characteristics on their frame use. This study

was conducted using a mixed method design since both quantitative and qualitative data

were collected and analyzed (Cresswell & Shope, 2002). However, priority was given to

quantitative methods while the qualitative strategy of focus-group interviews was used to

collect supplemental information with which to provide a "more complete picture" of the

principal within the Belizean context (Morse, 2003, p. 189). In the absence of leadership

studies in Belize, the intent of the focus-group discussions was to collect and analyze

qualitative information about the context of education in Belize from the principal's

perspective. Use of more than one type of data provided a better and more realistic

picture of the principals' cognitive frame use as well as the factors influencing their

leadership orientation. In other words, multiple data sources yielded information that was

richer, and more revealing than a single data source (Morse, 2003; Gay & Airasian,

2000). Quantitative data were gathered using the Leadership Orientations (Self) Survey.

Although questionnaire data were based on self-reports and had drawbacks, it

nevertheless provided participants with a "structured opportunity to reflect on their

practice" (McEwen & Salters, 1997, p. 70).








Research Questions

This study investigated the applicability of Bolman and Deal's (1997) leadership

frame typology as a means of explaining the way school principals exercised leadership

in primary and secondary schools in Belize. This study also examined the influence of

contextual factors (school location, school management, and school size) and principals'

individual characteristics (age, gender, ethnicity, years of experience as principal,

academic qualification) on their frame use. Contextual factors and leader characteristics

were the explanatory (independent) variables; and the four cognitive frames were the

outcome (dependent) variables. This study focused on answering four questions:

* Is there a relationship between the explanatory variables, and the outcome variable,
Structural frame, among principals of government primary schools, Catholic primary
schools, and secondary schools in Belize?

* Is there a relationship between the explanatory variables, and the outcome variable,
Human Resource frame, among principals of government primary schools, Catholic
primary schools, and secondary schools in Belize?

* Is there a relationship between the explanatory variables, and the outcome variable,
Political frame, among principals of government primary schools, Catholic primary
schools, and secondary schools in Belize?

* Is there a relationship between the explanatory variables, and the outcome variable,
Symbolic frame, among principals of government primary schools, Catholic primary
schools, and secondary schools in Belize?

Study Population

In this study, the entire population of 192 principals of Government primary

schools, Catholic primary schools, and high schools was sampled. The population

included 115 principals of Catholic primary schools, 42 principals of Government

primary schools, and 35 high school principals. Principals' age ranged from 20 to 62

years, and the four major ethnic groups (Creole, Garinagu, Mayan, and Mestizo) were

represented in the population. Of this population (Table 3), most (76%) were principals








of rural schools, and the majority were males (65%). Most primary school administrators

(86%) were principals of rural schools. However, most high school administrators (72%)

were principals of urban schools.

Table 3

The Study Population
Principal School School Location Gender of Principals
Management Urban Rural Female Male
Primary Catholic 17 98 43 72
Primary Ministry of 5 37 14 28
Education
High school Board of 25 10 11 24
Management
Totals 47 145 68 124
(24%0) (76%) (35%) (65%)

The focus-group discussions were carefully planned and designed to elicit

participants' perceptions on a particular topic of interest in a permissive, non-threatening,

and comfortable environment (Kreuger, 1994). Given that focus groups are best

conducted with participants from similar backgrounds and experiences, attention was

paid to the type of school management, location, level; and principal's gender, as criteria

for selecting participants. Principals with similar characteristics created homogeneous

groups with comparable experiences conducive to positive group dynamics, thereby

increasing participation in the discussions (Greenbaum, 2000).

Instrumentation

The Leadership Orientations (Self) Survey (Bolman & Deal, 1990) instrument,

which corresponded with the four frames, was used to identify principal's cognitive

perspectives. The instrument included subscales to represent each frame. The instrument

included 40 items divided into three sections. Section I presented 32 questions to be rated

on a Likert type scale of I (Never) to 5 (Always) depending on "how often" each of the








items applied to the participant. Eight items were included to test each of the four frames.

There were two subscales in each of the four frame orientations on eight dimensions of

leadership as shown in Table 4 (Bolman & Deal, 1991b).

Table 4

Description of Dimensions of Leadership of the Leadership Orientation (Self) Survey


Structural (8 items)
1. Analytic
(items 1, 9, 17, 25)
2. Organized
(items 5, 13, 21, 29)

Human Resource (8 items)
3. Supportive
(items 2, 10, 18, 26)
4. Participative
(items 6, 14, 22, 30)

Political (8 items)
5. Powerful
(items 3, 11, 19, 27)

6. Adroit
(items 7, 15, 23, 31)

Symbolic (8 items)
7. Inspirational
(items 4, 12, 20, 28)
8. Charismatic
(items 8, 16, 24, 32)


Thinks clearly and logically; approaches problems
with facts and attends to detail.
Develops clear goals and policies; holds people
accountable for results.


Concerned about the feelings of others; supportive
and responsive.
Fosters participation and involvement; listens and
is open to new ideas.


Persuasive, high level of ability to mobilize people
and resources; effective at building alliances and
support.
Politically sensitive and skillful; a skillful negotiator
in face of conflict and opposition.


Inspires others to loyalty and enthusiasm;
communicates a strong sense of vision.
Imaginative, emphasizes culture and values; is
highly charismatic.


Section II consisted of six forced-choice items, which, according to Bolman and

Deal (1992), produced a sharper differentiation among the frames because participants

could not rate themselves high on everything. There were four subscales in this section

with six statements to test each frame. In Section III participants were asked to rate their

overall effectiveness as a manager or leader on a scale of 1 (Bottom 20%) to 5 (Top

20%). The final section of the questionnaire collected participants' demographic

information. In the current study, participants responded to all three sections. However, in








the analysis, only responses to the eight-item measures in Section I were used to identify

frame use because the developers of the instrument noted that the forced-choice items in

Section II were better suited for measuring variance within people than between them (L.

Bolman, personal communication, October, 2002).

Reliability of the Leadership Orientations (Self) Survey

Bolman and Deal (2001) reported internal consistency reliability statistics,

specifically coefficient alpha ranging from .79 to .93 for the eight-item frame measures in

Section I and the six-item frame measures Section II of the Leadership Orientations (Self)

Survey (Table 5). The reliabilities were computed for the Leadership Orientations (Self)

Survey based on ratings by 1,309 managers in business and education. The alpha

coefficients for items in Section 1 were all higher than the reliability coefficients for

Section II items. The alpha coefficients for the Political frame were lower when

compared to the reliability coefficients of the other subscales.

Table 5

Reliability of the Leadership Orientations (Self) Survey
Frame Coefficient alphaa Coefficient alphab
(Section I) (Section II) (Section I) (Section II)
Structural .92 .84 .77 .63
Human Resource .93 .84 .77 .73
Political .91 .79 .73 .52
Symbolic .93 .84 .79 .54
aReliability figures for Bolman and Deal (2001); reliability figures for this Belize study.

The coefficient alpha reliabilities of the subscales in Sections I and II were also

computed based on the ratings from the 143 participants in the current study. The alpha

coefficients for the subscales in Section I ranged from 0.73 to 0.79. Coefficient alpha for

Section II subscales were much lower than those for Section I. Only the responses from

Section I items were used to compute the scores used in the data analysis in this study.








The reliability coefficients for the subscales (Bolman and Deal, 2001) indicated that the

instrument was adequate for use in this study because the values exceeded 0.70 (Nunnally

& Bernstein, 1994).

Validity of the Leadership Orientations (Self) Survey

The content validity of an instrument may be assessed by those considered to be

experts in the field (Dooley, 2001). Three Belizeans judged the content validity of the

questionnaire for use in Belize. These included a primary school principal, a director of

the University of Belize's teacher education program, and a Ministry of Education

official. All three reported that the content of the questionnaire was applicable to

principals in Belize and that the instructions would not be difficult to follow.

Factor analysis, an important tool in determining construct validity (Aiken, 1997)

was used by Bolman and Deal (1991b) to investigate the construct validity of the

Leadership Orientations (Self) Survey. Responses to items in Section 1 of their

questionnaire (N= 681 raters in higher education) were examined using principal

components analysis, followed by a varimax rotation of all factors with an eigenvalue

greater than 1.

Results revealed four factors that represented the frame typology. Six items with

factor loadings ranging from .64 to .85 explained 21% of the variance on the Human

Resource frame. Eight items on the Structural frame had factor loadings ranging from .65

to .79 and this frame explained 17% of the variance. Six items on the Political frame

explained 17% of the variance. These items had factor loadings ranging from .59 to .78.

Five items with factor loadings ranging from .54 to .68 explained 13% of the variance on

the Symbolic frame. Seven of the 32 items on the questionnaire had factor loadings lower

that 0.5. Information was not found on what was done with these items; however, the








original form of the instrument with the 32 questions has continued to be successfully

used in other studies (Cote, 1999; Durocher, 1995; Johnson, 1995; Rivers,1996;

Harlow,1994).

Scoring the Leadership Orientations (Self) Survey

The principal leadership orientation studies that have used only the questions in

Sections I and Section III to investigate leaders' cognitive frames have used the mean of

the eight items on each of the four subscales in Section 1 to identify frame use (Durocher,

1995; Johnson, 1995; Rivers, 1996; Suzuki, 1994). In these studies, the highest possible

mean was five, with the lowest being zero. In this study, the scores for each of the four

frames were computed by finding the average rating of each of the subscales (eight items

per subscale) in Section I. A mean score of 4.0 or greater was used to indicate use of that

frame often or always (Durocher; 1995). Frames with scores lower than 4.0 were used

less frequently.

Data Collection

Data were collected in the last part of the summer of 2002 and during November

of that same year. In conducting studies of school effectiveness at the primary and

secondary level, researchers in Belize found that the time to complete questionnaires was

a major problem for participants during the school year because they were involved in

school related affairs (Ministry of Education and Sports, 1999a; 1999b). In an effort to

ensure participation in this dissertation, data collection began in the summer even though

schools were not in session. However, principals could be reached at locations where

they were participating in summer professional development activities.

Bolman and Deal granted permission to use the Leadership Orientations (Self)

Survey and indicated that they wanted a summary of the results (Appendix B). Dr.





66


Bolman expressed the possibility that the raw data may be requested. This study was also

endorsed by the Chief Education Officer of the Belizean Ministry of Education

(Appendix C), as a way of gaining entry to conduct this study.

Prepared packets included an informed consent letter (Appendix D), a copy of the

Leadership Orientations (Self) Survey (Appendix E), and a stamped self-addressed

envelope. Tokens of instructional material and one dollar bill were also enclosed in each

of the 192 envelopes with the hope that this would provide an incentive for principals to

complete the packets (Fink & Kosecoff, 1978). The researcher traveled to Belize in July

and hand delivered the envelopes to different school management locations in the six

districts to ensure that the packets were placed in the principal's mailboxes so they would

receive them at the end of July when they came to the management office for their

salaries and checked their mailboxes. Follow up letters extending the deadline to

September 15 were sent to principals who had not responded by the end of August.

Follow-up telephone calls were made to those principals who had not responded by that

deadline. In a final effort to increase the response rate, another packet was mailed to

nonrespondents at the end of October. All returned surveys were assigned a code to

identify the district, type of school, type of management, and school location of each

participant.

Twenty principals were invited to participate in focus-groups discussions. Five of

the six focus groups turned out to be mini focus groups, since there were either three or

four participants involved. The group discussions were conducted in four of the six

districts in Belize. In one instance, only one principal showed up and agreed to participate

in an individual interview. Before the beginning of each interview, participants were

required to read and sign a consent letter indicating their agreement to participate in the








discussion (Appendix F). The researcher provided refreshments for participants during

the interviews, tokens of appreciation at the end, and in some cases, reimbursed travel

expenses for those principals who traveled from rural areas. Each focus-group interview

lasted for approximately 35 minutes, was tape recorded, and subsequently transcribed to

yield 49 pages of typed protocols. The researcher asked participants about their roles as

principals, their challenges, and their successes, and probed to discern what they

perceived to be major contextual factors that influenced their activities as principals and

the cognitive perspectives used as they performed their principalship roles. A copy of the

discussion guideline may be seen in Appendix G. At the end of each focus-group the

researcher provided an oral summary of the critical points on which participants were

invited to provide immediate feedback in the form of corrections and additional

information (Kreuger, 1994).

Data Analysis

The quantitative data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social

Sciences (SPSS), Version 10.0. Descriptive statistics and correlation coefficients were

computed and operations of regression analysis were conducted. According to Cohen

and Cohen (1983) multiple regression/correlation analysis, as a general and flexible

system of data analysis, may be used in instances when a quantitative variable was to be

studied in relationship to other factors of interest. Because the inquiry of this dissertation

focused on discovering what personal and contextual factors were related to school

principals' frame use (quantitative variable), multiple regression analyses were used as

the major data analysis procedure in this study. For the regression analysis, the outcome

variables were the four frames: Structural, Human Resource, Political, and Symbolic as

measured by the subscales of Section I of the Leadership Orientations (Self) Survey.








There were eight explanatory variables, which provided either categorical or continuous

data. These were identified as: Xi Age; X2 -type ofschool (1 = government primary

school, 2 = Catholic primary school, and 3 = high school); X3 school location (0 =

urban, 1 = rural); X4 school size; X5 Gender (0 = male, 1 = female); X6 Ethnicity (1

= Mestizo, 2 = Creole, 3 = Mayan, 4 = Garinagu, and 5 = other); X7 years of experience

as principal; and X8 highest academic qualification (1 = high school and trained

teachers, 2 = associate's and bachelor's degree, 3 = master's degree and other).

Using dummy coding of ones (Is) and zeros (Os), dummy variables were created

for the five categorical explanatory variables. For X2, two dummy variables were created.

The dummy variables were coded as 100 for government primary schools and 010 for

Catholic primary schools (high school, the reference group, was represented as 000). For

X3, the dummy variable for rural schools was coded as 10, urban school location was 00.

For X5s the dummy variable for females was coded as 10 and males was 00. Four dummy

variables were created for X6. The dummy variable for Mestizo was identified as 10000,

Creole = 01000, Mayan = 00100, Garinagu= 00010 and the reference group, other =

00000. Two dummy variables were created for X8 The dummy variable for high school

and trained teachers = 100, associates and bachelors degree = 010, and the reference

group, master's degree and other = 000.

The creation of dummy variables for the multiple regression analysis increased

the total number of explanatory variables for the full regression model to 13. For the first

regression model, the Structural frame was the outcome variable. This model may be

depicted as follows: = a + biX1 + b2dl + b3d2 + b4ZI + b5X4 + b6Z2+ b7dl + bsd2 +

b9d3 + b10d4 + b lX7 + b12dI + b13d2. In this model, "X" represents the continuous

explanatory variables, "d" represents the dummy variables created from a factor with








more than two categories, and "Z" represents the dummy variable created from a factor

with only two categories. The other three models were the same, except that in the second

model the outcome variable was the Human Resource frame, the Political frame for the

third model, and the Symbolic frame for the fourth model. Descriptive statistics,

correlations coefficients, and multiple regression operations were used to identify frame

use among principals and what factors were most significantly associated with frames

used by the principals. The four models were estimated to address the four research

questions. For each question, model fit was judged on the basis of the magnitude of the

model R2 and the statistical significance of the associated F value. For statistically

significant models, using regression coefficients and its statistical test assessed the

strength of the relationship between the outcome variable and the individual explanatory

variables. All statistical tests were conducted at a = 0.05.

The qualitative data were collected to shed light on the quantitative findings and

was a supplementary method used in this study. Participants' perceptions regarding the

contextual variables of school size, school location, and school management were the

focus of data analysis. Responses with regard to these three categories were coded, then

displayed under their respective headings, and analyzed for themes and patterns. The

analysis procedures were informed by guidelines published by Kreuger (1994) and Miles

and Huberman (1994).

Summary

Chapter 3 described the method used to investigate the cognitive frames used by

school leaders within the Belizean context. The major method of data collection was

through use of the Leadership Orientations (Self) Survey. However, qualitative data were

also collected through focus-group discussions. Chapter 3 here also presented the





70

population demographics, data collection techniques, and data analysis procedures. In

Chapter 4, results from the survey instrument and focus group interviews are analyzed

and interpreted in the light of the research questions. Chapter 5 presents conclusions,

implications of this study, and suggestions for further research.














CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND DATA ANALYSIS

The purpose of this study was to investigate the way school principals exercised

leadership in primary and secondary schools in Belize. Bolman and Deal's (1997)

leadership typology framed and guided this study, which addressed two overarching

questions: What are the leadership perspectives (cognitive frames) of Belizean school

administrators as defined by the Bolman and Deal (1997) frame typology? What

influence do principals' characteristics and contextual factors exert on their cognitive

frames? The contextual factors included school location, school management, and school

size. Leader characteristics were age, gender, ethnicity, years of experience as principal,

and academic qualification. Four research questions framed and structured this study:

* Is there a relationship between the explanatory variables, and the outcome variable,
Structural frame, among principals of government primary schools, Catholic primary
schools, and secondary schools in Belize?

* Is there a relationship between the explanatory variables, and the outcome variable,
Human Resource frame, among principals of government primary schools, Catholic
primary schools, and secondary schools in Belize?

* Is there a relationship between the explanatory variables, and the outcome variable,
Political frame, among principals of government primary schools, Catholic primary
schools, and secondary schools in Belize?

* Is there a relationship between the explanatory variables, and the outcome variable,
Symbolic frame, among principals of government primary schools, Catholic primary
schools, and secondary schools in Belize?

Chapter 4 presents the results of the analysis of the quantitative and qualitative

data. The results are presented in the light of the research questions. First, descriptive








data are presented. These include the demographic information as well as descriptive

statistics on participants' espoused cognitive frames. Next, analyses and results of the

multiple regression procedures are presented; and the analysis and results of the focus-

group interviews are explained.

A total of 192 Leadership Orientations (Self) Survey instruments were distributed

to the entire population of principals of government primary schools (42), Catholic

primary schools (115), and high schools (35) in Belize. One hundred forty-three

completed (143) questionnaires were returned. The return rate was 74 %. Of the returned

questionnaires, 41 (29%) were completed by principals of government primary schools,

76 (53%) by principals of Catholic primary schools, and 26 (18 %) by high school

principals. For the group of government school principals, the participation rate was 98%;

66% participated from the group of Catholic primary school principals; and 74% of the

group of high school principals completed questionnaires.

Descriptive Data

Participants' demographic data are presented in this section. Information on age,

gender, and experience in rural and urban settings is presented in Table 6. Table 7

presents information on participants' ethnicity and highest level of academic

achievement.

Demographics

The demographic data in Table 6 show the numbers and percentages of principals

for each demographic category by school type and then the totals for all schools. As

shown in Table 6, 78% (112) of the schools were located in the rural areas. Most school

principals were males (62%). The greater proportion (81%) of principals were below the

age of 50 years, with 75 % having 10 or fewer years of experience as principal. Most







principals of government primary schools (90%), and Catholic primary schools (86%)

worked in rural settings, however, most high schools (62%) were located in urban areas.

Table 6

Age, Gender, and Years of Experience of Principals of Government Primary Schools,
Catholic Primary Schools, and High Schools in Urban and Rural Belize
Primary Govt. Primary Catholic High School All Schools
(%) (%) (%) (%)
School Location
Urban 4(10) 11(14) 16(62) 31(21)
Rural 37(90) 65 (86) 10 (38) 112(78)
Total 41 76 26 143

Gender
Female 16 (39) 26 (34) 12(46) 54 (38)
Male 25 (61) 50 (66) 14 (54) 89 (62)
Total 41 76 26 143

Age
S50 34(85) 62(82) 16(62) 112(81)
>50 6(15) 11(18) 10(38) 27(19)
Total 40 73 26 139

Years of experience
< 10 years 29(71) 56(76) 16(62) 101(75)
> 10 years 12(29) 11(24) 10(38) 33(25)
Total 41 67 26 134

School Sizea
<210 31(76) 41(55) 7(27) 79(56)
>210 10(24) 34(45) 19(73) 63(44)
Total 41 75 26 142
Note: aRange in school size for primary government schools was 25 to 950; 25 to 1,195
for Catholic primary; and 100 to 1,000 for high schools.

At the primary school level, the greater numbers of principals of government

primary (61%) and Catholic primary schools (66%) were males. However, there were

almost equal numbers of male (54%) and female (46%) high school principals. With

regard to age, the greater percentage of principals of government primary schools (85%)

were between the ages of 26 to 50 years; 82% of the respondents from Catholic primary







schools were between the ages of 20 to 50 years; and 62% of high school principals were

between the ages of 31 to 50 years. Most principals from all schools had fewer than 10

years of experience. For principals of government primary schools, this figure was 71%

(29); 76% (56) for Catholic primary principals; and 62% (16) for high school principals.

The greater numbers of principals of government primary schools (76%) and Catholic

primary schools (55%) were responsible for schools with student enrollments of less than

210. For high schools, most principals (73%) were administrators in large urban schools

with enrollments above 210. Most principals of government primary schools (78%) and

Catholic primary schools (71%) were teaching principals. However, only a small number

(38%) of high school principals taught as well as administered.

As shown in Table 7, principals who were Mestizos comprised the highest

percentage (41%) of school leaders, followed by the number of principals who were

Creoles (18%), which is a realistic reflection of the country's demographic composition

(Central Statistical Office, 2000). The remaining participants were relatively evenly

distributed across Mayan (13%), Garinagu (15%), and other (13%). Most participants that

were categorized as "other" were of East Indian descent.

Most principals of government primary schools (42%) and Catholic primary

schools (47%) were Mestizos. Most high school principals (46%) were of Creole descent.

The greater numbers of participants (54%) were trained teachers followed by those who

held bachelor's degrees (22%). Sixteen (11%) of the participants held master's degrees

and one was qualified at the doctoral level (other = 1%).

The greater numbers of principals of government primary schools (59%), and

Catholic primary schools (70%) had completed teacher training in Belize. In addition,

25% of the principals of government primary schools, and 17% of those principals of








Catholic primary schools had attained bachelor's degrees. More than half (58%) the

number of high school principals was qualified at the master's level, while 34% of the

others had attained bachelor's degrees.

Table 7

Ethnicity and Highest Level of Academic Qualification of Principals of Government
Primary Schools, Catholic Primary Schools, and High Schools in Belize
Primary Govt.a Primary Catholic b High Schoolc All
(%) (%) (%) (%)
Ethnicity
Mestizo 17(42) 37 (49) 5 (19) 59(41)
Creole 7(17) 7(9) 12(46) 26(18)
Mayan 3(7) 16(21) 0 19(13)
Garinagu 6(15) 12(16) 3 (12) 21(15)
Other 8(19) 4(5) 6(23) 18(13)

Highest academic qualification
High school 1(2) 3 (4) 0 4 (3)
Trained Teacher 24 (59) 53 (70) 0 77 (54)
Associates Degree 5(12) 7 (9) 1(4) 13 (9)
Bachelors Degree 10 (25) 13(17) 9(34) 32 (22)
Masters Degree 1(2) 0 15(58) 16(11)
Other 0 0 1(4) 1 (1)
Note: All participants (dN= 143) responded to these two categories. an = 41; n = 76; n
=26.

Participants' Use of Cognitive Frames

Table 8 shows descriptive data of the four frames used by the three groups of

principals. Participants' scores could range from 1.00 to 5.00 on Section I of the

Leadership Orientations (Self) Survey. A score of 4.00 or above indicates that

participants use that frame often or always (Durocher, 1995).

Scores below 4.00 mean that participants use those frames less frequently than

those frames on which the scores are 4.00 or higher. The average score (4.32) on the

Human Resource Frame was the highest for all participants. The lowest mean score

(3.75) was reported on the Political Frame.








Table 8

Descriptive Statistics of Frames Used by Principals of Government Primary Schools,
Catholic Primary Schools, and High Schools in Belize
Frames M SD Maximum Minimum
Principals of Government Schools
Structural 4.14 .437 5.00 3.25
Human Resource 4.32 .425 5.00 3.13
Political 3.75 .416 4.75 3.00
Symbolic 4.03 .464 4.88 3.13

Principals of Catholic Schools b
Structural 4.09 .497 4.88 2.63
Human Resource 4.36 .466 5.00 2.50
Political 3.71 .538 4.75 2.13
Symbolic 3.96 .537 5.00 2.63

Principals of High Schools C
Structural 4.16 .598 5.00 2.88
Human Resource 4.32 .552 5.00 2.88
Political 3.84 .566 4.75 2.50
Symbolic 4.09 .539 4.88 3.13

All Participants d
Structural 4.12 .499 5.00 2.63
Human Resource 4.34 .469 5.00 2.50
Political 3.74 .511 4.75 2.13
Symbolic 4.00 .517 5.00 2.63
Note: The maximum Mean (M) score possible = 5. A score of 4.0 or higher indicates
frequency of frame use as often or always. an = 41; bn = 76; Cn = 26; dN= 143.

For all three groups, the second highest mean score (4.14) was reported on the

Structural frame. The mean score (4.03) reported for the Symbolic frame was higher than

the score for the Political frame, but lower than the score for the Structural frame. The SD

of the scores for all participants was similar on the Structural (.499) and Human Resource

(.469) frames. There was little difference between the SD for the Political (.511) and

Symbolic (.517) frames. For principals of government primary schools, the average mean

scores ranged from a low of 3.75 on the Political frame to a high of 4.32 on the Human

Resource frame. In fact, as a group these principals used the Human Resource (M=








4.32), Structural (M= 4.14), and Symbolic (M= 4.03) frames more frequently (often or

always) than they did the Political (M= 3.75) frame. For principals of government

schools, there was relatively little difference in the SD figures, the smallest being .416 on

the Political frame and the largest being .464 on the Symbolic frame.

With regard to principals of Catholic primary schools, the average mean scores

ranged from a low of 3.71 on the Political frame to a high of 4.36 on the Human

Resource frame. As a group these principals used the Human Resource (M= 4.36) and

Structural (M= 4.09) frames more frequently (often or always) than they did the

Symbolic (M= 3.96) and Political (M= 3.71) frames. The range of the SD figures for the

frames used by Catholic principals, .466 on the Human Resource frame and .538 on the

Political Frame and was higher than the range of SD figures for government principals

(.416 on the Political frame and .464 on the Symbolic frame). The range in maximum and

minimum scores for all four frames (2.13 to 5.00) used by Catholic primary principals is

wider than the range for principals of government schools (3.00 to 5.00).

The data for high school principals show that average mean scores ranged from

3.84 on the Political frame to 4.32 on the Human Resource frame. As a group these

principals used the Human Resource (M= 4.32), Structural (M= 4.16), and Symbolic (M

= 4.09) frames more frequently (often or always) than they did the Political (M = 3.84)

frame. All SD figures were above .539 (Symbolic Frame) and relatively similar, with the

highest SD (.598) on the Structural frame. The range in the maximum and minimum

scores (2.50 to 5.00) for high school principals was larger than the range for principals of

government schools (3.00 to 5.00) and smaller than the range for Catholic primary

principals (2.13 to 5.00). As a group, all participants showed greatest preference for the

Human Resource frame, and the least use of the Political frame. The Structural frame was








their second choice and the Symbolic frame the third choice. Even when the data were

examined for the three groups separately, the pattern in frame use was the same.

Examination of the data showed that there was very little difference in the scores

of the four frames among male and female principals and principals of rural and urban

schools (Table 9). The frame with the highest frequency of use was the Human Resource,

followed by the Structural, Symbolic, and Political. Males used the Structural and Human

Resource frames more frequently than they did the other two frames.

Females used the Structural, Human Resource, and Symbolic frames more than

they did the Political frame. Females showed greater use of the Symbolic frame than

males. Those principals in who were Females, those in rural schools, and those in urban

schools, used the Symbolic frame more than males.

Table 9

Mean Scores for Frames Used by Male and Female Principals and Principals of Urban
and Rural Schools in Belize
Frames
School Principal Structural Human Resource Political Symbolic
Males (n= 89) 4.13 4.30 3.77 3.99
Females (n = 54) 4.10 4.41 3.69 4.03
Urban Schools (n= 31) 4.13 4.33 3.71 4.02
Rural Schools (n= 112) 4.11 4.35 3.75 4.00
Note: Maximum score = 5. A score of 4.0 or higher indicated frame use often or always.

Table 10 shows the number of frames used by the principals when grouped by

gender (male/female), school location (urban/rural), school management (primary

government, primary Catholic, and high school), and for the combined sample. There was

very little difference in the percentage of male (52.8%) and female (49.5%) principals

who used three or four frames often or always (score of 4.0 or higher).

However, more females (22.2%) than males (7.9%) used one frame and a greater

number of males (13.5%) than females (5.6%) scored less than 4.0 on all four frames.








Table 10

Number of Cognitive Frames Used by Male and Female Principals of Government
Primary Schools, Catholic Primary Schools, and High Schools in Urban and Rural Belize
Number of Frames used
Principals Four Three Two One None
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
Male (n = 89) 26 21 23 7 12
(29.2) (23.6) (25.8) (7.9) (13.5)

Female (n= 54) 14 13 12 12 3
(25.9) (23.6) (22.2) (22.2) (5.6)

Urban (n= 31) 7 10 7 3 4
(22.6) (32.2) (22.6) (9.7) (12.9)

Rural (n= 112) 33 24 27 18 10
(29.5) (21.4) (24.1) (16.1) (8.9)

Primary Govt. (n 41) 10 11 8 10 2
(24.4) (26.8) (19.5) (24.4) (4.9)

Primary Catholic (n = 76) 23 14 22 9 8
(30.3) (18.4) (29.0) (11.8) (10.5)

High School (n = 26) 8 7 6 2 3
(30.8) (26.9) (23.1) (7.7) (11.5)

Total (N = 143) 41 32 36 21 13
(28.7) (22.4) (25.2) (14.7) (9.1)
Note: aFrame use was indicated by a mean score of 4.0 or higher. TFor this category,
participants scored less than 4.0 on all four frames.

A similar number of principals of rural schools (50.9%) and principals of urban

schools (54.8%) used three or four frames often or always. However, a greater number of

principals of urban schools (32.2%) used three frames when compared to those principals

in rural areas (21.4%). A greater percentage of principals in rural schools (16.1%) used

one frame when compared to those in urban areas (9.7%), and fewer principals in rural

areas (8.9%) scored lower than 4.0 on all frames when compared to principals in urban

schools (12.9%).








A little over half (51.2%) of the principals of government schools used three or

more frames often or always, but 4.9% reported scores lower than 4.0 on all four frames.

A little less than one half (48.7%) of the principals of Catholic schools used three or more

frames often or always, but 10.5% scored less than 4.0 on all four frames. Most high

school principals (57.7%) used three or more frames often or always. However, of this

group, 11.5% reported scores lower than 4.0 on all four frames.

For the total sample, approximately half (51%) of the principals used either three

or four frames. A little more than one-fourth (28.7%) of the principals used four frames.

However, approximately 9% scored lower than 4.0 on all frames, which meant that those

participants did not show frequent use of any frame.

Multiple Regression

Multiple regression procedures were conducted to examine the relationship

between the explanatory variables (school location, school management, school size, age,

gender, ethnicity, experience as principal, and highest academic qualification) and the

outcome variables (Structural, Human Resource, Political, and Symbolic frames) at the

0.05 level of significance. Four regression models were tested to investigate the influence

of the 13 explanatory variables on each of the outcome variables.

The Structural Frame was the outcome variable for the first model, which may be

depicted as Y = a + blXi + b2d+ b3 d b b4Z1 + b5X + bZ2+ b7d + bsd2 + b9d3 +

bo0d4 + bl X7+ bl2di+ bd3d2 In this model, Xi represents participants' age; di and d2 are

dummy variables for school type; Zl represents the dummy variable for school location;

X4 represents school size; Z2 refers to the dummy variable for gender; di, d2, d3, and d4

represents the four dummy variables created from the five categories of Ethnicity; X7

refers to principals' years of experience; and the last two dummy variables are created








from the three categories of academic qualification. The other three models are the same,

except that in the second model the outcome variable is the Human Resource frame, the

Political frame for the third model, and the Symbolic frame for the fourth model.

For all continuous explanatory variables and each of the outcome variables,

inspection of plots of studentized residuals against predicted values and normal P-P plots

provided evidence that assumptions of linearity, homogeneity of variance, and normality

were not violated. In all analyses, a maximum Cook's distance of 0.163 or less, as well as

a maximum studentized residual of 2.124 or less indicated the absence of extreme

outlying values. For all four regression models, the highest VIF (Variance Inflation

Index) value was 7.36, showing that collinearity for these models was not severe.

Analysis and Results

The first regression model, consisting of the 13 explanatory variables and the

outcome variable, Structural Frame, was tested to answer the first research question: Is

there a relationship between the explanatory variables, and the outcome variable,

Structural frame, among principals of government primary schools, Catholic primary

schools, and secondary schools in Belize? Results showed that the R2 of.085 was not

statistically significant, F (13, 124) = .881, p = .574 (Table 11). This model indicated that

together, contextual factors and leader characteristics accounted for only 8.5% of the

variance in the scores on the Structural frame reported by the school leaders. Table 12

shows the regression coefficients of each of the 13 variables included in this model,

including the squared semi-partial correlation (sr2) for each.

The second regression model, consisting of 13 explanatory variables and the

outcome variable, Human Resource frame, was tested to answer the second research

question: Is there a relationship between the explanatory variables, and the outcome








variable, Human Resource frame, among principals of government primary schools,

Catholic primary schools, and secondary schools in Belize? Results showed that the R2 of

.067 was not statistically significant, F(13, 124) = .681,p = .779 (Table 11). This model

indicated that together, contextual factors and leader characteristics accounted for only

6.7% of the variance in the scores on the Human Resource frame reported by the school

leaders. Table 13 shows the regression coefficients of each of the 13 variables included in

this model, including the squared semi-partial correlation (sr2) for each.

Table 11

Summary of Multiple Regression Analyses for Variables Related to the Principals' Use
of the Structural, Human Resource, Political, and Symbolic Frames
Model SS df MS F p
Structural Frame
Regression 2.809 13 .216 .881 .574
Residual 30.398 124 .245
Total 33.207 137

Human Resource Frame
Regression 2.049 13 .158 .681 .779
Residual 28.711 124 .232
Total 30.760 137

Political Frame
Regression 2.446 13 .188 .735 .726
Residual 31.744 124 .256
Total 34.191 137

Symbolic Frame
Regression 3.181 13 .245 .916 .539
Residual 33.131 124 .267
Total 36.312 137

The third regression model, consisting of 13 explanatory variables and the

outcome variable, Political Frame, was tested to answer the third research question: Is

there a relationship between the explanatory variables, and the outcome variable, Political

frame, among principals of government primary schools, Catholic primary schools, and








secondary schools in Belize? Results showed that the R2 of .072 was not statistically

significant, F(13, 124) = .735, p = .726 (see Table 11). This model indicated that

together, contextual factors and leader characteristics accounted for only 7.2% of the

variance in the scores on the Political frame reported by the school leaders. Table 14

shows the regression coefficients of each of the 13 variables included in this model,

including the squared semi-partial correlation (sr2) for each.

Table 12

Summary of Multiple Regression Coefficients for Variables Related to Belizean School
Principals' Use of the Structural Frame
Variables B SE B f t p sr
Constant 4.383 .317 13.843
Age (Xi) .005 .006 -.028 -.233 .816 .000
PrimGov (di) .082 .207 -.076 -.395 .694 .001
PrimCath (di) -.122 .213 -.125 -.574 .566 .002
Urban/Rur (Zi) .109 .154 .092 .708 .480 .004
SchSize (X4) .000 .000 .114 .932 .353 .006
Male/Fem (Z2) .077 .124 -.076 -.619 .537 .003
Hsch/TrTr (di) .003 .231 .003 .013 .990 .000
Assc/Bach (d2) .092 .202 .088 .460 .647 .002
Yrs./Exp (X7) .009 .008 -.118 -1.014 .312 .008
Mestizo (di) .027 .159 -.272 -1.698 .092 .021
Creole (d2) .215 .166 -.166 -1.291 .199 .012
Maya (d3) .324 .202 -.217 -1.601 .112 .019
Garinagu (d4) .005 .177 .003 .026 .980 .000

The fourth regression model, consisting of 13 explanatory variables and the

outcome variable, Symbolic Frame, was tested to answer the fourth research question: Is

there a relationship between the explanatory variables, and the outcome variable,

Symbolic frame, among principals of government primary schools, Catholic primary

schools, and secondary schools in Belize?








Table 13

Summary of Multiple Regression Coefficients for Variables Related to Belizean School
Principals' Use of the Human Resource Frame
Variables B SE B / t p sr2
Constant 3.909 .308 12.704 .000
Age (X,) .002 .006 .039 .319 .750 .001
PrimGov (di) -.050 .201 -.048 -.250 .803 .001
PrimCath (di) -.022 .207 -.023 -.106 .916 .000
Urban/Rur(Zi) .250 .149 .218 1.673 .097 .021
SchSize (X4) .001 .000 .245 1.194 .048 .030
Male/Fem (Z2) .089 .121 .091 .738 .462 .004
Hsch/TrTr (di) .052 .224 .055 .234 .816 .000
Assc/Bach (d2) .107 .196 .105 .543 .588 .002
Yrs./Exp (X7) -.002 .008 -.028 -.236 .814 .000
Mestizo (di) -.033 .154 -.035 -.214 .831 .000
Creole(d2) .002 .162 .001 .010 .992 .000
Maya (d3) .078 .197 -.055 -.398 .691 .001
Garinagu (d4) .035 .172 .027 .205 .838 .000

Results indicated that the R2 of.088 was not statistically significant, F (13, 124)

= .916, p = .539 (see Table 11). For this model, contextual factors and leader

characteristics accounted for only 8.8% of the variance in the scores on the Symbolic

frame reported by the school leaders. Table 15 shows the regression coefficients of each

of the 13 variables included in this model, including the squared semi-partial correlation

(sr2) for each.

Results of the regression analyses suggest that the models did not fit the data,

indicating that none of the explanatory variables have a statistically significant

relationship to the outcome variables. The multiple regression results suggest that factors

other than those included in the model may account for school principals' use Structural

frame, Human Resource, Political and Symbolic frames.








Table 14

Summary of Multiple Regression Coefficients for Variables Related to Belizean School
Principals' Use of the Political Frame
Variables B SE B /l t p sr
Constant 4.138 .324 12.788 .000
Age (Xi) -.007 .007 -.125 -1.031 .304 .008
PrimGov (dj) -.254 .211 -.232 -1.203 .231 .010
PrimCath(d1) -.323 .217 -.324 -1.485 140 .016
Urban/Rur(Zi) .118 .157 .098 .751 .454 .004
SchSize (X4) .000 .000 .083 .673 .502 003
Male/Fem (Z2) -.059 .127 -.058 -.469 .640 .002
Hsch/TrTr (di) .112 .236 .112 .475 .636 .002
Assc/Bach (d2) .188 .206 .175 .913 .363 .006
Yrs./Exp (X7) -.004 .009 -.059 -.507 .613 .002
Mestizo (di) -.107 162 -.106 -.659 .511 .003
Creole(d2) -.078 .170 -.059 -.460 .647 .002
Maya (d3) -.189 .207 -.125 -.914 .362 .006
Garinagu (d4) .045 .180 .033 .251 .802 .000








Table 15

Summary of Multiple Regression Coefficients for Variables Related to Belizean School
Principals' Use of the Symbolic Frame
Variables B SE B f t p sr
Constant 4.469 .331 13.519 .000
Age (Xi) .006 .007 -.112 -.937 .351 .006
PrimGov (di) .059 .216 -.052 -.274 .785 .001
PrimCath (di) -.115 .222 -.112 -.516 .604 .002
Urban/Rur(Zi) .011 .161 .009 .067 .947 .000
SchSize (X4) .000 .000 -.046 -382 .703 .001
Male/Fem (Z2) .000 .130 .000 -.002 .999 .000
Hsch/TrTr (di) -.020 .241 -.019 -.082 .935 .000
Assc/Bach(d2) .044 .211 .040 .210 .834 .000
Yrs./Exp (X7) .004 .009 -.054 -.469 .640 .002
Mestizo (dt) -.167 .166 -.161 -1.005 317 .007
Creole(d2) .063 .174 .046 .361 .718 .001
Maya (d3) -.231 .211 -.148 -1.094 .276 .009
Garinagu (d4) .008 .184 .056 433 .666 .001

Analysis of Qualitative Data

The 14 focus group participants were male and female principals of primary and

secondary schools located in rural and urban areas as shown in Table 16. The researcher

used the qualitative approach of grounded theory and constant comparative method to

identify patterns in the focus group data with regard to the contextual variables of school

management, school location, and school size. Although this section presents the data

under separate headings, the interrelationships of these factors are a reality that cannot be

ignored. The reality is that there are government-managed schools, Catholic-managed

schools, and high schools located in urban and rural areas, with the school location being

one of the determinants of school size. Most rural schools are smaller than those in urban

areas. Notwithstanding the overlap in the responses, participant's perceptions are








presented under two major headings: (a) school management, and (b) school location, and

school size. The quotations capture the general perceptions of the group.

Table 16

Focus Group Participants
Principal School Management School Location Gender of Participants

Primary Catholic Urban 3 Females
Rural 2 Females, 2 Males

Primary Government Urban 3 Females
Rural 3 Males

High School Board of Urban 3 Females
Management Rural 1 Malea

Note: Size of schools ranged from 50 to 1,800; individual interview.

School Management

The discussions with principals of government schools were very emotionally

charged as principals, with very expressive gestures and voice inflections, demonstrated

how strongly they felt about what they said. As illustrated in this section, the perceptions

of school management were very similar for principals of government-managed schools

regardless of the school location, whether urban or rural. However, principals of Catholic

schools in rural and urban areas held different perceptions of the school management.

Participants from the primary schools used the word management as a blanket term to

mean either the person of the local manager or the person of the general manager. For

high school principals, management referred to that committee to whom they were

accountable.

Rural and urban government primary schools

Principals of government-managed primary schools, regardless of the school

location, and regardless of the size of the school, held some similar perceptions of the








management. From the beginning of the interviews, these participants identified the

management as the biggest challenge they felt they had to deal with as principals. The

general perception of both rural and urban principals of government-managed schools

was that the management took a long time to respond to their requests regarding school

matters, and sometimes did not respond at all. As one group explained, "Sometimes you

send them (management) letters about the problems (in the school) and they reply-we

will look into the problem. And then the school year is over, and nothing happens." The

high school principal who had submitted a budget to the management for funds "to

purchase equipment," never received an answer.

According to one group, when the manager does respond by visiting the school,

the visit is casual and unsubstantive, "when they (school managers) do come, "Oh, I'm

only dropping this for you." The general sentiment is that these principals want the

school management to show a deeper interest in the school. Principals indicated that they

hoped for deeper involvement and not just a cursory visit where the school manager

"would come and look around and say 'Well, for a government school you are tops

compared to other government schools."'

Those principals in rural areas felt they had no choice when it came to their

placement in those areas. As one individual shared, "sometimes you are placed in

communities against your will, you have no choice. If you want your job you will go

where they send you." Another explained, "they come with your letter, and that's it!" For

the urban principals, the management will say "Oh, you are not supposed to do that, I am

the one who tells you [what to do]."

Principals noted that the management did not provide adequate materials and

supplies for the school, nevertheless, schools still functioned. As one group shared,




Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E1J1T8KQP_H56QW1 INGEST_TIME 2013-03-27T15:00:29Z PACKAGE AA00013629_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES