Mock Chapter 1

1

5.1 Mock Chapter 1

Raymond Blevins

Department of Leadership Studies, University of the Cumberlands

DSRT 837: Professional Writing and Proposal Development

Dr. Whitney Taylor

June 7, 2021

2

Chapter One (Introduction)

Overview

This study explores the relationship between transformational leadership practices of Ohio

public school principals and student academic growth as measured by the Ohio Department of

Education (ODE). Though the scholarship on the relationship between transformational leadership

practices and student achievement is vast, the scholarship offers little clarity and exploration of the

relationship between transformational leadership practices and academic progress instead of

academic achievement. Additionally, the lack of scholarship for Ohio schools is a contributing

limitation of the scholarship. This study will expand upon the current scholarship to inform Ohio

educational systems (Bass, 1998; Bass & Avolio, 1994; DuBrin, 2006; Hallinger, 2003; Leithwood

& Jantzi, 2000; Leithwood et al., 1999; Shatzer et al., 2014; Southworth, 2002).

The Principal Transformational Leadership Survey was administered to Ohio, public

school principals as a cross-sectional survey. The survey using 18 descriptive statements to

measure the levels of principal agreement with the transformational leadership practices of

inspirational motivation (IM), individualized consideration (IC), idealized influence (II),

intellection stimulation (IS), contingent reward (CR), management by exception-active (MBE-A),

management by exception-passive (MBE-P), and laissez-fair leadership (LF) (Bass, 1998; Bass &

Avolio, 1994; Boerner et al., 2007; Shatzer et al., 2013). Then, an analysis of the survey results

and the Ohio School Report Card (OSRC) Progress component grade (PCG) for each principal’s

corresponding school was conducted for significance.

Background and Problem Statement

The failure to demonstrate improvement in student achievement has been a critical issue of

national discussion and debate about education. School systems and principals have struggled with

3

increasing student achievement as set forth by state and federal authorities (Quin et al., 2015;

Styron & Styron, 2011). The ODE outlined accountability expectations for students in Ohio’s

consolidated Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) plan (Ohio Department of Education, 2016). A

foundational element of Ohio’s strategy to improve educational outcomes was to build the capacity

of education leaders in instructional leadership as a part of Ohio’s Inclusive Leadership Practices

(Purpose & Priorities, n.d.; State Development Team, 2019). However, Ohio’s plan did not

explicitly address the linkage between transformational leadership practices and instructional

leadership practices of leaders when a school’s goals are focused on learning (Bush, 2014;

Hallinger, 2003).

Consequently, Ohio educational leaders and policymakers had to focus on how leaders

influence systems through transformational leadership practices while simultaneously focusing on

the direction of leadership influences on improving teaching and learning (Bush, 2020; Bush,

2014; Bush & Glover, 2014; Hallinger, 2003; Heck & Hallinger, 1999; Leithwood et al., 1999;

Robinson, 2011; Robinson et al., 2008). The scholarship on transformational leadership practices

was extensive and showed a direct relationship to improved organizational outcomes, including

student achievement in schools (Bass, 1998; Bass & Avolio, 1994; DuBrin, 2006; Hallinger, 2003;

Leithwood & Jantzi, 2000; Leithwood et al., 1999; Shatzer et al., 2014; Southworth, 2002).

However, the scholarship on the relationship between transformational practices and Ohio

student achievement was limited. A review of scholarship provided minimal reference to the

relationship between transformational leadership practices and Ohio student progress. This study

expanded the scholarship of transformational leadership practices by focusing on the relationship

between transformational leadership practices within Ohio public schools and Ohio student

progress.

4

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this correlational design study was to test the theory of transformational

leadership that relates an Ohio public school principal’s level of agreement with the

transformational leadership practices of IM, IC, II, IS, CR, MBE-A, MBP-E, and LF to the PCG of

the principal’s school (Bass, 1998; Bass & Avolio, 1994; Boerner et al., 2007; Shatzer et al., 2013).

The independent variables were the levels of principal agreement with the 18 transformational

leadership practice descriptions defined by the survey. The dependent variable was the PCG

defined and calculated by the ODE, and the control and intervening variable of the OSRC was

defined by the ODE (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).

Significance of the Study

Principal transformational leadership practices and student achievement have been linked

in scholarship, as have transformational and instructional leadership practices. Scholarship

suggests that when education leaders prioritize student achievement as organizational goals,

transformational and instructional leadership practices can improve student achievement. Because

Ohio chose to emphasize instructional leadership practices as its primary strategy for improving

student achievement, Ohio education leaders and stakeholders have minimal state-specific

scholarship to draw upon for evaluating principal transformational leadership practices. However,

the results of this study may contribute to an increased awareness of the relationship between

transformational leadership practices of Ohio principals and student progress (Bush, 2020; Bush,

2014; Bush & Glover, 2014; Hallinger, 2003; Hallinger & Heck, 2000; Leithwood et al., 1999;

Purpose & Priorities, n.d.; Robinson, 2011; Robinson et al., 2008; State Development Team,

2019).

Research Questions

5

1. What is the relationship between the principal transformational leadership practice of IM

and their corresponding school’s PCG?

2. What is the relationship between principal transformational leadership practice of IC and

their corresponding school’s PCG?

3. What is the relationship between the principal transformational leadership practice of II and

their corresponding school’s PCG?

4. What is the relationship between the principal transformational leadership practice of IS

and their corresponding school’s PCG?

5. What is the relationship between principal transformational leadership practice of CR and

their corresponding school’s PCG?

6. What is the relationship between the principal transformational leadership practice of

MBE-A and their corresponding school’s PCG?

7. What is the relationship between the principal transformational leadership practice of

MBE-P and their corresponding school’s PCG?

8. What is the relationship between the principal transformational leadership practice of LM

and their corresponding school’s PCG?

Limitations of the Study

The research was limited to an initial participant population of 3,114 Ohio public school

principals. However, the study did not include principals of other Ohio education entities like

public schools with no PCG calculation, community schools, career technical programs, special

schools, and chartered nonpublic schools. These principals were excluded to ensure consistency in

the dependent variable of the PCG. Additionally, the study was limited by the willingness of

6

principals to participate in the study and by the individual comfort level of each principal to

respond to a digital survey.

Assumptions

The framework of the study was based on studies of the transformational leadership model

and related practices conducted by Bass (1998), Bass & Avolio (1994), Boerner et al. (2007), and

Shatzer et al. (2013). Namely, the scholarship on transformational leadership suggests that

transformational leadership practices result in positive outcomes, including student achievement,

but the scholarship on the correlation to student achievement varies. For example, Leithwood et al.

(2006), Leithwood and Jantzi (2006), and Ross and Gay (2006) found that weaker relationships

between transformational leadership practices and student achievement or an inability to explain

variances in achievement existed compared to other relationships. However, Hallinger (2003) has

noted that the cultural context of education differs from one nation to the other. Thus, the results

drew upon by Leithwood et al. (2006), Leithwood and Jantzi (2006), and Ross and Gay (2006)

may not hold consistent within the context of the United States or Ohio. Therefore, this study

hypothesizes that a positive relationship exists between six transformational practices and a

negative relationship with the two practices identified in the non-leadership element.

Definitions

Achievement: The Ohio Achievement component is a representation of a specific point in

time. The representation is the weighted sum of the Indicators Met and Performance Index. The

Indicators Met comprises 25% of the Achievement component, and the Performance Index

comprises the remaining 75% of the Achievement component. The Achievement component is

reported as a letter grade based upon a scale defined by Ohio Administrative Code 3301-28-09

(Office of Accountability, 2020).

7

Contingent reward (CR): CR refers to positive transactional leadership behaviors that are

part of the transformational leadership model. CR is focused on the extent to which a

transformational leader builds productive transactions with followers. In these transactions, the

leader promises rewards or rewards followers for completing predetermined tasks (Bass, 1998;

Bass & Avolio, 1994; Boerner et al., 2007; Shatzer et al., 2013).

Idealized influence (II): II refers to transformational leadership behaviors that result in the

leader being a role model. Transformational leaders place the needs and considerations of the

followers over their personal needs. Transformational leaders exhibit a willingness to take risks,

but they are consistent and demonstrate high standards of ethical and moral conduct while

requiring trust and earning the respect of followers (Avolio et al., 1991; Bass, 1998; Bass &

Avolio, 1994; Boerner et al., 2007; Griffith, 2004; Harb & Sidani, 2019; Shatzer et al., 2013).

Indicators Met: The Ohio Indicators Met measure represents the number of students who

scored at or above a proficient level on any of the 22 standardized state tests for a specific point in

time. The Indicators Met represents 25% of the Achievement component (Office of

Accountability, 2020).

Individualized consideration (IC): IC refers to transformational leadership behaviors

whereby the leader is attentive to the individual's needs for achievement and growth.

Transformational leaders function as a coach or mentor as they demonstrate individualized

consideration in developing learning opportunities and a supportive climate. In addition,

transformational leaders encourage two-way personalized communication with followers where

the leader genuinely listens effectively (Avolio et al., 1991; Bass, 1998; Bass & Avolio, 1994;

Boerner et al., 2007; Griffith, 2004; Harb & Sidani, 2019; Shatzer et al., 2013).

8

Inspirational motivation (IM): IM refers to transformational leadership behaviors that

motivate and inspire followers. These leaders inspire followers by setting an example of hard

work (Avolio et al., 1991). In addition, transformational leaders create and communicate clear

expectations and a shared vision while demonstrating a commitment to the organizational goals

and shared vision (Avolio et al., 1991; Bass, 1998; Bass & Avolio, 1994; Boerner et al., 2007;

Griffith, 2004; Harb & Sidani, 2019; Shatzer et al., 2013).

Instructional Leadership: Instructional leadership is a theoretical leadership model that

encompasses strong, directive leadership practices focused on curriculum and instruction

(Hallinger, 2003; Robinson, 2011; Robinson et al., 2008). These practices may be categorized into

three main goals of (1) defining the school’s mission, (2) managing the instructional program, and

(3) promoting a positive school learning environment (Hallinger, 2003; Shatzer et al., 2013).

Instructional leadership is about the “direction” of the leader’s influence on followers due to the

emphasis on improving teaching and learning and takes precedence over the improvement process

(Bush, 2014, 443).

Intellectual stimulation (IS): IS refers to transformational leadership behaviors whereby the

leader keenly incites followers to be innovative and creative. This is accomplished by encouraging

followers to question assumptions, reframe problems, and approach organizational functions in

new ways. Transformational leaders create a safe environment by not publicly criticizing

individual follower mistakes. Transformational leaders encourage taking calculated risks (Avolio

et al., 1991; Bass, 1998; Bass & Avolio, 1994; Boerner et al., 2007; Griffith, 2004; Harb & Sidani,

2019; Shatzer et al., 2013).

Laissez-faire leadership (LF): LF behaviors are part of the transformational leadership

model. LF refers to transformational leaders who avoid or provide no leadership. This includes

9

the avoidance of responsibility, the lack of providing direction and support, and the presence of

disorganization (Bass, 1998; Bass & Avolio, 1994; Boerner et al., 2007; Shatzer et al., 2013).

Management by exception-active (MBE-A): MBE-A refers to negative transactional

leadership behaviors that are part of the transformational leadership model. MBE-A is focused on

the extent to which a transformational leader actively monitors nonconformities to standards,

mistakes, and errors by followers. Further, MBE-A includes how a transformational leader takes

corrective actions before problems become serious (Bass, 1998; Bass & Avolio, 1994; Boerner et

al., 2007; Shatzer et al., 2013).

Management by exception-passive (MBE-P): MBE-P refers to negative transactional

leadership behaviors that are part of the transformational leadership model. MBE-P focuses on the

extent to which a transformational leader waits passively for nonconformities to standards,

mistakes, and errors by followers. Once a problem becomes severe, the leader then takes

corrective action. Scholars like Shatzer et al. (2013) refer to MBE-P as an example of a non-

leadership behavior (Bass, 1998; Bass & Avolio, 1994; Boerner et al., 2007; Shatzer et al., 2013).

Performance Index: The Ohio Performance Index measure represents how well each child

scored on each standardized state test. The Performance Index represents 75% of the Achievement

component (Office of Accountability, 2020).

Progress: The Ohio Progress component is a representation of student growth over multiple

years. Progress is a series of calculations that result in a value-added score. A value-added score

is calculated for four groups of students. These groups are (1) all students, (2) gifted students, (3)

students with disabilities, and (4) students whose performance was in the lowest 20% of students

statewide. The Progress component is a sum of the weighted scores of the four groups. These

weighted scores include 55% for all students, 15% for gifted students, 15% for students with

10

disabilities, and 15% for the lowest 20% of students statewide. The Progress component is

reported as a letter grade based upon a scale defined by Ohio Administrative Code 3301-28-09

(Office of Accountability, 2020).

Transformational Leadership: Transformational leadership is a theoretical leadership

model that encompasses several leadership practices. Transformational leadership practices

include four core practices of individualized consideration, intellectual stimulation, inspirational

motivation, and idealized influence. Modern scholarship of transformational leadership practices

includes elements of transactional leadership and practice elements of non-leadership or the

absence of leadership. The element of transactional leadership includes the practices of contingent

reward and management by exception-active. The element of non-leadership includes the

management by exception-passive and laissez-faire leadership. Transformational leadership is

about "how" the leader influences followers (Bush, 2014, 443). Transformational leadership is

associated with building an organization's capacity while providing reform and clarity during

organizational change (Avolio et al., 1991; Bass, 1998; Bass & Avolio, 1994; Boerner et al., 2007;

Bush, 2014; Bush & Glover, 2014; Bush & Glover, 2014; Hallinger, 2003; Leithwood et al., 1999;

Leithwood & Sun, 2012; Lucius & Kuhnert, 1999; Shatzer et al., 2013).

Summary

The available scholarship on the transformational leadership model fails to provide

adequate insight into the relationship of the transformational leadership practices of IM, IC, II, IS,

CR, MBE-A, MBP-E, and LF to student growth over time (Bass, 1998; Bass & Avolio, 1994;

Boerner et al., 2007; Shatzer et al., 2013). Further, a review of the scholarship on transformational

leadership provides a limited understanding based upon Ohio schools, and the scholarship

expresses varying results to the significance of transformational leadership on student achievement

11

(Leithwood et al., 2006; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2006; Ross & Gay, 2006). Through a correlational

design model, the Ohio public school principals were administered a survey to measure their levels

of agreement with transformational leadership practices. The relationship between the survey

results and each principal's school PCG was evaluated. The study hypothesized that

transformational leadership practices would have a significant relationship to the PCG for Ohio

schools. The results of the study could then inform education leaders and stakeholders regarding

the practices of Ohio principals and the linkage to instructional leadership practices incorporated

into Ohio improvement strategy (Bush, 2020; Bush, 2014; Bush & Glover, 2014; Hallinger, 2003;

Heck & Hallinger, 1999; Leithwood et al., 1999; Purpose & Priorities, n.d.; Robinson, 2011;

Robinson et al., 2008; State Development Team, 2019).

12

References

Avolio, B. J., Waldman, D. A., & Yammarino, F. J. (1991). Leading in the 1990s: The four I′s of

transformational leadership. Journal of European Industrial Training, 15(4), 9–16.

https://doi.org/10.1108/03090599110143366

Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industrial, military, and educational impact.

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through

transformational leadership. SAGE Publications.

Boerner, S., Eisenbeiss, S. A., & Griesser, D. (2007). Follower behavior and organizational

performance: The impact of transformational leaders. Journal of Leadership &

Organizational Studies, 13(3), 15–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/10717919070130030201

Bush, T. (2014). Instructional and transformational leadership: alternative and complementary

models? Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 42(4), 443–444.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143214526830

Bush, T. (2020). Theories of educational leadership and management (5th ed.). SAGE

Publications Ltd.

Bush, T., & Glover, D. (2014). School leadership models: what do we know? School Leadership &

Management, 34(5), 553–571. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2014.928680

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, D. J. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed

methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.

Griffith, J. (2004). Relation of principal transformational leadership to school staff job satisfaction,

staff turnover, and school performance. Journal of Educational Administration, 42(3),

333–356. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230410534667

13

Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading educational change: Reflections on the practice of instructional and

transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education, 33(3), 329–352.

https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764032000122005

Harb, B., & Sidani, D. (2019). Transformational leadership for organizational change in the

Lebanese public sector. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 17(2), 205–216.

https://doi.org/10.21511/ppm.17(2).2019.15

Heck, R. H., & Hallinger, P. (1999). Conceptual models, methodology, and methods for studying

school leadership. In J. Murphy & K. Seashore-Loouis (Eds.), The 2nd handbook of

research in educational administration (pp. 141–162). McCutchan.

Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2000). The effects of transformational leadership on organizational

conditions and student engagement with school. Journal of Educational Administration,

38(2), 112–129. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230010320064

Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2006). Transformational school leadership for large-scale reform:

Effects on students, teachers, and their classroom practices. School Effectiveness and

School Improvement, 17(2), 201–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243450600565829

Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., & McElheron-Hopkins, C. (2006). The development and testing of a

school improvement model. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17(4), 441–

464. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243450600743533

Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., & Steinbach, R. (1999). Changing leadership for changing times. Open

University Press.

Lucius, R. H., & Kuhnert, K. (1999). Adult development and transformational leader. Journal of

Leadership Studies, 6(1–2), 73–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/107179199900600105

14

Office of Accountability. (2020, January). Update to 2019–2020 Report Card Information. Ohio

Department of Education. http://education.ohio.gov/getattachment/Topics/Data/Report-

Card-Resources/Sections/Report-Card-Components/The-New-A-F-Report-Card-

Clean.pdf.aspx?lang=en-US

Ohio Department of Education. (2016, January). Ohio’s Revised State Template for the

Consolidated State Plan. http://education.ohio.gov/getattachment/Topics/Every-Student-

Succeeds-Act-ESSA/OH_ESSA_SUBMISSION.pdf.aspx

Purpose & Priorities. (n.d.). Ohio Leadership for Inclusion, Implementation, & Instructional

Improvement (OLI4). Retrieved June 6, 2021, from

https://www.oli-4.org/about-oli4/purpose-priorities#oli4-overview

Quin, J., Deris, A., Bischoff, G., & Johnson, J. (2015). Comparison of transformational leadership

practices: Implications for school districts and principal preparation. Journal of Leadership

Education, 14(3), 71–85. https://doi.org/10.12806/v14/i3/r5

Robinson, V. (2011). Student-centered leadership. Wiley.

Robinson, V. M. J., Lloyd, C. A., & Rowe, K. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on student

outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational

Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 635–674. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161x08321509

Ross, J. A., & Gray, P. (2006). School leadership and student achievement: The mediating effects

of teacher beliefs. Canadian Journal of Education, 29(3), 798–822.

https://doi.org/10.2307/20054196

Shatzer, R. H., Caldarella, P., Hallam, P. R., & Brown, B. L. (2013). Comparing the effects of

instructional and transformational leadership on student achievement. Educational

15

Management Administration & Leadership, 42(4), 445–459.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143213502192

Southworth, G. (2002). Instructional leadership in schools: Reflections and empirical evidence.

School Leadership & Management, 22(1), 73–91.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13632430220143042

State Development Team. (2019, August). Foundation’s document 2.0: Resetting the foundation of

Ohio’s statewide system of support (SSoS). Ohio Department of Education.

https://citoolkit.ohioleadership.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/SDT_Foundations-Doc-

2.0_FINAL.pdf

Styron, Jr., R. A., & Styron, J. L. (2011). Critical issues facing school principals. Journal of

College Teaching & Learning (TLC), 8(5), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.19030/tlc.v8i5.8158