An Examination of Teacher Working Conditions in Alabama Middle Schools by Farrell Brady Seymore A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Auburn University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Education Auburn, Alabama May 9, 2011 Approved by Cynthia J. Reed, Chair, Professor of Educational Foundations, Leadership and Technology Ellen Reames, Assistant Professor of Educational Foundations, Leadership and Technology Margaret E. Ross, Associate Professor of Educational Foundations, Leadership and Technology ii Abstract The purpose of this study was to determine what relationships, if any, exist between how Alabama middle school teacher perception of their principals affect student achievement and teacher attrition. Peer comparisons between elementary, middle, and high school teacher perceptions regarding their school?s leadership were also examined. Using the sample of 21,252 Alabama teacher responses, including 3,402 middle school responses, statistically significant relationships were found between middle school teacher perception the school?s leadership and student achievement and the likelihood that teachers remain in their current teaching position. The study also found that a statistically significant relationship exists between teacher perception of the school?s principal and type of school in which a teacher works (elementary, middle, or high school). The findings from this study suggest more professional development is needed for Alabama middle school principals in the areas of school climate cultivation and instructional leadership. Mentoring of Alabama middle school principals should also be developed to train principals on specific middle grades issues. iii Acknowledgements This dissertation is part of my life-long learning process that began with my family who were my first teachers. I want to thank my parents, Melvin and Felica Seymore, who taught me the value of hard work and commitment in all aspects of life. Their examples have helped to shape me in my academic pursuits in ways that are immeasurable. I offer the greatest thanks to my dear wife, Sarah, who has been a source of encouragement, laughter, and hope in this educational journey. You are my greatest cheerleader and advocate. You make me want to be a better person each day I am with you and nothing I ever accomplish will compare to the value I place in our marriage. I would like to thank my two children, Anna and Patrick, for the continual inspiration and joy you bring to my life. As a parent, it is my responsibility to provide learning experiences for you to grow into a productive adult. Little did I realize that in this process of parenthood that I would be the one who learned most. You both are now my greatest teachers and I consider myself blessed to learn from you. I want to express appreciation to the faculty of the Auburn University College of Education who have provided a rich framework for learning at the highest levels. I would like to express particular thanks to members of my committee. Specifically I want to thank Dr. Cindy Reed, my chair, for her encouragement and being a wonderful professional role model. I would like to thank Dr. Margaret Ross for her patience and guidance in understanding data analysis. I would like to thank Dr. Ellen Reames for her continued example of commitment to children. iv I extend a special thanks to Dr. Tony Thacker in the Alabama State Department of Education for his help in this process. I wish to thank Eric Hirsch for his invaluable help in obtaining the data used for the research. Finally, to my friends and colleagues in the Opelika City Schools family and the West Auburn Baptist Church family who have been a constant encouragement as I complete this journey. As a mere man I realize that I stand on the shoulders of giants at both school and church. v Table of Contents Abstract .................................................................................................................................. ii Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................. iii List of Tables .......................................................................................................................... ix List of Figures .......................................................................................................................... x Chapter One. Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1 Background of Study .................................................................................................... 1 The North Carolina Teacher Working Conditions Initiative .......................................... 5 The Alabama Take 20 Teacher Working and Learning Conditions Survey .................... 5 Purpose of the Study ..................................................................................................... 6 Research Questions ...................................................................................................... 6 Significance of the Study .............................................................................................. 7 Assumptions of the Study ............................................................................................. 7 Limitations ................................................................................................................... 7 Definitions ................................................................................................................... 8 Chapter Two. Review of the Literature ................................................................................... 10 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 10 No Child Left Behind ................................................................................................. 14 Adequate Yearly Progress........................................................................................... 16 vi The Middle School ..................................................................................................... 18 History ............................................................................................................ 18 The Middle School Movement ........................................................................ 19 Characteristics of the Middle School ............................................................... 21 Criticism of the Middle School........................................................................ 22 Principal?s Impact on the School................................................................................. 23 Instructional Leadership ............................................................................................. 24 School Vision ................................................................................................. 26 Sharing Leadership ......................................................................................... 26 Leading a Learning Community ...................................................................... 27 Using Data to Make Instructional Decisions .................................................... 27 Monitoring Curriculum and Instruction ........................................................... 28 The Impact of Leadership on School Climate.............................................................. 28 School Leadership and its Impact on Student Achievement and AYP ......................... 29 Leadership in the Middle School................................................................................. 30 Teacher Retention ....................................................................................................... 31 Teacher Stayers, Leavers, and Movers ........................................................................ 32 Alabama Teacher Movement ...................................................................................... 34 Summary .................................................................................................................... 35 Chapter Three. Methods ......................................................................................................... 36 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 36 Research Questions .................................................................................................... 36 Instrument .................................................................................................................. 37 vii Validity and Reliability ................................................................................... 38 Content Validity .................................................................................. 38 Construct Validity ............................................................................... 40 Reliability ............................................................................................ 40 Participants ................................................................................................................. 41 Procedures .................................................................................................................. 41 Data Source ................................................................................................................ 42 Data Analysis ............................................................................................................. 44 Summary .................................................................................................................... 44 Chapter Four. Results ............................................................................................................. 45 Participants ................................................................................................................. 46 Inferential Results ....................................................................................................... 52 Teacher Perception of Leadership and Student Achievement ........................... 52 Teacher Perception of Leadership and Future Intentions to Teach ................... 53 Teacher Perception of Leadership Among Elementary, Middle, and High Schools ........................................................................................................... 54 Summary .................................................................................................................... 56 Chapter Five. Conclusions, Limitations, and Future Research ................................................ 57 Teacher Perception of Leadership and Student Achievement ...................................... 58 Teacher Perception of Leadership and Future Intentions to Teach ............................... 59 Teacher Perception of Leadership Among Elementary, Middle, and High Schools ....................................................................................................................... 59 Implications ................................................................................................................ 61 School Climate................................................................................................ 62 viii Instructional Leadership .................................................................................. 64 Mentoring ....................................................................................................... 65 Limitations ................................................................................................................. 66 Areas for Future Research .......................................................................................... 67 Summary .................................................................................................................... 69 References ............................................................................................................................. 70 Appendix A. Permission to Use Take 20 Data ........................................................................ 81 Appendix B. Take 20 Survey Instrument ................................................................................ 83 Appendix C. Auburn University Institutional Review Board (IRB) Approval ........................112 ix List of Tables Table 1, Participant Characteristics by Type of School ........................................................... 47 Table 2, Participant Characteristics by Total Years in Education ............................................ 48 Table 3, Participant Characteristics by Highest Degree Earned ............................................... 49 Table 4, Participant Characteristics by Middle School Total Years in Education .................... 50 Table 5, Participant Characteristics by Middle School Highest Degree Earned ....................... 51 Table 6, Participant Characteristics by All Middle School Future Intentions ........................... 52 Table 7, Descriptive Statistics for Middle School Teacher Perception and AYP ..................... 53 Table 8, Descriptive Statistics for Teacher Perceptions and School Type ................................ 55 x List of Figures Figure 1, The Impact of School Leadership ............................................................................ 13 1 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION This research study will examine the effects of Alabama middle school leadership with respect to student achievement and teacher attrition. This chapter provides a brief synopsis of background information, describes the significance of the project, as well as assumptions, limitations, and definitions pertinent to the study. Background of the Study Successful schools in the twenty-first century must have effective principals for sustained student success. Jackson and Davis (2000) cite that the most important agent in high-achieving schools is the principal. This research is consistent with other studies (Clark & Clark, 1994; Useem, Christman, Gold, & Simon, 1997; Valentine, Clark, Hackmann, & Petzko, 2004). Leithwood and Riehl (as cited in Clark & Clark, 2007) found that school leadership had significant effects on student learning. The study further concluded that the effects of leadership were second only to the quality of the curriculum and teachers? instruction. Many definitions are found for effective school leadership. The National Association of Secondary School Principals (2007) indicate highly effective principals: demonstrate awareness of knowledge skills and attitudes needed to effectively lead teaching and learning; have experienced licensure programs that builds attitudes that effectively lead people; engages in continuous professional development; builds and maintains a professional learning community; 2 demonstrates knowledge of youth development appropriate to the school level served; and creates a learning culture within the school. Walker (1990) identified key skills that make exemplary school leaders. Among the more pragmatic elements are strong communication skills?both verbal and nonverbal, effective organizational skills, high visibility around the school?s campus, the ability to empathize, a great sense of humor, and an overarching concern for all students? welfares. The logic of effective leadership ?is that an orderly school environment, that is efficient and well managed, provides the preconditions for enhanced student learning? (Hopkins, 2003, p. 1). Effective school leaders recognize teaching and learning as a critical focus of the school, communicate the school?s mission and vision clearly to all stakeholders, establish an atmosphere of trust and collaboration, and emphasize professional development (Bauck, 1987; George & Grebing, 1992; Weller, 1999). A major challenge to American education is the growing problem of teacher attrition?a problem that manifests itself in diminishing teacher quality and a failure to close the student achievement gap (National Commission on Teaching and America?s Future, 2007). Teacher movement within the workforce, including teachers who leave the field altogether, affects not only those leaving, but also the institutional stability of the schools, the demographics of the teacher workforce, and the qualifications of the workforce (National Center for Education Statistics, 2005). Recent statistics indicate the trend is not favorable. Over 90 percent of teachers hired today are replacements for teachers who have left for reasons other than retirement (Ingersoll, 2002a). Forty-six percent of new teachers leave education within the first five years of service (Ingersoll, 2002b). By 2013, it is estimated that 3.5 million new teachers will need to be hired to 3 support the public school enrollment projects and to replace retiring teachers (Hull, 2004). In the middle grades, teacher shortages tend to be even more pronounced than other certification levels (Thornton, 2004). Teachers leaving the profession cite many reasons for their departures. Ingersoll (2001) indicates that the level of support from a school?s leadership influences teachers? decisions to stay in the profession. Neophyte teachers, in particular, identify the importance of school leadership. Darin and Bacon (as cited in Ingwalson & Thompson, 2007) noted new teachers perceive building principals as a vital link in their success. Jackson and Davis (2000) emphasize that novice teacher scaffolding such as daily support and mentoring can greatly affect a teacher?s decision to continue teaching. School leadership and empowerment are essential in teacher retention. Hirsch, Emerick, Church, and Fuller (2007) identify effective leaders as those who provide sufficient planning time and also empower teachers in a trusting atmosphere will have schools that will be least susceptible to teacher attrition problems. The study also confirms that leadership roles of communicating vision, creating a positive and supportive atmosphere, and addressing teacher concerns about teacher climate influenced retention decisions. ?Evidence was found to support this emphasis on leadership. While all working conditions were significantly correlated with teachers? future employment plans, leadership had the strongest correlations with whether or not teachers intended to stay in their current schools at all school levels? (p. 15). Teaching at the middle level has its unique challenges. Young people between the ages of 10 and 15 undergo profound personal changes. Dissimilar rates of growth are common in all areas of development. Changes occur irregularly with no two adolescents entering puberty at the same rate. With these young adolescents, academic achievement is dependent upon other 4 developmental needs being met (National Middle School Association, 2003b). The middle school movement attempts to address some of these issues. George and Alexander (1993) believe that the dominant educational rationale for the middle school concept has been its appropriateness and potential to serve middle school age students. For middle school students to be successful, middle schools must be successful. This involves an examination of total school programs including curricula, pedagogies, and programs that are based on the developmental level and interests of students (National Middle School Association, 2003b). Part of this element involves both hiring and retaining teachers who want to be in the middle grades education. This places a great responsibility on school leadership to support teachers at the middle level as student success is influenced by principals? decisions and support of employees. This is illustrated in the 2004 North Carolina Teacher Working Conditions Initiative in which the leadership domain was the single greatest predictor of AYP status (Hirsch, 2004). Hirsch (2004) further notes: ?For every one point increase on the Working Conditions Survey results in the area of leadership, middle schools were 6.7 times more likely to achieve AYP? (p. 7). For schools to be successful in responding to the developmental needs of students, research indicates that middle level principals must continue to act as both instructional leaders and enablers of transformational middle schools (Valentine, Trimble, and Whitaker, 1997). Jalango and Heider (2006) found the nexus of student achievement and teacher attrition by noting: Evidently, treating teachers with respect, supporting their professional development, and creating communities of learners in both the student and the teacher populations characterized schools that were successful in promoting high levels of literacy in their students. Research findings such as these make it clear that, when it comes to teacher attrition, the nation needs to move beyond alarming statistics, predicted teacher shortages, 5 and general hand wringing. Attracting and keeping good teachers is an ?inside-out? operation, one that requires educational institutions to become better work places and environments that foster professional development. (p. 380) The North Carolina Teacher Working Conditions Initiative North Carolina was the first state to institute a teacher working conditions survey. The survey was first given in 2002 and was then succeeded in 2004 and 2006. Teachers were asked questions about time, facilities and resources, empowerment, leadership, and professional development. All of these domains have shown to have an impact on teacher retention and more importantly, whether students learn (Hirsch, 2004). Under Governor Mike Easley?s guidance, a statewide Teacher Working Conditions Survey was implemented that asked teachers and principals directly about ways their schools could be improved. With the assumption that good working conditions mean good student learning conditions, the initiative was executed and results came in from each school in the state. The Alabama Take 20 Teacher Working and Learning Conditions Survey Other states began to follow North Carolina?s lead in recognizing the value of teacher working conditions. Alabama was among those states. In an effort to recruit, retain, and support effective educators, Governor Bob Riley worked in conjunction with the Alabama State Department of Education and other stakeholders to create the Take 20: Alabama Teaching and Learning Conditions Survey. This survey was developed to utilize the responses from teachers and administrators to help inform school, district, and statewide policy decisions. This survey was given in January and February of 2008 to all educators in Alabama. Anonymity was 6 provided to all participants. Almost 30,000 Alabama educators participated in the Take 20 survey. Individual schools with at least a 40 percent participation rate received data. The Purpose of the Study This study was designed to explore the influence of leadership in Alabama middle schools and its effects on teacher job satisfaction. Using the Take 20 survey, the study will examine how middle grades leadership affects student learning. The study will also examine the extent to which these issues affect Alabama middle school teachers? job satisfaction and their intent to remain in their present professions. Research Questions The following research questions were posed: ? With respect to student achievement, what relationship, if any, exists between Alabama middle school teachers? perception of leadership in schools that made Adequate Yearly Progress and teachers who work in schools that failed to make Adequate Yearly Progress? ? What relationship, if any, exists between how middle school teachers view leadership and teacher job satisfaction and their willingness to remain in the current work setting? ? Do teachers in Alabama middle schools teachers differ in their perceptions of leadership when compared to elementary and high school teachers? 7 Significance of the Study This study provides information on the impact of middle school leadership on teachers? job satisfaction, and consequently student achievement. Hirsch (2006) recommended further research on teaching and learning conditions (such as leadership) to facilitate school, district, and state improvement planning and reform. Since the middle grades has a severe level of attrition among all grade levels, it is imperative that policy-makers examine how leaders influence student learning and the extent to which practitioners will stay in the field of education. On a broader scale, the study contributes to the body of literature on how leadership influences student learning in Alabama middle schools. Assumptions of the Study It is assumed that the 2008 Take 20: Alabama Teaching and Learning Conditions Survey completed by Alabama educators provide a valid measure of teacher job satisfaction. Limitations The following were limitations to the study: 1. While this focus of this study is on middle schools in Alabama, not all middle grades schools may practice the middle school concept, which may cloud the meaning of what a middle school is. 2. The Take 20 survey yielded far fewer negative responses that would occur in a normal statistical distribution of process. 8 3. Conditions under which the teacher took the survey may have also had an impact on the rate of return of the survey or the response items. Definitions These are some of the terms used in this study: Leadership: Leadership is one subset of the test instrument that measures the perception of the effectiveness of the school?s principal. Middle School: A school usually including grades 6-8, 5-8, or 7-8. The purpose of the middle school organization is to help early adolescents make the transition from elementary school to high school (George and Alexander, 1993). Take 20 Alabama Teaching and Learning Conditions Survey: Survey instrument designed to analyze teachers? perceptions of their workplaces. The survey includes domains of school leadership, teacher responsibility, facilities and resources, time, and professional development. Other survey items include future professional plans, demographic information, and mentoring opportunities available to teachers. Student Achievement: For purposes in this study, student achievement will be measured by the school?s ability to make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) as defined in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Teacher Attrition: The loss of a teacher in a given academic year via retirement, non- renewal, resignation, or death. Teacher Leaver: A teacher who plans on leaving the field of education altogether. Teacher Migration: The loss of a teacher in a school in a given year due to their relocation to another school. 9 Teacher Mover: A teacher who plans on leaving the school or district as soon as possible but continue working in education. Teacher Stayer: A teacher who plans to work in their current school either as long as possible or until a better opportunity comes along. 10 CHAPTER TWO REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduction Education plays a vital role in the United States? global economic leadership in the current century. Consequently, exhaustive efforts should be made to recruit and retain the most talented educators for sustained success. Fullan (2003) acknowledges that in order to produce and sustain effective public schools, dedicated and competent teachers working together are needed?without them efforts are futile. American business leaders recognize this dilemma and note that nothing is more vital to America?s sustainability than ensuring that the best teachers are attracted to and remain in American public schools (The Teaching Commission, 2004). A school?s principal plays a major role in America?s academic successes. School leadership matters in today?s educational environment. Successful schools in the new century must have effective principals who have a vision for student academic achievement. The principal has been identified as the single-most important predictor for an effective school (Jackson & Davis, 2000). Williamson and Blackburn (2009) note: No task is more important for a principal than to ensure that every student receives a high-quality education. The ability to work with teachers?those who are successful and those who struggle?to improve their instructional capacity is key to a successful principalship. (p. 45) The modern principal, however, has enormous obstacles to overcome. Students? academic achievement is paramount in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Principals are now 11 in precarious positions due to the high stakes emphasis on school accountability and student academic improvement. If school leaders fail to acknowledge the reality of improving school performance, they risk losing their jobs (Jackson, 2000). Eric Hirsch, as cited by Thacker, Bell, and Schargel (2009) confirmed three tenets concerning schools? leadership influence and its outcomes on learning and school culture: 1. Teacher working conditions are student learning conditions. 2. Teacher empowerment is highly correlated with their perception of the quality of leadership in the school. 3. Supportive leadership is the most important determinant of whether a teacher will stay in school (p. 37) Given these foundational components, this research explores the extent that school leadership influences student learning as well as rates of attrition in Alabama middle schools. The conceptual model (Figure 1) outlines the impact of school leadership: 12 Figure Caption Figure 1. The impact of school leadership and its effects on a school?s ability to make Adequate Yearly Progress, student achievement, and teacher attrition. 13 Negative View of Leadership Positive View of Leadership School makes AYP Less Teacher Attrition Increased Student Achievement School does not make AYP More Teacher Attrition Decreased Student Achievement Teacher Working Conditions = Student Learning Conditions School Staff Morale Impact of School Leadership 14 No Child Left Behind The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) has dramatically shaped the way practitioners operate schools. On January 8, 2002, NCLB was signed into law. The purpose of this legislation is ?to ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education and reach, at a minimum, proficiency on challenging State academic achievement standards and state academic assessments? (p. 15) The Act seeks to achieve these purposes by outlining twelve measures. They are: (1) ensuring that high-quality academic assessments, accountability systems, teacher preparation and training, curriculum, and instructional materials are aligned with challenging State academic standards so that students, teachers, parents, and administrators can measure progress against common expectations for student academic achievement; (2) meeting the educational needs of low-achieving children in our Nation's highest- poverty schools, limited English proficient children, migratory children, children with disabilities, Indian children, neglected or delinquent children, and young children in need of reading assistance; (3) closing the achievement gap between high- and low-performing children, especially the achievement gaps between minority and nonminority students, and between disadvantaged children and their more advantaged peers; (4) holding schools, local educational agencies, and States accountable for improving the academic achievement of all students, and identifying and turning around low-performing schools that have failed to provide a high-quality education to their students, while 15 providing alternatives to students in such schools to enable the students to receive a high- quality education; (5) distributing and targeting resources sufficiently to make a difference to local educational agencies and schools where needs are greatest; (6) improving and strengthening accountability, teaching, and learning by using State assessment systems designed to ensure that students are meeting challenging State academic achievement and content standards and increasing achievement overall, but especially for the disadvantaged; (7) providing greater decisionmaking authority and flexibility to schools and teachers in exchange for greater responsibility for student performance; (8) providing children an enriched and accelerated educational program, including the use of schoolwide programs or additional services that increase the amount and quality of instructional time; (9) promoting schoolwide reform and ensuring the access of children to effective, scientifically based instructional strategies and challenging academic content; (10) significantly elevating the quality of instruction by providing staff in participating schools with substantial opportunities for professional development; (11) coordinating services under all parts of this title with each other, with other educational services, and, to the extent feasible, with other agencies providing services to youth, children, and families; and (12) affording parents substantial and meaningful opportunities to participate in the education of their children (p. 15-16) 16 While bold in its efforts, critics argue that NCLB may actually facilitate a decrease in the quality of student learning. Barkley (2006) indicates students with disabilities are negatively affected because of the emphasis of standardized tests. Since many special needs students have tailored individual educational plans (IEPs), Barkley (2006) notes: ?given the NCLB?s insistence on a single measur e to assess progress, the function of the educational plans comes into question. That is to say, if students with disabilities are required to take standardized tests but are denied access during test taking to the accommodations made within the IEPs, implementing those plans in the classroom becomes futile?they need assistance in various ways and NCLB should not punish them for what they cannot change. (p. 8-9) Adequate Yearly Progress Within the framework of NCLB, the Act requires each state to include an accountability plan that houses rewards and sanctions for its public schools? student achievement and Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). The Alabama State Department of Education (2008a) notes that NCLB describes AYP as ?whether a school or school system has met its annual accountability goals. AYP is ?what the school or school system did this year?? (p. 4). In Alabama, the factors that determine AYP are participation rate of the students on standardized testing, annual measurable objectives in reading and mathematics, and other indicators. Other indicators are attendance rates for elementary and middle schools and graduation rates for Alabama high schools (Alabama Department of Education, 2008a). All students, schools, and school systems must be proficient in all indicators by school year 2013-2014 (Alabama Department of Education, 2008a). Alabama defines proficiency as ?Level III-Meets Academic Content Standards? (Alabama Department of Education, 2008a). Since all grade levels have their own annual 17 measureable objectives, Alabama uses a Proficiency Index as a reporting tool that identifies the percent of proficient students across grades and helps to determine AYP status. The Alabama State Department of Education (2008a) states that the proficiency index includes the following: (1) Separate starting points and growth trajectories for each grade and subject, (2) a comparison of percent proficient for each grade/subject to the annual measurable objective and calculation of a difference score for each grade/subject, (3) a procedure to weight the scores based on the number of students in each grade (i.e., a weighted constant), and (4) determination of a proficiency index in each subject by summing across grades the products of the difference scores and the weighted constants. A proficiency index score of zero or higher indicates that a group made its goal. (p. 13) A Proficiency Index of zero or more indicates a group made AYP. Students who score in Levels III and IV (above proficient count as 1.0 toward proficiency while students scoring in Level II (below proficiency) count as 0.5 toward proficiency (Alabama Department of Education, n.d.). The Alabama State Department of Education (2008a) is required by NCLB to include all students and subgroups when determining AYP status. In addition to grouping all students in a school, proficiency scores for the following subgroups must also be calculated if the population of the group exceeds 40: special education students, students with limited-English proficiency, economically disadvantaged students, and major racial groups (American Indian/Alaskan Native, Asian/Pacific Islander, Black, Hispanic, and White. Whereas NCLB uses AYP to describe whether or not a school has made its annual goals for a specific year, the term School Improvement is used to describe whether a school or school system has met its accountability goals over time (Alabama Department of Education, 2008a). A 18 school may be identified for School Improvement if it fails to make AYP for two consecutive years in the same component (reading, mathematics, or additional academic indicator) (Alabama Department of Education, 2008a). Once a school is in School Improvement, a delay provision occurs. The provision notes that a school that makes AYP one year does not advance to the next level of improvement, but retains its current improvement status in the component area (such as reading, mathematics, or additional academic indicators). The succeeding year?s results will then determine if the school is able to abandon the School Improvement label (Alabama Department of Education, 2005). All schools, including middle schools, are impacted by AYP and the prospect of school improvement. In 2009, 14 Alabama middle schools failed to make Adequate Yearly Progress (Alabama Department of Education, 2008b). The Middle School The middle school is typically characterized by a school containing grades six through eight, five through eight, or seven and eight together (George & Alexander, 1993). George and Alexander (1993) cite the intention of the middle school is to ?help the early adolescents of these grades make a smooth transition from elementary to high school and from childhood to adolescence (p. 23). History The development of the American middle school concept has been a long journey. George, Stevenson, Thomason, and Beane (1992), note that the driving demand for university study and preparation led to the evolution of the American high school by the middle of the 20th 19 century. As school districts began to grapple with this notion, many junior high schools assimilated characteristics of high schools; but by design, only a selected few students would be sent to be educated at the high school and collegiate levels. With demand for connectedness with the high school, school districts recognized the need to allow the junior high to be a replica of the high school. Howard and Stoumbis (as cited in George, et al., 1992) note junior high school configuration grew popular and numbers of these kinds of schools soared after World War Two from a few hundred at the early part of the century to over 5,000 by 1960. Lounsbury (as cited in George, et al., 1992) indicates the ?influence of higher education, the need to deal with the growing masses of immigrants, and burgeoning school enrollments following the two world wars all contributed to the increasing number of junior high schools? (p. 4). George (1993) also cites the growth of the junior high plan resulted from school systems? dissatisfaction with the grade figurations of elementary (grades one through eight) and high school (grades nine through twelve) that characterized most schools in the twentieth century. Overcrowding of elementary and high schools resulted in many students in grades seven through nine being moved into new buildings separated from younger and older students. America?s organization of schools changed dramatically over a 40-year span as 80% of students in 1920 attended an elementary/high school configuration; but, in 1960, 80% of students attended a junior high setting (George & Alexander, 1993). The Middle School Movement By the 1960s, many junior high schools had turned into miniature high schools (Johnson, Dupuis, Musial, & Hall, 1994). Anfara (2001) notes that educators began to question the appropriateness of junior high organization with respect to the psychological, social, mental, 20 emotional, and physical needs of the students they served. Aided by sociological and psychological research of the 1950s and 1960s, educators began drawing distinctions between the aforementioned needs of junior high students and those of high school students (Anfara, 2001). George and Alexander (1993) indicate that educators at that time did not want to change the grade configurations completely, but did advocate change in the areas of departmentalization to block scheduling and smaller student grouping arrangements as well as broader choice in the areas of exploratory courses and special interest activities. In 1961, Grant, Noyce, Patterson, and Robertson (as cited in George, et al., 1992) suggested that the junior high of the era was a hybrid institution with an identity crisis in which seventh and eighth grades maintained characteristics of elementary schools while ninth grade was strongly influenced by high schools. They argued the ideal junior high schools should contain ?moderate size; block-of-time instruction; flexible scheduling; teachers prepared for a devoted to teaching young adolescents; and modern instructional techniques (p. 5). The authors further predicted the future of such schools would contain student groupings designed without reference to chronological number of years on school; no bell schedule, rich in guidance services, and differentiation of instructions for students. The middle school concept was being developed further by the mid-1960s and by the 1970s, Anfara (2001) describes ?most of the eastern United States had established programs and facilities which reflected the increased knowledge of the educational needs of young people 10 to 14 years of age? (p. x). Middle school growth continued to explode as it increased from 2,080 in 1970 to 10,944 in 1998 to almost 12,000 by 2002 (National Association of Elementary School Principals, 2004; Zepeda and Mayers, 2002). While the basis for the middle school concept was 21 rooted in acknowledgment of the needs of learners at this age, inconsistencies resulted as Anfara (2001) observed, ?some school districts never fully adopted the idea of a middle school and retained many of their junior highs alongside middle schools that were newly created? (p. x). The Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development (1989) placed unparalleled significance on middle level education by noting: Middle grade schools?junior high, intermediate, and middle schools?are potentially society?s most powerful force to recapture millions of youth adrift, and help every young person thrive during early adolescence. Yet all too often these schools exacerbate the problems of young adolescents. (p. 8) Given this powerful responsibility, Jackson and Davis (2000) suggest that schools must provide the building blocks of adolescent development and preparation for adult life, yet many schools? even middle schools?have failed to meet these developmental needs. Characteristics of the Middle School Eichhorn (1966) describes the vision of early middle school environments as having flexibility to foster student responsibility and independence, close relationships between students and teachers, and opportunities to foster socialization between peers. He further emphasizes that the curricular rigor should include components of both an analytical (mathematics, language, science, and social studies) and a physical/cultural (fine arts, practical arts, physical education, and cultural studies) base. Modern middle school characteristics have built upon these foundations. Considering the developmentally appropriate characteristics of middle school children, today?s exemplary middle schools? rationales often imply at least one of the following features as trademarks in effective middle schools: teaching teams, grade spans between five (or six) through eight, exploratory course opportunities, individual small-group instruction for 22 remediation, teacher guidance or advisory, flexible scheduling, and a functional curriculum (George and Alexander, 1993). Furthermore, Armstrong (2006) recognizes twelve practices found in the most successful middle schools: a safe school climate, small learning communities, personal adult relationships, engaged learning, positive role models, metacognitive strategies, expressive arts activities, a health and wellness focus, an emotionally meaningful curriculum, students? increased role in decision making, honoring and respecting student voices, and facilitating social and emotional growth. Among these practices, the interdisciplinary team arrangement of students stands out as the middle school movement?s most significant contribution to educational organization (Dickinson & Erb, 1997). George (2009) highlights this important component noting, ?Virtually every model or set of recommendations for reform of middle and high school education includes some version of teacher teamwork? (p. 8). Criticism of the Middle School Evidence exists supporting the middle school rationale and model (National Middle School Association, 2003a; National Middle School Association, 2003b). Criticisms of the model have been amplified since the increased attention to student academic achievement following the enactment of No Child Left Behind (Armstrong, 2006). Citing mostly standardized test scores, middle school reform efforts have been questioned by Juvonen, Le, Kaganoff, Augustine, and Constant (2004) which suggest social and physical developmental factors are poor reasons to begin a new phase of schooling. Yeche (2005) attributes the decline in academic achievement of young adolescents in recent years to the middle school movement. Supporters of the middle school argue that the emphasis NCLB has placed on standardized test scores are not appropriate for middle school children (Armstrong, 2006). Armstrong (2006) explains: 23 NCLB is essentially nondevelopmental for all levels of education. It requires uniformly high test scores throughout the K-12 curriculum without regard to developmental changes at different stages of childhood and adolescence. This is a fundamental mistake. Middle schools, or something very much like them, are needed to provide students in early adolescence with an environment that can help them negotiate the impact of puberty on the intellectual, social, and emotional lives. (p. 113) The Principal?s Impact on the School Howard Gardner (1996) describes a leader as ?an individual (or, rarely, a set of individuals) who significantly affect the thoughts, feelings, and/or behaviors of a significant number of individuals? (p. ix). The school, however, is a unique organization that Greenfield (1995) recognizes as a special challenge to administrators: Because of the nature of the school organization and its demand environment, school administrators rely extensively on leadership as the primary vehicle for influencing teachers and others. The demand environment in a school is complex and presents the administrator with a continuous stream of stimuli, most of which cannot be predicted and are of brief duration. (p. 79) The principalship has been defined by political, managerial, and instructional roles that must be balanced within the context of schools (Cuban, 1988). There is no mistake that the principal is perceived as the leader of the school, but how a principal leads is important. Many leadership theories abound that influence educational leadership such as transactional and transformational (Burns, 1978; Bass & Avolio, 1994), situational (Blanchard, Zigarmi, & Zigarmi, 1985) and distributed (Gronn, 2000; Spillane, Halverson, & Diamond, 2001). While these have helped to shaped school leadership, Marzano, Waters, and McNulty 24 (2005) cite the most popular theme in educational leadership over the last twenty years has been instructional leadership. Williamson and Blackburn (2009) note this important role as: A school leader?s most visible role is the manager of the day-to-day operations of a school. A less visible but far more important role is that of an instructional leader who works with teachers and other staff members to ensure that every student has a high- quality, rigorous academic experience. (p. 60) Instructional Leadership Hallinger (2005) describes the 1980s as an era in which there was a growing interest in the leadership development in schools to drive student achievement. Hallinger (2005) continues that the emphasis on performance standards have created increased expectations for principals to function as instructional leaders. Twenty-first century accountability demands, such as national and state expectations for all students to achieve mastery of the curriculum has led to the evolution of instructional leadership as the primary role of the principal (Stronge, Richard, & Catano, 2008). Leithwood, Jantzi, and Steinbach (1999), define instructional leadership as ?the behaviours of teachers as they engage in activities directly affecting the growth of students? (p. 8). Hoerr (1996) refines the definition by adding that instructional leadership is one of school collegiality in which shared power with the principal and teacher are paramount. In a comprehensive review of research on the topic, Hallinger and Heck (1996) indicate the most frequently used model of instructional leadership is that used by Hallinger and Murphy (1985) which notes three dimensions of the instructional leadership role of the principal: defining the school?s mission, managing the instructional program, and promoting a positive school learning climate. Hallinger (2005) describes defining the school?s mission as, ?the principal?s role in 25 working with staff to ensure that the school has clear, measurable, time-based goals focused on the academic progress of students? (p. 225). Cuban (1984) asserts that each school district must clarify its instructional leadership roles; the results include increased curriculum uniformity. Hallinger (2005) describes managing the instructional program as an integral part of stimulating, supervising, and monitoring teaching and learning at the school. This includes the principal having expertise in teaching and learning, a commitment to school improvement, and being immersed in the instructional programs at school. Flath (1989) maintains that this visible, clear support can significantly affect educational change. Hallinger (2005) further describes the third component of instructional leadership (promoting a positive learning climate) by traits such as protecting instructional time, promoting professional development, maintaining high visibility, providing incentives for teachers, and providing incentives for learning that are aligned with purpose and practice. Stronge, et al., (2008) reaffirm these qualities and further state that effective principals, ?support instructional activities and programs by modeling expected behaviors and consistently prioritizing instructional concerns day-to-day. They strive to become a learner among learners. Involvement in curriculum, instruction, and assessment are crucial to the idea of instructional leadership? (p. 9). Blase and Blase (2002) describe teachers? perceptions of the most effective principal-teacher interactions as those relationships that promote reflection about the teaching practice and the promotion of professional growth. Many other models of instructional leadership exist (Andrews and Soder, 1987; Bossert, Dwyer, Rowan, & Lee, 1982; Leithwood, Begley, & Cousins, 1990), but researchers acknowledge that there is no one single definition of instructional leadership (Flath, 1989; Lashway, 2003). 26 While a definition may be elusive, characteristics exist that may gauge the impact of an adept instructional leader. Stronge, et al. (2008) identify five goals that instructional leaders must master in order to be identified as an effective school leader: ? Building and sustaining a school vision; ? Sharing leadership; ? Leading a learning community; ? Using data to make instructional decisions; and ? Monitoring curriculum and instruction. School Vision Cotton (2003) and Marzano et al. (2005) cite that principals of high-performing schools communicate to all stakeholders that learning is the most important mission of the school. Manasse (1985) also identifies effective instructional leaders as having clear visions for their schools. They have confidence that their schools can meet these goals (Cotton, 2003). Scheurich (1998) further notes that such leaders have a passionate vision that all students can academically succeed. Sharing Leadership Effective principals acknowledge that an isolated approach to meeting instructional goals is virtually impossible (Hargreaves & Fink, 2003). Principals who distribute leadership across their schools sustain improvements over time (Hargreaves & Fink, 2003). Marks and Printy (2003) recognized the benefit of sharing leadership in a two-fold manner: the resulting collaboration leads to more principal-teacher shared input on instructional and curricular matters as well as less burn out of principals. 27 Leading a Learning Community Lashway (2003) notes that, ?today?s school leaders must define themselves as learners, not just doers, constantly scanning the environment for new ideas, tools, and solutions, and reflecting on the implications (p. 8). The concept of becoming the ?lead lerner? is embodied by 2009 NASSP Middle School Principal of the Year, Ray Landers, who stated in Kinney (2009): I think first and foremost, I?m the instructional leader. But I don?t have all the answers, so I?m also the chief learner. I want to be out there on the cutting edge of learning new practices, new strategies, and new techniques in dealing with challenges, and I turn to research to discover what best practices and strategies will be successful with our middle school students. (p. 30) Furthermore, teachers and students benefit when principals function as learning leaders rather than instructional leaders in the schools (DuFour, 2002). Using Data to Make Instructional Decisions Stronge et al. (2008) emphasize that ?Many proponents of school improvements stress the importance of data-driven decision making. Today, school districts collect demographic, achievement, instructional, and perceptual data in an effort to improve teaching and learning? (p. 10). Hoerr (2008, December/2009, January) suggests principals should give more consideration on what is measured to inform policy. Greater gains in student achievement are reflected when principals facilitate analysis of data with teachers (Zmuda, Kuklis, & Kline, 2004). When profiling principals of schools with high at-risk student populations, Schargel, Thacker, and Bell (2007) cite, ?The principals?firmly believe that data analysis underpins and guides their campaigns to meet the needs of all students (p. 41). 28 Monitoring Curriculum and Instruction Cotton (2003) indicates that strong instructional leaders are familiar with the curriculum and instructional practices. Effective principals must be able to discern a high quality of teaching and share that knowledge with teachers; this can only be done by spending time in classrooms observing teachers (Fink and Resnick, 2001). This is important because principals are in a good position to support teacher effectiveness through observations and dialogue with teachers (Cooper, Ehrensal, & Broome, 2005). The Impact of Leadership on School Climate Hirsch (2004) reports that teacher working conditions are synonymous with student learning conditions. His research demonstrates that teacher working conditions are powerful predictors of student achievement, influence teacher retention rates, and reflect actual school conditions. Hirsch (2004) notes, ?Leadership is highly correlated with all working conditions?Further, a statistically significant and strong connection was documented between teachers? overall perceptions of working conditions in their school and their views of leadership? (p. 23-24). In addressing school culture, Thacker et al. (2009) states: Some of the leader?s values and characteristics become rules that are followed by the staff. These values form the basis of the school?s culture and can become important factors that generate long-term performance of the school. The school?s performance is determined by its culture and all the topics concerning school improvement. (p. 3-4) In terms of middle school leadership, school climate is critical. Keefe et al., (as cited in Valentine, Trimble, and Whitaker, 1997) describes effective middle level principals as being viewed by faculty as humane, democratic, and task driven; effective in staff relations and student interactions; and involving faculty in the planning and implementation of professional 29 development activities. To summarize the impact of teacher working conditions, North Carolina Governor Mike Easley has commented (Hirsch et al., 2007) that ?teacher working conditions are student learning conditions? (p. vii). School Leadership and its Impact on Student Achievement and AYP In a review of research, Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, and Wahlstrom (2004) cite important principal effects noting, ?Leadership is second only to classroom instruction among all school-related factors that contribute to what students learn at school? (p. 7). They further describe the direct impact on learning by stating: While the evidence shows small but significant effects of leadership actions on student learning across the spectrum of schools, existing research also shows that demonstrated effects of successful leadership are considerably greater in schools that are in more difficult circumstances. Indeed there are virtually no documented instances of troubled schools being turned around without intervention by a powerful leader. Many other factors may contribute to such turnarounds, but leadership is the catalyst. (p. 7) In a thorough meta-analysis investigation, Waters, Marzano, and McNulty (2003) found a substantial relationship between school leadership and student achievement yielded a correlation of 0.25. The study identified 21 key leadership responsibilities and correlated measures of student achievement in the original studies. The research indicates a 10% increase in student achievement where principals of these students moved one standard deviation higher in these leadership responsibilities than their peers. Principals, acting as the independent variables in schools, influence actions of teachers and student achievement (Hallinger & Murphy, 1985; Leithwood et al., 1990), although the impact may be indirect (Hallinger & Heck, 1996). This is accomplished through the principal?s 30 influence on the school?s climate (Mendro, 1998). Effective principals empower teachers to make their own decisions about the classroom instruction (Cotton, 2003). Cotton (2003) found, ?The most successful principals engage their staffs and constituents in participative decision making. They ensure that everyone involved has the information and training needed to make this process productive? (p. 69). Furthermore, Stronge et al. (2008) describe the impact principals have on student achievement: By hiring quality teachers and other staff members, supporting them in their work, fostering a robust climate for student achievement, providing resources for instruction, keeping the focus on teaching and learning, and a host of other important accomplishments, the principal does affect student achievement. (p. 140) Leadership in the Middle School The effect of the principal in middle schools is also significant. Hirsch (2004) revealed the importance of the principal on middle school student achievement as the single greatest predictor of AYP status in middle schools. Hirsch (2004) indicates, ?For every one point increase on the Working Conditions Survey results in the area of leadership, middle schools were 6.7 times more likely to achieve AYP? (p. 7). Clark and Clark (2007) note that student learning must be the middle school principal?s top priority. Student performance is related to goals principals set and how they spend their time (Clark & Clark, 2002). When a collaborative, learning-focused atmosphere exists that centers on instruction, student academic achievement is likely to occur (Jackson & Davis, 2000; Smylie, Lazarus, & Brownlee-Conyers, 1996). The contrast is also present when little collaboration on instructional matters occurs?student achievement declines (Smylie, et al., 1996). 31 Principals of highly effective middle schools are familiar with middle level practices and adolescent development (Valentine, et al., 2004). These principals place more value on middle school components such as interdisciplinary teaming, exploratory courses, and advisory programs and implemented such programs in their schools. ?Middle school educators have long recognized an essential truth about children?s learning: relationships matter? (Jackson & Davis, 2000. p. 121). Lee and Smith (1993) reveal that the degree to which students are engaged and motivated in school largely depends on the relationships they experience in school. Valentine et al. (2004) indicate that principals of highly successful schools have a school climate where teachers and principals trust and respect each other, have agreement on high expectations for student achievement, have a shared belief in efficacy of collaboration and decision making, and a commitment to collegial and individual learning. Clark and Clark (2007) stress the importance of how middle school principals view accountability. The authors note, ?The way in which they interpret accountability and apply it in the middle schools has a significant influence on student and adult learning (p. 58). When principals give balanced perspective, academic accountability, ?has the potential to support and expand opportunities for learning? (p. 58). These learning opportunities may only occur if teachers remain in the field of education, which has proven to be a difficult phenomenon over the past few years (National Center for Education Statistics, 2005). Teacher Retention Teacher mobility is a phenomenon that affects almost all schools each year. The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) (2005) indicates that the impact of teachers who enter, leave, and move within the workforce, ?affects not only the composition of teachers at 32 individual schools and the institutional stability of these schools but also the demographics and qualifications of the teacher workforce as a whole? (p. 1). Ingersoll (2002b) cites that, ?We wouldn?t have as many vacancies in core academic subjects if we weren?t so bad at keeping teachers in the profession? (p. 3). Cochran-Smith (2004) suggests that teacher retention, not recruitment, is the key in solving staffing issues in both urban and rural schools. Teacher Stayers, Leavers, and Movers In 2005, the National Center for Education Statistics (a division of the US Department of Education) published The Condition of Education. This mandated work includes an examination of the American teacher workforce movement. The NCES (2005) identified teachers who left the profession at the end of the school year as leavers, teachers who moved from one school to another as transfers, and teachers who remained in the same school as stayers. NCES (2005) indicates 16 percent of the teacher workforce was involved in turnover. Of this 16 percent, eight percent were transfers and another eight percent were leavers. Teachers who leave the profession present a dilemma for educators. Ingersoll (2002b) indicates that teacher turnover is significantly higher when compared to other occupations. In addition, Murnane and Steele (2007) report that increased numbers of college students are seeking job opportunities in fields other than education because of better financial incentives. Teachers with backgrounds in the areas of the sciences, technical education, and languages have more attractive employment opportunities (Macdonald, 1999). Ben Levin (2008) observes: Nothing is more important to the work of schools than capable and dedicated teachers?because good teaching is so important, finding and keeping quality educators 33 should be a preoccupation of every school, district, and government that is involved in education. (p. 223) In middle schools, teacher shortages are more often more pronounced than other certification levels (Thornton, 2004). The impact of effective teaching is without question. Marzano et al. (2005) compared highly effective schools and highly ineffective schools. They found that on the same test, a 70% difference existed those who passed the test in highly effective schools as opposed to highly ineffective schools. Evidence suggests that well-prepared, capable teachers have the largest effect on student learning (Darling-Hammond, 2000). The value of effective teachers is so vital that ?Effective teachers constitute a valuable human resource for schools?one that needs to be treasured and supported? (Darling-Hammond, 2003, p. 7). While costly to America?s school children, the inability to retain teachers has created a costly problem for American taxpayers. The National Commission on Teaching and America?s Future (NCTAF) (2007), estimates the annual cost of teacher turnover in public schools is over $7.3 billion. The Alliance for Excellent Education (2005) proposes a more conservative estimate with teacher attrition costing taxpayers $5 billion. The NCTAF (2007) estimate does not include teachers who move within the district during a given year, nor does it include any federal or state investments that may be lost when a teacher leaves. The NCTAF (2007) further underscores this issue as a national dilemma, ?It is draining resources, diminishing teacher quality, and undermining our ability to close the student achievement gap? (p. 1). While large-scale financial impacts are ominous, a breakdown of school system costs proves informative as well. A pilot study of teacher turnover and its costs in five school districts--Chicago, Illinois, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Granville, North Carolina, Jemez Valley, 34 New Mexico, and Santa Rosa, New Mexico?indicated burdensome financial costs to these systems (NCTAF, 2007). The study examined both small and large school districts and discovered: When a teacher leaves, the costs of recruiting, hiring, and training a replacement teacher are substantial. It is clear that thousands of dollars walk out the door when a teacher leaves. The cost per teacher leaver ranged from $4,366 in rural Jemez Valley to $17,872 in Chicago. The total cost of turnover in the Chicago Public Schools is over $86 million per year. (p. 3) Wagner, as cited by Macdonald (1993), predicted that as the American teacher workforce ages and more attractive employment opportunities are available, the rate of teacher attrition would grow. The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) (2005) confirms the United States? public school problems with retention by indicating that the problem is worsening. Teachers leaving public schools have increased from 5.6 percent in 1988 to 8.4 percent in 2005 (NCES, 2005). Alabama Teacher Movement In March and April of 2008, the Capital Survey Research Center (CSRC) conducted a public opinion poll on public attitudes about Alabama schools. Part of this survey included teacher input. Almost one-half of Alabama teachers leave the profession after the first five years (CSRC, 2008). The same survey shows that Alabama teachers indicate the major reasons for leaving the profession include a lack of time to prepare for classes, class size, paper work, and overall management of classroom issues. The three most important factors that would cause teachers to continue teachers are less bureaucracy/paperwork, administrative/parent support, and higher pay (CSRC, 2008). 35 Summary This chapter provided an overview of literature in the areas of student achievement as currently defined by No Child Left Behind legislation, a brief history and makeup of the middle school, and how leadership affects student achievement and teacher attrition. The framework in this chapter suggests there is a relationship between how principals affect teacher working conditions and ultimately student achievement. It also suggests that leadership influences teachers? willingness to continue working in their current schools or to leave the profession altogether, which also impacts student achievement. Middle school teachers are particularly vulnerable to this attrition (Thornton, 2004). The next chapter discusses the methodology used when investigating this study. 36 CHAPTER THREE METHODS Introduction Following a review of pertinent literature, this research study was developed to examine critical components of how middle school teachers in Alabama view their schools? principals. This study explored the existence of a relationship between teacher leadership perception and student academic achievement, the relationship between teacher leadership perception and teachers? willingness to continue working in the same school, and how middle school teachers differ in their views of their school?s principal when compared to elementary and high school teachers. The data used for this project are pre-existing data. Permission was granted from Dr. Tony Thacker (Appendix A), the Project Administrator for the Governor?s Commission on Quality Teaching and facilitator of the Take 20 Alabama Teaching and Learning Conditions Project, to use data collected from the Take 20: Alabama Teaching and Learning Conditions Survey (Appendix B). Research Questions The purpose of this study was to determine, as holistically as possible, the influence of Alabama middle school principals in the following areas: ? With respect to student achievement, what relationship, if any, exists between Alabama middle school teachers? perception of leadership in schools that made 37 ? Adequate Yearly Progress and teachers who work in schools that failed to make Adequate Yearly Progress? ? Is there a relationship between middle school teachers? perceptions of school leadership and their willingness to remain in the current work setting? ? Do teachers in Alabama middle schools teachers differ in their perceptions of leadership when compared to elementary and high school teachers? Instrument The Take 20: Alabama Teaching and Learning Conditions Survey was developed with the premise that the benefits of understanding teacher working conditions positively affect the following: student learning, teacher efficacy and motivation, teacher retention, and new teacher recruitment in hard-to-staff schools (Hirsh, Freitas & Villar, 2008). Hirsch, et al.(2008) add, ?To help ensure that all students thrive, teachers need to work in schools designed for success. Positive teaching conditions, where educators are supported and empowered, are essential to creating schools where teachers want to work and students can learn? (p. 3). The instrument was used to assess if the aforementioned conditions are present in Alabama schools. The Governor?s Commission on Quality Teaching in conjunction with the Alabama State Department and other stakeholder groups conducted the survey in January and February 2008 via anonymous online internet response. The New Teacher Center at the University of California at Santa Cruz administered the survey. The respondents included teachers, principals, assistant principals, and other educational professionals such as counselors, psychologists, social workers, and media specialists. 38 The Take 20 survey included ten questions with multiple subparts broken into six major sections: time, facilities and resources, decision-making, school leadership, professional development, and mentoring. The survey also contained questions regarding demography of the respondents including position held and years of experience. Hirsch et al. (2008) note: The survey instrument was developed by the New Teacher Center with input and guidance from a committee established by the Alabama Department of Education that included educators and other policymakers and stakeholders representing groups such as the Alabama Education Association, A+ Education Foundation, Alabama Association of School Boards, and School Superintendents of Alabama. A set of core, validated questions from previous teaching conditions surveys was utilized, while others were developed specifically for the state. (p. 3) Validity and Reliability Content Validity. The original instrument developed for the Take 20 initiative was based on the North Carolina Teacher Working Conditions Survey (Hirsch, et al., 2008). The survey was customized for administration in Alabama by educators and other stakeholders. The original survey was tested for content validity in 2001 by the North Carolina Professional Teaching Standards Commission. Hirsch (in press) cites that the agency: completed a literature review of the role of working conditions on teacher dissatisfaction and which of those conditions contributed to teacher mobility. The work, driven by analyses of state and national survey data from the National Center for Education Statistics? School and Staffing Survey, focused on areas that teachers identified as 39 conditions that drove their satisfaction and employment decisions, including administrative support, autonomy in making decisions, school safety, class size, time, etc. The NCPTSC created 30 state working conditions standards passed by the North Carolina State Board of Education (online at www.nccptsc.org) in five areas: time, empowerment, leadership, time, and facilities and resources. While the list is by no means exhaustive, those 30 standards served as the foundation for the first survey in North Carolina in 2002. The survey was designed to assess whether or not educators believed that those standards were in place in schools across the state. It is why every educator is assessed and the unit of analysis is the school. In 2004, the survey was expanded from a 39 question paper/pencil survey on a 1 to 6 scale to a 72 question online survey. Many of the items were ?reality? questions, drawn from the National Center for Education Statistics School and Staffing Survey, to see if teachers? reporting of issues such as non-instructional time and professional development received had an impact on their perceptions of whether supportive working conditions were in place. In 2004, a sample of educators was asked to rank on an ordinal scale the relevance and importance of each question on the 2004 instrument. Those questions were then compared to the factor analyses to verify the importance of a set of critical conditions in each area of the survey. The questions rated as most important also had the highest factor loads and most make up the battery of core questions still used in 2008 in Alabama and other states. Correlations were run between the perceptual and ?reality? questions on the survey to better understand teaching conditions. There were statistically significant and 40 meaningful correlations between teachers? perception of time and how much planning time they received and how many hours outside of the school day they worked. (p. 1-2) Construct validity. Hirsch (in press) identified five theoretical constructs (time, facilities and resources, professional development, empowerment, and school leadership) and performed factor analyses on the North Carolina instrument to establish construct validity for the Take 20 survey. Hirsch (in press) notes: Using principal components analysis and varimax rotation procedures, eigenvalues of one or greater were used as the criteria for factor extraction. In the Alabama Take 20 Survey, a three factor model accounted for the greatest total variance was indicated (a four and five factor model was also run), suggesting that there are three distinct categories within the survey (p. 2). Three distinct categories emerged (support, resources, and workload). The school leadership component was included in the support factor with path coefficients of 0.763 and higher. For this project, the researcher utilized the 10 questions from section 5.1 (School Leadership of Appendix B) as a primary research variable. Reliability. Hirsch (in press) reports that reliability was assessed for subscales within the survey. Cronbach?s alphas were run to test the internal consistency of the factor. The leadership domain had an excellent level (0.922) of internal consistency. Sample specific coefficient alpha was 0.952 in the subset of the data examined for this study. In addition to these, Hirsch (in press) indicate Chronbach?s alpha reliability scores on the three major factors as follows: support (0.911), resources (0.779), and workload (0.738). Hirsch further report the Chronbach?s alphas for domains other than leadership in the survey sections as 41 follows: professional development (0.915), decision making (0.880), facilities and resources (0.858), and time (0.797). The researcher also ran sample specific reliability tests on the 10 items that constituted the dependent variable. Chronbach?s alpha for these items yielded a 0.920 reliability score. Participants The Take 20 survey was sent to all educators in Alabama. Respondents included 24,530 teachers, 702 principals, 562 assistant principals, and 2,393 other educational professionals in January and February 2008. Data collected were only released back to the school level if the school had at least 40% participation rate with a minimum of five participants at the individual site responding. School leaders at each site were given a password to access data at the school level (Hirsh et al., 2008). Procedures The investigator was granted permission from Auburn University (Appendix C) to begin this study. Permission was then obtained by Dr. Tony Thacker of the Governor?s Commission on Quality Teaching (Appendix A) to secure the responses from the survey. The responses of the Take 20 survey are considered pre-existing data and all are anonymous. With Dr. Thacker?s approval, the investigator communicated with Dr. Eric Hirsch and Keri Church of the New Teacher Center, the group that conducted the survey, to receive the requested data source and coding system for participating schools. The data set was received February 1, 2010. 42 Data Source For his project, the researcher focused on 21,252 teacher responses from the participant pool. Within this group, the researcher identified data from 11,620 elementary teachers, 3,402 middle school teachers, and 6,230 high school teachers. The remaining responses were from teachers in schools that were not identified by the school?s designation of elementary, middle, or high school. Analysis focused on the teachers? responses to questions regarding school leadership. Data were anonymous, but the researcher could identify participants by each school?s coded identifier. The researcher focused on one of the main domain areas of the Take 20 survey (school leadership). The researcher used 10 questions from section 5.1 (Appendix B) to examine the relationship between how teachers perceive their schools? principals and if that school made adequate yearly progress that academic year. The Take 20 questions use a Likert-type scale ranging 1-5, with one (1) indicating that they strongly agree and five (5) indicating that they strongly disagree. These responses were averaged together to produce a score representing the variable. Participants in the study were asked to rate school leadership with the following statements: ? There is an atmosphere of trust and mutual respect within the school. ? Opportunities are available for members of this community to contribute to the school?s success. ? School leadership facilitates the use of data to improve student learning. ? School leadership selects the highest quality teachers available to fill faculty positions. ? The faculty are committed to helping every student learn. ? School leadership develops supportive community relationships. 43 ? School leadership shields teachers from disruptions, allowing teachers to focus on educating students. ? School leadership consistently enforces rules for student conduct. ? School leadership encourages the faculty to meet high performance standards. ? Teachers receive feedback that can help them improve teaching. In addition to the data source, the researcher used the coded school identifier with the survey to determine which teachers worked in schools that made AYP that year and which ones did not make AYP. The researcher also explored the relationship between teacher perception of the schools? leadership and teacher willingness to remain in the current work setting--using the average score of the Likert questions from section 5.1 (Appendix B). One question from the Overall section (question 7.4a in Appendix C) was used in conjunction with responses from section 5.1 to determine the teachers? intentions to remain the field of education. The survey asks participants, ?Which BEST DESCRIBES your future intentions for your professional career?? The researcher coded the following responses as the participants likely to remain in the school (stayer): ? Continue working at my current school as long as I am able ? Continue working at my current school until a better opportunity comes along The researcher coded the following responses as the participant likely to leave the school (leaver): ? Continue working in education but leave this school as soon as I can ? Continue working in education but leave this district as soon as I can ? Leave education all together 44 The investigator used teacher responses from section 5.1 (Appendix B) in conjunction with the type of school (elementary, middle, or high school) retrieved from the Alabama State Department of Education, to investigate the differences in perceptions of teachers at each type of school. Data Analysis Data analysis was performed using PASW 18.0 (formerly SPSS Statistics). The data collected was transferred from Microsoft Excel into PASW 18.0. All data entered were then used to generate descriptive data. A series of univariate analyses of variance were conducted to determine how perceptions of leadership affect: student achievement in middle school; how likely middle school teachers are to leave their schools; and how middle school teachers compare with elementary and high school teachers in their perceptions of leadership. The investigator determined that an alpha level of ? 0.05 would be utilized to distinguish significant relationships between dependent and independent variables (Siegal, 1956). Summary The purpose of this study was to investigate how perceptions of leadership of middle school teachers in Alabama affect student achievement, how likely they are to remain in their schools, and how they differ in leadership perception when compared to elementary and high school teachers. The researcher used data from the Take 20 Survey administered in 2008 to investigate the variables through analyses of variance and descriptive statistics. Chapter Four presents the findings from the study. 45 CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS The purpose of this study was to explore the effects of Alabama middle school leadership with respect to student achievement and teacher attrition. Using pre-existing data (described in Chapter Three), the researcher investigated whether a significant relationship (p < 0.05) existed between middle school teachers? perceptions of middle school leadership (the independent variable) and the dependent variables: affect on student achievement, willingness to stay or leave the current school, and how middle school teachers differ in these perceptions relative to high school and elementary teachers. The research questions analyzed in this chapter include: 1. With respect to student achievement, what relationship, if any, exists between Alabama middle school teachers? perceptions of leadership in schools that made Adequate Yearly Progress and teachers who work in schools that failed to make Adequate Yearly Progress? 2. Is there a relationship between middle school teachers? perceptions of school leadership and their willingness to remain in the current work setting? 3. Do teachers in Alabama middle schools differ in their perceptions of leadership when compared to elementary and high school teachers? 46 Participants The Take 20 survey was administered by the Alabama State Department of Education in 2008. The survey was sent to all educators in Alabama. Respondents included 24,572 teachers, 702 principals, 562 assistant principals, and 2,393 other educational professionals in January and February 2008. The instrument included some demographic-level questions. The researcher includes the following six tables describing the sample used in this study. Table 1 provides the type of schools in which the participants teach, the frequency of the type of schools, and the percentage each type of school represented in the study. 47 Table 1 Participant Characteristics (TYPE OF SCHOOL) Type of School Frequency Percent _______________________________________________________________________________ Elementary 12064 49.1 Middle 3535 14.4 Junior High 682 2.8 High 6461 26.3 Other 1769 7.2 Missing 61 0.2 Total 24572 100 _______________________________________________________________________________ 48 Table 2 provides the total years teaching experience in education for all participants, the frequency of each category of years of teaching experience, and the percentage of each category representing the number of years as a teacher. Table 2 Participant Characteristics (TOTAL YEARS IN EDUCATION) Years of experience Frequency Percent First Year 6209 25.3 2-3 Years 9649 39.3 4-6 Years 867 3.5 7-10 Years 4911 20.0 11-20 Years 2877 11.7 Missing 59 0.2 Total 24572 100 ______________________________________________________________________________ 49 Table 3 displays information on the highest level degree earned by all participants. Information includes the highest degree earned by all participants, the frequency of each degree earned, and the percentage of each degree represented. Table 3 Participant Characteristics (HIGHEST DEGREE EARNED) Degree Frequency Percent Bachelor?s 9347 38.0 Master?s 13639 55.5 EdS 1063 4.3 Doctoral 167 0.7 Other 238 1.0 Missing 118 0.5 Total 24572 100 The following tables provide information relative to middle school teacher demographic responses. Table 4 provides the total years teaching experience in education for middle school participants, the frequency of each category of years of teaching experience, and the percentage of each category representing the number of years as a teacher. 50 Table 4 Participant Characteristics (MIDDLE SCHOOL TOTAL YEARS IN EDUCATION) Years experience Frequency Percent First Year 894 25.3 2-3 Years 1423 40.3 4-6 Years 147 4.2 7-10 Years 688 19.5 11-20 Years 380 10.7 Missing 3 0.1 Total 3535 100 51 Table 5 displays information on the highest level degree earned by middle school participants. Information includes the highest degree earned by middle school participants, the frequency of each degree earned, and the percentage of each degree represented. Table 5 Participant Characteristics (MIDDLE SCHOOL HIGHEST DEGREE EARNED) Degree Frequency Percent Bachelor?s 1419 40.1 Master?s 1924 54.4 EdS 126 3.6 Doctoral 23 0.7 Other 23 0.7 Missing 20 0.6 Total 3535 100 Table 6 provides intentions of all middle school teachers to stay or leave their current schools, the frequency of future teaching intentions, and the percentage of teachers who decided to stay or leave. 52 Table 6 Participant Characteristics (ALL MIDDLE SCHOOL FUTURE INTENTIONS) Future Intention Frequency Percent Stay 3079 87.1 Leave 437 12.4 Missing 19 0.5 Total 3535 100 Further demographic data indicate that among schools that made Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), the percentage of teachers who responded with a willingness to stay at that school was 87.7%. Among schools that did not make AYP, the percentage of teachers who responded with an intention to stay at their current schools was 84.7%. Inferential Results A series of univariate analyses of variance were conducted to assess the relationships between perceptions of leadership (the dependent variable) and the following independent variables: student achievement in middle school (based on Adequate Yearly Progress), how likely middle school teachers are to leave their schools, and how middle school teachers compare with elementary and high school teachers in their perceptions of leadership. Teacher Perception of Leadership and Student Achievement A univariate analysis of variance was conducted to address the research question that teacher perception of middle school leadership affects student achievement (AYP). The average rating of the 10 leadership questions in section 5.1 of the Take 20 survey (Appendix B) was used 53 to represent the dependent variable. The independent variable is the AYP status for the school. Descriptive results were also included in Table 7 for analysis. Table 7 Descriptive Statistics (MIDDLE SCHOOL TEACHER PERCEPTION AND AYP) Did School Make AYP? Mean SD N Yes 2.1129 .86258 3389 No 2.4604 .91924 138 Total 2.1265 .86735 3527 The Levene?s test of Equality of Error Variances for this procedure yielded an F(1,3525) = 2.110, with p = 0.146. Thus, the assumption of homogeneity of variances across population groups was not violated at a statistically significant level. Participants in schools that made AYP had a more favorable view of the schools? leadership (M = 2.11, SD = 0.862) when compared to peer responses in schools that failed to make AYP (M = 2.46, SD = 0.92). The tests of between-subject effects for this analysis indicate a statistically significant relationship exists between teachers? perceptions of middle school leadership and the school?s ability to make AYP F(1, 3525) = 21.41, p < 0.001. The partial eta squared of 0.006 indicates that the effect is small (Cohen, 1988). Teacher Perception of Leadership and Future Intentions to Teach A univariate analysis of variance was conducted to address the research question that middle school teachers? perceptions of their school?s leadership affects teachers? plans to continue teaching at their current schools. The average rating of the 10 leadership questions in section 5.1 of the Take 20 survey (see Appendix B) was used as the dependent variable. The 54 independent variables for this question are teachers? plans to remain or leave the same school the following year. Among statewide middle school teachers, 88% (n = 3072) indicated a willingness to stay in their current schools. Twelve percent (n = 436) indicated plans to leave their school at the end of the school year. Teachers who decided to stay in their current schools viewed their schools? principals more favorably (M = 2.01, SD = 0.79) than middle school teachers who plan to leave (M = 2.89, SD = 0.92) Levene?s test of Equality of Error Variances yielded an F(1, 3506) = 13.956, with p < 0.001. The assumption of homogeneity of variance between population groups was violated. Although ANOVA procedures are robust to moderate violations of this assumption, I would recommend caution in interpretation of results. Tests of between-subject effects for this analysis indicate a statistically significant relationship exists between teachers? perceptions of middle school leadership and the teachers? intentions to stay or leave their current schools with F(1, 3506) = 449.63, p < 0.001. The effect size (0.114) is approaching large (Cohen, 1988). Teacher Perception of Leadership Among Elementary, Middle, and High Schools A univariate analysis of variance was conducted to address the research question that middle school teachers? perceptions of their school?s leadership differs when compared to elementary and high school teachers. The average rating of the 10 leadership questions in section 5.1 of the Take 20 survey (Appendix B) was used as the dependent variable. The independent variable for this hypothesis is the type of school. Table 8 displays descriptive statistics across the three school types. 55 Table 8 Descriptive Statistics for Teacher Perceptions and School Type School Type Mean SD N Elementary 1.9097 .81973 12041 Middle 2.1265 .86735 3527 High 2.2595 .90055 6445 Total 2.0469 .86603 22013 Levene?s test of the homogeneity of variances did not yield statistical significance with F(2, 22010) = 37.009, p < 0.001. Though the assumption of equality of variances between groups was violated, ANOVA procedures are robust to this violation. However, results must be interpreted with caution. Tests of between-subject effects for this analysis indicate a statistically significant relationship exists between teachers? perceptions of leadership and school type with F(2, 22010) = 372.3, p < 0.001. The effect size (0.033) is small (Cohen, 1988). The omnibus test was followed with two pairwise comparisons between: (a) the middle school mean and the elementary mean and (b) the middle school mean and the high school mean. The Bonferroni was used to control for Type I error across the two follow-up comparisons yielding and alpha of 0.025 (0.05/2). The ANOVA comparing the middle school and the elementary school means yielded statistical significance with F(1, 15566) = 185.75 p < 0.001. The comparison of the middle school mean and high school mean also yielded statistical significance with F(1, 9970) = 51.0, p < 0.001. 56 The Levene?s Test of Equality of Error Variances for middle school and elementary means indicate that the equality of variance assumption was violated at a statistically significant level as F = 17.818 (1, 15566) with p < 0.001. Likewise, Levene?s Test of Equality of Error Variances for middle school and high school means indicate that the equality of variance assumption was violated at a statistically significant level as F = 5.441 (1,9970), with p = 0.020. ANOVA procedures are robust to violation of equal variance assumption, however, results must be interpreted with caution. Summary This chapter presented demographic findings from the study to establish an overall picture of the respondents of the Take 20 survey. Results of a series of univariate analyses of variance were presented to answer the three research questions. Statistically significant relationships were found in response to each research question. The next chapter includes conclusions from the research and implications for further study. 57 CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSIONS, LIMITATIONS, AND FUTURE RESEARCH As a current middle school principal, I realize how important teacher perception of the school?s principal can be in terms of affecting student learning and the work climate. A review of research literature also indicates that school leadership greatly impacts teachers? career choices and, ultimately, student learning. This study was designed to explore the influence of leadership in Alabama middle schools and its effects on teacher job satisfaction using the Take 20 instrument. The specific research questions were: ? With respect to student achievement, what relationship, if any, exists between Alabama middle school teachers? perception of leadership in schools that made Adequate Yearly Progress and teachers who work in schools that failed to make Adequate Yearly Progress? ? What relationship, if any, exists between how middle school teachers view leadership and teacher job satisfaction and their willingness to remain in the current work setting? ? Do teachers in Alabama middle schools teachers differ in their perceptions of leadership when compared to elementary and high school teachers? 58 This chapter presents the findings of each research question. Conclusions of each research question, implications, limitations, and recommendations for future research and study are provided. Teacher Perception of Leadership and Student Achievement The first research question examined the relationship between teacher perception of the schools? leadership and student achievement. Univariate analysis of variance indicate that participants in schools that had higher student achievement by making goals for AYP (Adequate Yearly Progress) had a more favorable view of the schools? leadership (M = 2.11, SD = 0.862) when compared to peer responses in schools that did not make AYP (M = 2.46, SD = 0.92). Further analysis indicate Levene?s test of Equality of Error Variances for this procedure yielded an F(1,3525) = 2.110, with p = 0.146. This finding provides that the assumption of homogeneity of variances across population groups was not violated at a significant level. Continued analysis tests of between-subject effects for this analysis suggests a statistically significant relationship exists between teachers? perceptions of middle school leadership and the school?s ability to make AYP F(1, 3525) = 21.41, p < 0.001, with a small effect size (0.006). From these findings, the researcher concludes that a principal?s leadership perception by teachers affects student academic achievement. This is consistent with other research that suggests principals act as important catalysts for student achievement (Waters, Marzano, & McNulty, 2003; Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2004; Hirsch, 2004). 59 Teacher Perception of Leadership and Future Intentions to Teach The second research question examined the perception of schools? leadership and teachers? willingness to remain in the current school. Univariate analysis of variance was conducted to address the research question. Eighty-eight percent (n = 3072) of middle school teachers indicated a willingness to stay in their current schools. Twelve percent (n = 436) indicated plans to leave their school at the end of the school year. Teachers who decided to stay in their current schools viewed their schools? principals more favorably (M = 2.01, SD = 0.79) than middle school teachers who plan to leave (M = 2.89, SD = 0.92). Analysis indicated homogeneity between population groups, however, was violated with F(1, 3506) = 13.956, with p < 0.001. This asserts that we cannot assume homogeneity between the two population groups. This could be a limitation to the study. Tests of between-subject effects for this analysis indicate a statistically significant relationship exists between teachers? perceptions of middle school leadership and the teachers? intentions to stay or leave their current schools with F(1, 3506) = 449.63, p < 0.001. The effect size (0.114) is large. These findings indicate that teacher perception of a school principal impacts a teacher?s decision to stay or leave the current school setting and highlights the importance of effective principals limiting unneeded faculty transition. This is consistent with other research that stresses the importance of leadership affecting teacher mobility (Capitol Research Survey Center, 2008; Valentine, et al., 2004). Teacher Perception of Leadership Among Elementary, Middle, and High Schools The third research question asked if teachers in Alabama middle schools differ in their perceptions of leadership when compared to elementary and high school teachers. The 60 researcher employed a univariate analysis of variance to examine differences in the three population groups. Descriptive statistics revealed elementary teachers view their principals more favorably (M = 1.9, SD = 0.82) when compared to middle school teachers (M = 2.1, SD = 0.87) and high school teachers (M = 2.3, SD = 0.90). Levene?s test of the homogeneity of variances did not yield statistical significance with F(2, 22010) = 37.009, p < 0.001. Though the assumption of equality of variances between groups was violated, ANOVA procedures are robust to this violation. Results must be interpreted with caution. Tests of between-subject effects for this analysis indicate a statistically significant relationship exists between teachers? perceptions of leadership and school type with F(2, 22010) = 372.3, p < 0.001. The effect size (0.033) is small. Pairwise comparisons were employed to compare the middle school mean with the elementary mean and the high school mean. The ANOVA comparing the middle school and the elementary school means yielded statistical significance with F(1, 15566) = 185.75 p < 0.001. The comparison of the middle school mean and high school mean also yielded statistical significance with F(1, 9970) = 51.0, p < 0.001. The Levene?s Test of Equality of Error Variances for middle school and elementary school means indicate that the equality of variance assumption was violated at a statistically significant level as F = 17.818 (1, 15566) with p < 0.001. Levene?s Test of Equality of Error Variances for middle school and high school means indicate that the equality of variance assumption was violated at a statistically significant level as F = 5.441 (1,9970), with p = 0.020. ANOVA procedures are robust to violation of equal variance assumption. Results must be interpreted with caution. 61 The researcher found that the type of school in which a teacher works impacts how a teacher views the school?s leadership, but caution must be exercised with this interpretation. The analyses suggest variances across these population groups cannot be assumed as equal. Implications Hirsch (2004) states that teacher working conditions are synonymous with student learning conditions. His research illustrates that teacher working conditions are predictors of student achievement, influence teacher retention rates, and reflect actual school conditions. He notes leadership as integral in establishing the nature of these teacher working conditions. Cotton (2003) reinforces this by noting that effective school leadership is related to increased student achievement, attitudes, and social behavior. With leadership established as a driving force of influence, one implication of these findings suggests an examination of current Alabama policy relative to how neophyte administrators are trained, particularly at the middle level. New candidates who desire middle level leadership should experience professional development related to items that teachers view as positive leadership abilities. The dependent variable for this survey combined 10 critical factors in assessing leadership effectiveness: ? There is an atmosphere of trust and mutual respect within the school. ? Opportunities are available for members of this community to contribute to the school?s success. ? School leadership facilitates the use of data to improve student learning. ? School leadership selects the highest quality teachers available to fill faculty positions. ? The faculty are committed to helping every student learn. 62 ? School leadership develops supportive community relationships. ? School leadership shields teachers from disruptions, allowing teachers to focus on educating students. ? School leadership consistently enforces rules for student conduct. ? School leadership encourages the faculty to meet high performance standards. ? Teachers receive feedback that can help them improve teaching. Findings from this research suggest these factors of teacher working conditions are important to teachers. Therefore, it is critical that professional development opportunities for principals target areas that meet the needs that address teacher perception, particularly items involving improving school climate and instructional leadership. School Climate With respect to the critical factors presented, several items involve school climate and morale (atmosphere of trust and mutual respect, opportunities for school members to contribute, supportive community relationships, and student conduct rules are reinforced). Research provides insight as to how effective school leadership can shape the school?s climate (Thacker, Bell, & Schargel, 2009; Hirsch, 2004; Mendro, 1998; Cotton, 2003). Given the nature of importance, I would recommend continued, sustained professional development with practicing principals to grow positive school cultures. Hirsch (2007) indicates that teacher working conditions are student learning conditions. Given this premise, it is important to cultivate positive, meaningful relationships between the school?s principal and the staff so conditions for student learning are optimized. Data suggest that Alabama schools have a disproportionate number of neophyte teachers with experience levels of 25.3% for first-year teachers and 39.3% for teachers with two to three 63 years of experience (see Table 2). Middle school teachers fare no better with neophytes of one to three years experience in the classroom making up a total of 65.6% of the population in this survey (see Table 4). Given these data in context of school climate, it would be difficult to build a positive school culture with a lot of teacher turnover and attrition. To address this issue, a systemic approach should be taken at the State Department of Education level, the school system level, and the college and university level. Emphasis should be placed at each of these levels to aid principals in areas of how to coach new teachers. Incorporating this into Alabama?s mentoring program for new principals is my recommendation. One of the ten critical factors in this study?s dependent variable for leadership effectiveness includes opportunities for teachers to contribute to the school?s success. Given this indicator, sustained professional development with a focus on transformational leadership would be a strong recommendation, particularly for neophyte or aspiring principals. This focus should include ways to foster collaboration and encourage supportive learning environments. Burns (1978) notes that the transformational leadership style can change the aspirations and goals of an organization?s employees. Cotton (2003) indicates that principals who empower teachers to make autonomous decisions are more effective than those who do not. Marks and Printy (2003) suggest that transformational leadership is necessary for a principal?s effectiveness in a school. The professional development emphasis early in one?s career in this area is crucial. I feel it is important to develop new principals early in this area so that they may start positively impacting teachers to share vision and set individual professional goals. Hiring and retaining an effective staff as well as developing a climate for student learning important to a school?s current faculty (Stronge, et al., 2008). One dependent variable indicator in this study that teachers cite as important is the ability of the school?s principal to hire the 64 highest quality teachers. In order to do this, principals must know not only what effective teaching looks like, but also what effective student learning looks like. Continued professional development with practicing administrators is needed to examine the best teaching strategies. Furthermore, in order to attract and retain the best candidates, school systems should be given latitude to offer incentives and bonuses (financial and otherwise) to attract the best teachers. Instructional Leadership The independent variable for this research also included several items relative to instructional leadership (The school?s leadership uses data to improve student learning; School leadership selects the highest quality teachers available; The faculty are committed to helping every student learn; and school leadership encourages the faculty to meet high performance standards). While no single definition of instructional leadership exists (Flath, 1989; Lashway, 2003), Leithwood, Jantzi, and Steinbach (1999) define instructional leadership as ?the behaviors of teachers as they engage in activities directly affecting the growth of students? (p. 8). I recommend professional development training for middle school administrators that would bolster the use and understanding of data to inform decision making. Specifically, I recommend this to be a component of all collegiate administrator preparation programs in Alabama. The impact of effectively using data of all types (standardized test scores, discipline data, attendance patterns, etc.) to improve schools is clear. Hoerr (2008, December/2009, January) notes that school leaders should use data to inform decision making. Student achievement is greater when principals work together with teachers to share the data (Zmuda, Kuklis, & Kline, 2004). Furthermore, I recommend effective principals must also promote and share the vision of enabling all students to learn at the highest levels. In order to do this school leaders must be 65 familiar with effective teaching strategies specific to the grade range in which they teach. When new principals assume new positions, the new position is often in an area in which they have had no or little experience. The new principal must be able to discern how effective teaching is reflected at each grade level. Specific strategies of teaching a middle-school student will be different than the elementary or high school student. DuFour (2002) cites that stakeholders benefit when the principals assume the role of the lead learner in the organization. Cotton (2003) notes that strong instructional leaders are familiar with the curriculum and instructional practices in the schools they serve. Therefore, I recommend that new and current principals practice the effective teaching strategies employed by the teachers in their school. In order to fairly evaluate the practices going on within the school, it would be helpful to know how the strategies are performed. I would recommend to local school boards in Alabama that all personnel who evaluate curriculum and instruction practice teaching strategies at least monthly to stay abreast of current practices and to increase meaningful dialogue between staff about effective the strategies are. Mentoring Research shows that teacher attrition is a national issue (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2005; Levin, 2008). Middle grades teachers are particularly vulnerable to leaving the field (Thornton, 2004). Findings from this research suggest that efforts should be made to retain effective principals, particularly at the middle school level. The Alabama State Department of Education (2010) launched a mentoring program for new principals with the following goals: ? Ensure there is support for new principals. ? Increase the number of successful beginnings while reducing the number of rookie mistakes. 66 ? Provide modeling, guidance, coaching, and encouragement in a one-on-one relationship, in order to inspire new principals and build skills and confidence. ? Ensure that new principals have a clear set of priorities, focused on instructional leadership. ? Produce highly-qualified instructional leaders equipped with the knowledge, abilities, and behaviors needed for effective instructional leadership, resulting in greater student achievement. (p. 4) Furthermore, the program recommends that mentors be in the same type of school (elementary, middle school, or high school). While this flexibility would allow matching of similar schools, the program does not address how the needs of middle school principals would be served in the mentoring relationship. I feel it imperative that new middle school principals receive guided practice on dealing with issues unique to middle schooling such as teaming issues, middle level advisory programs, and teacher empowerment items such as flexible scheduling. Jackson and Davis (2000) cite the importance of middle schools in the process of adolescent development and life-skill preparation. George (2009) and Dickinson and Erb (1997) describe the significance of teacher teamwork as part of the middle school experience. The better principals can be prepared in working with middle grades students, middle grades teachers, and middle school tenets, the more successful the new principal will be over time. Limitations Middle school leadership is the focus of this research. In Alabama there are many configurations of schooling in grades five through eight. For this research project, the researcher 67 omitted any school labeled junior high, alternative school programs, trade or technology schools, as well as any K-12 schools that would contain these grade configurations. The researcher only included schools with the term middle school. The selection of these specific cases is a limitation to the study as some of these other schools could employ trademark middle school practices such as flexible scheduling and teaming. This also presents another limitation since all middle schools (by name) may not employ middle school practices. The measure of student achievement for this research may also be a limitation of study. The researcher used the school?s Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) status for 2008 as the designation of whether or not a school achieved academically. This is not a robust measure of overall student learning in a school as it measures only minimum standards via standardized testing in only a short window of time. Another limitation of this study could be the relatively few negative responses yielded by the Take 20 survey. Related to this could be the conditions in which the instrument was administered which could have affected the responses or rate of return. The Take 20 survey has been administered only once (during the 2008 school year) which could be a further limitation of the study. State Coordinator of the Commission of Quality Teaching, Tony Thacker (personal communication, November 18, 2010) indicates that no current plans are in place to employ this survey again. Instead, Alabama will use Pride surveys to measure school culture issues. Areas for Future Research In 2008, Alabama administered for the first time the Take 20 survey to gauge teacher working conditions. It would be helpful in using the same survey to gauge how these teacher 68 working conditions have changed and will change over the coming years. I would recommend a similar study with longitudinal data from multiple administrations of Take 20 to see how perception of leadership changes over time. Of particular interest would be how these variables change as AYP benchmarks increase for schools. Many forerunners of the Take 20 survey exist as they have been administered in several states. I would recommend the survey be administered in other states, particularly in neighboring states to Alabama to see how teacher perception of middle school leadership differs across the region. A project like this could make the study more generalizeable with respect to the region of the southeastern United States. While the Take 20 survey provided valuable information, one limitation is the lack of basic demographic information in the instrument. The current instrument only asks participants for information regarding the route they became a teacher, the highest degree earned, and National Board Certification status. I would recommend that the study include greater depth with particular respect to demographic information such as gender and race. The inclusion of these items would provide a better picture of the participant pool. Investigations could then be performed that measured how these factors potentially affect perceptions of school leadership. The results of this study are beneficial in understanding how teacher perception of school leadership affects teacher retention. It is difficult to ascertain if the sole reason for leaving is a result of the school?s leadership. This study does not investigate how other factors may also influence a teacher?s decision to leave the school. These factors could include other factors such as time needed to teach effectively, adequate professional development, how well the teacher feels empowered to do her or his job, and the conditions of school?s facilities and resources. 69 Summary As educators and policymakers continue to find ways for improvement in American education in an increasingly stringent system of accountability, the attention to developing effective principals in middle schools becomes paramount. This study found that positive teacher perception of Alabama middle school leadership positively impacts student learning as well as increased ability to retain teachers in schools. Generally middle school teachers view their leadership less favorably than elementary school teachers, but more favorable than their high school peers. Although additional research is needed in this area, implications suggest added professional development in creating and sustaining a positive school culture, increased focus on instructional leadership, and prescribed mentoring of middle school-specific tenets to neophyte middle school administrators. 70 REFERENCES Alabama Department of Education (n.d.). The ABCs of accountability. Retrieved January 17, 2009 from ftp://ftp.alsde.edu/documents/91/The%20ABCs%20of%Accountability.pdf Alabama Department of Education (2005). The relationship between AYP and school improvement status. Retrieved January 17, 2009, from ftp://ftp.alsde.edu/documents/91/AYP%20and%20School%Improvement%20July%2020 05%.pdf Alabama Department of Education (2008a). 2008 Interpretive guide: Alabama accountability system. Montgomery, AL: Author. Alabama Department of Education (2008b). Schools that did not make AYP: Status for 2008-2009. Montgomery, AL: Author. Retrieved March 16, 2010, from http://www.alsde.edu/Accountability/2008Reports/Status/2008SchoolsThatDidNotMake AYP.All.pdf?lstSchoolYear=6&lstReport=2008Reports%2FStatus%2F2008SchoolsThat DidNotMakeAYP.All.pdf Alabama Department of Education (2010). Alabama New Principals Mentoring Program. Montgomery, AL: Author. Retrieved January 3, 2011, from http://alex.state.al.us/leadership/ANPM%20Program%20Guide.pdf Alliance for Excellent Education (2005). Teacher attrition: A costly loss to the nation and to the 71 states. Retrieved March 17, 2009, from http://www.all4ed.org/publication_material/straight_as/straight_public_education_policy _and_progress_5_16 Andrews, R., & Soder, R. (1987). Principal instructional leadership and school achievement. Educational Leadership, 44, 9-11. Anfara, V. (2001). Setting the stage: an introduction to middle level education. In V. A. Anfara (Ed.), The handboook of research in middle level education (pp. vii-xx). Greenwich, CT: Informaton Age Publishing. Armstrong, T. (2006). The best schools: How human development research should inform educational practice. Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development. Barkley, M. (2006). No Child Left Behind Act and students with disabilities [Electronic version]. Law and Disorder, 1, 6-9. Retrieved March 16, 2010, from https://scholarworks.iu.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/2022/192/barkley%20no%20child% 20left%20behind.pdf?sequence=1 Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Bauck, J. (1987). Characteristics of the effective middle school principal. NASSP Bulletin, 71(500), 90-92. Blanchard, K., Zigarmi, P., & Zigarmi, D. (1985). Leadership and the one minute manager: 72 Increasing effectiveness through situational leadership. New York, NY: William Morrow and Company. Blase, J., & Blase, J. (2002). Teachers? perceptions of principals? instructional leadership and implications. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 1(3) 256-264. Bossert, S., Dwyer, D., Rowan, B., & Lee, G. (1982). The instructional management role of the principal. Educational Administration Quarterly, 18(3), 34-64. Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row. Capital Survey Research Center. (2008). Public attitudes toward Alabama public schools survey. Montgomery, AL: Alabama Education Association. Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development. (1989, June). Turning points: Preparing American youth for the 21st century. The Report of the Task Force on Education of Young Adolescents. New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York. Clark, S., & Clark, D. (1994). Restructuring the middle level school: Implications for school leaders. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Clark, S., & Clark, D. (2002). Making leadership for learning the top priority. Middle School Journal, 34(2), 50-55. Clark, S., & Clark, D. (2007). Using the knowledge base on middle schools and leadership to improve the quality of young adolescent learning. Middle School Journal, 38(4), 55-61. Cochran-Smith, M. (2004). Stayers, leavers, lovers, and dreamers: Insights about teacher retention. Journal of Teacher Education, 55(6), 387-392. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cooper, B. S., Ehrensal, P. A., & Bromme, M. (2005, January, March). School-level politics and 73 professional development: Traps in evaluating the quality of practicing teachers. Educational Policy, 19(1), 112-125. Cotton, K. (2003). Principals and student achievement: What the research says. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Cuban, L. (1984). Transforming the frog into a prince: Effective schools research, policy and practice at the district level. Harvard Educational Review, 54(2), 129-151. Cuban, L. (1988). The managerial imperative and the practice of leadership in schools. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1) [Online journal]. Available http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n1/ Darling-Hammond, L. (2003). Keeping good teachers: Why it matters, What leaders can do. Educational Leadership 60(8), 6-13. Dickinson, T. S., & Erb, T. O. (Eds.). (1997). We gain more than we give: Teaming in the middle schools. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association. DuFour, R. (2002). The learning-centered principal. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 12-15. Eichhorn, D. (1966). The middle school. New York: Center of Applied Research in Education. Fink, E., & Resnick, L. B. (2001, April). Developing principals as instructional leaders. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(8), 598-606. Flath, B. (1989). The principal as instructional leader. ATA Magazines 69(3), 19-22, 47-49. Fullan, M. (2003). The moral imperative of school leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Gardner, H. (1996). Preface to the paperback edition. In Leading Minds. (pp. ix-xii). New York, 74 NY: BasicBooks. George, P. (2009). Renewing the middle school: The early success of middle school education. Middle School Journal 41(1), 4-9. George, P., & Alexander, W. (1993). The Exemplary Middle School. Forth Worth: TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers. George, P., & Grebing, W. (1992). Seven essential skills of middle level leadership. Schools in the Middle, 1(4), 3-11. George, P., Stevenson, C., Thomason, J., & Beane, J. (1992). The middle school?and beyond. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Greenfield, W. D. (1995). Toward a theory of school administration: The centrality of leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly 31 (1), 61-85. Gronn, P. (2000). Distributed properties: A new architecture for leadership. Educational Management and Administration, 28(3), 317-338. Hallinger, P. (2005). Instructional leadership and the school principal: A passing fancy that refuses to fade away. Leadership and policy in schools 4 (3), 221-239. Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (1996). Reassessing the principal?s role in school effectiveness: A review of empirical research, 1980-1995. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32(1), 5-44. Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. (1985). Assessing the instructional leadership behavior of principals. Elementary School Journal, 86(2), 217-248. Hargreaves, A., & Fink, D. (2003, May). Sustaining leadership. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(9), 693- 700. Hirsch, E. (2004). Teacher Working Conditions are Student Learning Conditions: A Report to 75 Governor Mike Easley on the 2004 North Carolina Teacher Working Conditions Survey. Chapel Hill, NC: The Southeast Center for Teaching Quality. Hirsch, E. (2006). Recruiting and Retaining Teachers in Alabama: Educators on What it will Take to Staff all Classrooms with Quality Teachers. Hillsborough, NC: Center for Teaching Quality. Hirsch, E. (in press) Take 20 Alabama: Ensuring All Teachers Work in Supportive School Environments. Santa Cruz, CA: New Teacher Center. Hirsch, E., Emerick, S., Church, K., & Fuller, E. (2007). Teacher Working Conditions are Student Learning Conditions: A Report on the 2006 North Carolina Teacher Working Conditions Survey. Hillsborough, NC: Center for Teacher Quality. Hirsch, E., Freitas, C., & Villar, A. (2008). Alabama Take 20 teaching and learning conditions survey: interim report. Santa Cruz, CA: University of California?Santa Cruz. Hoerr, T. R. (1996). Collegiality: A new way to define instructional leadership. Phi Delta Kappan 77(5), 380-381. Hoerr, T. R. (2008, December/2009, January). Data that count. Educational Leadership, 66(4), 93-94. Hopkins, D. (2003). Instructional leadership and school improvement. In A. Harris, C. Day, D. Hopkins, M. Hadfield, A. Hargreaves and C. Chapman (Eds.), Effective leadership for school improvement. London: Routledge Falmer National. Hull, J. (2004). Filling in the gaps. [Electronic version] Threshold, 8-11, 15. Ingersoll, R. M. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 499-534. Ingersoll, R. (2002a). Holes in the teacher supply bucket. School Administrator, 59(3), 42-43. 76 Ingersoll, R. (2002b). The teacher shortage: A case of wrong diagnosis and wrong prescription. NASSP Bulletin, 86(631), 16-31. Ingwalson, G., & Thompson, J. (2007). A tale of two first-year teachers: One likely to continue, one likely to drop out. Middle School Journal, 39(2), 43-49. Jackson, D. (2000). The school improvement journey: Perspectives on leadership. School Leadership and Management 20(1) , 61-78. Jackson, A. & Davis, G. (2000). Turning points 2000: Educating adolescents for the 21st century. New York & Westerville, OH: Teacher College Press & National Middle School Association. Jalongo, M. R., & Heider, K. (2006). Editorial teacher attrition: An issue of national concern. Early Childhood Education Journal, 33(6), 379-380. Johnson, J., Dupuis, V., Musial, D., & Hall, G. (1994). Introductions to the foundations of American education. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Juvonen, J., Le, V. N., Kaganoff, T., & Augustine, C. L. (2004). Focus on the wonder years: Challenges facing the American middle school. Santa Monica, CA: Rand. Kinney, P. (2009). Change starts with the heartstrings. Principal Leadership, 9(5), 28-33. Lashway, L. (2003, July). Role of the school leader. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon and Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education/ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management. Lee, V. E., & Smith, J. B., (1993, July). Effects of school restructuring on the achievement and engagement of middle-grade students. Sociology of Education, 66, 164-187. Leithwood, K., Begley, P., & Cousins, B. (1990). The nature, causes and consequences of 77 principals? practices: An agenda for future research. Journal of Educational Administration, 28(4), 5-31. Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., & Steinbach, R. (1999). Changing leadership for changing times. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press. Leithwood, K., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership influences student learning. New York: The Wallace Foundation. Levin, B. (2008). Attracting and Retaining Good Teachers. Phi Delta Kappan , 90 (3), pp. 223- 224. Macdonald, D. (1999). Teacher attrition: A Review of the Literature. Teaching and Teacher Education , 835-848. Manasse, A. L. (1985, January). Improving conditions for principal effectiveness: Policy implications for research. The Elementary School Journal, 85(3), 339-463. Marks, H. M. & Printy, S. M. (2003, August). Principal leadership and school performance: An integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 370-397. Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works: From research to results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Mendro, R. L. (1998). Student achievement and school and teacher accountability. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 12, 257-267. Murnane R. and Steele, J. (2007). What is the problem? The challenge of providing effective teachers for all children. The Future of Children , 1 (17), pp. 15-43. National Association of Elementary School Principals. (2004, September/October). Trends in 78 education?Sept. 2004. Principal, 84 (1), 50-52. National Association of Secondary School Principals. (2007). Recommendations. Retrieved June 20, 2008, from http://www.principals.org/s_nassp/sec.asp?CID=14&DID=55879 National Center for Education Statistics. (2005). Mobility in the Teacher Workforce: Findings from the Conditions of Education 2005 (NCES Publication No. 2005-114). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. National Commission on Teaching and America?s Future. (2007). The high cost of teacher turnover. a policy brief. New York: Author. National Middle School Association. (2003a). Research and resources in support of This we believe. Westerville, OH: Author. National Middle School Association. (2003b). This we believe: Successful schools for young adolescents. Westerville, OH: Author. No Child Left Behind Act, 20 U.S.C. ? 6301 (2002). Schargel, F. P., Thacker, T., & Bell, J. S. (2007). From at-risk to academic excellence: What successful leaders do. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education. Scheurich, J. J. (1998, November). Highly successful and loving, public elementary schools populated mainly by low-SES children of color: Core beliefs and cultural characteristics. Urban Education. 33(4), 451-491. Siegal, S. (1956). Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill. Smylie, M., Lazarus, V., & Brownlee-Conyers, J. (1996). Instructional outcome of school-based participative decision-making. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 18(3), 181- 198. 79 Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2001). Investigating school leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 23-28. Stronge, J. H., Ricard, H. B., & Catano, N. (2008). Qualities of effective principals. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. The Teaching Commission. (2004). Teaching at risk: A call to action. New York: Author. Thacker, T., Bell J. S., & Schargel, F. (2009). Creating school cultures that embrace student learning. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education. Thornton, H. J. (2004). What can we learn about retaining teachers from PDS teachers? voices? Middle School Journal, 35(4), 5-12. Useem, E., Christman, J., Gold, E., & Simon, E. (1997). Reforming alone: Barriers to organizational learning in urban school change initiatives. Journal of Education of Students Placed at Risk, 2(1), 55-78. Valentine, J., Clark, D., Hackmann, D., & Petzko, V. (2004). Leadership for highly successful schools: Vol. 1. A national study of leadership in middle level schools. Reston: VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals. Valentine, J., Trimble, S. & Whitaker, T. (1997). The middle level principalship. In J. L. Irvin (Ed.), What currentresearch says to the middle level practitioner (pp. 337-347). Walker, J. (1990). Shadowing the skills of exemplary principals [Electronic version]. Education Digest,56(1), 45-49. Waters, T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement. Aurora, CO: Mid- continent Research for Education and Learning. Weller, L. (1999). Quality middle school leadership: Eleven central skill areas. Lancaster, PA: 80 Technomic Publishing Co., Inc. Williamson, B. A. (2009, March). One Teacher at a Time. Principal Leadership , pp. 44-47. Williamson, R. & Blackburn, B. R. (2009). Everyday leadership: adding rigor. Principal Leadership, 10(1), 60-62. Yeche, C. P. (2005, September). Mayhem in the middle. Washington, DC: Thomas Fordham Institute. Zepeda, S. J., & Mayers, R. S. (2002) A case study of leadership in the middle grades: The work of the instructional lead teacher. RMLE Online, 25(1), 1-11. Zmuda, A., Kuklis, R., & Kline, E. (2004). Transforming schools: Creating a culture of continuous improvement. Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development. 81 APPENDIX A PERMISSION TO USE TAKE 20 DATA 82 83 APPENDIX B TAKE 20 SURVEY INSTRUMENT 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 APPENDIX C AUBURN UNIVERSITY INTSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD (IRB) APPROVAL 113