<%BANNER%>

Relationships among Leadership Styles, School Culture, and Student Achievement

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 E20110330_AAAANJ INGEST_TIME 2011-03-31T00:47:44Z PACKAGE UFE0013022_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 25893 DFID F20110330_AACRWU ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH leclear_e_Page_14.QC.jpg GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
e3df5dc65d59ce0497763c8c674d1c0b
SHA-1
c2ab00b189b3cdbac12895535c83c6cdd768f76d
53463 F20110330_AACRKB leclear_e_Page_78.pro
e59cd35041bd68573b2324fab5713821
2b57d8e56a0bb869a90c602ab41330f5ed38c302
93525 F20110330_AACRFE leclear_e_Page_58.jpg
dfbd22e32e78822dfa399a6a53116b28
0068ca32d4cd1d6e29de482d24bdff72ee91ad8f
106619 F20110330_AACRRX leclear_e_Page_34.jpg
a44ba609de8b5fa6f8cbadf6e6291cf7
56a2057898bb02efb0edcf1714f08a8deaf9d309
33185 F20110330_AACRWV leclear_e_Page_28.QC.jpg
075442898ea1d154576875e372e5389b
9c4a116cb842963c6c9de6607128168ace38ff0a
2100 F20110330_AACRKC leclear_e_Page_27.txt
cf67f6c90071f08d12c7f09abb2adbc7
fab4ff74f60000d85dcb9925a35a86c9998a1855
49213 F20110330_AACRFF leclear_e_Page_42.pro
e5710dd9640781dec2a5920dd4258cd3
c6e696b157feda0197b9157a045e6bfaa4f3b16c
31063 F20110330_AACRPA leclear_e_Page_02.pro
ab11b0b597dd76eaf05a4cca1d1315ee
6aca0fe256b40283e7a882723ed5d7319a388481
101117 F20110330_AACRRY leclear_e_Page_35.jpg
d42387d129c89be307ef9ecc7bc92666
590f274b743b8b0c17a83489acaf557ecb91645e
1183 F20110330_AACRWW leclear_e_Page_67thm.jpg
e71f17331455a3fba6c39a651ab6bb48
68141b23ac626908f9b2da50be1152a0d0e30a8a
29981 F20110330_AACRKD leclear_e_Page_54.QC.jpg
3331dd360d8326d6b686886981cfb4cf
6fa1d7a62a292727f1db472fa5f29d93f8420bd0
14045 F20110330_AACRFG leclear_e_Page_65.jp2
1e53052df4bb2d7d9eb81486bc217b40
ce915e4242d9efe9862afee6eb2ebf5e9f603f29
54971 F20110330_AACRPB leclear_e_Page_03.pro
8c5d760eab6a19b0142b79683b36a3f5
732e1454ffeda9212d7b3517dca9d554a25bb039
99235 F20110330_AACRRZ leclear_e_Page_36.jpg
e36b8d121c699c9b2bda184404bc6689
5f2ff7d6155be19bfd6aa81d3e0821b8e9d7f913
8081 F20110330_AACRWX leclear_e_Page_24thm.jpg
22eb3e4fc5bc28ddb56ad1b9f65309f8
49de654754e1b512b84fd787274ff8bdcc0a561e
1806 F20110330_AACRKE leclear_e_Page_58.txt
b92cfaa99bf1a3e8fc9da4ba5429685d
8838c44add5097ffd9e18e5d7575afde0f7757c1
2604 F20110330_AACRFH leclear_e_Page_60.txt
51dcf3f9eb1ca5faedd8ea8e52aa9652
d8055acef5ff3e02cbbb23ef855f2fce76cdbae6
42676 F20110330_AACRPC leclear_e_Page_05.pro
94181b59b28e867b6c2e08950d7fb945
80b0f41f98eabaf013a1c6206e38b01b3e4d11ee
6360 F20110330_AACRWY leclear_e_Page_44thm.jpg
a502a7c85ce775bb6542ade78167e0c4
2b569fe2fb95094315aaeab57b278f69e8be9dc4
93655 F20110330_AACRUA leclear_e_Page_41.jp2
39cebfe35bd43a30c5735b09a124768a
dcd635508eb73a510d929d7badafe4cd61aed620
8937 F20110330_AACRKF leclear_e_Page_81thm.jpg
b43f27f480a000b0f587ceed3532abc2
7c20dbb3e5f0a74e233331168b44624ba3922227
1053954 F20110330_AACRFI leclear_e_Page_07.tif
6c9548ed0d79cb6747f48fe3cad8f98a
faf714befde15752c62ed178b93584afb535d6ea
36817 F20110330_AACRPD leclear_e_Page_07.pro
97fea7b55cd31740f4cf01ca3e1f6d55
e33e8ddca535feb5820045c1cb9291a760278239
7675 F20110330_AACRWZ leclear_e_Page_49thm.jpg
04a8a078ee144c10b556ca98b52c574f
fc04eba7185ec7ff8550795a6378d5383b4ae12c
109133 F20110330_AACRUB leclear_e_Page_42.jp2
d956b7cf591dbbff7a1d529c4cdd8eb1
2efab3887dcdc5437f297f8a747c79f01686d5ad
2004 F20110330_AACRKG leclear_e_Page_35.txt
3777cda8ae4e49d5b6c385ad40a74388
002833f0cfa08d84bb98a5f431852072f8eb3483
80734 F20110330_AACRFJ leclear_e_Page_18.jpg
4155876920df5c80ec60d68da5607b6a
24bda14d2d78fc2d6914e1088c63b823036087bf
21015 F20110330_AACRPE leclear_e_Page_08.pro
35f7ed6df609852178e3bcd6f64e93c8
e2b2fc33d7ccb7e33fd4c11978b19e8f86615e81
85591 F20110330_AACRUC leclear_e_Page_44.jp2
62fef08d81fe353747c9717a65f4a659
127af9f88d7c87e33febfd5d8fd504ed63827afc
25271604 F20110330_AACRKH leclear_e_Page_66.tif
2ad7a2ae58205b40c8d48db03f8056a6
0dc72031c34df7a93940ab1632c2a1bd3c320a6a
50560 F20110330_AACRFK leclear_e_Page_51.pro
f892277349fdc9eb71a2bc4f85f893e6
ccb5b80230231dcbbd9505b7c5e6a471231869e7
6445 F20110330_AACRZA leclear_e_Page_18thm.jpg
47134ea1cac3dbbf79cc4dc335fcbd29
2f38890e2a7956411065bb3642cae3f217d51cf4
95049 F20110330_AACRUD leclear_e_Page_46.jp2
c4d6258731d8f4d5a6809abe5ff0af29
6af352b8c4f8977f9dee8d1f5435b93faf3fee14
84071 F20110330_AACRFL leclear_e_Page_83.jp2
f1490d39f9059d46de60d994259502a0
6118fe7b105ae7ebf362a86f4a1739d2f6eecedc
50503 F20110330_AACRPF leclear_e_Page_10.pro
021af29fd2715d3ec2a1ff479d6d349e
8fa694752d1e801fd275d2faac388f3e6ad266a3
111216 F20110330_AACRKI leclear_e_Page_21.jp2
7f55f127aff65f975abe9b667f0045c2
4fb561f5be8b92a900d481fdf2589c5504c05f04
8155 F20110330_AACRZB leclear_e_Page_20thm.jpg
375e35ce9ee2b242142ac61718b31c20
a4d8af97ceac667e487d971ee3aab927cd60d486
97985 F20110330_AACRUE leclear_e_Page_47.jp2
b4b79c259f05f0e8f7000eb22d1002f5
0285f47c397c6ce547a542daa336524c64bfecfe
2623 F20110330_AACRFM leclear_e_Page_53.txt
d54ceb42fb06c932d7fca7abaa88b829
746fc5b6a640bab54da20815e9bc51857549931b
51591 F20110330_AACRPG leclear_e_Page_11.pro
a13902cf7261bf35073ddb2909d8b90c
1f2fd301c6ac22827784b11bcd03f147afd495df
1941 F20110330_AACRKJ leclear_e_Page_42.txt
823818232ddc7717e1f0c3100abcedda
acdc0526e1462179b19257a19eacb9f226801cfe
7887 F20110330_AACRZC leclear_e_Page_23thm.jpg
66bd4cb7672b78cecb58c498ef9b4054
e6f22cc748b1bae191d3d31034838a1f43371073
102092 F20110330_AACRUF leclear_e_Page_48.jp2
04817954bc3088a0098e991afc45845f
0b8f6c1431ac171e49bcd7317812afa351190168
99887 F20110330_AACRFN leclear_e_Page_54.jp2
b0e4d8fd69f225be9938e1475ca3c58d
91fcb3cc8386e29b1e5dad319ec5ea4f8f156846
47902 F20110330_AACRPH leclear_e_Page_12.pro
ecab381b5a3d3a7bed56fe18dd61546d
9243368241c57c3c4eeb791a1198a2adfdb34fee
2334 F20110330_AACRKK leclear_e_Page_46.txt
2143e9dd6110355a977810e883f4adcf
2c1e3dbb01f3bc437e46551f759d20936655378c
8429 F20110330_AACRZD leclear_e_Page_26thm.jpg
3119efe27bb464cd0fd913fb1c44b1a5
b1fccb48bf2d8bab0fcbfd8909c788c6833c9148
99523 F20110330_AACRUG leclear_e_Page_49.jp2
856d1a4190fd39b5dab4781914af751c
ae1c963994e5a32e7d816c8a947fda6349a5f6ce
32095 F20110330_AACRFO leclear_e_Page_36.QC.jpg
70958fbcc20f84e2b0693976e47a03de
c30309db37693a632d9cca2fc54b746a72d2ca64
39802 F20110330_AACRPI leclear_e_Page_14.pro
467b37856b81df6eb0eca60faf2631ed
85a6a97758572b05c43cd9be78e37c27e599b7ca
8109 F20110330_AACRKL leclear_e_Page_22thm.jpg
0cb5ea68baa269aefc6bb175ddda62dc
994e45a510b216105d09005fdc7d180ffb0a6aca
8330 F20110330_AACRZE leclear_e_Page_28thm.jpg
91588727448fe046c93728518bb581e1
cd3eba95139bace43e13f335bc0d1532c93d67fb
100842 F20110330_AACRUH leclear_e_Page_50.jp2
7fe36acbfdc9ab05ae2ca1dbdc8bd8eb
399eea2fd4c970b4ebe2c0ef1c3077af1241530a
109288 F20110330_AACRFP leclear_e_Page_22.jp2
d6ea3e7d060f7189cfaf15e432886c1f
1ab31425f921c591cf404abe62de8042bdb29678
59232 F20110330_AACRPJ leclear_e_Page_15.pro
a512d4c601a61f6655f86df852fc5017
79f7b73c8e1f795288f917ed85da73d2bbe7b010
104399 F20110330_AACRKM leclear_e_Page_12.jp2
2ba1745cb7ded53bf239dd519db9b6ad
188f43c7eb4e48a41394fa8f552225dddcbe917e
8219 F20110330_AACRZF leclear_e_Page_32thm.jpg
27f8bde2799322739319e24eb9f2a150
7546e3a3623e918856ea24b7e2aa088b2c97da89
102292 F20110330_AACRUI leclear_e_Page_51.jp2
031a03ad73d483f4bf6f1b081333cd88
28a7b1e7fbbe30cfe83bd5d6ea542f2790b58aa6
53441 F20110330_AACRFQ leclear_e_Page_29.pro
3d275911253b248c0180a39cc3da838c
af5c2426055975bcdb584358f35e93e70e3d5482
45480 F20110330_AACRPK leclear_e_Page_17.pro
480d767cfb2ae837db49cec0fc6fe22c
20e2f97a03fd8c85568a277c6bdabdaea8d5bdc1
98812 F20110330_AACRKN UFE0013022_00001.mets FULL
8071db1c49922c1d4e2ebdde933c86f1
18ee930c8898656e8a316db94e111ff5b886d4e5
8602 F20110330_AACRZG leclear_e_Page_33thm.jpg
ffc5f1c2154f0409dc13b846c1432055
26f21312452164efad59beee89b0c1b583448289
109592 F20110330_AACRUJ leclear_e_Page_52.jp2
69673bac98125419c22b239403db8b11
67921a3250e202841c9f78e5785ead63a1122ed0
F20110330_AACRFR leclear_e_Page_50.tif
833aa4d47b60a520beabafb5ef77ec86
011617788f3d56498271ec9eaca68f88ee17c178
39249 F20110330_AACRPL leclear_e_Page_18.pro
218645ca99ed1c8d173b723e1e006099
763124537d291daaf22fe08d816f87e35561939f
8089 F20110330_AACRZH leclear_e_Page_35thm.jpg
43c74649fb979ba1369d20e3a7d2e681
4599cc73fd77e88da84501c61550fc53fa310462
F20110330_AACRFS leclear_e_Page_65.tif
267215ff21b493b9ba39018f7a6f4898
babfdac905a5eb5b72f6002d0d1238685ca90082
52932 F20110330_AACRPM leclear_e_Page_23.pro
e65ab9a276ccf426341ff10d8ff0fb56
0c70d5495ac6b091e0be9759165cadec070d5fc0
7164 F20110330_AACRZI leclear_e_Page_41thm.jpg
49d9f419db2ddc9434148cee2bf5a2a2
598f5d3594edf53aed09465e4d73eb4d0d0d68aa
91610 F20110330_AACRUK leclear_e_Page_53.jp2
547888ed6c3afd9aa4a14e708a87bc5a
a2e73e1926c269c8c03a74a9800d9ac24920cbea
31870 F20110330_AACRFT leclear_e_Page_60.QC.jpg
ff37084ae111f34e2a60a51585b22f4c
773cfe8723a9c07e43915de702edd64c26067a77
49307 F20110330_AACRPN leclear_e_Page_24.pro
bf8cb0a004ccfba4cda459bc7d70802e
268340d7cacb6f3bca062bd74aa290c5c18c0ef5
F20110330_AACRKQ leclear_e_Page_01.tif
0406d86a9707ba197e029ad04d9db56f
8275f780f4cf85bf4c9efc3ce268ab2150b4659c
4752 F20110330_AACRZJ leclear_e_Page_43thm.jpg
f4114178ae82f582ba057c5a0e3258b3
ecc6f212ebffcafcab057873c5e69f0ed89c32bb
56663 F20110330_AACRUL leclear_e_Page_55.jp2
2514d12f7721d617add582ef1071172b
b81625425850f0a48e4883b78d285f88b1179234
87303 F20110330_AACRFU leclear_e_Page_18.jp2
3bd5ecc7dd6e18e5c2cfe97325f689c5
0a352906b0614b1aa05b2e93578b91a2e1b532f5
57238 F20110330_AACRPO leclear_e_Page_25.pro
8b886674e3ee6ae3a97c2577765422ea
2a8c5d934072cfcfff6aba8b1beeff94f727a042
F20110330_AACRKR leclear_e_Page_02.tif
3109162494ed8e0607ad68366ca72d31
6a909781e3e99d4befe232560d25ebafe25d4932
7915 F20110330_AACRZK leclear_e_Page_50thm.jpg
9b6375b11ad694de46757b966404c3c2
5a8b103efbdec2fafc7d426134872f48c2086920
101080 F20110330_AACRUM leclear_e_Page_58.jp2
f9119974c432329bd7a8e50a8e013228
ad2a3f21a5ee533263befd8ea439c152a503e7a4
28119 F20110330_AACRFV leclear_e_Page_38.QC.jpg
105ddae3813661209dbe2e5fa1e4cee2
7356e61a75155a64c552cdac74094efe0c9b765a
53665 F20110330_AACRPP leclear_e_Page_26.pro
3a019d26505963fdd3ac1a7ee0c146ee
44c4404a8dcc8484656e1f2d50d6586b09b1e1f1
F20110330_AACRKS leclear_e_Page_03.tif
914f79377883be63ca832d30c372e4e7
d345098bed0eddbf5635e819dbada0b699b1e2ca
8271 F20110330_AACRZL leclear_e_Page_52thm.jpg
9dd34cc6c31acc97d8b56fb39e6f14ce
5ef515087b4fe7b2cd5b6442b3f8a55f99036a9f
104719 F20110330_AACRUN leclear_e_Page_59.jp2
3b7968361bce2fd4b2b9d4e5d2620f22
bad452e7a824412f27cdb526361d954d059b22ad
2256 F20110330_AACRFW leclear_e_Page_69.txt
a030e2774b59b31cbaa7753a07d6e868
77e5a177445ee1d54bc58ef462ab5664b45f91c7
51117 F20110330_AACRPQ leclear_e_Page_28.pro
d134f051bbe882846d9694756aefaa46
822764bc3f64f482f03c8c0e04d4df29c9c12b14
F20110330_AACRKT leclear_e_Page_04.tif
9259785828068499a571b2d96784af68
f08433d83b96dfde50c42f029ee4f2b9d1c2995f
6709 F20110330_AACRZM leclear_e_Page_56thm.jpg
4ff24edf55abe20cf73fbe2ab187cf22
5190bf0db63f709843ba97e68d657b309f5ca06c
131207 F20110330_AACRUO leclear_e_Page_60.jp2
3295728f1f252c8525a894c0f55eeca0
651261cd2f0c56b7902ceb0125f367dc0e357f4f
34000 F20110330_AACRFX leclear_e_Page_31.QC.jpg
28f088b4397d627c891930deac429ee4
7827d8cbcb5ae25becdec785cbce2ad71a687d4e
50506 F20110330_AACRPR leclear_e_Page_31.pro
b04aaefc9addfb1887a3762190310c61
4c337896ef4781a1abdb9b242e06f1cbab9ab26d
F20110330_AACRKU leclear_e_Page_06.tif
46d843cc4cf10d95dc7c660b5356e9b2
5baec1f799d6f47ffe17d8fc5a08f1e135050111
7521 F20110330_AACRZN leclear_e_Page_62thm.jpg
55d92bb206c330801748e203c96d7b9c
d879467af03629b6f17b9d295420d42f741d7602
126163 F20110330_AACRUP leclear_e_Page_61.jp2
8163cff901f465f34b557e5293ad02d5
19a8ae96a22eac5bdc9472b026c8ebd91ec08c6c
2073 F20110330_AACRFY leclear_e_Page_10.txt
038b2d4ff665f754082d43a34d1c3c6d
ba9a31809110e1c78d2c5b6f028fae8ea1e492a4
51215 F20110330_AACRPS leclear_e_Page_32.pro
3c722fa7f6b369b308b6bf70afbfeb15
d4f78bf96234ab9c88380ae6bc70a64c5fafb880
F20110330_AACRKV leclear_e_Page_09.tif
0bea385e61457c4d04dab436ca5b5e7c
96162de9022c80d7255ac99a8d19551af0a7df44
4200 F20110330_AACRZO leclear_e_Page_63thm.jpg
e89aad695bc37b5d1aa616cdc2603a02
782726ff1de37ae496f01a6ecbbd1c1c117ceaca
52509 F20110330_AACRUQ leclear_e_Page_63.jp2
a4368343a97c126964de35a662489cf4
7cd05e4b2be798b177271f703619fc02ab55b0c1
51336 F20110330_AACRFZ leclear_e_Page_82.jpg
7ceb5fa4d7bd36927be187b07a885914
72f869115026648e1535ac93c3fcd0e67b109361
53071 F20110330_AACRPT leclear_e_Page_34.pro
dde95916b66c4ba25e103a36b9a6f351
839ba1dbed208b00c80e1eee6aa23174ae86be0c
F20110330_AACRKW leclear_e_Page_11.tif
48236a7f9a3a86ec36de77990d89cedf
403e9d912974ffa755e00024c9c0a7329e573196
1051957 F20110330_AACRUR leclear_e_Page_64.jp2
106d47b36f497ddcf97cd1ca4edb5539
d64fe508754d506fe378593a97c97721020979f3
40373 F20110330_AACRPU leclear_e_Page_37.pro
fb3c6b6456cf316a1d96e38497d59dc4
a0238f0be996c4ebbfc09270d9f0f6a33ffc75c4
F20110330_AACRKX leclear_e_Page_12.tif
a9fa187a9d7f9f3cbaf6f46b7c3c95d8
853b294bc536e82616060111f61e152b2d1db287
7315 F20110330_AACRZP leclear_e_Page_64thm.jpg
157b0e2e6c3597db3e1cdbad183795ec
70318ad9416b8ac1052c35417343a9a73c839204
1051949 F20110330_AACRUS leclear_e_Page_66.jp2
e5257e55802f60e523df46447fb877de
f4a504a10073beda8fe743e92073ef341f0d226c
53802 F20110330_AACRPV leclear_e_Page_39.pro
ece1e58d20ce93fd5a9f5b10797228e2
70f5cfbbee6ab5586cd0905453afbc179cb7e67c
F20110330_AACRKY leclear_e_Page_14.tif
61e17b525f349cfd1618bb7478445892
20fc5ca496c874f09d4a99404e188174b0fadfee
7893 F20110330_AACRZQ leclear_e_Page_71thm.jpg
27d1deafffcecd3ec9f142dca93b4fe0
dea09a29ec5aea70e744daadf196176288071ed0
13960 F20110330_AACRUT leclear_e_Page_67.jp2
b22ba661f31e9d27370b981b71278164
3fa931661ede74fc3bf0a296bd30d2ef1c5debc8
49703 F20110330_AACRPW leclear_e_Page_40.pro
bdd80b4be132d409bf40eb5013592391
be012992d9eb8a63c6d549915a511ffa52b7bc09
8574 F20110330_AACRIA leclear_e_Page_25thm.jpg
f4024c94d6bd9f7d326f915df2f04891
f4fe854b91811d9f90f40f457acd4936fb52ea56
F20110330_AACRKZ leclear_e_Page_15.tif
89d1e0e85b58f6a1f141fe819dc1a1bb
fb146ec84b8fff4a396c43473d92779e910523a9
8758 F20110330_AACRZR leclear_e_Page_75thm.jpg
6418c0bdfbba4706e0470075d4a9bf37
140f590657ee79562dd542a9c48a20fbc040f244
7033 F20110330_AACRUU leclear_e_Page_68.jp2
2024895a27fde8682b8bcca4bf13df51
6312fb12b9a609a785ae3a08e1e4546eca4dd112
27828 F20110330_AACRPX leclear_e_Page_43.pro
c03cd16d51ea07204173c1a69661c976
0253fdccf5983afef17a376aab0a3b301bc6cfda
112097 F20110330_AACRIB leclear_e_Page_30.jp2
d99830b19c4378eb22eeab9c9005854b
67c444406e68b6cb4e58c3a1d96786caa969d35d
8120 F20110330_AACRZS leclear_e_Page_79thm.jpg
8be4ba73cd440cba114bf787396c7cfb
6dda091a7d3f576d08d1ce7e69b8e7b820c69f86
697770 F20110330_AACRUV leclear_e_Page_70.jp2
b114fa3619fbd234d4abd12e51c363da
8421d3933dfa804da62e96e3064d02143bcf9ac3
1902 F20110330_AACRNA leclear_e_Page_04.txt
c0d3380e2f777c10e4f6337f3433e53c
1bd7a41a23b2648082d6bcaeb97754d39d71a2aa
40088 F20110330_AACRPY leclear_e_Page_44.pro
ca5add4d7c5a97441164081355ef17bb
efc96a3b0d1f97de26771904773f29144a44cb91
30659 F20110330_AACRIC leclear_e_Page_74.QC.jpg
5cce002d1388f3130f767ad0d0614512
b1627335c29a9205799ffe4a6d8250f4c7a564db
6674 F20110330_AACRZT leclear_e_Page_83thm.jpg
cc9aca1fe2b930f50f14b38ac70f38d3
b7f4db97037a116de056602e6284b999e5937deb
899804 F20110330_AACRUW leclear_e_Page_71.jp2
a3f318a7e6e4f163d531a445d5c3aff5
40715f27f55170adf80134aec3418dad538e7a37
1767 F20110330_AACRNB leclear_e_Page_05.txt
84c4db050b103368dde87adaedd6c4aa
46a58d6fb3438e2dda03816d6df84d3eb6e59528
48242 F20110330_AACRPZ leclear_e_Page_46.pro
2601681249157113803ac13cdb8f115e
559157005c85ab7bbec3a9e16ee7da34bcd97c92
F20110330_AACRID leclear_e_Page_13.tif
be8d32f98f40b61c3992ca4c0f1d9b2d
c13b76634e7a5f3cf5e42a83b8e63245f499a31f
1385073 F20110330_AACRZU leclear_e.pdf
fe924536f778dabd88d24b88157b9c3a
9ec953ea290d169a54296a30a60097b4287c9809
773837 F20110330_AACRUX leclear_e_Page_72.jp2
8f03b21f093ce52daf97d802d86409c7
396559603b53f9131ce795c194e2a0ffcae5092c
988 F20110330_AACRNC leclear_e_Page_06.txt
eaf6ebcc36185add60bf3528971d4043
b8c261e334baa042d3cee225b87f47bcb12e84b9
2199 F20110330_AACRIE leclear_e_Page_77.txt
b13b58d173155b3d19c9a3340f240da0
675f7047c85532796ac4a03e35478bbafac8ff5b
99720 F20110330_AACRDH leclear_e_Page_75.jpg
4ced8e5fc517d57bc866089462330739
6e989ebc59b32561a91d5b0578d76e2ba20781e4
964816 F20110330_AACRUY leclear_e_Page_75.jp2
e4c99d82bb70fd6436b2fe81ca8c1ece
4dd6d5a608bb0a6fe10b32ed6d43215928193b72
107271 F20110330_AACRIF leclear_e_Page_23.jpg
35397a3bb1abd97e43ed3590d8e48f66
c104aceb7d3501753b7381b4b96a3254fcf72625
83917 F20110330_AACRSA leclear_e_Page_37.jpg
2f13f15e0bed19e9f58f3961c487f6f1
7efb972255a1ab0ee6e4b2d078f7106c0d023cc2
7750 F20110330_AACRDI leclear_e_Page_51thm.jpg
15ceff205be9468cb62e2eefe962a316
ca128b7aa0d7b396e8ad71cd5061589bec3a5ce9
102510 F20110330_AACRUZ leclear_e_Page_76.jp2
56a03e9dc31c6992ebbf1d465e5a5705
7032b94b4f43efa8298751435fd8e4a6f0c0e4ee
1643 F20110330_AACRND leclear_e_Page_07.txt
91bbf5cb844a95764434c62ff0b0f22b
dc2d1348e0fb4ca5678966c1d4dda62707eb766d
51916 F20110330_AACRIG leclear_e_Page_45.pro
04e918a85e5dbf665704ef5765adcdd9
f46c470b4a1786377169df69e282fd7b334e2b7e
85606 F20110330_AACRSB leclear_e_Page_38.jpg
fd71264f4df0fbcf9c2ae8353f78defa
98374b9718e73aeda5437b58a82c43bfc51fb08f
33053 F20110330_AACRDJ leclear_e_Page_24.QC.jpg
c49cd318030ab1e364f00b00dd13039e
edb588fc1622e3f9652b974ae054409b9e00d472
F20110330_AACRIH leclear_e_Page_58.tif
c90ff30baebfdfd96f97fefe553f4f94
16c23d5bd473d107db3afa32a820abd1ea79e0a7
109445 F20110330_AACRSC leclear_e_Page_39.jpg
0f7e25d160b17d6a8495c665b93a9015
6c50b35b51ac9b94c776e3c36376e21116a2d43a
6784 F20110330_AACRDK leclear_e_Page_37thm.jpg
9d054311f6da33ad81f69f039e9d022f
33f91b3e3f133dd5e569dbe8210dec00517d04c8
1918 F20110330_AACRNE leclear_e_Page_12.txt
d1ec36947e4b864bafee7ac86d225a01
9e83dff8b855cdc3849bc790c764fbef89cc90bd
22755 F20110330_AACRXA leclear_e_Page_44.QC.jpg
96cf973d132fe4c78124779f9b48c414
88e4ce6a6b75ee7cf7900ad36bf576d189d8b5e5
2674 F20110330_AACRII leclear_e_Page_54.txt
f402a37218e3b8349b2dc8a51852ad05
d26512f06cf91dad91738c285e1ddc26a97ba836
102431 F20110330_AACRSD leclear_e_Page_40.jpg
ab51620200f0627182fa018ae50c9fc8
21defc91f084a8b21e8b8df630697090c91c7d54
92810 F20110330_AACRDL leclear_e_Page_09.jp2
252b9950caa751c5bb42c1a70552f765
e3a4bd7d752b52926e432089751975197c2163dc
1919 F20110330_AACRNF leclear_e_Page_13.txt
4584861815049a6a9c4d54134756bddc
d14f4d1869daa1bd15c68fa33d9aef44679a24b3
8422 F20110330_AACRXB leclear_e_Page_74thm.jpg
598f463957cfdf056d3578d889ea0285
aaac39faa2495c479e9791cd147668a1b477ee78
8512 F20110330_AACRIJ leclear_e_Page_80thm.jpg
06a61cfb294d0f60c7a8a0595c482e20
fe283c0440aa30767350a8f3c9fdcb17e1824e33
87460 F20110330_AACRSE leclear_e_Page_41.jpg
c0c202333daa24d03803f68b8acdc6df
b62b3b368b598d2289f04c8d54e401d464e193dd
101586 F20110330_AACRDM leclear_e_Page_13.jp2
e78d7d9dc189c819aef5bc20bd7f96ac
b91b232458ff00706b401146cf3acecd4691f9d1
1708 F20110330_AACRNG leclear_e_Page_14.txt
7a6707941329a8a9d1a7d5de2543b474
5daf48053cf013effd846329a74b72f46202650f
4587 F20110330_AACRXC leclear_e_Page_55thm.jpg
2f44d625be96e1397bf0cfd02efb2fd6
324d7c37373d270b1e23d104293353b776acbc4e
50424 F20110330_AACRIK leclear_e_Page_22.pro
a536365764ed84addbd793fbf80a8130
8d9ef0a8488b53005006e19e43510d82628c9c62
98429 F20110330_AACRSF leclear_e_Page_42.jpg
62642b2cd30aadae1831fb6bcaa3bd85
fa214b7a7db4780231aaabeee802b71249473560
44679 F20110330_AACRDN leclear_e_Page_75.pro
d1bf02f3b05019bb222d060987ed809a
27380f218ee7b2e1d4c3bf20a0260d30ffb3757e
2372 F20110330_AACRNH leclear_e_Page_15.txt
f88d8dac1956e0719e3bb3e94bf64fa2
fec0ed5ce134e5a52f32c24325067a22ad4f87a0
32370 F20110330_AACRXD leclear_e_Page_42.QC.jpg
840aa63ff8765e068bee07392dcc3bca
d4b2070b44acdf9e72b5cb44f774b4478f09af0d
110389 F20110330_AACRIL leclear_e_Page_31.jp2
a3d616c275567e2af68e8466aa385d5b
fd57bc28050887491244a3b5ef1de31964c27ca7
54967 F20110330_AACRSG leclear_e_Page_43.jpg
3c9f5bec8f640e1d9fc46870168c823b
23d778b69358c9c49a84d1477212a397f1a2198c
23556 F20110330_AACRDO leclear_e_Page_82.pro
f89527d4837b2f53516e4cc560c55485
b18628fc4ac4fcf43baa4bc0f7dcfda58981e47b
2255 F20110330_AACRNI leclear_e_Page_16.txt
1b8486f6503cca9bdc52ba166c654361
f18097912e6fe2c580f841af6e7b2b8d2523b930
21340 F20110330_AACRXE leclear_e_Page_02.QC.jpg
2fc48e5a80a5f49756c2e9d1f46f3ce7
71d698270a2da1b98637a2ec2e8a278f996ac928
52937 F20110330_AACRIM leclear_e_Page_62.pro
f4849ffec8c1b1c747caa4875d5f7a3c
bec0bb81b7a17738ac08dae051d45670b7b04cef
78592 F20110330_AACRSH leclear_e_Page_44.jpg
9da1a9909a3e0168b83ccd9a7623e9bf
ba6d7e91648859062e1d9c3196068068be1f03b2
101243 F20110330_AACRDP leclear_e_Page_45.jpg
76edd1107bca29ca271c0467c2e0876a
82cdd9409dff8ea6c8ca2dc8dec4e8ce656a2326
1868 F20110330_AACRNJ leclear_e_Page_17.txt
a00f5fbae013c10da85403d14123cb1b
28e9f852b3128cc0b82036564fb8faadbb8cfe72
8212 F20110330_AACRXF leclear_e_Page_31thm.jpg
f937f6b7602394f9c75377bd0a62c2f3
fed3237d65f7da1fc7ff6e1f3bdfb0b5744846b2
82238 F20110330_AACRIN leclear_e_Page_07.jp2
64eac6f9249a10902fb2fe184220c11e
2456d9edc5f9e7e5c4b3b1a279a14554ca99ea8a
97783 F20110330_AACRDQ leclear_e_Page_03.jpg
5b9dc9b268e1f0df2914c08832951edd
7972d9c2c826510488b4a14e3e8bc6bef52c6e14
1700 F20110330_AACRNK leclear_e_Page_18.txt
899d455c638367a767178f45a2dec672
7ab99fd5ee7dec981f707a57d52a4e67339ed4b9
8498 F20110330_AACRXG leclear_e_Page_77thm.jpg
3ca127a5a1fe4d19b93263190b12e95d
0c15e548b24e209fc25a690ea97792b9c0bdcb34
107747 F20110330_AACRIO leclear_e_Page_36.jp2
11faf02dcd0edf25e8d06a8c3b7b5a2c
4edbee40e1f8d5725c0c031045057c0fac3fda55
91652 F20110330_AACRSI leclear_e_Page_46.jpg
8bba393c15d8da17e09ebd942af22ef9
212c46a314bf197a11544036628753575a285114
31777 F20110330_AACRDR leclear_e_Page_59.QC.jpg
ac20bfd6112962d155a1419413993137
75afda5a34f01ed057365776520ed052d08529e0
1538 F20110330_AACRNL leclear_e_Page_19.txt
666301da918c037690ee035043aad164
1657245551eb72737de7bb65677f8f5b8a02705f
29128 F20110330_AACRXH leclear_e_Page_46.QC.jpg
7b0d39177918e4e45a05bc615d07b113
1cc57bf1e33ffae646029937639016992d0d8ea6
103519 F20110330_AACRIP leclear_e_Page_11.jpg
3af0e6c027dd4adc2e9d8e25a4a4278c
868fb3dfea04760231fc6ff36d2ddb82f99517d7
95304 F20110330_AACRSJ leclear_e_Page_47.jpg
b34b95cff44ee53721814c1d20deb727
3495140211c1432d5c08f7b2bf4060a8ff7c7110
8084 F20110330_AACRDS leclear_e_Page_27thm.jpg
509a50340e38b69d29890e737ee30f1f
408287c263e05d4b1a6812c80ac39b937af01066
2222 F20110330_AACRNM leclear_e_Page_20.txt
9ad3dafc568e792a3c9dab3b22474fdb
4d861aeee3f56675e18317ed98c7d2c4ac18cb2e
28023 F20110330_AACRXI leclear_e_Page_53.QC.jpg
aa52ddafc771d31e05b1d9cc2533552f
58b451229bffd9193850f1169696722ced5caf36
F20110330_AACRIQ leclear_e_Page_27.tif
620f75cafbad36b60ca61fe663f6be74
25d9a64a2f5127fe099e05846aa3f5a7d1d49b1d
100591 F20110330_AACRSK leclear_e_Page_48.jpg
151c849e3f905d585ccefef4c6ca2962
d2e8a857f66484e846df492db20fac19d1030193
49203 F20110330_AACRDT leclear_e_Page_36.pro
8b4ccea0883bb686bb57a73f6b5a4705
f0cda0f1bac30f382ce1f14c294d60990046a002
1966 F20110330_AACRNN leclear_e_Page_21.txt
9f105de91890b2865cc57e88c9337554
cd600f1d92146c1ad33357b99271a44865769c6d
26253 F20110330_AACRXJ leclear_e_Page_18.QC.jpg
64d89e907621fe402c7170195211e313
cbc317d32c28c78e9c3fc4bab22eea1ecd56eec0
83352 F20110330_AACRIR leclear_e_Page_14.jpg
88e15e1b89f8842570338cd80af7e59d
1e82f4104b20b626f471a89976b40002b06d89fc
95526 F20110330_AACRSL leclear_e_Page_51.jpg
42f9c4f4308039f990200fb1b17ac9dc
6b15663ecd2ffed898be522504a808a1f9b8bab6
7869 F20110330_AACRDU leclear_e_Page_42thm.jpg
a0de9c69db8dc9fe19f0f203a671f0e8
f8f5875e8ee20b634b719bd4f9cb0a820e45cf42
2067 F20110330_AACRNO leclear_e_Page_24.txt
c209f28188f0edf2ab2da54f0ea85d27
cd16e1974011d68661ddce8b0cf3056080540c61
4125 F20110330_AACRXK leclear_e_Page_65.QC.jpg
f91a00bcb50918171166a95c9f5b814c
c39d77c83e2452d7e31ad7e7f0a1df0eb525a244
2024 F20110330_AACRIS leclear_e_Page_22.txt
c6426ea2e82fec1af3800bcd941ee401
d4a7b057c74865d8b94e00207a3f6e231e83c423
105258 F20110330_AACRSM leclear_e_Page_52.jpg
0b4028ebdacc01098dbd7e9fac49c480
cf9607adb472deff480cf285762e1feed60c40f3
56945 F20110330_AACRDV leclear_e_Page_79.pro
6505f1cda468b42cf31786e822e948f1
03465e92427adc7e1441fb91922ff27826e993ac
2052 F20110330_AACRNP leclear_e_Page_28.txt
654eeb327ac6b5601eb77909fec428fa
850189cb1f1d5b3946c8dfd47c6f7320ea3d005c
15227 F20110330_AACRXL leclear_e_Page_63.QC.jpg
4054fbe86d17a5f44293f1b4b6592129
dcc0579f86d7dd3fdf30eed1774598844fc53ecb
1051968 F20110330_AACRIT leclear_e_Page_69.jp2
1bb759b89bcc401e9ff4424b3cc52770
a9ce513e5fd8b68748a9be0b5b41d45b12335d35
88518 F20110330_AACRSN leclear_e_Page_53.jpg
744c71314bfa485652e8417d323b5f33
a5afabe354b0d04a9c127c6454f458822e5bf9df
110288 F20110330_AACRDW leclear_e_Page_78.jpg
dbf49a513d8e8484e2dd99ddf48d5216
b36e38b37b23512d9602da3ab257c10a3e899b58
2250 F20110330_AACRNQ leclear_e_Page_29.txt
6b41f014ca6566c2771f851b13558231
201c1514e1a49946e0a9b35e646859146480d642
33998 F20110330_AACRXM leclear_e_Page_39.QC.jpg
dd44b2e2181bc0bd6c66ddb72e4abf26
203a68186116589a883d046a1a7426efc22ccef3
F20110330_AACRIU leclear_e_Page_73.tif
121e84d6812eed77a2746ff3d980dfc5
b91654a1b908ad89d59a6a5f3bc339a2266932a2
94688 F20110330_AACRSO leclear_e_Page_54.jpg
19214f9e4e1d696053eed28d5c594974
ee5f8094e8cdbf6149dadc84943f976b781e431b
46592 F20110330_AACRDX leclear_e_Page_13.pro
340cd56dfba77907bee90f12f05d3e06
6c33b12e79f277548d49b9d66bd03ef21e56ee89
2035 F20110330_AACRNR leclear_e_Page_31.txt
2c720817be90ec4682268f180ae309a2
1e427b15c29d433d1fa2b70ee6227f6856fd86d5
29953 F20110330_AACRIV leclear_e_Page_47.QC.jpg
0de42d46252f82a595da0a141e5bc4e5
2a5fa3f65079c1777bb0ed1967dede498ab588f3
53411 F20110330_AACRSP leclear_e_Page_55.jpg
63c3b8d6bb6680ca929de7eb592424c0
06c20722195ae9e173b4d25d8995cc2edf4d1389
F20110330_AACRDY leclear_e_Page_41.tif
f53c7887fb3c4739f42e27466eec79b5
13c105702f0f285333ceafa6351a1c9a495729f9
2032 F20110330_AACRNS leclear_e_Page_32.txt
5ce0a923481aaef0af69f2b017a64a73
378af1543c6ce3ab86161784bb6d40347a9ae8cc
6855 F20110330_AACRXN leclear_e_Page_70thm.jpg
c38c6e72b1bff5c66cc89863b5cecd7e
28e20bdb8d0b2b82ba790471ffcfb0de64513fa0
35322 F20110330_AACRIW leclear_e_Page_19.pro
0fd5064dc30aef3bba6be2ef68560ebd
228be9cbcce293d9e95efe76b5c84f9ed68972b4
80361 F20110330_AACRSQ leclear_e_Page_56.jpg
4ba492295c32b3c6d82e1a14e0fa2a47
e3d4898936ad642cbd00bf1bdd3c37d14a17402b
2064 F20110330_AACRNT leclear_e_Page_33.txt
d828a2f1e79534742b046dd8ab815237
167d8b709d5bf30709c58d08b6a94555374778fc
7932 F20110330_AACRXO leclear_e_Page_13thm.jpg
390593bef4e2a3e3fb928310ed0ec5a0
fd95e8ca831db19f97a1036ce84d7949d3c37dcf
2223 F20110330_AACRIX leclear_e_Page_57.txt
05b3872a4f9b23f0c1feb60f960c89db
df57829b56715a95e049bb62c0da506986ed8bbe
97062 F20110330_AACRSR leclear_e_Page_59.jpg
37d441b8b41326b688017b08ff09039c
b57a389d4cab39997fca601f0304b8252f5e1742
2084 F20110330_AACRDZ leclear_e_Page_30.txt
a02a3a6a481c5ad909a3f19bba61fefc
d4bc650b506571406fab4bc372e8a0dbfda8781a
2155 F20110330_AACRNU leclear_e_Page_34.txt
147d423fa791d3c44217e95ae314d0e7
794a8cdfc47c1483e3dee62ed1babe6a02391de0
8234 F20110330_AACRXP leclear_e_Page_48thm.jpg
c3e2bb9dbee72817246d67949bee815b
99a282c8a608c1221316bc9623e45142b58ecc35
F20110330_AACRIY leclear_e_Page_23.tif
b80aca37f04b07e6fc5855df608658b0
ad417e106138421bb410c782b0ca64449a700e7b
117722 F20110330_AACRSS leclear_e_Page_60.jpg
825693decb903afc902227a894979755
c54ae001d07611c6a3c7e96d8a1b06a1651d8b16
1796 F20110330_AACRNV leclear_e_Page_37.txt
91730102fa17cd3f750045602b373362
ad0afbc1a45184612a1a12006206cb89de2d8c4f
7688 F20110330_AACRXQ leclear_e_Page_60thm.jpg
a60fbcff5073a9b3d04687b19f1a2be2
432f2f420afebf6e2e6d9912bda11b342ea6c686
114647 F20110330_AACRST leclear_e_Page_61.jpg
7e5a4c092077320228255415b09b6a2e
f883694680b590151f905943a378bb31b338f812
117915 F20110330_AACRIZ leclear_e_Page_16.jp2
dd828b3fc55fbe693be9627432b93bb4
da6aa62bf3818d5add0f637905e3a575658cdc82
2406 F20110330_AACRNW leclear_e_Page_39.txt
0b46a606e5f9cafc705bb7ccd4b75b9b
512663e8274a30071dfdc4e2d567ad9a5cd85916
23585 F20110330_AACRGA leclear_e_Page_06.pro
8288d383b97c2d218e8fc73720d6b113
ba3361b3c9269715d088cecf208e1c76306df5ce
29773 F20110330_AACRXR leclear_e_Page_41.QC.jpg
a7b182a77cf5cabab70a02ac2c141388
8f75b3e4aaea65ffca2dd0fce2aace50a2501548
106226 F20110330_AACRSU leclear_e_Page_64.jpg
5890f8160d2ae747af6dd1dca188a93d
b2b7ef95f30fd896c2c651d354ef57a36eeba88b
F20110330_AACRNX leclear_e_Page_40.txt
b2b92ebcf6bad68cd55324ef3d0182a2
1326afa323553202413adaf15113127653a6f7cc
7884 F20110330_AACRGB leclear_e_Page_46thm.jpg
10d8e4f810ed7d617602e4e54d66ddda
4b252a701f3925eb1c08cecc60167450a2901e27
31899 F20110330_AACRXS leclear_e_Page_61.QC.jpg
cabf6b2dcb937e657bd32c54039680bb
ced2b65a5f71452b7e0ee96d804b46aafcdb296e
12723 F20110330_AACRSV leclear_e_Page_65.jpg
80c5e2b9469b03dc3387a0df95f43d33
35941d941e6d34a543431ccb1b622499afba762a
F20110330_AACRLA leclear_e_Page_16.tif
b0baffbad9535f12d54a7fa383f4db18
c403ce4118df0d05540f951ba2492ea3a539d72e
1744 F20110330_AACRNY leclear_e_Page_41.txt
2bf562c6a83d54d86678b2b5c4ed39f3
24b53d3c58c487634f320fe565e994b4ee59e6d9
2179 F20110330_AACRGC leclear_e_Page_78.txt
369594a0f5d5e39ec10a11607c565f5f
8d8f8328c55f8bac84a08c64d8a2865a6a37a8b8
7459 F20110330_AACRXT leclear_e_Page_53thm.jpg
197394cd4b1581df3b0f5b87fff56531
4385299910733b064768c234e783ebdafcb1e8e2
99886 F20110330_AACRSW leclear_e_Page_66.jpg
35c22b4f5cc2dd6b95e1a2be31b28241
aaa02b20e9ebb832ebecd4813fab9f80d59e3935
2216 F20110330_AACRNZ leclear_e_Page_45.txt
4b40e6b7e42b08654d0842d3ae78a3ce
fd5f0ae89e069cc15b4ba747d07fbf30cfd1e353
F20110330_AACRGD leclear_e_Page_22.tif
0fac228403aa4b49c60a102a3cfdae50
938683c4ae6d9ee5f3612a8d398b5d2fc8ed858a
26814 F20110330_AACRXU leclear_e_Page_05.QC.jpg
833f82c25df8a62919f84340805e1f36
1e26c2dc5a357803275d1685f2f9ea492482aa6e
6231 F20110330_AACRSX leclear_e_Page_68.jpg
5b0f145a9cfe9e69913b6f7c51f47fb0
693bb6bb14ea7aa6ea803d2e11ee493a95f30714
F20110330_AACRLB leclear_e_Page_18.tif
8fc610117895456690f49fcd15951380
793c334772d86a5e67a92091b04bbb67b06f174f
55564 F20110330_AACRGE leclear_e_Page_16.pro
e6e35284a61eafd5ea3a8a97fec0b4b0
5288df3f0875b605d5a329a7585dca122c7230b8
6420 F20110330_AACRXV leclear_e_Page_19thm.jpg
c46f1df40a1cd2e9359160303e067bbd
54e2fffac3d73bfebc519b81175ff96c47dcf474
90059 F20110330_AACRSY leclear_e_Page_69.jpg
b5f74bae421b6beeaecfc2e8ece8b849
7302f517f76a2d55853e7310271d7bb4c6191723
52406 F20110330_AACRQA leclear_e_Page_49.pro
489577d6913c6f9bb8a94198fc527d14
43a10b9ff854293e8e0879df0c4576878500d2d9
F20110330_AACRLC leclear_e_Page_19.tif
03f0c82ec4eb012316ff9051085c4b8c
33d2d06b0e5d00065fe83d5499f6dce6e5fb145d
52531 F20110330_AACRGF leclear_e_Page_33.pro
1052d742b98fff9344b1b4b7c7f27dd5
ded65bfaae60baa5757c4e5b8e7f0df95bea2159
31742 F20110330_AACRXW leclear_e_Page_16.QC.jpg
df300608d2604723e516a7c66637fc08
f2f17f355c1d4206228a8fad1a1b3def19462424
71161 F20110330_AACRSZ leclear_e_Page_70.jpg
3bbf9a47135aee0e27a4a5ec7d6068b5
14beae6bbecaeee8dce257c2b13c72fd681a0362
F20110330_AACRLD leclear_e_Page_20.tif
a3578803e147f0daf5380c074d361c8a
9e9ccc1546255c531a4d5136edef49d9795850cd
49930 F20110330_AACRGG leclear_e_Page_21.pro
18de4f3b9aea04d1d897734101292524
d04f0bedc5043d965b0bdcdc2c56e9d260333009
53148 F20110330_AACRQB leclear_e_Page_50.pro
9729e0575bfd8e433e9d2e007d5ced4c
1f64ed4013212264d678d143b66ea915d62b4b58
135314 F20110330_AACRXX UFE0013022_00001.xml
b23f3bf6381d4cb7fce37f55fd19b8ef
df2aebb19449e997e0a82f9878c0c85730408c19
F20110330_AACRLE leclear_e_Page_21.tif
33144f8b620c8fc81f2b4d3ea7528911
8a39f66409c18d2b5069242406aae3690871cd9c
1153 F20110330_AACRGH leclear_e_Page_65thm.jpg
9d969c7fa80b51d1b6f10f4896e12e06
5925338edac1e56c8af98eb39b525401bca8aa92
58658 F20110330_AACRQC leclear_e_Page_52.pro
79b6fee7128066ddba4f330b1ac21069
c63baeaa6b4a3dfe7c5c9ba0d40206955c47c9ac
16287 F20110330_AACRXY leclear_e_Page_06.QC.jpg
cbc14e96ff326230052a6ac0a28339b2
604a64d2ee2205d9fb0d6c2530ef79106ad3ba43
119975 F20110330_AACRVA leclear_e_Page_77.jp2
163b9c963d276c79a97ba3af3e8fff74
f4e962de237fcb52f2303751cd9a80c9162c513b
F20110330_AACRLF leclear_e_Page_25.tif
3e1e20c6245e3677d421afcd4b52a28b
d89a4403ab17a74a86fc2a3461c9ee224f0e3d6e
50964 F20110330_AACRGI leclear_e_Page_30.pro
ddb48e3b40b15913f3cc5fb781fd25ea
cc2090b15610d40a8c727f51cf482df7e844cf0c
50187 F20110330_AACRQD leclear_e_Page_53.pro
b076a50997fb0cb352a36a1d90b0d4e4
9cd48dad96ac8d0cb981f1ae25953372e585d5bd
24024 F20110330_AACRXZ leclear_e_Page_07.QC.jpg
9d414707992f73b4b418795cea2639bf
836d1ff67f53e2ffd59928a741a4f807bb848a04
118724 F20110330_AACRVB leclear_e_Page_78.jp2
31f11147c5b9a16c271b85cc72aad786
43bf473113a5a2579cfb614d758df84479b54829
F20110330_AACRLG leclear_e_Page_26.tif
528d54c6b68861d26508d234f3c05232
23f92c2aba27400dfef217b948688cb2b984378e
34096 F20110330_AACRGJ leclear_e_Page_32.QC.jpg
b8dcfa6317ed54de315540cd0c882c74
ab59380f3e588c1daeff9f5ad85d2a729f6369e9
53063 F20110330_AACRQE leclear_e_Page_54.pro
ae3079c12fddfad3d7ad32687b835671
f6a0cc1d12085a2a652a4d1b18fa2b76f390cbbe
127209 F20110330_AACRVC leclear_e_Page_79.jp2
edd5f20525549151386b2bf83039bacc
b0a7be7b09c0affc819fc42799d1dfc9e018814c
F20110330_AACRLH leclear_e_Page_28.tif
38647f28775e9a3b81378a25f5994d97
e9fb0c6bd94dbd0513c79235d856cf1be1ace429
111291 F20110330_AACRGK leclear_e_Page_57.jpg
457f4c4f28917648e55d6437b5eda8e2
9f53d38a3686977a23e5e49e9f5ee2d6950758b7
27700 F20110330_AACRQF leclear_e_Page_55.pro
5567147f05aaf586714c8fc22ce4205b
b6ef440c3eac0a109497de2b3d7d869be390e024
116343 F20110330_AACRVD leclear_e_Page_80.jp2
fa28774f0c5dbf6da604f029785fe655
76dfa3a8417265ce7a9b96c9d0e731f473196761
F20110330_AACRLI leclear_e_Page_29.tif
ef1e041de76aa8442e1bd4f59275576a
e557a2564bad8a22667d8d30050ac61c9a960c30
26774 F20110330_AACRGL leclear_e_Page_72.QC.jpg
d80bc2fbf1b8baca771e262e76427c28
e0906624cb2176b6701e4ead538fc330dbdfc673
7856 F20110330_AACRVE leclear_e_Page_73thm.jpg
a05416a4b4580340c434d3a4c98cef02
a73cc613e88c60f793494e5d447ea04bd7c5b18e
F20110330_AACRLJ leclear_e_Page_30.tif
c3ba1eb203dee9b361865ecbdd115f6d
1c8b1d1621e609638a52f118e2c9a88d851627b9
7416 F20110330_AACRGM leclear_e_Page_76thm.jpg
4ed82893bb2978bffdcf09bba2f9be1b
e475600f92cfaa5590f0a792ae7e0fe48d0446dc
38318 F20110330_AACRQG leclear_e_Page_56.pro
b6eb871f5d6da1eca9c4cfef61f03651
45a8820699b6df5b728ccda94a4cb38f2529aaf5
17007 F20110330_AACRVF leclear_e_Page_55.QC.jpg
4ff351e97a90605bc4506432389126f9
c740995277ff1d6c380c8da3219098cd0779b123
F20110330_AACRLK leclear_e_Page_31.tif
85cdf6f288884a1d810794ef2cafe3e1
2e76be98612222df14c8fc327299cffe7028f711
1731 F20110330_AACRGN leclear_e_Page_09.txt
2a4e62e37638acd2f6767ec49bdfc4bb
05c1d13da9e6a72f8679ed1c7acf4ccf3456383c
54708 F20110330_AACRQH leclear_e_Page_57.pro
1f877c0c4ca35a81872abf88a8b28b94
d39707afd974e13e300863b82620a02d4ef43464
26835 F20110330_AACRVG leclear_e_Page_76.QC.jpg
ccbebd169c9020b7cfbe864381ccdfe0
e2cc93a878324ea0df7ffcf090b2e56b66f5cfdc
F20110330_AACRLL leclear_e_Page_32.tif
e684a5c5a86185ed270e7d3b0cc2f1d8
9487a2375726a438ddc2de720959f55f8dadd3e2
F20110330_AACRGO leclear_e_Page_44.tif
38413b129a18f19fa43da2a4af967e8f
c615a0b27c5b23a30ce4eeb5ee5a273ef839aabc
47455 F20110330_AACRQI leclear_e_Page_59.pro
7d7752d4d3bc2d6f8ea1ff0ec490613d
e78681f7475074170458acc44a860e0650417c73
34789 F20110330_AACRVH leclear_e_Page_26.QC.jpg
5faa328875147eaa19b0824f68d4d59b
487baa4570370b1d9a1369eb5126a950f80036ad
F20110330_AACRLM leclear_e_Page_33.tif
0c4cf7215982f97161d385593488b165
994e6b330d320f42c0328339f541f47893b18690
91965 F20110330_AACRGP leclear_e_Page_74.jpg
4aed56d87e47570b75cad37d4a442bf8
fcf0015c4787558f40183afe9da2a642c6e7c9a4
22934 F20110330_AACRQJ leclear_e_Page_63.pro
33fa94a9b8112b7428340037f69f1971
0bc4701af0dbee5223c300934efa95fd4b7db343
8598 F20110330_AACRVI leclear_e_Page_57thm.jpg
e9558981923165763724247e28355467
64ba465188abe4dcfe967169cff1376c3526cd46
F20110330_AACRLN leclear_e_Page_34.tif
bc11d9456fc0f466ce7e93835ac178b3
5e827882ff2eeb8b280980599de93e367e27df75
2136 F20110330_AACRGQ leclear_e_Page_11.txt
5eb4d07bea21ac9761f11ec327d70094
c71dbcc733b705584f2a0effe509170a578aacc8
5155 F20110330_AACRQK leclear_e_Page_65.pro
e55dba52526475bea0bff98129ae99b7
42479f53a75a0f0888b6500cd9387808fee9f39c
33695 F20110330_AACRVJ leclear_e_Page_15.QC.jpg
f9e80ecedd41fd9ab67cc6fa0582dfa0
04905678ecc790d530e822e518c7fdf0ac2d91f0
F20110330_AACRLO leclear_e_Page_35.tif
aac8ce4cc2912afd839369d129f56687
76512ef4aaf1decf4e3d9c92b205f6e8a3824e29
113530 F20110330_AACRGR leclear_e_Page_33.jp2
f7da9a70aeb4d3dc642518a18f6caa11
66817b6d89473ad0f48c9a5a2ff4b6c7aadd5716
1472 F20110330_AACRQL leclear_e_Page_68.pro
e30b219a548173669cf87880e43a3cc6
b3d3ecd8854a1bfc49bf9d0e71e49fe42f7a90bc
33794 F20110330_AACRVK leclear_e_Page_23.QC.jpg
0d8b7f6e9c8d9e15b07024deeb5aa7f2
65b1156445dc9720679455aa0535f3e5ffb399cd
F20110330_AACRLP leclear_e_Page_36.tif
28f060ea54376c46d1ba9bf14a8aab61
929bcfd0a9bf533e9665dbaafe030bd2efdfae65
2191 F20110330_AACRGS leclear_e_Page_26.txt
22b5449630ec3c67dff90ebe77b59615
660d78fab8944763e7ff0c1f29a1b89a8eaaac12
57391 F20110330_AACRQM leclear_e_Page_69.pro
15ee58046d8ee29523d051de8d36be53
d3a7087aa857de14e3bc0e31fa13e97b0491ebbe
F20110330_AACRLQ leclear_e_Page_37.tif
e2ef99bba564d5c1f4d7452bf3116354
bbf90699bdd7c5f713c13576ee814a274305832d
112811 F20110330_AACRGT leclear_e_Page_62.jp2
b2c257a506136dcab033ad2b7bf47c96
918dae1bff24daff5c8107fbeceb597d3d091ec1
41030 F20110330_AACRQN leclear_e_Page_70.pro
1f7837c6698c7ec05b25975c5f09f4fb
78ff64c252a4f93869cd7686fbe86b2f450aebb4
30394 F20110330_AACRVL leclear_e_Page_48.QC.jpg
cfb06209f72d37ca2464ec11b30f4b55
f6c6afc092f7e800c35982c4f686dcd8bea7d36b
F20110330_AACRLR leclear_e_Page_38.tif
b94cbf1eec38670fae817348ca6a2fb4
bb837db0311943392b7d66b50c196eb44c0eb60b
86079 F20110330_AACRGU leclear_e_Page_56.jp2
ba62ee9c812c9a8826663c61cf41d84a
940209d5f49e09706888f7e021998992b719b8e5
46954 F20110330_AACRQO leclear_e_Page_71.pro
4ca34e7e448018b01b4e49b852388b73
62e265e359d439ca748ccd318afcd043333dd340
7134 F20110330_AACRVM leclear_e_Page_69thm.jpg
db0fc0dd49fad7a893bc370b40c7c215
01903253f693ff0c9f27e24a54ac274e768eb68e
F20110330_AACRLS leclear_e_Page_39.tif
b2628bccdd89c190b9bf82e780c2945d
a160f05a1a1e8ed0af21d80b8ba8563be0b3fda9
50021 F20110330_AACRGV leclear_e_Page_66.pro
358e734395713fa65a25b49d639fce7b
444b68cf8e0bab1d7aa63aaeb50de438ccc20ba5
35116 F20110330_AACRQP leclear_e_Page_72.pro
929d5735ac9f6e91eec8706e038fceb3
3080e6b16259806e81d5cb1c1d2e5f4017e1fd4a
8561 F20110330_AACRVN leclear_e_Page_15thm.jpg
005337be7ca46e06c56b6da5d3d9e0fd
a8b2d578c7bd9b16abd9f3b6b4b48317939db78b
F20110330_AACRLT leclear_e_Page_42.tif
84cc9ebf52376f94c28ae53435b93e57
a2db036e79b94fb07bc75f385e7c9bebf0fd6a45
F20110330_AACRGW leclear_e_Page_74.tif
e8b69d95e3cb23d988d499fb0c526e4f
1e5dba80ced07d7eb4324a8f68289a062f71deaa
42109 F20110330_AACRQQ leclear_e_Page_73.pro
a1ab2849b555ae74ec7030df5ce1933f
b329400696ce8e9f9bc2a3a03b98b5f9298d97c5
8399 F20110330_AACRVO leclear_e_Page_10thm.jpg
7f606adbb84c6a20be76ab209ef316f2
11e46fd360a0c28454ffd5eff89deb27b0afcc5d
F20110330_AACRLU leclear_e_Page_43.tif
48ecdce505b587e89d9c18db70480775
fefb847845c9d86a73613060fe33a365b8a49e1a
7463 F20110330_AACRGX leclear_e_Page_01.QC.jpg
38fe441fe42a7c089633aa297ac17bda
02271797877f5dab9b42d9b1224d9489ba793d73
41814 F20110330_AACRQR leclear_e_Page_74.pro
7b5f0609f977515c82abea33fd79cc4e
e8fcc8a428695ff777b5c0b3e0d41c912f3ba9e9
4091 F20110330_AACRVP leclear_e_Page_82thm.jpg
5dcd613433a052ac98d986e75e61529a
b316ecc9942b955aed8c0ebfb66ce66d6fc72bad
F20110330_AACRLV leclear_e_Page_45.tif
1a46638cee09462e048869f632be8442
4c29786805ccb5bd4f047cb3ccd6fd88893589bc
1051866 F20110330_AACRGY leclear_e_Page_81.jp2
f2bd72ac737f6588d5adbbc198fcc8ee
93f100936419a39e0de296a032b067c23a30b0b0
45377 F20110330_AACRQS leclear_e_Page_76.pro
71d3d202ae4e038811a845b5081c0f50
3618a84b0fb80b5959a4df03dc96aab520907f90
8190 F20110330_AACRVQ leclear_e_Page_21thm.jpg
7cc9bccb79e98eed15d91469cb64ac76
833578cc92778e5b520f56af7606592bac98d817
F20110330_AACRLW leclear_e_Page_46.tif
9fe50f349fba5f113cd3ff781e31237b
97b117bed52026860710d409e0b15424e52c0cb2
7834 F20110330_AACREA leclear_e_Page_54thm.jpg
65d2dbfe103f4b18d45f5a6309c6c505
4f0a3fdf6ec10371abdbee102d524e3d8bb66072
86998 F20110330_AACRGZ leclear_e_Page_09.jpg
36578209ce7f542a5ec70fbaff3daea9
80a01ce113ff6d531b1032e8049f930ee29b4280
53920 F20110330_AACRQT leclear_e_Page_77.pro
0ca10db865db6c6c3a5a56b628d65854
dbbf8c96d30302132e32c54c6801dd93c0a57965
8371 F20110330_AACRVR leclear_e_Page_29thm.jpg
1c21146a8239ef81dbf348143430b0c2
352dee41f7a8e1068939cb544a5850fc6e5cd876
F20110330_AACRLX leclear_e_Page_47.tif
e045d5d0157c103f994cd7bff892a4a8
e7e1bbe16b00533dd85bff38187e78908adb5f59
123450 F20110330_AACREB leclear_e_Page_15.jp2
06dbc007013ebdf563b0a7e3aa3d7616
7859fa709bf14af38b11381b6f765cd745b28e61
51844 F20110330_AACRQU leclear_e_Page_80.pro
2776538fd39ff4b2a42e64e95db3f7e4
171af8e816b013040aa0c64e195dfd1307184e7b
33791 F20110330_AACRVS leclear_e_Page_35.QC.jpg
09b6d45a840581d5ba9a2c448a37cf54
572300cf5e98d0d725752cd6a3244ddb17f1c7ea
F20110330_AACRLY leclear_e_Page_48.tif
42c199e01258d3698b4a3f3dec25d2d6
7e9d6557ffb5d2921b7d36746293b7a829fe10bd
F20110330_AACREC leclear_e_Page_05.tif
3bc3a9c5131b3975727976107730c5fc
390a67f6f7fccd7b9ad81301c8b727743f3581a3
56706 F20110330_AACRQV leclear_e_Page_81.pro
e11ca7b1997118b3dd5d4e414e40c789
255592f89b8c3c7b3c4889ba82e0e83d47fbf81e
33747 F20110330_AACRVT leclear_e_Page_30.QC.jpg
e0f32b4eb50f6394acd7ce31a9f75320
68e1910a44021c2a0b306f1545bb16307fa67c16
F20110330_AACRLZ leclear_e_Page_52.tif
eed484969d5af96853c147f7a96f5c4b
8862a8fdfffe799fa57994271b119029a88644f4
109933 F20110330_AACRED leclear_e_Page_77.jpg
a4e3fa15dee5f868ddba6199a18c70a7
b21a2d6650e789d2c8763175ea17b2f25fc3e7f1
37573 F20110330_AACRQW leclear_e_Page_83.pro
0d9b24b497808222eb5d3834eaaa631c
c12169062616e847d07b4ee8bf493253631ef28b
F20110330_AACRJA leclear_e_Page_51.tif
4aab30741385a167bccf5bc7cc91752a
e5956be37e72d8454769540265dc1f3ab27158e3
31991 F20110330_AACRVU leclear_e_Page_27.QC.jpg
b417454b3bd11c2a421bd6747c3c932f
5babe6a5358740f5a55aac815ddb15b41371c3ba
32649 F20110330_AACREE leclear_e_Page_79.QC.jpg
168359fa3342f8cef201bdc8da32b2eb
481dd532de43682576440f57c6c907ee8c7e84aa
26427 F20110330_AACRQX leclear_e_Page_01.jpg
1715c1098b33956cb0c2c35d066e0d19
fc98d5f229b16e65a7e6727736cc58fc6c8376b9
103149 F20110330_AACRJB leclear_e_Page_27.jpg
8b05ab4f41f99d378017434977126222
9ed879a75710db9409b2385834ecbc6d4205bfb7
23947 F20110330_AACRVV leclear_e_Page_03.QC.jpg
91099f4841aa2300e0697f0f4627f5f8
077be1b64c91d6f9b7c3f82dde090ab9b7eeff39
36074 F20110330_AACREF leclear_e_Page_57.QC.jpg
ea16f0b812d205877cab403526befc49
05cfc30a74333ac9bf4152a967aa04bf0a0c2c14
2429 F20110330_AACROA leclear_e_Page_47.txt
0f0b98af0cf17f3c47cc6ce6deea873f
cf5bd834c97a3c61844c5b3ef1cac9cba3b368cb
68113 F20110330_AACRQY leclear_e_Page_02.jpg
31862a1ac78e787f2399d71247f12367
5b49f125dd990f9e17a8ad3aa493bc40f509cccb
1298 F20110330_AACRJC leclear_e_Page_02.txt
f3c5152fe9f659e9f0393667119b96f3
e039620ab3fa3aba48b6ee422ed8202eb2be68bc
33411 F20110330_AACRVW leclear_e_Page_45.QC.jpg
e4dca6d9cd66e9a588ee814714be7019
0f5798edd7ae1e0c025a079fcd0ee23c3f17cbfd
F20110330_AACREG leclear_e_Page_49.tif
da280c43694bb8c6f8a1117769b38634
d62b73ac888c625e31df558cba995e18db19c796
2594 F20110330_AACROB leclear_e_Page_49.txt
5448cb330b7d37c0f154a5165811ba6f
407e636592da779c42a15bef89179126567cfb5d
82009 F20110330_AACRQZ leclear_e_Page_04.jpg
74fec98a7539d3649af205f715d28053
f615bcc152d2842ce4806799010c0628c6b6de96
8163 F20110330_AACRJD leclear_e_Page_36thm.jpg
828bc538afd3bdf7cd1ee7580313835e
763680702228b019cb7da1a9afd88122d39d17a9
8229 F20110330_AACRVX leclear_e_Page_30thm.jpg
6dbea56e5dabacc5f3d1910071cecd09
bfd9682aafd8ea9d719f2fa74f164384cf76eb3d
5231 F20110330_AACREH leclear_e_Page_03thm.jpg
8915d1f4fc839a201bb56e13ddf77aa1
bfdcd7aa57f988f53e69666d81b69d6395242d3e
2686 F20110330_AACROC leclear_e_Page_50.txt
122ec761c7f2cad3d2606c0e94a136a7
7f3b6c72591119bfed8ce452343b1435a11de79b
26120 F20110330_AACRJE leclear_e_Page_69.QC.jpg
c53d79b0e514566a1c2b9eb04c006b8b
1c01eb59520acd3fce1861e070e891f644ee4e5c
25455 F20110330_AACRVY leclear_e_Page_83.QC.jpg
3ad91e61f21f1ae7841727b062c43c4e
f9410d37d339e5eaf2ff0b202b37f6ee4ac76db5
94222 F20110330_AACRTA leclear_e_Page_71.jpg
48c75a4472921b15b9618d7ab3f634c0
1b6d9dd95d56f9420eac35d5c0ab99a58ee4817f
2239 F20110330_AACREI leclear_e_Page_23.txt
7293f1877609ca9870f500cba52fc3d6
8b3baff4d6fc43126499995d7d641b4577e1715a
2266 F20110330_AACROD leclear_e_Page_51.txt
197b5df8bd56d55c4e0dd8501b1a3ba7
49b97b0b84a3a7b7288028b89eb004a4c43846d6
53267 F20110330_AACRJF leclear_e_Page_43.jp2
53d62ab826279b7a2382df132ed6a62d
a758f561aee051b8e5b56a7cabb3330b27859b88
8223 F20110330_AACRVZ leclear_e_Page_40thm.jpg
f8f2a1293c37ad9f94b8696219e672f3
4c9db5cc8274d8a6535f599fdbfeec52ceb30dc9
88977 F20110330_AACRTB leclear_e_Page_73.jpg
4c482c9d3510348053d6c4f3493b5506
56568c3d667d3ce478f59320bb65b82ff97e6ec7
107055 F20110330_AACREJ leclear_e_Page_24.jp2
3f9ce3a806755b096416ee460f0ca184
ece7ec90bb4429b2a544861801dc1e7c28e6ba52
114533 F20110330_AACRJG leclear_e_Page_39.jp2
0553651e26ef5c81cdb1fb223678a1c9
3ef9b1a44e957b5458025f431678c17c50f61798
91071 F20110330_AACRTC leclear_e_Page_76.jpg
72c46038649b68fa1d68afb9370f04bb
7b51ad9ac3f01ccd84917906b78ac0e7dbfc8363
29963 F20110330_AACREK leclear_e_Page_62.QC.jpg
ab69d1e1f4309536644b627d24aba420
78593cfea82f48b02203c980c197ec626ec6ba76
2876 F20110330_AACROE leclear_e_Page_52.txt
0dbc5d58c53591c649452b47eacbb378
84ca3f5647e5bf11a0391c0f71c03963f7812b0b
7689 F20110330_AACRJH leclear_e_Page_47thm.jpg
d2bd47d34f9ca255b444b1b0e0ed9333
e84e9818d95f25c2549dc2944134dcc6582bf3bb
26876 F20110330_AACRYA leclear_e_Page_09.QC.jpg
ae675ad3627f90614a8cbeb601de1aaa
c6a685b2373f04ef27cc8cc973d6e6f21aa5d305
113815 F20110330_AACRTD leclear_e_Page_79.jpg
94a6480cbde1947d0d2136c8bf1d40fc
c0d4977aaa16cb680d9fe5db51a3719797a140fe
26960 F20110330_AACREL leclear_e_Page_66.QC.jpg
edfe12b9545745bf8a8d7c46e704aeef
20e07def39b5f9770c2a924878071d1a8c761ffa
1362 F20110330_AACROF leclear_e_Page_55.txt
dd6a22f35aef1fc9b8748cc2d90b73e7
254282946ade661de2f58003e81dd61ce3c4dfd2
59889 F20110330_AACRJI leclear_e_Page_61.pro
ef6d81918d84ba90fd6f901be36f0cbc
1f5fec7b5ad4c89289f2926f97bee6b001f4524e
31160 F20110330_AACRYB leclear_e_Page_12.QC.jpg
cfed49bd071c4c24ecf9437907ed0ed7
f15bd8a7f68838e24198f35939cfe435441966d6
105625 F20110330_AACRTE leclear_e_Page_80.jpg
478478bae1703b48c8a7295cd48206b8
5a9dbfaeea3daf0d1e4d4d614e4936ea970e1b6a
305 F20110330_AACREM leclear_e_Page_65.txt
d2011e88d206291055020f425c7ddf3f
0abfab1ef2e7e8c1f85ff5ea76df79aa427d5fb5
1657 F20110330_AACROG leclear_e_Page_56.txt
def228d026c6487e6485971e9a9f6ca5
b29a74b4d1c219d6597ff7ea4c4bfdbae71e9a69
1870 F20110330_AACRJJ leclear_e_Page_76.txt
252baed0655e4eaae2405e965056455b
69e48aa1cb1712919d03e5f66c669bd19af23f3b
29455 F20110330_AACRYC leclear_e_Page_17.QC.jpg
2f1a78ed215aa39c26ff3fb67328e21a
47a3616b0a7f7cf44588508a1526075b9a9b03ff
115999 F20110330_AACRTF leclear_e_Page_81.jpg
800054654bfccc16fad3cdb544b64333
5248cd6f9bb6db3e3c175565e226f5fc0e121099
F20110330_AACREN leclear_e_Page_67.pro
6316b5b72d3633c6b0745e006874b5ac
f0e98eb1acca03271be18dd073947fbbac709b63
1879 F20110330_AACROH leclear_e_Page_59.txt
21abd12bf3ee15724f6af6c5b7f663f0
294d28ab9c36affe62f70873b31cfb9e8c6ae1ba
2669 F20110330_AACRJK leclear_e_Page_48.txt
1cd75cd77851f1a27dcbe84df5375919
10db0edef0e64d9b273b2fffe25220e6c025c32f
24482 F20110330_AACRYD leclear_e_Page_19.QC.jpg
75dfe7aef80c01ae99e5534a374e6898
df5742aa70afe09e7e0d06e724c47f9f2c7afd3e
80222 F20110330_AACRTG leclear_e_Page_83.jpg
23aa1211ab0a2466792e3921a278531b
b6cf3b1ffce97da5fe1b5f35e5b94e65b68e77c1
7568 F20110330_AACREO leclear_e_Page_17thm.jpg
173e1ef8e1c758a50bcbf0e33396c49a
a00ec1e55ec30fa7894cb8ded712053a3dad61ff
2436 F20110330_AACROI leclear_e_Page_61.txt
14b9f86ad7b7350f76d64e2f6f2ce90a
b7885153da1afc40e992780fba325a4ef6e9d4e9
70153 F20110330_AACRJL leclear_e_Page_02.jp2
894e41ab85fb6bb092f72c2a898b65ba
76a1320e2b6697e0ffa1650598c3bb9c4a386449
33186 F20110330_AACRYE leclear_e_Page_20.QC.jpg
ff2dc9e23a95486df297471702973e1c
5a00492510974c7d2beb6bd2c3f2b7b869bb29f2
24765 F20110330_AACRTH leclear_e_Page_01.jp2
ea4b1e61825d0edb24f5d851d329db68
7c4a6c9d3c646cb8ab112b9353c6ca0bb55ed2ea
41936 F20110330_AACREP leclear_e_Page_38.pro
2facef0cbd6e83c032d5b5a3c19bb3c2
8edc43e289d34fe86a5e37c2444564b3f8547bc8
F20110330_AACROJ leclear_e_Page_62.txt
52abca83a257035d5d3eaad5867df102
d8df3aed0e0dc5c9aaba05bddf8910e0eecaab03
29873 F20110330_AACRJM leclear_e_Page_49.QC.jpg
e453d575ef22f0eea2651d89af82d6f3
5b3bffdab996c18fe43144cffe97d3a200a23e66
32713 F20110330_AACRYF leclear_e_Page_22.QC.jpg
0be4018f19919a9b8aa3ac56558b980e
3b3c910f4cbba4bc5edee1e220620ae159acb8cc
1051985 F20110330_AACRTI leclear_e_Page_03.jp2
ae1a29325863fb2a1f0cde9f0f5ec0aa
ca2e1c672c8bdabd5275d80eb4e461f9ea186b65
1028 F20110330_AACROK leclear_e_Page_63.txt
a02a79f263cdb4865378ddcbcd1427eb
17fb52a91f501aa5e93935dabeb10b47b9db59a1
113922 F20110330_AACRJN leclear_e_Page_34.jp2
ba9bde06dc6306a0b54d304249581845
1072619da6d672a1fcfba66fd2d553dae518c55b
50447 F20110330_AACREQ leclear_e_Page_35.pro
929a345c418ddcd270502561520b2898
49218447825cbef14a6f46f831b5afc583aa06b5
33574 F20110330_AACRYG leclear_e_Page_29.QC.jpg
5dd9f478b18c7ab50993dd8b5b927b82
97e48e0893c1afc459d769d23f650835fe7eedc3
2211 F20110330_AACROL leclear_e_Page_64.txt
2004481b889ae67997e8b2c675818c46
eb89109ebcd7865b8506862f9f36f6a1b0fd37d6
104502 F20110330_AACRJO leclear_e_Page_62.jpg
bb8ce142ddd4686424b9f6fb5c4f5702
185fdfef403bd42cadf9097b72035c250ef1e6ab
854039 F20110330_AACRER leclear_e_Page_73.jp2
2cdcd0e066790a65a23ecb9b6807a1fa
34c01e5314cb9aad5aa522af3711ca532f38afe1
33216 F20110330_AACRYH leclear_e_Page_34.QC.jpg
05a60a46588b4fc35da5ddb81a2d32ff
688184039e0a54486518f1bb12356e2b618f31eb
F20110330_AACRTJ leclear_e_Page_04.jp2
b0a1c9f928a71e90672d11ff4aa92004
4da5c8dcb005d038148711f2b23bd4504ab58bbd
2101 F20110330_AACROM leclear_e_Page_66.txt
c151404752ec2b833ffe47ebd6464a79
04c9f629303da4c429ebbe123b4e45eb341ff357
78923 F20110330_AACRJP leclear_e_Page_19.jp2
df08dfd9cd1dc7cbfd4b0e345d38f728
84b969352da1951a40d71b08b291060dd4011b41
96188 F20110330_AACRES leclear_e_Page_50.jpg
ca78ebf2ce4b415933edb92d026658db
5ad5a495f53dac23a746ce2f57c3acbe95782717
18037 F20110330_AACRYI leclear_e_Page_43.QC.jpg
82bdffe2844a24f95b92480939c9f784
9913bb230c2051e45b49d7dac997634c1b31d928
F20110330_AACRTK leclear_e_Page_05.jp2
7127308f7032914dc07bb5b3905b70ee
19415ec6e7dafbe5babe5470229d0220e909b536
319 F20110330_AACRON leclear_e_Page_67.txt
d37f00258c92c91cd1c2d7b5d4421322
cb51fe2ca7f02cdaa67c53290b1831799032f739
3776 F20110330_AACRJQ leclear_e_Page_08thm.jpg
610f5d4dd932d5996195ecc56c9c3005
3986b16e27368fbcf03287124d540b5070ff0352
F20110330_AACRET leclear_e_Page_40.tif
15e2484cbefb251120b1b55746da8ad4
d27c2716aba5b71f59f58d8ebd68e0d179a008fc
30970 F20110330_AACRYJ leclear_e_Page_50.QC.jpg
0f017e5e6dde341834341ca8ca073c46
ca26893a7545e22cd8894951ff40fb6c676c5915
961900 F20110330_AACRTL leclear_e_Page_06.jp2
20939a2d03b18f4505b3079823fb4fe9
83360184faf910ce87d4ef7a473293023bacb98a
86 F20110330_AACROO leclear_e_Page_68.txt
922964ff83a3af0fe60b85e3e9fa0c12
9e730b6ddcc08e7cf23351765a2c4515b7e7423d
7575 F20110330_AACRJR leclear_e_Page_72thm.jpg
6495f704bd9069045a6d9fcb925afa0f
b39d1fab64057c4a2603e3403e23fd6e7dc9014a
15089 F20110330_AACREU leclear_e_Page_82.QC.jpg
c9ef3d33f23c07bb3020da56d1011361
4c9855a62cdf787660f3542cade77875c059bee4
25657 F20110330_AACRYK leclear_e_Page_56.QC.jpg
00e82e798d733af5fae39410424c94fd
a322743041c77ad33d0f487d2b8629d9f3d991c0
109805 F20110330_AACRTM leclear_e_Page_10.jp2
7092aeb58ecf78126cfd498e68737894
a4a3d5d9903162dc712258c5e27ef18b7f3498b4
1908 F20110330_AACROP leclear_e_Page_70.txt
c512bd888db0849aa182895bb653bfa8
8a2e7419522163abb3ed5ed122915c7f0821511a
F20110330_AACRJS leclear_e_Page_75.tif
3c5e8496dae83cf07b2c0843ea54a652
cc26cb444a96d3cb8cedb043a5210c1884d99551
45475 F20110330_AACREV leclear_e_Page_58.pro
bfad19032a9c308d70658ed9812d357c
37b097ca73109e5afc53341a66f6c0f525b06700
30560 F20110330_AACRYL leclear_e_Page_58.QC.jpg
cbfddcd0fc2be99a4d5bf812c43fdb08
40dc996fc431d8b2068487eea7a1c9941eb174b8
112161 F20110330_AACRTN leclear_e_Page_11.jp2
a8463c21cfed4bba3fda3c4d1d6ceb9e
d0e8241f25d00eacc851d62cd3bb951bb3efa4cd
2108 F20110330_AACROQ leclear_e_Page_71.txt
d80def84c748675c3a0a5e0f3ccff444
8603f9d4dc1b8d4c5e57ac65521f1dc96fb1020c
14681 F20110330_AACRJT leclear_e_Page_08.QC.jpg
0b422c307ac9b5545f095b9ab24f6115
8b164d47b1f1267db949bfe73eee91d84e4ac16b
45278 F20110330_AACREW leclear_e_Page_04.pro
0daa5ce10ea71a500272a8daad826495
44d763692115fda0a11fbf272cd795f1fce67bee
28337 F20110330_AACRYM leclear_e_Page_64.QC.jpg
2fef70e405802936d9bd2c1350f39547
ad1a66bf4e62cfc2008bcc32c715eaafe5cc2894
89210 F20110330_AACRTO leclear_e_Page_14.jp2
dc700460c18e45a48c706516f7771708
e6372ee4930e2ec4b4c3962cfc011c7394b8d180
1572 F20110330_AACROR leclear_e_Page_72.txt
a6cfdfd9bda154050654d92b01287d20
7940c7028bb132fd016ebcb7ad03b6b0eb58fbbc
8102 F20110330_AACRJU leclear_e_Page_34thm.jpg
a662cbded6fe01d9e98370d6fab9ec54
1dd0d009e203da70fa35045b7d1f88889e544bcd
8009 F20110330_AACREX leclear_e_Page_58thm.jpg
3fccd226036cc083ac2b35d854a35449
06dc40a45227a99e59dced1457b4d6ceb9f5cf2e
1795 F20110330_AACRYN leclear_e_Page_68.QC.jpg
c6070fe83cf978d8da3bce18649bea78
93ba32dcd9f27aa43d06710c138c7eff5758f480
113645 F20110330_AACRTP leclear_e_Page_23.jp2
9a08d6ae1908dcd25632694c6a0bc676
d2709a44eec8a9f654393fd4eb8cd8f8ca8e0781
2097 F20110330_AACROS leclear_e_Page_73.txt
ac0339ab87dcb0001ebf8dafbebe95d1
8af80cd4cbafb56d98e7e5d5ff3d4ade9b0bdf71
6952 F20110330_AACRJV leclear_e_Page_14thm.jpg
911d25210d5f975f75f3d69b4cbda334
a1995def962ce84cf757db13fcb4aecd03ef1286
97658 F20110330_AACREY leclear_e_Page_17.jp2
caac571120798171a6403eafc6e9eb77
388e1b3ded5ff0ab263d612dee588a04a623c087
119946 F20110330_AACRTQ leclear_e_Page_25.jp2
27c76fb5599ac582548378d891b75a92
ece67c0f6bafdd5b24e041a1e2999aad64ad52ed
1990 F20110330_AACROT leclear_e_Page_75.txt
9b368d14754e2882070f30e9dd19526b
55b21eb51e2130969d4fe9d7a7a1210ea37b5765
1839 F20110330_AACRJW leclear_e_Page_74.txt
44aba354a14c979a8723220223255f44
eb124234f760b0bc93d3c39a3877b4468105f10b
5637 F20110330_AACREZ leclear_e_Page_02thm.jpg
91604d36924b04bbe32b1d9e3371a011
b6c97bd1b1e92a0b2f372db602345eb1b160e960
22639 F20110330_AACRYO leclear_e_Page_70.QC.jpg
039bfe4b05d0df96be8461223db765dc
f879134d2d19c38757deafd080437706ef494662
113866 F20110330_AACRTR leclear_e_Page_26.jp2
e54720a833cde39f2612dc1b2bfe0427
43fc2288ac33286bf9f6f1ee887d4bf93d4b6393
2349 F20110330_AACROU leclear_e_Page_79.txt
b2cfe5c5329abbbdad5e82996a54c2d0
bf7b64cab299dec0fe3e09d074483abdde63d499
2338 F20110330_AACRJX leclear_e_Page_25.txt
0a51d218cd0950a59b2fd82f590cb046
1ea6c971ce0ca0d28a794fd9e035a61cf24de291
33605 F20110330_AACRYP leclear_e_Page_75.QC.jpg
0a6815e26733411b1ca81886bdf809dd
8e9bd4f0758b6ad4682df1c9df236dd566f50823
110821 F20110330_AACRTS leclear_e_Page_27.jp2
889c539ab5f3dca1db7ea96364d67916
def601fb2f48d82af04c306744c4dff0b7e92b13
2135 F20110330_AACROV leclear_e_Page_80.txt
4b27c9fa21cbf940df28e9f5674f864c
8a48bc0b194b26e20bbbfa8ec4521ddb33f27da7
42555 F20110330_AACRJY leclear_e_Page_41.pro
c941bfd79568e7d8fb6096643bd37417
f151301e62a61cc55f95a4982679bc33f2c4520c
33159 F20110330_AACRYQ leclear_e_Page_77.QC.jpg
62e51b8ab7f2edc23057d1ce88ba10c0
0fc6f5a8cc4e01c84d9f02f98c75fc11388b34ff
109383 F20110330_AACRTT leclear_e_Page_28.jp2
6f41f74cb2e1e033b45dbee4fc5bc7c9
9298e8a22d62c0a3b75924ead581113f6cf4e85b
2313 F20110330_AACROW leclear_e_Page_81.txt
47f7972b16aab9c3166e9da8576739ff
194ec76fe7c5c3b1ee333919aec62409f592de07
107500 F20110330_AACRHA leclear_e_Page_45.jp2
f5e27de0a0d8bbff5f4013c756216795
9fb33ddad054faef25057f30043f51b1926f3647
1775 F20110330_AACRJZ leclear_e_Page_44.txt
1c3d1a7dc0162056e058e6cccf412aec
8086416576acc88fcfc67facf697a7ec10e7cfcc
33043 F20110330_AACRYR leclear_e_Page_78.QC.jpg
9601a1b1291dfe04466de7c78e66de8c
7e34d52d4719e9f309bb6bbeba0a076deec22632
115200 F20110330_AACRTU leclear_e_Page_29.jp2
7b92fab9cb803fe46c4e2828a10d2e8f
bf6a11d5cfffc5d140564ea9be5395fc4e5821a1
971 F20110330_AACROX leclear_e_Page_82.txt
1e6f3ad3c3c12157223fc299b15a1010
39ac652d83983a55dcccb1393c35c441914dfae6
115091 F20110330_AACRHB leclear_e_Page_20.jp2
61ca2c80e9233e60f262131b03d122e5
c2c82c473e7e592f434c0cecbffe04ae6da32839
31809 F20110330_AACRYS leclear_e_Page_80.QC.jpg
e32863d8763ad95e26ccdeecc44a9bed
2f9d35010adc592eb947f1e139be0dad801afe03
112599 F20110330_AACRTV leclear_e_Page_32.jp2
f9b366b67c0e74b3074de1bb37a130ad
6fd84329ffd2656926a98461fdd845ad1f68d639
1551 F20110330_AACROY leclear_e_Page_83.txt
1e7f78d70b0e43e0a49b4a9ba8a6f81c
acdfbd1311161209b8077f7a316fa51b2157350c
843 F20110330_AACRHC leclear_e_Page_08.txt
11e8f9aabb91522d077f37c599705374
5f129910a5192ee024457b021aabf5250f75dfa5
F20110330_AACRMA leclear_e_Page_53.tif
14ae9e11a72b269f8ff65b858b8fc894
029f1086d3038210166d1ff2cbd2315d722f4f4b
2315 F20110330_AACRYT leclear_e_Page_01thm.jpg
8b152d5d8b2a45058a6d78d31a385925
a9b42d54472bdac643461b253b8fbb5474f3efa0
109158 F20110330_AACRTW leclear_e_Page_35.jp2
b26247240cacc428b66563870674af4b
01e1daf5f0304d610f91040966040e87068d567c
41931 F20110330_AACRHD leclear_e_Page_09.pro
e9ffb63cce2a061fa83671608679fc41
7f70238d5f9e5a649e198c5c4408c97c43855ff8
F20110330_AACRMB leclear_e_Page_54.tif
d08a92e919028674c159822120bef379
3ad9b803205761e859150fdaebf42c3ba4ebd3f5
8418 F20110330_AACROZ leclear_e_Page_01.pro
09070dd33e4a3dd295258cf7daa4ccee
5aef7c804dbda005fd2fbb9556d454f180b0bdc9
6531 F20110330_AACRYU leclear_e_Page_05thm.jpg
4b616c147f32fee8de6d460d53675550
384d939e01d3b943d7370cf2aae8d5f9d0300d8a
89812 F20110330_AACRTX leclear_e_Page_37.jp2
047d699453f50c9d14fc4372292fee48
7d88454738251dc9bb8705618886e55f70352b2b
4820 F20110330_AACRHE leclear_e_Page_04thm.jpg
18956104722f414f32a26727ba1d6a45
58e345f8a4f0826d0006d76094fca23a7d44385e
4157 F20110330_AACRYV leclear_e_Page_06thm.jpg
e5795f6839968b04d9880ebef3e559a9
dc7d754a26325c3ba226d55f326e6d6882aba8fc
92058 F20110330_AACRTY leclear_e_Page_38.jp2
2d661168cabac782c1faf2f91b469217
4bfb84d67e5e7e51e0ba3266316bdecd298576b7
6933 F20110330_AACRHF leclear_e_Page_38thm.jpg
48d0ceebb3d2b878c08d55851e13c816
ba6b3569e0e60b135ffea8078157ec9db45ed2aa
89835 F20110330_AACRRA leclear_e_Page_05.jpg
6ba8e755368924519901ea473ef407ab
d92b019aac3532ca6bd1af8d8b718a7846e008f8
F20110330_AACRMC leclear_e_Page_55.tif
957eaf7123cac8b0577f5f631aa0bcfa
09485225c4064ffc6e3b9c3f1aca05173fc9a0f8
6482 F20110330_AACRYW leclear_e_Page_07thm.jpg
f8639ba51ddc904253d1a18afeff1ca8
e52c2dd05cc77516221d1139db0ff66ce9858001
106864 F20110330_AACRTZ leclear_e_Page_40.jp2
bdefe90866bf93a93a3a6832ef91ed8b
d6cab71058c88f64bfb8ebe60956232afe11901d
2306 F20110330_AACRHG leclear_e_Page_03.txt
061a8f0b06f4a99b384864f57ea18b8e
4cc905c5d31ac2057e0ac175eb4c54642ed0765b
54527 F20110330_AACRRB leclear_e_Page_06.jpg
8b086f813057cdaa5d932ad57df99eac
7134b692bec2453ae28d04d05d4fcc05c3960a24
F20110330_AACRMD leclear_e_Page_56.tif
ecdd575b0bb7067a80105da574959228
cd233b8cb0036944ea2d8a44f08c9e3d0065a2e2
8187 F20110330_AACRYX leclear_e_Page_11thm.jpg
b5cc877006b25152336294a2fb972774
b04e85bf8e9022ddfbd816eed6e1329f0202917a
50048 F20110330_AACRHH leclear_e_Page_47.pro
b1ee41f9d6399eebfc892c0ae7b6664d
1f9061ce6d0bb6f92043516d8bbc3444b739dcc6
77030 F20110330_AACRRC leclear_e_Page_07.jpg
bb26f36b58ecc0d1a192f871089c4eb0
6bf9b3f205de836e7dab7360cd94825c3782bf33
F20110330_AACRME leclear_e_Page_57.tif
6c6f7c836f53444dd62e68b25b5d0aab
c44acab4e4a15266cbe45ea3cbfde30cd7be3f79
F20110330_AACRYY leclear_e_Page_12thm.jpg
26ce834c035a4cac59e1fef6f7e28508
5459dddb0d34412c7f839567e8b22c5cc9ec7c62
30616 F20110330_AACRWA leclear_e_Page_71.QC.jpg
fe0a3c32a4d5c27980cba86491769333
9ca0fc5bb0e3e5961b9868102e59de73e4ba4af4
7244 F20110330_AACRHI leclear_e_Page_09thm.jpg
1442e48b939f4348a31dfddce0f8421d
1d1520662fcfc874d4941c0f3792a198bcdd2fe5
45797 F20110330_AACRRD leclear_e_Page_08.jpg
7cc45d700c67fffe5e98248f8bffda50
e45b2f4dbc76bd71f74acaef346f1b063113f10f
F20110330_AACRMF leclear_e_Page_59.tif
5f892984fc2c4ebbba919c542ebaa610
a3689a666aafd61b1d8b598b5a508dc5c441f949
8303 F20110330_AACRYZ leclear_e_Page_16thm.jpg
a6ad63bfa4bb3a6b4abaad7b8e90bc39
96faaaeafb50ef2ef643bf9891d1a9ab5db9a04b
30720 F20110330_AACRWB leclear_e_Page_51.QC.jpg
0d0c42325f761e5df2449266b5dac78f
b80a359234b7d11782a7ed9887e0f2bd774b5de4
F20110330_AACRHJ leclear_e_Page_24.tif
cd1c26181589921e7f641b1c1f4388c3
7b292f72693e9cef4e5d7b97034a0bdb8d1601c8
101671 F20110330_AACRRE leclear_e_Page_10.jpg
d169fea0e3a3bc36207c757f48e79d75
0f87fe71b9fecb78c9eb2f6930f03799a3a2c6de
F20110330_AACRMG leclear_e_Page_60.tif
2a3596a0336e1b35467b00b5fee3e420
ed755cc0d7e8b601ece6d5a14d6ca3590c858c18
806 F20110330_AACRWC leclear_e_Page_68thm.jpg
93cb2aa40d321ff766fda9d4dff8c528
38dad15b257e0c540d8a3e1ed393de1c2a842e22
12979 F20110330_AACRHK leclear_e_Page_67.jpg
afcdec222eb71d991090365a438c9cf9
19e91fcd99db7df4fab285fd5c4d8ad39259a6a1
97710 F20110330_AACRRF leclear_e_Page_12.jpg
9380418856e9563a763c26bbefb2b7a0
34202a1343e99e01aba64661e2d444591f188f1d
F20110330_AACRMH leclear_e_Page_61.tif
d8a29dc4cef90c0cf9de1b009e7b1f92
71a2d813dce7824654eb814f95215fefc48e652f
8214 F20110330_AACRWD leclear_e_Page_39thm.jpg
3b511e9556fac839a9c457e1ba94f2d6
517c623eacfed128a8271a19d6c0b2ad8a57d7e3
55003 F20110330_AACRHL leclear_e_Page_82.jp2
7254a6ac2435b9216c39eb25ae6c966a
5853ff864e6e0846047bc0a379c1fbf00af3d15e
95189 F20110330_AACRRG leclear_e_Page_13.jpg
db36afe00c1dea7501d5d0363043213c
a4d009d4ce0ea9eef340e31b78626d9585f52b2a
F20110330_AACRMI leclear_e_Page_62.tif
96c96416eabe84359fd0208c98e38859
fc3f4b7aa15c82b0b4010b32f027e026dd71ef07
27365 F20110330_AACRWE leclear_e_Page_37.QC.jpg
1ae6a4d22105b1a67eadb0adfdef459f
afc57551674ff23eb1a9b28693ead359df66c372
F20110330_AACRMJ leclear_e_Page_63.tif
97c33e1db5b299c5449d478eedea8064
8be118c8a0e18b1d322dfd59e627a042f961f9c3
2072 F20110330_AACRHM leclear_e_Page_36.txt
7c5d4d8c2725e0296dddd5df3911e8d5
ea3acf7df01b9600d0e1742f388a4308bba55d3d
34338 F20110330_AACRWF leclear_e_Page_25.QC.jpg
d3570931ca1c390d953ab9b3d577a36c
639dec80c48bca0b6e17a2ea74af4644b101dea9
120565 F20110330_AACRRH leclear_e_Page_15.jpg
b61cdfee51bb3b627658146aff97f8df
69550de223c9bd419a4c842131267d0b493ee708
F20110330_AACRMK leclear_e_Page_64.tif
8945031dc86c4af6fd4ec22d37fca5b8
3287f7ea127450d4eab62cd66585f412cda03015
33777 F20110330_AACRHN leclear_e_Page_81.QC.jpg
1549d68688f296d30784f61754a9605d
8beafddc9bb8ff6e9065787fdd322036bd0354f5
7807 F20110330_AACRWG leclear_e_Page_59thm.jpg
cd747772b539ed23ba2720426023c923
99634b24497ef8650f0aa9c613dbd4e8fb3634a6
110470 F20110330_AACRRI leclear_e_Page_16.jpg
5feb8b26b20bc05ea1f3f5a320755701
1e10b18a14cfc47892478da4b9acdab94285706d
F20110330_AACRML leclear_e_Page_67.tif
1c83e32bdfd0ff5e8d0f67c4ebdca29c
39c3c48c426f465a06e9111636a93ba289e5f179
1670 F20110330_AACRHO leclear_e_Page_43.txt
34f9af5eaa86112c8352756a88ab8787
9990fa75ab8a8b6a77c3db10a53e4ea79be20a71
29650 F20110330_AACRWH leclear_e_Page_73.QC.jpg
2107cd3273dcfe2194c226856699a0b4
e0507ed5ef60704ee318bdc3ffd6b4f21ab9f420
93220 F20110330_AACRRJ leclear_e_Page_17.jpg
1baa2b2c671251d2c5c40d1b1a5fc8f4
da9566ea0a89842512dd46881b14e1cd918fc54a
F20110330_AACRMM leclear_e_Page_68.tif
afe18edeffabcf07624c495ab0e3e21a
1f78cefa96f1e71b8f154ed24025295267f662c4
53308 F20110330_AACRHP leclear_e_Page_20.pro
72bd409c0cd86e141658b73ebb8704fe
6f621eeeabc6b4b5c9e903d4b18d428efca4770e
33266 F20110330_AACRWI leclear_e_Page_11.QC.jpg
89e1cb520b48784f818e8f1d8eec86ff
53232dc65b00d46858c64f3744da863b8f09ed60
74663 F20110330_AACRRK leclear_e_Page_19.jpg
5e52668fe8090f63833b2575e4b16df0
f955dd81b4f20e67d3d98a00e6d7441074067dcd
F20110330_AACRMN leclear_e_Page_69.tif
724edf777a09e04176d5d6a38d08da47
f5475a5bba4124f308128875229d7ece70e0b4e7
1770 F20110330_AACRHQ leclear_e_Page_38.txt
6843bd95094f356ec5fcf018bb083994
d6c45e6d1c9df65825f9c6c7fab2510a9c25bd21
33036 F20110330_AACRWJ leclear_e_Page_21.QC.jpg
5f5b2645996e08f8283355ff03f91133
97256c7cd61b16212000fc45949b14438c18ca03
106239 F20110330_AACRRL leclear_e_Page_20.jpg
9bde2ad6587a3f86054c6405d87884b4
221d7caa90c7e7e2831c49ec05a31e4600f146df
F20110330_AACRMO leclear_e_Page_70.tif
3d5996cb0c00f48a240029260a27c48e
5218f57b5868a01144c376527124f3342543f0cc
53575 F20110330_AACRHR leclear_e_Page_48.pro
3b1b5df45c82460c8c0da0cacd547cee
3eb20caed81585f9e87a6ad82d378f6993b7a2f7
31648 F20110330_AACRWK leclear_e_Page_13.QC.jpg
a51d2da043eab90112c4943f371a86bf
367e9b2a65e25c714d3e1d1c444c1528a495f5f8
103179 F20110330_AACRRM leclear_e_Page_21.jpg
023731292edda75b4966d46965aa0927
3ddfb0e416e415c2076e0bff58a368ef39ddef2a
F20110330_AACRMP leclear_e_Page_71.tif
11d259acf279f3423b85089c2d6cbd26
7f8c2a58c261c37e043d014d25c9c0037e485c84
F20110330_AACRHS leclear_e_Page_10.tif
401bd11488f53714fe01c2d450703353
6a98ff6e280147021e479ba4b9b525cd5dea00f6
8079 F20110330_AACRWL leclear_e_Page_61thm.jpg
79fca3bd5fcfc68f755dd5d09b036af1
eb2e755eaf8528b4cf4a456f910b763d3a262f02
101630 F20110330_AACRRN leclear_e_Page_22.jpg
9a3cfd0d6a24bbe9042ab5fbfa34f229
0d453bb467f2c347654209ebb461ea8279bfd082
F20110330_AACRMQ leclear_e_Page_72.tif
df00aec715455373cf6de09107e8f79d
2b52bda215a4d73fd15242a5aae4394700b28693
F20110330_AACRHT leclear_e_Page_08.tif
bf955230d2b30fc0abc13b969a62bef2
a442cd7d4c4bfe7056923af5fa31d9b981b08ba8
100522 F20110330_AACRRO leclear_e_Page_24.jpg
59da1bbe02e68112b1580aedc3717e3f
1c5154a4ef028e39e18be661699aaf8ab89efcbb
F20110330_AACRMR leclear_e_Page_76.tif
d41ac266e79ca76127c11f79fb9c058c
9b6da3356b6237c7734cd7f87d4dd532e0825681
91508 F20110330_AACRHU leclear_e_Page_49.jpg
9235967a3f7e572a1c496374ea4ede4a
39c599bee4a2db969bc81c3b1a82e3c3a568e865
4189 F20110330_AACRWM leclear_e_Page_67.QC.jpg
3a8a5df1cc05cecfc9a6ec01892df939
ddcdb1e04d213e5ab1d683b34e6f8d112359c962
111335 F20110330_AACRRP leclear_e_Page_25.jpg
cb54af778ae4a571c1fd898fbec0d648
1a37f54e96929b7c8f75f67178b6921e4f242bb3
F20110330_AACRMS leclear_e_Page_77.tif
fdd63f5bb66b8d32b3eda88019b72b4e
e9b5070d02488dd30f19ee09dba9b5aca053868e
8258 F20110330_AACRHV leclear_e_Page_45thm.jpg
d7ec1e175925c9f5ab25bf219602a737
d2d2b88059d7e94501a2aa3cbad30f353fa96186
21356 F20110330_AACRWN leclear_e_Page_04.QC.jpg
85e90c1082ea142ddcaf8400aa350acf
ce5d7a4fd459f125a847b45ba07589ddb0e3a9b9
107891 F20110330_AACRRQ leclear_e_Page_26.jpg
c8b2c24e2123f288c350d85b2338279c
091e655a4466a9ad4d7f962aef13449e34d1cd37
F20110330_AACRMT leclear_e_Page_78.tif
43c548b1dc301c6b9e863efd82b210b0
fa8d3142501b2dd0f9c3c7fc8da4b9f3bfa7988a
64078 F20110330_AACRHW leclear_e_Page_60.pro
f353f8586a9918a42fbd789c260c3087
3ca7cb1ed92c1bd205cd8f6744314bcdb5c0e82a
34446 F20110330_AACRWO leclear_e_Page_33.QC.jpg
4434154759e421c7fa1a274d84d46422
c3e3ee0dd28c0ea7449af6386ca736b26f5f0ccb
101283 F20110330_AACRRR leclear_e_Page_28.jpg
1667e9b49856c07e9c509c0910dd717b
96e54037bf54a81f86d83fa3496c42c1c84d8de3
F20110330_AACRMU leclear_e_Page_79.tif
e5418a30f284ae4945db19c3a57b847f
e42c732eb822067189bc77fa56552b60be4b992e
53086 F20110330_AACRHX leclear_e_Page_64.pro
019d5f5622eb48704ca8e7c068cb54ff
4805e9922beafc2fb2af2ebe66a440e6ac1ecc88
32593 F20110330_AACRWP leclear_e_Page_40.QC.jpg
34124056ef1531890f95f162c78e8c62
bd635cadce5df5abbc34cb5f85cb0a2c4f6444e4
106477 F20110330_AACRRS leclear_e_Page_29.jpg
cfe841c1e342c3f5e6eeb448987d2ffe
afee193e35b23b9b138c699761cb3d83b0221b97
F20110330_AACRMV leclear_e_Page_80.tif
cb9a8eea65644da3aba53406d745b2a7
45110c31184519bc9416f21c18d30601e9cfca57
83540 F20110330_AACRHY leclear_e_Page_72.jpg
540279192f116bce1732e8fc7cac9251
c9709e92209c3da9126b352904d94f7c377d6faa
8365 F20110330_AACRWQ leclear_e_Page_78thm.jpg
a907d94dd827d062629126989d12868e
7218023a2b4fb7d49f86754cac5eba710828bb60
104224 F20110330_AACRRT leclear_e_Page_30.jpg
77e12adb23996753ac4ea5177851ae7a
cd56aa5cb72df95d79ff23c651458b52d138647b
F20110330_AACRMW leclear_e_Page_81.tif
442a00533037e6764f94688452ca34e5
3a06738130dd3f64a86d80b7bea96cff2d627ea3
51752 F20110330_AACRFA leclear_e_Page_27.pro
c0b1b0474c670c389b012afb16bbefbe
d543ed553594099bbd71db6a4c1415f7b8478e70
118675 F20110330_AACRHZ leclear_e_Page_57.jp2
51f687c25c35f9cf2edb7c029cf81151
5cac91bb0c77aaebb338d5c3dd810dce0a5e3cca
7093 F20110330_AACRWR leclear_e_Page_66thm.jpg
bfe0fb599458360d12b7ede777840f9a
dd983341c39db179fdfbdd41cbd676db1d5cf718
103645 F20110330_AACRRU leclear_e_Page_31.jpg
584401acffba5bd48ba474f2dbeab09e
8bc0648057381d1d2ad58f277ec110232cc5ed6d
F20110330_AACRMX leclear_e_Page_82.tif
3df125ec45403dc8c17a25badbf0a2cf
67c684fe4f3537ea1ce601e54b54b1999cc946aa
F20110330_AACRFB leclear_e_Page_17.tif
93252082f031bdbc95e0490a0c6b703c
f5592d14e24e1ba9b536f572cec325b30362aac7
33180 F20110330_AACRWS leclear_e_Page_52.QC.jpg
916c713cbf7b27cb0876670b733d4f55
a5380c713cefb1dcbf26dccee5a5e5df786d0cec
F20110330_AACRMY leclear_e_Page_83.tif
a8affbb53c9a0317af2811dc4d94e6c3
ab2a1f8c5761614f110c162a23f306aa06f726e5
908144 F20110330_AACRFC leclear_e_Page_74.jp2
4830b919faeebd379c780e49018c8e97
63e231a7e14ecfacee3fedb405f353e71b4d3a1d
104827 F20110330_AACRRV leclear_e_Page_32.jpg
2259f7eaed456c15b1add837e732c504
b105f0a8e8c187ec4cc65ddcb338e62f730137bf
33054 F20110330_AACRWT leclear_e_Page_10.QC.jpg
05efca202af75817f59a877c5131e3f9
28869ef739ed46c1c6a65684ade000d3b0d92a3c
49065 F20110330_AACRKA leclear_e_Page_08.jp2
69922eeb96defba16fae763ff49ced39
99c3f0e86c4a5fe44694eb76295d05ad0e0ec77b
456 F20110330_AACRMZ leclear_e_Page_01.txt
076dba131c7f37f03b87833051764283
dddb04d2f5ba4fc9d160336e062e10779446bff3
49499 F20110330_AACRFD leclear_e_Page_63.jpg
d4a7f697723da49b958a236f08ecdc49
6ae5be4bf37b57fad28c3c556815bbcf53e51bc7
106914 F20110330_AACRRW leclear_e_Page_33.jpg
1ea66de288aeb06db420cd70f6f8a189
435c11d031471f7d18a243fd8ee3459c3f9c8275



PAGE 1

RELATIONSHIPS AMONG LEADERSHIP STYLES, SCHOOL CULTURE, AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT By ELIZABETH A. LE CLEAR A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2005

PAGE 2

ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank Dr. Jim Doud for agreeing to be my committee chair and providing me with encouragement and support throughout this endeavor. He has been a role model and mentor to me as an administrator. I have taken many of his ideas and suggestions to heart and am continually striving to improve. I would also like to thank my committee members: Fran Vandiver, Diane Hoppey, and Colleen Swain. They all have provided me with encouragement and support, and I am very grateful. I would like to thank my boss, Jim TenBieg, the principal of Westwood Middle School. He has encouraged, supported, and given me the flexibility to continue through this long process. He is simply the best. Finally, I would like to thank my parents, who have taught me to love and value education and have continually supported me with all my dreams with guidance and patience. I thank my grandmother who has prayed for me each and every night. I thank my sister, Jill, and Horace, who not only listen but have also given me support and encouragement. This has been a difficult road, and it has been possible only because of my husband and my childrens support and patience.

PAGE 3

iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................ii LIST OF TABLES.......................................................v ABSTRACT..........................................................vii CHAPTER 1INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY .....................................1 Statement of the Problem...............................................5 Purpose of the Study..................................................5 Research Hypotheses ..................................................6 Instrumentation......................................................6 Definition of Terms...................................................6 Theoretical Framework................................................8 Delimitations and Limitations...........................................9 Significance of the Study...............................................9 Summary..........................................................10 2REVIEW OF LITERATURE..........................................11 Introduction ........................................................11 Historical Overview of Leadership Roles.................................11 Defining Leadership.................................................14 Contemporary Views of Leadership.....................................15 Definition of Culture.................................................16 Cultural Leadership..................................................17 Leaders Shape Culture................................................19 Culture and Student Achievement.......................................21 Teacher Efficacy and Student Achievement ..............................23 Professional Learning Communities and Student Achievement ................23 Leadership and Student Achievement....................................24 Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Form 5X) ...........................26 School Improvement Questionnaire (SIQ-II) ..............................27 Summary..........................................................28

PAGE 4

iv 3METHODOLOGY ..................................................29 Participants.........................................................29 Variables..........................................................29 Instrumentation.....................................................30 School Culture Instrument .............................................32 Design of the Study..................................................33 Summary..........................................................35 4RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ........................................36 Survey Instrument Statistics ...........................................36 Research Questions..................................................38 Summary..........................................................47 5SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ....................................48 Summary of the Study................................................48 Discussion of Results.................................................48 Implications and Conclusions .........................................52 Recommendations for Future Study.....................................53 Summary..........................................................54 APPENDIX AQUESTIONNAIRE PACKETS .........................................55 List of Documents...................................................55 Principal Consent Letter..............................................56 Teacher Consent Letter ...............................................58 BSCHOOL IMPROVEMENT SURVEY (SIQ II) ..........................60 REFERENCES........................................................68 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH..............................................75

PAGE 5

v LIST OF TABLES Table page 3-1Transformational leadership scale statements...........................31 3-2SIQ II statements.................................................32 3-3Comparison of grade and SES for the district and sample.................35 3-4School grades, SES and population ...................................35 4-1Abbreviations....................................................36 4-2MLQ-5X leadership styles..........................................37 4-3SIQ II culture component statistics ...................................38 4-4Leadership styles.................................................38 4-5Personal teacher efficacy and leadership styles ..........................39 4-6Parent/Student satisfaction and leadership styles........................39 4-7Professional learning community and leadership styles...................40 4-8Performance of students with disabilities and leadership styles .............40 4-9Belonging to the school community and leadership styles .................40 4-10 School culture, leadership styles and school grade .......................41 4-11 School culture, leadership styles, school grade, and socioeconomic status ....41 4-12Leadership styles, parent/student satisfaction with school grade, and SES .....42 4-13Leadership styles, personal teaching efficacy with school grade, and SES..... 42 4-14Leadership styles, performance of st udents with disabilities with school grade, and SES........................................................43

PAGE 6

vi 4-15Leadership styles, professional learning community with school grade, and SES............................................................44 4-16Leadership styles, belonging to the school community with school grade, and SES............................................................44 4-17Leadership styles, parent/student satisfaction...........................45 4-18Leadership styles, parent/student satisfaction with SES...................45 4-19Leadership styles, personal teacher efficacy with school grade and SES ......45 4-20Leadership styles, professional learning community with school grade, and SES............................................................46 4-21Leadership styles, belonging to the school community with school grade, and SES............................................................46 4-22 Summary of significant results......................................47

PAGE 7

vii ABSTRACT 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 Education RELATIONSHIPS AMONG LEADERSHIP STYLES, SCHOOL CULTURE, AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT By Elizabeth A. Le Clear December 2005 Chair: James L. Doud Cochair: Fran Vandiver Major Department: Educational Leadership, Policy, and Foundations The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between perceived effective school culture, principal leadership characteristics, and student performance as measured by the Florida Comprehensive Academic Test (FCAT). The assumption in this study was that principal leadership styles and school culture were expected to enhance student achievement. A leadership survey and school culture survey were used as assessment tools. Student achievement was assessed by using the school grade that was based upon student FCAT data. The findings of this study demonstrated that there are specific characteristics of the transactional and transformational leadership styles that affect school culture. The data provided evidence that school culture and leadership styles are significantly related to student achievement. Transactional leadership affected school culture in the areas of parent/student perceptions, professional learning communities, and teacher efficacy.

PAGE 8

viii Transformational leadership affected school culture in the areas of personal teaching efficacy and professional learning communities. When student socioeconomic status and school grade were added as predictors, transformational and transactional leadership remained significant. Socioeconomic status affected two school culture components: (a) belonging to the school community and (b) performance of students with disabilities. Principals directly impacted student learning through the school culture they fostered. It is important that principals practice both transactional and transformational leadership and understand their effect on school culture. Only with informed practice will schools be able to meet the needs and challenges associated with all students achieving at high levels.

PAGE 9

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY What is leadership? Deal and Peterson (1999) describe the role of leadership as the creation, encouragement, and refinement of the symbols and symbolic activities that give meaning to the organization (p. 10). When principals practice leadership as pedagogy, they exercise their stewardship responsibilities by committing themselves to building, to serving, to caring for and protecting the school and its purposes (Sergiovanni, 1996, p. 95). They are the living logos because their words and actions convey what is valued in the school setting (Deal & Peterson, 1999). The history of leadership in education began as top-down hierarchical management. The boundaries for these leaders were tightly controlled. Administrators strived to be distant, proper, serious, and impersonal. The communication was formal, controlled, and from the top. The leadership style was management, and focused on coordinating and monitoring activities. Education managers in the 1980s transformed into instructional leaders (Schein, 1992). Why the transformation? Leithwood, Jantzi, and Steinbach (1999) suggest that student achievement began directing all ac tivities. Donmoyer and Wagstaff (1990) offer a broad view of instructional leadership, noting that all leadership activities, including routine managerial tasks, affect student learning. All tasks are considered to contribute as much to improve learning as to direct instructional behaviors. McEwan (1998) described instructional leadership as both traditional management and a human

PAGE 10

2 component. Traditional management roles include planning, time management, leadership theory, and organizational development. The human component consists of the communicating, motivating, and facilitating roles of the principal. Leithwood et al. (1999) describe instructional leaders as ones who provide constant support to the instructional staff. Instructional leaders were concerned with curriculum and the academic direction of the programs within a school. The 1990s brought the transformational leader. The transformational leader has the ability to encourage change in others (Leithwood et al., 1999). This change is accomplished by using a collaborative, shared decision-making approach that empowers teachers. Principals must show strong leadership no matter what their style. Strong principal leadership is defined as having knowledge of teaching and learning processes and the power to motivate other members of the organization to achieve and work toward the common good of the school. Leithwood et al. (1999) see strong administrators as having the ability to know the leadership behaviors that match the needs of the schools stakeholders. The literature is consistent on the position that strong leadership by the principal is needed with regard to an important aspect of the school, its culture (Bandura, 1993; Bolman & Deal, 1984; Sackney, 1998). Culture, in simplest terms, is described as the peoples beliefs and perceptions of their workplace (Sackney, 1998). Culture is a term that tries to capture the informal, implicit, often unconscious side of any human organization (Deal & Kennedy, 1982). Schein (1992) defines culture as a pattern of group learned assumptions that are taught to new members. These assumptions include the current and historical decisions that are made within a group to solve problems. These decisions are based on institutional heroes

PAGE 11

3 and traditional ways of handling decisions and situations within a school setting. Culture is the knowledge and symbols that frame the interpretations and standards of appropriateness within a group or group setting. A strong positive culture enables people to feel better about what they do, so they work harder (Deal & Kennedy, 1982). Cultural literature has focused on change, suggesting that an effective organization may be defined as one which creates a culture that inspires its members to pursue continuous improvement through change. This change has the capacity to make people proactive and creative problem-solvers. Leaders must realize the power of culture within an organization. Organizational culture has been identified as a critical element, vital to successfully improving the teaching and learning in schools (Fullan, 1993; Stolp, 1994). School effectiveness research has shown that school culture is related to student achievement (Sackney, 1998). A study by Sweetland and Hoy (2000) demonstrated that, after socioeconomic status, school culture had a more powerful effect on student achievement than any other variable. Teachers who felt empowered and part of a team, and who felt supported by their principals and colleagues, enjoyed a sense of collective efficacy and higher achievement scores were the result. Administrators and teachers with a shared belief in the power to produce effects through collective action promote higher levels of academic progress (Bandura, 1993). Improvement efforts were likely in schools where positive professional cultures had norms, values, and beliefs that reinforced a strong educational mission. Culture was a key factor in determining whether improvement was possible (Deal & Peterson, 1990). Schein (1992) wrote, The bottom line for leaders is that if they do not become conscious of the cultures in which they are embedded, those cultures will damage them. Cultural

PAGE 12

4 understanding is desirable for all of us, but it is essential to leaders if they are to lead. (p. 15) Educational researchers agree that, as the leaders of individual schools, principals impact the schools culture (Deal & Peterson, 1990; Sashkin & Sashkin, 1993; Sergiovanni, 1995). School culture can be modified by leadership and the decision making process of the leadership. A principal can positively or negatively affect the school culture (Bandura, 1993). Shaping the culture within the school is a focus of principals. Leadership traits continue to be studied so that principals can strive for a more complete understanding of how to mold a positive culture within their schools for an ultimate gain in student performance. School culture has been positively tied to student achievement, so it is imperative that school leaders or principals foster a positive school culture and practice effective decision making (Sackney, 1998). School culture can be controlled and modified (Bandura, 1993). A principals leadership style can enhance, encourage and nurture a positive school culture. Most leaders draw from multiple leadership styles and recognize that the ethic of caring has becoming increasingly important. Leaders who are positive, responsive, committed, persuasive, effective, and inspiring are capable of enhancing culture within a school (Sackney, 1998). Principals who are assertive instructional leaders promote high expectations for students by continuously focusing on instruction and emphasizing the importance of academics and student achievement. They must be excellent role models with a wellarticulated mission statement. Culture-changing leaders use the collaborative process for decision making and maintain an on-going st aff development program that regularly

PAGE 13

5 receives and discusses staff performance. These behaviors can positively change or enhance a schools culture and positively enhance student achievement (Sackney, 1998). Making schools more effective requires building and reshaping the hidden and taken-for-granted rules that govern day-to-day behavior. Principals need to be aware that schools need a culture that encourages productivity, high morale, confidence, and commitment. This type of culture can grow through human interaction and knowledge of the power of culture (Peterson, 1988). Principals must also acknowledge and nurture the rituals, traditions, ceremonies and symbols that already express and reinforce positive school culture (Stolp, 1994). Statement of the Problem Traditional managers were accustomed to hierarchical management that focused on fairness as the equal application of policies and law. The organizational boundaries were tightly controlled and leaders strived to be proper, serious, impersonal, and detached. The role of the traditional manager changed from manager to instructional leader to transformational leader. Principals must recognize that to positively influence student learning, they must nurture and enhance a positive school culture. There is little evidence regarding specific actions a principal must take to shape a schools culture so that a positive reform will take place in the classroom. Therefore, it is important for school principals to know which leadership styles or behaviors positively affect school culture and, ultimately, student learning. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship among the perceived school culture, principal leadership characteristics, and the relationship between school

PAGE 14

6 culture and student performance as measured by the Florida Comprehensive Academic Test (FCAT). What characteristics or behaviors of principals are associated with positive school culture? Is school culture a predictor of FCAT scores? Is there a relationship between school culture and student achievement as assessed by the FCAT scores? Are there demographic facts (e.g., SES) associated with school culture? Research Hypotheses Three hypotheses provided the bases for the study: Leadership characteristics of the principal positively affect school culture. School culture affects student achievement. Leadership characteristics and school culture affect student achievement. Instrumentation For this study, the measurement of principal leadership was accomplished using Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ Form 5X; Bass & Avolio, 1990), a 45-item survey. The measurement for school culture was the School Improvement Questionnaire (SIQ-II; Webb & Pajares, 1996), a 76-item survey. Definition of Terms Charisma: a leaders personal, magnetic, and mystical qualities that generate power and influence and build identification with the leader. Collective efficacy (CE): characterized by satisfaction and by the commitment of the entire faculty and each individual for academic excellence and professional growth. Collegiality: a stress on academics and professional growth. Contingent reward (CR): an arrangement where work is exchanged for pay (Bass, 1985).

PAGE 15

7 Effectiveness (EFF): a leaders effectiveness as seen by both self and others in meeting the job-related needs of followers, representing followers needs to higherlevel managers, contributing to organization effectiveness, and performance by the leaders work group (Bass, 1985). Extra effort (EE): the extent to which coworkers or followers exert effort beyond the ordinary (Bass & Avolio, 1990). Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT): a criterion referenced test used in the state of Florida to assess student performance and teacher accountability. Idealized influence (II): followers abilities to identify with a leader and the goals of the organization. Individualized consideration (IC): leaders understanding of the needs of each individual follower. The leaders work continuously to get followers to develop to their full potential (Bass & Avolio, 1990). Intellectual stimulation (IS): a process in which subordinates are encouraged to think of old problems in new ways, there by sparking broader problem awareness and producing creative solutions. Instructional leadership (IL): principals role with student learning, specifically student academic performance, goal development and implementation, shaping the school culture, and management of the instructional program. Job satisfaction: a sense of contentment and feeling valued as a professional. Laissez faire leadership (LF): a leadership style that abdicates responsibility, delays decisions, offers no feedback, and makes little or no effort to help followers satisfy needs, achieve goals, or grow personally. It is a hands-off approach to leadership (Bass & Avolio, 1990). Leadership behaviors (LB): the actions of the principal that foster relationships within the school community. Management-by-exception, Active (MBEA): a process by which leaders watch and search for deviations from rules or for good performance and recognize accomplishments (Bass & Avolio, 1990). Management-by-exception, Passive (MBEP): a process by which the leader intervenes only if standards are not met (Bass & Avolio, 1990). Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ 5X): a survey instrument that measures perceived leadership styles.

PAGE 16

8 Personal efficacy: characterized by satisfaction and by the commitment of each individual for academic excellence and professional growth. Policy say-so: the process by which administrators share powers and help others use it in constructive ways to make decisions affecting themselves and their work. (Sackney, 1998). Professional learning communities: teachers and administrators in a school that continuously seek and share learning and then act on what they learn to enhance student achievement School culture: the underground stream of norms, values, beliefs, traditions, and rituals that has built up over time as people work together, solve problems, and confront challenges (Deal & Peterson, 1999, p. 3). Student achievement: an assessment of student performance in a given discipline or skill area. School Improvement Questionnaire (SIQ II): a survey instrument that measures school climate. Teacher efficacy: self-perceived belief in ones capabilities to bring about desired outcomes (Bandura, 1977). Teaming: when teachers are grouped together for common planning or collaboration depending on their grade level or subject area. Transformational leadership (TS): a leadership style that inspires and motivates followers to demonstrate commitment to a shared vision. Leaders engage in behaviors that clearly communicate high expectations to followers and encourage collegiality and cohesiveness. Transactional leadership (TF): a leadership style that occurs when leaders intervene to make some correction and generally involves corrective criticism and negative reinforcement. The leader engages in active management and intervenes when followers have not met standards or problems arise. Theoretical Framework From an applied perspective, school culture is of great importance to principals, as well as other school leaders, because of its positive link to student achievement (Sackney, 1998; Sweetland & Hoy, 2000). Research suggests that school culture can be modified to encourage school improvement and higher student achievement (Bandura,

PAGE 17

9 1993: Leithwood et al., 1999). School leaders need to assess the weaknesses and strengths of the school culture and to focus on improving the areas of weakness and building on the strengths. Delimitations and Limitations Delimitations The sample is limited to elementary school principals and teachers in kindergarten through fifth grade classrooms in a north central Florida county. This study does not encompass all individuals within a schools culture. Study participants included only teachers and the principal of each individual school. Other staff members, such as secretaries, o ffice staff, cafeteria employees, aides and custodians, were excluded. Limitations All participants in the school climate survey are employed in the same Florida County. There was no provision for open-ended questions on the survey. Significance of the Study The study added to the information already established by other researchers regarding functions or actions principals attended to when shaping their school cultures. Findings may also prove useful to school leaders interested in improving achievement. Ash and Persall (1999) noted student learning must be the focus of educational efforts, while school leaders create systemic change to pursue higher levels of student achievement. The study explored the relationship between principal leadership characteristics and school culture as assessed by teachers and the principal at the elementary school level. Differences between schools in terms of size, demographics, and principal and teacher experience were explored. Principals may use the information to understand a schools individual culture and then how to nurture or change an already

PAGE 18

10 existing culture. Educators may utilize the findings to better understand which leadership behaviors enhance a positive school culture and improve student achievement. Although a plethora of information exists separately on instructional leadership, culture, and student achievement, further research is needed to determine the relationship between instructional leadership culture and student achievement. Additional research could provide correlational data between instructional leadership, achievement, and culture at the elementary level. Summary Schools are under scrutiny to educate all students to higher academic standards. Thus, administrators are searching for ways to increase student achievement. Principals must encourage teachers to utilize successful methods of instruction to accommodate all students and modify their own leadership styles to accommodate the needs of their teachers, staff, and community. The literature supports that principals can meet these challenges of diverse student populations with a strong positive school culture that includes professional growth and shared values. Chapter 2 provides a review of the literature that provides support for further development of an explanation regarding how leaders might increase certain leadership behaviors for the purposes of developing a positive school culture and increasing student achievement. The chapter also provides further exploration of school culture and its effect on student achievement.

PAGE 19

11 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE Introduction The purpose of the study was to explore correlations among principal leadership, school culture, and student achievement. This chapter presents an overview of research relevant to this study. The topics discusse d include historical overview of leadership roles, defining leadership, contemporary vi ews of leadership, definition of culture, cultural leadership, leaders shaping culture, culture and student achievement, and leadership and student achievement. Historical Overview of Leadership Roles The job of school principal began in the 1890s when the Committee of Twelve proposed a plan to improve schools by adding professional leadership and assigned individuals to become principals. Principals emulated the top-down hierarchical management style of the business sector. They viewed themselves as managers of a school and their decisions focused on budget, building, supplies, and schedules. They expected teachers to teach the curriculum. Administrators strived to be proper, serious, impersonal, and detached. The organizational boundaries were tightly controlled and communication was formal, controlled, unidirecti onal, and from the top. Superintendents strictly controlled the governance of schools from a central position. Principals were guided by central policy.

PAGE 20

12 A distinction between managers and leaders was made by Wolcott (1984) in The Man in the Principals Office A manager, as his title suggests, is a person who manages other human beings (i.e., he tells them what to do) and makes his living at it. The professional managing of men is an ancient and respectable form of human activity, with a history that reaches back to the Mesopotamian Neolithic era. A manager is distinct from a leader: the managers word is backed by force; the leaders by the willingness of persons to follow. (p. 325) A manager is defined in the literature as one who manages the affairs of the organization but does not lead the organiza tional group toward a common vision or goal. Managers plan, coordinate, and monitor, which are all part of being a school leader; however, managers do not inspire, guide, and persuade. The major difference between managers and leaders is that managers are concerned with directing and leaders are concerned with influencing (Marshall, 1988). The two concepts of leadership and management are not independent of each other, but instead are interrelated. Schein (1992) suggested the need for strong leadership and strong management if the organization is to be healthy. Strong leadership and weak management may create chaos, while strong management and weak leadership may develop a change-resistant organization that eventually becomes dysfunctional. He writes that todays principal has evolved from the manager in the 1950s to the instructional leader of the 1980s to the transformational leader in the 1990s. The shifts from manager to leader to instructional leader to transformational leader gave principals new expectations. With each shift came a need for different skills in order to be successful in leading an effective school. Instructional leadership focused principals attention on improving technical instructional activities by close monitoring of teachers and students classroom work (Duke, 1987; Leithwood &

PAGE 21

13 Montgomery, 1986). Principals were developi ng more uniform approaches to teaching, and tightening supervisory practices (Row an, Bossert, & Dwyer, 1983). McEwan (1998) described the instructional leader as comprised of the traditional management leadership with an added human component. Traditional managers were interested in planning, time management, leadership theory, and organizational development. The human component consisted of communicating, motivating, and facilitating roles of the principal. The transformational leader of the 1990s posits that employees are leaders themselves and that these leadership attributes need to be nurtured and encouraged by the leader. The leader needs to create an environment that will satisfy the psychological needs of the employee, foster self-actualization, and allow autonomy. As a result of this approach, new leaders will emerge (Johnson, 1996). Blas and Anderson (1995) suggested that facilitative leadership increases the opportunity for involvement in leadership and power sharing. Sharing power by empowering others means increasing power for themselves and others (Blas & Blas, 1996). Sergiovanni (1995) suggests the focus of transformational leadership motivates employees to a higher level of efficiency and commitment. Transformational leadership encourages potential by increasing expectations and fulfilling higher order needs. Kings (1989) study showed a greater level of satisfaction and effectiveness in school settings where transformational leadership was practiced. She examined linkages between 208 Louisiana teachers and their perceptions of the leadership f ound within the K and higher educational institutions with which they were affiliated. Using the MLQ, she found transformational leadership had a measurable, incremental effect in the predictability of teacher satisfaction and effectiveness.

PAGE 22

14 Barth (1980) suggested that the role of the principal continues to be defined in response to management and union relationships and the size and complexity of the modern school. The additional responsibilities of the principal include social services, food service, health care, recreation, transportation, and accountability for students academic performance and are the typical norms in todays schools. Defining Leadership There are various definitions of leadership in the literature. Leadership can be defined as a process that directs and organizes individuals (Kotter, 1990). Leadership is the art of weaving relationships in both an official and unofficial capacity and motivating others to evolve and grow, complete their work, and learn from the process (Burns, 1978; Depree, 1989; Gardner, 1990). Garfield (1986) wrote of peak performers who translated mission into practice and were always willing to evolve and grow, to complete their work and learn from it, and to exemplify the phrase to be better than I ever was. Bennis (1989) wrote, leadership is like beautyhard to define, but you know it when you see it (p. 123). There are two aspects of leadership: (a) the art of leadership, which involves vision, modeling, renewal, judgment, power, and trust; and (b) the science of leadership, which includes team building, communication, decision-making, conflict management, planning, and resource allocation. In a study of administrators at the California School Leadership Academy, Marsh (1992) reported th at two views of instructional leadership emerged from the study. One view was process-oriented in nature. From this perspective, instructional leadership became an avenue that involved teachers in improvement and decision making. The other view was comprehensive in nature. It encompassed the developmental supervision of teachers and the examination of school

PAGE 23

15 culture, as they both influenced instruction. Principals who held a comprehensive view exhibited a complete vision of instruction. Sergiovanni (1990) defined leadership as consisting of four concepts: bartering, building, bonding, and banking. Bartering provides the initiative to get things started, while building and bonding allow for the support and inspiration needed in school improvement. Banking insures a routinization of school improvement efforts. Contemporary Views of Leadership Senge (1990) emphasized that learning organizations demand a new view of leadership and described leaders as designers, stewards, and teachers responsible for learning. Such leaders cannot be trained in a few focused workshops. The ability of such people to be natural leaders, as near as I can tell, is the by-product of a lifetime of effort . to develop conceptual and communication skills, to reflect on personal values and to align personal behavior with values, to learn how to listen and to appreciate others and others ideas. (p. 360) Gepford (1996) conducted a study of perceived leadership styles in low socioeconomic elementary schools in South Carolina. The sample consisted of 45 principals and 225 teachers that had been employed in their current positions for at least 6 years. The Multifactor-Leadership Questionnaire Form 5X (Bass & Aviolo, 1990) was the instrument administered to teachers and principals. Gepfords findings indicated that no one particular leadership style of the principal determined the success of a school. Recommendations of the study suggested that principals use a flexible style of leadership conducive to the schools culture and plans for school improvement. Cheng (1991) also conducted a study of leadership styles and school effectiveness in 64 secondary schools in Hong Kong. He found that principals displaying high relationship and high initiating structure were the most effective in teacher-principal and teacher-teacher interactions.

PAGE 24

16 Covey, Miller, and Miller (1994) emphasized that in order to have a total quality program your leader must have personal qua lity. Sergiovanni (1990) added, No matter how competently managed a school may be, it is the extra quality of leadership that makes the difference between ordinary and extraordinary performance (p. 18). He also concluded that, Organizational empowerment begins with individual empowerment. Thats why work on our deep inner life and integrity are so important (p. 202). Bolman and Deal (1984) took the position that a successful leader must understand and integrate the subcultures of an organization. They discussed four frames of an organization: structural, human resources, political, and symbolic. All of these frames are found in varying degrees in all organizations. An effective leader must possess the wisdom to identify and successfully use each frame within that particular organization. Successful principals are visible, knowledgeable, and are positive promoters of programs and faculty (Grace, Buser, & Struck, 1987; Levine & Lezotte, 1995; Wendel, Hoake, & Joekel, 1993). Effective principals provide a clear and common vision that puts students first and see that this vision is communicated clearly and effectively to all stakeholders. The cohesion among staff that encourages a productive climate and collaboration are also important attributes. Definition of Culture There are various definitions of culture, but none is universally accepted (Deal & Peterson, 1999). While most people have a sense or understanding of culture, they find it difficult to define (Schein, 1992). Wilson and Corcoran (1988), in their study of effective high schools, perceived school culture as a set of linkages that included the system of collectively accepted meanings, beliefs, values, and assumptions that

PAGE 25

17 organizational members use to guide their regular, daily actions and interpret their surroundings. These linkages have been likened to the glue that holds organizations together (p. 70). Deal and Peterson (1990) emphasized shared values as a defining aspect of culture: Organizations usually have clearly distinguishable identities manifested in their members patterns of behavior through rituals and norms. The concept of culture helps us understand these varied patternsunderstand what they are, how they came to be, and how they affect performance. (p. 3) Owens (1995) proposed that culture refers to assumptions, the behavioral norms, and beliefs of an organization. Definitions throughout the literature agree that the people who exist within an organization develop culture in time. As members are added, they are taught what is acceptable and why it is acceptable as a result of their immersion in the culture of the organization (Deal & Peterson, 1999; Erickson, 1987; Schein, 1992). Cultural Leadership Leaders must become aware of the culture of which they have become a part (Schein, 1992). Bulach (2001) asserted that a principal who fails to identify his or her schools existing culture before attempting to change it will meet with resistance (p. 48). Leaders must know the widely recognized leaders in a school as well as the less visible people who may make the school more successful or can be the greatest obstacle (Glickman, 2003). If a leader is to lead, then it is necessary for the leader to have a clear understanding of the existing culture. Leadership itself is an expression of culture. Leadership as cultural expression seeks to build unity and order within an organization by giving attention to purpose, historical and philosophical tradition and ideals and norms which define the way of life within the organization and which provide the bases for socializing members and obtaining their compliance. Developing and nurturing organizational value patterns and norms represent a response to felt needs of individuals and groups for order, stability, and meaning. (Sergiovanni & Corbally, 1984, p. 106)

PAGE 26

18 When an organization faces an unfamiliar risk, issue, or problem, it bases its first response on the leaders values because the group as a whole has limited or no knowledge of how to resolve the problem (Schein, 1992). Vision and values are the foundation of school culture; core values, implicit or explicit, reside at the heart of every institution or organization. The people in a school construct their values by the way they address its challenges in ordinary and extraordinary times (Sizer & Sizer, 1999, p. 12). Principals who can balance a variety of pressures while never losing sight of their values best inspire and serve the school community (Day, 2000, p. 56). Vision and values form a schools mission and purpose, instilling the intangible forces that motivate teachers to teach, school leaders to lead, children to learn, and parents and community to have confidence in their school thus shaping the definition of success (Deal & Peterson, 1999, p. 24). Maehr and Midgley (1996) proposed that schools act based upon how they have defined their purpose. McCall (1994) saw the principal as the determining factor for what set of values will be the guiding stars for the school as it steers a new course (p. 13). The principals values joined with those of other stakeholders will ultimately determine the destiny of the school (p. 31). School administrators play a big part in what beliefs, values, and assumptions are the most important in the existing school culture, as they can determine what is communicated to whom, who receives resource allocations, and who is in receipt of rewards and disciplinary action (Sergiovanni, 1995). School culture is also experienced through rituals and ceremonies. Principals can shape culture by participating in and encouraging the rituals that celebrate important values (Deal & Peterson, 1999, p. 24). Ceremonies are an extension of the rituals. They are a complex, culturally sanctioned way to celebrate success, communicate values, or to

PAGE 27

19 recognize social contributions of staff and/ or students. These celebrations provide an effective means of cultivating a goal-oriented culture where improvement efforts are reinforced and recognized (Schmoker, 1996). Ceremonies give a purpose to meaning, and provide the school community a chance to reflect on the beliefs and values associated with those ceremonies (Deal & Peterson, 1999). Without ritual and ceremony, transitions remain incomplete, a clutter of comings and goings (Bolman & Deal, 1991, pp. 110-111). These ongoing significant events often become traditions as the schools culture strengthens, ever reinforcing values and beliefs associated with the schools. Cultural patterns and traditions evolve over time. They are initiated as the school is founded and thereafter shaped by critical incidents, forged through controversies and conflict, and crystallized through triumph and tragedy. Culture takes form as, over time, people come with problems, stumble onto routines and rituals, and create traditions and ceremonies to reinforce underlying values and beliefs. (Deal & Peterson, 1999, p. 49) The primal forces behind this process are the school leaders who nudge culture in one direction rather than another. Leaders Shape Culture Leadership and culture are intimately linked, and a schools culture can be developed, influenced, and managed (Trice, 1993). Many different leadership models are effective in shaping a positive culture that continuously improves a school. Sashkin and Sashkin (1993) suggest that leaders model culture and build values. They suggest that leaders reweave old traditions and stories into present realities and new vision. The actions of a building principal are central to the development of a school culture that is conducive to high levels of academic achievement and learning (Firestone & Wilson, 1995). Principals mold and shape culture on a daily basis. What is often labeled as

PAGE 28

20 fluff is more often the stuff of leadership and culture (Deal & Peterson, 1999, p. 61). Schein (1992) writes complacency regarding leadership or cultural management is unacceptable because they are both central to understanding organizations and making them effective. Enlightened leadership can change culture by changing the assumptions on which the culture is built. The leader who sets out to do this must have knowledge of the existing culture and be aware of the organizations key concerns. The goal will be to re-create a positive shared vision and trust. (James, 1996, p. 143) A principal, more than any other individual, is responsible for a schools culture. Deal and Peterson (1999) wrote that the principal, being in the leadership position, has great influence on a schools culture: It is important to remember the formidable nature of school leaders unofficial power to reshape school culture toward an ethos of excellence and to make quality an authentic part of the daily routine of school life (p. 86). School leaders have a profound influence on the work habits and perspectives that mark a successful school. Reitzug and Revves (1992) described empowerment as a way of shaping school culture. Empowering teachers enables them to examine and critique their own situations with a view of improving educational situations. Blanchard, Carlos, and Randolph (1996) wrote that empowerment must start at the top or it will go nowhere. Leadership is no longer top-down. Principals should create a school culture in which decisions are made collaboratively. A principals primary task should focus on analyzing and understanding the existing culture and being aware of teachers needs, feelings, perceptions, and attitudes (aCampo, 1993). The role most critical to successful change is that of the principal. Common vision, shared philosophies, and trusted leadership are all entwined in a successful

PAGE 29

21 organization. (Saphier & King, 1985). The culture keeps work focused on meeting and exceeding customer success and satisfaction. A change in culture is achieved in a large part due to the intrinsic motivation of all members, a socially-defined vision, and a commitment to continual improvement (Snyder, Wolf, & Acker-Hocevar, 1995, p. 7). A leader who is deliberate in role modeling, teaching, and coaching encourages a positive culture (Schein, 1992). Principals must influence the establishment and maintenance of a positive school culture for schools to be productive, and must be committed so that the culture can grow and endure (Lezotte & Bancroft, 1985; Snyder, Wolf & Acker-Hocevar, 1995). Elmore (2002) wrote The job of administrative leaders is primarily about enhancing the skills and knowledge of people in the organization, creating a common culture of expectations around the use of those skills and knowledge, holding the various pieces of the organization together in a productive relationship with each other, and holding individuals accountable for their contributions to the collective result. (p. 15) Principals begin this process of influencing culture by recruiting and selecting teachers with shared norms and values. Building collegiality and collaboration on the shared goals and values, encouraging staff development that is student oriented, modeling behaviors that encourage student achievement, and celebrating and rewarding teachers by sharing stories of success and accomplishments are also positive steps toward the building of culture (Leithwood & Jantzi, 1990; Lightfoot, 1996; Peterson, 1988; Schein, 1992). Culture and Student Achievement Does school culture affect student achievement? A study by Brookover et al. (1978) investigated the relationships among a variety of school-level climate variables and mean school achievement in a random sample of Michigan elementary schools. The study concluded that some aspects of school social environment clearly make a

PAGE 30

22 difference in academic achievement of schools. A favorable climate with high academic standards is a necessary condition for high achievement. The social-psychological climate is an integral component of school culture and student achievement. This study also established that the school composition does not necessarily determine school climate. Sackney (1998) wrote that school culture influences psychological processes and achievement and is subject to change as stakeholders perceptions change. Teachers who are empowered professionals encourage positive student achievement. Teachers working and participating in a school culture high in collective efficacy promoted higher levels of student achievement (Bandura, 1993). Sweetland and Hoy (2000) demonstrated that in their school culture research of 86 New Jersey middle schools, after socioeconomic status, school culture was the next most powerful variable in student achievement. Teachers who were empowered, supported, and respected by their principal and colleagues, showed higher student achievement scores. Weber (1971) studied third graders in four inner-city schools in New York, Chicago, Kansas City, and Los Angeles. These schools were selected because their reading achievement scores were at or above the national average. He concluded that schools do make a contribution to student achievement, and itemized common elements found in these successful programs as strong leadership, continuous evaluation of pupil progress, and an environment conducive to learning. Murnanes (1981) literature review of effective schools research in the 1970s arrived at a similar conclusion of schools matter, and more specifically, that the key element of schools that matters the most are the people (p. 27). Strong administrative leadership can make a difference in student learning. These findings have clear implications for school leaders.

PAGE 31

23 Teacher Efficacy and Student Achievement Teacher efficacy is the beliefs and professional knowledge and the manners in which these beliefs and professional knowledge influence teaching behaviors. Pajares (1996) reports an individuals perception of his or her ability is often a better predictor of their capabilities than what he or she can actually accomplish, since self-efficacy beliefs help determine what an individual does with the knowledge and skills that he or she possesses. An individuals efficacy beliefs can influence and enhance their accomplishments and well being in numerous ways. Teacher efficacy has been found to influence teacher behavior, such as effort, innovation, planning and organization, persistence, resilience, enthusiasm, willingness to work with difficult students, and commitment to teaching and career longevity. Motivated and confident teachers are more effective. Teachers make decisions based upon their beliefs; these decisions and actions have significant impact upon the learning experiences provided for students (Soodak & Podell, 1996). Students achieve more, exhibit greater motivation, and have a higher level of perceived self-efficacy when their teacher possesses a higher level of perceived teacher efficacy (Guskey & Passaro, 1994). Professional Learning Communi ties and Student Achievement Professional learning communities can be described as a collegial group of teachers and administrators in a school who are united in their commitment to student learning. They work and learn together to enhance student achievement. Professional learning communities can be seen as a powerful staff development tool that has the potential to enhance teaching and improve student achievement. Teachers who feel supported in their own ongoing learning and classroom practice are more committed and effective than those who do not receive such support.

PAGE 32

24 McLaughlin and Talbert (1993) suggested that when teachers have opportunities for collaborative inquiry and learning related to it, they are able to develop and share a body of wisdom acquired from their experiences. This collaboration can enhance their effectiveness as professionals so that student s benefit. The learning community provides a positive environment for teacher networking, cooperation among colleagues, expanded professional roles and increased teacher efficacy in meeting the needs of all students Rosenholtz (1989). Leadership and Student Achievement A principals leadership is critical to the achievement of students (Murphy, 1998). Huff, Lake, and Schaalman (1982) investigated the relationship between a principals leadership traits and student achievement. Their findings support the hypothesis that principals in high-performing schools have diffe rent attributes than their counterparts in low-performing schools. For example, they found that in high performing schools, principals have stronger affective traits and cognitive analytical skills. They also found high performing principals to be more focused and involved with change. Beare, Caldwell, and Milliken (1989) found that outstanding leadership has invariably emerged as a key characteristic of outstanding schools (p. 13). Effective leadership is a multifaceted process that is often defined through both subjective and objective measures of leader behavior and its effect on orga nizational processes and outcomes (Davis, 1998, p. 59). A study by Andrew and Soder (1987) re ported the behaviors of instructional leaders impacted the performance of student achievement, especially low achieving students. Their findings showed that, as perceived by teachers, achievement scores in reading and mathematics showed significant gains in schools with strong instructional leaders compared to schools with weak instructional leaders.

PAGE 33

25 A slightly different approach in studying the relationship between leadership styles of principals and achievement outcomes was implemented by Fuller (1989) when he investigated what principals report they do in an effort to enhance student achievement. Principals included in the sample had to exhibit two characteristics: (a) they had to be in the school for at least 4 consecutive years, and (b) the California Achievement reading, writing, and mathematics program mean scores of their third grade students had to continuously improve or decline between 1985 and 1988. Fuller utilized a rational decision making behavior instrument to solicit principals recollections concerning what they did about the problem of student achievement in their respective schools. Principals with improving student achievement scores indicated it was their personal goal to raise student scores, tended to own the problem more than principals in schools with declining student achievement scores, and also recognized the problem was complex and needed in-depth analysis. In contrast, principals in the schools with declining achievement scores, tended to delegate responsibilities in dealing with the problem, to claim that it was not under their control, or to minimize the magnitude of the problem. Hallinger, Bickman, and Davis (1996) repor ted no direct effect of leadership styles on student achievement, but they did s uggest there is an indirect effect on school effectiveness through actions that form the schools culture. Heck, Larsen, and Maccoulides (1990) suggested the relationship between a principals leadership style and levels of student achievement is extremely complex. Rather than a particular style, they found principals of high-achieving schools evid enced more incidences of involving staff in decisions and parents in programs, protecting faculty, communicating goals and expectations, recognizing achievement, observing teachers, securing resources, and

PAGE 34

26 evaluating programs. Their findings indicated the relationship between leadership and achievement is indirect and probably tw o directional. Hallinger and Heck (1998) conducted a study exploring the relationship between leadership and student achievement for the years 1980 through 1995. Their results showed leaders have an indirect, but measurable, effect on how well students achieve in their schools. The greatest influence the principal exercised was through the development and implementation of a clear vision, a coherent mission and attainable goals. The link between the leadership styles of the principal, culture, and student achievement is more indirect. Accumulating evidence has shown that principals influence student achievement indirectly through establishing school goals, setting high student and staff expectations, organizing classrooms, allocating resources, promoting a positive and orderly learning environment, and co mmunicating with school staff, parents, and community groups rather then directly through training teachers to better instruct, visiting classrooms, and making frequent teacher evaluations. (Griffith, 1999, p. 287) Eberts and Stone (1988) determined that a principals effect on student achievement results from his/her interactions with teachers. The interactions include identifying clear objectives, spending time in classrooms, providing support and guidance as well as rewards and incentives. The principal accepts accountability for student achievement (Brewer, 1993). Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Form 5X) This study used the MLQ (Form 5X) version of Bass (1985) leadership conceptualization. The MLQ 5X contains five transformational leadership elements. A principals style of leadership, according to th e authors, can be classified as one of the following: transformational, transactional, or laissez-faire. Thirty-six (36) questions help define these leadership styles. Transformational leaders and subordinates raise one

PAGE 35

27 another to higher levels of morality and motivation. These types of leaders also tend to raise the consciousness of followers by appealing to their higher ideals and moral values such as liberty, justice, equality, peace, and humanitarianism. The MLQ describes these leader behaviors as Idealized InfluenceA ttributed, Idealized InfluenceBehavior and Inspirational Motivation. Transactional leaders motivate followers by appealing to their self-interest. Transactional leadership involves values, but these values are related to the exchange process, such as honesty, fairness, responsibility. In contrast, laissez-faire leadership represents an avoidance of responsibility and action by the leader. In addition to the transactional/transformational factors of leadership, Bass (1985) developed three contextual factors that indirectly suppl ement an understanding of an organizations effectiveness relative to leaders style. These three contextual factors are extra effort, effectiveness, and satisfaction. The MLQ includes nine questions that address these factors. School Improvement Questionnaire (SIQ-II) The SIQ-II is comprised of 76 items. The first 22 items are demographic multiple choice questions, the remaining 54 Likert scale items relate to six school climate factors of collegiality, collective efficacy, personal efficacy, job satisfaction, policy-say so, and teaming. Collegiality stresses academics and professional growth. Teachers set high reasonable leaning goals for their students as well as themselves, encouraging positive growth and a culture that is conducive to learning. Collective efficacy and personal efficacy are characterized by satisfaction and respect for the competence of colleagues, warm and friendly interactions, and engagement in the teaching task. There is a commitment of each individual and the entire faculty for academic excellence and

PAGE 36

28 professional growth (Sweetland & Hoy, 2000). Policy say-so addresses shared decision making and empowerment; it is a process by which administrators share powers and help others use it in constructive ways to make decisions affecting themselves and their work (Sackney, 1998). Job satisfaction increases when teachers feel valued as professionals. When teachers have an active role in planning the schools goals and making decisions concerning curriculum and instruction, satisfaction is higher. Teachers are empowered and know that their professional judgment is respected and valued. Teaming reduces teacher isolation and enhances teacher collaboration. This results in greater collective motivation and commitment toward the schools mission and goals, increased satisfaction, and a willingness to put forth extra effort for the good of the group. Summary Principals are held accountable for academic achievement of diverse populations of students. Research suggests differing opi nions when discussing a direct link between principal leadership styles, school culture, and student achievement. The literature is in agreement that vision, openness, and trust are key components of effective leadership. Without these key ingredients, the specific strategies used by principals to gain a positive school culture will be ignored or, worse, sabotaged. Sincerity, active reflection, and personal professional growth can reform the cultures of a school so that it may become a more productive learning environment. Chapter 3 provides an overview of the design of the study, and the hypotheses and research questions are stated. Both the leadership and school culture instruments are presented with reliability coefficients. Procedures are explained regarding the process of the preparation for the study as well as for the data analysis.

PAGE 37

29 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY The purpose of the study was to explore the relationship among the perceived school culture, principal leadership characteristics, and the relationship between school culture and student performance as measured by the Florida Comprehensive Academic Test (FCAT). This chapter will discuss the instrumentation and methodology utilized to gather and analyze the data for the study. Participants The population for this study included 22 elementary schools with 320 elementary classroom teachers employed in a nor th central Florida school district. All of the teachers were surveyed. Prior to data collection, it was determined that a minimal acceptable sample size would be 50% or 160 respondents. The sample included statecertified classroom teachers who taught kinde rgarten through fifth-grade students onehalf time or greater during the time this study was conducted. Excluded from this sample were individuals whose assignments were not direct classroom teaching (i.e., curriculum resource teachers, behavior resources teachers, teachers on special assignment, media specialist, guidance counselors, assistant principals, and principals). Variables The independent variables in this study were perceived principal behaviors that included Charisma, Intellectual Stimulation, Individualized Consideration, Contingent Reward, Management-by-Exception, and Laissez-Faire as measured by The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire 5X (MLQ; Bass & Avolio, 1990). The leaders form was

PAGE 38

30 developed to be completed by an individual to measure his/her self-perceived leadership styles. The second independent variable, school culture, was measured by the School Improvement Questionnaire. The dependent variable was the participants opinions about school culture as assessed by the SIQ-II survey. The outcome of the SIQ-II survey was used as the dependent variable in this study because the researcher attempted to discover whether leader behaviors and characteristics impact a schools culture and student achievement. Instrumentation Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) Form 5X was developed and tested by Bernard Bass and Bruce Avolio (1990). The instrument is copyrighted by Bass and Avolio and published by Mind Garden, Inc. It was developed to measure aspects of transformational, transactional, and nonleadership leadership styles as well as outcomes of leadership. The 45-item instrument contains 12 scales: Idealized influence (attributed). Idealized influence (behavior). Inspirational motivation. Intellectual stimulation. Individualized consideration. Contingent reward. Management-by-exception (active). Management-by-exception (passive). Laissez-faire leadership. Extra effort. Effectiveness. Satisfaction. Idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration were transformational leadership style scales measured by the MLQ. Contingent reward and management-by-exception were transactional leadership style

PAGE 39

31 scales and laissez-faire leadership was the nonleadership component. See Table 3-1 for a sample statement in each area. Table 3-1.Transformational leadership scale statements TF Idealized influenceTalks enthusiastically about what needs to be accomplished. TF Inspirational motivationInstills pride in me for being associated with him TF Intellectual stimulationSeeking differing perspectives when solving problems TF Individualized considerationConsiders me as having special needs, abilities, and aspirations form others TR Contingent rewardDiscusses in specific terms who is responsible for achieving performance targets TR Management-by-exceptionFocuses attention on irregularities mistakes and exceptions and deviations from standards LF NonleadershipIs absent when needed All of the leadership style scales have four items per scale. Leadership styles scores for each of the nine leadership style scales represent the average scores for the items in each scale. Transformational leadership styles scores are derived by averaging the scores from the items contained in the idealized influenced, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration scales; a total of 20 items. Transactional leadership styles scores were derived by averaging all of the scores from the items in the contingent reward and management-by-exception scales, a total of 12 items. Because laissez-faire leadership was the only scale measuring nonleadership, nonleadership style score was equivalent to the laissez-faire leadership scale score. In their MLQ technical report, Bass and Avolio (1990) discussed the construct validation process associated with the MLQ-5X. An early version was evaluated by a panel of six leadership scholars, and their recommendations were included in the final instrument development. Since that time, 14 samples have been used to validate and cross-validate the MLQ Form 5X. The MLQ-5X was selected for use in this study

PAGE 40

32 because of the data indicating reliability and validity of the instrument. Alpha reliability coefficients for the MLQ-5X rater form scales have all been shown to be above .82 with the exception of management-by-exception (.79) and laissez-faire (.77). The reliability coefficients for the rater form subscales yielded a range of .77 through .95. School Culture Instrument School culture was assessed through the School Improvement Questionnaire (Webb & Pajares, 1996). The SIQ was developed by the College of Education at the University of Florida as part of on-going research in the area of school climate. The SIQ was developed in 1996 and revised in 2001. The SIQ II is comprised of 76 items. The first 22 items were multiple-choice demographic questions. The remaining 54 were 10point, Likert scale items relating to school climate. The anchors on the Likert scale items included disagree totally to agree totally, no confidence to complete confidence or near perfect confidence, and no say or influence to total say or influence. The SIQ II exploratory factor analysis indicated th at a six-factor solution presented a good approximation of the structure. The six school climate factors were collegiality, collective efficacy, personal efficacy, job satisfaction, policy-say so, and teaming. Table 3-2 provides sample questions on the SIQ II. Table 3-2.SIQ II statements CollegialityTeachers in this school are continually learning and seeking new ideas. Collective efficacyThere is a great deal of cooperating among teachers at this school. Personal efficacyMy job provides me with continuing professional stimulation and growth. Job satisfactionI feel little loyalty to the teaching profession. Policy-say-soHow much say do you have in policy making at your school? TeamingHow much can your colleagues influence what you teach?

PAGE 41

33 Design of the Study This section includes information about testing the hypotheses, drawing the sample, controlling for biases, and preparing the instrument and survey packets. Two surveys were used in this study, with each survey requiring less than 20 minutes to complete. Names of all certificated classr oom teachers were obtained from the Countys School Board. All teachers in each elementary school were asked to complete both surveys. Data on leadership and school culture were collected by the instruments previously discussed. Testing the Hypotheses The first hypothesis stated the leadership styles and behaviors of the principal affect school culture. This hypothesis was tested using correlation and regression analysis to show which of the three leadership styles were significantly correlated with school culture. The second hypothesis stated that school culture was not a predictor of FCAT scores. Results from the comparison of the SIQ II and FCAT scores demonstrated the strength of the relationship between school culture and FCAT. The third hypothesis stated that there was no correlation between school culture and student achievement as assessed by FCAT scores. Results from the comparison of the SIQ II and the FCAT scores demonstrated the relationship between school culture and student achievement. Data Collection The population for this study was drawn from elementary schools in a north central Florida school district. Permissi on to conduct the study was obtained from the district. Elementary schools in the district were sent a full packet and received a phone

PAGE 42

34 call fr om the rese arc her. A follow-up phone c all was made to schools that did not re sp on d. As the stu dy pr og re sse d, 6 s c ho ols de c lin e d to pa rt ic ipa te fo r v a ri ou s r e a so ns Th e re we re 4 a dd iti on a l sc ho ols tha t di d n ot r e sp on d; y e t no no tic e or re a so n o f r e fu sa l to participa te was g iven. The r emoval of the se schools broug ht the actua l number of schools to 12 and teac hers que ried to 175. This is a re turn rate of 57%, whic h exceede d the minimum num ber of response s require d. F or e a c h s c ho ol, a sin g le tr a ns fo rm a tio na l le a de rs hip sc or e wa s c omp ute d b y fi rs t aver ag ing a ll the teache rs re sponses for e ach sur vey statement assoc iated with ea ch transfor mational component: idealized influenc e, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimul ation, and individualized consideration. The aver ag e individual teac her tr a ns fo rm a tio na l c omp on e nt s c or e s w e re the n a ve ra g e d to a rr ive a t a sin g le c omp os ite transfor mational leade rship score A similar proce dure w as followed f or transa ctional a nd la iss e z-f a ir e le a de rs hip sc or e s p e r t he ML Q p ro c e du re ou tli ne d in B a ss a nd Av oli o (1 99 0) A ve ra g e re sp on se s w e re sim ila rl y ob ta ine d f or the thr e e ML Q f a c tor s: eff ectivene ss, satisfaction, and e x tra e ffor t. Student socioeconomic status, the pe rce nt of students who wer e elig ible for f ree or re ducedprice lunch in eac h school, was use d as an a dded pre dictor. The f ree and reduc ed-pr ice lunch sta tisti cs we re c ompiled from the county s fre e and r educe d-price lun c h r e c or ds T he fr e e a nd re du c e dpr ic e lun c h p e rc e nta g e s r a ng e d f ro m 22 .7 % t o 88 .4 %. Sc ho ol g ra de s w e re ob ta ine d f ro m st a te re c or ds T he se g ra de s r a ng e d f ro m A to D. This g rade was c ompiled by student achie vement scor es asse ssed by the Flor ida Com pr e he ns ive As se ssm e nt t e st. Ta ble 33 d e sc ri be s th e dis tr ic t st a tis tic s c omp a re d to the sa mpl e sc ho ols T a ble 34 d e sc ri be s th e sa mpl e sc ho ol s st a tis tic s.

PAGE 43

35 Table 3-3.Comparison of grade and SES for the district and sample DistrictSample Socioeconomic status55.9%53.2% School gradeBB Table 3-4.School grades, SES and population SchoolGrade% SESNo. Students A*C40.0447 BD88.4471 CA41.5657 DA71.0206 EA33.0701 FA56.0531 GA37.0739 HB84.0270 IB73.0316 JA22.7752 KA39.0556 Denotes magnet school Summary This chapter described the process that the researcher went through in order to complete the study. Research instruments were identified that would allow for objective analysis and demonstrated adequate reliability. Chapter 4 presents the analysis of data for this study. Descriptive statistics are presented to help the reader better understand the data. Multiple regression findings are presented and explained.

PAGE 44

36 CH APT ER 4 RESUL TS AND DI SCUS SI ON The purpose of this study was to explore the re lationship among the perc eived eff ective sc hool culture, the pr incipals lea dership cha rac teristics, and student pe rf or ma nc e a s me a su re d b y the F lor ida Com pr e he ns ive Ac a de mic Te st ( F CA T) T his chapte r is divided into two parts. The fir st section includes a ta ble of a bbrevia tions (Table 4-1) a nd descr ibes the sampling method used and the data obtaine d. The sec ond section desc ribes the statistical finding s for e ach of the following three hy potheses prese nted. L eade rship char acte ristics of the princ ipal aff ect sc hool culture. Sc ho ol c ult ur e a ff e c ts s tud e nt a c hie ve me nt. L e a de rs hip c ha ra c te ri sti c s a nd sc ho ol c ult ur e a ff e c t st ud e nt a c hie ve me nt. Table 41. Abbre viations ML Q-5X Multifactor lea dership questionnaire SI Q I I School improvement questionnaire TF Tr a ns fo rm a tio na l le a de rs hip TS Tr a ns a c tio na l le a de rs hip L F L a iss e z-f a ir e le a de rs hip SES Student socioeconomic status GRADE Schools gr ade f or student ac hievement de termined by the fc at PPS AT Perce ptions of pare nt/student satisfaction PTE Personal tea ching eff icac y PSW D Perfor mance of students with disabiliti es PL C Pr of e ssi on a l le a rn ing c omm un ity B TSC B e lon g ing to t he sc ho ol c omm un ity Sur ve y I nst r um e nt St at ist ic s The a naly sis of the ML Q-5X ( Table 42) and SI Q I I (Table 4-3) que stionnaire response s included the c omputation of means and f reque ncies a nd the utiliz ation of

PAGE 45

37 analy ses of va rianc e. Mea n score s for e ach sc hool were deter mined by aver ag ing the individual responses to ea ch item school wide. I n order to compare student achie vement in high pe rfor ming sc hools, the mean re sponses for sc hools rece iving a n A or B g rade we re c omp a re d w ith me a n s c or e s o f C or D s c ho ols T he le ve l of sig nif ic a nc e fo r t his study was set a t p< .05. A cor rela tion study is appropria te for this re sear ch proble m beca use the issue be ing studied is the de g ree to which there is a rela tionship between l e a d e r b e h a v i o r s p o s i t i v e s c h o o l c u l t u r e a n d s t u d e n t a c h i e v e m e n t T a b l e 4 2 d i s p l a ys the de sc ri pti ve sta tis tic s a nd re lia bil ity ind ic a tor s f or the se le a de rs hip ty pe s. Table 42. ML Q-5X le ader ship sty les I tems Mean Standard de via tio n Re lia bil ity TF 20 3.91 .65 .91 TS 12 2.86 .42 .50 L F 4 1.61 .65 .61 The fir st section of the SI Q re flec ts demog raphic and dire ct teac hing inf ormation. The sec ond section re quests belief a nd attitude response s, and the third sec tion was the focus of subsequent ana ly ses. The sum scor e for eac h item was ca lculated f or ea ch school. This sum was then we ighte d by the number of teac hers who par ticipated in that school. Due to the la rg e number of items, the fe w re verse -scor ed items (37, 40, 42, 44, and 45) w ere eliminated as a simple method to control for potential misscoring and misrepsonse. The final set of 51 items had a reliability of .66 (Ta ble 4-3). The SI Q I I school culture c omponents analy sis with a varimax rotation was used to r e du c e the se ite ms t o s e ve ra l di me ns ion s. Th e re su lts su g g e ste d 9 c omp on e nts wi th e ig e nv a lue s g re a te r t ha n 1 .0 Su bs e qu e nt i ns pe c tio n o f f a c tor loa din g s r e du c e d th e sc a le to 29 items with 5 underly ing dimensions as r eporte d in Table 4-3: ( a) pa rent/student satisfac tion with a reliability of .89, (b) persona l teache r ef fica cy with a re liability of .90,

PAGE 46

38 (c) school-wide pe rfor mance of students with disabiliti es with a re liability of .99, (d) professional learning community with a reliability of .90, and (e) belonging to the school community with a reliability of .79. Table 43. SI Q I I culture c omponent statistics SI Q I I I tems Mean Standard de via tio n Re lia bil ity Total 51 327.62 12.40 .66 Parent/student satisfac tion 8 52.54 6.63 .89 Personal tea cher eff icac y 7 48.72 4.19 .90 Perfor mance of students with disabiliti es 4 23.53 4.70 .99 Professional lea rning community 7 48.32 5.02 .90 Be longing to the school community 3 16.27 2.46 .79 Re se ar c h Que st ion s Rese arch Question 1: What Charact eristic s or Behaviors of Pr incipal s Are Associate d w ith Positive School Cul ture? The fir st hy pothesis stated that leade rship char acte ristics of the princ ipal aff ect sc ho ol c ult ur e T he re su lts re po rt e d in thi s se c tio n s up po rt the a c c e pta nc e of thi s hy po the sis T a ble 44 p ro vid e s e vid e nc e tha t tr a ns a c tio na l le a de rs hip wa s si g nif ic a ntl y rela ted to the school culture That is, highe r leve ls of transac tional leader ship are associate d with highe r leve ls of school culture. Ta ble 44. L e a de rs hip sty le s Model Unstandar dized c oe ff ic ie nts Standardized c oe ff ic ie nts B S t d er ro r Be t a t S i g. Constant 303.00 8.47 36.0 .00 ML Q TF aver ag e .89 1.61 .05 .6 .58 ML Q TS aver ag e 9.11 2.28 .31 4.0 .00* ML Q L F a vera g e -2.90 1.65 -.15 -2.0 .08 Asterisks (*) indica te sig nificanc e p<.05. Th e sc ho ol c ult ur e su rv e y (S I Q I I ) c on sis ts o f 5 c omp on e nts T he c omp on e nt, persona l teache r ef fica cy is shown in Table 4-5. Tr ansfor mational and tra nsactional

PAGE 47

39 leadership are significantly related to personal teacher efficacy. That is, higher levels of transactional and transformational leadership are associated with higher levels of personal teacher efficacy. Table 4-5.Personal teacher efficacy and leadership styles Model Unstandardized coefficients Standardized coefficients tSig. BStd. errorBeta Constant38.172.8313.52.00 MLQ TF average1.38.54.222.57.01* MLQ TS average2.18.76.222.86.01* MLQ LF average-.70.55-.11-1.27 .21 Asterisks (*) indicate significance p<.05. Table 4-6 reports the component parent/student satisfaction in the school culture survey (SIQ II). Transactional leadership was significantly related to perceptions of parent/student satisfaction. That is, higher levels of transactional leadership are associated with higher levels of parent/student satisfaction. Table 4-6.Parent/Student satisfaction and leadership styles Model Unstandardized coefficients Standardized coefficients tSig. BStd. errorBeta Constant39.304.538.70.00 MLQ TF Average.11.86-.01-.10.90 MLQ TS Average.391.21.344.42.00* MLQ LF Average.05.88-.10-1.20.24 Asterisks (*) indicate significance p<.05 Transformational leadership and laissez-faire were significant to the SIQ II culture component, professional learning communities. Table 4-7 shows significance of both leadership styles to professional learning community. That is, higher levels of transformational leadership are associated with higher levels of professional learning communities. Higher levels of laissez-faire leadership resulted in lower levels of professional learning communities.

PAGE 48

40 Table 47. Professional lea rning community and lea dership sty les Model Unstandar dized c oe ff ic ie nts Standardized c oe ff ic ie nts B S t d er ro r Be t a t S i g. Constant 44.10 3.19 13.80 .00 ML Q TF Aver ag e 2.27 .61 .30 3.74 .00* ML Q TS Avera g e -.49 .86 -.04 -.60 .57 ML Q L F Ave rag e -2.02 .62 -.26 -3.20 .00* Asterisks (*) indica te sig nificanc e p<.05. The two c omponents of the SI Q I I that did not show significa nce w ith principal leade rship sty le wer e per formanc e of students with disabilities and belong ing to the school community Table 48 shows no signific ance in principal lea dership sty les in the a re a of pe rf or ma nc e of stu de nts wi th d isa bil iti e s. Ta ble 49 s ho ws no sig nif ic a nc e in principal lea dership sty les for the component belong ing to the sc hool community Table 48. Perfor mance of students with disabiliti es and le ader ship sty les Model Unstandar dized c oe ff ic ie nts Standardized c oe ff ic ie nts B S t d E rr o r Be t a t S i g. Constant 24.45 3.38 7.24 ML Q TF aver ag e -.46 .64 -.06 -.70 .48 ML Q TS aver ag e .83 .91 .07 .91 .37 ML Q L F a vera g e -.93 .66 -.13 -1.40 .16 Asterisks (*) indica te sig nificanc e p<.05. Table 49. Be longing to the school community and lea dership sty les Model Unstandar dized c oe ff ic ie nts Standardized c oe ff ic ie nts B S t d er ro r Be t a t S i g. Constant 16.21 1.76 9.22 .00 ML Q TF aver ag e .56 .33 .15 1.68 .10 ML Q TS aver ag e -.87 .47 -.15 -1.85 .07 ML Q L F a vera g e .23 .34 .06 .67 .50 Asterisks (*) indica te sig nificanc e p<.05. Re se ar c h Que st ion 2: Is S c hoo l C ult ur e a P r e dic to r of F CA T Sc or e s? The sec ond hy pothesis stated that school culture aff ects student ac hievement a s ref lected in the sc hool gr ade. T he re sults reported in this section support the ac cepta nce

PAGE 49

41 of this hy pothesis. Table 4-10 show s that, when incor porating school g rade transac tional leade rship was sig nificantly rela ted to the school culture survey (SI Q I I ). That is, hig her levels of student a chieve ment are associate d with highe r leve ls of school culture. Table 410. School culture, lea dership sty les, and school g rade Unstandar dized c oe ff ic ie nts Standardized c oe ff ic ie nts B S t d E rr o r Be t a t S i g. Constant 41.76 4.66 8.97 .00 ML Q TF aver ag e -.16 .85 -.02 -.19 .85 ML Q TS aver ag e 5.46 1.21 .35 4.52 .00* ML Q L F a vera g e -1.25 .88 -.12 -1.41 .16 School gr ade -2.03 1.01 -.15 -2.02 .05* Asterisks (*) indica te sig nificanc e p<.05. Student socioeconomic status wa s added to see if it affe cted the pe rce ived culture or the lea dership sty le. Table 4-11 shows that transa ctional leade rship rema ined signific ant with the adde d predic tor socioec onomic status. Table 411. School culture, l eadership styles, school grade, and socioeconomic status Model Unstandar dized c oe ff ic ie nts Standardized c oe ff ic ie nts B S t d E rr o r Be t a t S i g. Constant 309.92 9.50 32.62 .00 ML Q TF aver ag e .28 1.66 .02 .17 .86 ML Q TS aver ag e 9.05 2.28 .31 3.97 .00* ML Q L F a vera g e -2.95 1.66 -.15 -1.77 .08 School gr ade -1.45 1.91 -.06 -.76 .45 SES -0.06 0.05 -.10 -1.33 .19 Asterisks (*) indica te sig nificanc e p<.05. Four components on the school c ulture surve y (SI Q I I ) we re sig nificantly rela ted to achieve ment as re flec ted by school g rade They included per ceptions of pa rent/student satisfac tion, personal tea ching eff icac y perf ormanc e of students with disabilities and pr of e ssi on a l le a rn ing c omm un ity T he stu de nts s oc ioe c on omi c sta tus wa s a dd e d a s a second pr edictor.

PAGE 50

42 Table 4-12 shows that when adding both school grade and student socioeconomic status with the component parent/student satisfaction, transactional leadership remained significant. That is, when adding school grad e and socioeconomic status, higher levels of transactional leadership are associated with higher levels of parent/student satisfaction. Table 4-12.Leadership styles, parent/student satisfaction with school grade, and SES Model Unstandardized coefficients Standardized coefficients tSig. BStd. errorBeta Constant52.134.6211.30.00 MLQ TF average-1.36.81-.13-1.70.10 MLQ TS average5.191.11.334.69.00* MLQ LF average-.91.81-.09-1.10.26 School grade-1.26.93-.09-1.40.18 SES-.13.02-.41-5.80.00* Asterisks (*) indicate significance p<.05 School grade and socioeconomic status were both significantly related to the school culture component, personal teacher efficacy. Table 4-13 shows school grade and socioeconomic status were significant to personal teaching efficacy. Transactional leadership continued to be significant with the added predictors. That is, when adding school grade and socioeconomic status, higher levels of transactional leadership are associated with higher levels of personal teaching efficacy. Table 4-13.Leadership styles, personal teaching efficacy with school grade, and SES Model Unstandardized coefficients Standardized coefficients tSig. BStd. ErrorBeta Constant42.302.3618.0.00 MLQ TF average.51.41.081.2.22 MLQ TS average1.85.57.193.3.00* MLQ LF average.00.41-.020.0.82 School grade4.15.48.478.7.00* SES-.10.01-.52-9.0.00* Asterisks (*) indicate significance p<.05.

PAGE 51

43 School grade and socioeconomic status were significantly related to the school culture component, performance of students with disabilities. Table 4-14 shows that when adding both school grade and socioeconomic status to performance of students with disabilities the result was significant. However, none of the leadership styles remained significant. Table 4-14.Leadership styles, performance of students with disabilities with school grade, and SES Model Unstandardized coefficients Standardized coefficients tSig. BStd. errorBeta Constant24.403.357.30.00 MLQ TF average-.90.59-.13-2.00.12 MLQ TS average.57.80.05.70.48 MLQ LF average-.40.59-.05-1.00.51 School grade4.37.68.446.50.00* SES.00.02-.27-4.00.00* Asterisks (*) indicate significance p<.05. Table 4-15 shows that, when adding both school grade and socioeconomic status with professional learning communities, the result was significant. Transformational and laissez-fair leadership continued to be significant with the added predictors. That is, higher levels of achievement as reflected in school grade and socioeconomic status are associated with higher levels of professiona l learning community. Laissez-fair leadership had a negative significance with professional learning communities. That is, higher laissez-fair leadership is associated with lower levels of professional learning communities. Table 4-16 shows the school culture component, belonging to the school community, was significant with the predictor student socioeconomic status. That is, higher levels of student socioeconomic status are associated with higher levels of belonging to the school community. The added predictor, school grade, was not significant.

PAGE 52

44 Table 415. L eade rship sty les, profe ssional learning community with school g rade and SES Model Unstandar dized c oe ff ic ie nts Standardized c oe ff ic ie nts B S t d er ro r Be t a t S i g. Constant 41.00 3.43 12.00 .00 ML Q TF aver ag e 2.35 .60 .30 3.80 .00* ML Q TS aver ag e -.60 .82 -.05 -1.00 .47 ML Q L F a vera g e -1.70 .60 -.23 -3.00 .00* School gr ade 2.88 .69 .27 4.20 .00* SES .00 .02 -.02 .00 .80 Asterisks (*) indica te sig nificanc e p<.05. Table 416. L eade rship sty les, belong ing to the sc hool community with school g rade and SES Model Unstandar dized c oe ff ic ie nts Standardized c oe ff ic ie nts B S t d er ro r Be t a t S i g. Constant 18.60 1.94 9.60 .00 ML Q TF aver ag e .36 .34 .10 1.10 .29 ML Q TS aver ag e -.90 .47 -.15 -2.00 .06 ML Q L F a vera g e .22 .34 .06 .60 .52 School gr ade -.60 .39 -.11 -2.00 .15 SES .00 .01 -.17 -2.00 .03* Asterisks (*) indica te sig nificanc e p<.05. Re se ar c h Que st ion 3: Is T he r e a R e lat ion ship Be twe e n Sc hoo l C ult ur e and St ude nt Ac hie ve m e nt as As se sse d by t he F CA T sc or e s? Hy pothesis 3 states that leade rship char acte ristics and school culture aff ect student achie vement as r efle cted by the school g rade The re sults reported in this section support acceptance of this hypothesis. Table 4-17 shows transactional leadership was sig nif ic a ntl y re la te d to the pe rc e pti on of pa re nt/ stu de nt s a tis fa c tio n. Th a t is h ig he r l e ve ls of transa ctional leade rship are associate d with highe r leve ls of pare nt/student satisfaction. Ta ble 418 pr ov ide s e vid e nc e tha t th e a dd e d p re dic tor s tud e nt s oc ioe c on omi c status, showed sig nificanc e to the school c ulture compone nt, pare nt/student satisfaction. Whe n in c or po ra tin g so c ioe c on omi c sta tus int o th is m od e l, t ra ns a c tio na l le a de rs hip re ma ine d s ig nif ic a nt. Th a t is h ig he r l e ve ls o f s oc ioe c on omi c sta tus a re a sso c ia te d w ith highe r leve ls of pare nt/student satisfaction and tra nsactional lea dership.

PAGE 53

45 Table 4-17.Leadership styles, parent/student satisfaction Model Unstandardized coefficients Standardized coefficients tSig. BStd. errorBeta Constant39.274.538.66 .00 MLQ TF average-.11.86.01-.13.90 MLQ TS average5.391.21.344.42.00* MLQ LF average-1.05.88-.10-1.19.24 Asterisks (*) indicate significance p<.05. Table 4-18.Leadership styles, parent/student satisfaction with SES Model Unstandardized coefficients Standardized coefficients tSig. BStd. errorBeta Constant50.974.5511.21.00 MLQ TF average-1.37.81-.13-1.69.09 MLQ TS average5.141.11.334.64.00* MLQ LF average-.78.81-.08-.97.34 SES-.14.02-.42-6.07.00* Asterisks (*) indicate significance p<.05. Table 4-19 describes that, when incorporating the added predictors school grade and socioeconomic status, both were significant to personal teacher efficacy. Transactional leadership remained significant. That is, higher levels of socioeconomic status and achievement are associated with higher levels of personal teaching efficacy and transactional leadership. Table 4-19.Leadership styles, personal teacher efficacy with school grade, and SES Model Unstandardized coefficients Standardized coefficients tSig. BStd. errorBeta Constant42.272.3617.90.00 MLQ TF average.51.41.081.23.22 MLQ TS average1.85.57.193.26.00* MLQ LF average-.10.41-.02-.20.82 School Grade4.15.48.478.74.00* SES-.11.01-.52-9.20.00* Asterisks (*) indicate significance p<.05.

PAGE 54

46 Table 4-20 shows that transformational leadership and laissez-fair leadership are significant to professional learning co mmunity. The added predicator, student achievement, was also significant. That is, higher levels of school grade are associated with higher levels of professional learning community and transformational leadership. Higher levels of school grade are associated with lower levels of laissez-faire leadership. Laissez-fair leadership had a negative association with professional learning communities. Table 4-20.Leadership styles, professional learning community with school grade, and SES Model Unstandardized coefficients Standardized coefficients tSig. BStd. errorBeta Constant40.953.4311.90.00 MLQ TF average2.30.60.303.83.00* MLQ TS average-.60.82-.05-.70.47 MLQ LF average-1.74.61-.23-2.90.00* School grade2.88.69.274.17.00* SES.00.02-.02-.30.80 Asterisks (*) indicate significance p<.05. Table 4-21 shows that belonging to the school community was significant when incorporating socioeconomic status into th e model. School grade was not significant. That is, higher levels of socioeconomic status are associated with higher levels of belonging to the school community. Table 4-21.Leadership styles, belonging to the school community with school grade, and SES Model Unstandardized coefficients Standardized coefficients tSig. BStd. errorBeta Constant18.641.949.60.00 MLQ TF average.36.34.101.06.29 MLQ TS average-.89.47-.15-1.90.06 MLQ LF average.22.34.06.64.52 School grade-.57.39-.11-1.50.15 SES.00.01-0.17-2.10.03* Asterisks (*) indicate significance p<.05.

PAGE 55

47 Summ ary The finding s of this study demonstrate tha t there a re spe cific c hara cter istics of the transac tional, transforma tional, and laissez-fair leade rship sty les that aff ect sc hool culture. The data a lso provided evidenc e that school c ulture and le ader ship sty les are signific antly rela ted to student achie vement as r efle cted in the sc hool gr ade a nd le a de rs hip c ha ra c te ri sti c s. Ta ble 422 su mma ri zes the sig nif ic a nt r e su lts T he se re su lts will be further clar ified and discusse d in Chapter 5, along with impli cations for school l e a d e r s a n d r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r f u r t h e r s t u d y. Ta ble 422 Sum ma ry of sig nif ic a nt r e su lts Culture S IQ II Student/parent satisfac tion Personal teac hing eff icac y Perfor mance stu de nts wi th disabiliti es Professional lear ning communities Fe el i n g a part of the c omm un ity M LQ TF ++ M LQ TS ++ + M LQ LF Gra de + + + + SES + + + + + + De no te s si g nif ic a nt s c or e s. Denotes a neg ative sig nificant scor e.

PAGE 56

48 CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship among the perceived effective school culture, principal leadership styles, and student performance as measured by the Florida Comprehensive Academic Test (FCAT). This chapter provides a summary of the study, a discussion of the results, conclusions, implications, and recommendations for future research. Summary of the Study The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ-5X) was utilized to rate leadership traits of principals. The School Improvement Questionnaire (SIQ II) was utilized to rate school culture. Both surveys relied on teacher ratings. School grades and socioeconomic status of a north central Florida county were accessed through the Florida Department of Education. Twelve (12) of the 22 elementary schools (57%) in the county participated in the study. The data received were analyzed to determine the relationship among leadership styles, school culture, and the effect on student achievement. Socioeconomic status and school grade were added as additional predictors. The results were reported in chapter 4. Discussion of Results Research Question 1: What Characteri stics or Behaviors of Principals Are Associated with Positive School Culture? Leadership characteristics of the principa l affect school culture (SIQ II). The results of this study show statistical significance of transactional and transformational

PAGE 57

49 leadership with school culture. Higher levels of both transactional and transformational leadership were associated with higher levels of school culture. This studys findings were consistent with Schein (1992), Bul ach (2001), Sergiovanni and Corbally (1984), and McCall (1994) who found that principal leadership had significant effects on school goals, school culture, policies and organization. Bolman and Deal (1984) took the position that a successful leader must understand and integrate the subcultures of the organization. In this study, the use of transactional leadership resulted in a positive school culture as rated by teachers. Transactional leadership and practices are central in maintaining an organization. The transactional leadership traits are important to the organization in that they regulate day to day activities. These behaviors contain elements of activity, inactivity, effectiveness and in effectiveness (Bass & Avolio, 1993). A principals leadership style enhances, encourages and nurtures a positive school culture. Transactional leadership is active management, and occurs when leaders intervene to make some correction and generally involves corrective criticism. Transformational leadership was found to be significant with two school culture (SIQ II) components. Transformational leadership is visionary leadership. Higher levels of transformational leadership were associated with higher levels of professional learning communities and personal teacher efficacy. These findings were consistent with researchers who examined visionary leadership and the correlation to effective school leadership and a positive school culture (Deal & Peterson 1999; Leithwood & Jantzi, 1990; Sashkin & Sashkin, 1993; Sergiovanni, 1995) The transformational leader has the ability to encourage change in others (Leithwood, Jantzi, & Steinbach, 1999). This change is accomplished by using a collaborative, shared decision-making approach that empowers teachers. ACampo (1993) wrote that a principals primary task should focus

PAGE 58

50 on analyzing and understanding the existing culture and be aware of teachers needs, feelings, perceptions, and attitudes. Research Question 2: Is School Culture a Predictor of FCAT Scores? The second hypothesis stated that school culture affects student achievement. The results of this study showed that school culture has a significant effect on student achievement. This finding is consistent with those of Sackney (1988), Sweetland and Hoy (2000), Bandura (1993), and Brookover et al. (1978) who found that aspects of school culture clearly make a difference in, and can be a powerful contributor to, student academic achievement. SIQ II components that related positively to student achievement were personal teaching efficacy, performance of students with disabilities and professional learning community. Research Question 3: Is There a Relation ship Between School Culture and Student Achievement as Assessed by the FCAT Scores? The third hypothesis stated that leadership characteristics and school culture affect student achievement. This study found statistical significance among the relationship between transactional leadership and parent/student satisfaction, teacher efficacy and professional learning community. Consistent with Fuller (1989), transformational leadership was found to be significant to professional learning community and teacher efficacy. The findings of this study differed markedly from Hallinger, Bickman and Davis (1996), who found that there was no direct effect of leadership styles on student achievement. In this study transactional leadership was found to have a significant link to student achievement. McMillian (1996) suggested the relationship between a

PAGE 59

51 principals le ader ship sty le and leve ls of student achie vement is extremely complex. Th is s tud y a ff ir me d th e c omp le xity of thi s r e la tio ns hip s ho wi ng sig nif ic a nc e wi th perc eption of par ent/student satisfaction, tea cher eff icac y profe ssional learning community and tra nsactional a nd transfor mational leade rship sty les with student achie vement. Ba ss, Waldman, Aviolo, and Be bb (1987) sug g ested tra nsactional a nd transfor mational leade rship sty les are complimentary and lea ders must possess both to be e ff e c tiv e L e a de rs a re of te n f le xible a nd fi nd ing s in dic a te no on e pa rt ic ula r l e a de rs hip sty le of the pr incipal deter mines the succe ss of the school (G epfor d 1996; Sackney 1998; L eithwood, J antzi, & Steinbach, 1999) The finding s of this study support the signific ance of transa ctional and tra nsformational lea dership sty les to school culture. Principals who know wha t leader ship behaviors matc h the nee ds of the schools stakeholder s are more a ble to foster a positive school culture. Rese arch Question 4: Are There De m ographic F acts ( e.g., SES) Th at Ar e Associate d w ith School Culture? The finding s of this study sug g est a sig nificant re lationship ex ists between SES (as indica ted by the per cent of students rec eiving fre e or r educe d-price lunch) a nd school culture. The school culture sur vey (SI Q I I ) compone nts showed statistical signific ance wh e n s oc ioe c on omi c sta tus wa s a dd e d a s a pr e dic tor wi th t he c ult ur e c omp on e nts pa re nt/ stu de nt s a tis fa c tio n, pe rs on a l te a c hin g e ff ic a c y a nd pe rf or ma nc e of stu de nts wi th disabiliti es. Hig her le vels of socioe conomic status wer e assoc iated with hig her le vels of pa re nt/ stu de nt s a tis fa c tio n, pe rs on a l te a c hin g e ff ic a c y a nd pe rf or ma nc e of stu de nts wi th disabiliti es. This finding was c onsistent with that of Sweetland and H oy (2000), who

PAGE 60

52 found that a student s socioeconomic sta tus was a powe rful indicator of student a c hie ve me nt. Im plic at ion s a nd C onc lusi ons This section prese nts impl ications and c onclusions of perc eived e ffe ctive school culture, pr incipal leade rship sty les and student per formanc e. Im plic at ion s for P r inc ipa l P r e par at ion and P r ac ti c ing P r inc ipa ls School district staff deve lopment and university prog rams nee d to train eleme ntary principals in both transfor mational (visionary ) and tra nsactional lea dership (da y -today ). The c ombinations of both leader ship sty les wer e found to positively eff ect school culture a nd student achie vement. This study found that both transa ctional and transfor mational leade rship are signific ant to the school culture and student achie vement. Principal pre para tion should i nclude the the ory of transa ctional and transfor mational leade rship sty les as we ll as opportunities to see and e x perie nce the complexit ies of lea dership. Sc ho ol d ist ri c t st a ff de ve lop me nt n e e d to pr ov ide a me nto ri ng pr og ra m to inc re a se a nd e nh a nc e the le a de rs hip sk ill s o f b oth a sp ir ing a nd pr a c tic ing sc ho ol p ri nc ipa ls. School culture wa s found to positively aff ect student a chieve ment. School district staff ne ed to provide pr ofessional de velopment training for pr incipals and a spiring principals that empha siz es under standing school culture a nd how to assess and br ing positive chang e to that culture The finding s of this study sug g est that principals ne ed to focus on enha ncing three are as of sc hool culture: (a ) prof essional lear ning communities, (b) tea cher eff icac y and (c ) the fe eling of being a par t of the c o m m u n i t y. Principals must be flexibl e, and use a combination of tra nsactional a nd tr a ns fo rm a tio na l le a de rs hip sty le s th a t me e t th e ne e ds of a ll s ta ke ho lde rs Professional lea rning communities are importa nt to a positive school culture. L aissez-fair e lea dership has a neg ative assoc iation with professional lea rning c omm un iti e s. Pr inc ipa ls n e e d to re c og nize a nd a vo id l a iss e z-f a ir e le a de rs hip be ha vio rs wi th r e g a rd to p ro fe ssi on a l le a rn ing c omm un iti e s. Principals who ar e plac ed in a sc hool with low socioeconomic status and low student achie vement must have a thoroug h understanding of transa ctional and transfor mational leade rship. They must also have a de ep under standing and commitment to shape and c hang e the sc hools culture in the a rea s of teac her e ffica cy an d p ro fe s s i o n al l ea rn i n g.

PAGE 61

53 Sc ho ol d ist ri c ts n e e d to fo c us on a sy ste ma tic wa y to s tud y e a c h s c ho ol s c ult ur e so they might better match the sc hools needs w ith principals who possess the knowledg e, skills, and understanding require d to shape a nd chang e the c ulture of suc h schools. School principals ar e ac countable f or student ac hievement. School culture was found to impact student achie vement. A sc hool culture a ssessment, as par t of the principa l evalua tion process, would provide an additional mea sure of potential leade r eff ectivene ss and promote c ontinuing prof essional lear ning of principals. Co nc lusi ons Transa ctional leade rship signific antly aff ecte d student achie vement and thr ee sc hool culture c omponents: parent/student satisfac tion, personal tea ching eff icac y and profe ssional community That is, highe r leve ls of transac tional leader ship were associate d with highe r leve ls of student achie vement and sc hool culture. Transf ormational lea dership had a signific ant re lationship with t wo spec ific school culture c omponents: personal tea ching eff icac y and prof essional lear ning c o m m u n i t y. Student socioeconomic status wa s signific antly rela ted to school culture a nd student achie vement in four sc hool culture a rea s: parent/student satisfac tion, personal teac hing e ffica cy perf ormanc e of students with disabilities, and belong ing to the sc ho ol c omm un ity School culture wa s found to be sig nificantly rela ted to student achie vement in three sc ho ol c ult ur e a re a s: p e rs on a l te a c hin g e ff ic a c y p e rf or ma nc e of stu de nts wi th dis a bil iti e s, a nd pr of e ssi on a l le a rn ing c omm un iti e s. L aissez-fair e lea dership wa s signific antly rela ted to the school culture are a: profe ssional learning communities. Highe r leve ls of laissez-faire leade rship wer e a s s o c i a t e d w i t h l o w e r l e v e l s o f p r o f e s s i o n a l l e a r n i n g c o m m u n i t y. Re c om m e ndat ion s for F ut ur e St udy This section prese nts recommenda tions for future study This study has re se a rc he d a na rr ow po rt ion of the e du c a tio na l le a de rs hip fi e ld a nd c a n b e e xpa nd e d in ma ny wa y s. Th e re c omm e nd a tio ns tha t f oll ow a re ba se d u po n in sig hts g a ine d f ro m th is and re lated studies, and may provide a dditional insi g ht into the relationships betwee n and among eff ective sc hool culture, princ ipal leade rship sty les and student per formanc e.

PAGE 62

54 This study was c onducted in a me dium-siz ed school district in North Centra l Florida. A study which utiliz ed school districts ac ross the state or reg ion might more tho ro ug hly de mon str a te wh e the r t he re la tio ns hip be tw e e n th e pr inc ipa l s le a de rs hip sty le and sc hool culture provide a more g ener alizable finding reg arding the re la tio ns hip a mon g le a de rs hip sty le s, sc ho ol c ult ur e a nd stu de nt a c hie ve me nt. This study did not address g ender or experienc e leve ls as a princ ipal. The total number of y ear s teac hing, a nd other lea dership experienc es may provide infor mation useful to school sy stems in making a ppropriate decisions on administrative pr omo tio ns a nd pla c e me nts Th is s tud y did no t a dd re ss s e c on da ry sc ho ols Si mil a r s tud ie s th a t a dd re ss elementa ry and sec ondary schools should be done to see if the finding s are consistent w i t h t h i s s t u d y. A similar study that matches both hig h perf orming and low per forming schools by siz e and soc ioeconomic status may provide a dditional useful information. This study did not control for socioe conomic status. A similar study that addre sses simil ar soc ioeconomic populations with vary ing stude nt perfor mance may provide additional useful informa tion. Summ ary The finding s of this study demonstrated tha t there a re spe cific c hara cter istics of transac tional and transf ormational lea dership sty les that aff ect c ulture. The da ta provided evidenc e that school c ulture and le ader ship sty les are signific antly rela ted to student achie vement. When socioec onomic status and school g rade s were added, tr ansac tional a nd tr a ns fo rm a tio na l le a de rs hip re ma ine d s ig nif ic a nt. Principals direc tly impacted student lea rning throug h the school culture they foster. I t is im portant that principa ls practice both transac tional and transf ormational le a de rs hip a nd un de rs ta nd its e ff e c t on sc ho ol c ult ur e O nly wi th i nf or me d p ra c tic e wi ll schools be able to meet the nee ds and cha lleng es assoc iated with a diver se student po pu la tio n w ith div e rs e a c a de mic ne e ds .

PAGE 63

55 APPENDIX A QUESTIONNAIRE PACKETS Appendix A contains the information included in the questionnaire packets that were sent to the schools and school district administrators. Bass and Avolio (1990) Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ 5X) is not included in the appendix because Bass and Avlio do not wish to have it reproduced. The following is an outline of which documents were sent to principals, teachers, and school district administrators. List of Documents Principals 1.Principal letter 2.SIQ II questionnaire 3.MLQ questionnaire 4.Self-addressed, stamped envelope Teachers 1.Teacher letter 2.SIQ II questionnaire 3.MLQquestionnaire 4.Scantron to use with SIQ II questionnaire 5.Scantron to use with MLQ questionnaire 6.Self-addressed, stamped envelope School District Administrators 1.Letter requesting permission to do research

PAGE 64

56 Principal Consent Letter Dear Colleague: I am a doctoral student at the University of Florida in the Department of Educational Leadership working under the direction of Dr. James L. Doud, 258E Norman Hall, (352)392-2391 x263. I am writing to request your participation in my dissertation study which will explore the relationship between leadership behaviors of the principal, school culture and student achievement. This study involves the completion of one survey. Principals and teachers will be asked to complete a questionnaire to asses their perception of the schools culture or principals leadership style. Principals will be asked to complete the culture survey. The questionnaire should take approximately 20 minutes of your time. You do not have to answer any question you do not wish to answer. There are no known personal risks or benefits to participating in this study. You have the right to withdraw you consent and discontinue participation in the project at any time. Unfortunately there will be no compensation provided for your time and effort other than my eternal gratitude. Your teachers have also been asked to participate in this study. Data will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law. Enclosed you will find a self-addressed, stamped envelope so that you can return your questionnaires directly to me. This measure is to ensure confidentiality. I will be happy to answer any questions pertaining to this study before or after you have completed the surveys. Please contact me at: Elizabeth Le Clear 8405 SW 51st Lane Gainesville, Florida 32608 (352)337-3917 lecleaea@sbac.edu If you have questions or concerns about rights of the research participants please contact the University of Florida Institutional Review Board at: UFIRB office Box 112250 University of Florida Gainesville, Florida 32611-2250 (352)392-0433 Thank your for signing and dating this letter and returning it with your questionnaire as soon as possible. Sincerely, Elizabeth A. Le Clear

PAGE 65

57 I have read the procedure described above. I voluntarily agree to participate in the procedure and I have received a copy of this description/ __________________________________________ Signature of participantDate

PAGE 66

58 Teacher Consent Letter Dear Colleague, I am a doctoral student at the University of Florida in the Department of Educational Leadership working under the direction of Dr. James L. Doud, 258E Norman Hall, (352)392-2391 x263. I am writing to request your participation in my dissertation study which will explore the relationship between leadership behaviors of the principal, school culture and student achievement. This study involves the completion of two surveys. Principals and teachers will be asked to complete questionnaires to assess their perception of the schools culture and principals leadership style. These questionnaires should take approximately 40 minutes of your time. You do not have to answer any question you do not wish to answer. There are no known personal risks or benefits to participating in this study. You have the right to withdraw you consent and discontinue participation in the project at any time. Unfortunately there will be no compensation provided for your time and effort other than my eternal gratitude. Data will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law. Enclosed you will find a self-addressed, stamped envelope so that you can return your questionnaires directly to me. This measure is to ensure confidentiality. I will be happy to answer any questions pertaining to this study before or after you have completed the surveys. Please contact me at: Elizabeth Le Clear 8405 SW 51st Lane Gainesville, Florida 32608 (352)337-3917 lecleaea@sbac.edu If you have questions or concerns about rights of the research participants please contact the University of Florida Institutional Review Board at: UFIRB office Box 112250 University of Florida Gainesville, Florida 32611-2250 (352) 392-0433 Thank your for signing and dating this letter and returning it with your questionnaire as soon as possible. Sincerely, Elizabeth A. Le Clear

PAGE 67

59 I have read the procedure described above. I voluntarily agree to participate in the procedure and I have received a copy of this description. __________________________________________ Signature of participantDate

PAGE 68

APPENDIX B SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT SURVEY (SIQ II)

PAGE 69

61

PAGE 70

62

PAGE 71

63

PAGE 72

64

PAGE 73

65

PAGE 74

66

PAGE 75

67

PAGE 76

68 REFERENCES aCampo, C. (1993). Collaborative school cultures: How principals make a difference. School Organization, 13 119-127 Andrews, R. L., & Soder, R. (1987). Student achievement and principal leadership. Educational Leadership, 44 (6), 9-11. Ash, R., & Persall, M. (1999). The principal as chief learning officer. National Association of Secondary School Principals, 84 (616), 15-22. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84 191-215. Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28 117-148. Barth, R. S. (1980). Run school run. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1990) Transformational leadership development: Manual for the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership: A response to critiques. In M. M. Chemers & R. Ayman (Eds.), Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and directions (pp. 49-88). San Diego, CA: Academic. Bass B. M., Waldman, D. A., Aviolo, B. J., & Bebb, M. (1987). Transformational leadership and the falling dominos effect. Group and Organizational Studies, 12, 73-87. Beare, H., Caldwell, B. J., & Milliken, R. H. (1989). Creating an excellent school: Some new management techniques. New York: Routledge. Bennis, W. (1989). On becoming a leader. Reading, PA: Addison-Wesley. Blanchard, K., Carlos, J., & Randolph, A. (1996). Empowerment takes more than a minute. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

PAGE 77

69 Blas, J., & Anderson, G. (1995). The micropolitics of educational leadership: From control to empowerment. New York: Cassell. Blas, J., & Blas, J. (1996). The fire is back: Principals sharing school governance. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. (1984). Modern approaches to understanding and managing organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. (1991). Reframing in action San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. (1995). Leading with soul: An uncommon journey of spirit. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Brewer, D. (1993). Principals and student outcomes: Evidence from U.S. high schools. Economics of Education Review, 12, 281-292. Brookover, W. B., Schweitzer, J. H., Schneider, J. M., Beady, C. H., Flood, F. K., & Wisinbaker, J. M. (1978). Elementary school social climate and school achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 15, 301-318. Bulach, C. R. (2001, April). A four-step process for identifying and reshaping school culture. Principal Leadership 1 48-51. Burns, J. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row. Cheng, Y. C. (1991). Leadership style of principals and organizational process in secondary schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 29 (2), 25-37. Covey, S. A., Miller, R. & Miller, R. (1994). First things first. New York: Simon & Shuster. Davis, S. H. (1998). Superintendents pers pectives on the involuntary departure of public school principals: The most frequent reasons why principals lose their jobs. Education Administration Quarterly, 34 58-90. Day, C. (2000). Leading schools in times of change. Philadelphia: Open University. Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. (1982). Corporate cultures: The rite and rituals of corporate life. Reading: Addison-Wesley. Deal, T. E., & Peterson, K. D. (1990). The principals role in shaping school culture. Washington, DC: United States Department of Education. Deal, T. E., & Peterson, K. D. (1999). Shaping school culture: The heart of leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

PAGE 78

70 Depree, M. (1989). Leadership is an art. New York: Bantam Doubleday Dell. Donmoyer, R., & Wagstaff, L. (1990). Principals can be effective managers and instructional leaders. NASSP Bulletin 74 (525), 20-29. Duke, D. L. (1987). School leadership and instructional improvement. New York: Random House. Eberts, R. W., & Stone, J. A. (1988). Student achievement in public schools: Do principals make a difference? Economics of Education Review, 7, 291-299. Elmore, R. F. (Jan./Feb. 2002). The limits of change. Harvard Education Letter, 18 (1), 8-15. Erickson, F. (1987). Conceptions of school culture: An overview. Educational Administration Quarterly, 23 (4), 11-24. Firestone, W. A., & Wilson, B. L. (1995). Using bureaucratic and cultural linkages to improve instruction: The principals contribution. Educational Administration Quarterly, 21 (2), 7-30. Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces. New York: Palmer. Fuller, J. F. (1989). Decision-making patterns of elementary school principals and the improvement of student achievement. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara. Gardner, H. (1990). On leadership. New York: Free Press. Garfield, C. (1986). Peak performers: The new heroes of American business. New York: Avon. Gepford, J. (1996). Relationship between school success and the leadership style of the principal in low socio-economic schools. Doctoral Dissertation, University of South Carolina, Columbia. Glickman, C. D. (2003). Holding sacred ground. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Grace, L., Buser, R., & Stuck, D. (1987). What works and what doesnt: Characteristics of outstanding administrators. NASSP Bulletin, 71 (502), 72-76. Griffith, J. (1999). The school leadership/sc hool climate relation: Identification of school configurations associated with change principals. Education Administration Quarterly. 35 267-291. Guskey, T. R., & Passaro, P. D. (1994). Teacher efficacy: A study of construct dimensions. American Educational Research Journal, 31 627-643.

PAGE 79

71 Hallinger, P., Bickman, L., & Davis, K. (1996) School context, principal leadership, and student reading achievement. The Elementary School Journal, 96 527-549. Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (1998). Explor ing principals contribution to school effectiveness: 1980-1995. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9 157191. Hater, J. J., & Bass, B. M. (1988). Superior s evaluations and subordinates perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73 695-702. Heck, R., Larsen, T., & Marcoulides, G. (1990). Principal leadership and school achievement: Validation of a causal model. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston. Huff, S., Lake, D., & Schaalman, M. (1982). Principal differences: Excellence in school leadership and management. Boston: McBer. James, J. (1996). Thinking in the future tense. New York: Simon & Shuster. Johnson, B. J. (1996). Types of educational leadership in a postindustrial society. The Urban Review 28, 213-232. King M. I. (1989). Extraordinary leadership in education: Transformational and transactional leadership as predictors of effectiveness, satisfaction and organizational climate in K-12 and higher education. Doctoral dissertation, University of New Orleans, LA. Kotter, J. (1990). A force for change: How leadership differs from management. New York: Free Press. Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (1990, June). Transformational leadership: How principals can help reform school cultures. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Association for Curriculum Studies, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED323622). Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., & Steinbach, R. (1999). Changing leadership for changing times. Philadelphia: Open University Press. Leithwood, K., & Montgomery, D. J. (1986). Improving principal effectiveness: The principal profile. Toronto: OISE Press. Levine, D. & Lezotte, L. (1995). Effective schools research. In J. A. Banks & C. A. M. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (pp. 525-547). New York: MacMillian.

PAGE 80

72 Lezotte, L. W., & Bancroft, B. A. (1985). Growing use of effective schools model for school improvement. Educational Leadership, 43 23-27. Lightfoot, S. L. (1996). On goodness of schools: Themes of empowerment. Peabody Journal of Education, 63 (3), 9-28. Maehr, M. L., & Midgley, C. (1996). Transforming school cultures. Boulder, CO: Westview. Marsh, D. D. (1992). Enhancing educational leadership. Education and Urban Society, 24 386-409. Marshall, C. (1988). Analyzing the culture of school leadership. Education and Urban Society, 20 262-273. Marshal, C., Patterson, J., A., Rogers, D. L., & Steele, J. R. (1996). Caring as a career: An alternative perspective for educational administration. Education Administration Quarterly, 32 271-294. McCall, J. R. (1994). The principals edge. New Jersey: Eye on Education. McEwan, E. (1998). Seven steps to effective instructional leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. McLaughlin, W. M., & Talbert, J. E. (1993). Contexts that matter for teaching and learning. Stanford, CA: Center for Research on the Context of Secondary School Teaching, Stanford University. Murphy, J. (1998). Methodological, measurement, and conceptual problems in the study of instructional leadership. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 10 117139. Owens, R. G. (1995). Organizational behavior in education (5th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Prentice-Hall. Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in achievement settings. Review of Educational Research, 66, 543-578. Peterson, K. D. (1988). Mechanisms of culture building and principals work. Education and Urban Society, 20 250-261. Reitzug, U. C., & Revves, J. E. (1992). Miss Lincoln doesnt teach here: A descriptive narrative and conceptual analysis of a principals symbolic leadership behavior. Education Administration Quarterly. 28 185-219. Rosenholtz, S. (1989). Teachers workplace: The social organization of schools. New York: Longman.

PAGE 81

73 Rowan, B., Bossert, S. T., & Dwyer, D. C. (1983). Effective schools: A cautionary note. Educational Researcher, 12, 24-31. Sackney, L. (1988). Enhancing school learning climate: Theory, research and practice. SSTA Research Centre report # 180. Retrieved June 30, 2003, from http:// www.ssta.sk.ca/research/school_improvement/180.htm#issues Saphier, J., & King, M. (1985). Good seeds grow in strong cultures. Educational Leadership, 42 (7), 67-73. Sashkin, M., & Sashkin, M. G. (1993). Principals and their school cultures: Understandings from quantitative and qualitative research. In M. Sashkin & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Educational leadership and school culture (pp. 100-123). Berkeley, CA: McCuthean. Schein, E. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership: A dynamic view. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schmoker, M. J. (1996). Results: The key to continuous school growth. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline. New York: Doubleday Currency. Sergiovanni, T. J. (1990 ). Value-added leadership: How to get extraordinary performance in schools. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Sergiovanni, T. J. (1995). The principalship. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Sergiovanni, T. J. (1996). Leadership for the schoolhouse. How is it different? Why is it important? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Sergiovanni, T. J., & Corbally, J. E. (1984). Leadership and organizational culture. Chicago: University of Illinois Press. Sizer, T. R., & Sizer, N. F. (1999). The students are watching: Schools and the moral contract. Boston: Beacon Press. Snyder, K. J., Wolf, K. M., Acker-Hocevar, M. (1995). Changing schools to quality work cultures: Issues and dilemmas. Paper presented at the annual Meeting of the British Educational Management and Administration Society, Oxford, England. Soodak, L. C., & Podell, D. M. (1996). Teacher efficacy: Toward the understanding of a multi-faceted construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12 401-411. Stolp, S. W. (1994). Transforming school culture: Stories, symbols, values & the leaders role. Eugene,, OR: ERIC Clearinghouse.

PAGE 82

74 Sweetland, S. R., & Hoy, W. K. (2000). School characteristics and educational outcomes: Toward and organizational model of student achievement in the middle schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36, 703-729. Trice, H. M. (1993). Occupational subcultures in the workplace. New York: Cornell University Press. Webb, R. B., & Pajares, F. (1996), School Improvement Questionnaire. Gainesville, FL: Center for School Improvement, University of Florida. Weber, G. (1971). Inner-city children can be taught to read: For successful schools. Washington, DC: Council for Basic Education. Wendel, F., Hoake, F., & Joekel, R. (1993). Project success: Outstanding principals speak out. The Clearing House, 67 (1), 52-54. Wilson, B. L., & Corcoran, T. B. (1988). Successful secondary schools. London: Falmer. Wolcott, H. F. (1984). The man in the principals office. Prospect Heights: Waveland.

PAGE 83

75 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Elizabeth Le Clear was born in a small farming community in Western Pennsylvania to Richard and Mary Sagrati. Her parents loved her unconditionally and preached the value of education, and gave her the courage to pursue her dreams with their love, encouragement, and support. She had wanted to be a music teacher from fifth grade. She attended West Virginia University and graduated with a B.M. in both vocal and instrumental music. Her first teaching position was at Wingate Oaks Center in Broward County, Florida. Her work with children with severe disabilities has left a profound effect on her person and career. The principal at Wingate Oaks Center encouraged her to pursue a Masters in Educational Leadership. She attended and graduated from Florida Atlantic University. After 7 years of teaching music, She moved to Gainesville, Florida. She taught one year of math to seventh graders at C. H. Price Middle School and then became the assistant principal. During her tenure at C. H. Price, she received a Specialist Degree in Education from the University of Florida, with an emphasis in exceptional student education. She transferred to Hawthorne Junior Seni or High School as the assistant principal and began her doctorate at the University of Florida. She later transferred to Westwood Middle School. She has been at Westwood for 6 years as the Assistant Principal for Curriculum.


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0013022/00001

Material Information

Title: Relationships among Leadership Styles, School Culture, and Student Achievement
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0013022:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0013022/00001

Material Information

Title: Relationships among Leadership Styles, School Culture, and Student Achievement
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0013022:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text











RELATIONSHIPS AMONG LEADERSHIP STYLES, SCHOOL CULTURE,
AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT















By

ELIZABETH A. LE CLEAR


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

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2005















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank Dr. Jim Doud for agreeing to be my committee chair and

providing me with encouragement and support throughout this endeavor. He has been a

role model and mentor to me as an administrator. I have taken many of his ideas and

suggestions to heart and am continually striving to improve.

I would also like to thank my committee members: Fran Vandiver, Diane

Hoppey, and Colleen Swain. They all have provided me with encouragement and

support, and I am very grateful. I would like to thank my boss, Jim TenBieg, the principal

of Westwood Middle School. He has encouraged, supported, and given me the flexibility

to continue through this long process. He is simply the best.

Finally, I would like to thank my parents, who have taught me to love and value

education and have continually supported me with all my dreams with guidance and

patience. I thank my grandmother who has prayed for me each and every night. I thank

my sister, Jill, and Horace, who not only listen but have also given me support and

encouragement. This has been a difficult road, and it has been possible only because of

my husband and my children's support and patience.















TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKN OW LEDGM EN TS ................................................ ii

LIST OF TABLES ......... ............................................. v

ABSTRACT ........ ................................................. vii

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY .................................... 1

Statement of the Problem ............... ............................. 5
Purpose of the Study .............................................. 5
Research Hypotheses .............................................. 6
Instrumentation .................. .............................. 6
Definition of Terms ............................................. 6
Theoretical Framework ................. ......................... 8
Delimitations and Limitations .......................................... 9
Significance of the Study ............................................ 9
Summary ................. ............................ ....... 10

2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE ......................................... 11

Introduction ......... ........................................ 11
Historical Overview of Leadership Roles ............................... 11
Defining Leadership ................. ......................... 14
Contemporary Views of Leadership ................................... 15
Definition of Culture ............................................ 16
Cultural Leadership ............................................. 17
Leaders Shape Culture ................. ......................... 19
Culture and Student Achievement ................. ................... 21
Teacher Efficacy and Student Achievement ............................ 23
Professional Learning Communities and Student Achievement ................ 23
Leadership and Student Achievement ................ ................. 24
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Form 5X) ........................... 26
School Improvement Questionnaire (SIQ-II) ............................ 27
Summary ....... ................................................ .28








3 METHODOLOGY .................................................. 29

Participants ........ ............................................... 29
Variables ....... ................................................ .29
Instrumentation ................. ............................ 30
School Culture Instrument .......................................... 32
Design of the Study ....................................... ....... 33
Summary ....... ................................................. 35

4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ............................... ....... 36

Survey Instrument Statistics ................ ........................ 36
Research Questions ............................................... 38
Summary ....... ................................................ .47

5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ................................... 48

Sum m ary of the Study ................................................ 48
Discussion of Results .................. .......................... 48
Implications and Conclusions ....................................... 52
Recommendations for Future Study ................................... 53
Summary ....... ................................................. 54

APPENDIX

A QUESTIONNAIRE PACKETS ........................................ 55

List of Documents ................................................... 55
Principal Consent Letter ............... ........................... 56
Teacher Consent Letter ............... ............................ 58

B SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT SURVEY (SIQ II) .......................... 60

REFERENCES ....... ............................................... 68

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ........................................... 75















iv















LIST OF TABLES


Table p

3-1 Transformational leadership scale statements ........................... 31

3-2 SIQ II statements ............................................... 32

3-3 Comparison of grade and SES for the district and sample ................. 35

3-4 School grades, SES and population .............................. ... 35

4-1 Abbreviations .................................................36

4-2 MLQ-5X leadership styles ....................................... 37

4-3 SIQ II culture component statistics .............................. ... 38

4-4 Leadership styles ................ ............................. 38

4-5 Personal teacher efficacy and leadership styles .......................... 39

4-6 Parent/Student satisfaction and leadership styles ........................ 39

4-7 Professional learning community and leadership styles ................... 40

4-8 Performance of students with disabilities and leadership styles ............. 40

4-9 Belonging to the school community and leadership styles ................. 40

4-10 School culture, leadership styles and school grade ....................... 41

4-11 School culture, leadership styles, school grade, and socioeconomic status .... 41

4-12 Leadership styles, parent/student satisfaction with school grade, and SES ..... 42

4-13 Leadership styles, personal teaching efficacy with school grade, and SES .... 42

4-14 Leadership styles, performance of students with disabilities with school grade,
and SES ........... ............................... .43









4-15 Leadership styles, professional learning community with school grade, and
SE S ............... ..............................44

4-16 Leadership styles, belonging to the school community with school grade, and
SE S ............... ..............................44

4-17 Leadership styles, parent/student satisfaction ........................... 45

4-18 Leadership styles, parent/student satisfaction with SES ................... 45

4-19 Leadership styles, personal teacher efficacy with school grade and SES ...... 45

4-20 Leadership styles, professional learning community with school grade, and
SE S ............... ..............................46

4-21 Leadership styles, belonging to the school community with school grade, and
SE S ............... ..............................46

4-22 Summary of significant results .................................... 47















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 Education

RELATIONSHIPS AMONG LEADERSHIP STYLES, SCHOOL CULTURE,
AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

By

Elizabeth A. Le Clear

December 2005

Chair: James L. Doud
Cochair: Fran Vandiver
Major Department: Educational Leadership, Policy, and Foundations

The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between perceived

effective school culture, principal leadership characteristics, and student performance as

measured by the Florida Comprehensive Academic Test (FCAT). The assumption in this

study was that principal leadership styles and school culture were expected to enhance

student achievement. A leadership survey and school culture survey were used as

assessment tools. Student achievement was assessed by using the school grade that was

based upon student FCAT data.

The findings of this study demonstrated that there are specific characteristics of

the transactional and transformational leadership styles that affect school culture. The

data provided evidence that school culture and leadership styles are significantly related

to student achievement. Transactional leadership affected school culture in the areas of

parent/student perceptions, professional learning communities, and teacher efficacy.









Transformational leadership affected school culture in the areas of personal teaching

efficacy and professional learning communities. When student socioeconomic status and

school grade were added as predictors, transformational and transactional leadership

remained significant. Socioeconomic status affected two school culture components:

(a) belonging to the school community and (b) performance of students with disabilities.

Principals directly impacted student learning through the school culture they

fostered. It is important that principals practice both transactional and transformational

leadership and understand their effect on school culture. Only with informed practice

will schools be able to meet the needs and challenges associated with all students

achieving at high levels.















CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY

What is leadership? Deal and Peterson (1999) describe the role of leadership as

"the creation, encouragement, and refinement of the symbols and symbolic activities that

give meaning to the organization" (p. 10). "When principals practice leadership as

pedagogy, they exercise their stewardship responsibilities by committing themselves to

building, to serving, to caring for and protecting the school and its purposes"

(Sergiovanni, 1996, p. 95). They are the living "logos" because their words and actions

convey what is valued in the school setting (Deal & Peterson, 1999).

The history of leadership in education began as top-down hierarchical

management. The boundaries for these leaders were tightly controlled. Administrators

strived to be distant, proper, serious, and impersonal. The communication was formal,

controlled, and from the top. The leadership style was management, and focused on

coordinating and monitoring activities.

Education managers in the 1980s transformed into instructional leaders (Schein,

1992). Why the transformation? Leithwood, Jantzi, and Steinbach (1999) suggest that

student achievement began directing all activities. Donmoyer and Wagstaff (1990) offer

a broad view of instructional leadership, noting that all leadership activities, including

routine managerial tasks, affect student learning. All tasks are considered to contribute

as much to improve learning as to direct instructional behaviors. McEwan (1998)

described instructional leadership as both traditional management and a human







2

component. Traditional management roles include planning, time management,

leadership theory, and organizational development. The human component consists of

the communicating, motivating, and facilitating roles of the principal. Leithwood et al.

(1999) describe instructional leaders as ones who provide constant support to the

instructional staff. Instructional leaders were concerned with curriculum and the

academic direction of the programs within a school.

The 1990s brought the transformational leader. The transformational leader has

the ability to encourage change in others (Leithwood et al., 1999). This change is

accomplished by using a collaborative, shared decision-making approach that empowers

teachers.

Principals must show strong leadership no matter what their style. Strong

principal leadership is defined as having knowledge of teaching and learning processes

and the power to motivate other members of the organization to achieve and work toward

the common good of the school. Leithwood et al. (1999) see strong administrators as

having the ability to know the leadership behaviors that match the needs of the school's

stakeholders. The literature is consistent on the position that strong leadership by the

principal is needed with regard to an important aspect of the school, its culture (Bandura,

1993; Bolman & Deal, 1984; Sackney, 1998).

Culture, in simplest terms, is described as the people's beliefs and perceptions of

their workplace (Sackney, 1998). Culture is a term that tries to capture the informal,

implicit, often unconscious side of any human organization (Deal & Kennedy, 1982).

Schein (1992) defines culture as a pattern of group learned assumptions that are taught to

new members. These assumptions include the current and historical decisions that are

made within a group to solve problems. These decisions are based on institutional heroes







3

and traditional ways of handling decisions and situations within a school setting. Culture

is the knowledge and symbols that frame the interpretations and standards of

appropriateness within a group or group setting. A strong positive culture enables people

to feel better about what they do, so they work harder (Deal & Kennedy, 1982).

Cultural literature has focused on change, suggesting that an effective

organization may be defined as one which creates a culture that inspires its members to

pursue continuous improvement through change. This change has the capacity to make

people proactive and creative problem-solvers. Leaders must realize the power of culture

within an organization. Organizational culture has been identified as a critical element,

vital to successfully improving the teaching and learning in schools (Fullan, 1993; Stolp,

1994).

School effectiveness research has shown that school culture is related to student

achievement (Sackney, 1998). A study by Sweetland and Hoy (2000) demonstrated that,

after socioeconomic status, school culture had a more powerful effect on student

achievement than any other variable. Teachers who felt empowered and part of a team,

and who felt supported by their principals and colleagues, enjoyed a sense of collective

efficacy and higher achievement scores were the result. Administrators and teachers with

a shared belief in the power to produce effects through collective action promote higher

levels of academic progress (Bandura, 1993).

Improvement efforts were likely in schools where positive professional cultures

had norms, values, and beliefs that reinforced a strong educational mission. Culture was

a key factor in determining whether improvement was possible (Deal & Peterson, 1990).

Schein (1992) wrote,

The bottom line for leaders is that if they do not become conscious of the cultures
in which they are embedded, those cultures will damage them. Cultural









understanding is desirable for all of us, but it is essential to leaders if they are to
lead. (p. 15)

Educational researchers agree that, as the leaders of individual schools, principals

impact the school's culture (Deal & Peterson, 1990; Sashkin & Sashkin, 1993;

Sergiovanni, 1995). School culture can be modified by leadership and the decision

making process of the leadership. A principal can positively or negatively affect the

school culture (Bandura, 1993).

Shaping the culture within the school is a focus of principals. Leadership traits

continue to be studied so that principals can strive for a more complete understanding of

how to mold a positive culture within their schools for an ultimate gain in student

performance. School culture has been positively tied to student achievement, so it is

imperative that school leaders or principals foster a positive school culture and practice

effective decision making (Sackney, 1998).

School culture can be controlled and modified (Bandura, 1993). A principal's

leadership style can enhance, encourage and nurture a positive school culture. Most

leaders draw from multiple leadership styles and recognize that the ethic of caring has

becoming increasingly important. Leaders who are positive, responsive, committed,

persuasive, effective, and inspiring are capable of enhancing culture within a school

(Sackney, 1998).

Principals who are assertive instructional leaders promote high expectations for

students by continuously focusing on instruction and emphasizing the importance of

academics and student achievement. They must be excellent role models with a well-

articulated mission statement. Culture-changing leaders use the collaborative process for

decision making and maintain an on-going staff development program that regularly









receives and discusses staff performance. These behaviors can positively change or

enhance a school's culture and positively enhance student achievement (Sackney, 1998).

Making schools more effective requires building and reshaping the hidden and

taken-for-granted rules that govern day-to-day behavior. Principals need to be aware that

schools need a culture that encourages productivity, high morale, confidence, and

commitment. This type of culture can grow through human interaction and knowledge of

the power of culture (Peterson, 1988). Principals must also acknowledge and nurture the

rituals, traditions, ceremonies and symbols that already express and reinforce positive

school culture (Stolp, 1994).

Statement of the Problem

Traditional managers were accustomed to hierarchical management that focused

on fairness as the equal application of policies and law. The organizational boundaries

were tightly controlled and leaders strived to be proper, serious, impersonal, and

detached.

The role of the traditional manager changed from manager to instructional leader

to transformational leader. Principals must recognize that to positively influence student

learning, they must nurture and enhance a positive school culture. There is little

evidence regarding specific actions a principal must take to shape a school's culture so

that a positive reform will take place in the classroom. Therefore, it is important for

school principals to know which leadership styles or behaviors positively affect school

culture and, ultimately, student learning.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship among the perceived

school culture, principal leadership characteristics, and the relationship between school









culture and student performance as measured by the Florida Comprehensive Academic

Test (FCAT).

* What characteristics or behaviors of principals are associated with positive school
culture?

* Is school culture a predictor of FCAT scores?

* Is there a relationship between school culture and student achievement as assessed by
the FCAT scores?

* Are there demographic facts (e.g., SES) associated with school culture?

Research Hypotheses

Three hypotheses provided the bases for the study:

* Leadership characteristics of the principal positively affect school culture.
* School culture affects student achievement.
* Leadership characteristics and school culture affect student achievement.

Instrumentation

For this study, the measurement of principal leadership was accomplished using

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ Form 5X; Bass & Avolio, 1990), a 45-item

survey. The measurement for school culture was the School Improvement Questionnaire

(SIQ-II; Webb & Pajares, 1996), a 76-item survey.

Definition of Terms

* Charisma: a leader's personal, magnetic, and mystical qualities that generate power
and influence and build identification with the leader.

* Collective efficacy (CE): characterized by satisfaction and by the commitment of the
entire faculty and each individual for academic excellence and professional growth.

* Collegiality: a stress on academics and professional growth.

* Contingent reward (CR): an arrangement where work is exchanged for pay (Bass,
1985).









* Effectiveness (EFF): a leader's effectiveness as seen by both self and others in
meeting the job-related needs of followers, representing followers' needs to higher-
level managers, contributing to organization effectiveness, and performance by the
leader's work group (Bass, 1985).

* Extra effort (EE): the extent to which coworkers or followers exert effort beyond
the ordinary (Bass & Avolio, 1990).

* Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT): a criterion referenced test used
in the state of Florida to assess student performance and teacher accountability.

* Idealized influence (II): followers' abilities to identify with a leader and the goals of
the organization.

* Individualized consideration (IC): leader's understanding of the needs of each
individual follower. The leaders work continuously to get followers to develop to
their full potential (Bass & Avolio, 1990).

* Intellectual stimulation (IS): a process in which subordinates are encouraged to
think of old problems in new ways, thereby sparking broader problem awareness and
producing creative solutions.

* Instructional leadership (IL): principal's role with student learning, specifically
student academic performance, goal development and implementation, shaping the
school culture, and management of the instructional program.

* Job satisfaction: a sense of contentment and feeling valued as a professional.

* Laissez faire leadership (LF): a leadership style that abdicates responsibility, delays
decisions, offers no feedback, and makes little or no effort to help followers satisfy
needs, achieve goals, or grow personally. It is a hands-off approach to leadership
(Bass & Avolio, 1990).

* Leadership behaviors (LB): the actions of the principal that foster relationships
within the school community.

* Management-by-exception, Active (MBEA): a process by which leaders watch and
search for deviations from rules or for good performance and recognize
accomplishments (Bass & Avolio, 1990).

* Management-by-exception, Passive (MBEP): a process by which the leader
intervenes only if standards are not met (Bass & Avolio, 1990).

* Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ 5X): a survey instrument that
measures perceived leadership styles.









* Personal efficacy: characterized by satisfaction and by the commitment of each
individual for academic excellence and professional growth.

* Policy say-so: the process by which administrators share powers and help others use
it in constructive ways to make decisions affecting themselves and their work.
(Sackney, 1998).

* Professional learning communities: teachers and administrators in a school that
continuously seek and share learning and then act on what they learn to enhance
student achievement

* School culture: "the underground stream of norms, values, beliefs, traditions, and
rituals that has built up over time as people work together, solve problems, and
confront challenges" (Deal & Peterson, 1999, p. 3).

* Student achievement: an assessment of student performance in a given discipline or
skill area.

* School Improvement Questionnaire (SIQ II): a survey instrument that measures
school climate.

* Teacher efficacy: self-perceived belief in one's capabilities to bring about desired
outcomes (Bandura, 1977).

* Teaming: when teachers are grouped together for common planning or collaboration
depending on their grade level or subject area.

* Transformational leadership (TS): a leadership style that inspires and motivates
followers to demonstrate commitment to a shared vision. Leaders engage in
behaviors that clearly communicate high expectations to followers and encourage
collegiality and cohesiveness.

* Transactional leadership (TF): a leadership style that occurs when leaders intervene
to make some correction and generally involves corrective criticism and negative
reinforcement. The leader engages in active management and intervenes when
followers have not met standards or problems arise.

Theoretical Framework

From an applied perspective, school culture is of great importance to principals,

as well as other school leaders, because of its positive link to student achievement

(Sackney, 1998; Sweetland & Hoy, 2000). Research suggests that school culture can be

modified to encourage school improvement and higher student achievement (Bandura,









1993: Leithwood et al., 1999). School leaders need to assess the weaknesses and

strengths of the school culture and to focus on improving the areas of weakness and

building on the strengths.

Delimitations and Limitations

Delimitations

* The sample is limited to elementary school principals and teachers in kindergarten
through fifth grade classrooms in a north central Florida county.

* This study does not encompass all individuals within a school's culture. Study
participants included only teachers and the principal of each individual school. Other
staff members, such as secretaries, office staff, cafeteria employees, aides and
custodians, were excluded.

Limitations

* All participants in the school climate survey are employed in the same Florida
County.

* There was no provision for open-ended questions on the survey.

Significance of the Study

The study added to the information already established by other researchers

regarding functions or actions principals attended to when shaping their school cultures.

Findings may also prove useful to school leaders interested in improving achievement.

Ash and Persall (1999) noted student learning must be the focus of educational efforts,

while school leaders create systemic change to pursue higher levels of student

achievement. The study explored the relationship between principal leadership

characteristics and school culture as assessed by teachers and the principal at the

elementary school level. Differences between schools in terms of size, demographics,

and principal and teacher experience were explored. Principals may use the information

to understand a school's individual culture and then how to nurture or change an already







10

existing culture. Educators may utilize the findings to better understand which leadership

behaviors enhance a positive school culture and improve student achievement.

Although a plethora of information exists separately on instructional leadership,

culture, and student achievement, further research is needed to determine the relationship

between instructional leadership culture and student achievement. Additional research

could provide correlational data between instructional leadership, achievement, and

culture at the elementary level.

Summary

Schools are under scrutiny to educate all students to higher academic standards.

Thus, administrators are searching for ways to increase student achievement. Principals

must encourage teachers to utilize successful methods of instruction to accommodate all

students and modify their own leadership styles to accommodate the needs of their

teachers, staff, and community. The literature supports that principals can meet these

challenges of diverse student populations with a strong positive school culture that

includes professional growth and shared values.

Chapter 2 provides a review of the literature that provides support for further

development of an explanation regarding how leaders might increase certain leadership

behaviors for the purposes of developing a positive school culture and increasing student

achievement. The chapter also provides further exploration of school culture and its

effect on student achievement.















CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Introduction

The purpose of the study was to explore correlations among principal leadership,

school culture, and student achievement. This chapter presents an overview of research

relevant to this study. The topics discussed include historical overview of leadership

roles, defining leadership, contemporary views of leadership, definition of culture,

cultural leadership, leaders shaping culture, culture and student achievement, and

leadership and student achievement.

Historical Overview of Leadership Roles

The job of school principal began in the 1890s when the Committee of Twelve

proposed a plan to improve schools by adding professional leadership and assigned

individuals to become principals. Principals emulated the top-down hierarchical

management style of the business sector. They viewed themselves as managers of a

school and their decisions focused on budget, building, supplies, and schedules. They

expected teachers to teach the curriculum. Administrators strived to be proper, serious,

impersonal, and detached. The organizational boundaries were tightly controlled and

communication was formal, controlled, unidirectional, and from the top. Superintendents

strictly controlled the governance of schools from a central position. Principals were

guided by central policy.







12

A distinction between managers and leaders was made by Wolcott (1984) in The

Man in the Principal's Office.

A manager, as his title suggests, is a person who manages other human beings
(i.e., he tells them what to do) and makes his living at it. The professional
managing of men is an ancient and respectable form of human activity, with a
history that reaches back to the Mesopotamian Neolithic era. A manager is
distinct from a leader: the manager's word is backed by force; the leaders by the
willingness of persons to follow. (p. 325)

A manager is defined in the literature as one who manages the affairs of the

organization but does not lead the organizational group toward a common vision or goal.

Managers plan, coordinate, and monitor, which are all part of being a school leader;

however, managers do not inspire, guide, and persuade. The major difference between

managers and leaders is that managers are concerned with directing and leaders are

concerned with influencing (Marshall, 1988). The two concepts of leadership and

management are not independent of each other, but instead are interrelated. Schein

(1992) suggested the need for strong leadership and strong management if the

organization is to be healthy. Strong leadership and weak management may create chaos,

while strong management and weak leadership may develop a change-resistant

organization that eventually becomes dysfunctional. He writes that today's principal has

evolved from the manager in the 1950s to the instructional leader of the 1980s to the

transformational leader in the 1990s.

The shifts from "manager" to "leader" to "instructional leader" to

"transformational leader" gave principals new expectations. With each shift came a need

for different skills in order to be successful in leading an effective school. Instructional

leadership focused principals' attention on improving technical instructional activities by

close monitoring of teachers' and students' classroom work (Duke, 1987; Leithwood &









Montgomery, 1986). Principals were developing more uniform approaches to teaching,

and tightening supervisory practices (Rowan, Bossert, & Dwyer, 1983). McEwan (1998)

described the instructional leader as comprised of the traditional management leadership

with an added human component. Traditional managers were interested in planning, time

management, leadership theory, and organizational development. The human component

consisted of communicating, motivating, and facilitating roles of the principal.

The transformational leader of the 1990s posits that employees are leaders

themselves and that these leadership attributes need to be nurtured and encouraged by the

leader. The leader needs to create an environment that will satisfy the psychological

needs of the employee, foster self-actualization, and allow autonomy. As a result of this

approach, new leaders will emerge (Johnson, 1996). Blase and Anderson (1995)

suggested that facilitative leadership increases the opportunity for involvement in

leadership and power sharing. Sharing power by empowering others means increasing

power for themselves and others (Blase & Blase, 1996). Sergiovanni (1995) suggests the

focus of transformational leadership motivates employees to a higher level of efficiency

and commitment. Transformational leadership encourages potential by increasing

expectations and fulfilling higher order needs. King's (1989) study showed a greater

level of satisfaction and effectiveness in school settings where transformational

leadership was practiced. She examined linkages between 208 Louisiana teachers and

their perceptions of the leadership found within the K-12 and higher educational

institutions with which they were affiliated. Using the MLQ, she found transformational

leadership had a measurable, incremental effect in the predictability of teacher

satisfaction and effectiveness.









Barth (1980) suggested that the role of the principal continues to be defined in

response to management and union relationships and the size and complexity of the

modern school. The additional responsibilities of the principal include social services,

food service, health care, recreation, transportation, and accountability for students'

academic performance and are the typical norms in today's schools.

Defining Leadership

There are various definitions of leadership in the literature. Leadership can be

defined as a process that directs and organizes individuals (Kotter, 1990). Leadership is

the art of weaving relationships in both an official and unofficial capacity and motivating

others to evolve and grow, complete their work, and learn from the process (Burns, 1978;

Depree, 1989; Gardner, 1990). Garfield (1986) wrote of peak performers who translated

mission into practice and were always willing to evolve and grow, to complete their work

and learn from it, and to exemplify the phrase "to be better than I ever was." Bennis

(1989) wrote, "leadership is like beauty-hard to define, but you know it when you see

it" (p. 123).

There are two aspects of leadership: (a) the art of leadership, which involves

vision, modeling, renewal, judgment, power, and trust; and (b) the science of leadership,

which includes team building, communication, decision-making, conflict management,

planning, and resource allocation. In a study of administrators at the California School

Leadership Academy, Marsh (1992) reported that two views of instructional leadership

emerged from the study. One view was process-oriented in nature. From this

perspective, instructional leadership became an avenue that involved teachers in

improvement and decision making. The other view was comprehensive in nature. It

encompassed the developmental supervision of teachers and the examination of school







15

culture, as they both influenced instruction. Principals who held a comprehensive view

exhibited a complete vision of instruction.

Sergiovanni (1990) defined leadership as consisting of four concepts: bartering,

building, bonding, and banking. Bartering provides the initiative to get things started,

while building and bonding allow for the support and inspiration needed in school

improvement. Banking insures a routinization of school improvement efforts.

Contemporary Views of Leadership

Senge (1990) emphasized that learning organizations demand a new view of

leadership and described leaders as designers, stewards, and teachers responsible for

learning.

Such leaders cannot be trained in a few focused workshops. The ability of such
people to be natural leaders, as near as I can tell, is the by-product of a lifetime of
effort ... to develop conceptual and communication skills, to reflect on personal
values and to align personal behavior with values, to learn how to listen and to
appreciate others and others' ideas. (p. 360)

Gepford (1996) conducted a study of perceived leadership styles in low

socioeconomic elementary schools in South Carolina. The sample consisted of 45

principals and 225 teachers that had been employed in their current positions for at least

6 years. The Multifactor-Leadership Questionnaire Form 5X (Bass & Aviolo, 1990) was

the instrument administered to teachers and principals. Gepford's findings indicated that

no one particular leadership style of the principal determined the success of a school.

Recommendations of the study suggested that principals use a flexible style of leadership

conducive to the school's culture and plans for school improvement.

Cheng (1991) also conducted a study of leadership styles and school effectiveness

in 64 secondary schools in Hong Kong. He found that principals displaying high

relationship and high initiating structure were the most effective in teacher-principal and

teacher-teacher interactions.







16

Covey, Miller, and Miller (1994) emphasized that in order to have a total quality

program your leader must have personal quality. Sergiovanni (1990) added, "No matter

how competently managed a school may be, it is the extra quality of leadership that

makes the difference between ordinary and extraordinary performance" (p. 18). He also

concluded that, "Organizational empowerment begins with individual empowerment.

That's why work on our deep inner life and integrity are so important" (p. 202).

Bolman and Deal (1984) took the position that a successful leader must

understand and integrate the subcultures of an organization. They discussed four frames

of an organization: structural, human resources, political, and symbolic. All of these

frames are found in varying degrees in all organizations. An effective leader must

possess the wisdom to identify and successfully use each frame within that particular

organization.

Successful principals are visible, knowledgeable, and are positive promoters of

programs and faculty (Grace, Buser, & Struck, 1987; Levine & Lezotte, 1995; Wendel,

Hoake, & Joekel, 1993). Effective principals provide a clear and common vision that puts

students first and see that this vision is communicated clearly and effectively to all

stakeholders. The cohesion among staff that encourages a productive climate and

collaboration are also important attributes.

Definition of Culture

There are various definitions of culture, but none is universally accepted (Deal &

Peterson, 1999). While most people have a sense or understanding of culture, they find it

difficult to define (Schein, 1992). Wilson and Corcoran (1988), in their study of

effective high schools, perceived school culture as a set of linkages that included "the

system of collectively accepted meanings, beliefs, values, and assumptions that









organizational members use to guide their regular, daily actions and interpret their

surroundings. These linkages have been likened to the glue that holds organizations

together" (p. 70). Deal and Peterson (1990) emphasized shared values as a defining

aspect of culture:

Organizations usually have clearly distinguishable identities manifested in their
members' patterns of behavior through rituals and norms. The concept of culture
helps us understand these varied patterns-understand what they are, how they
came to be, and how they affect performance. (p. 3)

Owens (1995) proposed that culture refers to assumptions, the behavioral norms,

and beliefs of an organization. Definitions throughout the literature agree that the people

who exist within an organization develop culture in time. As members are added, they

are taught what is acceptable and why it is acceptable as a result of their immersion in the

culture of the organization (Deal & Peterson, 1999; Erickson, 1987; Schein, 1992).

Cultural Leadership

Leaders must become aware of the culture of which they have become a part

(Schein, 1992). Bulach (2001) asserted that "a principal who fails to identify his or her

school's existing culture before attempting to change it will meet with resistance" (p. 48).

Leaders must know the widely recognized leaders in a school as well as the less visible

people who may make the school more successful or can be the greatest obstacle

(Glickman, 2003). If a leader is to lead, then it is necessary for the leader to have a clear

understanding of the existing culture. Leadership itself is an expression of culture.

Leadership as cultural expression seeks to build unity and order within an
organization by giving attention to purpose, historical and philosophical tradition
and ideals and norms which define the way of life within the organization and
which provide the bases for socializing members and obtaining their compliance.
Developing and nurturing organizational value patterns and norms represent a
response to felt needs of individuals and groups for order, stability, and meaning.
(Sergiovanni & Corbally, 1984, p. 106)







18

When an organization faces an unfamiliar risk, issue, or problem, it bases its first

response on the leader's values because the group as a whole has limited or no

knowledge of how to resolve the problem (Schein, 1992). Vision and values are the

foundation of school culture; core values, implicit or explicit, reside at the heart of every

institution or organization. "The people in a school construct their values by the way

they address its challenges in ordinary and extraordinary times" (Sizer & Sizer, 1999,

p. 12). "Principals who can balance a variety of pressures while never losing sight of

their values best inspire and serve the school community" (Day, 2000, p. 56). "Vision

and values form a school's mission and purpose, instilling the intangible forces that

motivate teachers to teach, school leaders to lead, children to learn, and parents and

community to have confidence in their school thus shaping the definition of success"

(Deal & Peterson, 1999, p. 24). Maehr and Midgley (1996) proposed that schools act

based upon how they have defined their purpose. McCall (1994) saw the principal as the

determining factor for "what set of values will be the guiding stars for the school as it

steers a new course" (p. 13). "The principal's values joined with those of other

stakeholders will ultimately determine the destiny of the school" (p. 31). School

administrators play a big part in what beliefs, values, and assumptions are the most

important in the existing school culture, as they can determine what is communicated to

whom, who receives resource allocations, and who is in receipt of rewards and

disciplinary action (Sergiovanni, 1995).

School culture is also experienced through rituals and ceremonies. "Principals

can shape culture by participating in and encouraging the rituals that celebrate important

values" (Deal & Peterson, 1999, p. 24). Ceremonies are an extension of the rituals. They

are a complex, culturally sanctioned way to celebrate success, communicate values, or to









recognize social contributions of staff and/or students. These celebrations provide an

effective means of cultivating a goal-oriented culture where improvement efforts are

reinforced and recognized (Schmoker, 1996). Ceremonies give a purpose to meaning,

and provide the school community a chance to reflect on the beliefs and values

associated with those ceremonies (Deal & Peterson, 1999). "Without ritual and

ceremony, transitions remain incomplete, a clutter of comings and goings" (Bolman &

Deal, 1991, pp. 110-111). These ongoing significant events often become traditions as

the school's culture strengthens, ever reinforcing values and beliefs associated with the

schools.

Cultural patterns and traditions evolve over time. They are initiated as the school
is founded and thereafter shaped by critical incidents, forged through
controversies and conflict, and crystallized through triumph and tragedy. Culture
takes form as, over time, people come with problems, stumble onto routines and
rituals, and create traditions and ceremonies to reinforce underlying values and
beliefs. (Deal & Peterson, 1999, p. 49)

The primal forces behind this process are the school leaders who nudge culture in one

direction rather than another.

Leaders Shape Culture

Leadership and culture are intimately linked, and a school's culture can be

developed, influenced, and managed (Trice, 1993). Many different leadership models

are effective in shaping a positive culture that continuously improves a school. Sashkin

and Sashkin (1993) suggest that leaders model culture and build values. They suggest

that leaders reweave old traditions and stories into present realities and new vision. The

actions of a building principal are central to the development of a school culture that is

conducive to high levels of academic achievement and learning (Firestone & Wilson,

1995). Principals mold and shape culture on a daily basis. "What is often labeled as









'fluff is more often the stuff of leadership and culture" (Deal & Peterson, 1999, p. 61).

Schein (1992) writes complacency regarding leadership or cultural management is

unacceptable because they are both central to understanding organizations and making

them effective.

Enlightened leadership can change culture by changing the assumptions on which
the culture is built. The leader who sets out to do this must have knowledge of
the existing culture and be aware of the organization's key concerns. The goal
will be to re-create a positive shared vision and trust. (James, 1996, p. 143)

A principal, more than any other individual, is responsible for a school's culture.

Deal and Peterson (1999) wrote that the principal, being in the leadership

position, has great influence on a school's culture: "It is important to remember the

formidable nature of school leaders' unofficial power to reshape school culture toward an

'ethos of excellence' and to make quality an authentic part of the daily routine of school

life" (p. 86). School leaders have a profound influence on the work habits and

perspectives that mark a successful school.

Reitzug and Revves (1992) described empowerment as a way of shaping school

culture. Empowering teachers enables them to examine and critique their own situations

with a view of improving educational situations. Blanchard, Carlos, and Randolph

(1996) wrote that empowerment must start at the top or it will go nowhere. Leadership is

no longer top-down. Principals should create a school culture in which decisions are

made collaboratively. A principal's primary task should focus on analyzing and

understanding the existing culture and being aware of teachers' needs, feelings,

perceptions, and attitudes (a'Campo, 1993).

The role most critical to successful change is that of the principal. Common

vision, shared philosophies, and trusted leadership are all entwined in a successful







21

organization. (Saphier & King, 1985). "The culture keeps work focused on meeting and

exceeding customer success and satisfaction. A change in culture is achieved in a large

part due to the intrinsic motivation of all members, a socially-defined vision, and a

commitment to continual improvement" (Snyder, Wolf, & Acker-Hocevar, 1995, p. 7).

A leader who is deliberate in role modeling, teaching, and coaching encourages a positive

culture (Schein, 1992). Principals must influence the establishment and maintenance of

a positive school culture for schools to be productive, and must be committed so that the

culture can grow and endure (Lezotte & Bancroft, 1985; Snyder, Wolf & Acker-Hocevar,

1995). Elmore (2002) wrote

The job of administrative leaders is primarily about enhancing the skills and
knowledge of people in the organization, creating a common culture of
expectations around the use of those skills and knowledge, holding the various
pieces of the organization together in a productive relationship with each other,
and holding individuals accountable for their contributions to the collective result.
(p. 15)

Principals begin this process of influencing culture by recruiting and selecting

teachers with shared norms and values. Building collegiality and collaboration on the

shared goals and values, encouraging staff development that is student oriented,

modeling behaviors that encourage student achievement, and celebrating and rewarding

teachers by sharing stories of success and accomplishments are also positive steps toward

the building of culture (Leithwood & Jantzi, 1990; Lightfoot, 1996; Peterson, 1988;

Schein, 1992).

Culture and Student Achievement

Does school culture affect student achievement? A study by Brookover et al.

(1978) investigated the relationships among a variety of school-level climate variables

and mean school achievement in a random sample of Michigan elementary schools. The

study concluded that some aspects of school social environment clearly make a







22

difference in academic achievement of schools. A favorable climate with high academic

standards is a necessary condition for high achievement. The social-psychological

climate is an integral component of school culture and student achievement.

This study also established that the school composition does not necessarily

determine school climate. Sackney (1998) wrote that school culture influences

psychological processes and achievement and is subject to change as stakeholders'

perceptions change. Teachers who are empowered professionals encourage positive

student achievement. Teachers working and participating in a school culture high in

collective efficacy promoted higher levels of student achievement (Bandura, 1993).

Sweetland and Hoy (2000) demonstrated that in their school culture research of 86 New

Jersey middle schools, after socioeconomic status, school culture was the next most

powerful variable in student achievement. Teachers who were empowered, supported,

and respected by their principal and colleagues, showed higher student achievement

scores.

Weber (1971) studied third graders in four inner-city schools in New York,

Chicago, Kansas City, and Los Angeles. These schools were selected because their

reading achievement scores were at or above the national average. He concluded that

schools do make a contribution to student achievement, and itemized common elements

found in these successful programs as strong leadership, continuous evaluation of pupil

progress, and an environment conducive to learning. Murnane's (1981) literature review

of effective schools research in the 1970s arrived at a similar conclusion of "schools

matter, and more specifically, that the key element of schools that matters the most are

the people" (p. 27). Strong administrative leadership can make a difference in student

learning. These findings have clear implications for school leaders.









Teacher Efficacy and Student Achievement

Teacher efficacy is the beliefs and professional knowledge and the manners in

which these beliefs and professional knowledge influence teaching behaviors. Pajares

(1996) reports an individual's perception of his or her ability is often a better predictor of

their capabilities than what he or she can actually accomplish, since self-efficacy beliefs

help determine what an individual does with the knowledge and skills that he or she

possesses. An individual's efficacy beliefs can influence and enhance their

accomplishments and well being in numerous ways.

Teacher efficacy has been found to influence teacher behavior, such as effort,

innovation, planning and organization, persistence, resilience, enthusiasm, willingness to

work with difficult students, and commitment to teaching and career longevity.

Motivated and confident teachers are more effective. Teachers make decisions based

upon their beliefs; these decisions and actions have significant impact upon the learning

experiences provided for students (Soodak & Podell, 1996). Students achieve more,

exhibit greater motivation, and have a higher level of perceived self-efficacy when their

teacher possesses a higher level of perceived teacher efficacy (Guskey & Passaro, 1994).

Professional Learning Communities and Student Achievement

Professional learning communities can be described as a collegial group of

teachers and administrators in a school who are united in their commitment to student

learning. They work and learn together to enhance student achievement. Professional

learning communities can be seen as a powerful staff development tool that has the

potential to enhance teaching and improve student achievement.

Teachers who feel supported in their own ongoing learning and classroom

practice are more committed and effective than those who do not receive such support.









McLaughlin and Talbert (1993) suggested that when teachers have opportunities for

collaborative inquiry and learning related to it, they are able to develop and share a body

of wisdom acquired from their experiences. This collaboration can enhance their

effectiveness as professionals so that students benefit. The learning community provides

a positive environment for teacher networking, cooperation among colleagues, expanded

professional roles and increased teacher efficacy in meeting the needs of all students

Rosenholtz (1989).

Leadership and Student Achievement

A principal's leadership is critical to the achievement of students (Murphy, 1998).

Huff, Lake, and Schaalman (1982) investigated the relationship between a principal's

leadership traits and student achievement. Their findings support the hypothesis that

principals in high-performing schools have different attributes than their counterparts in

low-performing schools. For example, they found that in high performing schools,

principals have stronger affective traits and cognitive analytical skills. They also found

high performing principals to be more focused and involved with change. Beare,

Caldwell, and Milliken (1989) found that "outstanding leadership has invariably emerged

as a key characteristic of outstanding schools" (p. 13). "Effective leadership is a

multifaceted process that is often defined through both subjective and objective measures

of leader behavior and its effect on organizational processes and outcomes" (Davis, 1998,

p. 59). A study by Andrew and Soder (1987) reported the behaviors of instructional

leaders impacted the performance of student achievement, especially low achieving

students. Their findings showed that, as perceived by teachers, achievement scores in

reading and mathematics showed significant gains in schools with strong instructional

leaders compared to schools with weak instructional leaders.









A slightly different approach in studying the relationship between leadership

styles of principals and achievement outcomes was implemented by Fuller (1989) when

he investigated what principals report they do in an effort to enhance student

achievement. Principals included in the sample had to exhibit two characteristics: (a)

they had to be in the school for at least 4 consecutive years, and (b) the California

Achievement reading, writing, and mathematics program mean scores of their third grade

students had to continuously improve or decline between 1985 and 1988. Fuller utilized

a rational decision making behavior instrument to solicit principals' recollections

concerning what they did about the problem of student achievement in their respective

schools. Principals with improving student achievement scores indicated it was their

personal goal to raise student scores, tended to own the problem more than principals in

schools with declining student achievement scores, and also recognized the problem was

complex and needed in-depth analysis. In contrast, principals in the schools with

declining achievement scores, tended to delegate responsibilities in dealing with the

problem, to claim that it was not under their control, or to minimize the magnitude of the

problem.

Hallinger, Bickman, and Davis (1996) reported no direct effect of leadership

styles on student achievement, but they did suggest there is an indirect effect on school

effectiveness through actions that form the school's culture. Heck, Larsen, and

Maccoulides (1990) suggested the relationship between a principal's leadership style and

levels of student achievement is extremely complex. Rather than a particular style, they

found principals of high-achieving schools evidenced more incidences of involving staff

in decisions and parents in programs, protecting faculty, communicating goals and

expectations, recognizing achievement, observing teachers, securing resources, and









evaluating programs. Their findings indicated the relationship between leadership and

achievement is indirect and probably two directional. Hallinger and Heck (1998)

conducted a study exploring the relationship between leadership and student achievement

for the years 1980 through 1995. Their results showed leaders have an indirect, but

measurable, effect on how well students' achieve in their schools. The greatest influence

the principal exercised was through the development and implementation of a clear

vision, a coherent mission and attainable goals.

The link between the leadership styles of the principal, culture, and student

achievement is more indirect.

Accumulating evidence has shown that principals influence student achievement
indirectly through establishing school goals, setting high student and staff
expectations, organizing classrooms, allocating resources, promoting a positive
and orderly learning environment, and communicating with school staff, parents,
and community groups rather then directly through training teachers to better
instruct, visiting classrooms, and making frequent teacher evaluations. (Griffith,
1999, p. 287)

Eberts and Stone (1988) determined that a principal's effect on student

achievement results from his/her interactions with teachers. The interactions include

identifying clear objectives, spending time in classrooms, providing support and

guidance as well as rewards and incentives. The principal accepts accountability for

student achievement (Brewer, 1993).

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Form 5X)

This study used the MLQ (Form 5X) version of Bass' (1985) leadership

conceptualization. The MLQ 5X contains five transformational leadership elements. A

principal's style of leadership, according to the authors, can be classified as one of the

following: transformational, transactional, or laissez-faire. Thirty-six (36) questions help

define these leadership styles. Transformational leaders and subordinates raise one









another to higher levels of morality and motivation. These types of leaders also tend to

raise the consciousness of followers by appealing to their higher ideals and moral values

such as liberty, justice, equality, peace, and humanitarianism. The MLQ describes these

leader behaviors as Idealized Influence-Attributed, Idealized Influence-Behavior and

Inspirational Motivation. Transactional leaders motivate followers by appealing to their

self-interest. Transactional leadership involves values, but these values are related to the

exchange process, such as honesty, fairness, responsibility. In contrast, laissez-faire

leadership represents an avoidance of responsibility and action by the leader. In addition

to the transactional/transformational factors of leadership, Bass (1985) developed three

contextual factors that indirectly supplement an understanding of an organization's

effectiveness relative to leader's style. These three contextual factors are extra effort,

effectiveness, and satisfaction. The MLQ includes nine questions that address these

factors.

School Improvement Questionnaire (SIQ-II)

The SIQ-II is comprised of 76 items. The first 22 items are demographic multiple

choice questions, the remaining 54 Likert scale items relate to six school climate factors

of collegiality, collective efficacy, personal efficacy, job satisfaction, policy-say so, and

teaming.

Collegiality stresses academics and professional growth. Teachers set high

reasonable leaning goals for their students as well as themselves, encouraging positive

growth and a culture that is conducive to learning. Collective efficacy and personal

efficacy are characterized by satisfaction and respect for the competence of colleagues,

warm and friendly interactions, and engagement in the teaching task. There is a

commitment of each individual and the entire faculty for academic excellence and







28

professional growth (Sweetland & Hoy, 2000). Policy say-so addresses shared decision

making and empowerment; it is a process by which administrators share powers and help

others use it in constructive ways to make decisions affecting themselves and their work

(Sackney, 1998). Job satisfaction increases when teachers feel valued as professionals.

When teachers have an active role in planning the school's goals and making decisions

concerning curriculum and instruction, satisfaction is higher. Teachers are empowered

and know that their professional judgment is respected and valued.

Teaming reduces teacher isolation and enhances teacher collaboration. This

results in greater collective motivation and commitment toward the school's mission and

goals, increased satisfaction, and a willingness to put forth extra effort for the good of the

group.

Summary

Principals are held accountable for academic achievement of diverse populations

of students. Research suggests differing opinions when discussing a direct link between

principal leadership styles, school culture, and student achievement.

The literature is in agreement that vision, openness, and trust are key components

of effective leadership. Without these key ingredients, the specific strategies used by

principals to gain a positive school culture will be ignored or, worse, sabotaged.

Sincerity, active reflection, and personal professional growth can reform the cultures of a

school so that it may become a more productive learning environment.

Chapter 3 provides an overview of the design of the study, and the hypotheses

and research questions are stated. Both the leadership and school culture instruments are

presented with reliability coefficients. Procedures are explained regarding the process of

the preparation for the study as well as for the data analysis.















CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY

The purpose of the study was to explore the relationship among the perceived

school culture, principal leadership characteristics, and the relationship between school

culture and student performance as measured by the Florida Comprehensive Academic

Test (FCAT). This chapter will discuss the instrumentation and methodology utilized to

gather and analyze the data for the study.

Participants

The population for this study included 22 elementary schools with 320

elementary classroom teachers employed in a north central Florida school district. All of

the teachers were surveyed. Prior to data collection, it was determined that a minimal

acceptable sample size would be 50% or 160 respondents. The sample included state-

certified classroom teachers who taught kindergarten through fifth-grade students one-

half time or greater during the time this study was conducted. Excluded from this sample

were individuals whose assignments were not direct classroom teaching (i.e., curriculum

resource teachers, behavior resources teachers, teachers on special assignment, media

specialist, guidance counselors, assistant principals, and principals).

Variables

The independent variables in this study were perceived principal behaviors that

included Charisma, Intellectual Stimulation, Individualized Consideration, Contingent

Reward, Management-by-Exception, and Laissez-Faire as measured by The Multifactor

Leadership Questionnaire 5X (MLQ; Bass & Avolio, 1990). The leaders form was

29







30

developed to be completed by an individual to measure his/her self-perceived leadership

styles. The second independent variable, school culture, was measured by the School

Improvement Questionnaire.

The dependent variable was the participants' opinions about school culture as

assessed by the SIQ-II survey. The outcome of the SIQ-II survey was used as the

dependent variable in this study because the researcher attempted to discover whether

leader behaviors and characteristics impact a school's culture and student achievement.

Instrumentation

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire

The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) Form 5X was developed and

tested by Bernard Bass and Bruce Avolio (1990). The instrument is copyrighted by Bass

and Avolio and published by Mind Garden, Inc. It was developed to measure aspects of

transformational, transactional, and nonleadership leadership styles as well as outcomes

of leadership. The 45-item instrument contains 12 scales:

* Idealized influence (attributed).
* Idealized influence (behavior).
* Inspirational motivation.
* Intellectual stimulation.
* Individualized consideration.
* Contingent reward.
* Management-by-exception (active).
* Management-by-exception (passive).
* Laissez-faire leadership.
* Extra effort.
* Effectiveness.
* Satisfaction.

Idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized

consideration were transformational leadership style scales measured by the MLQ.

Contingent reward and management-by-exception were transactional leadership style







31

scales and laissez-faire leadership was the nonleadership component. See Table 3-1 for a

sample statement in each area.

Table 3-1. Transformational leadership scale statements
TF Idealized influence Talks enthusiastically about what needs to be
accomplished.
TF Inspirational motivation Instills pride in me for being associated with him
TF Intellectual stimulation Seeking differing perspectives when solving
problems
TF Individualized consideration Considers me as having special needs, abilities,
and aspirations form others
TR Contingent reward Discusses in specific terms who is responsible for
achieving performance targets
TR Management-by-exception Focuses attention on irregularities mistakes and
exceptions and deviations from standards
LF Nonleadership Is absent when needed

All of the leadership style scales have four items per scale. Leadership styles

scores for each of the nine leadership style scales represent the average scores for the

items in each scale. Transformational leadership styles scores are derived by averaging

the scores from the items contained in the idealized influenced, inspirational motivation,

intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration scales; a total of 20 items.

Transactional leadership styles scores were derived by averaging all of the scores from

the items in the contingent reward and management-by-exception scales, a total of 12

items. Because laissez-faire leadership was the only scale measuring nonleadership,

nonleadership style score was equivalent to the laissez-faire leadership scale score.

In their MLQ technical report, Bass and Avolio (1990) discussed the construct

validation process associated with the MLQ-5X. An early version was evaluated by a

panel of six leadership scholars, and their recommendations were included in the final

instrument development. Since that time, 14 samples have been used to validate and

cross-validate the MLQ Form 5X. The MLQ-5X was selected for use in this study







32

because of the data indicating reliability and validity of the instrument. Alpha reliability

coefficients for the MLQ-5X rater form scales have all been shown to be above .82 with

the exception of management-by-exception (.79) and laissez-faire (.77). The reliability

coefficients for the rater form subscales yielded a range of .77 through .95.

School Culture Instrument

School culture was assessed through the School Improvement Questionnaire

(Webb & Pajares, 1996). The SIQ was developed by the College of Education at the

University of Florida as part of on-going research in the area of school climate. The SIQ

was developed in 1996 and revised in 2001. The SIQ II is comprised of 76 items. The

first 22 items were multiple-choice demographic questions. The remaining 54 were 10-

point, Likert scale items relating to school climate. The anchors on the Likert scale items

included disagree totally to agree totally, no confidence to complete confidence or near

perfect confidence, and no say or influence to total say or influence. The SIQ II

exploratory factor analysis indicated that a six-factor solution presented a good

approximation of the structure. The six school climate factors were collegiality,

collective efficacy, personal efficacy, job satisfaction, policy-say so, and teaming. Table

3-2 provides sample questions on the SIQ II.

Table 3-2. SIQ II statements
Collegiality Teachers in this school are continually learning and seeking
new ideas.
Collective efficacy There is a great deal of cooperating among teachers at this
school.
Personal efficacy My job provides me with continuing professional stimulation
and growth.
Job satisfaction I feel little loyalty to the teaching profession.
Policy-say-so How much say do you have in policy making at your school?
Teaming How much can your colleagues influence what you teach?









Design of the Study

This section includes information about testing the hypotheses, drawing the

sample, controlling for biases, and preparing the instrument and survey packets. Two

surveys were used in this study, with each survey requiring less than 20 minutes to

complete. Names of all certificated classroom teachers were obtained from the County's

School Board. All teachers in each elementary school were asked to complete both

surveys. Data on leadership and school culture were collected by the instruments

previously discussed.

Testing the Hypotheses

The first hypothesis stated the leadership styles and behaviors of the principal

affect school culture. This hypothesis was tested using correlation and regression

analysis to show which of the three leadership styles were significantly correlated with

school culture.

The second hypothesis stated that school culture was not a predictor of FCAT

scores. Results from the comparison of the SIQ II and FCAT scores demonstrated the

strength of the relationship between school culture and FCAT.

The third hypothesis stated that there was no correlation between school culture

and student achievement as assessed by FCAT scores. Results from the comparison of

the SIQ II and the FCAT scores demonstrated the relationship between school culture

and student achievement.

Data Collection

The population for this study was drawn from elementary schools in a north

central Florida school district. Permission to conduct the study was obtained from the

district. Elementary schools in the district were sent a full packet and received a phone









call from the researcher. A follow-up phone call was made to schools that did not

respond. As the study progressed, 6 schools declined to participate for various reasons.

There were 4 additional schools that did not respond; yet no notice or reason of refusal to

participate was given. The removal of these schools brought the actual number of

schools to 12 and teachers queried to 175. This is a return rate of 57%, which exceeded

the minimum number of responses required.

For each school, a single transformational leadership score was computed by first

averaging all the teachers' responses for each survey statement associated with each

transformational component: idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual

stimulation, and individualized consideration. The average individual teacher

transformational component scores were then averaged to arrive at a single composite

transformational leadership score. A similar procedure was followed for transactional

and laissez-faire leadership scores per the MLQ procedure outlined in Bass and Avolio

(1990). Average responses were similarly obtained for the three MLQ factors:

effectiveness, satisfaction, and extra effort.

Student socioeconomic status, the percent of students who were eligible for free

or reduced-price lunch in each school, was used as an added predictor. The free and

reduced-price lunch statistics were compiled from the county's free and reduced-price

lunch records. The free and reduced-price lunch percentages ranged from 22.7% to

88.4%. School grades were obtained from state records. These grades ranged from A to

D. This grade was compiled by student achievement scores assessed by the Florida

Comprehensive Assessment test. Table 3-3 describes the district statistics compared to

the sample schools. Table 3-4 describes the sample school's statistics.









Table 3-3. Comparison of grade and SES for the district and sample
District Sample


Socioeconomic status
School grade

Table 3-4. School grades, SES and population
School Grade % SES
A* C 40.0
B D 88.4
C A 41.5
D A 71.0
E A 33.0
F A 56.0
G A 37.0
H B 84.0
I B 73.0
J A 22.7
K A 39.0
* Denotes magnet school


55.9% 53.2%
B B



No. Students
447
471
657
206
701
531
739
270
316
752
556


Summary

This chapter described the process that the researcher went through in order to

complete the study. Research instruments were identified that would allow for objective

analysis and demonstrated adequate reliability.

Chapter 4 presents the analysis of data for this study. Descriptive statistics are

presented to help the reader better understand the data. Multiple regression findings are

presented and explained.















CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship among the perceived

effective school culture, the principal's leadership characteristics, and student

performance as measured by the Florida Comprehensive Academic Test (FCAT). This

chapter is divided into two parts. The first section includes a table of abbreviations

(Table 4-1) and describes the sampling method used and the data obtained. The second

section describes the statistical findings for each of the following three hypotheses

presented.

* Leadership characteristics of the principal affect school culture.
* School culture affects student achievement.
* Leadership characteristics and school culture affect student achievement.

Table 4-1. Abbreviations
MLQ-5X Multifactor leadership questionnaire
SIQ II School improvement questionnaire
TF Transformational leadership
TS Transactional leadership
LF Laissez-faire leadership
SES Student socioeconomic status
GRADE Schools grade for student achievement determined by the fcat
PPSAT Perceptions of parent/student satisfaction
PTE Personal teaching efficacy
PSWD Performance of students with disabilities
PLC Professional learning community
BTSC Belonging to the school community

Survey Instrument Statistics

The analysis of the MLQ-5X (Table 4-2) and SIQ II (Table 4-3) questionnaire

responses included the computation of means and frequencies and the utilization of









analyses of variance. Mean scores for each school were determined by averaging the

individual responses to each item school wide. In order to compare student achievement

in high performing schools, the mean responses for schools receiving an A or B grade

were compared with mean scores of C or D schools. The level of significance for this

study was set at p< .05. A correlation study is appropriate for this research problem

because the issue being studied is the degree to which there is a relationship between

leader behaviors, positive school culture, and student achievement. Table 4-2 displays

the descriptive statistics and reliability indicators for these leadership types.

Table 4-2. MLQ-5X leadership styles
Standard
Items Mean deviation Reliability
TF 20 3.91 .65 .91
TS 12 2.86 .42 .50
LF 4 1.61 .65 .61

The first section of the SIQ reflects demographic and direct teaching information.

The second section requests belief and attitude responses, and the third section was the

focus of subsequent analyses. The sum score for each item was calculated for each

school. This sum was then weighted by the number of teachers' who participated in that

school. Due to the large number of items, the few reverse-scored items (37, 40, 42, 44,

and 45) were eliminated as a simple method to control for potential misscoring and

misrepsonse. The final set of 51 items had a reliability of .66 (Table 4-3).

The SIQ II school culture components analysis with a varimax rotation was used

to reduce these items to several dimensions. The results suggested 9 components with

eigenvalues greater than 1.0. Subsequent inspection of factor loadings reduced the scale

to 29 items with 5 underlying dimensions as reported in Table 4-3: (a) parent/student

satisfaction with a reliability of .89, (b) personal teacher efficacy with a reliability of .90,









(c) school-wide performance of students with disabilities with a reliability of .99,

(d) professional learning community with a reliability of .90, and (e) belonging to the

school community with a reliability of .79.

Table 4-3. SIQ II culture component statistics
Standard
SIQ II Items Mean deviation Reliability
Total 51 327.62 12.40 .66
Parent/student satisfaction 8 52.54 6.63 .89
Personal teacher efficacy 7 48.72 4.19 .90
Performance of students with disabilities 4 23.53 4.70 .99
Professional learning community 7 48.32 5.02 .90
Belonging to the school community 3 16.27 2.46 .79

Research Questions

Research Question 1: What Characteristics or Behaviors of Principals Are
Associated with Positive School Culture?

The first hypothesis stated that leadership characteristics of the principal affect

school culture. The results reported in this section support the acceptance of this

hypothesis. Table 4-4 provides evidence that transactional leadership was significantly

related to the school culture. That is, higher levels of transactional leadership are

associated with higher levels of school culture.

Table 4-4. Leadership styles
Unstandardized Standardized
coefficients coefficients
Model B Std. error Beta t Sig.
Constant 303.00 8.47 36.0 .00
MLQ TF average .89 1.61 .05 .6 .58
MLQ TS average 9.11 2.28 .31 4.0 .00*
MLQ LF average -2.90 1.65 -.15 -2.0 .08
Asterisks (*) indicate significance p<.05.

The school culture survey (SIQ II) consists of 5 components. The component,

personal teacher efficacy, is shown in Table 4-5. Transformational and transactional







39

leadership are significantly related to personal teacher efficacy. That is, higher levels of

transactional and transformational leadership are associated with higher levels of

personal teacher efficacy.

Table 4-5. Personal teacher efficacy and leadership styles
Unstandardized Standardized
coefficients coefficients
Model B Std. error Beta t Sig.
Constant 38.17 2.83 13.52 .00
MLQ TF average 1.38 .54 .22 2.57 .01*
MLQ TS average 2.18 .76 .22 2.86 .01*
MLQ LF average -.70 .55 -.11 -1.27 .21
Asterisks (*) indicate significance p<.05.

Table 4-6 reports the component parent/student satisfaction in the school culture

survey (SIQ II). Transactional leadership was significantly related to perceptions of

parent/student satisfaction. That is, higher levels of transactional leadership are

associated with higher levels of parent/student satisfaction.

Table 4-6. Parent/Student satisfaction and leadership styles
Unstandardized Standardized
coefficients coefficients
Model B Std. error Beta t Sig.
Constant 39.30 4.53 8.70 .00
MLQ TF Average .11 .86 -.01 -.10 .90
MLQ TS Average .39 1.21 .34 4.42 .00*
MLQ LF Average .05 .88 -.10 -1.20 .24
Asterisks (*) indicate significance p<.05

Transformational leadership and laissez-faire were significant to the SIQ II

culture component, professional learning communities. Table 4-7 shows significance of

both leadership styles to professional learning community. That is, higher levels of

transformational leadership are associated with higher levels of professional learning

communities. Higher levels of laissez-faire leadership resulted in lower levels of

professional learning communities.









Table 4-7. Professional learning community and leadership styles
Unstandardized Standardized
coefficients coefficients
Model B Std. error Beta t Sig.
Constant 44.10 3.19 13.80 .00
MLQ TF Average 2.27 .61 .30 3.74 .00*
MLQ TS Average -.49 .86 -.04 -.60 .57
MLQ LF Average -2.02 .62 -.26 -3.20 .00*
Asterisks (*) indicate significance p<.05.

The two components of the SIQ II that did not show significance with principal

leadership style were performance of students with disabilities and belonging to the

school community. Table 4-8 shows no significance in principal leadership styles in the

area of performance of students with disabilities. Table 4-9 shows no significance in

principal leadership styles for the component belonging to the school community.

Table 4-8. Performance of students with disabilities and leadership styles
Unstandardized Standardized
coefficients coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
Constant 24.45 3.38 7.24
MLQ TF average -.46 .64 -.06 -.70 .48
MLQ TS average .83 .91 .07 .91 .37
MLQ LF average -.93 .66 -.13 -1.40 .16
Asterisks (*) indicate significance p<.05.

Table 4-9. Belonging to the school community and leadership styles
Unstandardized Standardized
coefficients coefficients
Model B Std. error Beta t Sig.
Constant 16.21 1.76 9.22 .00
MLQ TF average .56 .33 .15 1.68 .10
MLQ TS average -.87 .47 -.15 -1.85 .07
MLQ LF average .23 .34 .06 .67 .50
Asterisks (*) indicate significance p<.05.

Research Question 2: Is School Culture a Predictor of FCAT Scores?

The second hypothesis stated that school culture affects student achievement as

reflected in the school grade. The results reported in this section support the acceptance







41

of this hypothesis. Table 4-10 shows that, when incorporating school grade, transactional

leadership was significantly related to the school culture survey (SIQ II). That is, higher

levels of student achievement are associated with higher levels of school culture.

Table 4-10. School culture, leadership styles, and school grade
Unstandardized Standardized
coefficients coefficients
B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
Constant 41.76 4.66 8.97 .00
MLQ TF average -.16 .85 -.02 -.19 .85
MLQ TS average 5.46 1.21 .35 4.52 .00*
MLQ LF average -1.25 .88 -.12 -1.41 .16
School grade -2.03 1.01 -.15 -2.02 .05*
Asterisks (*) indicate significance p<.05.

Student socioeconomic status was added to see if it affected the perceived culture

or the leadership style. Table 4-11 shows that transactional leadership remained

significant with the added predictor socioeconomic status.

Table 4-11. School culture, leadership styles, school grade, and socioeconomic status
Unstandardized Standardized
coefficients coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
Constant 309.92 9.50 32.62 .00
MLQ TF average .28 1.66 .02 .17 .86
MLQ TS average 9.05 2.28 .31 3.97 .00*
MLQ LF average -2.95 1.66 -.15 -1.77 .08
School grade -1.45 1.91 -.06 -.76 .45
SES -0.06 0.05 -.10 -1.33 .19
Asterisks (*) indicate significance p<.05.

Four components on the school culture survey (SIQ II) were significantly related

to achievement as reflected by school grade. They included perceptions of parent/student

satisfaction, personal teaching efficacy, performance of students with disabilities and

professional learning community. The students' socioeconomic status was added as a

second predictor.







42

Table 4-12 shows that when adding both school grade and student socioeconomic

status with the component parent/student satisfaction, transactional leadership remained

significant. That is, when adding school grade and socioeconomic status, higher levels of

transactional leadership are associated with higher levels of parent/student satisfaction.

Table 4-12. Leadership styles, parent/student satisfaction with school grade, and SES
Unstandardized Standardized
coefficients coefficients
Model B Std. error Beta t Sig.
Constant 52.13 4.62 11.30 .00
MLQ TF average -1.36 .81 -.13 -1.70 .10
MLQ TS average 5.19 1.11 .33 4.69 .00*
MLQ LF average -.91 .81 -.09 -1.10 .26
School grade -1.26 .93 -.09 -1.40 .18
SES -.13 .02 -.41 -5.80 .00*

Asterisks (*) indicate significance p<.05

School grade and socioeconomic status were both significantly related to the

school culture component, personal teacher efficacy. Table 4-13 shows school grade and

socioeconomic status were significant to personal teaching efficacy. Transactional

leadership continued to be significant with the added predictors. That is, when adding

school grade and socioeconomic status, higher levels of transactional leadership are

associated with higher levels of personal teaching efficacy.

Table 4-13. Leadership styles, personal teaching efficacy with school grade, and SES
Unstandardized Standardized
coefficients coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
Constant 42.30 2.36 18.0 .00
MLQ TF average .51 .41 .08 1.2 .22
MLQ TS average 1.85 .57 .19 3.3 .00*
MLQ LF average .00 .41 -.02 0.0 .82
School grade 4.15 .48 .47 8.7 .00*
SES -.10 .01 -.52 -9.0 .00*

Asterisks (*) indicate significance p<.05.









School grade and socioeconomic status were significantly related to the school

culture component, performance of students with disabilities. Table 4-14 shows that

when adding both school grade and socioeconomic status to performance of students with

disabilities the result was significant. However, none of the leadership styles remained

significant.

Table 4-14. Leadership styles, performance of students with disabilities with school
grade, and SES
Unstandardized Standardized
coefficients coefficients
Model B Std. error Beta t Sig.
Constant 24.40 3.35 7.30 .00
MLQ TF average -.90 .59 -.13 -2.00 .12
MLQ TS average .57 .80 .05 .70 .48
MLQ LF average -.40 .59 -.05 -1.00 .51
School grade 4.37 .68 .44 6.50 .00*
SES .00 .02 -.27 -4.00 .00*
Asterisks (*) indicate significance p<.05.

Table 4-15 shows that, when adding both school grade and socioeconomic status

with professional learning communities, the result was significant. Transformational and

laissez-fair leadership continued to be significant with the added predictors. That is,

higher levels of achievement as reflected in school grade and socioeconomic status are

associated with higher levels of professional learning community. Laissez-fair leadership

had a negative significance with professional learning communities. That is, higher

laissez-fair leadership is associated with lower levels of professional learning

communities.

Table 4-16 shows the school culture component, belonging to the school

community, was significant with the predictor student socioeconomic status. That is,

higher levels of student socioeconomic status are associated with higher levels of

belonging to the school community. The added predictor, school grade, was not

significant.







44

Table 4-15. Leadership styles, professional learning community with school grade, and
SES
Unstandardized Standardized
coefficients coefficients
Model B Std. error Beta t Sig.
Constant 41.00 3.43 12.00 .00
MLQ TF average 2.35 .60 .30 3.80 .00*
MLQ TS average -.60 .82 -.05 -1.00 .47
MLQ LF average -1.70 .60 -.23 -3.00 .00*
School grade 2.88 .69 .27 4.20 .00*
SES .00 .02 -.02 .00 .80
Asterisks (*) indicate significance p<.05.

Table 4-16. Leadership styles, belonging to the school community with school grade,
and SES
Unstandardized Standardized
coefficients coefficients
Model B Std. error Beta t Sig.
Constant 18.60 1.94 9.60 .00
MLQ TF average .36 .34 .10 1.10 .29
MLQ TS average -.90 .47 -.15 -2.00 .06
MLQ LF average .22 .34 .06 .60 .52
School grade -.60 .39 -.11 -2.00 .15
SES .00 .01 -.17 -2.00 .03*
Asterisks (*) indicate significance p<.05.

Research Question 3: Is There a Relationship Between School Culture and Student
Achievement as Assessed by the FCAT scores?

Hypothesis 3 states that leadership characteristics and school culture affect

student achievement as reflected by the school grade. The results reported in this section

support acceptance of this hypothesis. Table 4-17 shows transactional leadership was

significantly related to the perception of parent/student satisfaction. That is, higher levels

of transactional leadership are associated with higher levels of parent/student satisfaction.

Table 4-18 provides evidence that the added predictor, student socioeconomic

status, showed significance to the school culture component, parent/student satisfaction.

When incorporating socioeconomic status into this model, transactional leadership

remained significant. That is, higher levels of socioeconomic status are associated with

higher levels of parent/student satisfaction and transactional leadership.









Table 4-17. Leadership styles, parent/student satisfaction
Unstandardized
coefficients


Standardized
coefficients


Model B Std. error Beta t Sig.
Constant 39.27 4.53 8.66 .00
MLQ TF average -.11 .86 .01 -.13 .90
MLQ TS average 5.39 1.21 .34 4.42 .00*
MLQLF average -1.05 .88 -.10 -1.19 .24
Asterisks (*) indicate significance p<.05.

Table 4-18. Leadership styles, parent/student satisfaction with SES
Unstandardized Standardized
coefficients coefficients
Model B Std. error Beta t Sig.
Constant 50.97 4.55 11.21 .00
MLQ TF average -1.37 .81 -.13 -1.69 .09
MLQ TS average 5.14 1.11 .33 4.64 .00*
MLQ LF average -.78 .81 -.08 -.97 .34
SES -.14 .02 -.42 -6.07 .00*
Asterisks (*) indicate significance p<.05.

Table 4-19 describes that, when incorporating the added predictors school grade

and socioeconomic status, both were significant to personal teacher efficacy.

Transactional leadership remained significant. That is, higher levels of socioeconomic

status and achievement are associated with higher levels of personal teaching efficacy

and transactional leadership.

Table 4-19. Leadership styles, personal teacher efficacy with school grade, and SES
Unstandardized Standardized
coefficients coefficients
Model B Std. error Beta t Sig.
Constant 42.27 2.36 17.90 .00
MLQ TF average .51 .41 .08 1.23 .22
MLQ TS average 1.85 .57 .19 3.26 .00*
MLQ LF average -.10 .41 -.02 -.20 .82
School Grade 4.15 .48 .47 8.74 .00*
SES -.11 .01 -.52 -9.20 .00*
Asterisks (*) indicate significance p<.05.







46

Table 4-20 shows that transformational leadership and laissez-fair leadership are

significant to professional learning community. The added predicator, student

achievement, was also significant. That is, higher levels of school grade are associated

with higher levels of professional learning community and transformational leadership.

Higher levels of school grade are associated with lower levels of laissez-faire leadership.

Laissez-fair leadership had a negative association with professional learning

communities.

Table 4-20. Leadership styles, professional learning community with school grade, and
SES
Unstandardized Standardized
coefficients coefficients
Model B Std. error Beta t Sig.
Constant 40.95 3.43 11.90 .00
MLQ TF average 2.30 .60 .30 3.83 .00*
MLQ TS average -.60 .82 -.05 -.70 .47
MLQ LF average -1.74 .61 -.23 -2.90 .00*
School grade 2.88 .69 .27 4.17 .00*
SES .00 .02 -.02 -.30 .80
Asterisks (*) indicate significance p<.05.

Table 4-21 shows that belonging to the school community was significant when

incorporating socioeconomic status into the model. School grade was not significant.

That is, higher levels of socioeconomic status are associated with higher levels of

belonging to the school community.

Table 4-21. Leadership styles, belonging to the school community with school grade, and
SES
Unstandardized Standardized
coefficients coefficients
Model B Std. error Beta t Sig.
Constant 18.64 1.94 9.60 .00
MLQ TF average .36 .34 .10 1.06 .29
MLQ TS average -.89 .47 -.15 -1.90 .06
MLQ LF average .22 .34 .06 .64 .52
School grade -.57 .39 -.11 -1.50 .15
SES .00 .01 -0.17 -2.10 .03*
Asterisks (*) indicate significance p<.05.









Summary

The findings of this study demonstrate that there are specific characteristics of the

transactional, transformational, and laissez-fair leadership styles that affect school

culture. The data also provided evidence that school culture and leadership styles are

significantly related to student achievement as reflected in the school grade and

leadership characteristics. Table 4-22 summarizes the significant results. These results

will be further clarified and discussed in Chapter 5, along with implications for school

leaders and recommendations for further study.

Table 4-22. Summary of significant results
Performance
Personal students Professional Feeling a
Culture Student/parent teaching with learning part of the
SIQ II satisfaction efficacy disabilities communities community
MLQ + +
TF
MLQ + + +
TS
MLQ
LF
Grade + + + +
SES + + + + +
+ Denotes significant scores.
- Denotes a negative significant score.















CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship among the perceived

effective school culture, principal leadership styles, and student performance as measured

by the Florida Comprehensive Academic Test (FCAT). This chapter provides a

summary of the study, a discussion of the results, conclusions, implications, and

recommendations for future research.

Summary of the Study

The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ-5X) was utilized to rate leadership

traits of principals. The School Improvement Questionnaire (SIQ II) was utilized to rate

school culture. Both surveys relied on teacher ratings. School grades and socioeconomic

status of a north central Florida county were accessed through the Florida Department of

Education.

Twelve (12) of the 22 elementary schools (57%) in the county participated in the

study. The data received were analyzed to determine the relationship among leadership

styles, school culture, and the effect on student achievement. Socioeconomic status and

school grade were added as additional predictors. The results were reported in chapter 4.

Discussion of Results

Research Question 1: What Characteristics or Behaviors of Principals Are
Associated with Positive School Culture?

Leadership characteristics of the principal affect school culture (SIQ II). The

results of this study show statistical significance of transactional and transformational







49

leadership with school culture. Higher levels of both transactional and transformational

leadership were associated with higher levels of school culture. This study's findings

were consistent with Schein (1992), Bulach (2001), Sergiovanni and Corbally (1984),

and McCall (1994) who found that principal leadership had significant effects on school

goals, school culture, policies and organization. Bolman and Deal (1984) took the

position that a successful leader must understand and integrate the subcultures of the

organization. In this study, the use of transactional leadership resulted in a positive

school culture as rated by teachers. Transactional leadership and practices are central in

maintaining an organization. The transactional leadership traits are important to the

organization in that they regulate day to day activities. These behaviors contain elements

of activity, inactivity, effectiveness and ineffectiveness (Bass & Avolio, 1993). A

principal's leadership style enhances, encourages and nurtures a positive school culture.

Transactional leadership is active management, and occurs when leaders intervene to

make some correction and generally involves corrective criticism.

Transformational leadership was found to be significant with two school culture

(SIQ II) components. Transformational leadership is visionary leadership. Higher levels

of transformational leadership were associated with higher levels of professional learning

communities and personal teacher efficacy. These findings were consistent with

researchers who examined visionary leadership and the correlation to effective school

leadership and a positive school culture (Deal & Peterson 1999; Leithwood & Jantzi,

1990; Sashkin & Sashkin, 1993; Sergiovanni, 1995). The transformational leader has

the ability to encourage change in others (Leithwood, Jantzi, & Steinbach, 1999). This

change is accomplished by using a collaborative, shared decision-making approach that

empowers teachers. A'Campo (1993) wrote that a principal's primary task should focus









on analyzing and understanding the existing culture and be aware of teacher's needs,

feelings, perceptions, and attitudes.

Research Question 2: Is School Culture a Predictor of FCAT Scores?

The second hypothesis stated that school culture affects student achievement.

The results of this study showed that school culture has a significant effect on student

achievement. This finding is consistent with those of Sackney (1988), Sweetland and

Hoy (2000), Bandura (1993), and Brookover et al. (1978) who found that aspects of

school culture clearly make a difference in, and can be a powerful contributor to, student

academic achievement. SIQ II components that related positively to student achievement

were personal teaching efficacy, performance of students with disabilities and

professional learning community.

Research Question 3: Is There a Relationship Between School Culture and Student
Achievement as Assessed by the FCAT Scores?

The third hypothesis stated that leadership characteristics and school culture

affect student achievement. This study found statistical significance among the

relationship between transactional leadership and parent/student satisfaction, teacher

efficacy and professional learning community. Consistent with Fuller (1989),

transformational leadership was found to be significant to professional learning

community and teacher efficacy.

The findings of this study differed markedly from Hallinger, Bickman and Davis

(1996), who found that there was no direct effect of leadership styles on student

achievement. In this study transactional leadership was found to have a significant link

to student achievement. McMillian (1996) suggested the relationship between a









principal's leadership style and levels of student achievement is extremely complex.

This study affirmed the complexity of this relationship, showing significance with

perception of parent/student satisfaction, teacher efficacy, professional learning

community, and transactional and transformational leadership styles with student

achievement.

Bass, Waldman, Aviolo, and Bebb (1987) suggested transactional and

transformational leadership styles are complimentary and leaders must possess both to be

effective. Leaders are often flexible and findings indicate no one particular leadership

style of the principal determines the success of the school (Gepford 1996; Sackney 1998;

Leithwood, Jantzi, & Steinbach, 1999). The findings of this study support the

significance of transactional and transformational leadership styles to school culture.

Principals who know what leadership behaviors match the needs of the school's

stakeholders are more able to foster a positive school culture.

Research Question 4: Are There Demographic Facts (e.g., SES) That Are
Associated with School Culture?

The findings of this study suggest a significant relationship exists between SES

(as indicated by the percent of students receiving free or reduced-price lunch) and school

culture. The school culture survey (SIQ II) components showed statistical significance

when socioeconomic status was added as a predictor with the culture components

parent/student satisfaction, personal teaching efficacy, and performance of students with

disabilities. Higher levels of socioeconomic status were associated with higher levels of

parent/student satisfaction, personal teaching efficacy, and performance of students with

disabilities. This finding was consistent with that of Sweetland and Hoy (2000), who









found that a student's socioeconomic status was a powerful indicator of student

achievement.

Implications and Conclusions

This section presents implications and conclusions of perceived effective school

culture, principal leadership styles and student performance.

Implications for Principal Preparation and Practicing Principals

* School district staff development and university programs need to train elementary
principals in both transformational (visionary) and transactional leadership (day-to-
day). The combinations of both leadership styles were found to positively effect
school culture and student achievement. This study found that both transactional and
transformational leadership are significant to the school culture and student
achievement. Principal preparation should include the theory of transactional and
transformational leadership styles as well as opportunities to see and experience the
complexities of leadership.

* School district staff development need to provide a mentoring program to increase
and enhance the leadership skills of both aspiring and practicing school principals.

* School culture was found to positively affect student achievement. School district
staff need to provide professional development training for principals and aspiring
principals that emphasizes understanding school culture and how to assess and bring
positive change to that culture. The findings of this study suggest that principals need
to focus on enhancing three areas of school culture: (a) professional learning
communities, (b) teacher efficacy, and (c) the feeling of being a part of the
community.

* Principals must be flexible, and use a combination of transactional and
transformational leadership styles that meet the needs of all stakeholders.

* Professional learning communities are important to a positive school culture.
Laissez-faire leadership has a negative association with professional learning
communities. Principals need to recognize and avoid laissez-faire leadership
behaviors with regard to professional learning communities.

* Principals who are placed in a school with low socioeconomic status and low student
achievement must have a thorough understanding of transactional and
transformational leadership. They must also have a deep understanding and
commitment to shape and change the school's culture in the areas of teacher efficacy
and professional learning.









* School districts need to focus on a systematic way to study each school's culture so
they might better match the school's needs with principals who possess the
knowledge, skills, and understanding required to shape and change the culture of such
schools.

* School principals are accountable for student achievement. School culture was found
to impact student achievement. A school culture assessment, as part of the principal
evaluation process, would provide an additional measure of potential leader
effectiveness and promote continuing professional learning of principals.

Conclusions

* Transactional leadership significantly affected student achievement and three school
culture components: parent/student satisfaction, personal teaching efficacy, and
professional community. That is, higher levels of transactional leadership were
associated with higher levels of student achievement and school culture.

* Transformational leadership had a significant relationship with two specific school
culture components: personal teaching efficacy and professional learning
community.

* Student socioeconomic status was significantly related to school culture and student
achievement in four school culture areas: parent/student satisfaction, personal
teaching efficacy, performance of students with disabilities, and belonging to the
school community

* School culture was found to be significantly related to student achievement in three
school culture areas: personal teaching efficacy, performance of students with
disabilities, and professional learning communities.

* Laissez-faire leadership was significantly related to the school culture area:
professional learning communities. Higher levels of laissez-faire leadership were
associated with lower levels of professional learning community.

Recommendations for Future Study

This section presents recommendations for future study. This study has

researched a narrow portion of the educational leadership field and can be expanded in

many ways. The recommendations that follow are based upon insights gained from this

and related studies, and may provide additional insight into the relationships between and

among effective school culture, principal leadership styles and student performance.







54

* This study was conducted in a medium-sized school district in North Central Florida.
A study which utilized school districts across the state or region might more
thoroughly demonstrate whether the relationship between the principal's leadership
style and school culture provide a more generalizable finding regarding the
relationship among leadership styles, school culture, and student achievement.

* This study did not address gender or experience levels as a principal. The total
number of years teaching, and other leadership experiences may provide information
useful to school systems in making appropriate decisions on administrative
promotions and placements.

* This study did not address secondary schools. Similar studies that address
elementary and secondary schools should be done to see if the findings are consistent
with this study.

* A similar study that matches both high performing and low performing schools by
size and socioeconomic status may provide additional useful information.

* This study did not control for socioeconomic status. A similar study that addresses
similar socioeconomic populations with varying student performance may provide
additional useful information.

Summary

The findings of this study demonstrated that there are specific characteristics of

transactional and transformational leadership styles that affect culture. The data provided

evidence that school culture and leadership styles are significantly related to student

achievement. When socioeconomic status and school grades were added, transactional

and transformational leadership remained significant.

Principals directly impacted student learning through the school culture they

foster. It is important that principals practice both transactional and transformational

leadership and understand its effect on school culture. Only with informed practice will

schools be able to meet the needs and challenges associated with a diverse student

population with diverse academic needs.















APPENDIX A
QUESTIONNAIRE PACKETS

Appendix A contains the information included in the questionnaire packets that were

sent to the schools and school district administrators. Bass and Avolio (1990)

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ 5X) is not included in the appendix because

Bass and Avlio do not wish to have it reproduced. The following is an outline of which

documents were sent to principals, teachers, and school district administrators.

List of Documents

Principals

1. Principal letter
2. SIQ II questionnaire
3. MLQ questionnaire
4. Self-addressed, stamped envelope

Teachers

1. Teacher letter
2. SIQ II questionnaire
3. MLQ questionnaire
4. Scantron to use with SIQ II questionnaire
5. Scantron to use with MLQ questionnaire
6. Self-addressed, stamped envelope

School District Administrators

1. Letter requesting permission to do research









Principal Consent Letter

Dear Colleague:

I am a doctoral student at the University of Florida in the Department of
Educational Leadership working under the direction of Dr. James L. Doud, 258E
Norman Hall, (352)392-2391 x263.

I am writing to request your participation in my dissertation study which will
explore the relationship between leadership behaviors of the principal, school culture and
student achievement.

This study involves the completion of one survey. Principals and teachers will be
asked to complete a questionnaire to asses their perception of the school's culture or
principal's leadership style. Principals will be asked to complete the culture survey. The
questionnaire should take approximately 20 minutes of your time. You do not have to
answer any question you do not wish to answer. There are no known personal risks or
benefits to participating in this study. You have the right to withdraw you consent and
discontinue participation in the project at any time. Unfortunately there will be no
compensation provided for your time and effort other than my eternal gratitude.

Your teachers have also been asked to participate in this study. Data will be kept
confidential to the extent provided by law. Enclosed you will find a self-addressed,
stamped envelope so that you can return your questionnaires directly to me. This
measure is to ensure confidentiality. I will be happy to answer any questions pertaining
to this study before or after you have completed the surveys. Please contact me at:
Elizabeth Le Clear
8405 SW 51st Lane
Gainesville, Florida 32608
(352)337-3917
lecleaea@sbac.edu

If you have questions or concerns about rights of the research participants please
contact the University of Florida Institutional Review Board at:
UFIRB office
Box 112250
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida 32611-2250
(352)392-0433

Thank your for signing and dating this letter and returning it with your
questionnaire as soon as possible.

Sincerely,


Elizabeth A. Le Clear







57

I have read the procedure described above. I voluntarily agree to participate in the
procedure and I have received a copy of this description/


Signature of participant Date









Teacher Consent Letter

Dear Colleague,

I am a doctoral student at the University of Florida in the Department of
Educational Leadership working under the direction of Dr. James L. Doud, 258E
Norman Hall, (352)392-2391 x263.

I am writing to request your participation in my dissertation study which will
explore the relationship between leadership behaviors of the principal, school culture and
student achievement.

This study involves the completion of two surveys. Principals and teachers will
be asked to complete questionnaires to assess their perception of the school's culture and
principal's leadership style. These questionnaires should take approximately 40 minutes
of your time. You do not have to answer any question you do not wish to answer. There
are no known personal risks or benefits to participating in this study. You have the right
to withdraw you consent and discontinue participation in the project at any time.
Unfortunately there will be no compensation provided for your time and effort other than
my eternal gratitude.

Data will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law. Enclosed you will
find a self-addressed, stamped envelope so that you can return your questionnaires
directly to me. This measure is to ensure confidentiality. I will be happy to answer any
questions pertaining to this study before or after you have completed the surveys. Please
contact me at:
Elizabeth Le Clear
8405 SW 51st Lane
Gainesville, Florida 32608
(352)337-3917
lecleaea@sbac.edu

If you have questions or concerns about rights of the research participants please
contact the University of Florida Institutional Review Board at:
UFIRB office
Box 112250
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida 32611-2250
(352) 392-0433

Thank your for signing and dating this letter and returning it with your
questionnaire as soon as possible.

Sincerely,


Elizabeth A. Le Clear







59

I have read the procedure described above. I voluntarily agree to participate in
the procedure and I have received a copy of this description.


Signature of participant Date















APPENDIX B
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT SURVEY (SIQ II)












School Improvement Questionnaire II


1. How many years have you been a teacher?

0. This is my first year.
1. 2 to 5 years.
2. 6 to 10 years.
3. 11 to 15 years.
4. 16 or more years.




2. Are you assigned to a teaching team?

0. No, I am not assigned to a team.
1. Yes, I work on an ineffective team.
2. Yes, I work on a moderately effective
team.
3. Yes, I work on an effective team.

3. During a normal workweek, what is your stress
level?


Little or no stress.
Some stress.
Moderate stress.
Quite a lot of stress.
Tremendous stress.


4. How old are you?


Under 30.
31 to 40.
41 to 50.
51 to 60.
61 or over.


5. Do you plan to be working in education five
years from now?


No.
Yes.
Uncertain.


6. Are you teaching any subjects out of field?

0. No.
1. Yes.


7. How many years have you been at this school? 14.


0. This is my first year.
1. 2 to 5 years.
2. 6 to 10 years.
3. 11 to 15 years.
4. 16 or more years.


8. Suppose you could go back to your college
days and start over again, in view of your
present knowledge, would you become a
teacher again?

0. Certainly would not become a teacher.
1. Probably would not become a teacher.
2. Chances are about even.
3. Probably would become a teacher.
4. Certainly would become a teacher.


9. What is your race?


Asian American.
African American.
Caucasian.
Hispanic.
Multi-Racial.
Other.


10. What is your highest degree?


Attended college.
Bachelors Degree.
Masters Degree.
Specialist Degree.
Ph. D.


11. Are you presently working a second job
outside of school for which you are getting
paid?

0. No.
1. Yes.

12. Are any students with diagnosed disabilities
assigned to your classes?


No.
Yes, 3 or fewer in any one class.
Yes, 4 or more in any one class.
Don't know.


13. What is the average class size you teach?


15 or less.
16 to 20.
21 to 25.
26 to 30.
31 to 35.
36 to 40.
more than 41.


Which of the following best describes your
job?

0. Classroom teacher.
1. Support Teacher (skip to question 23).
2. Other (Skip to question 23).












Are yau presently teaching the following subjects?


15. Language arts?

0. No.
1. PresentlyTeachlng and Cetietd,
2. Praenay Teaching, Not Cortif id,


10, Social Studies?

0, No.
1. Presently Teaching and Cerllhed
2. Preeanily Teaching, Not Cerllfied.


17. Pthyalcal Educallon?

0. No,
1. Presntly Teaching and Certifled.
2, Presenlly Teaching, Nol Certilled.


18, Exceptional Educallon?

0. No.
1. Pereenily Teaching and Certfied.
2. Presenly Teaching, Not Certified.


19. Malhemral,.e?

0, No.
1, Prsntly Teaching and Cedifii,
2, Presenily Tecing, NolCertfied,


20. Science?

o. No.
1. Presty Tcachit and Cenihod
2. PrcsnlUy Teaching, Not CeliFBd,


21. Vocallonal Education?

No.
1. Presenry Teaching and Certiied.
2. Presentty Teaching, Not CerNiled.


22. 01her Subjects?

0. NO.
1. Pesently Teaching and Certified.
2. Presenlly Teaching, Not Certified.


Your answers to the fullhiwing statements will help us
understand what it Is like to teach at your school and
in your district. Using the scale provided, please
Indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree
with each of the following statements.


Disagree Agree
Totally Totally

0 1 2 3 4 5 4 7 8 9

23. Teachers In 1his school are continually 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a
learning and joking rew ideas

24. You can ount on most teachers to help
out anywhcr, anylirme-ven though it
'Iay r obe part ol their official 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
asgignmenI.













Di&aaree AgrL
Tolally To Effl

0 1 2 3 A4 5 7 8 9

25- TPee IS 8 gbUt debal (11 Mporet" ;.0 1 2 a 4 15 6 7 8 9
anonp leacdla at M actiool.

26, Totrs mrintainSO smandads at this 0 1 2 8 4 6 0 7 8 9
=cho0l.

27. This achd aeem Iike a Ibg tarrd, 0 1 2 3 4 6 6 7 8 9
everyone is so does and ordial.

2U In 1hIS scho weySOuvoprI; 1 2 4 5 6 7 6 9
don't just talk about them.

29MMyjob p rides me continuing 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 7 8 9
pmfemonal tulak and Wwh

3 Inmtishool. Iam erncouragedto 0 I 1 2 3 4 5 687 9
-expedrient with my teamq.

31, The phipal is Warestod 0 1 2 a 4 5 6 7 8 9
and new Ideas.

32. Ican get good advyko from 1bw a 1 2 3 4 6 6 7 a 9
tU'*w in thiis schoe4 when I have a
teaching problem.

W9. If I try eslly hard, I can gel 1hrough to 0 2 3 4 71 6 9
even the most difficult orfunrmotvated
students,.

34- 1 wo.id accepi almost arn dM& 0 1 2 0 1 5 6 7 8 9
school assirnent iniorder to keep
working for this disiriA.

35. H wuito too VY" liteinc OW20 i my 0 4 5 6 mya 9
presentcorcurnzetaricms to cause 4e to
Iesmt this disirict.

36, 1 W OW ihis disbt inspire the very 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
best I the job peulomrance o Itsl
teachers.

37. Oten I find it difficult togrewihMthis 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
dislrkls policies on imp0arri Iters
MIatim t Its 180h0",

3& 1 am pKud ino tbl other hall I work for (0) 1 2 3 4 6 6 7 8 9
this district,

39. The distsct Is a soure of onsiderable 2 3 4 6 6 7 R
dlssatiafactLon with my bewhlng job -













I'Pease indicate how sfrongly you agree or disagree
with each of the following statements regardIng your
present job and teachiog in general.


Dlsa ree Agree
Tot lly Totally

0 1 2 34 5 6 7 8 9

40. At this sh~ch, stresm and1
disapooirlmienttake 1hej joy out 14 7 8 9
teaching.

41, 1 amT to ptiag readealfeffort 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 7 8 9
beyond Ihat usually expected of
teaiers.

42. tft I coud gel a hIgher pyng c, I'd 0 1 2 a 4 5 6 7 8 9
10"v t~eahing,- -----

43- In general I.Ieally enjoy mystwdents. 0 Z 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

44 I on't seem to h as m uc h41
O nftr"d now as I did wthen Ibegan
leaching.

45. 1 felIiMe lyn~y I to1?lea~hg 0 1 2 3 4 5 -6 7 8 9
profession-11 1 1


Please indicate how strongly you agree or divagrie
with each of the following fftatements regarding your
classroom instruction.


Disagree Agree
To ba11V Tio rally

10 1 2 3 4 15 6 7 3 -9

46. 1 adjust assignmenm to 1II 1e learmin V 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 6
needs ot individual aludenis.

47 1 aJust myVInstruton mnthodslo filIM 0 1 2 3 4 5 a 7 a 9
1 leaninq stylesE al individual atudenIB.











No Complete
Confidence Confidence

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

How confident are you tfht:

48. ...sudents in this school will improve
their percentle ranking on the
FCAT,'FCAT-NRT reading te this 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
year? -
49, ...tudents in this school wil improve
their peroratifl ranking on the
FCAT/FCAT-NRTmathematicstestthis 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9
year?

50, .,,-sudents in mhis school will improve
thir scores on the FCAT!FCAT-NRT 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
writing test this year?

51. ...minonly sludents in this school will
improve their percentile ranking on the
FCATFCAT-NRT reading Ies his 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
year?

52. ...minorily sludente in this school will
Improve their percentile ranking on the
FCAT'FCAT-NRT mathematics testthi 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9
year?.

53. ...minorlly students in this school will
improve Iheir sores on the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
FCAT/FGAT-NRT writing test this a?

54. ...students in this school will improve
their school attendance rates thisyear? 4

55, studentsls in this school wil have ewer
suspensions than they did star? 0 1 2 3 4 5 7 8

5M. studentsls will report that they feelsafe
in Ihis school? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

57. ...students in Ihis Bchool will report
being me saBsliad wit this school 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
than they were last year?













No Complete
Confidence ConfI de ne

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a B

H*"w confident are you that

58. ...prents w1I report 4)ng 14r7
sebsjied vedh M% school than they were 0 1 2 3 wo4 5 r 7 9
lastye-

59. ..tlentswith disalle aned 2 3 4 5 7 9
aWWWLQW will lmprmo tMeir
amdemic Perorarnrce is ear?-

00.. .-skdont. With disabilities waignets
mgmijar claesavw ill improve Iheir
pqrorwtiorankng on the FCATIRCAT- 0 1 2 8 4 5 0 7 0 9
HNRT reading lest #* Vear?

61...Sktudents with disabilities msaned to
w g WU K 4 W M = YAae w ill 1np ro ve Ih air
prwcentie ranklngonthoFCATFGAT. 0 1 2 3 4 5 B 7 8 9
tJRT niherniiics Lost this year?

62. .$tudenIs with disabllites assianw
"QU4LQ1M"@aas winl Impmpuer CmB1soyes
on the, FCATIFCAT-NRT wing lost 0 1 2 a 4 5 5 7 8 9
this yar



Using the scale provided, please Indicate kow much
say or influence you have In each of the following
areas.



No Say or Total Say or
Influence ___ I AnOlu kiCe

0 o 2 3 4 5 5 7 8 9

w MUChSaydoyouhavein poicy 0 1 2 2 4 5 6 7 8 9
Minqi at your scdal?

64-HwmuchWouha"in you 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9
tevb?

5. Kowrr udihsay doyou have In cldIng a 1 2 3 4 5 0 7 8 9
dhutyou teach?

66. How much say do you have in team 16
r en 1 2 3 4 5 6 dias

67. How much can you influento 1 1 2 3 47
paOcpor dool6 7 i 9
p*W sg1'. docbons











No Say or 'I 01I Say or
Influence Inflnenc

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 g

88, How much -an yom influece Ihc
disciplinepolicisatyourschoo? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9

09, Hnw much saydoyou umaboutthe 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9
form and content ol In-eilce
programs?

70. Hoawmuchanyouinfluenceyour 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 7 8 9
sludbfle motrive ion to Wam?

71. H~owmuch can yuln eo he 0 1 2 3 4 5 1 7 9
greding policy at yow school?

72. How much can youinifuenoahyour 0 1 2 0 4 5 6 7 8 0
Colleagues Uach?

73MHowmuch can you irftuence ttgtyoir
--- O~kE~qeS eMM 0 2 4 5 0 7 8 9

74- How much m youn colleaguBs' 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9
influence bwaoy teaII?

75. Howmuch cm your colleagues 0 1 2 a 4 5 5 7 18
irilluance it ea thIeIch?


The following questions 5ask about the STUDENTS YOU
ARE TEACHING THIS YEAR. Using the scale provided,
please Indlcate yorr degree of confidence that your
students will improve their performance on various
Indicators


No CompI C
Conriddcncc Confidenrc

0 1 2 3 4 5 697 6

How ooronfiint are ou that:

76. ...students yv lea will"pro" heir a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
schcKA altondanee rates fis y'ear?

77 ..studenls you Wach will have lower
suspnsi 0nsthn I a 1 2 3 4 5 d 7 8 9

78 ..siudents you teach willi reort being
more saetiwile valh 1his 30h04AIhanIhay 0 1 2 3 4 5 t h 8 2
have b9on in the last two years?


Thank you for your help.















REFERENCES


a'Campo, C. (1993). Collaborative school cultures: How principals make a difference.
School Organization, 13, 119-127.

Andrews, R. L., & Soder, R. (1987). Student achievement and principal leadership.
Educational Leadership, 44(6), 9-11.

Ash, R., & Persall, M. (1999). The principal as chief learning officer. National
Association of Secondary School Principals, 84(616), 15-22.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.

Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning.
Educational Psychologist, 28, 117-148.

Barth, R. S. (1980). Run school run. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free
Press.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1990) Transformational leadership development: Manual
for the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership: A response to
critiques. In M. M. Chemers & R. Ayman (Eds.), Leadership theory and
research: Perspectives and directions (pp. 49-88). San Diego, CA: Academic.

Bass B. M., Waldman, D. A., Aviolo, B. J., & Bebb, M. (1987). Transformational
leadership and the falling dominos effect. Group and Organizational Studies, 12,
73-87.

Beare, H., Caldwell, B. J., & Milliken, R. H. (1989). Creating an excellent school: Some
new management techniques. New York: Routledge.

Bennis, W. (1989). On becoming a leader. Reading, PA: Addison-Wesley.

Blanchard, K., Carlos, J., & Randolph, A. (1996). Empowerment takes more than a
minute. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.









Blase, J., & Anderson, G. (1995). The micropolitics of educational leadership: From
control to empowerment. New York: Cassell.

Blase, J., & Blase, J. (1996). The fire is back: Principals sharing school governance.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. (1984). Modern approaches to understanding and managing
organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. (1991). Reframing in action. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. (1995). Leadiig ni ith soul: An uncommon journey of spirit.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Brewer, D. (1993). Principals and student outcomes: Evidence from U.S. high schools.
Economics of Education Review, 12, 281-292.

Brookover, W. B., Schweitzer, J. H., Schneider, J. M., Beady, C. H., Flood, F. K., &
Wisinbaker, J. M. (1978). Elementary school social climate and school
achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 15, 301-318.

Bulach, C. R. (2001, April). A four-step process for identifying and reshaping school
culture. Principal Leadership, 1, 48-51.

Burns, J. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.

Cheng, Y. C. (1991). Leadership style of principals and organizational process in
secondary schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 29(2), 25-37.

Covey, S. A., Miller, R. & Miller, R. (1994). First thing first. New York: Simon &
Shuster.

Davis, S. H. (1998). Superintendents' perspectives on the involuntary departure of public
school principals: The most frequent reasons why principals lose their jobs.
Education Administration Quarterly, 34, 58-90.

Day, C. (2000). Leading schools in times of change. Philadelphia: Open University.

Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. (1982). Corporate cultures: The rite and rituals of
corporate life. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

Deal, T. E., & Peterson, K. D. (1990). The principal's role in shaping school culture.
Washington, DC: United States Department of Education.

Deal, T. E., & Peterson, K. D. (1999). .lh, pig school culture: The heart of leadership.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.









Depree, M. (1989). Leadership is an art. New York: Bantam Doubleday Dell.

Donmoyer, R., & Wagstaff, L. (1990). Principals can be effective managers and
instructional leaders. NASSP Bulletin, 74 (525), 20-29.

Duke, D. L. (1987). School leadership and instructional improvement. New York:
Random House.

Eberts, R. W., & Stone, J. A. (1988). Student achievement in public schools: Do
principals make a difference? Economics of Education Review, 7, 291-299.

Elmore, R. F. (Jan./Feb. 2002). The limits of "change." Harvard Education Letter, 18(1),
8-15.

Erickson, F. (1987). Conceptions of school culture: An overview. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 23(4), 11-24.

Firestone, W. A., & Wilson, B. L. (1995). Using bureaucratic and cultural linkages to
improve instruction: The principal's contribution. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 21(2), 7-30.

Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces. New York: Palmer.

Fuller, J. F. (1989). Decision-making patterns of elementary school principals and the
improvement of student achievement. Doctoral dissertation, University of
California, Santa Barbara.

Gardner, H. (1990). On leadership. New York: Free Press.

Garfield, C. (1986). Peak performers: The new heroes ofAmerican business. New York:
Avon.

Gepford, J. (1996). Relationship between school success and the leadership style of the
principal in low socio-economic schools. Doctoral Dissertation, University of
South Carolina, Columbia.

Glickman, C. D. (2003). Holding sacred ground. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Grace, L., Buser, R., & Stuck, D. (1987). What works and what doesn't: Characteristics
of outstanding administrators. NASSP Bulletin, 71(502), 72-76.

Griffith, J. (1999). The school leadership/school climate relation: Identification of school
configurations associated with change principals. Education Administration
Quarterly. 35, 267-291.

Guskey, T. R., & Passaro, P. D. (1994). Teacher efficacy: A study of construct
dimensions. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 627-643.









Hallinger, P., Bickman, L., & Davis, K. (1996). School context, principal leadership, and
student reading achievement. The Elementary School Journal, 96, 527-549.

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (1998). Exploring principal's contribution to school
effectiveness: 1980-1995. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9, 157-
191.

Hater, J. J., & Bass, B. M. (1988). Superiors' evaluations and subordinates' perceptions
of transformational and transactional leadership. Journal ofApplied Psychology,
73, 695-702.

Heck, R., Larsen, T., & Marcoulides, G. (1990). Principal leadership and school
achievement: Validation of a causal model. Paper presented at the annual meeting
of the American Educational Research Association, Boston.

Huff, S., Lake, D., & Schaalman, M. (1982). Principal differences: Excellence in school
leadership and management. Boston: McBer.

James, J. (1996). Thinking in the future tense. New York: Simon & Shuster.

Johnson, B. J. (1996). Types of educational leadership in a postindustrial society. The
Urban Review, 28, 213-232.

King M. I. (1989). Extraordinary leadership in education: Transformational and
transactional leadership as predictors of effectiveness, satisfaction and
organizational climate in K-12 and higher education. Doctoral dissertation,
University of New Orleans, LA.

Kotter, J. (1990). A force for change: How leadership differs from management. New
York: Free Press.

Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (1990, June). Transformational leadership: How principals
can help reform school cultures. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
Canadian Association for Curriculum Studies, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED323622).

Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., & Steinbach, R. (1999). Changing leadership for changing
times. Philadelphia: Open University Press.

Leithwood, K., & Montgomery, D. J. (1986). Improving principal effectiveness: The
principalprofile. Toronto: OISE Press.

Levine, D. & Lezotte, L. (1995). Effective schools research. In J. A. Banks & C. A. M.
Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (pp. 525-547).
New York: MacMillian.









Lezotte, L. W., & Bancroft, B. A. (1985). Growing use of effective schools model for
school improvement. Educational Leadership, 43, 23-27.

Lightfoot, S. L. (1996). On goodness of schools: Themes of empowerment. Peabody
Journal ofEducation, 63(3), 9-28.

Maehr, M. L., & Midgley, C. (1996). Transforming school cultures. Boulder, CO:
Westview.

Marsh, D. D. (1992). Enhancing educational leadership. Education and Urban Society,
24, 386-409.

Marshall, C. (1988). Analyzing the culture of school leadership. Education and Urban
Society, 20, 262-273.

Marshal, C., Patterson, J., A., Rogers, D. L., & Steele, J. R. (1996). Caring as a career:
An alternative perspective for educational administration. Education
Administration Quarterly, 32, 271-294.

McCall, J. R. (1994). The principal's edge. New Jersey: Eye on Education.

McEwan, E. (1998). Seven steps to effective instructional leadership. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin.

McLaughlin, W. M., & Talbert, J. E. (1993). Contexts that matter for teaching and
learning. Stanford, CA: Center for Research on the Context of Secondary School
Teaching, Stanford University.

Murphy, J. (1998). Methodological, measurement, and conceptual problems in the study
of instructional leadership. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 10, 117-
139.

Owens, R. G. (1995). Organizational behavior in education (5th ed.). Needham Heights,
MA: Prentice-Hall.

Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in achievement settings. Review of Educational
Research, 66, 543-578.

Peterson, K. D. (1988). Mechanisms of culture building and principals' work. Education
and Urban Society, 20, 250-261.

Reitzug, U. C., & Revves, J. E. (1992). "Miss Lincoln doesn't teach here": A descriptive
narrative and conceptual analysis of a principal's symbolic leadership behavior.
Education Administration Quarterly. 28, 185-219.

Rosenholtz, S. (1989). Teacher's workplace: The social organization of schools. New
York: Longman.









Rowan, B., Bossert, S. T., & Dwyer, D. C. (1983). Effective schools: A cautionary note.
Educational Researcher, 12, 24-31.

Sackney, L. (1988). Enhancing school learning climate: Theory, research and practice.
SSTA Research Centre report # 180. Retrieved June 30, 2003, from http://
www.ssta.sk.ca/research/schoolimprovement/180.htm#issues

Saphier, J., & King, M. (1985). Good seeds grow in strong cultures. Educational
Leadership, 42(7), 67-73.

Sashkin, M., & Sashkin, M. G. (1993). Principals and their school cultures:
Understandings from quantitative and qualitative research. In M. Sashkin & H. J.
Walberg (Eds.), Educational leadership and school culture (pp. 100-123).
Berkeley, CA: McCuthean.

Schein, E. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership: A dynamic view. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schmoker, M. J. (1996). Results: The key to continuous school gi ,i iil. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Senge, P. (1990). Thefifth discipline. New York: Doubleday Currency.

Sergiovanni, T. J. (1990). Value-added leadership: How to get extraordinary
performance in schools. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Sergiovanni, T. J. (1995). The principalship. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Sergiovanni, T. J. (1996). Leadership for the schoolhouse. How is it different? Why is it
important? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sergiovanni, T. J., & Corbally, J. E. (1984). Leadership and organizational culture.
Chicago: University of Illinois Press.

Sizer, T. R., & Sizer, N. F. (1999). The students are watching: Schools and the moral
contract. Boston: Beacon Press.

Snyder, K. J., Wolf, K. M., Acker-Hocevar, M. (1995). Changing schools to quality work
cultures: Issues and dilemmas. Paper presented at the annual Meeting of the
British Educational Management and Administration Society, Oxford, England.

Soodak, L. C., & Podell, D. M. (1996). Teacher efficacy: Toward the understanding of a
multi-faceted construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12, 401-411.

Stolp, S. W. (1994). Transforming school culture: Stories, symbols, values & the leader's
role. Eugene,, OR: ERIC Clearinghouse.









Sweetland, S. R., & Hoy, W. K. (2000). School characteristics and educational outcomes:
Toward and organizational model of student achievement in the middle schools.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 36, 703-729.

Trice, H. M. (1993). Occupational subcultures in the workplace. New York: Cornell
University Press.

Webb, R. B., & Pajares, F. (1996), School Improvement Questionnaire. Gainesville, FL:
Center for School Improvement, University of Florida.

Weber, G. (1971). Inner-city children can be taught to read: For successful schools.
Washington, DC: Council for Basic Education.

Wendel, F., Hoake, F., & Joekel, R. (1993). Project success: Outstanding principals
speak out. The Clearing House, 67(1), 52-54.

Wilson, B. L., & Corcoran, T. B. (1988). Successful secondary schools. London: Falmer.

Wolcott, H. F. (1984). The man in the principal's office. Prospect Heights: Waveland.















BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Elizabeth Le Clear was born in a small farming community in Western

Pennsylvania to Richard and Mary Sagrati. Her parents loved her unconditionally and

preached the value of education, and gave her the courage to pursue her dreams with their

love, encouragement, and support.

She had wanted to be a music teacher from fifth grade. She attended West

Virginia University and graduated with a B.M. in both vocal and instrumental music.

Her first teaching position was at Wingate Oaks Center in Broward County, Florida. Her

work with children with severe disabilities has left a profound effect on her person and

career.

The principal at Wingate Oaks Center encouraged her to pursue a Masters in

Educational Leadership. She attended and graduated from Florida Atlantic University.

After 7 years of teaching music, She moved to Gainesville, Florida. She taught one year

of math to seventh graders at C. H. Price Middle School and then became the assistant

principal. During her tenure at C. H. Price, she received a Specialist Degree in Education

from the University of Florida, with an emphasis in exceptional student education.

She transferred to Hawthorne Junior Senior High School as the assistant principal

and began her doctorate at the University of Florida. She later transferred to Westwood

Middle School. She has been at Westwood for 6 years as the Assistant Principal for

Curriculum.