National FORUM of Applied Educational Research Journal (NF AERJ) - A National Refereed Journal - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Editor-in-Chief )Founded 1982)

7/28/2019 National FORUM of Applied Educational Research Journal (NF AERJ) - A National Refereed Journal - Dr. William Alla…

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/national-forum-of-applied-educational-research-journal-nf-aerj-a-national 1/126





NATIONAL FORUM OF APPLIED EDUCATIONALRESEARCH JOURNAL

31 ST Year Anniversary Founded 1982

William Allan Kritsonis, Editor-in-Chief Reginald Leon Green, Invited National Guest EditorMary Alice Kritsonis, National Research Editor

J.M. Blackbourn, Special Advisor to the Editor-in-Chief Alexis Catherine Brown, Associate National Editor

Austin Michael Brown, Copy EditorCharles Sellers, National/International Web Manager

National Policy BoardC.M. Achilles, Seton Hall University - Richard Blackbourn, Mississippi State University -Kathleen M. Brown , University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill - Barry S. Davidson , TroyUniversity - Richard & Rebecca DuFour - Fenwick W. English, University of North Carolina,Chapel Hill - John I. Goodlad , Center for Educational Renewal, University of Washington – DavidE. Herrington, Texas A&M University at San Antonio Dan L. King , Rhode Island College -Rosemary Papa , Northern Arizona University - Thomas A. Rakes , University of Tennessee atMartin

National Editorial Review BoardNational FORUM of Applied Educational Research Journal

Roselia Alaniz – University of Houston, Victoria – Vincent A. Anfara, Jr ., University of

Tennessee, Knoxville– Charles T. Araki , University of Hawaii – Jennifer Butcher, University of Texas, Pan American - Gerald J. Calais , McNeese State University – Lynne Chalmers , Universityof North Dakota – Roxane Cuellar , Texas State University, San Marcos - Michael L. Cunningham ,Marshall University– Jon Denton , Texas A&M University, College Station – Thomas J. Gallia,Rowan University – Carl Gardiner, Prairie View A&M University - Clement E. Glenn , PrairieView A&M University- Evangeline Harris , Tufts University - Karen Hayes , University of Nebraska, Omaha – Mack Hines III , Sam Houston State University - Lisa Hobson , Prairie ViewA&M University – Teresa Ann Hughes, Sam Houston University - Clarence Johnson , AldineIndependent School District - David E. Kapel , Rowan University – Lloyd Korhone , Texas A&MUniversity, College Station – James D. Laub, University of Texas, Permian Basin – FredLunenburg – Sam Houston State University – James F. McNamara , Texas A&M University,College Station – Sue Minchew , Mississippi State University – Carole Murphy , University of Missouri, St. Louis – Rudy D. Pauley , Marshall University – Arthur L. Petterway, Prairie ViewA&M University-– Dennis Ridley , Virginia Wesleyan College – William Streshly , San Diego StateUniversity – Conn Thomas , West Texas A&M University - Harold E. Wilson , Ashland University–W.C. Wolf, Jr ., University of Massachusetts, Amherst

























NATIONAL FORUM OF APPLIED EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH JOURNALVOLUME 26, NUMBERS 1 & 2, 2013

FOREWORD

his issue begins our 26th year of publishing the NATIONAL FORUM OF APPLIEDEDUCATIONAL RESEARCH JOURNAL. The journal was founded in the interestof publishing the best original articles by educational researchers, practitioners, and

theoreticians on a variety of viewpoints for persons interested in teacher education.

TProfessors, theoreticians, educational researchers, practitioners, directors of research

and service, deans, chairpersons, university administrators, curriculum and instructionspecialists, school superintendents, principals, supervisors, classroom teachers, managementconsultants, facilitators, school board members, education policy persons, graduate students,community leaders, and many others represent the cosmopolitan readership of theNATIONAL FORUM OF APPLIED EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH JOURNAL.

A function of the NATIONAL FORUM OF APPLIED EDUCATIONALRESEARCH JOURNAL is to strengthen the established common bond among professorsin higher education and practitioners in schools. The NATIONAL FORUM OF APPLIEDEDUCATIONAL RESEARCH JOURNAL seeks to help maintain a healthy mutual respectand awareness of the roles, the problems, and the progress of teacher education in allappropriate settings. NATIONAL F ORUM JOURNALS are highly regarded both nationallyand internationally.

About the Guest Editor

I am honored to have Reginald Leon Green serve as guest editor of this issue of theNational FORUM of Applied Educational Research Journal . Dr. Green is Professor of Educational Leadership at the University of Memphis. He has served at the teacher,principal, deputy superintendent, and superintendent levels of K-12 education and has been in

higher education for 20 years. In 1977, Dr. Green was one of five educators chosennationally to participate in the Rockefeller Foundation's Superintendency PreparationProgram; and in 1996, he was selected as an Associate to the Institute for EducationalRenewal, under the leadership of Dr. John Goodlad.

Dr. Green distinguished himself with the publication of the fourth edition of the bookentitled, Practicing the Art of Leadership: A Problem-Based Approach to Implementing the

ISLLC Standards and the first edition of The Four Dimensions of Principal Leadership: AFoundation for Leading 21st Century Schools . He has also authored a book on inner-cityeducation, as well as various articles concerning such topics as: educational restructuring,primary grade restructuring, gang violence, and other contemporary educational issues.

Recently, Dr. Green was asked to serve on the United Providence! National Advisory

Board in Providence, Rhode Island. United Providence is a first-of-its-kind non-profitorganization that will lead school transformation efforts through a labor-managementcollaborative model between the Providence Public School District and the ProvidenceTeachers Union.

About the Issue

In the first article, Reginald Leon Green discusses the results of fifteen years of research on effective leadership in schools that focus on the core competencies and

1




dispositions that have proven to be essential for effective leadership in today’s schools. In thesecond article, Vivian Gunn Morris and Curtis Morris present the responsibility of K-12principals in improving the academic achievement of African American children via the rolesthat principals must play in high quality induction and mentoring programs for noviceteachers in their schools. In the third article, Detris Crane and Reginald Leon Green share

the findings of their quantitative correlational study that sought to determine if teacher jobsatisfaction is enhanced when principals value and exhibit behaviors informed by thirteencore competencies. In the fourth article, Reginald Leon Green and Tonya Cooper conveytheir research about dispositions that leaders of today’s schools believe to be most preferredin the leadership of their schools. In the fifth article, Sharon Williams Griffin and ReginaldLeon Green report the use of practices, processes, and procedures used to transform a highpoverty, low performing school into a high performing school. In the sixth and final article,Shirley Marie McCarther , Donna M. Davis , Johanna Nilsson , Jacob Marszalek , andCarolyn Barber document their progress to advance the development of an analyticinstrument for use in the preparation of school leaders, counselors, and educationalprofessionals in the 21st century.

To our readers, colleagues, and friends, thank you for your personal, professional, andespecially for your continued financial support.

William Allan Kritsonis, PhDProfessor

PhD Program in Educational LeadershipWhitlowe R. Green College of Education

Prairie View A&M UniversityThe Texas A&M University System

2




A Response to the Call for Effective Leadership in Today’s Schools:Three Essentials - Preparation, Competency, and Dispositions

Reginald Leon Green, EdDProfessor

University of Memphis

______________________________________________________________________________

Abstract

In response to the latest reform movement and to address the seriousness of the issue regardingthe need for school leadership preparation programs to develop highly qualified principals, thisarticle advances the results of fifteen (15) years of research on effective leadership in schools.The research was conducted in the College of Education, Department of Leadership, at the

University of Memphis, in partnership with area school districts. Professors re-conceptualizedschool leadership and placed a renewed vision for the preparation of school leaders into action.Embedded in the program are core competencies and dispositions that have proven to beessential for effective leadership in today’s schools. These competencies and dispositions arealso discussed in the article.

Keywords : leadership preparation programs; core competencies; dispositions of schoolleaders______________________________________________________________________________

During the first decade of the 21st

century, a national debate has again raised fundamentalquestions about schools and the individuals who lead them, ushering in another reform effort.This time, the focus is on the role and effectiveness of principals (Levine, 2005; Martin & Papa,2008; Spence & Bottoms, 2007). Advocates of the movement voice a deep-rooted belief thatleadership is critical to improving schools and enhancing student achievement (Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, Meyerson, Orr, & Cohen, 2007). In general, they focus on the role of theprincipal in placing an effective teacher in every classroom, one who implements provenprogram plans for school improvement (Dufour, 1999; Lashway, 2002; Murphy & Datnow,2003; Riley, 2002). Specifically, researchers and scholars are calling for the design andimplementation of principal preparation programs that prepare highly effective principals whocan lead schools in a manner that addresses the needs of all students, regardless of their personal

characteristics or social backgrounds (Bottoms & O’Neill, 2001; Levine, 2005; Spence &Bottoms, 2007).In response to this latest reform movement and to address the seriousness of the issue

regarding the need for preparation programs that develop highly qualified principals, this articleadvances the results of fifteen (15) years of research on effective leadership in schools. Theresearch was conducted in the College of Education, Department of Leadership, at the Universityof Memphis, in partnership with area school districts. Professors re-conceptualized schoolleadership and placed a renewed vision for the preparation of school leaders into action. A

3



REGINALD LEON GREEN

program was developed that answered the call for a replacement of traditional principalpreparation programs with ones that develop highly effective principals. Principals whocompleted the conceptualized programs are certified, meet established standards, are highlycompetent, and adhere to dispositions that render an individual capable of leading today’smodern schools.

Having synthesized the results of twenty-five years of research on schooling andleadership in schools, a preparation program that placed major emphasis on theory, practice,instructional leadership, and authentic experiences in schools and the world of business wasdesigned. The program is a well-defined, systemic approach to developing school leaders whoare dedicated to understanding self and others, understanding the complexity of organizationallife, building bridges through relationships, and engaging in leadership best practices for thepurpose of implementing instructional programs that enhance the academic achievement of allstudents. This innovative approach to preparing effective school leaders can be placed into three(3) categories: 1) progressing through an effective preparation program; 2) mastering a series of core competencies, and 3) acquiring a disposition grounded in the philosophical belief that allstudents can acquire a quality education. These three categories were found to be essential for

effective principal leadership in today’s schools. Consequently, the research conducted and thepractices implemented in each of these three categories are reported in this article .

Characteristic of an Effective Leadership Preparation Programs

In the year 2000, a search was begun for an answer to the question, “What do schoolleaders need to know and be able to do in order to effectively lead twenty–first century schools?”In essence, how does a leadership preparation program need to be conceptualized, designed, andimplemented to prepare aspiring school leaders to meet the challenges of enhancing theacademic achievement of all students who attend today’s schools. Exploration of the literature,

visitation, and close observations in twenty schools, as well as discussions with practicing schoolleaders, revealed the answers. In order to lead today’s schools, principals have to have thecapacity to lead, and that capacity consist of competence in everything from accountability toinstructional leadership and teacher effectiveness (Hess & Kelly, 2005). To insure thatparticipants in the preparation program had the previously articulated capacity, the preparationprogram was designed with a major focus on competence and dispositions. Consequently,university staff embarked upon a bold, innovative leadership preparation initiative designed tobuild leadership capacity. The program addressed standards, competencies, and accountabilitymeasures with a mission of preparing aspiring principals to become educational leaders whowere not only certified, but qualified to lead schools in a changing society.

The new principal preparation program initiative was heavily embedded in research that

transformed into practice what the literature advocated regarding what school leaders needed toknow and be able to do in order to enhance student achievement, leaving no child behind.Specifically, it was evident that exiting the program, graduates would need to be visionary,learning-centered leaders, astute in instructional design and implementation, skilled in analyzingdata, and capable of building professional learning communities wherein leadership roles couldbe distributed (Davis, Darling-Hammond, LaPoint, & Meyerson, 2005; Dufour, 1999; Lashway,2002; Murphy & Datnow, 2003; Riley, 2002). Consequently, entry into the program could not bea form of self-selection by candidates; rather, participants had to be nominated and then selected

4



REGINALD LEON GREEN

through a rigorous assessment process. They had to be among the brightest individuals in thearea with proven track records and high aspirations of becoming principals.

The Selection Process

The rigorous selection process consisted of five phases: 1) nomination by a practicingschool leader; 2) submission of a comprehensive application; 3) completion of an essay at theuniversity; 4) participation in a personal interview with the selection committee, and 5)participation in a series of simulated activities.

Nomination by a Practicing School Leader

To be considered as a candidate for the program, an individual had to be nominated by apracticing school leader or district administrator with knowledge of the candidate’s potential as aschool leader. Once nominated, the individual had to demonstrate that he or she was a highlyproductive individual with demonstrated strengths in curriculum and instruction. The nomineealso had to show evidence of having used professional development activities, studentachievement data, and technology to improve teaching. Finally, he or she had to demonstrate theability to collaborate with others to improve school and classroom practices.

Submission of a Comprehensive Application Packet

Each aspiring school leader had to submit an application packet. The packet consisted of a letter of application explaining why the individual was interested in school leadership, his orher growth through professional development activities, and why and how participation in thisprogram would improve his or her leadership ability. The application packet also had to contain aresume c that described the individual’s past accomplishments. Finally, three letters of recommendation from current and/or previous supervisors who were different from thenominating person were required. A selection committee consisting of university professors,practicing administrators, and community leaders used a rubric scale to score each item in theapplication packet and award each candidate a score.

Completion of an Essay

The third phase of the selection process involved the candidate writing an essay onsite.Having successfully progressed through the first two phases of the process, each candidate wasinvited to campus for the purpose of developing a three-to-five (3-5) page essay reviewing whatleaders of today’s schools need to know and be able to do in order to function effectively inaddressing the needs of all students. A university professor supervised the writing of the essay.

The selection committee scored each essay using a rubric scale designed for that purpose.The candidates were ranked based on their composite score from the three (3) activities(nomination letter, application materials, and essay) which was compiled from the ratings of each selection committee member. The thirty (30) highest ranking nominees were invited for apersonal interview with the selection committee.

5



REGINALD LEON GREEN

Participation in a Personal Interview with the Selection Committee

The interview was designed to assess the candidate’s past accomplishments, his or herunderstanding of school and classroom policies and practices, learning theory, and the processesand procedures he or she would use to make a difference in improving student achievement. An

interview score was awarded a candidate by each selection committee member.Participation in a Series of Simulated Activities

During the final phase of the selection process, each candidate participated in a series of simulated school-related activities allowing him or her to exhibit his or her potential to developthe skills and attributes that are advocated for effective leaders of today’s schools.

The scores awarded a candidate by each selection committee member were compiled, andthe total was added to his or her composite score from the initial screening. The fifteen (15)highest ranking nominees were invited to participate in the program. After being selected,participants committed themselves to an ambitious schedule of meetings, seminars, readings, andschool experiences that were integrated into the following program components.

Orientation Program

After being invited to participate in the program, participants attended a celebratoryreception. During the reception, participants were introduced to the community as individualsposed to become exemplary school leaders. Following the reception, participants were engagedin a 4-day, problem-based team building experiential activity, an extensive observation/self-assessment experience, and the completion of a 360º instrument. Data from these activities wereused to assess the strengths and weaknesses of participants and to inform decisions regarding thedevelopment of individual profiles and the assignment of program mentors and coaches.

Assessed Strengths and Weaknesses

The individual profile . A profile was developed for each individual selected for programparticipation. The profile consisted of the assessed strengths and weaknesses of the individual.To determine the strengths and weaknesses of an individual, critical information was extractedfrom the selection materials; a Leadership Inventory (based on the Interstate School LeaderLicensure Consortium Standards) was administered; the 360º assessment instrument wasanalyzed; structured observation notes taken during the 4-day, problem-based team buildingexperiential activity were analyzed, and a self-assessment document prepared by each participantwas assessed.

The profile was used to plan and implement a focused instructional program plan for eachindividual. The plan specified the experiences that a participant would need in order to becomean effective 21 st century school leader. The focus of the plan was on four essential elements: 1)the dispositions, competencies, and styles of effective leaders; 2) the leaders’ ability tounderstand the complexity of school organizations and distribute leadership throughout theorganization; 3) the leaders’ knowledge of proven instructional practices and processes forimplementing those practices, and 4) the leaders’ ability to influence stakeholders to shareresponsibilities for school goal attainment.

6



REGINALD LEON GREEN

Business coaches . Business coaches were unique and integral components of theprogram. The coaching component was designed to give participants an opportunity to observefirst-hand how decisions are made and problems are solved in the business world. In most cases,the coaches were women and men who were leaders of key businesses in the community.Program participants spent different amounts of time with their business coaches. However,

without exception, members from the business community gladly participated in the program.

Program coaches and mentors. Highly successful principals and administrators in areaschool districts served as mentors and program coaches. Each month, a participant would spendtwo days in the school led by his or her mentor, observing and participating in the practicaloperation of the school. Participants would visit different schools at different levels, elementary,middle, and secondary, each month of the program. This concept allowed program participants toobserve different leadership styles, as well as develop an understanding of the articulation thatoccurs between grade levels.

Mentors also served as role models and sponsors—counseling, coaching, and guidingparticipants with the primary objective of helping them better understand the principalship from

a practical perspective. Program coaches who were university professors conducted courseworkand seminars. Working cooperatively with practicing school leaders, university professorsblended leadership theory with the practical aspects of school leadership. In addition to focusingon how schools operate, they focused on how students learn.

Community organization mentor . Each participant was also matched with the leader of a community-based family/youth learning organization. Visiting these organizations and workingwith their leaders, participants were able to learn about programs that were available to schoolsand challenges encountered when schools collaborated with community organizations aspartners.

A Multifaceted Integrated Curriculum

The curriculum was grounded in standards, competencies, and accountability measures.The content of the courses was informed by the Four Dimensions of Principal Leadership; the sixInterstate School Leader Licensure Consortium standards (ISLLC); thirteen core leadershipcompetencies, and characteristics of facilitative school leaders. Instruction was delivered intwelve (12) three (3) hour courses offered in 6-hour blocks. Thirteen (13) core competencies andselected dispositions of effective school leaders were identified and embedded in the curriculum.A concerted effort was undertaken to strategically integrate all state standards.

Instructional Delivery

Aligned with state and national standards, the program offered intensive, case-based andproblem-based coursework that focused on instructional leadership, organizational management,school law and finances, leadership core competencies, and “facilitative principled leadership.”Seminars were designed around focus areas and supported with scholarly works grounded incontemporary leadership issues. During these seminars, participants addressed interpersonal

7



REGINALD LEON GREEN

relations; the complexity of school culture and climate; building relationships, and utilizing bestpractices related to change, communication, decision making, and conflict management.Participants also jig sawed such books as Built on Trust, …And Dignity for All, The TippingPoint, Practicing the Art of Leadership: A Problem-Based Approach to Implementing the ISLLC Standards, Navigating Change , and a number of others. National experts joined faculty coaches

in addressing the contents of these books and other contemporary educational leadership topics.Additionally, each participant became a member of a seven or eight member team that was givenschool-related problems to solve. The problems addressed issues that were occurring in a school,or school district, and solutions that school leaders could use to enhance student achievementwere offered. The teams worked on their assigned project for five months and produced a writtenreport, including recommendations that were presented at the end of the program during theclosing conference.

Participant Assessment

Ongoing General Assessments

Participant assessment was a four-fold structured process conducted by the mentorprincipal, university professors, program coaches, and the participants themselves. During schoolvisits, mentor principals used a structured instrument to assess the skills, attributes, competence,and performance of participants. Assessments made by mentor principals at the school level werecompiled and recorded by the university professor who served as Lead Mentor. Participants’self-evaluations from each school visit were also collected and compiled by the universityprofessor who served as Lead Mentor. During seminar sessions, each of three (3) programmentors recorded observation notes on each participant describing the participant’s performancebased on the extent to which the core competencies of the program were being addressed,assessed strengths were being utilized and enhanced, and weaknesses were being eliminated.

Specific Assignments

Throughout the program, assignments were formulated based on the participant’sindividual profile and his or her assessed strengths and weaknesses. From these assessments,performance evaluations were conducted by program coaches and mentors and reported to theuniversity professor who served as Lead Mentor. Using these performance evaluations to informthe discussions, individual conferences were held with participants, and feedback was provided.In some instances, additional readings were encouraged; mentors and/or program coaches werechanged, and exposure to school mentors (principals) displaying a particular leadership style wasmade available through special school assignments.

Program Review

At the end of each semester, program coaches collaborated with program mentors,reviewed the status of each participant, discussed strengths and weaknesses of each participant,and refined program activities. Using data from these sessions, program coaches held an interimevaluation session with each participant, provided evaluative comments, and offered follow-up

8



REGINALD LEON GREEN

suggestions.

Final Assessment

Each semester, the assessment of participants continued, using the same processes and

procedures. At program completion, after consulting with school mentors and program coaches,university professors compiled a performance status on each participant and maderecommendations to the superintendent of the partnering school district.

The Exit Conference

At the conclusion of the program, coaches conducted an exit conference with eachparticipant. During the conference, participant’s questions were addressed and follow-upactivities suggested.

Core Competencies of Effective LeadersEmbedded in the curriculum of the preparation program were 13 core competencies. Five

years of research at the University of Memphis surfaced these competencies, revealing whatschool leaders need to master. The competencies which are aligned with the Interstate SchoolLeader Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) standards informed specific instructional leadership skillsneeded to enhance teaching and learning in schools. They describe both the expectations for andresponsibilities of leaders of today’s schools.

Major support for the use of these competencies was derived from Davis et al. (2005)who advocated that attributes of effective school leaders influence student achievement;Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, (2005). who identified 21 responsibilities that positively affectstudent achievement and the specific behaviors and characteristics associated with thoseresponsibilities; Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, and Wahlstrom (2004) who outlined practices thatschool leaders should implement, and a number of others too numerous to mention in thispublication.

Quite clearly, the literature offers that as leadership ability increases, so does studentachievement (Bottoms & O’Neill, 2001; Davis, et al., 2005; Levine, 2005; Spence & Bottoms,2007). Consequently, the 13 core competencies that should inform the behavior of effectiveschool leaders were identified and embedded in the curriculum of the preparation program(Green, 2001). The competencies are:

Visionary Leadership: Effective leaders demonstrate energy, commitment, and anentrepreneurial spirit; communicate values and a conviction that all children will learn athigh levels, and inspire others with that vision.

Unity of Purpose : Effective leaders collect and utilize data to develop and clarify apurpose that focuses on student learning; praise teachers’ efforts; convey highexpectations for teacher and student performance; actively involve teachers in decisionmaking, and provide teachers with the autonomy to try creative approaches.

9



REGINALD LEON GREEN

Learning Community: Effective leaders demonstrate a dedication and a willingness toassist teachers in improving their instructional skills by furnishing needed resources toteachers; creating a climate wherein the primary focus is on teaching and learning;placing emphasis on instruction, and viewing parents as partners in their children’seducation.

Instructional Leadership: Effective leaders facilitate the application of currentknowledge in learning and human development; use data to make instructional programdecisions that meet the needs of all students.

Curriculum and Instruction: Effective leaders keep school personnel focused onstudent learning and are able to put curriculum that contains research-based strategies tomeet the needs of all students into practice.

Professional Development: Effective leaders demonstrate commitment to their ownprofessional development and the professional development of others.

Organizational Management: Effective leaders skillfully implement procedures andprocesses to govern the workflow; establish clearly defined, school-wide academic andbehavioral standards to promote high expectations; hold teachers and studentsaccountable for learning.

Assessment: Effective leaders conduct assessments and identify needs of students, aswell as strengths and weaknesses of teachers.

Reflection: Effective leaders set aside time to think about their professional practices anddecisions with a focus on improvement.

Collaboration: Effective leaders engage teachers in dialogue about instructionalstrategies and student performance; allow teachers and other stakeholders to participate indecision-making.

Diversity: Effective leaders create an environment in which the ethical and moralimperatives of schooling are valued; recognize and eliminate unfair treatment andinequalities.

Inquiry: Effective leaders conduct inquiry into effective research; acquire a deepunderstanding of change and how to initiate, lead, and sustain the change; examinecurrent research to identify leadership best practices; align their actions with the goalsand vision of the school.

Professionalism: Effective leaders are diligent in implementing ethical standards of theeducation profession through their daily activities.

When program participants mastered these 13 core competencies, they could enter theprincipalship with the knowledge of skills possessed and behaviors exhibited by effective school

10



REGINALD LEON GREEN

leaders. They had an understanding of the importance of the leadership role in creating the typeof environment wherein teaching and learning is maximized. In addition, they were equipped tobuild relationships, make data-driven decisions, utilize best instructional practices, engage inchange with minimum conflict, and distribute leadership throughout the school organization(Green, 2001; Farmer, 2010; Fee, 2008; Crane, 2012).

Dispositions of Effective School Leaders

For a number of years at the University of Memphis, researchers have conducted studiesin the area of school leadership. These studies evaluated the behavior of both school leaders andfollowers and the effects of their behavior on the academic achievement of students (Brown,2012; Farmer, 2010; Green, 2001; Green, 2010; Hunter-Heaston, 2010: Williams-Griffin, 2012).The results of these studies revealed that school leadership occurs in four dimensions: (a)understanding self and others, (b) understanding the complexity of organizational life; (c)building bridges through relationships, and (d) engaging in leadership best practices (Farmer,

2010; Fee, (2008); Green, 2001; Green, 2010; Hunter-Heaston, 2010; Williams-Griffin, 2012).Collectively, the four dimensions can be used as a theoretical framework to design programs totransform underperforming schools into high performing schools (Williams-Griffin, 2012).

The first dimension, characterized as understanding self and others, speaks to the depth of knowledge that leaders must acquire about themselves and their followers. It is theorized that theeffectiveness of leaders is determined by the extent to which they understand their beliefs andvalues, as well as the beliefs and values of their followers (Green, 2010). These beliefs andvalues are known as dispositions (Wasicsko, 2000). They enhance the effectiveness of leaders byproviding them an understanding of how their behavior influences the behavior of followers andhow the behavior of their followers influences their own behavior (Green, 2013). The basicassumption is (a) what one believes and values influences behavior; (b) the behavior of theleader influences the behavior of the followers, and the behavior of followers influences thebehavior of leaders (Green, 2013).

If we accept the position of Wasicsko (2000) who offers that dispositions are personalqualities or characteristics that are possessed by individuals, then the concept that thedispositions of the leader contribute to his or her effectiveness is an acceptable one. Williams-Griffin (2012) reported that, to a large extent, it was her disposition informed by dimension oneof The Four Dimensions of Principal Leadership that enabled her to determine the behavior thatshe used to transform an underperforming middle school into a high performing one. One of thecharacteristics that separate one leader from another is his or her disposition, and the leader’sdisposition determines, to some extent, his or her influence on the academic achievement of theschool (Collinson, Killeavy, & Stephenson, 1999; Combs, 1974). What remains elusive is anidentification of the dispositions that effective leaders possess.

It is important for leaders of today’s schools to attach a high priority to characteristicsthat influence school effectiveness. An extensive review of the literature surfaced the 49dispositions listed in Table 1 (Green, 2013). They reflect the qualities that characterize effectiveleaders and are embedded in the Interstate School Leader Licensure Consortium Standards(ISLLC) offered by the Council of Chief State School Officers (2008) ; transformationalleadership as described by Bass (1998); moral leadership defined by Sergiovanni (2006); servantleadership as characterized by Greenleaf (2002); and distributive leadership defined by Spillane

11



REGINALD LEON GREEN

(2005). Collins (2001) also offers a description of effective leadership that contained a number of these dispositions.

The aforementioned researchers and writers reason how effective leaders lead and howthey should craft their beliefs, values, and attitudes if their behavior is to influence a faculty toperform effectively in schools. From among the 49 dispositions offered by Green, (2013),

aspiring school leaders in the principal preparation program selected those that they believed tobe most crucial for them to exhibit if they were to effectively lead a school.

Table 1

Dispositions Found in the Descriptions of Effective Leaders

_____ Compassion _____ Imagination _____ Openness

_____ Persuasion _____ Accuracy _____ Equity

_____ Insight _____ Influence _____ Adaptability_____ Sensitivity _____ Trust _____ Honesty

_____ Respect _____ Knowledge _____ Humility

_____ Creativity _____ Vision _____ Decisiveness

_____ Rapport _____ Management _____ Tenacity

_____ Credibility _____ Dignity _____ Commitment

_____ Organization _____ Consistency _____ Intelligence

_____ Morality _____ Fairness _____ Tact

_____ Support _____ Diversity _____ Ethics

_____ Reasoning _____ Planning _____ Charisma

_____ Reliability _____ Timeliness _____ Diplomacy

_____ Integrity _____ Accountability _____ Predictability

_____ Character _____ Judgment _____ Courage

_____ Fortitude _____ Logic

_____ Passion _____ Communication

12



REGINALD LEON GREEN

This researcher concurs with Sergiovanni (2006). He advocates that an individual seekingto lead one of today’s schools needs to have a sense of what he or she believes and values. Inessence, this encompasses a belief about children, the purpose of schooling, and people ingeneral. Additionally, they should have an in-depth understanding of their values and knowledgeof how their beliefs and values influence their behavior (Green, 2013). The literature is clear;

leaders of today’s schools need to be servants with moral and ethical standards, using atransformational style to distribute leadership throughout the school organization (Bass, 1998;Collins, 2001; Greenleaf, 2002; ISLLC, 2008; Sergiovanni, 2006; Spillane, 2005). Accepting theassumption that the literature is accurate and the premise that using a single set of dispositions tocharacterize effective leadership is problematic, individuals seeking to become effective schoolleaders should identify the dispositions that they believe are most important for them to exhibit if they are to lead a school effectively. We contend that there is enough evidence in the literature towarrant such action.

Conclusions

Preparation, competencies, and dispositions enhance effective leadership. Therefore,effectiveness must begin with a quality preparation program, one that offers an opportunity forparticipants to understand theory, as well as experience the practical aspects of leading a school.There is no substitute for the experience one can acquire functioning in the schoolhouse. Whenaspiring school leaders complete a preparation program where theory is linked with actualexperiences in the schoolhouse and paired with quality coaching and mentoring, the first step toeffective leadership has been taken. However, during those experiences, the aspiring schoolleader must seek to develop the skills and attributes necessary to be competent in the areas of communication, decision making, conflict management, and change. Once competence in theseareas has been acquired, he or she must develop the type of disposition that is advocated foreffective leaders of 21 st century schools.

Brown (2012) who studied the practices, processes, and procedures of 172 national blueribbon award-winning school leaders reported that the behavior of these leaders was acontributing factor to their success in turning around underperforming schools. They understoodtheir roles and responsibilities and established the types of relationships that enabled them tofacilitate change in the organization. They structured the school day to encourage collaborationbetween teachers, students, parents, and community stakeholders.

Leadership greatness is beginning something that does not end with the leader. Usingpractices described in the three (3) components discussed in this article, professors at theUniversity of Memphis have prepared school leaders who are leading some of the mostchallenging schools in our service area. They are also serving in central office position. Theseindividuals have become proficient at implementing practices, processes, and procedures thatenable them to transform schools into organizations that enhance the academic achievement of students at all levels. They took off their blinders and looked for opportunities to assist in theeducation of all students. They realized that the best way to succeed in the future was to create it.Leadership is all about focused action in the direction of a worthy purpose. It is about realizingthat the impossible is generally untried. Leadership is not about position; it is about actionembedded in the leader’s skills and dispositions (Hrebeniuk, 2011). In the final analysis, schoolleaders seeking effectiveness must ask themselves: Am I competent and does my disposition

13



REGINALD LEON GREEN

foster the creation of a climate in the school wherein a difference can be made in improving theacademic achievement and social and emotional well-being of students (Tirozzi, 2001)?

References

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

Bottoms, G., & O’Neill, K. (2001). Leading school improvement what research says: Areview of the literature . Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Education Board.

Brown, A. (2012). Turnaround schools: Practices used by nationally recognized principals toimprove student achievement in high poverty schools (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).University of Memphis, Memphis, TN.

Crane, D. N. (2012). The relationship between leadership behavior, the thirteen corecompetencies, and teacher job satisfaction (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).University of Memphis, Memphis, TN.

Collins, J. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap… and other don’t. NewYork, NY: HarperCollins.

Collinson, V., Killeavy, M., & Stephenson, H. (1999, October). Exemplary teachers: Practicesand ethics of care in England, Ireland, and the United States. Journal for a Just and Caring Education, 5 (4), 340-66.

Combs, A. W. (1974). Humanistic goals of education in educational accountability: Ahumanistic perspective. San Francisco, CA: Shields.

Council of Chief State School Officers. (2008). Performance expectations and indicators foreducation leaders: ISLLC-based models for education leadership . Retrieved

from www.ccsso.org/publications/details.cfm?PublicationID=367Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., Meyerson, D., Orr. M. T., & Cohen, C. (2007).

Preparing School Leaders for a Changing World: Lessons from Exemplary Leadership Development Programs. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Stanford EducationalLeadership Institute.

Davis, S., Darling-Hammond, L., LaPoint, M.A., & Meyerson, D. (2005). Developingsuccessful principals. Stanford, CA: Stanford Educational Leadership Institute.

DuFour, R. (1999). Changing role: Playing the part of the principal stretches one’s talent. Journal of Staff Development , 20(4), 62-63.

DuFour, R. (2003). Building a professional learning community. The School Administrator , 60(5), 13-18.

Farmer, E. (2010). The perception of teachers and principals on leader’s behavior informed bythirteen core competencies and its relationship to teacher motivation ( Unpublished

doctoral dissertation). University of Memphis, Memphis, TN.Fee, C. (2008). Teachers’ and principals’ perceptions of leader behavior: A discrepancy study

(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Memphis, Memphis, TN.Green, R.L. (2001). Practicing the art of leadership: A problem-based approach to implemented

the ISLLC Standards. Boston: MA: Pearson.Green, R.L. (2010). The four dimensions of principal leadership: A framework for leading 21 st

century schools. Boston: MA: Pearson.

14



REGINALD LEON GREEN

Green, R.L. (2013). Practicing the art of leadership: A problem-based approach to implemented the ISLLC standards (4th ed.). Boston: MA: Pearson.

Greenleaf, R. K. (2002). S ervant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness . New York, NY: Paulist Press.

Hess, F. M., & Kelly, A. P. (2005). Learning to lead?: What gets taught in principal preparation

programs. Retrieved fromhttp://www.ksg.harvard.edu/pepg/PDFPapers/Hess_Kelly_Learning_to_Lead_PEPG05.02.pdf

Hrebeniuk, M. (2011). Leadership Skills Inventory-Self . Retrieved fromhttp://www.articlealley.com/article_1482387_15.thml

Hunter-Heaston, T. ( 2010). The voices of four principles: An exploration of the four dimensionsof leadership as used by middle school leaders in transforming low performing schoolsthat meet and exceed local, state, and national standards (Unpublished doctoraldissertation). University of Memphis, Memphis, TN.

Lashway, L. (2002). Developing instructional leaders . Eugene, OR: ERIC Clearinghouse onEducational Management.

Leithwood, K., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership influencesstudent learning. Minneapolis, MN: Center for Applied Research and EducationalImprovement, University of Minnesota; Ontario Institute for Studies in Education at theUniversity of Ontario; and the Wallace Foundation.

Levine, A. (2005). Educating school leaders. Washington DC: The Education Schools Project.Martin, G. E., & Papa, R. (2008). Redesigning a principal preparation program: A continuous

improvement model. NASSP Bulletin , 84 (617), 23-28.Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works: From

research to results . Alexandria VA: Association for Supervision and CurriculumDevelopment.

Murphy, J. (2006). Preparing school leaders: An agenda for research and action . Lanham, MD:Rowman & Littlefield.

Murphy, J., & Datnow, A. (2003). Leadership lessons from comprehensive school reformdesigns. In J. Murphy & A. Datnow (Eds.), Leadership lessons from comprehensiveschool reforms (pp. 263-278). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Riley, R. (2002). Educational reform through standards and partnerships, 1993-2000.Phi Delta Kappan , 83 (9), 700.

Sergiovanni, T. J. (2006). Moral leadership: Getting to the heart of school improvement . SanFrancisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Slavin, R. E., & Fashola, O. S., (1998). Show me the evidence! Proven and promisingprograms for Americas schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Spence, D. & Bottoms, G. (October, 2007). How states can build leadership systems. Education Week, 27(15)46-39.

Spillane, J. (2005). Distributed leadership: The educational forum . Retrievedfrom www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4013/is_200501/ai_n947825

Terozzi, G.N. (2001). The artistry of leadership, the evolving role of the secondary schoolprincipal. Phi Delta Kappan , 82(6), 434-439.

15



REGINALD LEON GREEN

Wasicsko, M. M. (2000). The disposition to teach (Unpublished manuscript). Retrieved fromhttp://www.educatordispositions.orgdispositions/The%20Dispositions%20to%20Teach.pdf

Williams-Griffin, S. (2012). The transformation of a low performing middle school into a high performing middle school: An autoethnography (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).

University of Memphis, Memphis, TN.

Author

Reginald Leon Green is Professor of Educational Leadership in the College of Education at theUniversity of Memphis. Dr. Green teaches courses in educational leadership with a focus oninstructional leadership, school reform, and models for turning around low performing schools.His research interests include school leadership, team building for effective teaching andlearning, superintendent/board relations, school district restructuring, and the effects of nurturingcharacteristics on the academic achievement of students.

16
















































































An Identification of the Most Preferred Dispositions of EffectiveSchool Leaders

Reginald Leon Green, EdDProfessor


Tonya CooperPrincipal

Memphis City SchoolsDoctoral Student


______________________________________________________________________________

Abstract

The purpose of this research was to identify dispositions describing effective leaders mostfrequently appearing in the literature and to determine those dispositions that leaders of today’sschools believe to be most preferred in the leadership of their schools. The research wasconducted in three phases. In Phase One, the researchers selected 49 dispositions frequentlyappearing in the literature as descriptors of effective school leaders. In Phase Two, a populationof 123 school leaders was surveyed to determine their preferred dispositions from among the 49in the literature. Sixteen (16) dispositions were selected during the second phase. To reduce the16 dispositions to a manageable number, during Phase Three, 51 school leaders serving in aschool district in the Southeastern United States were asked to rank the16 dispositions in theorder they most preferred. The outcome was the identification of 6 dispositions that arerepresentative of those most preferred by leaders of today’s schools: vision, integrity, character,trust, ethics, and communication.

Keywords : dispositions, dispositions of effective school leaders, leaders in today’sschools, effective school leaders______________________________________________________________________________

Over the past century, American public educators have engaged in a number of reformmovements. Notwithstanding the number of educational reforms that have been implemented, alarge number of students remain classified as underperforming. Consequently, in America’sschools, there are achievement gaps between groups of students. Even in the highest performingschools, achievement gaps exist, and the challenge of closing those gaps remains problematic.

It is clearly evident that changes have occurred in society. To keep up with thosechanges, change has to occur in schools. Now, more than ever before, the leadership of schoolsis being questioned, and the hard questions being asked address the performance of schools andstudent achievement.

55



REGINALD LEON GREEN and TONYA COOPER

Individuals who criticize the current educational system argue that a change is needed inthe leadership of schools. Therefore, the major focus of the current reform movement has shiftedto the role of the principal (Cunningham & Cordeiro, 2009). Principals are being asked tobecome instructional leaders, responsible for the effectiveness of the school, as well as theacademic achievement of all students in attendance (Clifford & Ross, 2011; Council of Chief

State School Officers, 2008; Lashway, 2002).Part of the process of instructional leadership is the monitoring and supervision of teachers. There is growing agreement among researchers that the school leader is best positionedto ensure that teaching and learning occur throughout the school, only second to teachers whohave the most immediate effect on student success (Bottoms & O’Neill, 2001; Green, 2009;Hobson-Horton, Green, & Duncan, 2009; Waters & Grubb, 2004; Waters, Marzano, & McNulty,2003).

The shift in the role of higher accountability for the principal as instructional leader hasplaced greater demands on teachers as principals are observing teachers to ensure that theyimprove student performance. In addition, the public is demanding more information about theeffect individual teachers have on student learning (Consortium on Chicago School Research,

2010). Teachers make up the largest portion of the professional body in a school, have mostcontact with students throughout the day, and influence the environment of the school.Consequently, principals have raised the evaluation level of teachers, requiring them to increasetheir effectiveness. The issue of teacher effectiveness has become a federal and state priority anda major topic of debate across the country (Darling-Hammond, 2010; Southern RegionalEducation Board, 2011). Therefore, it seems reasonable to believe that to enhance teachereffectiveness, the relationship between teachers and principals must be enhanced. In fact, themost successful teachers may be the ones inspired by their relationship with their principal(Edgerson & Kritsonis, 2006).

Review of the Literature

Research studies have revealed that to be effective in structuring the school for effectiveteaching and learning, principals must support teachers and establish and maintain positiverelationships with them. According to Barth (2006), the nature of the relationships betweenteachers and principals has a greater influence on the culture of the school and studentachievement than any other elements affiliated with the school. If the relationships betweenprincipals and teachers are trusting, helpful, and cooperative, then the relationships betweenteachers and students, between students and students, and between teachers and parents, arelikely to be the same (Barth, 2006; Green, 2010). Principals have the ability to improve teacherperceptions overall by simply attending to fundamental components inherent in qualityrelationships. As teachers begin to feel better about themselves and what they do as a result of significant interactions with their principals, they become more effective in the classroom(Edgerson & Kritsonis, 2006). The quality of support teachers receive from principals isassociated with their job satisfaction (Council of Chief State School Officers, 2008; Markow &Martin, 2005). To that end, functioning in their role as instructional leaders, principals are welladvised to support teachers and develop and maintain positive relationships with them. Whenteachers feel positively about their position, they have a positive influence on students and theschool. The reverse is also true; when teachers have negative feelings about their positions, they

56




may negatively impact students and the school (Edgerson & Kritsonis, 2006).A critical factor, however, is lacking in this new reform movement, namely the

disposition of the principal and its influence on his/her relationship with teachers and schooleffectiveness. The disposition of the principal is embedded in his or her behavior. It is themanner in which he/she conducts him/herself; the manner in which he/she responds to events

that occur in the environment, and his/her actions or reactions to external or internal situations(Green, 2013). The disposition of the principal is a combination of his/her beliefs, values, andattitudes, and those beliefs and values influence behavior (Melton, Mallory, & Green, 2010).Teacher perception of the disposition of the principal and the affect that it has on his/herbehavior is critical to the effectiveness of the school (Blase & Kirby, 2000). Therefore, principalsare well advised to create a supportive environment for teachers.

Dispositions of School Leaders

The disposition of school leaders is a controlling perceptual quality that determines theirnatural or usual ways of thinking and acting (Usher, 2002). Qualities, such as integrity, honesty,

trust, and character characterize the disposition of school leaders and provide an explanation asto why they act in a certain way (Fullan, 2002; Perkins, 1995; Reavis, 2008). It is possible forschool leaders to possess some effective skills and positive leadership traits, but lack keyleadership dispositions (Deal & Peterson, 2009). This void has the potential of negativelyimpacting the leader’s ability to achieve long term success. In such instances, the disposition of the leader may negatively impact the school environment, interfering with the teaching andlearning process (Deal & Peterson, 2009). For example, McGregor (1960) theorized that a leadermight have a Theory X disposition or a Theory Y disposition. A leader with a Theory Xdisposition acts in ways that are coercive and directive, while a leader with a Theory Ydisposition acts in ways that are democratic and delegating (Green, 2009). Thus, dispositioninfluences behaviors toward faculty, students, families, colleagues, and communities (NationalCouncil for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE, 2002). Consequently, thedisposition of school leaders can affect student learning and development, the level of motivationof faculty members, as well as his or her own professional growth.

Above all, it is the leader’s beliefs about schools, teachers, children, parents, and thecommunity that form the foundation upon which leadership for school improvement is based(Green, 2009). As school leaders make selections from various alternatives, they reveal theirpreferences for particular values, interests and beliefs (Green 2009). In order to lead the type of change necessary to transform underperforming schools and ultimately close the achievementgap, school leaders must know the impact they are having on people and the school in general.With a deep understanding of self and the impact of their dispositions, leaders can, if necessary,modify their beliefs and values and enhance skillful performance in schools.

The Impact of Leadership Disposition on School Effectiveness

Teachers are the single most important factor in improving schools and increasing studentachievement (Darling-Hammond, 1997; Wilson, Floden, & Ferrini-Mundy, 2001). However,studies have shown that working conditions, particularly in the areas of leadership and teacherempowerment, impact teachers’ decisions to remain in a particular school or the profession ingeneral (Ingersoll, 2001). New teachers most admire school leaders who establish a culture based

57




on fairness, honesty, and trustworthiness (Ingersoll, 2001). Therefore, it is imperative that schoolleaders understand that their dispositions can positively or negatively impact their relationshipwith teachers, as well as the climate and culture of the school.

The disposition of a school leader influences the potential for teachers to succeed withina school environment. As a result, students’ achievement is affected. Effective leadership

(principal leadership) brings about supportive followership (teachers and students), and the resultis high performing teachers and students. A school leader with a positive disposition is likely tocreate a school atmosphere wherein effective teaching and learning occurs. The quality of leadership is directly proportional to the quality of followership (Pringle, 2007). Therefore, it isreasonable to believe that the disposition of the principal can positively or negatively impactachievement in the school. The question that looms largely is which type of principal dispositionis most influential in developing a positive relationship with teachers and enhancing theacademic achievement of students in the schools they lead.

Statement of the Problem

Principals are being requested to assume the responsibility of enhancing the academicachievement of all students who enter the schoolhouse. Principal/teacher relationships play amajor role in this process. Several studies appearing in the literature offer evidence of whatschool leaders need to know and be able to do in order to effectively lead a 21 st century school.However, little has been written on the preferred disposition of school leaders. To developapproaches to use in enhancing the relationship between principal and teachers and ultimatelyenhance the academic achievement of students, there is a need to identify the disposition of effective school leaders. This information can be used as a foundation for research that addressesprincipal/teacher relationships and student achievement.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this research was to identify dispositions describing effective leaders mostfrequently appearing in the literature and to determine those dispositions that leaders of today’sschools believe to be most preferred in their leadership. Three (3) research questions guided thestudy.

Research Questions:

1. What leadership dispositions appear in the literature most frequently as characteristics of effective school leaders?

2. Which of the dispositions appearing in the literature are perceived by school leaders asthose most preferred for leading their school?

3. What is the relationship, if any, between the dispositions identified as most preferred byschool leaders and the level of their school’s performance?

58




The theoretical perspective we drew on for our research is McGregor’s Theory X TheoryY (McGregor, 1960) and Transformational Leadership (Bass, 1998). Our premise whichinformed the use of Theory X Theory Y is that in administrating today’s schools, a leaderinteracts with a variety of individuals and groups in situations in which the leader’s disposition isa major determinant of success. The disposition indicators denote an individual’s beliefs, values,

and type of commitment that tend to be most effective in a school situation (Green, 2009).McGregor’s theory characterizes how the perception of a leader influences his/her behavior. Inaddition, the leadership style being advocated for school leaders of today’s schools is embeddedin transformational leadership (Bass, 1998; Burns, 1978). Transformational Leadership Theorydescribes the behavior of leaders and their relationship with followers (Northouse, 2012). Acommitment to the principles of the theory can have a major impact on a school and on studentachievement.

Methodology

The study was designed in three phases. In Phase One, the researches selected Green’s(2013) 49 dispositions as those most representative of the characteristics of effective schoolleaders appearing in the literature. Next, a population of 123 school leaders was surveyed todetermine from among the 49 dispositions the ones they most preferred. Finally, 51 schoolleaders serving in a school district in the Southeastern United States were asked to rank order thedispositions they most preferred. Using data from the rankings, the researchers conducted aSpearman’s rho correlation coefficient to determine the difference, if any, that existed among theleaders based on the performance of their school.

Population

During the 26 th Annual High Schools That Work Staff Development Conference held inNew Orleans, Louisiana, in July, 2012, the researchers presented an interactive session on thetopic “Leadership Dispositions: Implications for Effective School Leadership.” During thissession, over 150 school leaders representing schools from across 16 Southeastern states wereasked to complete The Most Preferred Leader Behavior Scale which contained Green’s (2013)list of 49 leadership dispositions. From the individuals attending the session, 123 responded tothe scale with complete information. Those 123 participants were included in the study. Forty-nine (49) of the participants were principals; 55 were assistant principals, and19 were centraloffice administrators.

During the third phase of the study, a survey was sent electronically to 51 principals in aschool district located in the Southeastern section of the United States. Forty (40) of the 51individuals responded with complete information for a return rate of 78%.

Of the forty (40) responses, 14 were males; 26 were females; 27 were Caucasians, and 13were African-Americans. Eleven (11) respondents, 27.5%, ranged in ages from 25 to 40; 10respondents, 25%, ranged in ages from 41 to 50; 18 respondents, 45%, ranged in ages from 51 to60, and 1 respondent was over 60, 2.5%. The forty (40) respondents included 18 elementaryschool principals, 45%; 13 middle school principals, 32.5%; 6 high school principals, 15%; 2kindergarten through 8th grade school principals, 5%, and 1 principal who did not identify thegrade configuration of the school.

59




Table 1

Participants in the Study

Source/Phase Number of

Participants

Number of Responses

Literature/Phase One N/A N/A

Conference/PhaseTwo

150+ 123

School District/PhaseThree

51 40

Instrument

Two instruments were used in the study, “The Most Preferred Leader Behavior Scale”and a modified version of that scale. Both instruments were adapted from the dispositionsappearing in Practicing the Art of Leadership: A Problem-Based Approach to Implementing the

ISLLC Standards (Green, 2013 ). The first instrument consisted of 49 leadership constructs.Green contends that the 49 leadership constructs characterize the dispositions of effectiveleadership as exhibited in major research studies and writings. The second instrument was anadaptation of the “The Most Preferred Leader Behavior Scale” which contained the 16dispositions that emerged from an analysis of the data from phase two of the study.

Findings

In Phase I of the study, a list of 49 dispositions were selected from Practicing the Art of Leadership: A Problem-Based Approach to Implementing the ISLLC Standards (Green, 2013 ),representing the dispositions most frequently appearing in the literature as characteristics of effective school leaders. The forty-nine (49) dispositions selected are in the appendix of thispaper. These dispositions were used to comprise The Most Preferred Leader Behavior Scale.

The Most Preferred Leader Behavior Scale was administered (during a session) at the26 th Annual High Schools That Works Conference in New Orleans in July, 2012, to an estimated150 attendees. From among the 49 dispositions listed on the scale, participants were asked tocheck all of the dispositions that they most preferred to observe as school leaders. One-hundredtwenty-three (123) respondents fully completed and returned the survey. For each of the

dispositions checked, frequencies were obtained and subsequently ranked from most oftenchosen—“Respect” being ranked first, receiving some 99 responses-- to least often chosen—“Predictability” being ranked last, receiving only 3 responses. Desirous of reducing the rankeddispositions to a manageable number, the researchers used the ranks to select the top 15dispositions, later increased to 16, given a tie between the dispositions ranked 15 th and 16 th.Chosen by a minimum of 45 respondents, the dispositions retained for Phase 3 of the study arepresented in Table 2, ranked in terms of frequency and percentage from the most often selected(“Respect” chosen by 80.5% of the 123 respondents to the least often selected (“Courage” and

60




“Openness,” both chosen by 36.6% of the respondents).

Table 2

Dispositions Most Often Selected by Participants at the High Schools That Works Conference

Dispositions % n

Respect 80.5 99

Communication 69.1 85

Honesty 69.1 85

Compassion 65.9 81

Trust 65.9 81

Integrity 60.2 74

Passion 59.3 73

Vision 56.9 70

Commitment 54.5 67

Fairness 51.2 63

Consistency 43.1 53

Ethics 42.3 52

Rapport 41.5 51

Character 37.4 46

Courage 36.6 45

Openness 36.6 45

In Phase 3 of the study, the 16 dispositions from Phase 2 were placed into a secondversion of the instrument in which respondents were asked to perform a forced ranking in orderof the importance of the dispositions for being an effective school leader. E-mailed to some 51

61




principals in a Southeastern United States school district, the revised instrument garneredcomplete responses from 40 of the original 51 principals, and all descriptive statistics pertinent tothese responses were computed. As summarized in Table 2 below, inspection of these statisticsindicated that 3 dispositions were, by far, considered first in order of importance: Vision (MedianRank of 2.5); Character (Median Rank of 4.0), and Integrity (Median Rank of 4.0) and that,

along with 3 others, were repeatedly ranked either first, second, or third. As depicted in Figure 1,those dispositions assigned one of the highest three ranks by the largest percentage of respondents were as follows: Vision (57.5%); Character (45%); Integrity (45%); Trust (30%);Ethics (25%), and Communication (22.5).

Table 3

Descriptive Statistics Pertinent to the Rank Ordering of the 16 Dispositions

Disposition Mdn Rank

Rank 1-3 M Rank

SD Rho

01) Character 4.0 45.0% 5.60 4.42 0.0002) Commitment 7.5 15.0% 7.48 3.85 0.0503) Communication 7.0 22.5% 6.98 3.67 -0.0704) Compassion 11.0 2.5% 10.40 3.77 -0.2005) Consistency 8.5 2.5% 8.50 3.53 0.0806) Courage 12.5 2.5% 11.65 3.77 -0.28 *07) Ethics 6.0 25.0% 6.65 3.94 0.2208) Honesty 8.0 15.0% 8.28 3.93 0.0209) Fairness 10.0 2.5% 10.55 3.92 0.0310) Integrity 4.0 45.0% 5.33 4.22 0.27 *11) Openness 14.0 2.5% 12.95 3.44 -0.0112) Passion 11.5 2.5% 10.60 3.89 -0.0213) Rapport 13.0 10.0% 11.60 4.24 0.0314) Respect 9.0 20.0% 7.85 3.95 -0.0515) Trust 7.0 30.0% 7.05 4.22 -0.0216) Vision 2.5 57.5% 4.55 4.48 0.14

* p < .05, one tailed

In addition to these statistics, Spearman’s rho correlation coefficients were computed todetermine the extent of the relationship between the principals’ disposition rankings and school-level Tennessee “Value-Added” Assessment System (TVAAS) rankings. Inspection of thematrix of these correlations indicated that only 2 of the 16 dispositions were significantly linkedin some way to student achievement. After reverse-scoring the dispositions’ rankings toheighten the interpretability of the results, it was shown that there was a significantly positiverelationship between school-wide student achievement based on TVASS and the disposition of courage ( U = .28, p = .040) and a significantly negative relationship between school-wide student

62




achievement based on TVASS and the disposition of integrity ( U = .27, p = 0.045).

Figure 1 . Percentage of respondents ranking dispositions, first, second, or third.

Discussion

Dispositions are characterized as values, beliefs, and attitudes which are exhibited in thebehavior of leaders (Melton et al., 2010). While differences exist between the various definitionsof disposition, a number of studies appear in the literature that offers evidence that thedisposition of school leaders impact the academic achievement of students (Barge, 2009; Barlow,Jordan, & Hendrix , 2003; Helm, 2010). Therefore, a study of preferred dispositions of effectiveschool leaders has merit.

A Discussion of the Findings

Three research questions guided this study. The intent of the first question was todetermine the dispositions most frequently appearing in the literature that characterize effectiveschool leaders. This question was addressed by the selection of dispositions compiled by Green,(2013).These dispositions were selected because they address situational leadership, moralleadership, distributive leadership, transformational leadership, and most specifically

63




instructional leadership. Comprehensively, they address the processes used by effective schoolleaders to communicate, make decisions, manage conflict, and lead change. They are alsounderpinned by the Interstate School Leader Licensure Standards (ISLLC Standards) which arethe premier leadership standards guiding leadership preparation programs nationally (“ISLLC,”2008).

The second research question sought to identify from among the 49 dispositions theones most preferred by effective school leaders. To address that question, the researchersexplored the preferred dispositions of school leaders in two different groups. The first groupconsisted of 123 school leaders from 16 states in the Southeastern region of the United States.The second group consisted of 40 school leaders from a school district in one of those states.Each group, a convenient sample of school leaders, was asked to select from Green’s (2013) listof dispositions the ones they most preferred as leaders of their school.

The first group of 123 participants checked from Green’s (2013) list of 49 dispositions,their most preferred dispositions. Using a descriptive rank order frequency research design, theresearchers were able to identify the 16 dispositions checked most frequently by the group. The16 dispositions ranked most frequently were character, commitment, communication,

compassion, consistency, courage, ethics, honesty, fairness, integrity, openness, passion, rapport,respect, trust, and vision. These dispositions are frequently referenced in the literature asnecessary for effective school leadership (Avolio, 2007; Barlow et al., 2003; Helm, 2010;Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991). Some researchers and writers argue that among them the prevailingdisposition for effective leaders is character (Barlow et al., 2003).

Having reduced Green’s (2013) list of dispositions to sixteen, the researchers wereinterested in determining from among them the ones most preferred by school leaders in a singleschool district and if the dispositions of the leaders in that school district were significantlydifferent when compared to the achievement level of their schools. To investigate this question, aconvenient school district was selected, and the principals of that district were asked to completea modified version of the Preferred Leadership Disposition Scale. Data from the participants inthe single school district revealed that the participants ranked vision, integrity, and character aseither their 1st, 2nd, or 3rd preference. Trust, ethics, and communication were the next threedispositions ranked as preferred.

The Preferred Dispositions

Vision (57.5%): Fifty-seven point five percent (57.5%) of the participants ranked visionas their 1 st, 2 nd, or 3 rd preference. In order to effectively lead a school, the principal has to have avision of what is possible and be able to share that vision with all stakeholders. A visionaryprincipal facilitates the process of goal-setting within a school and fosters a reputation forproviding unique learning opportunities to all students. He or she has high standards of learningfor all stakeholders (ISLLC, Standard 1). Bennis agrees with this assertion as he suggest thateffective leaders must be able to create a shared vision, have a voice characterized by purpose,operate from a strong moral code, and be able to adapt to change (as cited in Marzano, Waters &McNulty, 2005). With a vision of what is possible and what the school can become, theprincipal can lead the effort of reconstructing a school, working with stakeholders to establishstandards by which the school will operate. Under visionary leadership, students thriveacademically and socially (Kouzes & Posner, 2012).

Integrity (45.0 %): Forty-five percent (45%) of the participants in the study ranked

64




integrity as their 1 st, 2nd, or 3 rd preference. A leader with integrity adheres to a code of ethics,displays moral or artistic values, and is incorruptible. Cash believes the values of the leader areconsistent, regardless of time, place, and circumstances. When a school leader has integrity, heor she can build trust, and trust builds relationships (2008). According to Maxwell (2010), trustis the foundation of leadership. In practicing the art of leadership, school leaders with integrity

take responsibility for their actions and ensure that all students have access to knowledge (Strike,Haller, & Soltis, 2005) and that all teachers have the same level of support and resources toestablish the highest quality in educational standards. In actuality, their actions align with theirwords (Leroy, Palanski, & Simons, 2012). They acquire a keen understanding of the purpose of education and the role of leadership in modern society (ISLLC, Standard 5).

Character (45.0%): Another disposition ranked by 45% of the participants as their 1 st, 2nd,or 3 rd preference was character. School leaders with character have good judgment. They create amoral climate in the schoolhouse and build relationships that foster respect and fairness. Inaddition, they have fortitude, are self-disciplined, put forth effort, and persevere until the task iscompleted.

In practicing the art of leadership, school leaders have to make decisions regarding a

diverse school and community and with character these decisions are made in a fair andequitable manner. The school leader exhibits the type of behavior that demonstrates that he/shebelieves that diversity enriches the school (ISLLC, Standard 4) and brings benefits to the schoolcommunity (ISLLC, Standard 2). In essence, school leaders with character are what their belief is. They show consistency between their values, ethical reasoning and actions, and they developpositive psychological states, such as confidence, optimism, hope, and resilience in themselvesand their associates. Also, they are widely known and respected for their integrity (Cooper,Santora, & Sarros, 2007).

Trust (30.0%) The tabulated results revealed that 30% of the participants ranked trust astheir 1 st, 2nd, or 3 rd preference. When trust is pervasive, the school leader is consistent in words,actions, and deeds, and there are no gaps between what he or she says and what he or she does(Ciancutti & Steding, 2001). The faculty members know that they can count on the leader tofollow through on promises. For example, if a principal promises to support the faculty in whatappears to be a difficult initiative, such as the implementation of a new technology-based sciencemodule, the faculty should be able to trust that the principal will provide support by way of resources, encouragement, and professional development to promote the success of the initiative.

The current reform movement strongly advocates distributing leadership throughout theorganization. In order to distribute leadership, school leaders must be able to trust people andtheir judgment (ISLLC, Standard 3). The cornerstone of effective leadership in schools isrelationships, and trust is the foundation on which relationships are built (Waters et al., 2003). Acritical factor in producing positive learning outcomes for students is the trusting behaviorexhibited by the school leader (Wang & Bird, 2011).

Ethics (25.0%): Twenty-five percent (25%) of the participants ranked ethics as their 1 st,2nd, or 3 rd preference. Effective school leaders administer their schools using various ethicalframeworks and perspectives (ISLLC, Standard 5). A set of principles guide their behavior, andthe principles are based on informal and formal standards consisting of core values, honesty,respect, and trust (Beckner, 2004) . They oversee the proper execution of initiatives within theschool and in doing so, they are careful to assess their beliefs to ensure that the beliefs that theyhold compliment and are in concert with the expectations of the organization.

Communication (22.5%): Communication was ranked 1 st, 2nd, or 3 rd by 22.5% of the

65




participants. Communication is the life blood of the school. When an effective system of communication is in place in the school, the school leader actively listens to diverse points of view and uses the process to link individuals, groups, and the organization for the purpose of building relationships, establishing trust, and earning respect for self and others (Green, 2013).They understand that continuous dialogue with other decision makers affecting education

(ISLLC, Standard 6) is vital to their effectiveness and the success of the school. Througheffective means of communication, school leaders create a culture where faculty, staff, students,parents, and community members are informed of pertinent matters concerning the schooloperations.

In summary, there is a constant theme embedded within the top 6 dispositions. The top 6dispositions that emerged in the study are aligned with the principles of moral leadership. Themoral dimension of leadership encompasses at least 4 of the highest ranked dimensionspreferred: character, integrity, trust, and ethics (Muczyk & Adler, 2002). These beliefs impacthow one leads an organization in the sense that a leader’s moral obligation is to use his/herabilities to lead others in transforming the organization into what it could be by making decisionsthat are in the best interest of the school (Brown & Anfara, 2003).

The dispositions chosen speaks to the humanistic characteristics of leadership.Cunningham and Cordeiro (2009) validated the human element associated with leaders whopossess humanistic characteristics. They suggest that these leaders are supportive in their effortsto develop followers who act in the best interest of the organization. Keeping in line with theimportance of attending to the human element associated with leadership, Bennis and Nanus(2003) concluded that when one believes in human growth, this belief generates an environmentof trust and authentic relationships.

The Relationship between Leader Disposition and Level of School Performance

The third question, “What is the relationship, if any, between the dispositions identifiedby school leaders as most preferred for leading schools and the level of school performance?”was assessed using data from the group of 40 school leaders. With the exception of courage andintegrity, the results of the data analysis revealed that for participants in this study, dispositionshad little impact on the level of performance of their school (See Figure 1). One reason thatcould be offered for this finding is the similar nature in which leaders of the district are requiredto lead, the philosophy of central office administrators, and the expectations of members of thelarger community. With regards to courage and integrity, one might reason that, with courage, aschool leader would take the initiative to make the needed changes necessary for schoolimprovement. Also, with integrity, the school leader might be more inclined to ensure that allstudents have access to knowledge and the opportunity to acquire that knowledge. Nevertheless,as evidenced by their selections, these leaders, regardless of the achievement levels of theirschools, encapsulated the characteristics of an effective leader as one who is attentive to thehuman element associated with leadership and has worked to forge strong relationships withhis/her followers. However, these researchers realize the inclusiveness of the findings and that itis evident that additional study is needed in this area.

66




Conclusions

Leadership is not about holding a position; rather, it is about skills and the behaviors thatsurface in the disposition of the individual (Hrebeniuk, 2011). What makes leadership greatnessis leaders who begin something that does not end with them. They realize that the impossible is

generally untried, and the best way to succeed in the future is to create it. Consequently, effectiveleaders take off the blinders and look for new opportunities to assist in the education of allstudents. In the final analysis, school leaders seeking effectiveness must ask themselves: Is mydisposition fostering the creation of a climate in the school wherein a difference can be made inthe academic achievement and social and emotional well-being of students (Tirozzi, 2001)?

It is arguable that the 6 dispositions emerging from this study are the ones that effectiveleaders should possess as the discourse on dispositions is constrained by ambiguity. The list fromwhich the participants chose may have contained dispositions that appeared to be similar innature as the definition of one disposition incorporates the definition of another. For example,embedded in the definition of character are respect, fairness, consistency, and integrity. Honesty,respect, and trust are embedded in the definition of ethics. The researchers realize that there is a

need to refine the list of dispositions by collapsing the ones that reflect similar values andmeaning. Nevertheless, there is no denying that the 6 dispositions that surfaced will enhance thepotential success of any leader of today’s schools. Understanding them and their influence in theschoolhouse is a start in the process of identifying dispositions that today’s school leaders shouldpossess.

Crafting research that identifies dispositions of effective school leaders is necessary if weare to understand the behaviors that leaders need to exhibit in order to create the type of climatewherein teacher and learning occurs for all students. Future studies might examine therelationship of dispositions of leaders in a variety of schools. One study could compare thedispositions of leaders in underperforming schools with those of leaders in high-performingschools. Another study might explore the most preferred dispositions, using a wider sampleincluding participants from urban, suburban, and rural schools.

What is critical in leading one of today’s schools is the understanding that leaders have of themselves and the people with whom they work and serve (Green, 2010). Fully aware of theprinciples of their disposition, educational leaders can self-reflect, determine how theirdispositions influence the behavior of the people with whom they work and serve, and thebehavior, if any, that they need to change in order to lead more effectively. The goal of schoolleaders is to transform schools into learning communities focused on the academic achievementof all students. One set of dispositions may not meet this challenge. However, the finding of thisstudy offers six dispositions that might be used in the process.

References

Avolio, B.J. (2007). Promoting more integrative strategies for leadership theory-building. American Psychologist, 62 (1), 25-33. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.62.1.25

Barge, J. K., (2009). Leadership: Communication skills for organizations and groups .New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.

Barlow, C.B., Jordan, M., & Hendrix, W.H. (2003). Character assessment: An examination of leadership levels. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17 (4), 563-584.

67




Barth, R.S. (2006, March). Improving relationships within the schoolhouse. EducationalLeadership, 63 (6). Retrieved from the ASCD website:http://www.bing.com/search?q=ASCD+website%3A&form=DLCDF8&pc=MDDR&src=IE-SearchBox

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

Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Beckner , W. (2004). Ethics for educational leaders . New York, NY: Allyn & Bacon.Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (2003). Leaders: Strategies for taking charge (2nd ed.). New York,

New York: Harper Collins.Blase , J., & Kirby , P. (2000 ). Bringing out the best in teachers: What effective principals do (2nd

ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Bottoms, G., & O’Neill, K. (2001). Leading school improvement what research says: A

review of the literature . Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Education Board.Brown, K. M., & Anfara, V. A. (2003, June 1). Paving the way for change: Visionary leadership

in action at the middle level. National Association of Secondary School Principals ,87 (635), 16.

Burns, J. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper & Row.Cash, J. (2008). Fastball leadership. Leadership, 37 (3), 22-25.Ciancutti, A., & Steding, T. (2001). Built on trust: Gaining competitive advantages in any

organization . Chicago, IL: Contemporary Books.Clifford, M., & Ross, S. (2011). Designing principal evaluation systems: Research to guide

decision-making (An Executive Summary of Current Research in collaboration with theNational Association of Elementary School Principals). Retrieved from the NationalAssociation of Elementary School Principals website: https://www.naesp.org

Consortium on Chicago School Research At The University Of Chicago Urban EducationInstitute. (2010). Rethinking teacher evaluations. Chicago, IL: Author. Retrieved fromccsr.uchicago.edu/publications/Teacher%20Eval%20Final.pdf

Council of Chief State School Officers. (2008). Educational leadership policy standards: ISLLC 2008 . Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved fromhttp://www.ccsso.org/Documents/2008/EducationalLeadership_Policy_Standards_2008.pdf

Cooper, B.K., Santora, J.C., & Sarros J.C. (May –June, 2007). The character of leadership. Ivey Business Journal , 1-13. Retrieved fromhttp://www.iveybusinessjournal.com/topics/leadership/the-character-of-leadership

Cunningham, W., & Corderio, P. (2009). Educational leadership: A bridge to improved practice(4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). Evaluating teacher effectiveness: How teacher performanceassessments can measure and improve teaching. Retrieved from the Center for AmericanProgress website:http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/10/pdf/teacher_effectiveness.pdf

Darling-Hammond, L. (1997).The quality of teaching matters most. Journal of Staff Development, 18 (1), 38-41.

Deal, T.E., & Peterson, K. D. (2009). Shaping school culture, paradoxes, and promises . SanFrancisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

68




Edgerson, D. E., & Kritsonis, W. A. (2006). Analysis of the influence of principal-teacherrelationships on student academic achievement: A national focus. Doctoral Forum:

National Journal for Publishing and Mentoring Doctoral Student Research, 1(1).Fullan, M. (2002). The change leader. Educational Leadership , 59 (8), 16-20.Green, R.L. (2009). Practicing the art of leadership: A problem-based approach to implementing

the ISLLC standards (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.Green, R.L. (2010). The four dimensions of principal leadership: A framework for leading 21 st

century schools. New York, NY: Pearson.Green, R.L. (2013). Practicing the art of leadership: A problem-based approach to implementing

the ISLLC standards (4th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.Helm, C.M. (2010). Leadership dispositions: What are they and are they essential to good

leadership. Academic Leadership, 8 (1). Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.memphis.edu/ehost/detail?vid=4&hid=12&sid=4fc3be04-aa39-4a12-9646-48a0f0e2a351%40sessionmgr14&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=of m&AN=508128551

Hrebeniuk, M. (2011). Leadership Skills Inventory – Self . Retrieved from

http://www.articlealley.com/article_1482387_15.htmlHobson-Horton, L. D., Green, R. L., & Duncan, B. (2009). The usage of the Southern RegionalBoard (SREB)’s critical success factors in developing teacher leaders to assumeinstructional leadership responsibilities. International Journal of Teacher Leadership ,2(2), 69-88. Retrieved from http://www.csupomona.edu/ijtl

Ingersoll, R.M. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages : An organizational analysis . American Educational Research Journal , 38 (3), 499-534.

Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) Standards . (2008). Retrieved fromhttp://www.ccsso.org/documents/2008/educational_leadership_policy_standards_2008Pdf: Author.

Kirkpatrick, S., & Locke, E. A. (1991). Leadership: Do traits matter? Academy of Management Executive , 5(2), 48-60.

Kouzes, J., & Posner, B. (2012). The leadership challenge (5th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Lashway, L. (2002, March 6). Trends in school leadership. Educational Management , 14-37.Leroy, H., Pananski, M., & Simons, T. (2012). Authentic leadership and behavioral integrity as

drivers of follower commitment and performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 107 (3),255-264.

Marzano, R.J., Waters, T, & McNulty, B.A. (2005). School leadership that works: Fromresearch to results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and CurriculumDevelopment.

Markow, D., & Martin, S. (2005). The MetLife survey of the American teacher, 2004-2005:Transitions and the role of supportive relationships. New York, NY: MetLife. Retrievedfrom the MetLife Website:http://www.metlife.com/WPSAssets/34996838801118758796V1FATS_2004.pdf

Maxwell, J.C. (2010, November). Do they trust you? How to build a solid foundation forleadership. Success , 18-19.

McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of the enterprise. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

69




Melton, T., Mallory, B.J., & Green, J. (2010). Identifying and assessing dispositions of educational leadership candidates. Education Leadership and Administration, 22 (4), 46-60 .

Muczyk, J. P., & Adler, T. (2002, October 1). An attempt at a consentience regarding formalleadership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies , 9(2), 2.

National Council for the Accréditation of Teacher Educators. (2002). Professional standards forthe accreditation of teacher preparation instituions . Retrieved fromhttp://www.ncate.org/public/102407.asp?ch=148

Northouse, P. ( 2012). Leadership: Theory and practice (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SagePublications.

Perkins, D. (1995). Outsmarting I.Q.: The emerging science of learnable intelligence. NewYork, NY: The Free Press.

Pringle, P. (2007). Top 10 qualities of a great leader (p. IX). Tulsa, OK: Harrison House.Reavis, C. (2008) Dispositions of educational leaders (Unpublished manuscript).Schulte, L. E., & Kowal, P. (2005). The validation of the Administrator Dispositions Index.

Educational Leadership and Administration: Teaching and Program Development , 17 , 5-

87.Southern Regional Education Board. (2011). Measuring a teacher’s value and effectiveness in SREB states (Policy Brief No. 11E14). Atlanta, GA: Author. Retrievedfrom http://publications.sreb.org/2011/11E14_Value_Teacher1.pdf

Strike, K., Haller, E., & Soltis, J. (2005). The ethics of school administration . New York, NY:Teachers College Press.

Tirozzi, G.N. (2001). The artistry of leadership, the evolving role of the secondary schoolprincipal. Phi Delta Kappan, 82 (6), 434-439.

Usher, D. (2002, November). Arthur Combs' five dimensions of helper belief reformulated as fivedispositions of teacher effectiveness. Paper presented at the meeting of the First AnnualSymposium on Educator Dispositions, Richmond, KY.

Wang, C., & Bird, J.J. (2011). Multi-level modeling of principal authenticity and teachers’ trustand engagement. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 15 (4), 125-147.

Waters, T., & Grubb, S. (2004). The leadership we need: Using research to strengthen the use of standards for administrator preparation and licensure programs. Aurora, CO: Mid-continental Research for Education and Learning.

Waters, J.T., Marzano, R.J., & McNulty, B.A. (2003) Balanced leadership: What 30 years of research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement . Aurora, CO: Mid-continental Research for Education and Learning.

Wilson, S. M., Floden, R. E., & Ferrini-Mundy, J. (2001). Teacher preparation research:Current knowledge, gaps, and recommendations (No.R-01-3). University of Washington:Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy (A research report prepared for the U.S.Department of Education and the Office for Educational Research and Improvement).

Authors

Reginald Leon Green , Ed.D. is Professor of Educational Leadership in the College of Educationat the University of Memphis. Dr. Green teaches courses in educational leadership with a focuson instructional leadership, leadership dispositions, school reform, and models for turning aroundlow performing schools. His research interests include school leadership, team building for

70




effective teaching and learning, superintendent/board relations, school district restructuring, andthe effects of nurturing characteristics on the academic achievement of students.

Tonya Cooper is Principal of Chimneyrock Elementary School in the Memphis City Schoolssystem in Memphis, Tennessee, and a doctoral student in the University of Memphis’ Doctoral

Program. Her research interests are dispositions of effective school leaders, the merger of schoolorganizations, and the transformation of underperforming high, poverty schools.

71




Appendix

The Forty-Nine (49) Dispositions Defined

Insight: The school leader is knowledgeable of situations and issues that occur in schools and

can clearly and intuitively determine the complex nature of those situations and issues for thepurpose of addressing them in an effective manner (Bossidy & Charan, 2002).

Creativity: The behavior of the school leader reveals that he or she has an imagination; his orher ideas are original and can be transformed into reality (Goleman & Kaufman, 1992).

Morality: The actions of the school leader are based on moral principles (Strike, Haller, &Soltis, 2005).

Support: The school leader conveys to faculty members in words and deeds that they candepend on him or her to assist them in becoming effective instructors (Green, 2013).

Reasoning: The school leader has the conceptual and analytical ability to frame problems anddraw conclusions in a manner that leads to an appropriate course of action (Rest as cited inSivanathan & Fekken, 2002).

Passion: The school leader has an entrepreneurial spirit and an infectious desire to achieve agoal or outcome; a powerful and controlling emotion (Bolman & Deal, 2008).

Ethics: The school leader uses a set of principles to guide his or her behavior. The principlesused are based on informal and formal standards consisting of core values, honesty, respect, andtrust (Beckner, 2004).

Vision: The school leader is continuously searching for high standards of learning for allstudents; anticipating what will or may come to reality; imagining exciting and ennoblingpossibilities ( Kouzes & Posner, 2012).

Intelligence: The school leader has the cognitive ability to learn from experience; to reason well;to remember important information, and to cope with the demands of administering a schooldaily (Sternberg as cited in Huitt, 2002).

Communication: The school leader actively listens to diverse points of view and uses theprocess of communication to link individuals, groups, and the organization for the purpose of building relationships, establishing trust, and earning respect for self and others (Green, 2013).

Tact: The school leader displays a sense of what is fitting and considerate in dealing withothers; gives consideration to the feelings of others; has acquired skills necessary to handledifficult and delicate situations without insulting others (Green, 2013).

Diplomacy: The school leader has the ability to rally people to a greater cause and to persuadethem to function with enthusiasm doing what they already know is the right thing to do(Houston, Blankstein, & Cole, 2009).

72




Reliability: School leaders are consistent and dependable. They display high degrees of integrityand are able to analyze obstacles to trust, remove those obstacles, and work with members of theorganization to build a culture of trust, (Galford & Drapeau, 2002).

Integrity: The school leader adheres to a set of moral and ethical principles while displaying

soundness of moral character and being honest regarding actions taken. He or she takesresponsibility for his or her actions and is willing to ensure that all students have access toknowledge (Strike, Haller, & Soltis, 2005).

Character: School leaders exhibit what they believe. They show consistency between theirvalues, ethical reasoning and actions, and develop positive psychological states, such asconfidence, optimism, hope, and resilience in themselves and their associates. Also, they arewidely known and respected for their integrity (Cooper, Santora, & Sarros, 2007).

Fortitude: The school leader exhibits the courage and strength to transform organizations(Riggio, 2009).

Imagination: The school leader has the ability to form mental images of real and unreal eventsand to develop different scenarios or different perspectives on those events. He or she can createa fresh situation or series of events that might lead to the identification of a vision (Werhane,1999).

Accuracy: The school leader is thorough in accomplishing a task and shows concern for allareas involved, no matter how small. He or she organizes time and resources, monitors workproducts or information, double-checking to ensure accuracy, consistency, and efficiency(Syracuse University, HR Dept., 2012).

Influence: The school leader is able to mobilize people around a compelling vision of the future,inspiring them to follow in his or her footsteps. He or she shows people what is possible andmotivates them to make those possibilities reality (Bennis & Nanus, 2003).

Trust: The school leader is consistent in words, actions, and deeds, and there are no gapsbetween what he or she says and what he or she does. You can count on him or her to deliver onhis or her promises. An individual can be confident in the promised action (Ciancutti, & Steding,2001).

Knowledge: The school leader has an in-depth understanding of school practices, processes, andprocedures and uses this information to move the school toward goal attainment (Green, 2013).

Management: The school leader achieves goals and objectives of the school by organizing tasksand assignments and monitoring and evaluating operational systems in a manner that ensures asafe, efficient, and effective learning environment. Routines are followed and goals are achievedin an efficient and effective manner (Bennis & Nanus as cited in Ricketts, 2009; ISLLCStandards, 2007).

73




Planning: The school leader builds a foundation for teaching and learning to occur and creates aroadmap for successful change when it is needed. He or she outlines and assigns specific tasksthat increase the likelihood of organizational success (Anderson & Anderson, 2010).

Timeliness: The school leader takes actions regarding school issues at the appropriate time. He

or she realizes that addressing issues in an expeditious manner is crucial to the success of theorganization (Chaganti & Sherman, 1998; Blanchard & Johnson, 2003).

Accountability: The school leader complies with established control systems and holds self andothers accountable for measurable high-quality, timely, and cost- effective results. He or shedetermines objectives, sets priorities, delegates work, and accepts responsibility for mistakes(Kichak, 2008).

Judgment: The school leader exhibits wisdom in taking action and making decisions (Bossidy& Charan, 2002).

Organization: The school leader leads with a detailed plan. He or she exhibits behavior thatindicates that the necessary time has been devoted to considering alternatives and developingback up plans and contingencies. He or she develops safeguards so that nothing falls through thespaces (Bolman & Deal, 2008; Brody, 2011; Morgan, 1996).

Charisma: The school leader has the ability to galvanize people to follow his or her style of leadership. He or she tends to communicate in a way that is effective in drawing people to him orher through his or her personality (Kouzes & Posner, 2012).

Tenacity: The school leader has an inner drive that pushes him or her to get to the heart of anissue and find solutions. As a result of this inner drive, he or she searches tenaciously forinformation that is missing and keeps tweaking his or her mental models until he or she arrives ata position that works (Charan, 2007).

Humility: The school leader is aware of self, values the opinion of others, is willing to learn andchange, and share power. He or she has the ability to hear the truth, admit mistakes, and work tocreate a culture of openness. Dissent (a difference of opinion) is encouraged in an environmentof mutual trust and respect (Lawrence, 2008).

Dignity: The school leader values the opinion of others, considers all individuals valuable partsof the school organization, and treats them ethically and with respect (Hicks, 2012).

Consistency: The school leader establishes a standard of excellence and maintains that standardwhile performing and making decisions. The behavior of the leader is consistent with minimalvariation as he or she transmits a sense of mission, stimulates learning experiences, andmotivates new ways of thinking (Hater & Bass, 1988).

Fairness: The school leader gives others a voice and treats them with dignity. They base theirdecisions on accurate information and are consistent in their practices (Sackett, 2011).

74




Diversity: The school leader works effectively with people across lines of difference which isintegral to creating buy-in and ultimately reaching goals. He or she sets the tone for the groupand helps to foster effective intergroup dynamics (Banks, 2010).

Logic: The school leader is in pursuit of knowledge, engaging in analysis, questioning, and

reasoning to establish depth of comprehension and understanding about a particular topic(Reardon, Reardon, & Rowe, 1998).

Predictability: The school leader consistently provides exactly what is planned and/or expected(Kaufman, 2012).

Courage: The school leader challenges the process, experiments, and takes risk. He or she hasthe ability to act rightly in the face of popular opposition (Kouzes & Posner, 2012).

Decisiveness: The school leader makes decisions and when they are in the best interest of theschool organization, he or she sticks with them in spite of difficult challenges (Smith, & Piele,

1997).Equity : The school leader creates and implements programs and strategies that yield successfuloutcomes and advancements for all students (Scheurich & Skrla, 2003).

Honesty: The school leader behaves in a trusting or trustworthy manner, exercising integrity(Kouzes & Posner, 2002).

Openness: The school leader has the ability to entertain different and non-customary ideas. Heor she is flexible and willing to change his or her way of thinking when the situation warrants.Displaying openness, the school leader finds ways to celebrate the accomplishments of others(Kouzes & Posner, 2012).

Adaptability: The school leader is flexible, open to alternatives, and able to adjust to newconditions. He or she is willing to modify his or her position for the sake of other individuals forthe good of the school organization (Bolman & Deal, 2008; Schulte & Kowal, 2005; Wildy &Louden, 2000).

Compassion: The behavior of the school leader denotes awareness and a sense of caring for thefeelings of others (Green, 2013).

Sensitivity: The school leader is emotionally intelligent and is aware of the impact his or herdecisions and perspectives have on himself or herself and others (Ingram & Cangemi, 2012).

Respect: The school leader recognizes the contributions of others and shows appreciation forindividual excellence. He or she treats people in the organization as he or she would like to betreated-with dignity and courtesy (Ciancutti & Steding, 2001; Kouzes & Posner, 2012).

Rapport: The school leader aligns his or her actions with others because he or she feels that theyshare similar values (Kouzes & Posner, 2012).

75




Credibility: The school leader is viewed by others as being trustworthy, competent, dynamic,inspiring, and accountable. Others view him or her as one who is proficient and competent tostrategically execute the goals of the organization (Matthews, 2010).

Commitment: The school leader is dedicated to the growth of the organization and eachindividual within the organization. The professional and personal growth of stakeholders isnurtured (Spears, 2010).

Persuasion: The school leader uses verbal and non-verbal communication to connect withpeople and to influence them to assist in the achievement of mutually beneficial results(Williams, 2009).

76







































































