api.ning.com file · Web viewapi.ning.com

Teacher and Principals’ Beliefs about Self-Efficacy and the Effects on Student Learning

During School Improvement: Perspectives from the Field

Dissertation

Submitted to Northcentral University

Graduate Faculty of the School of Educationin Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree of

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

by

TERESA A CONLEY

Prescott Valley, ArizonaMarch 2015

Approval Page

Teacher and Principals’ Beliefs about Self-Efficacy and the Effects on Student Learning

During School Improvement: Perspectives from the Field

By

Teresa A. Conley

Approved by:

_______________________________________________ ________________

Chair: Dr. Ann Armstrong, Ed.D. Date

Certified by:

______________________________________________ ________________

Dean of School: Dr. Rebecca Wardlow, Ed.D. Date

Abstract

The purpose of this qualitative multi-case study was to explore and describe urban

teachers’ and principals’ self-efficacy throughout a change process by understanding each

group’s beliefs about their strengths and abilities to promote student learning, while also

dealing with the process of school improvement. The target populations for this study

were teachers and principals in grades three through eight from urban settings,

specifically from schools that were or had been in corrective action and experiencing a

school improvement change process. A sample of 13 teachers and principals were

solicited for participation through Internet sites established for the purpose of

professional learning networking. This study utilized four data sources: The Teacher

Sense of Self-Efficacy Scale (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001), the Principal

Sense of Self-Efficacy Scale (Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2004), the US Department of

Education data of schools in need of improvement, and semi-structured interviews of

teachers and principals using the Critical Incident Technique. This study investigated the

relationship of school improvement through climate and culture change from the position

of the teachers and principals, unveiling tacit knowledge and perspectives which may

have been overlooked in cultivating and promoting school improvement leading to little

or no progress. Nine elements were identified by participants as being critical to them

when trying to be effective while operating under the pressure of corrective status. These

nine elements – climate and culture, time, self-efficacy, experience, expectations,

relationships, professional development, money, and motivation – emerged with

additional subthemes providing a closer lens into what teachers and principals believe to

be important for climate and culture change within their individual contexts. A hierarchy

of basic or practical needs evolved from the results which provides a framework for

guiding school and district leaders when making decisions around climate and culture

change in low performing schools. Additionally, this knowledge can be used in

developing professional development to improve the self-efficacy of teachers and

principals for sustainable and continuing school improvement efforts.

Acknowledgements

First I want to acknowledge my husband, Jim. Thank you for your support, your

understanding, and your patience. I also thank you for being a partner in this journey,

always pushing me to get the next step completed, and for believing and knowing that I

would make it to the end. I love you and thank you for your patience and understanding

during this endeavor.

Second I would like to acknowledge Dr. Ann Armstrong without whom I would

not have been able to complete this journey. Thank you for always being there and for

your immediate feedback to my questions. I felt that you were truly invested in my

success and was always available for me when I needed you the most.

Finally, I want to acknowledge the administration of Northcentral University.

Although I often felt frustrated and defeated, there were adjustments made to enable me

to continue my journey and be able to follow through to the end. Thank you for not

giving up on me and for supporting my effort to complete this dissertation.

Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Introduction........................................................................................................1

Statement of the Problem...............................................................................................3Purpose of the Study......................................................................................................4Research Questions........................................................................................................4Nature of the Study........................................................................................................5Significance of the Study...............................................................................................8Definition of Key Terms................................................................................................9Summary......................................................................................................................11

Chapter 2: Literature Review.............................................................................................12

Title Searches, Articles, Research Documents, and Journal Research........................13Teacher Self-Efficacy..................................................................................................15Impact of Low Teacher Efficacy.................................................................................22Teacher Self-Efficacy and Expectations......................................................................27Teacher Self-Efficacy and Motivation.........................................................................32Principal Self-efficacy.................................................................................................40Impact of Low Principal Self-Efficacy........................................................................43School Improvement....................................................................................................45Climate and Culture.....................................................................................................57Ultimate Goal—Student Achievement........................................................................62Conceptual Framework................................................................................................63Summary......................................................................................................................65

Chapter 3: Research Method.............................................................................................70

Population....................................................................................................................71Sample.........................................................................................................................72Materials/Instruments..................................................................................................72Data Collection, Processing, and Analysis..................................................................77Assumptions................................................................................................................82Limitations...................................................................................................................83Delimitations................................................................................................................84Ethical Assurances.......................................................................................................85Summary......................................................................................................................86

Chapter 4: Findings............................................................................................................88

Field Test.....................................................................................................................89Sample Criteria............................................................................................................89Participant Recruitment...............................................................................................90Sample Participants.....................................................................................................91Data Collection..........................................................................................................102Results........................................................................................................................105Review of the Main Findings....................................................................................174

Summary....................................................................................................................190

Chapter 5: Implications....................................................................................................192

Limitations.................................................................................................................193Validity of findings....................................................................................................194Implications...............................................................................................................195Guiding Question Implications..................................................................................196Discussion of Findings in Relation to Research Literature.......................................201Recommendations for Practice..................................................................................208Conclusion.................................................................................................................211

References........................................................................................................................213

Appendixes......................................................................................................................232

Appendix A: Letter of Consent........................................................................................233

Appendix B: Instruments and Permissions for Use.........................................................234

Appendix C: Interview Guides........................................................................................238

Appendix D: Requests to Post Recruitment Notice for Study Participants and Permission Letter................................................................................................................................240

Appendix E: Recruitment Statements..............................................................................244

List of Tables

Table 1 Search terms for Literature Review....................................................................14

Table 2 Start Codes...........................................................................................................81

Table 4 Demographics of participants..............................................................................93

Table 6 Emerging themes...............................................................................................104

Table 7 Frequency of Responses per Theme..................................................................105

Table 8 Climate and Culture...........................................................................................106

Table 9 Climate and Culture/Principal Responses.........................................................107

Table 10 Climate and Culture/Teacher Responses.........................................................107

Table 11 Time.................................................................................................................111

Table 13 Time/Teacher Responses.................................................................................115

Table 14 Self-efficacy.....................................................................................................118

Table 15 Self-efficacy/Principals...................................................................................119

Table 16 Self-efficacy of Teachers.................................................................................125

Table 17 Experiences......................................................................................................131

Table 18 Experiences/Principals.....................................................................................131

Table 19 Teacher Experiences........................................................................................136

Table 20 Expectations.....................................................................................................141

Table 21 Expectations/Principals...................................................................................142

Table 22 Teacher Expectations.......................................................................................146

Table 23 Professional Development...............................................................................153

Table 24 Professional Development/Principals..............................................................153

Table 25 Professional Development/Teachers...............................................................156

Table 26 Relationships...................................................................................................160

Table 27 Relationships/Principals..................................................................................161

Table 28 Relationships/Teachers....................................................................................164

Table 29 Money..............................................................................................................165

Table 30 Money/Principals.............................................................................................166

Table 31 Money/Teachers..............................................................................................168

Table 33 Motivation/Principals......................................................................................169

Table 34 Motivation/Teachers........................................................................................171

Table 35 Years in School Improvement.........................................................................179

Table 36 Survey Results.................................................................................................184

Table 37 Interview response rates per theme.................................................................185

Table 38 Frequency of Responses per theme.................................................................196

Table 39 Research question with supporting themes.....................................................197

List of Figures

Figure 1. Studies Conceptual Framework........................................................................64

Figure 2 Triangulation of Data..........................................................................................79

Figure 3. The Conley Hierarchy for supporting principals and teachers during school improvement....................................................................................................................209

11

Chapter 1: Introduction

Since the inception of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB, 2001) urban school

personnel across the United States have worked to improve student achievement and

close the learning gaps that exist among the varying student populations (Good &

McCaslin, 2008). If schools fail to improve student achievement and close the learning

gaps, severe sanctions such as losing funding, restructuring staffs, or closing schools are

imposed (NCLB, 2001; Orr, Berg, Shore, & Meir, 2008).

Though there have been some improvement in these schools, there remain pockets

of schools still struggling to meet the standards established by NCLB (Center on

Educational Policy, 2008; Duncan, 2012; Lachlan-Haché, Naik, & Casserly, 2012)

despite thousands of dollars being spent on professional development, instructional

programs, hiring new staff, or restructuring schools using specialty programs (Center on

Educational Policy, 2008). In 2009, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

(ARRA) recognized the need to add additional supports to the accountability standards

put into place by NCLB (Lachlan-Haché et al., 2012). This Act provided financial

support to the lowest 5% of persistently low-performing schools through a program

called Education, Jobs, and Reform. The program required school districts to apply for a

School Improvement Grant, now known as the SIG grant, and to implement very specific

programs. These grants were good for 3 years and provided schools with funding to

provide professional development for teachers and principals. However, schools had to

demonstrate turnaround within those 3 years. There are schools still remaining within

urban areas of the country that have not met this challenge and are faced with

restructuring or closure (Lachlan-Haché et al., 2012).

Teachers are the most influential adults in a student’s academic career (Jerald,

12

2007; Kennedy & Smith, 2012; Shaterian, Asadzadeh, Ahadi, & Jomehri, 2011;

Takahashi, 2011; Tucker et al., 2005; Yenice, Evern, & Ozden, 2012). Teachers have the

most contact with students throughout the school day, and as a result, build influential

relationships with their students (Brackett, Reyes, Rivers, Elbertson, & Salovey, 2011;

Jennings & Greenberg, 2009; Tucker et al., 2005).

Principals influence student performance, though in more indirect ways (Kurt,

Duyar, & Calik, 2012; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2008; Lindahl, 2007). Their influence stems

through creating a safe learning environment that provides time on task for learning and

implementation of supports to enhance academic growth (Kurt et al., 2012; Leithwood &

Jantzi, 2008; Lindahl, 2007; Urick & Bowers, 2013). But when school staff are held

accountable for ensuring that even their lowest or most challenging students are as

proficient as less vulnerable peers, the pressure of the challenge begins to take a toll on

both teachers and administers (McCullers & Bozeman, 2010). Changes in instruction,

how the school must begin to operate, and what teachers and principals are expected to

do create an atmosphere of anxiety and stress, often resulting in further poor performance

(Kruse, 2008; Orr et al., 2008).

Teachers must possess a strong belief in their ability to have a positive impact on

student learning to bring about high student achievement (Klassen & Chiu, 2010;

Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). Principals must possess a strong belief in

their ability to lead teachers, parents, and students in improving academic performance

(Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2004). The sanctions put in place by NCLB and supported

through ARRA may be responsible for creating negative effects on the self-efficacy of

teachers and principals (McCormick, Ayers, & Beechy, 2006) and may be doing more

harm than good (Orr et al., 2008).

13

The rest of this chapter will discuss the problem, the purpose, the nature of the

study and the significance of the proposed study. The research questions are presented

and specific key terms defined.

Statement of the Problem

The general problem was that urban schools remain in corrective status despite

targeted professional development to improve instruction (Clarke, 2009; Evans, Thorton,

& Usinger, 2012; Finnigan, 2012; Good & McCaslin, 2008; U.S. Department of

Education [U.S. DOE], 2010). Much research attributed the failure of school

improvement initiatives on such variables as lack of sustained resources (Clarke, 2009),

failure to fully implement before changing to a new reform design (Kruse, 2008), teacher

modifications to implementation to better fit their own teaching styles (McIntyre & Kyle,

2006), mixed capacity to teacher professional development (Kruse, 2008), cultural

mismatch in the initiatives and the student population of a school (Smyth & McInerney,

2007; Willis, 2010; Wrigley, 2011), and a lack of belief in urban students’ ability to meet

high expectations for learning (Good & McCaslin, 2009; Rubie-Davies, 2007; Weinstein,

2002). Additionally, school reform had been found to have a negative effect on teacher

self-efficacy through loss of autonomy (Konings, Brand-Gruwel, & van Merrienbaer,

2007; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007), fear of the unknown or unfamiliar practices

(McCormick et al., 2006), changes in teacher roles (Zimmerman, 2006), or conflicts in

vision or philosophy between teachers and the reform practices they are being asked to

implement (Margolis & Nagel, 2006). However, research focusing on teachers’ and

principals’ beliefs in their ability to make a difference while operating under these

sanctions is quite limited. The specific problem this study addressed was the gap in the

research on school level responses to high stakes accountability policies that are essential

14

to understanding the reason why so many schools continue to operate in corrective status

and what steps school leaders believed from their experiences need taken to improve

student achievement and learning in these schools.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this qualitative multi-case study was to explore and describe urban

teachers’ and principals’ self-efficacy throughout a change process by understanding each

groups’ beliefs about their strengths and abilities to promote student learning while also

dealing with the process of school improvement.

This qualitative multi-case study included teachers, principals, and assistant

principals from urban districts that had operated in a status of school improvement.

Performance data retrieved from the National Center for Educational Statistics (Sable,

Plotts, & Mitchell, 2010) served to provide information on urban school districts and

identify where these pockets of low performance were occurring. The use of professional

learning networks were utilized to recruit participants creating a sample population from

various regions across the United States.

Research Questions

Research on teacher self-efficacy and principal self-efficacy has shown that

teachers are overloaded with having to implement innovative instruction while taking on

additional responsibilities (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2009), while principals often lack the

individual supports or resources necessary for leading school improvement unique to the

context of their own schools (Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2004). This qualitative

method, multiple-case study design was informative for district and school administrators

for future professional development opportunities.

Guiding question. How are teachers’ and principals’ beliefs about their ability to

15

influence student learning impacted while implementing school improvement practices?

SQ1. What factors or experiences do teachers and principals see as having an

impact on their sense of self-efficacy either negatively or positively during these

changes?

SQ2. What knowledge, skills, or abilities do teachers and principals believe are

necessary, yet are missing, to improve their classroom and leadership practices to

positively impact student learning?

Nature of the Study

The purpose of this qualitative multi-case study was to explore and describe urban

teachers’ and principals’ self-efficacy throughout a change process by understanding each

group’s beliefs about their strengths and abilities to promote student learning, while also

dealing with the process of school improvement. This investigation used a qualitative

multiple-case study design employing the critical incident technique to explore the

constructs of teacher and principal self-efficacy as they were perceived by teachers and

principals in the context of the urban classroom during the change process while

implementing school improvement initiatives. Qualitative research designs take place in

natural settings where events are interpreted from the perspective of the participants

(Freeman, de Marrais, Preissle, Roulston, & St. Pierre, 2007). Using a qualitative method

allowed for rich dialogues with teachers and principals, leading them to interpret the

phenomenon of teacher or principal self-efficacy within the context of their individual

circumstances.

Use a multiple case study design for this investigation allowed for similar cases to

be reported on a single phenomenon within different contexts, thus adding strength to the

findings (Yin, 2013). Each teacher and principal experienced self-efficacy differently

16

within the context of the school improvement process specific to their urban setting.

Each of the teachers and principals who participated in the study became unique, single

units making each a different case (Yin, 2013). The use of critical incident technique

presented the phenomenon in a way that could be explored more deeply within the three

areas of teacher and principal self-efficacy as described by Tschannen-Moran and

Woolfolk Hoy (2001) and Tschannen-Moran and Gareis (2004).

This study utilized four data sources. The primary data source was the in-depth

semi-structured interviews using an interview guide created with the Critical Incident

Technique. The Teacher Sense of Self-Efficacy Scale (TSES; Tschannen-Moran &

Woolfolk Hoy, 2001), the Principal Sense of Self-Efficacy Scale (PSES; Tschannen-

Moran & Gareis, 2004), along with the U.S. DOE data of school in need of improvement

(SINI) was used to determine the location of the school districts where the participants

worked as well as to determine the self-efficacy level where each participant perceived

themselves to be. The data collected through the two validated surveys and the data

retrieved from the U.S. DOE were used for convergence of evidence and along with the

data from the in-depth interviews were triangulated to produce accurate results (Yin,

2013). Yin (2013) emphasized that it is critical to triangulate case study data produced

through multiple sources.

The TSES is a well-established instrument used for the last decade to measure

teacher self-efficacy both nationally and internationally. The PSES, though not as

established, has been used internationally and adapted as well (Federici & Skaalvik,

2011), and has a proven record of validity. The TSES and PSES were administered

online through the online survey service, SurveyMonkey™. The target populations for

this study were teachers and principals in grades first through eight from urban settings,

17

specifically from schools that were in corrective action or had been at one time and had

experienced the school improvement change process. A sample of 13 teachers and

principals were solicited for participation through Internet sites established for the

purpose of professional learning networking as well as social media sites. A review of

the U.S. DOE database of the top 100 largest urban school districts took place as means

of identifying the pockets of low performing schools. Low performing school districts

are required to select one of four intervention models to be considered for the SIG. Each

model is structured with the goal of turning around school performance in terms of

student achievement. An additional analysis of the list, which identified which

turnaround model was selected by these low performing schools, served to identify which

schools within the reported districts had been in school improvement status for a number

of years and were cross-referenced with the surveys taken by teachers and principals as a

means of supporting survey findings.

Critical incident technique, known as CIT, is used to focus on critical events that

may impact performance either positively or negatively (Butterfield, Borgen, Amundson,

& Maglio, 2005). CIT has been described as a systemic, inductive, and open-ended tool

that is naturalistic and allows participants freedom of expression when relating

experiences (Sharoff, 2008). Using a list of start codes, participant responses were placed

into categories to analyze and identify those incidences that appeared critical to

promoting certain behaviors. The research questions guiding this study were answered

via the personal experiences and perceptions of teachers and principals to identify those

behaviors that either hindered or promoted high efficacy as well as identifying which

skills and competencies teachers and principals felt were important, yet lacking, within

the context of their unique situation within the school improvement process.

18

The use of multiple data sources for measuring the same phenomenon has been

found to be a highly effective means of supporting findings on a single phenomenon

through triangulation of data (Yin, 2013). By bringing together the various data sources,

triangulation addressed the problems of construct validity because the different data

sources not only report on the same phenomenon but ultimately support the findings of

each of the other sources (Yin, 2013).

Significance of the Study

Schools often implement similar or even identical programs and policies, yet do

not achieve similar or identical outcomes (Kruse, 2008). Many schools have continued in

SINI status for a number of years (Lachlan-Haché et al., 2012). There is an abundant

number of studies that link school climate and culture to improved teacher self-efficacy

(Drago-Severson, 2012; Fullan, 2001; Kruse 2008; Roney, Coleman, & Schlichting,

2007; Vesley, Saklofske, & Leschied, 2013; Wahlstrom & Seashore Louis, 2008).

Additionally, there are studies that address principal leadership and self-efficacy for

bringing about turnaround in school performance (Fullan, 2006). This study investigated

the relationship of school improvement through climate and culture changes from the

position of the teachers and principals, unveiling tacit knowledge and perspectives that

may have been overlooked in cultivating and promoting school improvement, leading to

little or no progress. The opinions, concerns, and ideas of teachers and principals need to

be a part of the school improvement process (Tobin, Muller, & Turner, 2006; Wheatly,

2005) when implementing new strategies and promoting climate and culture changes.

This study produced such knowledge that can then be used in developing targeted

professional development for the improvement of the self-efficacy of teachers and

principals for sustainable and continuing school improvement efforts.

19

Definition of Key Terms

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). This program evolved

out of a need to reinvent NCLB. This program provided funding to low-performing

schools, those which were in the lowest 5% of performance in their district, to put in

place school improvement models to turnaround their school performance and improve

student learning. An outgrowth of the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary

Education Act, the ARRA provided funding through SIG that classified schools at

different tiers of need (Lachlan-Heché et al., 2012)

Principal self-efficacy. A principal’s sense of self–efficacy is the judgment or

perception a principal has about his or her ability to structure a course of action to

produce desired outcomes within the school he or she leads (Tschannen-Moran & Gareis,

2007).

Principal Self-Efficacy Scale (PSES). This scale was designed in an effort to

capture the construct and elements of principal self-efficacy. This instrument was

designed after the TSES and was designed by Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy

(2007). The PSES measures three elements of principal self-efficacy: efficacy for

management, efficacy for instructional leadership, and efficacy for moral leadership

(Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2004).

School In Need of Improvement (SINI). Under NCLB, schools that fail to meet

Annual Yearly Progress for 2 consecutive years are labeled SINI. These schools face

specific consequences for each year they remain in school improvement status (U.S.

DOE, 2010).

Self-efficacy of classroom management. Factors that are attributed to self-

efficacy of classroom management include the ability to control disruptive behavior, to

20

get students to follow classroom and school rules, to redirect and calm disruptive or noisy

students, to make expectations clear for all students, to establish routines, and to establish

a classroom management system (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001)

Self-efficacy of instruction. Within the TSES factors that are attributed to self-

efficacy of instruction include the ability to use a variety of assessments, to reteach using

alternative methods or explanations, to create higher order questions (providing rigor and

student discourse), and to answer difficult questions and provide challenges for capable

students or use alternative strategies for less capable students (Tschannen-Moran &

Woolfolk Hoy, 2001)

Self-efficacy of student engagement. Factors that are attributed to self-efficacy

of student engagement include getting students to believe they can successfully complete

assignments, the ability to motivate students who show little or no interest in their

schoolwork, to assist families in helping their student do well in school, to improve

understanding for failing students, to promote student creativity, and show an ability to

get through to the toughest students (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001)

Teacher Efficacy Scale (TSES). This is a Likert scale that measures teacher

self-efficacy in three areas: self-efficacy of instruction, self-efficacy of student

engagement, and self-efficacy for classroom management (Tschannen-Moran &

Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). The scale has a rating code from 1 (nothing) through 9 (a great

deal).

Teacher self-efficacy. A teacher’s belief in how effectively he or she can

successfully design and deliver instruction that impacts student learning (Tschannen-

Moran, Hoy, & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001).

21

Summary

Pockets of schools still struggle to meet accountability mandates put into place by

NCLB. In 2009, the ARRA recognized the need for additional support. Financial

support in the form of SIG was given to failing schools in the lowest 5% for performance.

To qualify for the grant schools had to select one of the five turn around models required

by the Federal Government. The pressure of these programs for schools to improve has

taken a toll on the motivation and self-efficacy of teachers and principals (Gross, Booker,

& Goldhaber, 2009; Isler & Cakiroglu, 2009; Lee & Wong, 2004; McCormick et al.,

2006). Teachers are the most influential person in a student’s academic career (Jerald,

2007; Kennedy & Smith, 2012; Takahashi, 2011). Principals have an indirect, though

powerful, effect on student learning by creating a safe and orderly environment

conducive to learning (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2008; Niesche & Jorgensen, 2010; Williams,

2010).

This study used a multi-case study design to explore and describe the levels of

urban teacher and principal self-efficacy during a school improvement process. The

primary source of data collection used in-depth interviews through the CIT. Transcripts

of participant responses to the questions in the CIT were used to analyze data and identify

the actions or ideas considered crucial to raising the levels of self-efficacy in teacher and

principals to bring about authentic school improvement. Data were collected using the

TSES (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001) and the PSES (Tschannen-Moran &

Gareis, 2004) for convergence purposes and was triangulated with the interview

responses providing support for what urban teachers and principals believed to be

important to them for bringing about effective school improvement.

22

Chapter 2: Literature Review

The general research question to be studied in this investigation was how

teachers’ and principals’ beliefs about their ability to influence student learning impacted

while implementing school improvement practices? Along with this general question

were two sub-questions: SQ1: what factors or experiences do teachers and principals see

as having an impact on their sense of self-efficacy either negatively or positively during

these changes and SQ2: what knowledge, skills, or abilities do teachers and principals

believe are necessary, yet are missing, to improve their classroom and leadership

practices to positively impact student learning? Fullan (2001) suggested that there exists

tacit knowledge among teachers experiencing change that could be found to be

fundamental to the success or failure to school reform. Teachers also experience a

change or flux in their levels of self-efficacy when experiencing school improvement

(Wheatly, 2005). Teacher self-efficacy has a direct effect on student achievement in the

area of motivation, instruction, and classroom management (Tschannen-Moran &

Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). Principal self-efficacy for leading change has a direct impact on

teacher self-efficacy; thus, having an indirect, yet powerful, impact on student

achievement (Tschannen-Moran and Gareis, 2004). Additionally principal self-efficacy

has a direct effect on the climate and culture of a school (Tschannen-Moran & Gareis,

2004), which is the heart of school improvement (Deal & Peterson, 1998).

The following literature review will present research on teacher self-efficacy and

principal self-efficacy, the effects of the school improvement process on teacher self-

efficacy and principal self-efficacy, the experience of leading and teaching in SINI, and

the effects these constructs have on student achievement and learning. The research

presented in this literature review indicates the need to investigate how much influence

23

teacher and principal self-efficacy has on the reform efforts of urban SINI schools. The

review will also consider research on climate and culture and show how the creation of a

positive school culture influences an organization’s effectiveness (Wahlstrom & Seashore

Louise, 2008). The literature will demonstrate a need to consider principal and teacher

self-efficacy as a contributing factor to the success or failure of the school improvement

process in urban schools and present effective practices for raising self-efficacy.

Title Searches, Articles, Research Documents, and Journal Research

There is an abundant amount of research on school reform effects on teacher

motivation, self-efficacy, and well-being. There are also a large number of studies on the

area of effects of climate and culture on teacher self-efficacy along with several studies

on leadership. However, there does not appear to be many studies that address the effects

of teacher and principal self-efficacy on the school improvement process.

The following literature review includes over 300 articles that were retrieved from

university databases ProQuest, Sage Publications, Teacher College Record, Science

Direct, and EBSCOhost and include such journals as Teaching and Teacher Learning,

The Journal of Educational Leadership, The Journal of Classroom Interactions,

American Educational Research Journal, the NAASP Bulletin, and The Journal of

Educational Administration. Additional journals that addressed leader efficacy,

motivation, and self-efficacy included Applied Psychology: An International Review,

Social Behavior and Personality, Journal of Staff Development, The International

Journal of Business and Social Sciences, and Current Psychology. Included in this

search were also various book publications in the area of leadership, climate and culture

change for improvement, and teacher perspectives on student learning, effects of

expectations and context on teaching and learning, and theories on motivation. Search

24

terms used included teacher self-efficacy, teacher expectations, principal self-efficacy,

school leadership, school improvement, school reform, student achievement,

organizational change, and varying combinations of each. Three pieces of

documentation came from the U.S. DOE database. Table 1 shows the search terms used

singularly and in combinations when developing this literature review and conceptual

framework.

Table 1

Search terms for Literature Review

Search Terms E-books Dissertations & Thesis

Scholarly Journals

Trade Journals

Conference Papers

Teacher self-efficacy 2,175 25,537 5,183 454 77

Teacher expectations 36,184 104,116 33,988 8,260 0

Teacher self-efficacy and teacher expectation 0 23,278 2875 183 35

School Improvement 0 178,175 99,924 37,684 0

Teacher Self-efficacy and School Improvement

2,002 20,368 2,194 132 0

Teacher self-efficacy and student achievement 1,904 21,158 3,056 215 31

Teacher motivation 30,857 96,928 28,253 4,306 0

Teacher Self-efficacy and teacher Motivation 2,088 22,654 3,376 178 59

School Climate and Culture 44,181 73,681 23,527 3,811 0

Teacher self-efficacy and school climate and culture

1,649 12,061 3,376 178 1

Teacher self-efficacy and instruction 1,669 21,098 2,913 176 39

Teacher self-efficacy and student engagement 1,729 17,932 1,956 128 35

25

Search Terms E-books Dissertations & Thesis

Scholarly Journals

Trade Journals

Conference Papers

Principal Self-efficacy and School Improvement 2,124 17, 430 1,026 60 16

Principal Self-efficacy and student achievement 1,878 17,087 1,167 89 11

Principal self-efficacy and climate and culture 1,715 10,290 482 20 7

Principal Self-efficacy and Teacher Self-efficacy

1,749 17,397 1,373 114 0

School Leadership and Teacher Self-efficacy 1 3 1,286 0 0

School leadership and teacher motivation 1 6 5,460 0 0

School leadership and climate and culture 1 8 9,162 0 0

School Leadership and School improvement 1 9 20,015 0 0

Teacher Self-Efficacy

The theory of self-efficacy grew out of the Bandura’s research on the topic

(1977). He argued that personal behavior was based on performance-based experiences.

He posed that individuals are cognizant of their own behaviors in given settings and

continually make judgments about those behaviors and react accordingly. He defined

efficacy as an expectation of one’s ability to successfully implement behaviors needed to

bring about a desired outcome. He further found that self-efficacy was context specific

and could be improved within context based on four sources (a) mastery experiences, (b)

vicarious experiences, (c) verbal persuasion, and (d) emotional arousal. Mastery

experiences have been found to be the most effective means of raising self-efficacy

(Bandura, 1977, Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001).

26

Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001) postulated that teacher self-efficacy

is an abstract construct not only because it is not something that is concrete, but also

because it is a perspective of each individual teacher on how effectively he or she is able

to influence student learning despite student personal backgrounds or deficits. Self-

efficacy is not a function of individual ability but is a judgment of one’s ability to

successfully achieve a predetermined outcome (Yenice et al., 2012). Teacher self-

efficacy is influenced by many factors both internal and external to their immediate

instructional environment, including student conduct, unfamiliarity with content,

administrative mandates, district reform initiatives, and parent support (Tschannen-

Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). Locus of control may add to teachers’ low sense of self-

efficacy (Al-Fadhli & Singh, 2006). When teachers perceive they have no control over

internal or external factors that affect their teaching, they are less motivated to improve

their practice (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2009). However, people with beliefs in internal

control believe their own behaviors are effective as a result of their experiences; whereas,

people who believe external factors are in control will make little effort to change or

improve even the smallest things (Yenice et al., 2012). Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk

Hoy (2007) studied the self-efficacy beliefs of pre-service and in-service teachers, finding

that context factors seemed to support high self-efficacy among pre-service teachers

where contextual factors had little importance to in-service teachers. Siwatu (2011)

explored how well prepared pre-service teachers felt about teaching in suburban schools

compared to being prepared to teach in urban schools. Pre-service teachers felt better

prepared to teach in suburban schools because these were closer to their own experience,

yet felt unprepared to teach students who were English Language Learners. Siwatu

called for providing self-efficacy building activities and creating a system of supports for

27

pre-service and novice teachers.

Following the theories of Bandura, Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001)

developed an instrument to measure teacher self-efficacy in three areas: self-efficacy for

instruction, self-efficacy for student engagement, and self-efficacy for classroom

management. Like Bandura, they found that individuals with a high sense of efficacy

would persist through obstacles and put forth great effort to accomplish their goal

whereas, an individual of low efficacy would not. Their instrument, The Teacher Sense

of Self-Efficacy Scale, placed teacher self-efficacy on a continuum, which placed self-

efficacy not only at different levels but showed that one could have high self-efficacy in

one area and not in another. This promoted further studies of teacher self-efficacy in

varying contexts for instruction in specific content matter (Cantrell & Callaway, 2007,

2008; Corkett, Hatt, & Benevides, 2011; Isler & Cakiroglu, 2009).

Efficacy for instruction. It is important to determine teacher sense of self-

efficacy to promote and develop students’ sense of self-efficacy (Yenice et al., 2012).

Efficacy for instruction refers to the teacher’s ability to effectively deliver instruction to

all students along with using a variety of assessments, reteach using alternative methods

or explanations, create higher order questions providing rigor and student discourse,

answer difficult questions, and provide challenges for capable students or use alternative

strategies for less capable students (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001).

Teachers’ instructional behaviors can greatly influence student work habits by

encouraging them to participate in classroom activities (Turner & Patrick, 2004).

Perceived teacher support is important for students at risk for academic failure (Mercer,

Nellis, Matinez, & Kirk, 2011).

Research has shown that students who are socioeconomically disadvantaged often

28

have weaker teachers, who use less conceptual instruction and more procedural

instruction; whereas, students who are from higher socioeconomic backgrounds generally

have stronger teachers who deliver instruction that is conceptual and uses high-order

thinking (Desimone & Long, 2010). However, teachers who have strong self-efficacy for

teaching school populations of higher socio-economic status may not be as effective in

schools with high poverty rates (Pretorius, 2012).

The developmental characteristics of students should be the deciding force when

teachers make daily decisions about appropriate teaching strategies (Teague, Anafara,

Wilson, Gaines, & Beavers, 2012). It has been argued that teacher effectiveness may be

the single most important factor leading to school improvement (Pretorius, 2012).

Teaching practices, good or bad, impact student learning three to four years after the

student has left the classroom (Pretorius, 2012). By the time students reach secondary

school it is too late to correct years of educational neglect (Pretorius, 2012). Students

should be active participants in their education; therefore, it is important that instruction

is relevant to their academic needs and learning styles (Teague et al., 2012).

Efficacy for student engagement. Efficacy for student engagement has no clear

definition and is an obscure concept (Tyler & Boelter, 2008). Student engagement has

been shown to be a multidimensional construct involving many facets of students’

motivation and interest in school and academics (Zyngier, 2008). Factors that are

attributed to self-efficacy of student engagement include getting students to believe they

can successfully complete assignments, motivating students who show little or no interest

in their schoolwork, assisting families in helping their student do well in school,

improving understanding for failing students, promoting student creativity, and showing

an ability to get through to the toughest students (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy,

29

2001). Additionally, Teachers who are able to create a pro-social classroom environment

develop expectations for student behavior despite individual differences, model care and

interest toward their work, and provide students with constructive feedback boost student

engagement and interest in learning (Mojavezi & Tamizs, 2012). Student perceived level

of teacher support is critical for student motivation and school success (Mercer et al.,

2011).

Relationships between teachers and students influence the classroom climate

(Mojave & Tamizs, 2012). Students who feel supported and cared for by the teacher

have been found to be more engaged in learning; however, students who perceive the

teacher as being cold and distant display poor academic performance and poor social

behavior (Mojavezi & Tamizs, 2012). Conversely, research has found that teachers often

do not feel responsible for engaging students but rather expect students to be receptive to

instruction thereby becoming engaged (Harris, 2011). Schools under the pressure of

accountability may have difficulty creating and sustaining a nurturing environment (Lee,

2012).

Student motivation is key to student engagement in learning and their academic

self-efficacy (Mercer et al., 2011). Schools have a great influence on students’

engagement by promoting or suppressing students’ opportunity for engagement (Lee,

2012). During school reform, teachers experience resentment toward added tasks, the

change in curriculum, and required professional development resulting in a misalignment

of teacher–student interactions for teaching and learning, resulting in lowered teacher and

student motivation (McCaslin, 2008). Motivation is effected by interactions between

people’s active nature and their social environment and can be suppressed or supported

by a person’s active nature (Deci & Ryan, 2008). It is important that teachers create an

30

effective learning environment where their own motivation influences student motivation

and engagement in their learning (Muller & Hanfstingl, 2010).

Lee (2012) postulated that students who disengage from school have poor

academic performance, have behavior problems, and a higher dropout rate. He further

argued that academic failure and dropping out are the result of years of school

disengagement. Lower levels of student engagement lead to higher levels of classroom

disruptions, absenteeism, and school drop-outs (Tyler & Boelter, 2008).

There are two types of student engagement (Lee, 2012). Behavior engagement is

described as the participation in academic and nonacademic activities at school (Lee,

2012). Emotional engagement is when students have a sense of belonging and can

identify with the school (Lee, 2012). Students who have a strong relationship with their

teachers are more behaviorally and emotionally engaged with their learning (Lee, 2012).

However, teachers may be causing a decrease in student behavioral engagement for

academics by focusing too much on participation in schooling such as preparing for class

and following routines and procedures (Harris, 2011).

Kelly and Finnigan (2003) argued that minorities and disadvantaged students will

have lower levels of engagement. Disadvantaged students are more likely to have weaker

reading and writing skills effecting their level of engagement in classroom activities and

tasks (Kelly & Finnigan, 2003), thus leading to reduced academic growth. Relationships

between student and teachers influence classroom climate. When teachers create and

encourage a pro-social classroom students are more strongly interested in school

(Majovazi & Tamiz, 2012). Further, when students feel supported and cared for they are

more engaged in learning as opposed to students who perceived the teacher to be cold

and distant (Majovazi & Tamiz, 2012).

31

Efficacy for classroom management. Efficacy of classroom management

includes the ability to control disruptive behavior, get students to follow classroom and

school rules, redirect and calm disruptive or noisy students, make expectations clear for

all students, establish routines, and establish a classroom management system

(Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). Roache and Lewis (2011) found there are

two styles of classroom management. A coercive style of management uses punishment

and exhibits aggressive teacher behavior, whereas a relationship building style uses a

positive and respectful form of discipline, positively influencing defiant behavior.

Roache and Lewis concluded that teachers who used a more positive and inclusive

classroom management style produced students who are more responsible for their own

behaviors and the behavior of their peers. They went on to say teachers who used a more

aggressive punitive approach actually caused negative student behaviors. Teachers who

exhibit a coercive style of classroom management were positively linked to low self-

efficacy, where teachers who built positive relationships with their student exhibited high

levels of self-efficacy (Roache & Lewis, 2011). Students value teacher characteristics

that include having good classroom control, involvement with students and their

circumstances, respect, fairness, and showing kindness and caring (Vesley et al., 2013).

Teacher self-efficacy (in concert with the emotional state of the individual)

regulates choices, effort, and persistence in the face of obstacles (Siwatu, Frazier,

Osaghae, & Starker, 2011). People with high belief in their capabilities (i.e., high self-

efficacy) tend to approach difficult tasks as challenges rather than as problems or

obstacles and set out to master these challenges (Schwarzer & Hallum, 2008). Schwarzer

and Hallum (2008) found these efficacious individuals are seen as being more organized,

develop positive relationships with students, are better at problem solving, and are more

32

resilient and willing to try again if they fail at a task. Conversely, teachers with a

lowered sense of self-efficacy tend to feel they have no control over these circumstances

and tend to exert less effort toward instruction (Takahashi, 2011). Teachers with low

self-efficacy tend to avoid difficult tasks, focusing instead on their own deficiencies and

their perceived inability to approach a problem (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007). Further,

low student achievement negatively affects teacher self-efficacy; depressing it over time,

resulting in a sense of failure that in turn leads to a loss of faith in their ability to

influence student achievement (Takahashi, 2011).

The relationships students have with their teachers also affect their learning (Yeo,

Ang, Chong, Huan, & Quek, 2008). Yeo et al. (2008) found warmth and supportiveness

toward students from teachers was strongly linked to students’ achievement and a

positive sense of community. Teachers must believe that their behaviors can influence

student learning and begin to build caring relationships with their students to generate

positive classroom interactions and a culture of high expectations and support for student

achievement (Hughes, Wu, & West, 2009). Teacher behaviors and interactions with

students can either enhance or diminish student achievement and their social–emotional

growth (Muller & Hanfstingl, 2010; Rim-Kaufman & Hamre, 2010). If teachers do not

believe they are competent to carry out instructional changes or if their teaching

philosophies conflict with the reforms they are being asked to implement, students and

their learning will be negatively affected (Rubie-Davies, 2007).

Impact of Low Teacher Efficacy

Although there has been limited examination of the impact of low teacher self-

efficacy on educational reform efforts and what attributes need to be in place to raise the

level of teacher self-efficacy (Chong, Klassen, Huan, Wong, & Kates, 2010;

33

Schwackhamer, Koellner, Basile, & Kimbrough, 2009), more recent studies have

considered individual teacher self-efficacy and its effects on student learning (Tschannen-

Moran & Johnson, 2011).

Teacher self-efficacy is influenced by internal and external factors, including

student conduct, unfamiliarity with content, administrative mandates, district reform

initiatives, and parent support (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2007). NCLB

(2001) has forced school leaders to move quickly to improve teachers’ classroom

performance as a means of improving student achievement. This demand has added

stress for teachers who may already be experiencing low self-efficacy or for teachers who

believed they had high self-efficacy but are now faced with doubt as they are required to

implement new, unfamiliar practices that may not be consistent with their own

philosophy of how students learn (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007). When teachers feel they

have no control over internal or external factors that affect their teaching, they are less

motivated to improve their practice (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2009). A teaching staff with

high efficacy will also have a high locus of control and are more likely to collaborate in

making instructional decisions for students, while a teaching staff with a lowered feeling

of control may be less motivated to engage in such collaboration (Al-Fadhli & Singh,

2006; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2010).

Low teacher self-efficacy can negatively affect student behavior as well as student

learning. Narvaez, Khmelkov, Vaydich, and Turner (2008) found a link between teacher

self-efficacy and students’ moral development. Teachers with low self-efficacy felt that

they had little influence over student behavior. Negative teacher–student relationships

are often fueled by mistrust and conflict, which has a negative effect on student learning

(Split, Koomen, & Thijs, 2011). Conversely, teacher classroom behavior has been linked

34

to teacher self-efficacy with regard to positive student outcomes, including moral

behavior (Narvaez et al., 2008).

Another aspect of low teacher self-efficacy is that it leads to teacher burnout

(Grayson & Alverez, 2008). This relationship has been found in urban schools where

efficacy, expectations, and overall confidence in teaching ability are all low (Skaalvik &

Skaalvik, 2010). Teachers in these environments become physically and emotionally

drained and feel unsupported (Margolis & Nagel, 2006). When schools, as organizations,

experience perceived negative organizational politics, there are greater interpersonal

conflicts and the values of the school are not appropriately voiced or reinforced (Chan et

al., 2008).

Teacher self-efficacy is not how capable one is, but rather how capable one

believes him or herself to be (Erdem & Demirel, 2007). Teacher burnout and

dissatisfaction are a result of teachers who are functioning with perceived low self-

efficacy in their present situation or of teachers who see themselves as being ineffective

even though they are (Moé et al., 2010; Shwarzer & Hallum, 2008). Low student

achievement, for example, can lead to a cycle of dissatisfaction (Takahashi, 2011).

Similarly, events that take place in the classroom add to the effects on teacher self-

efficacy (Martin, Sass, & Schmitt, 2011). Events related to student engagement and

classroom management influence how teachers approach instruction (Martin et al., 2011).

Teachers who are effective with one population may not be as effective with a different

population of students (Hong, Green, & Hertzell, 2011). Additionally, low salaries and

frequent reorganizations add to the dissatisfaction felt by teachers. Teachers also become

dissatisfied when they experience a decrease in their self-efficacy if they believe they are

not capable of handling difficult tasks as a part of their job (Verešová & Malá, 2012).

35

Teacher burnout and dissatisfaction, however, can be remedied.

Cagle and Hopkins (2009) conducted a review of literature on the research of

teacher self-efficacy and concluded that school leaders can “turn around” marginal

teachers by tapping into the four sources for improving self-efficacy: (a) mastery

experiences, (b) vicarious experiences, (c) social persuasion, and (d) physiological states

(Albert Bandura, as cited by Cagle & Hopkins, 2009), leading to improved student

learning. They postulated that administrators could use these four factors when

monitoring marginal teachers to aid in improving teacher self-efficacy therefore resulting

in improved student achievement. They suggested that principals work with teachers in a

differentiated manner catering to where they see a weakened sense of self-efficacy and

working with marginal teachers to help strengthen and improve their self-efficacy.

Teacher sense of self-efficacy is context specific (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy,

2001) therefore providing support through one of the four elements for raising self-

efficacy would bring about higher levels of teacher confidence and ability in the which

they are performing marginally.

Teachers with a high sense of self-efficacy are more likely to create a mastery-

focused classroom environment (Cho & Shim, 2013). Mastery oriented learning

environments promote student interaction, emphasize student effort to master a task, and

believe that learning is an active process (Kelly, Heneman, & Milanowski, 2002). In

contrast, performance oriented classrooms focus on formal assessments of skills, grades,

and performance (Kelly et al., 2002). Mastery-goal-oriented students or teachers exert

more effort and persistence in learning and mastering skills (Turner & Patrick, 2004).

Performance-oriented individuals will only attempt tasks that they know they can be

successful with and will avoid those tasks that they view as difficult or impossible for

36

them to successful complete (Kelly et al., 2002; Turner & Patrick, 2004).

Teacher self-efficacy has been found to be context specific (Yeo et al., 2008) and

shown to be a major source of motivation and commitment in every aspect of teaching

(Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, as cited in Moé, Pazzaglia, & Roconni, 2010). As

a result, teachers will assess the context in which they have to perform a task and will

make judgments about their ability to complete the task based on the context or situation

they are faced with (Takahashi, 2011). For example, when teachers are faced with an

ethnically diverse classroom they experience frustration when they do not know how to

work with students from nontraditional backgrounds (Sirota & Bailey, 2009; Siwatu et

al., 2011; Sosa & Gomez, 2012). These teachers tend to display low self-efficacy

compared to teachers of more traditional backgrounds (Takahashi, 2011). Likewise,

teachers who are struggling in their personal adjustment can negatively affect classroom

learning and individual student well-being, thus compromising the overall educational

system (Vesley et al., 2013). This threat can also undermine the collective efficacy of a

school (Chong et al., 2010).

The effects of teacher self-efficacy are not only experienced within the classroom

but also within the school as a whole (Chong et al., 2010; Smadar & Koslowsky, 2009).

Collective teacher efficacy is belief by the teaching community of a school that the

faculty as a whole can promote high student achievement through academic emphasis and

innovative instruction (Smith & Hoy, 2007). A teaching staff with high collective

efficacy will also have a high locus of control and are more likely to collaborate in

making instructional decisions for students, while schools with a lowered feeling of

control are less motivated to engage in such collaboration (Al-Fadhli & Singh, 2006).

Collective teacher efficacy has been shown to bring about a positive school

37

climate, improved student achievement, improved teacher sense of self-efficacy (Smith &

Hoy, 2007), as well as teachers taking responsibility for student learning (Takahashi,

2011). In a study of academic optimism, Smith and Hoy (2007) found that collective

efficacy and academic press were the driving force behind successful urban schools.

They suggested that academic press and collective efficacy were in a reciprocal

relationship with each reinforcing the other. Collective teacher efficacy has also been

found to have a positive effect on individual teacher self-efficacy (Chong et al., 2010;

Smadar & Koslowsky, 2009). However, individual teacher self-efficacy adds to or takes

away from the strength of the collective efficacy (Smadar & Koslowsky, 2009).

Teacher Self-Efficacy and Expectations

Much of the expectations literature described how teachers hold lowered

expectations for urban, ethnic or racial minority students, or for students who come from

a lower socioeconomic status (Payne, 2011; Thernstrom & Thernstrom, 2003; Rhee,

2010; Weinstein, 2002), which in most cases are the urban, racial or ethnic minority

students. Payne (2011) explored ways to change how teachers think about racial or

ethnic minority students to raise those expectations. From a different perspective, self-

efficacy literature stresses that teachers who have low self-efficacy for working with

ethnic or racial minority students will blame the student for their own lack of success,

thus holding them to a lower expectation for learning (Sirota & Bailey, 2009; Sosa &

Gomez, 2012; Tucker et al., 2005). Teachers of students of low socioeconomic status

may experience low self-efficacy, feeling that they do not possess the skills needed to

effectively teach this population and that their efforts will have little or no influence on

student learning (Auwater & Aruguete, 2008). This perception becomes a self-fulfilling

prophecy, resulting in lowered efforts to influence student learning. Although teachers

38

are told all students can learn, their own experiences tend to tell them otherwise (Sirota &

Bailey, 2009). Leading sociology specialists, Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) identified

what is now known as the Pygmalion effect, showing that teacher expectations tended to

cause students to perform as the teacher expects. Forty years later, this finding remains

valid (Halvorsen, Lee, & Andrade, 2009). Teacher expectations affect how students

perceive their own ability to learn (Tenebaum & Ruck, 2007).

Teacher self-efficacy has been found to have a great effect on teacher

expectations. Although teacher expectancy is related to teacher self-efficacy, it is quite

different (Kelly & Finnigan, 2003). Teacher expectancy is the belief about the extent that

effort is likely to lead to specific student outcomes (Kelly & Finnigan, 2003). Teacher

expectations and practices are linked to student motivation (Wooley, Strutchens, Gilbert,

& Martin, 2010). However, students perceive teacher expectations differently

(Weinstein, 2002).

Teacher expectancy has been found to be the strongest predictor of school

improvement (Kelly & Finnigan, 2003). In their 2003 study on the effects of

organizational context on teacher expectancy, Kelly and Finnigan (2003) focused on

teacher expectancy as determined by their own beliefs about how their efforts effect

student achievement and the effects of school based-performance reward programs.

Their study included the variables of characteristics of the school, teacher knowledge and

skills, teacher attitudes, and organizational context such as principal leadership and

professional learning community. Using a qualitative design, Kelly and Finnigan

constructed two survey instruments with questions that were selected from prior research

on the motivational impact of school-based performance reward programs. These

surveys were distributed to more than 8,000 teachers in both Kentucky and Charlotte–

39

Mecklenburg resulting in a little over 3,500 participants completing the surveys. The

results showed teacher attitude, organizational context, and school demographic variables

were significant in predicting teacher expectancy. Teacher characteristics did not show

to be predictors of teacher expectancy. Fairness, feedback, principal support,

professional community, and reward history predicted teacher expectancy over teacher

knowledge and skills, goal clarity, resource alignment, and student SES. Kelly and

Finnigan ultimately found that though teacher expectancy was perhaps the strongest

factor in student achievement, expectancy did not originate from teachers but rather from

what was expected of teachers themselves. The pressure of high accountability sanctions

for not meeting targets overshadow the teacher characteristics often needed to support

high expectations and meaningful relationships with students.

High teacher self-efficacy leads to higher teacher expectations for their students

(Rubie-Davies, 2007) resulting in teachers taking responsibility for student learning.

Students whose teachers have low expectations of them develop a lowered self-image and

tend to exert less effort, which in turn causes teachers to give them less challenging

assignments (Rubie-Davies, 2007). It is important for teachers to realize how they

influence their students’ learning through their own self-efficacy beliefs (Corkett et al.,

2011). Students will have low self-efficacy if they believe they are not able to perform

the task being asked of them. Similarly, students will be resilient in their self-efficacy by

forming strong relationships with teachers who possess a high sense of self-efficacy

(Sosa & Gomez 2012). Teacher–student relationships substantially impact student self-

efficacy and student academic performance (Tyler & Boelter, 2008). Rubie-Davies

(2007) postulated that children experience varying classroom environments both

academically and socio-emotionally, and that these environments shape students’ self-

40

image and ability to learn. She found that differences in classroom environments

contributed to differences in student learning. Teachers who hold low expectations of

students do not take responsibility for the students’ failure to learn, instead blaming the

students and their families (Cantrell & Callaway, 2008; Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk

Hoy, 2007). However, Weinstein (2002) postulated that if teachers embrace the

knowledge that children have multiple abilities that are malleable and that all can meet a

specified standard, they will expand their teaching strategies and offer a wider range of

performance opportunities. She argued that this change in attitude will shift

responsibility for failure from the student to the teacher. Weinstein further contended

that if teachers believe their actions and efforts have a limited effect on the successful

learning of their students, they may lower their expectations and revise their instruction to

reflect those low expectations to bring about what they perceive as successful experiences

for them (de la Torre Cruz & Casanova Arias, 2007).

Low expectations depress student learning (Thernstrom & Thernstrom, 2003).

Children interpret the unspoken meanings underlying teacher behaviors in teachers’

actions and nonverbal cues as a way the teacher identifies their level of smartness

(Weinstein, 2002). It is through these interpretations that children begin to delineate the

differential treatment as relative difference in their abilities compared to their classmates

(Weinstein, 2002).When students believe that their teachers care about them and their

learning needs, they perform better. Yeo et al. (2008) suggested that unless teachers

convey a sense of caring that reaches the students’ psychological and social needs,

students will fail to perceive them as sources of instrumental help. Bosack, Vega,

McCaslin, and Good (2008) explored how teachers supported students’ autonomy and

how students reacted to the support. They found that students who felt supported by their

41

teachers were more successful. Expectations of the teachers were not directly stated in

the study but the study implied levels of expectations for student ability and use of

autonomy. Their study showed that although teachers allowed student autonomy and

time to interact with peers in an instructional setting, such opportunities were limited and

did not allow for extension of what students had learned nor did the teachers allow for

student reflection on their learning of the topic. Similarly, research has found that

teachers tend to provide more opportunities to learn to students seen as more capable than

to students identified as struggling (Weinstein, 2002).

Teachers who exhibit high levels of efficacy persevere despite students’ low

socioeconomic status and take responsibility for their students’ learning (Halvorsen et al.,

2009), holding all students to higher standards and working to ensure that each student

fulfills those expectations. Sensitive and warm teacher–student interactions improve

academics and behavior (Hughes et al., 2009) leading to heightened self-efficacy for both

the teacher and the student. However, if teachers and principals have not been properly

equipped with the knowledge, resources, and support necessary to encourage all children

to reach their full potential, then their own self-efficacy will be lowered resulting in

lowered student performance (Weinstein, 2002).

Teachers with high expectations for student learning make more instructional

comments and give more feedback on student performance than those with low

expectations (Rubie-Davies, 2007). The latter group of teachers used fewer instructional

comments, substituting procedural statements and giving little or no feedback on student

performance. By supporting learning goals that focus on the demands of the task rather

than on performance through the promotion of cooperation over competitiveness teachers

will add dimension to student engagement and willingness to expand their effort to meet

42

hard challenges (Weinstein, 2002). Improvement in both teacher self-efficacy and

teacher expectations are needed to bring about an increase in student learning.

Teacher Self-Efficacy and Motivation

Like teacher expectations, teacher self-efficacy also affects how much effort a

teacher will put forth to implement instruction. Teacher motivation is another area that

strongly impacts student achievement (Muller & Hanfstinl, 2010) and is linked to teacher

self-efficacy (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). Self-efficacy is the belief or

perception of an individual on his or her ability to implement actions or behaviors needed

to reach a desired outcome (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). Motivation is

fueled by self-efficacy. Motivation is a person’s desire to put forth effort and actions

required to reach specific outcomes (Vancouver, 2008). Teacher motivation is as an

important factor in creating an effective educational system (Muller & Hanfstingl, 2010).

Motivation is the driving force behind personal actions and work (Shah, Rehman,

Akhtar, Zafar, & Riaz, 2012). All people want to feel competent, autonomous, and

related to others (Deci & Ryan, 2008). Employee morale is high when employees are

properly motivated, which can take an organization to prosperity or conversely to

downfall if they are not properly motivated (Shah et al., 2012). When these needs are

supported through the social environment, such as the organization, motivation is

optimally supported (Deci & Ryan, 2008). Perceived organizational support contributes

to overall job satisfaction (Bolger & Nir, 2012). Administrative support and handling of

problems along with caring for employees boosts job satisfaction and increases

motivation (Shah et al., 2012).

Motivation theory is an outgrowth of self-determination theory (Lam & Gurland,

2008). Self-determination is the extent an individual has eternalized a task or taken

43

ownership (Lam & Gurland, 2008). Self-determination theory states that there are two

types of motivation—extrinsic and intrinsic (Moran, Diefendorff, Kim, & Liu 2012).

Extrinsic motivation involves external influences such as tangible rewards. Intrinsic

motivation is motivation that is derived from personal values or interests.

Dweck (2000) identified two types of motivation—helplessness and mastery.

Helplessness is behavior that is motivated through a desire to appear successful and avoid

failure (Dweck, 2000). People who demonstrate learned helplessness are motivated to do

only those tasks that they know they can be successful with, while people who are

motivated through mastery will put forth great effort to master a skill in the face of failure

(Dweck, 2000). Mastery motivated people will work through their failures until they

have achieved mastery (Dweck, 2000). Self-efficacy involves a person’s judgment of

perceived skills and effort necessary to reach a desired outcome (Bandura, 1977;

Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). Motivation, therefore, is influenced by a

sense of self-efficacy (Vancouver, 2008). The amount of effort an individual puts forth

toward that task and his or her self-efficacy for a task determines the amount of

motivation she or he has for the task (Kroth, 2007).

Self-determination theory further proposes that people seek to fulfill basic

psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Bieg, Rickelman, Jones,

& Mittag, 2013; Deci & Ryan, 2000; Milyavskaya & Koestner, 2011). Therefore, the

environment is an important factor because there will either be support or a lack of

support opportunities to fulfill these needs (Bieg et al., 2013). Deci and Ryan (2008)

contended that positive feedback promotes intrinsic motivation by providing positive

competent information, thereby satisfying the need for feeling competent. Feeling

competent about enacting behavior will lead to full internalizing the regulation of the

44

behavior (Deci & Ryan, 2008). Negative feedback will undermine the development of

intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2012). People seek goals that allow for support for

their need for satisfaction (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Additionally, Deci and Ryan (2000)

determined that extrinsic motivation over an extended period of time will diminish

intrinsic motivation, replacing it entirely. The use of monetary or tangible rewards for

performance will create a sense of being controlled as opposed to the feeling of autonomy

and doing things because of internal feelings of satisfaction and enjoyment (Deci &

Ryan, 2000)

Maslow (as cited in Kroth, 2007) believed that needs exist as a hierarchy and that

the most basic needs must be satisfied before moving up the hierarchy. Once needs and

expectations have been satisfied, positive motivation will become stronger (Karsli &

Iskander, 2009). Skilled teachers’ efficacy may be lowered if they are not motivated to

perform their jobs due to job stress, unfriendliness, belief in their competence by

themselves or others, and working in conditions not conducive for teaching and learning

(Shah et al., 2012).

Bandura (1977) stated that motivation is the activation and persistence of

behavior. Motivation is grown from further successful reinforcement of the behavior.

Dweck (2000) supported the theory that people define who they are through their belief

systems, their values, and their goals and that when people experience life events they

either have a positive or negative reaction toward that event, which may be perceived

consciously, but often, will be perceived subconsciously. Known as social cognitive

theory, Dweck described this as a meaning system approach to motivation, personality,

and self (Dweck, 2000). She believed the goals that people set for themselves influence

the types of behaviors in which they will engage in pursuit of their goals, as well as how

45

they feel in the pursuit. Additionally, these beliefs can be influenced or changed either

directly through explicit means or indirectly through inherent messages in the form of

feedback (Dweck, 2000).

Milyavskaya and Koestner (2011) described motivation as being on a continuum

from originating within one’s self to being driven by outside pressures. Self-motivation,

or motivation that originates within one’s self, is called autonomous motivation.

Motivation originating from outside pressure is considered integrated motivation.

Having needs satisfied leads to autonomous motivation (Milyavskaya & Koestner, 2011).

Positive motivation is produced when expectations are realized and needs are satisfied

(Karsli & Iskender, 2009). Once needs have been met and expectations are realized,

motivation will become stronger to accomplish a task. Conversely, failure to have needs

met or when expectations are not fulfilled, lower motivation results (Karsli & Iskender,

2009). Autonomous motivation allows people to be causal agents and choose behaviors

or actions that they believe to be in their own best interests (Stroet, Opedenakker, &

Minnaert (2013).

The context or environment in which a person is operating determines which

actions are needed and how those actions will be employed (Vancouver, 2008). Teachers

appeared to be more satisfied and motivated in their positions in schools where the

community had better economic and social possessions (Shah et al., 2012). Teachers

working in larger schools where there is a better opportunity for professional growth, a

smaller workload, and perceived administrative support appeared to be more motivated in

their work (Bolger & Nir, 2013; Shah et al., 2012). When employees experience a sense

of appreciation and feelings of being cared for, this enhances their motivation and

commitment (Bolger & Nir, 2013). Working conditions in the form of administrative

46

support, school facilities, and class size appear to be more important to teachers than

salary or student demographics (Johnson, Kraft, & Papay, 2012).

Alam and Farid (2011) explored factors that produced low or high motivation

among secondary teachers. They found that among the factors affecting teacher

motivation was self-confidence. They recommended that teachers not be assigned to a

new or unfamiliar position until they have had the training needed to experience success

with the position. Additional studies in motivation include studies of principal leadership

and teacher motivation (Eyal & Roth, 2010), the relationship between teacher burnout

and motivational factors (Fernet, Guay, Senécal, & Austin, 2012), and the relationship

between job satisfaction and motivation among teachers (Karshi & Iskender, 2008).

Research has also shown that teacher motivation has a strong influence on student

motivation (Atkinson, 2000). In what she described as a blind study, Atkinson explored

the relationship between teacher motivation and student motivation. Data were collected

using two methods, one using a survey that was administered to 66 students and the

second used semi-structured interviews with four teachers. Atkinson wanted to

determine whether there was a link between teacher and student motivation and whether

there were certain factors that attributed to motivation or demotivation within each group.

Atkinson postulated that teachers are the driving force for sustaining, enhancing, or

decreasing student motivation and that it is important to try to find those factors that

influence this drive. She found that there was a positive relationship between teacher

motivation and student motivation, showing that positive teacher motivation led to

positive student motivation, while teacher demotivation led to lowered levels of student

motivation. Her results also showed a correlation between teacher motivation and

curriculum design and curriculum process. These two factors create a judgment by

47

teachers as to how easily the curriculum can be executed and followed. Her results,

though too small to generalize, did support previous research that teacher motivation is

key to motivating students to become engaged in their learning and to achieve.

Atkinson’s research, though somewhat limited, supported the belief that teachers who

have low motivation because of their perception of inability to execute the curriculum

leads to low student motivation as well. Though there are many other factors that affect

teacher motivation, curriculum design and curriculum processes are areas that all teachers

experience in their daily work with students and are perhaps the most easily identifiable

areas affecting teacher motivation.

Individuals learn from on-going social interactions (Martin & Dowson, 2009).

They learn about themselves and how to fit into a social group by developing beliefs,

orientations, and values consistent with their environment (Martin & Dowson, 2009).

Teacher motivation is important in establishing the educational context through which

student motivation is cultivated and reinforced (Atkinson, 2000). Student relationships

with teachers have the most influence on student mastery or avoidance of tasks (Martin &

Dowson, 2009; Narvaez et al., 2008). Teachers who attribute student success to effort

will induce pride in students, thus motivating them to put forth effort (Martin & Dowson,

2009). Teachers who see poor student performance as a lack of ability will induce a

negative effect within the students, suppressing students’ motivation to achieve (Martin

& Dowson, 2009).

Thoonen, Sleegers, Oort, Peetsma, and Geisjsel (2011) suggested that teacher

motivation is made up of three components; expectancy, value, and affective

components. Expectancy is self-efficacy. A teacher has a predetermined expectation for

success that determines how much effort will be put toward achieving the goal. Value is

48

how much interest and importance a desired goal has for the teacher toward completing a

task. The affective component refers to teachers’ emotional reaction to do the task or

toward the school in general. Teachers who are uncertain about their role in school

reform or how it will affect their own well-being will operate in a routine way, avoiding

risks and wanting to keep things status quo and within their control (Thoonen et al.,

2011). It has been suggested that NCLB encouraged competent and committed teachers

to unite with their marginal colleagues against outside intrusions from the principal

resulting in coalitions that could threaten attempts to improve student learning (McCaslin,

2008). Teachers have not been given the impression that they are the solution to the

problem of school improvement, but rather that they are the reason for school

improvement, resulting in a feeling of disrespect and unworthiness (Fullan, 2006). This

disrespect leads to a lack of motivation to change and creates a downward discrimination;

that is, disrespected teachers will pass that disrespect on to their students and their parents

(Fullan, 2006).

Motivation is the driving force behind change and feeling and emotions are key to

motivation (Fullan, 2006). Principals must find ways to motivate teachers (Kroth, 2007).

Principals should view their organizations as social ecosystems that they can influence

but not control (Kroth, 2007). The influence comes through relationships built by the

principal with the teachers (Fullan, 2000). Principals must build relationships

individually (Barnett & McCormick, 2004) by becoming familiar with teachers’ desires,

personal and professional goals, and individual situations; becoming genuinely interested

in their followers’ successes (Kroth, 2007).

Relationship oriented leadership focuses on the motives of each individual team

member in an effort to show support and assist in their goals, resulting in trusting

49

relationships and organizational commitment (Sahertian & Frisdiantara, 2012). However,

in forming these relationships a perception of favoritism must be suppressed or it may

lead to resentment by others and the feeling that leadership is not treating everyone

equally (Barnett & McCormick, 2004). In addition, these relationships need to be such

that the principal has the courage to let teachers know of their deficiencies in the

classroom. If principals fail to express concern for teacher classroom practices out of

respect for the teacher, it may be interpreted that the current classroom practices are

acceptable and therefore teachers will not be motivated to reflect on how effective their

instruction is or to experiment with new innovations in the classroom (Thoonen et al.,

2011).

When teacher actions are not considered by the administrator it results in a

negative effect on their motivation (Karlsi & Iskender, 2009). Teachers with positive

motivation need to know their efforts are appreciated, where teachers with negative

motivation are looking for ways to have their needs and expectations met (Bolger & Nir,

2013). Not motivating teachers and involving them in decision making can be

detrimental to effective instruction (Karlsi & Iskender, 2009). Teachers who experience

job dissatisfaction become demotivated and may be the weak link affecting the success of

educational programs (Eres, 2011).

Student self-efficacy and motivation for learning are directly impacted by teacher

self-efficacy and motivation (Atkinson, 2000). Teachers’ motivation is fueled by their

belief in their ability to have a positive influence on student achievement (Tschannen-

Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). Their self-efficacy is fueled by support, recognition on

effort, and autonomy given by the principal (Sahertian & Frisdiantara, 2012). Principals

meet these needs through the relationships they build with teachers to bring about a

50

climate of learning (Fullan, 2000). Principal self-efficacy therefore, becomes another

important factor in the school improvement process and is explored further in the

following section.

Principal Self-efficacy

Principals are expected to lead change and restructuring efforts in a time of

constantly changing framework (Eres, 2011). It is important that principals of SINI

possess a strong belief in their ability to lead such change. Tschannen-Moran and Gareis

(2004) described principal self-efficacy as a principal’s judgment of his or her capability

to shape a specific course of action to bring about desired outcomes. Principal self-

efficacy, like teacher self-efficacy, is context specific. Many times what may prove to be

effective for one school may not be so for another (Lindahl, 2007), supporting the

proposition that school improvement should be looked at as a unique process (Evans et

al., 2012; Willis, 2010), that require principals with a strong sense of self-efficacy

(Leithwood & Jantzi, 2008; Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2004; Ware & Kitsantas, 2011).

There is very little in the way of research on the construct of principal self-efficacy, yet

what research there is has found that principal self-efficacy is a key factor in bringing

about school improvement (Federici, 2013).

According to self-efficacy theory, principals with a high sense of self-efficacy

will be successful in helping teachers set goals and desired outcomes, face challenges

with enthusiasm, problem solve, accept failure only to be persistent until they succeed,

and will promote a sense of high self-efficacy among teachers and students (Tschannen-

Moran & Gareis, 2004). Conversely, principals with a lowered sense of self-efficacy will

feel stressed, lack the motivation to continue through the school improvement process,

and will tend to keep things status quo rather then put forth the effort to implement new

51

practices (Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2004). Additionally, the larger the school the

harder it is to manage academic success, staff, student affairs, school facilities, and

school community affairs (Yusoff, n.d.).

Although it has been found that principals have an indirect effect on student

learning (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2008; Niesche & Jorgensen, 2010; Williams, 2010) they

have a direct effect on teachers’ self-efficacy (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2008; Tschannen-

Moran & Gareis, 2004). Teachers have the most direct effect on students and their

learning and having a strong sense of self-efficacy, persistence, and dedication is

important to bring about improvement (Finnigan, 2011). However, research has found

that leadership is vital for successful school turnaround and is a highly desirable resource

for teachers yearning to improve (Finnigan, 2011; Price, 2012; Ware & Kitsantas, 2011).

Therefore, principals need to possess a sense of strong self-efficacy to persevere against

the challenges that come with the process of school improvement (Leithwood & Jantzi,

2008; Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2004; Ware & Kitsantas, 2011), such as resistance to

change from teachers, parents, and students, failures or setbacks, problems that plague

students living in poverty, limited resources, and the politics associated with making

community connections (Good, 2008).

Principal self-efficacy is still a new and under researched construct (Kurt et al.,

2012; Federici, 2013; Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2004). However, there have been

studies that have identified areas of principal self-efficacy (Federici & Skaalvik, 2012;

Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2004). Tschannen-Moran and Gareis (2004) developed the

Principal Sense of Self-Efficacy Scale (SES) and posited three areas where principals and

school leaders show self-efficacy: self-efficacy for management, efficacy for instructional

leadership, and efficacy for moral leadership. Federici and Skaalvik (2012) identified

52

eight areas or dimensions of principal self-efficacy in their Norwegian PSES:

instructional leadership, economic management, municipal authority, parental relations,

relations with the local community, administrative management, teacher support, and

school environment.

The district leadership influences outcomes by directly influencing perceptions,

behaviors, attitude, values, responsibility, and accountability at the school level

(McFarlane, 2010). This influence directly effects principal self-efficacy through the

type of relationship and support with the leadership at the district level (McFarlane,

2010). Principal self-efficacy is directly influenced by principal perception of leadership

roles of their immediate superiors (McFarlane, 2010).

McFarlane (2010) investigated the impact of school district leadership,

specifically the superintendent, as perceived by principals at the elementary, middle, and

high school levels. The quantitative study utilized an online survey of 253 principals

throughout three large urban school districts. The model for leadership characteristics

was taken from Kouzes and Posner’s 5 Practices of Exemplary Leadership Practices

(Kouzes & Posner as cited by McFarlane, 2010). These practices; model the way, inspire

a shared vision, challenge the process, enable others to act, and encourage the heart, were

used by McFarlane as essential practices needed by school leaders, both at the district and

building levels, to bring about a change in climate and culture and have a positive impact

on school improvement. Using a descriptive and inferential analysis, McFarlane found

that among the five practices, superintendents as well as principals held modeling the

way and enabling others to act high as having an impact on school improvement.

However, the three superintendents who participated in the study differed in how they

enabled others to act. High scores were also given to school climate and culture,

53

particularly in one district, which led McFarlane to conclude that there are times when

transactional leadership, which is more controlling and more task oriented, may be a

better fit for urban districts faced with strict accountability, improving student

achievement, and the challenges of the 21st century. This study supported relationship

building and leadership support as being a necessary element in improving the self-

efficacy and leadership skills of principals faced with leading school improvement.

Although principal leadership has been proven to have indirect effects on student

learning (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2008; Niesche & Jorgensen, 2010; Williams, 2010) it has a

direct impact on teacher performance (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2008; Tschannen-Moran &

Gareis, 2004). Much like teacher self-efficacy, principal self-efficacy is influenced by

the amount of support, autonomy, and the relationships they have with the leadership at

the district level. Low principal self-efficacy will have a negative impact on teacher self-

efficacy, which filters down to student achievement (Finnigan, 2012; Kurt et al., 2012;

Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2004; Ware & Kitsantas, 2011). The effects of low

principal self-efficacy leads to a lack of vision or sense of direction for the school and can

result in a negative climate affecting student achievement (Finnigan, 2011; Leithwood &

Jantzi, 2008; Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2004).

Impact of Low Principal Self-Efficacy

Leadership during the school improvement process is tantamount to leading a

company or corporation out of bankruptcy (Jones, 2006). The principal is the person who

makes decisions on every aspect of what is happening within the school, with teachers,

students, and parents (Good, 2008) and each decision has an effect on every other

decision (Thorton, Shepperson, & Canavero, 2007). He or she is the person responsible

for ensuring that the climate and culture of the school is one in which students are

54

learning, feel safe, and feel valued (Beets et al., 2008; Cohen, McCabe, Michelli, &

Pickeral, 2009; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2008). As a result, principals have a direct impact

on teachers who are most responsible for student learning and achievement (Finnigan,

2012; Kurt et al., 2012; Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2004; Ware & Kitsantas, 2011).

Therefore, Principal self-efficacy is a construct that should not be ignored.

Principals who experience low self-efficacy feel a sense of failure, may be

anxious and overwhelmed by the multiple tasks and responsibilities that are a part of their

jobs, and tend to avoid tasks that require more effort to accomplish, such as ensuring

teachers are following school improvement initiatives (Federici, 2013; Tschannen-Moran

& Gareis, 2004; Ware & Kitsantas, 2011). Low principal self-efficacy creates a sense of

helplessness among teachers, who then experience low self-efficacy in trying to improve

student learning (Finnigan, 2011; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2008; Tschannen-Moran &

Gareis, 2004). Low teacher self-efficacy in turn leads to lowered teacher expectations of

their students and results in lowered student self-efficacy in their belief in their own

learning abilities (Kurt et al., 2012; McCullers & Bozeman, 2010; Tschannen-Moran &

Woolfolk Hoy, 2001; Ware & Kitsantas, 2011).

An interesting finding on low principal self-efficacy is that, unlike low teacher

self-efficacy, low principal self-efficacy is not a predictor of whether a principal makes

the choice to leave (Federici & Skaalvik, 2012). In their findings, Federici and Skaalvik

(2012) found that principals with high self-efficacy, who left their positions, did so to

pursue higher, more challenging ventures; while principals with low self-efficacy chose

to stay, not wanting to take the risk. Unfortunately, in an atmosphere of high

accountability for improvement, these principals with lowered self-efficacy resulting in

poor performance are the ones who are being replaced (NCLB, 2009) rather than

55

investing in strengthening their skills, thus strengthening their self-efficacy to lead their

school out of school improvement.

Principal self-efficacy needs to be supported and developed for principals to bring

about authentic and sustainable school improvement. School improvement is a

comprehensive, ongoing process, and having leaders with a high sense of self-efficacy,

motivation, and drive is important in not only bringing about improvement but also in

sustaining it over time. The next section will discuss the school improvement process as

it is today and how it affects teacher and principal self-efficacy.

School Improvement

School improvement became a focus of concern with the completion of the report

“A Nation at Risk” (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1984), which

presented evidence that American students were behind in math and science compared to

their foreign counterparts. The report emphasized the need to increase students’

knowledge in these areas for the United States to continue to be competitive with other

nations, and thus the need to transform education in America became a major focus of

public policy. In 2001, President George W. Bush pushed through Congress the No

Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, which required that schools be held accountable for all

students and their achievement. Through a set of very specific criteria that came with

checks and balances, schools were required to ensure that a high percentage of their

students would graduate proficient in certain subject areas. Schools that fell below the

acceptable targets for performance were penalized and expected to put into place

research-based strategies to improve performance or face severe penalties, such as school

restructuring or school closure.

In 2008, the Center on Education Policy came out with a report on the progress

56

being made toward the goals set by NCLB. This study targeted five states and explored

the restructured status of schools labeled as SINI. The study showed that over the 7 years

there was a 50% increase in the number of schools that had entered restructured status; all

were urban schools. According to the study these five states provided support for their

SINI schools. Four provided professional development to help with instruction. Three

states offered on-site support over a 2 year period to their schools. Two other states

offered professional development for principals. Despite these supports, 19% of these

school remained in corrective status.

In 2009, Congress created a new program that was more bold and innovative for

turning around low performing schools. This program, ARRA (U.S. DOE, 2009),

brought financial support to schools ranked in the lowest 5% for performance. This

support came through the School Improvement Grant Program (SIG) Program which was

also titled Race to the Top. States were awarded this aid and were required to use the

funds to implement one of four turnaround models.

Since the implementation of Race to the Top in 2009 research has provided

insight into the school reform process. Among these studies were those that focused on

teacher and principal ability to navigate and manage school improvement. Good (2008)

explored the perspectives of principals operating at varying degrees of school

improvement. His interviews pulled in descriptions of the various contexts that

principals are faced with—management, instructional leadership, and moral leadership.

The outcome of this study revealed that principals believed that the issues that they faced

were not insurmountable but rather expressed the need for support and patience from the

policy makers as they worked to bring about the needed change.

Effects of the school improvement process on teacher self-efficacy. American

57

society had been satisfied with schools’ mission to teach all students basic skills and give

some of them the more exclusive skills necessary for college (Fullan, Hill, & Crevola,

2006). With the implementation of NCLB this mission changed and schools were

expected to prepare all students for postsecondary education. Implementing school

reform meant changing how business was done as well as changing the climate and

culture of a school to bring about improved performance (Wagner et al., 2006). Such

accountability has shown to be a source of teacher stress, which in turn contributes to a

low sense of self-efficacy among teachers (Margolis & Nagel, 2006). Even teachers with

high self-efficacy may be affected as they experience doubt about new, unfamiliar

practices that may not be in line with their own philosophies of how students learn

(Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007). According to Valli, Croninger, and Buese (2012), research

that shapes education policy needs to consider multiple in-school factors and influences

in models designed to predict student outcomes. Teachers become resentful of losing

control over the way they teach, how they think, how they learn, and being held

accountable for making the performance targets set by federal mandates (Valli et al.,

2012).

Creating this type of change means changing the climate and culture of the school

and is far more difficult than changing a policy, program, or practice (Eaker & Keating,

2008). However true, sustainable change requires a change in what people believe and

how they think (Connors & Smith, 2011). When implementing reform, teachers

cognitively assess the complexity of the task, what they know about the task and the

environment where the task is to take place, leading to a judgment of how successful they

will be in achieving student learning (Takahashi, 2011). There is no single approach to

school improvement because schools have different wants and needs (Blankstein, 2010).

58

What may be successful in one school, may fail to have the same effectiveness in

another.

Finnigan and Gross (2007) used a mixed method approach to explore the

influence of accountability policies on teacher motivation. They sought to determine

how teacher motivation changed as a result of stringent accountability policies and which

policies affected their motivation levels. Qualitative data were collected through

interviews and focus groups. Additionally, a survey was administered. They

hypothesized that the threat of probation or to get off probation would motivate teachers

and principals to improve. They found that teachers who felt less pressure and stress of

the threat of job loss performed better and had higher expectations of students. Teachers

who were experiencing higher levels of stress and pressure to improve felt that the system

was unfair. External support caused a rise in test scores leading to higher expectations of

students. They also found that teachers were working harder without support resulting in

low expectations and low effort while as an organization there were no clear strategies for

organizational change and higher reliance on traditional professional development. The

authors suggested principals and district administrators should allow for targeted support

that fits the needs of the school. The focus should be on instructional content. New

policies may cause bigger problems if not approached correctly (Finnigan & Gross,

2007).

Finnigan and Gross (2007) found that teachers who initially believed their

students could achieve were less sure of their beliefs in the face of failure. Moreover,

teachers faced with changing accountability goals changed their own efficacy beliefs as

well. Finnigan and Gross also found a correlation between morale and motivation.

Decreased expectations and demoralization tended to overtake teachers’ motivation in

59

schools with the greatest student achievement difficulties. Although teachers were

motivated to respond to accountability policies and valued the goal of increased student

achievement, their expectations that they could accomplish the goal declined the longer

their school was in probation status (Finnigan & Gross, 2007).

Additionally, other studies have been conducted and concluded teacher self-

efficacy is context specific (Cantrell & Calloway, 2008; Tschannen-Moran & Johnson,

2011; Yeo et al., 2008). These studies found that teachers assess their ability within their

immediate situation in relation to their perceived internal strengths and deficits

(Tschannen-Moran & Johnson, 2011). This assessment of internal strengths and deficits

included considering a range of teaching tasks within the domains of self-efficacy for

instruction, self-efficacy for student engagement, and self-efficacy for classroom

management (Yeo et al., 2008). In the learning environment, a teacher may have a high

sense of self-efficacy in teaching one part of a curriculum but low self-efficacy in another

(McCormick et al., 2006). They may view this sense of low self-efficacy as a weakness

or an indication of low capability. School reform brings many changes to teachers who

may resist reform efforts if they anticipate that their former roles will change. Teachers

may fear loss of social connections that have provided them with comfort and security

(Zimmerman, 2006). Further, teachers may perceive that they will lose power or position

with the implementation of new reforms. Teachers often fear the unknown and are

unwilling to try something unfamiliar to them. McCormick et al. (2006) found that the

more a teacher knows what a new reform model will involve, the lower the teacher’s self-

efficacy became. Additionally, conflicts in vision or relationships generated negative

staff morale and stymied school reform or change efforts (Margolis & Nagel, 2006).

For teachers to be successful within the new context of implementing innovative

60

instructional practices, teacher self-efficacy must be addressed (Cantrell & Calloway,

2008). Much of what takes place in schools is controlled by both internal and external

factors (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007) that teachers feel they are unable to manipulate. For

example, decision-making or autonomy is considered a basic need. However, it is a need

that is diminishing worldwide as schools go through the reform process (Skaalvik &

Skaalvik, 2009). As a result, teachers feel they have no control or input in the teaching

methods they are being asked to implement (Konings et al., 2007) and experience

feelings of unworthiness along with feeling devalued by being associated with a

turnaround school (Fullan, 2006). These feelings may manifest as being less caring

toward their students (Fullan, 2006).

While research supports the effect of school reform on teacher self-efficacy and

teacher performance (Finnigan & Gross, 2007; McCormick et al., 2006; Skaalvik &

Skaalvik, 2007; Zimmerman, 2006), there has been little research in the overall success

or failure of these reforms (Gross et al., 2009). Gross et al. (2009) reported that the

effects of comprehensive school reform strategies did not have an overall effect on

student learning school-wide. To bring about real school reform, the emphasis on

improvement must be on every student individually. Further, it is important to

understand how school reform impacts and is impacted by the wider context of the school

environment where deep patterns of values, traditions, policies, and procedures exist

(Starr, 2012; Willis, 2010). Often school reform focuses more on school management

and operation systems rather than on introducing new instructional strategies and

authentic improvement in student learning (Honig & Rainey, 2012). Implementing

school reform procedures produces measurements of the progress toward improved

student outcomes. Such pressure leads to an unbalanced focus on the basics (Willis,

61

2010). Teachers attempt to retain what they have and to stay with what they know, what

is comfortable, and the status quo (Starr, 2012). This results in schools that have good

routines and practices in place but show no improvement in instructional effectiveness

(Fernandez, 2009). Students’ culture within their community is not recognized as being a

pivotal factor in their learning (Wrigley, 2011). Wrigley (2011) proposed when

implementing school improvement practices there is a need to look beyond just the

classroom and student scores and look at how a change in curriculum and a shift in

practices will mesh with the students’ real world.

Teachers with high self-efficacy work through the pressure associated with reform

and begin to create a new sense of balance and redefine the status quo (Starr, 2012;

Zimmerman, 2006). Additionally, teachers given more autonomy have shown to focus

on new structures and new instructional strategies, resulting in improved student

achievement (Honig & Rainey, 2012) culminating in higher levels of teacher self-efficacy

(Woolfolk Hoy, Hoy, & Kurz, 2008). Although teachers who experience low levels of

self-efficacy are less likely to work through these pressures (Verešová & Malá, 2012),

there is the threat of high self-efficacy teachers leaving the profession due to an inability

to align their beliefs, values, and ethics to the new reforms or negotiate ways to teach

well within the reforms while doing what is best for their students (Sontoro &

Morehouse, 2011). Chiang (2009) investigated the likelihood of data manipulation

among sanctioned schools resulting in improved student test scores. He found that the

pressure to raise student test scores to avoid sanctions actually did lead to improved

scores; however, this was a temporary effect that did not carry over to middle school.

McIntyre and Kyle (2006), in their study of mandated reform, stated that the climate at

the school, district, or even the state level influenced what teachers do in the classroom.

62

They conducted classroom observations, group, and individual interviews over 18

months. Their goal was to determine why teachers either sustained reform

implementations or did not. They found that external factors as well as internal factors

that affect how teachers and principals operate must be addressed to bring about true

change for improvement. They went on to say that the voices of principals and teachers

need to be heard to better understand what is needed to address these factors.

Schools are complex social systems (Tobin et al., 2006), that contain underlying

unspoken feelings, opinions, or issues that surface only when people are aroused. Very

often, reforms address symptoms without reaching the underlying problem (Thorton et

al., 2007). Additionally, many variables that teachers must face each day add to the

problem of implementing new instructional methods that they are not familiar with

(Konings et al., 2007; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2009). Leading reform, therefore, becomes a

daunting task and one that requires a high sense of self-efficacy from the school

leadership.

Leading the school improvement process. Although there has been quite a bit

of research on leading school improvement, there has been very little on the effect this

responsibility has on principal self-efficacy (Federici & Skaalvik, 2011; Leithwood &

Jantzi, 2008; Orr et al., 2008; Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2004). When leading a school

through the improvement process, principals are responsible for meeting the demands and

the needs of not only the general populations of students, but also of all the subgroups

that exist within that population (Lindahl, 2007). These subgroups consist of students

with disabilities, English language learners, gifted, teachers, parents, and the community.

Principals play a major role in changing teacher beliefs about instruction and

students’ capability to learning (Finnigan, 2011). It has been found, however, that there

63

is no one leadership style that is better or more effective than another (Lindahl, 2007) and

that it is actually self-efficacy that determines the success or failure of a school leader

(Leithwood & Jantzi, 2008). Lindahl (2007) referenced it in this way, “It is not just what

one does as a leader that matters—it is how those actions are perceived in a specific

situation” (p. 327). Unfortunately, it is the perceived level of these actions that one must

hold to lead sustained improvement that has driven away many prospective school

leaders (Sanzo, Sherman, & Clayton, 2011). It is essential that principals make teachers

feel effective and confident to maximize teacher’s impact on student achievement

(Walker & Slear, 2011). To have such influence, principals need to understand how their

personal characteristics and behaviors affect teachers (Walker & Slear, 2011). Research

has found that work motivation and commitment to stay are strongly linked to principal

leadership (Fullan, 2006).

In contrast to Lindahl (2007), studies have been conducted on the most effective

types of principal leadership. Transformational leadership, though found to be highly

effective (Eyal & Roth, 2010), has also been found to be ineffective if skills and

information are lacking among the educational staff (Eres, 2011). Transactional

leadership is about control and compliance to rules and regulations and leads to stress and

burnout among teachers (Eyal & Roth, 2010). Of the two, transformational leadership

leads to strong teacher self-efficacy because it promotes autonomy among teachers,

shared leadership, and encourages innovation (Eres, 2011; Eyal & Roth, 2010).

Principals are faced with the intersection of internal and external accountability

systems (Knapp & Feldman, 2011). Internal accountability are the systems and practices

put in place internally by the school staff while external accountability systems are those

practices mandated by Central Office and other outside agencies (Knapp & Feldman,

64

2011). Pressure is put on the principal by these external agencies to implement mandated

reform practices that may not be compatible with the internal systems already in place by

the staff (Knapp & Feldman, 2010). Very few schools have well developed internal

accountability systems (Fullan, 2006). If a principal chooses to take a path with the least

resistance and allows the staff to only meet the compliance standards at their minimum,

they may create an environment where very little sustained learning is taking place

(Knapp & Feldman, 2010). Though faced with these pressures, principals rely on district

leadership, specifically the superintendent who can positively or negatively influence

school culture, climate, values, team leadership motivation, and attitudes among the staff

(McFarlane, 2010). Good (2008) explored the perspectives of principals operating at

varying degrees of school improvement. His interviews pulled in descriptions of the

various contexts that principals are faced with—management, instructional leadership,

and moral leadership. The outcome of this study revealed that principals believed that

the issues that they faced were not insurmountable but rather expressed the need for

support and patience from the policy makers as they worked to bring about the needed

change.

Organizational success is determined through the vision developed and conveyed

by leaders and their ability to directly influence the behaviors of others (McFarlane,

2010). Principals directly influence outcomes by indirectly influencing perceptions,

behaviors, attitudes, values, responsibility, and accountability of their followers

(McFarlane, 2010). Although research has indicated school leadership has an indirect

effect on student learning, principals do impact teacher behavior directly (Leithwood &

Jantzi, 2008; Niesche & Jorgensen, 2010; Williams, 2010). Williams (2010) suggested

that principals who meet teachers’ hierarchical needs for acceptance, recognition, and

65

belonging (Maslow, as cited in Williams, 2010) by creating a collaborative, shared

leadership culture within their schools, will enhance the self-efficacy of teachers and

promote high student achievement (Williams, 2010). Enhancing teacher self-efficacy

through their work with teachers will promote self-confidence and a sense of

effectiveness in teachers that are essential for positively impacting student achievement

(Walker & Slear, 2011). Building the leadership of others in the organization allows for

continuity of good work and is the heart of sustainability (Fullan, 2006).

One way that principals promote this type of environment is by building

collective teacher efficacy (Brinson & Steiner, 2007). Collective teacher efficacy has

been found to have a strong influence on student achievement (Goddard, Hoy, &

Woolfolk Hoy, 2004; Klassen & Chiu, 2010). However, when a school is labeled as a

failure, it can create a barrier to the collaborative way of working (Orr et al., 2008). The

longer a school remains in a state of failure the more teachers’ and principal self-efficacy

are affected, engendering a cycle of failure (Takahashi, 2011). Often principals will

adopt goals and practices that differ from those within the school resulting in failure or

leading to programs that are only partially implemented or are misapplied (Kruse, 2008).

External accountability systems often overshadow the efforts of school-based

reform efforts. Principals may choose to take the path of least resistance, allowing the

teaching staff to be autonomous while only requiring them to comply enough with

external systems to get improved test scores (Knapp & Feldman, 2011). However,

principals who use these external accountability systems to intersect with internal

accountability systems will create a strong bond between the two systems resulting in

effective improvement (Knapp & Feldman, 2011). To create this bond, the principal

must rely on the support of the district leadership, specifically the superintendent

66

(McFarlane, 2010). Superintendents are able to build or break down school cultures

through the level of support and assistance they provide to schools (McFarlane, 2010).

Also, teaching staffs have strong individualistic practices that create major organizational

learning resistance since a staff that once believed they were successful in their work are

identified as failing by external systems (Knapp & Feldman, 2011), producing feelings of

anxiety and resentment (Zimmerman, 2006). Principals of disadvantaged schools, along

with their teaching staffs, become frustrated with trying to meet the multiple goals to be

met within the course of a school year to avoid sanctions from the federal and state

governments (Sondergeld & Koskey, 2011). Yet, in the face of failure it is important for

principals to stay the course set for improvement and use failure as a motivation to learn

rather than a reason to discontinue (Fullan, 2006).

Several work place factors have been identified as having influence on teacher–

student relationships leading to improved student learning. These factors; teacher job

satisfaction, a sense of professionalism, and influence, trust, and opportunities to

collaborate need to be supported by school leadership to impact students and their

learning (Wahlstrom & Seashore Louis, 2008). Furthermore, employees will put forth

maximum effort if they have a superior who engages in relationship-oriented leadership

(Sahertian & Frisdiantara, 2012). Leadership is characterized by one-to-one relationships

between the leader and follower and less as between leader and whole group (Barnett &

McCormick, 2004). However, teacher roles have changed dramatically and teachers are

often asked to relate to their students differently and at times to enact pedagogy and

instructional practices that conflict with their own philosophy of teaching (Valli & Buese

(2007). Fear of the unknown, failure to clearly and completely communicate change to

employees will raise resistance levels (Puhlak & Alas, 2012). Leadership is a social

67

process that occurs through others (Hannah, Avolio, Walumbwa, & Chan, 2012).

Principal behavior shapes the climate and culture of a school (Price, 2012; Starr,

2012) and principal self-efficacy dictates what those behaviors will look like (Tschannen-

Moran & Gareis, 2004). The higher or stronger a principal’s sense of self-efficacy, the

more likely he or she will cultivate a positive learning environment while also expediting

school improvement policies and practices (Federici, 2013; Federici & Skaalvik, 2012;

Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2004). Principal leadership and support of teachers

promotes high teacher self-efficacy and performance while indirectly having the same

effect on student achievement (Tschannen-Moran & Garies, 2004). Though faced with

obstacles such as special student populations or restricted budgets, principals have been

found to view such obstacles as problems that need to be and can be solved to continue

moving forward (Good, 2008).

Climate and Culture

At the heart of any school improvement is climate and culture (Deal & Peterson,

2009). School culture, is the level of mutual trust, respect, openness, and commitment

the learning community has to student achievement (Johnson et al., 2012). Failing

schools often operate in toxic cultures, creating climates of distrust, poor student

performance, and a lack of positive behavioral expectations from students (Deal &

Peterson, 2009). The school principal has the difficult task of detoxifying the culture of a

school into a climate that is positive and thriving, driven by a culture of democratic and

moral leadership (Fullan, 2001). Creating a positive culture influences organizational

effectiveness (Wahlstrom & Louis, 2008). Culture change is not something that can

occur through mandates but rather by displacing specific existing norms, structures, and

processes and modeling new values and behaviors to take their place (Fullan, 2006).

68

Students spend more time in school than at home, making school a primary

socializing force for them (Dessel, 2010). The school social system plays a role in

student achievement and behavioral outcomes (Osman, 2012). The perception of the

school environment has an influence on both student and staff behavior (Beavans,

Bradshaw, Miech, & Leaf, 2007). A positive school climate and culture has a positive

influence on teacher self-efficacy; where a toxic environment has the opposite effect,

resulting in lowered teacher self-efficacy (Beavans et al., 2007).

Climate is created from culture (Nazari, Herremans, Isaac, Manassian, & Kline,

2011). Schools with high student expectations and that maintain a safe and orderly

environment promote high student achievement (Henderson et al., 2005). Additionally,

teachers tend to have higher job satisfaction, higher self-efficacy, and commitment in

schools with healthy school climates (Henderson et al., 2005). The need for enhancing

and improving school climate is crucial to social learning and creating social

relationships that have a proven effect on student learning (Osman, 2012).

Osman (2012) found that schools that embrace social interactions among teachers

create a positive social environment for students and learning. Schools that exhibit more

custodial interactions may create an atmosphere of alienation for students and a

battlefield for teachers (Osman, 2012). Poverty and school violence create a perception

that a school is not a safe or welcoming place for students (Dessel, 2010). A school’s

culture can often be one that is hostile and fosters prejudice and harassment, preventing

learning (Dessel, 2010). Emotional health is strongly linked to achievement (Fullan

2006). Culture is the subconscious understanding among and between members of an

organization (Nazari et al., 2011). Therefore, positive, caring social relationships, where

students, parents, and teachers are valued and cared for are critical to creating a positive,

69

flourishing climate within a school (Lance, 2010). Elevating a child’s sense of safety at

school will allow the child to improve academically (Fullan, 2006).

School improvement means organizational change that often comes about due to

the organizational health of a school. Organizational health is determined by the climate

and culture that exists within a school. Climate and culture is essential to teacher self-

efficacy and it is the responsibility of the principal to ensure a positive climate is in place

for effective teaching to take place (Dumay, 2011), which will result in improved student

learning. Cohen et al. (2009) concurred with this finding in their research on policy and

practice in relation to school climate. They found a gap in teacher education and climate

policy making. They suggested that educator training include instruction on the social

and emotional factors of a classroom and how to create relationships among students and

fellow teachers to bring about a positive school climate for learning.

Hofstede (1996), the current expert on culture, conducted extensive research on

climate and described culture as being a stratified construct that exists at national,

organizational, and individual levels. The author defined culture as patterns of the mind

for ways of thinking, feeling, and acting. She approached the concept of culture through

the various social contexts in which culture thrives and lives. She contended that culture

is context specific in that it is a collective construct partly shared with people who live or

work in the same social environment. It is this collective thinking that is shared among

the members that distinguishes one group from another (Hofstede, 1996). Culture is a

product of human beliefs, behaviors, and relationships; thus organizational culture is

steeped in rituals and symbols, rich embedded history, and because it is created and

preserved by its members, is difficult to change (Hofstede, 1996). Although strong

positive cultures are the goal of many organizations, there is an argument that having a

70

strong culture can lead to rigidity, creating a barrier to change—especially in cultures that

are toxic (Hofstede, 1996). As a result, culture change occurs with one person at a time

(Connors & Smith, 2011). As each person within an organization begins to acknowledge

the need for change, becomes accountable, and takes ownership, change will occur quite

quickly (Connors & Smith, 2011). However, the increased demands and pressures of

accountability lead to quick reactions rather than thoughtful and deliberate proaction

(Davies, 2002).

Changing climate one person at a time. Changing how people think is key to

changing culture (Conners & Smith, 2011). To change how people think, learning must

take place. The ability to change and adapt is the main function of organizational

learning (Tobin et al., 2006). An organization learns when the range of existing

behaviors are changed (Tobin et al., 2006). Organizational learning is identifying and

correcting problems to improve organizational effectiveness (Finnigan, Daly, & Stewart,

2012). Identifying problems is the first and most crucial step in an organization’s ability

to learn and change (Finnigan et al., 2012). It is important to identify the small problems

that chip away at the organizational effectiveness before they lead to failure of the overall

organization (Cannon & Edmonson, 2005). To overlook the small failures results in the

same problems continuing to exist and becoming embedded in the behavior and practices

within the classroom and the school. The ideals, experiences, actions, values, and

emotions become deeply rooted and embraced by the organization members (Fullan,

2001). Organizational culture is strong and no matter how welcoming, open, and caring

it appears on the surface, organizational culture will always protect itself through

employee resistance to change (Puhlak & Alas, 2012). Changing the culture means

changing the context; create new settings conducive to learning and then sharing that

71

learning, building mutual trust (Connors & Smith, 2011; Fullan, 2001). Culture and

climate can be changed by school leaders by taking deliberate actions such as redefining

roles or relationships, altering performance expectations, and using job assignments in

creative ways (Childress, Elmore, and Grossman, 2006). Cultural changes need time to

consolidate and become embedded within the hearts and minds of all members of the

organization (Fullan, 2006).

Leadership is crucial when creating culture change. Principal actions directly

shape the culture of their school (Price, 2012). Positive relationships between principals

and teachers have been found to promote higher levels of satisfaction and trust between

stakeholders, cohesion around school goals, and commitment from faculty (Dumay,

2009; Price, 2012). There is a need for principals to build a collaborative and democratic

process, sharing leadership with teachers, to bring about true and effective reform

(Beachum & Dentith, 2004). Although studies have found that leadership does not have

direct impact on student learning, the impact that it does have is monumental (Bell &

Kent, 2010). Principals develop the relationships that support and promote the

development of teacher beliefs in their ability to influence student learning (Tobin et al.,

2006). Principals who build relationships design support opportunities to improve

teacher self-efficacy and focus on school culture that promotes positive attitudes toward

change and improvement (Kruse, 2008). Teacher self-efficacy if highly volatile in

response to particular contexts thus improving the level of confidence is important to

improving student learning (Wahlstrom & Seashore Louise, 2008). Leadership that

supports teacher learning is critical to building strong positive school cultures (Drago-

Severson, 2012).

The cultivation of high teacher self- efficacy supports a strong, healthy school

72

climate (Roney et al., 2007). Effective principals promote a positive school climate

though positive relationships with teachers and providing opportunities for teacher

leadership (Roney et al., 2007). Teacher leadership brings about teachers taking more

responsibility for decision making and activities outside the classroom, assisting in

reforms that impact organizational process, resulting in a collaborative, inclusive, and

responsive school climate (Beachum & Dentith, 2004).

Ultimate Goal—Student Achievement

The ultimate goal of school improvement is improved student achievement

(Payne, 2011). Improvement will only come through a change in not only how teachers

and principals act, but also in how they think (Connors & Smith, 2010). School reform

aimed at improving student achievement often uses performance-oriented goals, focusing

more on immediate outcomes, but not allowing the time for students to master the content

(Davies, 2002). Real reform needs to focus on the child and the needs of the child

(Lance, 2010). This is done through moral leadership (Fullan, 2001); valuing the child

first (Lance, 2010) through interested, warm, and caring teachers (van Uden, Ritzen, &

Pieters, 2013). It is through strong, caring relationships with teachers that students will

achieve (Yeo et al., 2008). By taking care of the well-being of teachers, school

leadership will be taking care of the well-being of the students (Vesely et al., 2013).

Reform that shapes educational policy needs to consider more than just the act of learning

but also the human variables, and should therefore, include teachers, principals, students,

and parents in decisions reform (Valli et al., 2012). It takes the combined efforts of the

principal and teachers to create a positive climate where all people are valued (Lance,

2010).

73

Conceptual Framework

The conceptual Framework for this study addresses seven concepts that are

interrelated; each affecting the other either directly or indirectly, but all having an impact

on student achievement. These concepts, school improvement, teacher self-efficacy,

principal self-efficacy, motivation and expectations, context and experiences, climate and

culture, and student achievement, act on each other with climate and culture being

perhaps the most controlling factor. Figure 1 shows the relationship between these

concepts and how they interact on each other.

Teacher self-efficacy

Principal self-efficacy

StudentAchievement

Climate/ CultureMotivation/ Expectations Context/Experiences

School Improvement

74

Figure 1. Studies Conceptual Framework.

Bandura described self-efficacy as the belief a person has in his or her ability to

execute the needed skills to bring about desired results. Teacher self-efficacy has been

found to have a direct effect on student achievement (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk

Hoy, 2001). Principal self-efficacy has an indirect effect on student achievement

(Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2004). Principals effect achievement through creating a

positive, caring, culture in a climate conducive to learning (Deal & Peterson, 1999; Price,

2012). Climate and culture has been found to have a radiating effect on every aspect of a

school community and the people who work and interact within this community (Deal &

Peterson, 2009; Fullan, 2001). Climate and culture impacts teacher self-efficacy

(Dumay, 2011), which has been found to be responsible for teacher motivation and

75

expectations (Shah et al., 2012). Motivation and expectations effect student achievement

directly either positively or negatively (Atkinson, 2000). Self-efficacy is context specific

(Yeo et al., 2008) and therefore context is important as it is a factor of the climate of the

school.

This framework brings together self-theories and their contribution to

understanding the relationships that are built within the highly social context of the

school environment. It provides an understanding of how self-efficacy has a major

impact on the school improvement process and how relationships, climate and culture,

and context affect motivation and effort.

Summary

Teacher self-efficacy and principal self-efficacy have been affected by many

factors that may include, but are not limited to, student populations, parent involvement,

climate and culture of the school, and implementations of unfamiliar instructional

practices (Cagle & Hopkins, 2009; Schwarzer & Hallum, 2008; Tschannen-Moran &

Woolfolk Hoy, 2010; Zimmerman, 2006). Social learning theory purports that self-

efficacy improves through four factors: mastery experiences, vicarious experiences,

social persuasion, and physiological events (Bandura, as cited in Tschannen-Moran &

Woolfolk Hoy, 2007). There is much research that supports this theory in relation to

improved teacher or principal performance. However, there are still schools across the

country that persists in their need for improvement.

The literature review supports the possibility that teacher self-efficacy will be

affected by variables not voiced by teachers or noticed by school leadership. Teacher

self-efficacy plays an important role in student achievement. Its impact affects not only

student learning, but also the social-emotional climate of a classroom (Rubie-Davies,

76

2007). Forming positive and caring relationships with students leads to improved self-

efficacy for both the teacher and the students (Yeo et al., 2008). Teachers who exhibit

low self-efficacy often hold low expectations of students from a low socioeconomic

status and fail to take responsibility for their students’ learning (Rubie-Davies, 2007).

Additionally, teachers often have a sense of low self-efficacy regarding teaching students

of varying cultural backgrounds (Siwatu et al., 2011; Takahashi, 2011).

Lowered teacher self-efficacy and expectations can result from the stress and

anxiety that surround the urgent need for swift school reform action (McCormick et al.,

2006). Teachers may have high self-efficacy in one area of instruction but not in another

(McCormick et al., 2006), leading them to exert less effort in what they view as their

weakness. Further, teachers experience a fear of the unknown, not knowing what change

will mean for their social roles or their power in the school setting (Zimmerman, 2006).

When teachers know more about what a reform model entails their self-efficacy may

drop even lower (McCormick et al., 2006). Schools are complex social systems, full of

underlying unspoken feelings, opinions, or issues that surface only when people are

aroused (Tobin et al., 2006). Reform can address the symptoms without uncovering the

underlying problem.

Teacher efficacy has three components; self-efficacy for instruction, self-efficacy

for student engagement, and self-efficacy for classroom management (Tschannen-Moran,

& Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). Although each component feeds into the other, teachers may

show strength for one but not for all (McCormick et al., 2006). Teacher self-efficacy also

influences student self-efficacy (Hughes et al., 2009; Muller & Hanfstingl, 2010; Rubie-

Davies, 2007; Sosa & Gomez, 2012; Yeo et al., 2008). Teachers who have high

expectations for learning, form warm, caring relationships, and create mastery oriented

77

classrooms produce students who themselves have a high sense of self-efficacy, form

caring relationships, and become mastery oriented (Martin & Dowson, 2009).

Motivation and expectations are also influenced either positively or negatively by

teacher self-efficacy (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2009). Teachers who believe they do not

have the ability to execute skills needed to positively influence student learning will lack

the motivation to exert effort to produce positive outcomes, whereas teachers who believe

they have the ability to positively influence student learning will be motivated to put forth

effort to reach their goals. Teachers with high self-efficacy will hold students to high

expectations for learning, engagement, and behavior (Corkett et al., 2011; Rubie-Davies,

2007; Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). Teachers with low self-efficacy will

have low expectations for students and will hold students exclusively responsible for their

own successes or failures (Cantrell & Callaway, 2008; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001).

Principal self-efficacy is important in leading teachers in improving student

learning (Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2004). Principals that exhibit high levels of self-

efficacy are able to raise the self-efficacy of teachers; enabling them to persist in their

mission to educate all children (Kruse, 2008; Kurt et al., 2012; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2008;

McCullers & Bozeman, 2010; Orr et al., 2008; Thoonen et al., 2011; Tschannen-Moran

& Gareis, 2004; Ware & Kitsantas, 2011). Leading a SINI is a monumental task that has

been compared to leading a large corporation (Jones, 2006; Tschumy, 2005). Principals

face resistance from teachers, students, and parents (Lindahl, 2007; Starr, 2011) while

attempting to implement turnaround strategies, make community connections to bring in

vital resources, and manage the everyday operation of the buildings (Lindahl, 2007).

Principals who exhibit a high sense of self-efficacy will orchestrate a system or

framework in which he or she is able to successfully balance these many responsibilities

78

(Federici, 2013). These principals see failure not as failure but as a means for learning

and a challenge for success (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2008). Principals who have low self-

efficacy, however, find these duties and responsibilities to be overwhelming while trying

to implement turnaround strategies and choose to keep things at status quo rather than

putting forth the effort into pushing teachers, students, and parents to accept the change

(Federici, 2013; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2008; Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2004). The four

factors for improving self-efficacy holds true for all people. If principals have

experienced mastery of their craft through successes in student achievement, parent and

community involvement, and teacher buy in, his or her level of efficacy will raise

(Federici & Skaalvik, 2012; Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2004). However, if not, then

self-efficacy will be low.

School reform creates a change in climate and culture (Eaker & Keating, 2008).

Climate and culture are at the heart of school improvement (Deal & Peterson, 1999).

Principals are responsible for creating the climate and culture of schools and do so

through one-on-one relationships (Dumay, 2011; Fullan, 2001; Price, 2012). Research

has found that climate and culture change occurs through principal–teacher relationships

(Tobin et al., 2006; Kruse, 2008; Wahlstrom & Seashore Louise, 2008). It is through the

creation of positive school climate that principal leadership has an indirect effect on

student achievement (Bell & Kent, 2010). When students feel safe and form caring

relationships with teachers, they will excel in their learning (Sosa & Gomez, 2012).

However, students can become alienated and disconnected if they perceive the teacher as

hostile and uncaring (Mojavezi & Tamiz, 2012). A school climate and culture effects

teacher self-efficacy as well. If teachers fail to feel supported, have poor working

conditions, and are socially isolated, they experience low self-efficacy, which effects

79

student learning (Wahlstrom & Seashore Louise, 2008). Positive school climate and

culture is created through strong self and collective efficacy, producing a safe and orderly

environment that values students, parents, and teachers (Lance, 2010).

The research presented in this literature review indicated the need to investigate

how much influence teacher and principal self-efficacy have on the reform efforts of

urban SINI. Teacher self-efficacy is the driving force behind the climate and culture of a

classroom (Narvaez et al., 2008), just as the principal is the driving force behind the

climate and culture of the school (Dumay, 2009; Niesche & Jorgensen, 2010; Thoonen et

al., 2011; Williams, 2010). A better understanding of the role that teacher and principal

self-efficacy play in student achievement and school improvement may lead to a

collective impact on the climate and culture of a school. The literature provides a basis

for investigating the critical incidence for preventing high self-efficacy and the effects it

has on the improvement process of urban schools in SINI status from the perspective of

teachers and principals and how this ultimately affects student achievement.

80

Chapter 3: Research Method

The specific problem was that urban schools remain in corrective status despite

targeted professional development to improve instruction (Clarke, 2009; Evans et al.,

2012; Finnigan, 2009; Good & McCaslin, 2008; Deke, J., Dragoset, L., Bogen. K., &

Gill, B., 2012).

The purpose of this qualitative multi-case study was to explore and describe

urban teachers’ and principals’ self-efficacy throughout a change process by

understanding each group’s beliefs about their strengths and abilities to promote student

learning, while also dealing with the process of school improvement. The questions

answered in this study were:

Guiding question. How are teachers’ and principals’ beliefs about their ability to

influence student learning impacted while implementing school improvement practices?

SQ1. What factors or experiences do teachers and principals see as having an

impact on their sense of self-efficacy either negatively or positively during these

changes?

SQ2. What knowledge, skills, or abilities do teachers and principals believe are

necessary, yet are missing, to improve their classroom and leadership practices to

positively impact student learning?

Qualitative research designs take place in natural settings where events are

interpreted from the perspective of the participants (Freeman et al., 2007). Using a

qualitative method allowed for rich dialogues with teachers and principals, leading them

to interpret the phenomenon of teacher or principal self-efficacy within the context of

their individual circumstances. This multiple-case study design used the CIT to explore

the construct of teacher and principal self-efficacy as it was experienced by teachers and

81

principals in the context of the urban classroom during the change process during school

improvement initiatives.

Self-efficacy is a very personal construct and is not experienced in the same way

by any two people (Knoblauch & Woolfolk Hoy, 2007). Teacher self-efficacy has been

called an “elusive construct” (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). It is a

construct that is tacit in nature and not easily identifiable without having rich dialogues

with teachers (Tobin et al., 2006; Wheatly, 2005). It is also a construct that is context

specific and is based on the perception of the person experiencing the variables present in

their immediate context (Johnson et al., 2012; Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy,

2001). Thus, each teacher or principal was experiencing self-efficacy differently within

the context of the school improvement process specific to their urban setting. Each of the

teachers and principals who participated in the study became unique, single units making

each a different case (Yin, 2013).

Using a multiple case study design for this investigation allowed for similar cases

to be reported on a single phenomenon within different contexts, thus adding strength to

the findings (Yin, 2013). The use of CIT presented the phenomenon in a way that can be

explored more deeply within the three areas of teacher and principal self-efficacy as

described by Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001).

Population

The target populations for this study were teachers and principals in grades first

through eight from urban settings, specifically from urban elementary schools within the

United States that were or had been in corrective action and experienced the school

improvement change process. There are an estimated 1,228 schools which are in some

82

status of school improvement. Such a large population size allowed for a stronger sample

of participants with similar backgrounds and experiences.

Sample

The use of criterion sampling selection will produce a minimum sample size for

this study of between 13 to 20 teachers and principals who were solicited for participation

through Internet sites established for the purpose of professional learning networking as

well as through social media sites. Criterion sampling allowed for quality assurance

(Miles & Huberman, 1994) through the use of participants from similar backgrounds and

experiences. In the case of this study the criteria was urban school teachers and

principals in grades 1 through 8 who were going through or had gone through the school

improvement process. Determining an exact sample size for a multiple case study cannot

be answered using sampling logic or statistics (Yin, 2014). Rather sample size should be

based on the saturation of the information being sought or the number of replications

(Yin, 2014). Seeking a higher number of replications results in stronger rival

explanations for an incident (Yin, 2014). Therefore, the sample size could have

expanded as the study progressed. Possible sites included the Educator’s PLN, Edutopia,

and English companion, and social media sites such as Facebook and LinkedIn. The

requests for participants were posted on sites that gave permission or social media sites

where permission was not needed. The requests included the specified criteria for

participation.

Materials/Instruments

This investigation used a qualitative multiple-case study design using the CIT to

explore the construct of teacher and principal self-efficacy as it was perceived by teachers

and principals in the context of the urban classroom during the change process while

83

implementing school improvement initiatives. This study utilized five data sources: The

TSES (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001), the PSES (Tschannen-Moran &

Gareis, 2004), the U.S. DOE data of SINI in either Tier I or Tier II funding, and semi-

structured interviews of teachers and principals using the Critical Incidence Technique

(CIT). The primary data source was the in-depth semi-structured interviews using an

interview guide created with the CIT (see appendix C). Using data source triangulation

the data collected through the two validated surveys and the data retrieved from the U.S.

DOE along with the data from the interviews were brought together to create a

convergence of findings (Yin, 2013). Yin (2009) emphasized that it is critical to

triangulate case study data produced through multiple sources. He postulated that an

important advantage to using triangulation of data is the converging lines of inquiry that

produce more convincing and accurate findings supported through several different

sources of information.

The TSES is a well-established instrument used for the last decade to measure

teacher self-efficacy both nationally and internationally (see appendix C). This survey

uses a Likert-type rating scale, with points ranking from1 (nothing) to 9 (a great deal)

and measures three areas of teacher efficacy: efficacy of instruction, efficacy of student

engagement, and efficacy of classroom management. This 9 point scale has a validity

of .90 proving greater validity than previous surveys of its type (Gibson & Dembo, 1984;

Hoy & Woolfolk Hoy, 1993, as cited by Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy, 2001).

Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001) tested this survey with three different

groups and found the factor reliability was measured using principal–axis factoring on

three subscales totaling 24 items. Efficacy for instruction rated .91, efficacy for student

engagement rated .87, and efficacy of classroom management rated .90. The TSES was

84

administered online through the online survey service, Surveymonkey™. The survey

link was included in the request for participants post on the professional learning

networks. The identities of these teachers were kept confidential through the use of a

numeric/letter coding system.

Principal Self-Efficacy is an under reported construct (Tschannen-Moran &

Gareis, 2004) that deserves attention (see appendix C). One of the most reported

effective improvement models is replacing the leadership of the school (U.S. DOE,

2010). This supports the importance of exploring how principal self-efficacy interplays

with the school improvement process. What is known about principal self-efficacy is that

it is similar to teacher self-efficacy such that high self-efficacy leads to more effort, more

optimism in face of failure, and more dedication to improving performance. What is not

known is what effectively creates a sense of high or low self-efficacy in principals while

leading school improvement.

The PSES uses a 9 point rating from 1 (none at all) to 9 (a great deal) and is an

18 item survey (Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2004). The survey consists of three

subscales: self-efficacy for instruction, self-efficacy for management, and self-efficacy

for moral leadership. This scale rated high for internal reliability at .91 as measured by

Cronbach’s alpha of internal consistency. Additionally, each of the three subscales also

showed high reliability with self-efficacy for instruction at .86, self-efficacy for

management at .87, and self-efficacy for moral-leadership at .83. However, these three

subscales demonstrate a mild correlation to each other, r = .48 to .58. Like the TSES, the

PSES was administered online through Surveymonkey™. The link was sent via email to

principals who expressed interest in completing the survey after the interview. As with

the teacher participants, a numeric/letter coding system was used to keep the identities of

85

the principal participants confidential.

There are pockets of urban schools across the country that have been in a

continuing state of underperformance (Duncan, 2012, Jones, 2013). The U.S. DOE has a

database of the top 100 largest urban school districts. Within this database are listed the

schools from each of these districts that are in tier I or Tier II, as identified by the SIG

program. Tier I and Tier II schools are those schools that are among the lowest 5% of

performance within their states (ARRA, 2009). School districts were required to select

one of four intervention models to be considered for the grant. Each model was

structured with the goal of turning around school performance in terms of student

achievement. Many districts choose the turnaround model, which replaces the existing

staff and principal and provides embedded professional development. The

transformation model replaces only the principal and adds incentives for effective

teachers and leaders. This model also provides embedded professional development.

The restart model closes the school and restarts it as a charter school. The fourth model

closes the low-performing school, moving students to schools that are higher in

performance. An analysis of this list served to identify which schools within the reported

districts have been in SINI status for a number of years and were cross-referenced with

the surveys taken by teachers and principals as a means of supporting survey findings.

Critical incident technique, known as CIT, was first developed and used by John

Flannagan in 1954 for use in the study of industrial and organizational learning

(Butterfield et al., 2005) and has expanded over time into other areas such as education.

This technique is used to focus on critical events that may impact performance either

positively or negatively (Butterfield et al., 2005). CIT has been described as a systemic,

inductive, and open-ended tool that is naturalistic and allows participants freedom of

86

expression when relating experiences (Sharoff, 2008). Participant responses are placed

into categories to analyze and identify those incidences that appear critical to promoting

certain behaviors. A critical incident is described as a behavior or action that makes a

significant impact on an activity or phenomenon (Gremler, 2004). The research

questions guiding this study were all based in the personal experiences and perceptions of

teachers and principals, therefore justifying the use of CIT to identify those behaviors that

either hinder or promote high efficacy as well as identifying which skills or competencies

teachers and principals feel are important, yet lacking, within the context of their unique

situation within the school improvement process.

The CIT will be used in gathering interview responses and placing each into

categories to determine their importance to the phenomena. The CIT has a series of

credibility checks that were established through the University of British Columbia

(Butterfield et al., 2005). The technique requires cross checking of participant responses

and a frequency of 25% for a response to be considered a critical incident. Therefore a

series of four established credibility procedures will be employed. Point of exhaustion

determines that a reported incident is critical when it reaches a level where the answers

are coming back the same and no new information is being communicated by the

participants. Flowing from this check is one that determines if the incident being

reported to exhaustion is at a frequency of 25%. A third check to be used is where the

researcher makes assumptions about the research and then compares it to scholarly

literature to support the assumption. The categories are also compared to the literature

for support. A final check to be used is where the intent of the participants’ responses are

reported accurately. This cross checking method was performed by having responses

read back to the participant being interviewed. This allowed the participant to think

87

about the responses given and make changes or additions for accuracy.

Data Collection, Processing, and Analysis

The use of multiple data sources for measuring the same phenomenon has been

found to be a highly effective means of supporting findings on a single phenomenon

through triangulation of data (Yin, 2013). By bringing together the various data sources,

triangulation addresses the problems of construct validity because the different data

sources not only report on the same phenomenon, but ultimately support the findings of

each of the other sources (Yin, 2013). However, caution must be taken to ensure

accuracy in the collection of all data so lines of inquiry are not lost (Yin, 2013). There

were five sources of data that were used in this study: (a) statistical data on school

performance obtained from the U.S. DOE database, (b) the TSES (Tschannen-Moran &

Hoy, 2001), (c) the PSES (Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2004), (d) an interview guide

focused on the self-efficacy perceptions of teachers, and (e) a second interview guide

focused on the self-efficacy of principals.

The TSES (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001) and the PSES (Tschannen-

Moran & Gareis, 2004) were administered online via Survey Monkey™. The links for

the survey were originally posted on the professional learning networks, which had given

permission to post, or sent through emails if participants communicated their desire to be

in the study via social networks. Data were collected from completed surveys to

determine the levels of self-efficacy of teachers and principals within urban schools

operating in corrective status. Additionally, interview guides were developed and field

tested by one principal and one teacher who were currently working in school

improvement status. These semi-structured interviews were used to gain knowledge and

information from the perspective of participants pertaining to how teacher and principal

88

self-efficacy affected the school improvement process and what these two groups

believed should be addressed to increase their level of self-efficacy.

Data collection was broken into three phases, each phase using a different means

to collect data that was triangulated to identify the critical incidents of teacher and

principal self-efficacy as reported by the participants. Phase 1 of this study consisted of

an analysis of government data listing schools that were in need of improvement. These

data were crossed referenced with the demographic information provided by teachers and

principals who choose to participate in the survey administered during phase 2 of this

study. Criteria for participation were included in the request for participants. Phase 2

included the TSES (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001) and the PSES

(Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2004), which was administered online to 1st through 8th

grade teachers and principals of urban districts from across the country who participated

in professional learning networks. Phase 3 of this study consisted of interviews of

teachers and principals who had completed the respective self-efficacy scales and who

had been identified as teaching in one of the schools identified on the U.S. DOE list of

SINI. Demographics were also included in the interview guides to determine eligibility

for the study from those participants who chose not to complete the survey as well as to

confirm the information provided by those participants who did complete the survey.

Interviews of people who are experiencing the critical incidents are the heart of CIT.

Additionally, these teachers and principals were asked to self-report experiences, creating

vignettes of incidences.

Figure 2 shows the path of data collection culminating in the triangulation of data

A triangulation of all data sources was used to bring together all the information

gathered in this study and allowed for an accurate interpretation of the phenomenon of

U.S DOE SIG Data

Phase 2: Surveys

Phase 3: Interviews

TSES PSES Teachers Principals

Sample selected through PLNS &

Networking

Sample selected through PLNS &

Networking

Participants selected

from survey results

Participants selected

from survey results

Triangulation

89

teacher and principal self-efficacy in an atmosphere of high accountability. Triangulation

of data is used to validate the phenomenon and support the findings of the study (Yin,

2013). Triangulation is a vital part of the CIT to determine which incidents were critical

and in need of being addressed in the school improvement process.

Figure 2 Triangulation of Data.

CIT gives a means for participants to “tell their story” or reflect on their

experiences (critical incidents; Fillis, 2006). CIT allows researchers to obtain a

retrospective story of an actual experience that a person has lived through (Fillis, 2006;

Sharoff, 2008). It also allows participants to focus on a specific event (Fillis, 2006;

Sharoff, 2008). The content of the stories or experiences were analyzed and then sorted

90

into categories that summarized the critical incidents (Gremler, 2004).

The goal of the analysis of categories and subcategories was to create a

classification system that provided information regarding the frequency and patterns of

factors that affect the phenomenon of interest (Gremler, 2004). Once analyzed,

researchers could interpret or make judgments of the behavior surrounding the incidents,

thus giving them value (Sharoff, 2008). CIT and this analysis promote understanding the

collective experience of people who are placed in socioeconomic or political contexts

(Fillis, 2006).

Interviews were digitally recorded and then later transcribed verbatim. Prior to

the interviews, preliminary start codes were developed from the research questions, the

conceptual framework, and the literature review (Miles & Huberman, 1994). The

framework provided the themes expected to be studied and the start codes set up

beginning categories and subcategories in which each event or response were grouped.

Transcriptions were uploaded into NVivo10, a software program for qualitative

analysis, to analyze the data (Miles, Huberman, & Saldana, 2014). This program was

used to capture the voice of the interview participants as they related their exact

experiences with and perceptions about school improvement. Using the categories

produced through the start codes and interview responses, the additional use of an

evaluation coding system (Miles et al., 2014) broke the responses into critical or

noncritical incidents to understand which actions or behaviors teachers and principals

perceived were needed yet were missing from their skills and knowledge necessary for

school improvement. As new ideas began to emerge from interview transcripts, a

comparison was made with the earlier transcripts to identify similar ideas leading to new

codes being created and added for analysis. Table 2 shows the start codes that were used

91

for the classification of responses.

Table 2Start Codes

Description Code

School Improvement SI

School Improvement Year 1 SIYR1

School Improvement Year 2 SIYR2

School Improvement Year 3 SIYR3

School Improvement Year 4 + SIYR4+

Teacher Self-Efficacy TSE

Efficacy for Instruction TSE-I

Efficacy for Student Engagement TSE-SE

Efficacy for Classroom Management TSE-CM

Principal Self-Efficacy PSE

Efficacy for Instructional Leadership PSE-IL

Efficacy for Management PSE-M

Efficacy for Moral Justice PSE-ML

Contexts Con

Cultural Con-Cul

Environmental Con-Env

Social Con-Soc

Experiences/Teachers Exper/T

Instructional Exper/T-I

Student Engagement Exper/T-SE

Classroom Management Exper/T-CM

Principal Support Exp.er/T-PS

92

Colleagues Exper/T-Coll

Experiences/Principals Exper/P

Instructional Leadership Exper.P-IL

Management Exper/P-M

Moral Leadership Exper/P-ML

Teacher Support Exper/P-TS

Central Office Support Exper/P-CO

Expectations/Teachers Expec/T

Student Achievement Expec/T-SA

Student Behavior Expec/T-SB

Principal Support Expec/T-PS

Parent Support Expec/T-Par

Motivation/Teachers Mot/T

Implementation of School Improvement Strategies Mot/T-ISIS

Remain in position Mot/T-RiP

Motivation/Principals Mot/P

Implementation of School Improvement Strategies Mot/P-ISIS

Remain in position Mot/P-R

Assumptions

The use of online professional learning networks created a need to trust in the

people who chose to participate. It would be only by chance that the researcher would

know any of the participants. This then leads to the following assumptions. First, was

the assumption that people who participated in the study were who they said they were.

In other words, that teachers were indeed teachers and principals were principals and that

93

they had experience in urban schools that had been through school improvement at some

point or to some extent. The second assumption was that the answers on the surveys

were true representations of the perceptions of each participant and not what participants

felt the answer should be. For example, for the question ‘ how much can you help your

students think critically’ if a participant responded ‘ a great deal’ it was assumed this was

a true perception by this person and not what the person thought it should be, even if he

or she knew it to be something less. The third assumption was that each interviewed

participant was describing their experiences as accurately as possible and not imagining

what it could have been like or giving only partial accuracy and filling in the rest. This is

critical when using CIT to accurately identify events considered critical incidences.

Limitations

A potential threat to validity of the CIT noted in the literature (Butterfield et al.,

2005) is the potential for having vague recall of incidents from participants. Flanagan

(1954) suggested that if an incident appears vague, lacking in detail, or is somehow

incomplete, it should be left out of the data. Additionally, although it is required that all

participants are focused on the same issue and are asked the same questions, any change

in wording of the question could bring about major changes in responses (Sharoff, 2008).

This becomes the judgment of the recorder. However, as clearly laid out via the four

checks for validity, this threat becomes minimal (Butterfield et al., 2005; Gremler, 2004;

Sharoff, 2008). These checks are being used widely and consistently in research

involving the CIT (Butterfield et al., 2005) and have therefore proven to be a reliable

means to guard against this threat.

An additional limitation to this study could have been an insufficient number of

participants to determine lateral replication (Yin, 2013), as well as determination of

94

critical incidents (Butterfield et al., 2005). Yin (2013) described lateral replication as

being able to predict similar results. Teacher and principal self-efficacy, though an

individual experience, should produce levels of high or low self-efficacy per each

individual in similar or somewhat similar contexts; urban schools going through school

improvement. This also differs for different school contexts.

Delimitations

Delimitations to this study included the use of elementary grades first through

eighth. The study did not allow for high school. It focused in on the grades that held the

most accountability. Additionally, because urban school districts have a greater number

of schools remaining in school improvement over an extended period of time, suburban

schools were not considered in this study.

Another delimitation to this study was the conceptual framework. Self-efficacy is

a broad concept that pulls in a multitude of other theories and constructs. It moves

beyond motivation and contexts and has been shown to have effects on personal growth,

ability and skills (Bandura, 1977), beliefs, and life choices (Yenice et al., 2012). The

current framework worked within the realm of self-efficacy effects on climate, culture,

motivation, and contexts within urban schools in school improvement status.

Manpower was a delimitation of this study because of the use of one researcher to

conduct the data collection. Though cost efficient, it did put a constraint on the amount

of time needed to collect a greater amount of data. The use of one researcher also

restricted the number of participants. However, by going through the professional

learning networks to select the sample population, it opened up to teachers from all

regions in the United States allowing for a more generous number of teachers with a

wider range of experiences, thus providing a better chance of replication. To have

95

limited the sample to a specific region of the United States may not have provided a large

enough sample from which to collect data that identified critical incidences.

Ethical Assurances

Before beginning this study, an approved application to the IRB of the university

was received. It is required that all research first be determined safe for all participants

before proceeding (Creswell, 2009). A letter of consent outlining the purpose, procedure,

duration, and criteria to participate was provided in the online request for participants.

Participants must be protected from any mental, emotional, or physical harm while

participating in a study (Creswell, 2009). The risk involved in this study was minimal to

those who volunteered to participate; reduced to having one’s identity revealed to others

only if there were communication between participants.

The letter of consent (see Appendix A) was created to provide information about

the study. This letter informed the potential participants of the nature of the study, the

expected outcomes from the study, the extent and the duration of their participation, their

right to withdraw from the study at any time without penalty, and any risk that may have

been involved if they did participate. Additionally, as required, it provided assurances

that participant responses would not be shared outside of the study unless permission was

given to do so. The letter further explained how the data would be disposed of after the

study and the timeline for doing so.

Surveys were administered online through professional learning sites. This

allowed the participants to complete the survey in the privacy of their home. Those

participating in interviews were given the choice of doing the interviews via webcam or

by phone. All participants were coded using a number-letter coding system. These codes

were cross referenced with school districts listed on the urban school roster obtained from

96

the U.S. DOE website. The school districts were coded as well using numerical codes.

All participant information and data were kept on a digital recorder as well as on the

researcher’s laptop. Once the study has been completed all information will be deleted

and destroyed after five years

Summary

The study of teacher and principal self-efficacy is still a fairly new area of

research (Federici, 2013; Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2007). There is a need to study

these two constructs as they relate to the success of school improvement and student

achievement. Research has indicated that in many cases school improvement impacts

teacher self-efficacy negatively causing a lowering of student achievement (Honig &

Rainey, 2012; Takahashi, 2011). School improvement affects principals’ self-efficacy as

well, creating stress and avoidance behaviors (Good & McCaslin, 2008). Since principal

self-efficacy directly influences teacher self-efficacy (McCullers & Bozeman, 2010;

Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2007; Ware & Kitsantas, 2011) the need to study both

together as they relate to school improvement may be critical to developing paths to

relevant professional development.

The purpose of this qualitative multi-case study was to explore and describe urban

teachers’ and principals’ self-efficacy throughout a change process by understanding each

group’s beliefs about their strengths and abilities to promote student learning while also

dealing with the process of school improvement. The research design for this study was a

multi-case study design using CIT to collect and analyze data. There were three phases

to this study. In the first phase data were collected from the U.S. DOE Database of SINI

identified by their participation in the SIG program. Phase two was the administration of

two self-efficacy scales, the TSES (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001) and the

97

PSES (Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2004). The scales were administered through

professional learning networks online using SurveyMonkey™. The target population

consisted of all urban elementary teachers and principals for grades 1 through 8.

Multiple case studies follow a replication strategy (Miles et al., 2014; Yin, 2013) for

sample selection. The samples selected are based on conceptual grounds and create a

continuum of responses (Miles et al., 2014). Using the CIT, phase 3 of data collection

was the development of an interview guide from the survey responses. An evaluative

coding system was used to categorize participants’ responses using NVivo response

coding to supplement. Vignettes were also used to get a richer picture of participant

experiences.

98

Chapter 4: Findings

Although there have been much research conducted in the area of school reform

and school improvement, there still exists a gap in the research that does not explain why

schools in corrective status continue in that status for several years despite support,

funding, and professional development. The purpose of this qualitative multi-case study

was to explore and describe urban teachers’ and principals’ self-efficacy throughout a

change process by understanding each groups’ beliefs about their strengths and abilities

to promote student learning while also dealing with the process of school improvement.

Chapter 4 provides an analysis of data collected in the three phases of this study

as described in Chapter 3, with the primary data collected using the critical incident

technique. Descriptions and demographic information about each of the participants will

be included in this chapter along with the interview guide used for the semi-structured

interviews. Sample size and selection will be explained along with the recruitment

technique used to obtain the sample. Additionally, Chapter 4 will include a brief

description of the field test of the interview guides. The results of the interviews will be

presented in pre-determined themes and subthemes as well as emerging themes and

subthemes.

The following research questions were answered in this study:

Guiding question. How are teachers’ and principals’ beliefs about their ability to

influence student learning impacted while implementing school improvement practices?

SQ1. What factors or experiences do teachers and principals see as having an

impact on their sense of self-efficacy either negatively or positively during these

changes?

SQ2. What knowledge, skills, or abilities do teachers and principals believe are

99

necessary, yet are missing, to improve their classroom and leadership practices to

positively impact student learning?

The rest of this chapter will flow from the field test to sample criteria followed by

participant recruitment and participant descriptions. These will be followed by

methodology of data collection for each of the three phases with the results. Finally, a

triangulation of the data from these sources will be made.

Field Test

The two interview guides that were developed were field tested by one teacher

and one principal. Field testers were interviewed, and their responses were recorded.

They were asked to determine whether the questions appeared appropriate or redundant.

Both reported that the questions were appropriate and found no redundant questions in

the set. Therefore, the guides used for this study were not changed. Additionally, the

two field testers were asked to complete the Teacher Sense of Self-Efficacy Scale or the

Principal Sense of Self-Efficacy Scale for the purpose of determining how closely their

interview answers corresponded with their survey results.

Sample Criteria

The sample for this study was drawn from a population of educators who had

been through the school improvement process sometime in their career. The preferred

population was from urban districts since a majority of urban school districts are in

corrective status or have schools in their district in corrective status. The sample was

teachers and principals from large urban districts that are currently or have previously

been in corrective status and the school improvement process. Data from the National

Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) were used to determine whether the districts

from which these teachers were selected were in corrective status or had schools in

100

corrective status. The NCES compiles the statistics having to do with schools in the

United States. These statistics include test scores, attendance data, discipline data,

demographic and ethnic data, Federal loans or grants received by the school districts,

school and district rankings, graduation rates, and more. The data which were retrieved

for the purposes of this study were performance data obtained through specific criteria or

benchmarks set by the Federal Government. The demographic information provided by

participants included their location and/or their school district. This information was then

cross referenced with the data retrieved from the NCES list of schools in improvement

status to determine whether they were in or had been in school improvement.

Participant Recruitment

Recruitment of the sample participants took place through online professional

learning sites and social media sites. Recruitment statements were posted on three

professional learning sites; the Educatorpln, the English Companion, and

TeachersCorner. Educatorpln and English Companion required permission from the site

administrators, which was obtained before posting the recruitment statement.

TeachersCorner did not require permission because the site included a special link to post

such requests. Additionally, social media sites, Facebook, and LinkedIn were also

utilized, and requests for study participants were posted on both through a personal

account on each site. Recruitment posts included information for taking an online survey

through SurveyMonkey™. A total of 13 participants were recruited through this method;

6 principals and 7 teachers all ranging from 5 years of experience to over 30 years of

experience.

As a part of the recruitment, participants were asked to complete an online survey,

which was used to filter out those who did not meet the sample criteria. The survey was

101

accessed by 29 educators. Twenty-three out of the 29 (79%) were teachers, and six

(21%) were principals. Of the 23 accessed by teachers, only 6 (26%) were completed.

One teacher chose not to do the survey. As a part of the informed consent letter that

participants were asked to sign, participants were free to skip any questions they were not

comfortable answering. This one participant felt that she did not want to complete the

survey but did want to answer the interview questions. She requested to be able to write

her answers, so the questions were sent to her with the request for demographic

information. Of the 6 principals who participated, only 3 (50%) completed the survey.

The results from surveys were used to provide additional data on the self-efficacy levels

of the participants who completed them and to use their responses to ask clarifying

questions when necessary.

Sample Participants

The sample participants were selected from professional learning networks and

social media sites. Study participants were urban teachers and principals who had

experienced working under school improvement status for any period of time. Six

principals and seven teachers took part in this study. Of the seven teachers, three of them

were teaching in charter schools and one was teaching overseas. These four participants

had taught in public schools that had moved into corrective status. After experiencing a

year of corrective status, they chose to leave their schools and teach in charters or in other

countries.

Table 3 provides a list of the participants and includes the number of years each

participant had experienced working under corrective status, whether this experience took

place with their current school or was a previous experience. The table also includes the

enrollment and poverty level of each school from which the participant is relating their

102

stories.

Table 3

Participants’ Years in School Improvement and demographic information

Participant SIS in Current School

Years operated in SIS

Enrollment during SIS

Percentage of Economically Disadvantaged

Principal 1 (P1) yes 1 360 99.0%

Principal 2 (P2) yes 1 760 98.0%

Principal 3 (P3) yes 4 417 99.3%

Principal 4 (P4) yes 3 342 63.9%

Principal 5 (P5) no 4 433 90.0%

Principal 6 (P6) no 4 511 90.0%

Teacher 1 (T1) yes 1 824 23.9%

Teacher 2 (T2) no 1 524 37.0%

Teacher 3 (T3) yes 4 693 98.4%

Teacher 4 (T4) no 1

Teacher 5 (T5) no 1

Teacher 6 (T6) yes 4 511 90.0%

Teacher 7 (T7) yes 4+ 378 99.2%

Key: SIS = School Improvement Status

Two participants declined to supply specific information on the location of the

school districts where they experienced the school improvement process; however, they

did supply the state and the city. They did give reasons in their interview responses why

they left those districts.

Table 4 shows the participants race, gender, level of education, and years of

experience as an educator.

103

Table 4

Demographics of participants

Participant Race Gender Level of Education

Years of Experience Grade Level

P1 W F Doctorate 20-30 K-6

P2 AA F Doctorate 15-20 K-6

P3 W M Doctorate 15–20 K-6

P4 W M Masters 5–10 7-12

P5 AA F Masters 15–20 K-8

P6 W F Masters 15–20 7-12

T1 W F Masters 5–10 8

T2 W F 10–15 5

T3 W F Masters 30+ 1-3

T4 W F 15–20 8

T5 W M 10- 15 4

T6 W F Masters 15 –20 1

T7 AA F Masters 1–5 5

Key: W = White, AA= African American, F=Female, M=Male

A brief description of each participant follows with a quote from each about their

sense of self-efficacy and school improvement.

Principal 1 (P1) was a White female and was a principal in a large urban district

in the Midwest. She had 30 or more years as an educator with 26 as a principal, part of

which she was principal over a residential school. She had a high level of self-efficacy as

she related that her strength was having the ability to “build a strong team” and promote a

feeling of “family” by expecting teachers to work together to come to team decisions.

I make this school a family. That’s both good and bad in that we really protect

the adults and the kids in the school. I’m a really [sic] teacher advocate. I do

more for my teachers and staff than I do for my families or kids to a detriment.

104

But theory has always been if they [teachers and staff] are well-taken care of they

will take care of the kids.

She felt that she had just enough support from the Central Office and wanted to be left

alone to let the school family take care of educating the students without interference.

Her school was in Effective status before dropping this past year, placing it in school

improvement year 1. Her school has an enrollment of 376 and a poverty level of 99%.

Principal 2 (P2) was a Black female, who was a principal in a large Midwest

urban district. She had 30 years of experience in education. Her school was also in

Effective status until it dropped last year into school improvement year one. She

appeared to show a high level of self-efficacy for instructional leadership and school

management. She stated that her high point is “knowing instruction”:

I know what it looks like, tastes like, and feels like, so when I am conducting my

rounds I can give constructive feedback to teachers. . . . I told my Assistant

Principal that knowing instruction is the number one priority, and the other stuff

will fall into place.

Her school had an enrollment of 760 students, k–6 and a poverty level at 98% percent.

Principal 3 (P3) was a White male with 15 to 20 years of experience as an

educator and six years as principal in an urban school also located in the same district as

P1 and P2. His school had been in corrective status for 4 years or more. He believed:

the kids come, and they get loved, they get clothed; they get health care; they get

food and amongst all this stuff we try to give them an education. That’s the

culture. I want to bring in as many resources from the community as I can get my

hands on to benefit these kids and their families and give them exposure to things

105

they’ve never been exposed to. It’s something I am passionate about and hope it

continues. I set that tone with the teachers and the kids. . . . We try to save kids.

But his frustration lay with how the schools’ performance was measured by the state.

The system is set up to reflect what your students can do on a 2 1/2 hour test on a

reading and math test, and that reflects everything about your school. They don’t

talk about how many families you served or that you tried to save a kid that so

many other schools would try to squeeze out because of their test scores.

P3’s school was a K-6 school and had an enrollment of 292 students with a poverty level

of 99%.

Principal 4 (P4) was a White male principal of a school with seventh through

12th grades. He was from a large Midwest district as well. His school was a magnet

program and had an enrollment of less than 500 students. He had been in his current

position for 4 years. His school was in school improvement for 3 years before reaching

Excellent status 2 years ago. This past year, the school dropped back into corrective

status. He exhibited a sense of high self-efficacy about his ability to lead his staff to get

on board with best practices being promoted by the district.

Working with the county school improvement coaches we thought we were really

clicking and doing an effective job on teams, talking about data. Different teams

and different teachers had come up with some ways in talking about data and

getting students to set goals. Our research around goal setting shows

improvement in student achievement. Although the language was pushing back

on it, the implementation was there, and everybody established some sort of

system where they were getting students to set goals and reflecting on their work.

I really felt good about that, and I felt it had really moved some of the

106

conversations, and it was happening school wide. It helped me to see the value of

conversations and not backing off the goal, making some part of it non-

negotiable.

His school had an enrollment of 342 students with a poverty level of 63.9%.

Principal 5 (P5) was a Black female who was the principal of an elementary

magnet program, K-6, in a large Midwest urban district. She had previously been in a

school that was in corrective status for 4 years or more. She was moved out of the school

and after 5 years came back as the principal of her current school.

I developed a high sense of self-efficacy because the implementation [of

initiatives] were supported by monthly professional development and networking

with other Principals who were working through the process. We were allowed

release time with our staffs to complete the professional development and reflect

on the process of implementation.

She went on to express her disappointment that this time was not continued throughout

the school year. She went on to express:

The exterior team [from Central Office] would come in and tell you how things

were going to be done, and they monitor to make sure this is happening. You are

not the instructional leader, but rather you become the Principal Police.

Her previous school had an enrollment of 433 with a poverty level of 90%.

Principal 6 (P6) was a White female who was removed from her previous

assignment 2 years ago and was placed as an assistant principal at a Magnet school in the

same large Midwest school district. She believed:

School improvement is not about skills. It is about support, resources, and

transparency. There are limits on what you can do because the union and the

107

district are at odds and, as a result, there are no win–win scenarios. Climate and

culture often a tone of distrust and being ‘hung out to dry’ as a result.

Her previous school was a neighborhood elementary school, grades K-6. Her enrollment

was 511 with a poverty level of 90%.

Teacher 1 (T1) was a White female who had taught previously in a public school

in a different state in a large Southern district. She was currently in a district along the

East coast. She had 5 to 10 years of experience. Being responsible for teaching a class of

“low-level eighth graders,” she believed that using technology in her class was a high

point of her self-efficacy, being able to:

Figure out how to incorporate it daily into my classroom. They are doing it.

Their motivation level is rather low. To get them to do it is difficult. Anytime

kids have success it encourages me as well. So seeing them succeed makes me

look deeper.

She was part of a teaching team that serviced a total of 60 students, all who are

”lower-level” eighth graders. Though she stated that her school was not currently in

corrective status, she did share areas that she believed her ability to instruct her students

effectively and were best practices mandated by the district.

Teacher 2 (T2) was a White female who taught in a charter school in an urban

district in the Southern United States. She believed she had a high sense of self-efficacy

due to high ratings she had received on the new teacher evaluation system put into place

by the district. “I was the guinea pig for the new Teacher Evaluation System that was

going to be implemented this coming school year. I received a high rating after

observations, and it made me feel accomplished because of it.” However, she

experienced low efficacy due to a student survey that the district was also implementing

108

to allow students to have their say in how they felt their teachers performed.

Asking middle school students to rate my performance using various indicators,

many of which they could not understand and answer, and which were ridiculous,

resulted in low scores across the board. This seriously affected me and other

teachers. Knowing that these results will affect me next year is depressing.

The school in which she was teaching was a Middle School, but no other information was

provided by this teacher about the school.

Teacher 3 (T3) was a White female with 30+ years of experience as an educator,

much of which has been in the same large urban Midwestern school district. She was a

lead teacher in her building, responsible for ensuring that her team knew how to

implement the initiatives mandated by the district. The school in which she worked was

a large Magnet/neighborhood school with a large ESL population. The school enrolled

close to 700 students. She stated that because of the new initiatives that were to be

implemented in the schools, she had a high sense of efficacy because these initiatives

were made up of best practices that she had been teaching by most of her career.

I felt more confident because for most people it cramped their style, but for me it

was more like the style I love, which is more student time and less that the teacher

actually had to talk. I actually didn’t realize it at the time that I had leeway to

teach like this

However, she admitted that her low point was not being able to get all the

teachers on her team to understand and implement the strategies.

I work with different grade levels every year and some of the grade levels I get

assigned to are on the ball with me and are able to adapt and others, for some

reason, don’t understand what teacher stations look like or what student centers

109

look like and they struggle with it. I tried everything from modeling, setting it up

for them, doing it for them, and finally, I had to think ‘they have to take control of

this themselves’ so that was a low point.

Teacher 4 (T4) was a White female who taught eighth grade from a charter

school on the East coast with 15-20 years of experience. She chose to leave her previous

public school to be a part of a charter school pilot developed by the local university and

parent groups.

I was one of the teachers and parents on the board. It was a diverse group, and we

really felt we were able to take federal mandates and implement them in our

school in a way that was respectful of our students, parents, and teachers. We

were able to take whatever the State and Federal mandates were and implement

them in a way that best fit our visions and mission. We were able to implement

on the local level and not have to worry about local district control. We were able

to sit down together, share drinks, and talk about what we wanted for our

students. This was the first time I ever felt empowered.

She felt a sense of low self-efficacy when:

in recent years, it has become more difficult. Even county wide it has become

difficult to make decisions that are appropriate for students in the classroom. I

think about the students in the back of my mind and how they don't have a voice

about being educated by non-educators. Our state is very conservative. I was

concerned about if certain decisions, such as curricular decisions, were given to

non-educators. Honestly, over the last few years, things have gotten worse.

Autonomy has been lost. Decisions are being made by people with zero

110

experience in the classrooms and about students without any kind of real basis. It

has affected my sense of efficacy to some extent.

She did not provide enrollment information or socio-economic information about her

school.

Teacher 5 (T5) was a fifth grade, White, male teacher with 15 to 20 years of

experience. He had previously taught in a large urban district in the Southwest but had

left that district to teach overseas. He ascribed his high sense of self-efficacy to:

My class was mostly made up of Hispanic students, so the district was really

focused on that. What we used CBM and different tools. I think a high point for

me was going through the process of learning a new curriculum scope and

sequence. The new curriculum was well liked by the new teachers, and I had to

adopt it.

He then expressed his sense of low efficacy:

People are always coming in and mandating things that need to be done; you’re

always going to lose people. It lowers morale, and I think that’s the biggest

impact for me because it makes more work, and it makes it harder and you just

don’t see the direct benefit from it. It just seems like busy work when someone

higher up is mandating you to do something and you don’t know yourself how to

take ownership of it and you don’t see the direct impact it has on your students.

So I think it’s hard to go through with it.

Teacher 6 (T6) was a White female teacher who has 15 to 20 years of experience

as an elementary teacher. She was teaching first grade in a large Midwest urban school

district. She reported that her high point of self-efficacy came when she started to

implement the new Common Core State standards (CCSS) and liked the results she was

111

getting.

A high point was my ability to integrate the CCSS in science and social studies. I

felt that the CCSS were clear enough that I could logically and easily connect the

dots. We did reports using children's nonfiction books; read a LOT of books,

articles, excerpts on the SS/Sci content; answered text-dependent questions;

created Interactive Student Notebooks; created PowerPoints/Prezis on content

topics, etc. This boosted my self-efficacy because the more we did, the more

ideas I had, and the more I felt I improved with assigned tasks for the students.

However, she felt there was a lot that she believed caused her to have a lowered sense of

self-efficacy.

There have been many low points. The district seems to change things constantly.

The idea behind this is perhaps good—to learn, change, grow, do it better—but

the reality is that it seems like so little gets accomplished. It seems like we don't

really do anything in earnest.

Teacher 7 (T7) was a Black female and a fairly new teacher with just 1 to 5 years

of experience. She taught a fifth-grade class in a neighborhood school that was

redesigned and was located in a large Midwest urban district. She had been surplused

from her previous assignment in a school in the same district that was in Excellent status

with the state. Her sense of self-efficacy was evident as she explained a high point to her

career:

We are using tablets with students in Language Arts. We are piloting this

program with the district. Each student has their own tablet. It has proven to

provide high student engagement. I feel I am very strong with this. I enjoy using

112

the tablets for instruction and see a lot of student engagement with them. This

makes my instruction effective.

However, she sees her efficacy lowered because of a lack of resources to support the new

use of tablets.

I am not comfortable with the reading program. There are not enough resources.

I would probably use them (tablets) if there were more teacher resources. I think

this is a cause of low self-efficacy for me. Not enough resources. It is also

difficult to follow some initiatives. There are too many.

Data Collection

Data were collected for this study in four ways. First, through archival records

from the NCES; second, through two online surveys that measured self-efficacy beliefs

of teachers and principals; and last, through semi-structured interviews with participants.

The interviews were the primary source of data and were designed using the critical

incident technique, fashioned to gather what teachers and principals believed was missing

or needed when designing improvement initiatives.

The surveys were placed online using SurveyMonkey™ and were optional for

participants. Of the 13 participants, 9 (62%) completed the surveys. Data from the

NCES provided information about school districts across the country operating in

corrective status. This information was used to determine whether the participant came

from districts or schools in corrective status. Finally, the interviews were used to

determine what the participants considered to be critical to improving their schools and

should be considered by reformers, both locally and nationally.

Data were uploaded to NVivo 10, a computer program designed to sort, group,

and analyze qualitative data. The interview responses were first created from start codes

113

created from the literature review and the conceptual framework that grounded the study.

As analysis continued and more interviews took place, new themes began to emerge and

were added to the codes. Table 5 shows the start codes that came from the review of

literature and the new themes that emerged from the interviews are shown in table 6.

Table 5

List of Start Codes

Description Code

School Improvement SI

School Improvement year 1 SIYR1

School Improvement year 2 SIYR2

School Improvement year 3 SIYR3

School Improvement year 4+ SIYR4

Teacher Self–Efficacy TSE

Self-efficacy for instruction TSE-I

Self-efficacy for student engagement TSE-SE

Self-efficacy for classroom management TSE-CM

Principal Self-efficacy PSE

Self-efficacy for Instructional Leadership PSE-IL

Self-Efficacy for Management PSE-M

Self-efficacy for Moral Leadership PSE-ML

Contexts Con

Cultural Con-cul

Environmental Con-Env

Social Con-Soc

Experiences/Teachers Exper/T

Instructional Exper/T-I

Student engagement Exper/T-SE

Classroom management Exper/T-CM

Principal Support Exper/T-PS

Colleagues Exper/T-Coll

114

Description Code

Experiences/Principals Exper/P

Instructional Leadership Exper/P-IL

Management Exper/P-M

Moral Leadership Exper/P-ML

Teacher Support Exper/P-TS

Central Office Support Exper/P-COS

Expectations/Teachers Expec/T

Student Achievement Expec/T-SA

Student Behavior Expec/T-SB

Principal Support Expec/T-PS

Parent Support Expec/T-ParS

Motivation/Teachers Mot/T

Implementation of School Improvement Strategies Mot/T-ISIS

Remain in position Mot/T-RiP

Motivation/Principals Mot/P

Implementation of School Improvement Strategies Mot/P-ISIS

Remain in position Mot/P-RiP

As the data were collected from interviews, new themes emerged. Table 6 shows the list

of codes that emerged from the interviews.

Table 6

Emerging themes

Description Code

Expectations/Principal Expec/P

For instruction Expec/P-I

For Central Office Support Expec/P-COS

Expectations/Teachers Expec/T

For colleagues Expec/T-Coll

For Central Office Support Expec/T-COS

Relationships/Principals Rel/P

115

Description Code

Community Rel/P-Com

Teachers Rel/P-T

Unions Rel/P-U

Relationships/Teacher Rel/T

Community Rel/T-Com

Parents Rel/T-Par

Professional Development PD

Alignment to student needs PD-AtSN

Embedded PD-Em

On-going PD-Og

Funding PD-F

Support PD-Sup

Resources/Funding R/F

Time Tim

Results

Table 7 shows the frequency of interview responses per theme. Themes with a

25% response rate or higher were considered pertinent to teachers and principals to

support their efforts in bringing about school improvement. Responses are listed from

themes with the greatest response over all to the least responses over all. Table 7 shows

the number of respondents (nr) and the percentage of respondents (pr). Themes that were

found in the Literature Review are also shown on Table 7.

Table 7

Frequency of Responses per Theme

Theme Nr pr Found in Literature

Climate and Culture 11 85% yes

Time 10 77% yes

Self-efficacy 10 77% yes

116

Experiences 10 77% yes

Expectations 10 77% yes

PD 9 69% yes

Relationships 7 54% yes

Money 6 46% no

Motivation 5 38% yes

Communication 3 23% no

Resources 1 <8% no

Context 0 0% yes

Critical Incident requires themes to have a 25% response rate for them to be

considered important to the participants to reach desired outcomes. Therefore, as this

analysis progresses, tables will present only those themes or subthemes that have at least

a 25% response rate; making them pertinent areas for the participants, either as a whole

group or as separate groups.

Climate and culture. Climate and Culture ranked as the most relevant among

the themes. Eleven out of 13 participants (85%); 6 out of 6 principals (100%) and 5 out

of 7 teachers (71%), referred directly to the climate and culture of the school or gave

descriptions of feelings, insights, or scenarios that had some direct impact on climate and

culture.

There were three subthemes under climate and culture that emerged as important

from the interviews and from the literature. Table 8 provides a breakdown of these

subthemes for all 13 participants.

Table 8

Climate and Culture

Climate and Culture nr pr

Overall responses 11 85%

117

Improvement 5 38%

Student Behavior 3 23%

Moral 2 15%

Table 9 shows the principal responses compared to all 6 principals for each of the

subthemes under climate and culture while Table 10 shows subtheme responses by

teachers compared to all 7 teachers for each subtheme.

Table 9

Climate and Culture/Principal Responses

Principal Responses nr pr

Total responses 6 100%

Improvement 2 33%

Student Behavior 2 33%

Morale 0 0%

Table 10

Climate and Culture/Teacher Responses

Teacher responses nr pr

Total responses 5 17%

Improvement 3 43%

Student Behavior 1 14%

Morale 2 29%

The highest ranked incident under climate and culture was improvement.

Improvement in this case referred to the school improvement process and the effects it

can have on those who are having to experience it. Five of the 13 respondents (38%); 2

respondents were principals (15%) and 3 respondent teachers (43%) who shared their

118

feelings about school improvement and the impact it had on them.

P6, a principal who was moved to a different position in a different school, had

this to say, “School improvement is not about skills. It is about support, resources, and

transparency.” P3, a principal whose school had been in school improvement for 4 years

commented:

The kids come, and they get loved, they get clothed; they get health care; they get

food, and amongst all that we have to try to give them an education. That’s the

culture. They don’t talk about how many families you served or that you tried to

save a kid when so many schools want to squeeze them out because of their test

scores. I guess I have an attitude about playing that game, and I don’t play the

game well. I guess I play it with an attitude. It’s not right that your school is

being judged by a test on a day when a kid came in and took an attitude about it

because of a fight at home or something that happened in the neighborhood. So I

put band aids on little things to help the kids be successful on a 2 1/2 hour test.

Teachers also had strong feelings about school improvement and the effect it has

on the climate of the school. T7 stated, “There is a lot of pressure to implement

completely, keep data, keep up with low achievers, and then having people coming in

demanding improvement now!. This creates high-stress levels.” T5 stated directly that

morale was affected by mandates and extra work load. Though morale was a lesser

subtheme, it was impacted by the improvement process that had further consequences in

other areas. T5 had this to say:

It’s the same with every school. Always coming in and mandating things that

need to be done, you’re always going to lose people. It lowers morale, and I think

119

that’s the biggest impact for me because it makes more work, and it makes it

harder and you just don’t see the direct benefit from it.

Although below the required 25%, the second most important theme that emerged

among the subthemes was student behavior with 3 out of 13 (23%) respondents. One of

7 teachers (14%) responded to the effects of student behavior on climate and culture;

placing a low priority on this subtheme by teachers. However, 2 out of 6 principals

(33%) responded on student behavior, making it an important issue for this group.

P2 felt frustration over the lack of support from the District for disciplining

younger students.

The district ties our hands a lot to be able to improve your climate and culture.

You have to be creative along with the teachers. It’s not you; it’s along with

them. For example, at K-3 you can’t do anything with them. Students can bite,

kick, stab, and you can’t do anything with them, and you can’t punish them. They

don’t get punished until they get to fourth grade. This year I’ve had primary kids

who are just violent, punching, kicking, biting, scratching but the district doesn’t

do anything with them so what I’ve had to do, I’ve had to work with the teacher,

the parent, my mental health agency to try to get this child some help.

Also speaking about student behavior effects on climate and culture, P4 had a different

outlook on how behavior affects the climate and culture of his school.

One of the things that happens is that teachers kind of carry over our own

problems into our discipline of students, whether it’s our discipline at home or

experiences in our previous schools. That is a factor we have to overcome, and I

don’t believe everybody is on the same page as to what good correction of

students looks like, but over time we’re sort of norming. At 9th grade every year

120

since our existence, about one-half of our middle school students have come from

outside the school. So while one-half of our students came through our school

and have some experience of what our school is like, what our expectations are,

what our holidays are, and what’s important to us in 9th grade: It was almost like

we were starting over again every year. That has been a challenge.

T1, the only teacher with a response involving climate and culture and student

behavior, described how her school implemented the Positive School Culture program

(PSC):

We have had faculty meetings on it [PSC]. We have integrated some of it; we

have signs we hang up about what behaviors are expected. I haven’t had any

training on how to make that happen in my classroom. Some behavior systems

we put in place on our team have been positive. I did a lot of research on what

other schools are doing, and they are using PSC and their plans are similar to what

we ended up doing. To a certain extent, except instead of school-wide initiatives

it is just our team of teachers that are doing it.

The remaining subthemes under climate and culture—morale, trust, autonomy,

and voice—are all important in creating a positive climate and culture but were not seen

as critical incidents to this group.

Time. Time emerged with 10 out of 13 participant (77%) responses and ranked

as the second most important theme, along with Self-Efficacy and Experiences. Under

this theme, eight subthemes emerged. Of the eight subthemes, two scored greater than

25%. Management, with 4 out of 13 participant responses (31%), was ranked the highest

among the subthemes. Management refers to the ability to structure time to manage all

priorities that take place at the same time during the school improvement process. The

121

other area, Collaboration had only 3 responses out of 13 participant responses (23%) to

the broader theme of time. Although the response rate was below 25%, these three

responses all came from the seven teachers, giving it a 43% response rate, making

significant to this group. The remaining subthemes were well below the 25% response

rate and were not considered as being significant for the whole group. However, 2 out of

6 principals (33%) did comment in each of these lower areas, making them exclusively

significant to principals. Table 11 shows the rankings of each of the eight subthemes

under Time that came from participant interviews. Time was a theme that was found in

the literature.

Table 11

Time

Time nr pr

Overall responses 10 77%

Management 4 31%

Collaboration 3 23%

Implementation 2 15%

Basic Needs 2 15%

Climate and Culture 2 15%

Table 12 shows the responses for each of the principal participants. Of the 6

principals who took part in the study, 5 (83%) had something to contribute about the need

for more time to successfully turn their school around.

Table 12

Time/Principal Responses

Principal Responses nr pr

Overall responses 5 83%

122

Management 2 33%

Collaboration 0 0%

Implementation 2 33%

Basic Needs 2 33%

Climate and Culture 2 33%

Time management was an essential factor for the 2 of the 6 principals, scoring at

33%. P4 reflected:

Where’s the time going to come from? What’s good about it is we have to

structure our time, but what’s bad about it is it’s really hard to figure out and I

challenged my staff at the start of the year and asked which of the pieces we are

doing we think are important as we are adding a new piece, which are the

important pieces we set down? That’s the question. We can’t do all this, and we

can’t do everything plus one, plus one, and plus one. At some point there just

isn’t room for plus one and what is, being done is important, the accountability

piece is important, the evaluation piece is important, so which part do we set

down?

In a similar statement P2 said:

More time! If I had the time in the day with the teachers. I don’t have time in the

day to do teacher evaluation. Are you kidding! I have 50 teachers; that doesn’t

include the auxiliary people and extra staff. I have to see them four times in

observations. When do I have time to coach? When to I have time to help with

instruction, and if I have a new teacher, god forbid! One thing that bothers me is

that I don’t have the time to fine tune and show them how to help kids.

Principals also stated that they need more time to implement the new strategies,

123

procedures, routines, and/or mode of operation. P2 was concerned about the new online

testing requirement coming from the State. She stated:

With all the new stipulations on State and District criteria, I don’t think we fully

understand it. The state keeps changing every time we turn around. Next year we

do all of Ohio Academic Assessment online. Now, I have kids who don’t have a

computer at home, so their skills are low when it comes to typing, are you

kidding? They’re not to get it finished; it will take them all day, they’ll have to

learn to move the mouse, and navigate it when they’re looking at maps and stuff.

Are you kidding? But the State said no matter what we have to do it. We thought

we could get a delay but they said no, we are doing it full force. So next year we

are doing the OAA online. It’s going to be horrible; it’s going to murder us.

There’s no way we can keep up. I’ll never be able to keep up with the magnet

schools, I know that. I don’t have those types of parents. Those kids will zoom

by and do well; mine won’t. Mine are still looking for the letter K or the letter A

on the keyboard and everything else. We have computers, but our kids only get

computers every so often, they can’t get it every day. We have a computer lab,

but they can’t get it every day and they have computer stations in the rooms but

they only get it two or three times a week, but not every day. You could spend

the day rotating them every 30 minutes, but you can’t.

The third subtheme which emerged as important to principals was Basic needs.

Two out of 6 principals (33%) believed that the child’s basic needs must be met before

any learning can take place. P3 put it this way:

The system is set up to reflect what kids can do in a 2 1/2 hour test, and that

reflects everything about your school. EVERYTHING about your school! They

124

don’t talk about how many families you served or that you tried to save a kid

when so many schools want to squeeze them out because of their test scores. I

guess I have an attitude about playing that game, and I don’t play the game well.

I guess I play it with an attitude. It’s not right that your school is being judged by

a test on a day when a kid came in and took an attitude about it because of a fight

at home or something that happened in the neighborhood. So, I put band aids on

little things to help the kids be successful on a 2 1/2 hour test.

P6 stated, “Schools need to first meet the basic needs of all students (Maslow's

Hierarchy of Needs) to impact student achievement. In many cases, parents are not able

to meet these needs. Schools must take over.”

The development of a positive climate and culture was the final area where

principals felt they needed more time. School improvement requires a change in climate

and culture, a change in the way people think about students and their learning, and in the

types of relationships needed to bring about a positive learning environment. Two out of

6 principals (33%) believed changing the climate and culture of a SINI takes time; more

time than what was being expected of them. P4 commented on how the climate of the

school would finally take on a more positive tone due to the decreased influx of new

students at the 8th-grade level into the 9th grade after 5 years. He reported:

At 9th grade every year since our existence, about one-half of our middle school

students have come from outside the school. So while one-half of our students

came through our school and have some experience of what our school is like,

what our expectations are, what our holidays are, and what’s important to us in

9th grade, it was almost like we were starting over again every year. That has

been a challenge. But this coming school year I believe our 9th grade is going to

125

be almost totally populated by students who were just promoted from our 8th

grade. That’s an exciting opportunity for us to no longer say, “Oh this portion of

misbehavior and this portion of climate is because kids walk in here with no idea

of what we’re all about.” These kids are all going to be here knowing what we

are all about, and I think it will be transformative and I think we’ll see that next

year.

Table 13 shows the response frequencies of teachers to the theme of Time. Five

out of 7 (71%) provided their insights and beliefs on this theme. However, they only had

two subthemes that they believed to be critical to their success in impacting their

students’ learning.

Table 13

Time/Teacher Responses

Teacher Responses nr pr

Total responses 5 71%

Management 2 29%

Collaboration 3 43%

Implementation 0 0%

Basic Needs 0 0%

Climate and Culture 0 0%

The first theme, Collaboration, had a 43% response rate with 3 out of 7 teachers

responding. Collaboration was seen as time to meet with team members, colleagues, and

other educators from other schools to discuss best practices, experiences, resources, and

experiences with the expectation of gaining new knowledge and insight in how to go

about implementing new strategies and pedagogy.

T4 believed time for collaboration led to positive results. She commented,

126

I really think the time should be to plan and collaborate. I really think working

with other teachers is the professional development I found to be most helpful. I

did several trainings over the summer and was able to come back and share the

techniques in a faculty meeting, which was fantastic. I was able to present and

demonstrate something that was handed down from on high.

T5 also believed that collaboration with colleagues and time to reflect was

essential to teachers’ success in implementing new programs and strategies and expressed

the need to allow time to do such collaboration during the school day rather than after

school or on weekends. He expressed it in this way:

I would like time to reflect. I would like to be given time in my school day, even

if it’s every 6 to 9 weeks to reflect with my team. If it’s a half day or an

instructional period, it can’t be tagged on top. I don’t want to do it after school,

and I don’t want to come in on the weekend because then it just seems like work.

If they want buy in they need to bend a little bit on instructional time for that PD

because that’s basically what it is, right? A lot of reform is teaching the staff to

do something differently, which is professionally developing them. So, I would

need time to reflect, I would like to see it being done by someone who has been

doing it for a while, and who I can talk to and who is the local expert to send

those questions and then time to compare. If we can compare grade levels,

schools in the same district and schools in a different district or having a teaching

buddy in a different district who is doing the same thing. It could be beneficial

depending on the partnership, or it could be more labor, or it could just backfire;

then it would be more work.

T6 expressed her desire to have more time to collaborate with the intervention

127

specialist about how to best meet the needs of her students with special needs. She

stated:

I need more direct collaboration with the IS. We are working toward that, but his

priority the past 2 years was math and reading, not Social Studies or Science. We

never co-taught, planned together, created or modified an assessment together.

Time management was an important theme for 2 out of 7 (28%) teachers. For

many educators, having time to plan, gather resources, and still attend community and

school events has become a challenge. T3 put it this way:

The time of day you have to spend planning your own work doesn’t always allow

you to be at those events at night. You know there are coordinators for this and

coordinators for that, and they can’t be at all those things. We use to try to plan

multicultural days. I’d come on Saturday in the neighborhood, but I can’t do that.

I can’t get to all that stuff.

T4 felt strongly about having time to collaborate with her colleagues:

Any time you change curriculum it takes time to work through it. I love the

Common Core, I think it’s fabulous, but you have resources you need to pull from

and books you need to read; you need time to think about what you’re going to do

and how to implement them. The time support I could use. Time for

collaboration. Time in the classroom to build those relationships and to

collaborate on teaching and maybe not so much paper work.

Self-efficacy. Teacher and Principal self-efficacy also found to be of great

significance to implementing successful school improvement with 10 out of 13

participants (77%) giving a description of what they do well or what they could have

done better. Teacher and Principal Sense of Self-efficacy was a major theme in the

128

literature.

Table 14 provides the response data to the overall theme of self-efficacy. There

were four subthemes that emerged under this theme. Of the four, moral leadership was

the lowest ranked in importance for the overall group; however, it was significant for

principals. The subthemes of Instruction and Management had different connotations

between the groups. For principals, the subtheme of Instruction referred to instructional

leadership. For teachers, this subtheme translated into instructional strategies. Similarly,

the subtheme Management referred to school management for principals and classroom

management for teachers. The subtheme of Student Engagement was exclusive to

teachers only.

Table 14

Self-efficacy

Overall Responses nr pr

Total responses 10 77%

Instruction 10 77%

Management 4 31%

Student engagement 3 23%

Moral leadership 2 15%

Results from these responses were matched to the participants’ surveys. In 100%

of the cases, the surveys matched the responses given by the participants who took the

survey.

Under principal self-efficacy, all subthemes emerged as significant. Table 15

shows the number of responses (nr) and percentage of responses (pr) by principals for

each area of efficacy for Principal Self-efficacy. Four of the 6 principals (67%) gave

examples of their self-efficacy.

129

Table 15

Self-efficacy/Principals

Self-Efficacy/Principals nr pr Found in Literature

Principal Sense of Self-Efficacy 4 67%

Yes

Instructional Leadership 4 67%Yes

Management 2 33%Yes

Moral Leadership 2 33% yes

Instructional leadership is defined as the ability to lead school personnel to make

decisions that impact instruction positively, to create a climate and culture conducive to

teaching and learning, practicing shared leadership with teachers, and promoting a shared

vision for the school. Four out of 6 principals (67%) related their beliefs in their own

self-efficacy for being an instructional leader while operating in school improvement.

For example, P1 spoke highly of her ability to create a family among her staff and

students:

I think one of my strengths has been being able to develop a team. I make this

school a family. That’s both good and bad. It’s good in that we really protect the

adults and the kids. I am a real teacher or staff advocate. I do more for my

teachers and staff than I do for my families and kids to a detriment. But my belief

has always been if the teachers are well taken care of, they will take care of the

kids. I basically develop the teams and develop the family and the high

expectations. We have high expectations for a vision.

She sees herself as a good developer of staff. P2, however, saw her strength as knowing

130

instruction.

I think the high point comes through my ability for knowing instruction. I know

what it looks like, tastes like, and feels like, so, when I am conducting my rounds

I can give constructive feedback to the teachers. I don’t mind giving them fluff

stuff but to help them at that moment, I need to give them constructive feedback

to what I am seeing and either they can spot me or tell me I missed a part of the

instruction or they can take the suggestions; but I think for me the high point is

instructions. So, as I am coaching I told my Assistant Principal that the number

one priority is instruction. The other stuff will fall into place, but you’ve got to

know good instruction. I’ve gotten gratification from teachers because they

finally have someone who works hard and knows instruction and could give them

valuable comments because if I didn’t know it they wouldn’t take me seriously,

and because I do know it and the comments I have made have proven successful

because our test scores came up.

P3 described a lowered sense of self-efficacy in his attempt to bring up student

test scores.

Probably presenting the initiative in its initial stages when it was first being rolled

out as more of a positive thing and spinning it in that way. I know a lot of

principals came into their buildings and said, “This is how you’re going to do

things now, there is no discussion, this is the way it’s going to be” and I know

upper management was OK with that because this is what they wanted to see. I

didn’t take that track because I don’t know that cramming things done people’s

throat is the best way to get buy in. It really is total reflection on me because I

didn’t buy into it completely and totally; and right or wrong, that was

131

communicated to the staff and its like, “you know we’ve got to do this let’s just

go forward and do it, we’re going to make the best of it.

He admitted more than once it was all on him that the school didn’t improve.

I think if I had taken the time and broke that down, it would have evolved, and

people would have taken it and run with it and maybe made it more diversified for

their own room. For me, it’s still a compliance piece—do you have this posted,

do you have this up, or how come this isn’t updated, and why aren’t you on

schedule? If the whole presentation had been done differently and again, that’s all

on me.

Self-efficacy for school management yielded 2 responses out of 6 (33%). School

management deals with the everyday operations of teachers, students, support staff,

parents, and administration. The routines, the policies, the practices, and the schedules

that occur daily within the school. P3 showed a high sense of self-efficacy and

accomplishment as he described how he was able to oversee the inclusion of a health

clinic in his school.

Establishing the health clinic was a huge initiative just because we have so many

kids who miss school due to health problems and parents don’t take the time to

take them to get medical help that they need; so, moving that clinic in here and

giving up that space and getting that all organized and established was a huge

piece for us. Going through the health department, Cincinnati Health Department

handled the grant writing end of things. We handled the logistics piece of things,

providing space so it could be a useful clinic. So, we now have a waiting area

with a reception; we got a lab, we’ve got two exam rooms that are fully

operational that are electronic with computers. You can type in the patients’ data

132

and have it right there, and she can ship things out for blood testing, and she can

write scripts for the kids who need prescriptions. It is really a one-stop shop. It

really is because instead of parents having to go out some place and kids are out

of school for days on end because “I just never get around to make the

appointment” we can pull the kids right out of class and do the physical and send

them right back. Or, we can, if parents have medical issues where the kid has the

flu or the sniffles they can stop in the Clinic and make an appointment and in

some cases be seen by the physician within hours, be treated, and be done. To go

through it the first time you hit the bumps in the road in trying to get everything

established. To go through it a second time I’m much more aware and have a

much better feel of the process now and all the road blocks that were present to

begin with. You just know what is coming now.

Unlike P3, P4 had a different perception of his ability to successful manage

programs in his school.

I could have been more proactive in terms of knowledge or skills, in an

organizational sense to manage up if you will, or manage over, to know which

rocks to look under to find what I needed. In sort of mopping up afterwards I

found out where I could have gotten that information sooner and if I had the

opportunity I could have anticipated those problems and perhaps had a more

productive conversation with the person involved. I think I lack some of the

personal discipline to shut out the daily business of the school to do the important

business of the school. I need to be more directly involved in team meetings and

individual teacher meetings and forcing the conversation toward data. Yet, I find

myself drawn into discipline issues or these other things that are important and

133

need to be handled. So when I choose, I choose the thing that is easiest for me to

do. If I have to do an announced teacher observation and an emergency comes

up, I might handle the emergency or handle a situation with a student and I think a

part of that might come from my discomfort in this new area; pushing and

meeting these deadlines and having these hard conversations. I gravitate toward

the thing that is easier so the skill that would help in that case is the ability to say,

“Hey, this meeting I want to talk about data or this observation I want to have a

teacher follow-up on what we are doing.” I just need to do that so I would say

that is a discipline or type of skill that is lacking for me.

Moral leadership, the third area of principal self-efficacy, is how the principal

practices equity and fairness among his staff and students. This area pulls in the

compassion principals often need to meet the socio-emotional and physical needs of their

students. Of the 6 principals who participated, 2 (33%) spoke of how they meet the needs

of their staff and students. For example, P3 discussed how he and the teachers took in a

student who was struggling at other schools.

I want to bring in as many resources from this community or from the Cincinnati

community as I can get my hands on that will benefit these kids and their families

and give them exposure to things they’ve never been exposed to. It’s something I

am really passionate about, and I hope continues. I set that tone with the staff and

the kids. Last year I had a parent call. Her son was in a charter a school, and he

had been staying with his father and was promoted to the 7th grade. She said he

is nowhere near ready for the 7th grade. He has behavior issues; his grades are

terrible, and he doesn’t know, he cannot go to junior high school and be

successful. Will you take him in? I know this school can help him. So I took

134

him in with all the issues he brought with him. The kid was a mess. He was a

complete disruption to class, but I knew we had the resources here to get him the

placement that he needed. So we sucked it up and I had to talk to the teachers and

tell them this is the deal but this is why we are doing this and for 2 1/2 months we

went through the process you have to go through to get a placement and mom was

so grateful. She said, “I knew you could do it!” We save kids that’s what we do

here.

P1 had a very different approach to meeting the needs of the teachers and students:

I think one of my strengths has been being able to develop a team. I make this

school a family. That’s both good and bad. It’s good in that we really protect the

adults and the kids. I am a real teacher or staff advocate. I do more for my

teachers and staff than I do for my families and kids to a detriment. But my belief

has always been if the teachers are well taken care of, they will take care of the

kids. I am not as involved with the parents but I advocate for the staff and that’

also both good and bad. I am a good developer; if you come here and you work

hard, you’ll want to work for me because I’ll give you the freedom to do that, and

you can develop you skills.

Six out of 7 teachers (86%) had responses that reflected their belief about their

self-efficacy for influencing their students. All the subthemes under teacher self-efficacy

emerged as being significant. Six of the 7 teachers (86%) whose responses fell under this

theme, believed they were strong with their instruction despite having to operate under

corrective status mandates. Additionally, 4 out of 7 teachers (57%) addressed student

engagement, while 2 out of 7 teachers (29%) discussed classroom management. Table 16

shows the number of responses (nr) and percentages (pr) given by teachers for each area

135

of teacher self-efficacy.

Table 16

Self-efficacy of Teachers

Self-Efficacy/Teachers nr pr Found in Literature

Teacher Sense of Self-efficacy 6 86% yes

Instruction 6 86% yes

Student engagement 4 57% yes

Classroom Management 2 29% yes

Teacher self-efficacy for instruction showed that all six participants (100%) who

responded in this area believed they had the ability for effective instruction. T1 stated

she knew how to teach reading but felt she was still lacking something to be effective

with the group of students she was currently working with. “I just got my masters as a

reading specialist so I know I can teach reading but there is something I need more with

this particular group of kids and I haven’t exactly figured out what that is yet.” T2 took

great pride in that others found her to be an effective teacher.

I was the ‘guinea Pig’ for our new Teacher Effectiveness program—our growth

and evaluation system that is implemented this coming year. I received a high

rating after observations, and it made me feel accomplished (my rating) because

of it.

T3 worked in a school that had been in school improvement for 4 years or more. She

responded:

As a school in (academic) emergency, we had to implement a new framework

given by the district and as we got used to it I found out it was something I had

been doing already and as a lead teacher. My team and the ILT phased that in as

136

it was already set up, and the centers and the pieces were kept the same. Only the

time was different. Pieces of the lesson were to be kept shorter, and the student

time on centers, and the individual teacher centers were to become longer. For

some people, it cramped their style but for me it was more like the style I love,

which is more student time and less time that the teacher actually had to talk. I

actually realize it at the time that I had actually had the leeway to do that.

T5 stated he liked the new curriculum that his district had adopted, which came

easily to the new teachers. “I think a high point for me was going through the process of

learning a new curriculum scope and sequence. The new curriculum was well liked by

the new teachers. I had to adopt it.”

T6 made a similar response:

A high point was my ability to integrate the CCSS in science and social studies. I

felt that the CCSS were clear enough that I could logically and easily connect the

dots. This boosted my self-efficacy because the more we did, the more ideas I

had, and the more I felt I improved with assigned tasks for the students. I felt my

text-dependent questions improved—last year I really wanted to start using them,

so I did, but very insecurely.

T7 felt a sense of high self-efficacy because she was able to use technology

effectively in her classroom and see positive results.

We are using tablets with students in Language Arts. We are piloting this

program with the district. Each student has their own tablet. It has proven to

provide high student engagement. I feel am I very strong with this. I enjoy using

the tablets for instruction and see a lot of student engagement with them. This

makes my instruction effective.

137

The second sub-theme that was pertinent was student engagement with only 4 out

of 7 teacher participants (57%) who spoke about their ability to engage their students

effectively while implementing school initiatives. Of these four teachers, three (43%)

described a sense of high self-efficacy in this area, while one (14%) described a lowered

sense of self-efficacy. T2 believed that the CCSS, promoted by the Federal Government,

actually helped improve the student engagement in her classroom.

I think the CCSS have strengthened my teaching. I feel there is more 'rigor' (hate

that word!) as we are achieving higher level things overall. For example, in the

past I would have never attempted a research paper (a lot of work for 8 graders!),

but it has been very successful and students have returned to me later to say it

really assisted them.

T6 responded similarly stating the CCSS were easy to use and that her students were

doing more this year because she was able to be more creative.

We did reports using children's nonfiction books; read a LOT of books, articles,

excerpts on the SS/Sci content; answered text-dependent questions; created

Interactive Student Notebooks; created PowerPoints/Prezis on content topics, etc.

Last year students did the report, but this year students did the written report and a

PowerPoints/Prezis with research.

T7 commented that through the introduction of iPads for students to use in their

learning not only proved to be a source of her sense of high self-efficacy but also

increased student engagement in her classroom.

We are using tablets with students in Language Arts. We are piloting this

program with the district. Each student has their own tablet. It has proven to

provide high student engagement. I feel am I very strong with this. I enjoy using

138

the tablets for instruction and see a lot of student engagement with them. This

makes my instruction effective.

T1 appeared to have a lowered sense of self-efficacy when it came to student

engagement. She stated several times during the interview that she was working with a

group of students who were reading below grade level, were not able to focus, and were

not very motivated. She reported that she tried various ways to get her students engaged

and reading only to fail and become frustrated.

There's one program we have that the county wanted us to start using and for my

students 99% of them are reading below grade level and this particular program

they (the county) bought is very difficult for them because the passages are like

Nathaniel Hawthorne, Mark Twain, Weathering Heights, it’s very different for

them and seeing them struggle with that I am of course less likely to use that

program. I tried everything I could, banging my head against the wall, to get

them (the students) to use the program. They didn't like it, they thought it was

childish; it took too long to load; they used every excuse not to have to use this

(program). It was frustrating for me to get them to use it and frustrating for them

at various levels. The low point is fighting to get them to try something they don't

like.

Self-efficacy for classroom management emerged as being significant to 2 out of

the 7 (29%) teacher participants. Both of these teachers projected a sense of lowered

self-efficacy for managing student behaviors and smooth routines in their classrooms. T1

believed she was not getting enough support for unruly students in her class. She

reported the following:

139

The principal thinks she is supportive because she says she understands how

difficult it is to work with these students, but in reality her message is often “If

there’s a problem, it’s your problem” and that’s just deflating to hear as a teacher.

If kids are talking during class her response is, “Well, if they respected you and

were engaged they wouldn’t do that” In theory you’re right but we are talking

about 13 and 14 year old girls and boys who can’t stand to be out of touch with

each other for more than 10 seconds. We’re talking about kids who are not

successful in school and have never been successful in school, some of them. So

it’s a lot to sell them on school. Being able to say the problem is not entirely the

teacher’s problem, would go a long way. Being able to say if they are being

disrespectful to your class, what do you need us as administrators to do? I need to

be able to send students from class, so the rest know here’s what happens when

you disrupt in class. Not to discipline by fear but to show there’s natural

consequences. We seem to take away natural consequences.

In a later response, T1 had this to say:

Some days, having an extra teacher in the room would help because one thing the

principal wants is for us to run more small group instruction where teachers runs a

small group while other students do something else because in whole group

students tend to say ‘the teacher isn’t talking to me’. The problem with the

students I’m working with at the moment is they’re not capable of doing

independent work real well. Their behavior, decision making, etc. is not

conducive to completing independent work. I almost have to do whole group

because anytime I try to do small group the rest are going nuts.

T6 admitted that classroom management and student behavior issues are a

140

weakness for her because she herself was never a problem and really couldn’t

comprehend misbehavior. She explained it this way:

Classroom management. It doesn't come naturally to me. I have been upfront

about my struggles with it, but my current administrator said I need to figure it out

and not be "a victim.” There are several reasons why it's hard: I was always an

eager and well-behaved student, and I don't intuitively understand the

misbehavior.

Experiences. Experiences had 10 out of 13 participants (77%) responding.

Experiences were defined as times when principals or teachers recall other times when

they may have had positive or negative experiences that may have affected their self-

efficacy, motivation, or expectations. Experiences are also context specific, so no two

principals or teachers will have similar responses. However, it is important to know that

experiences do have an effect on self-efficacy. The more positive the experience, the

more likely a principal or teacher is likely to try to replicate the same scenario using the

same tactics. The more negative the experience, the more a principal or teacher is likely

to engage in avoidance behaviors to not have the same bad experience.

Four subthemes emerged from under Experiences. Three themes; Central Office

Support, Instructional Leadership (ability), and Principal Support, had a response rate of

less than 25%; however, when broken down by principals and teachers, these themes

came across as essential to both groups. Table 17 shows the response rates for all

participants.

Table 17

Experiences

Experiences nr pr Found in Literature

141

Overall responses 10 77% yes

Colleague Support 6 46% yes

Central Office Support 2 15% yes

Instructional Leadership 2 15% yes

Principal Support 2 15% yes

Four out of the 13 respondents (67%) were principals. Table 18 shows the

frequency of their responses.

Table 18

Experiences/Principals

Principal responses nr pr Found in Literature

Total responses 4 67%

Colleague Support 2 33% No

Central Office Support 2 33% Yes

Instructional Leadership 2 33% Yes

Principal Support 0 0% Yes

Principals had three subthemes emerge from their responses. Two out of 6

principals (33%) reported the importance of central office support, colleague support, and

instructional leadership for their success or failure.

Instructional leadership is defined as the principal’s ability to lead his staff to

make academic choices and put in place best teaching practices. P1 shared how she was

able to get her math scores up when she took over an elementary school in academic

emergency.

I had an eighth-grade math program, and only 8 kids passed math. I hired this

new teacher from out of district; I found her, and I got her hired. A friend knew

142

her and had told me about her. She said she could get the math scores changed if

I would buy her Saxon Math. She really believed in Saxon Math because she had

always gotten her kids to score at 70 or 80% using it. I said if you can get these

scores up, I’ll get you whatever you want; I don’t care if I have to pay for it

myself. I’ll do it! She came in, and our scores went from 8% to 69%. She used

that program and our scores have gone up consistently each year. I use to hide the

fact that I was doing that program because it wasn’t approved by the district. I

just didn’t advertize that we were using a program that was different from what

the district told us to use, but she was getting results. At some point I said, “You

know, I’m not going to tell her not to use it. If somebody comes in here and tells

her she can’t use this and she’s getting 75% of these kids to pass math, then

someone else is telling her, I’m not!

This experience was the beginning of turning this school around, and she was eventually

successful in bringing it out of academic emergency.

P4 told of how his persistence and reluctance to step back from an initiative led to

success.

Late in the second year of the School Improvement Grant (SIG), working with the

county academic coaches, we thought we were really clicking and doing an

effective job on team talking about data. Different teams and different teachers

had come up with some ways in talking about data and getting students to set

goals. Our research shows goal setting improves student achievement and in the

middle school especially as well as the 9/10 and 11/12 teams. Although the

language was pushing back on it, the implementation was there and everybody

established some sort of system where they were getting students to set goals and

143

reflecting on their work over a certain period of time whether it was a unit or a

week or 3 days. I really felt good about that. I felt it had really moved the needle

and some of the conversations, and it was largely happening school wide. It

helped me to see the value of conversations and not backing off the goal, like

some part of it was non-negotiable. So, as some of those teachers looked to hedge

and back off it, I kept working with them to get them on board. One teacher was

really trying to be entirely recalcitrant and propose something else. It met my

non-negotiable, so when I allowed her to go forward I think she felt a win and I

felt a win like, ‘hey, this is great!’ It was a moment when we were both in dialog,

we came to an agreement, and it would meet my ends and my goals and it fit in

her classroom. I thought it was a good moment.

His school had just moved down in its ranking from Excellent to School Improvement.

However, he was able to go on and continue to stand his ground and use his non-

negotiables. P3 had opposite experiences which lead to him eventually leaving his

position.

I know a lot of principals came into their buildings and said, “This is how you’re

going to do things now, there is no discussion, this is the way it’s going to be” and

I know upper management was OK with that because this is what they wanted to

see. I didn’t take that track because I don’t know that cramming things done

people’s throat is the best way to get buy in. It really is total reflection on me

because I didn’t buy into it completely and totally and right or wrong, that was

communicated to the staff and it’s like “you know we’ve got to do this let’s just

go forward and do it, we’re going to make the best of it.”

P3 felt this way with the initiative the district was expecting to be in place in all

144

elementary buildings. However, he was most proud of how he managed the new health

center that was placed in his building and the fact that they cared about the children and

always tried to meet their basic needs.

Two out of 6 principals (33%) believed that colleague support was essential to

their perspective about their ability to impact student achievement. Colleague support

was considered the networking that took place when the Principals came together for

training or district meetings. P5 felt that meeting with her colleagues gave her the

support she needed to continue to push through the initiatives.

I developed a high self-efficacy because the implementation was supported by

monthly professional development and networking with other Principals who

were working through the process. We were allowed release time with our staffs

to complete the professional development and reflect on the process of

implementation.

P4 also felt networking with his fellow principals at the monthly meetings gave him fresh

ideas and ways to do things more effectively.

There is a cadre of principals, organized into learning groups and every time we

got together, it actually became a running joke, I would ask “Hey, how are you

doing this?” and sometimes they were things I was doing well. For example, I am

really comfortable with how we do discipline here. I think people have bought

into “we can’t suspend students all the time; they can’t learn if we just kick them

out of school.” And so even with something like that I’ll ask, “How are you

working to change teacher attitudes around suspensions? How are you working to

reduce violence at your school? How are you doing your observations? How are

you doing your evaluations? How do you manage the paper work?” because

145

that’s an area we can all learn from each other. There are people out there who

are really good with systems, and I envy them every time.

Two out of 6 principals (33%) shared that Central Office Support was important

for them to get the resources needed to bring about improvement. Central Office Support

was defined as support that came in the form of financial resources to aid principals in

their ability to obtain resources and materials their students needed to access the

curriculumsuccessfully. For example, P2 felt support by Central Office and knew she

could go to the Deputy Superintendent when she needed. She felt well supported and

was thankful for all that she was able to get.

I work with somebody, the Deputy Superintendent, who is very supportive and

knows instruction, so that helps as opposed to the other assistant superintendent I

worked with previously. The reality is she is a realist. She knows what you need

and every time she came out she would ask what I need. If I need something I

just ask and if I don’t I tell her no. One of the things I asked her for was I have a

lot of kids and I have preschool and preschool disability. It’s kind of hard to look

an extended learning area for 32 kids, and I have 6 in a class. So I asked her if

there is something we can do because it didn’t seem balanced to me. So, things

like that. My first year, I had the other assistant superintendent, and I didn’t have

that kind of support. It’s like day and night. He has all the magnet schools now

because their needs are not as great as a school of our nature.

P1 felt she didn’t need much support from the district, but rather knew where to

get what she needed. However, there were some things she felt were good to get from

the district in terms of support.

146

I think the support they give us is just enough. I think the data analysis is good. I

like having the data analysis. I would prefer not having adopted text books

because they’re a waste. The support I get from the district is just enough, and I

don’t ask for much. Whether new people get enough support or what kind of

support is questionable to me. I think too many or too little people come in and

tell them what to do, and it can be contradicting I think. But for me, I have the

amount of support I need and once you’ve been around as long as I have you

know the people to call if you need to get something done. It’s a process of

working well with people. People who are caustic and more directive leaders I

think turn people off. I think they could make or break your life. You can

mandate that they do something, and they do but not the next time you need a

favor.

Six out of the 13 respondents (46%) to this theme were teachers. Table 19 shows

the subthemes in which teachers shared their experiences.

Table 19

Teacher Experiences

Teacher Experiences nr pr Found in Literature

Total responses 6 86%

Colleague Support 4 57% yes

Central Office Support 2 29% no

Instructional Leadership 0 0% yes

Principal Support 2 29% yes

Teachers represented 6 out of 13 respondents (46%) to this theme. Eight

subthemes emerged, with only three that scored as significant—Colleague support with 4

out of 7 teachers responding (57%), Principal Support with 2 out of 7 teachers responding

147

(29%), and Central Office Support with 2 out of 7 teachers responding (29%).

Colleague support is similar to the same subtheme under principal support and

includes the networking and collaborating with other teachers to gain new knowledge,

insights, and skills. Four out of 7 teachers (57%) had responses that fell into this

subtheme. As an example, T4 believed strongly in colleague support due to the positive

experience she had when she had a supportive team of colleagues.

The best form of collaboration I have been a part of is the professional learning

community and I know that is kind of a buzzword but is formed around common

interests, naturally kids, and essentially the group wanted to know about student

engagement and student involvement and wanting to make sure we were doing it

right and practically the whole classroom was engaged in doing what we were

doing and were committing to the material. We did video tapes of our classroom

and as a group we look at videos; not long videos, about 10. We sat together and

looked at this and analyzed that and talked about teacher language and getting

students involved in using the language. I began taking videos of myself to show

a colleague and get input on how to improve. Best thing I have ever done. The

discussions were more theoretical and not sort of nonsense was going on in my

class.

T6 spoke of needing more time to collaborate with colleagues who specialized in

students with special needs. She felt weak in this area and felt that being able to sit and

plan with the IS would enhance her ability to work with specials needs students. She

wanted “more direct collaboration with the IS. We are working toward that, but his

priority the past two years was math and reading, not Social Studies). We never co-

taught, planned together, created or modified an assessment together.”

148

Colleague support is often lacking in schools that are struggling. T1 shared her

experience of lack of effective support in trying to implement a new technology program.

I don’t think there was much PD, if any. Another teacher was trained as a trainer

but she was also an administrator and when I would say, We are having this

problem or that problem, she would say, ‘Well, I’m not.’ Later people would say,

‘This program should be able to do this or that’ and I would say, ‘Well it’s not

and you are going to have to show me because I can’t get it to work.’ There’s a

teacher who got PD and training and was supposed to be the person to train us and

he said, ‘I’m the worst person to pick for this because I’m not a technology

person.’ So, lots of times we were emailing our contact with the program asking

‘hey, is there a way to do this?’

Colleagues do not always have to be in the same building. T5 wanted to have

support from someone who had implemented the same programs and were successful.

He called this person “The local expert.”

I would like to see it being done by someone who has been doing it for a while,

and who I can talk to and who is the local expert to send those questions and then

time to compare. If we can compare grade levels, schools in the same district and

schools in a different district or having a teaching buddy in a different district who

is doing the same thing. It could be beneficial depending on the partnership, or it

could be more labor, or it could just backfire then it would be more work.

Principal Support varies between teachers and between buildings. Teachers with

a high sense of self-efficacy will see principal support as something that is there, yet still

allows them room to grow and experiment. Teachers with a lowered sense of self-

efficacy will feel as though the principal is not sympathetic to their needs and expects

149

them to figure things out on their own. For example, T1 felt that her principal was not

supportive in her need for having help with discipline. Classroom management was her

weakest area as indicated on her TES survey.

I would love my principal to be more supportive; she thinks she is, unfortunately.

I would like her to understand there do need to be consequences for behaviors so

we can have a better learning environment. Her theory seems to be ‘you wouldn’t

have these discipline problems or types of issues as a teacher if you were more

engaging, if you had a better relationship with your students, if you reached out

more to parents, if you were more creative in your discipline tactics, etc. So she

thinks she is supportive because she says she understands how difficult it is to

work with these students, but in reality her message is often “If there’s a problem,

it’s your problem” and that’s just deflating to hear as a teacher. If kids are talking

during class her response is, “Well, if they respected you and were engaged they

wouldn’t do that.” In theory, you’re right but we are talking about 13 and 14-

year-old girls and boys who can’t stand to be out of touch with each other for

more than 10 seconds. We’re talking about kids who are not successful in school

and have never been successful in school, some of them. So it’s a lot to sell them

on school. Being able to say the problem is not entirely the teacher’s problem,

would go a long way. Being able to say if they are being disrespectful to your

class, what do you need us as administrators to do? I need to be able to send

students from class, so the rest know here’s what happens when you disrupt in

class. Not to discipline by fear but to show there’s natural consequences. We

seem to take away natural consequences.

T3 was a lead teacher in her building who taught ESL. She described how the

150

principal supported her in her efforts to have the hard talks with the teachers on her team

to get on board with the reforms. But she also spoke of a lack of support when the

teachers do not get on board.

The principal would rehearse with me before I would talk to the person who was

not complying with the expectations. But people just didn’t buy into it. They

stick to their own way but if it isn’t working and the scores show it isn’t working;

then they are not effective. I’m not in-charge of their evaluations so I can’t dock

them for that. Is someone docking them for not being effective? I don’t know. It

all goes together; if they aren’t effective and their scores show they’re not

effective so many years in a row and they are also not implementing what they’ve

been told to implement, then I don’t know. I don’t have charge over that piece,

and so that’s where my ability stops.

Central Office Support was addressed by two teachers. Central Office support

comes in many variations—from money for resources to professional development to an

extra person in the classroom. T3 conceded that the district did support in some ways but

lacks in other.

The district seems constantly to change things. The idea behind this is perhaps

good—to learn, change, grow, do it better—but, the reality is that it seems like so

little gets accomplished. It seems like we don't really do anything in earnest. We

are expected to implement and manage stations. We're supposed to do it, but we

didn't receive training on what makes quality stations, how to manage stations,

how to differentiate within stations.

When T7 received iPads for her 5th-grade language arts class, she thought the

district had a really good idea. But the resources weren’t there to support their use in the

151

classroom.

There needs to be more professional development on the use of the tablets for

Language Arts. New programs should be purchased by the district or funding

should be provided for schools to buy the program which are specific to Language

Arts.

Expectations. Expectations also emerged as essential to school improvement

with 10 out of 13 responses (77%) to this theme. Expectations are behaviors, attitudes, or

performance that teachers and principals believe should be taking place. Expectations are

often shaped from experiences and self-efficacy. Table 20 shows results of responses to

this theme and its subthemes.

Table 20

Expectations

Expectations nr pr

Overall responses 10 77%

Student Achievement 4 31%

Colleague Support 4 31%

Central Office Support 3 23%

Principal Support 3 23%

Student Behavior 2 15%

The combined results provided enough responses to identify Expectations as a

vital factor in creating change. However, when taken separately and broken into

subthemes, what is important to one group is not necessarily important to the other group.

For example, Student Achievement, the top expectations for teachers with 4 out of 7

teachers (57%) was not mentioned by any of the principals as an expectation. Similarly,

Central Office support was important for 3 out of 6 principals (50%); however, teachers

152

were at 0%. Similarly, 0% of principals addressed the expectation of student behavior

where 2 out of 7 teachers (29%) found it to be an important expectation.

Table 21 shows the frequency rates for the theme Expectations for principals.

Four out of 6 principals (66%) gave responses that fell into this theme. The theme of

Principal Expectations was not in the literature reviewed for this study.

Table 21

Expectations/Principals

Principal responses nr pr

Total responses 4 66%

Student Achievement 0 0%

Colleague Support 3 50%

Central Office Support 3 50%

Principal Support 0 0%

Student Behavior 0 0%

Only two subthemes emerged as being pertinent to principals in their expectations

for support during school reform. Colleague support had a response rate of 2 out of 6

principals (33%). Colleague support is defined as support principals receive from their

colleagues in providing solutions to problems, acting as mentors, or providing a means

for principals to get feedback on ideas.

P4 stated that he has a reputation for coming to district leadership meetings and

asking for advice or ideas of how others are handling situations similar to his.

There is a cadre of principals, organized into learning groups and every time we

got together, it actually became a running joke, I would ask “Hey, how are you

doing this?” and sometimes they were things I was doing well. For example, I am

really comfortable with how we do discipline here. I think people have bought

153

into “we can’t suspend students all the time; they can’t learn if we just kick the

out of school.” And so even with something like that I’ll ask, “How are you

working to change teacher attitudes around suspensions? How are you working to

reduce violence at your school? How are you doing your observations? How are

you doing your evaluations? How do you manage the paper work?” because

that’s an area we can all learn from each other. There are people out there who

are really good with systems, and I envy them every time.

P5 shared, “I developed a high self-efficacy because the implementation was

supported by monthly professional development and networking with other Principals

who were working through the process.”

Three out of 6 principals (50%) talked about the type of support they received

from Central Office. P1 stated she would rather not have a lot of support:

I didn’t really need help. I have doing this for a long time. If your school is

improving they also leave you alone to do the things, we want to do and try

programs. We try to comply as much as we can but in the end we do what works

here. Having said that, I can’t stand to be micromanaged. When we decided we

were going to do Saxon Math, I said well if we’re not going to follow the district

mandates then we better have good scores because if we have good scores,

nobody is going to say anything. The support I get from the district is just

enough, and I don’t ask for much. Whether new people get enough support or

what kind of support is questionable to me. I think too many or too little people

come in and tell them what to do, and it can be contradicting I think. But for me,

I have the amount of support I need and once you’ve been around as long as I

have you know the people to call if you need to get something done. It’s a

154

process of working well with people. People who are caustic and more directive

leaders I think turn people off. I think they could make or break your life. You

can mandate that they do something, and they do but not the next time you need a

favor.

P2 believed that intense training and professional development is a great means of

support. Additionally, she received strong support from the Deputy Superintendent after

having a couple of years with some other Central Office upper administrator. She stated:

There were 21 schools at the lowest level of performance. They sent us to

intensive training with the University of Virginia. I thought this was a magic pill.

The advertisement of the sale was “We’re going to get you out of school

improvement.” I said “OK; they’ve got some trick. I’ll take it. What are we

going to do?” It was all about you’ve got to think outside of the box, and you’ve

got to teach you’re teachers how to think outside of the box. So, I think that has

been very supportive. Unfortunately, that has only been for a couple of years. I

wish it had kept going because I always think you have to keep refreshing

yourself. The other thing I think is support is I work with somebody, the Deputy

Superintendent, who is very supportive and knows instruction, so that helps as

opposed to the other assistant superintendent I worked with previously. The

reality is she is a realist. She knows what you need and every time she came out

she would ask what I need. If I need something I just ask and if I don’t I tell her

no. One of the things I asked her for was I have a lot of kids and I have preschool

and preschool disability. It’s kind of hard to look an extended learning area for 32

kids, and I have 6 in a class. So I asked her if there is something we can do

because it didn’t seem balanced to me. So, things like that. My first year, I had

155

the other assistant superintendent, and I didn’t have that kind of support. It’s like

day and night. He has all the magnet schools now because their needs are not as

great as a school of our nature.

P3 believed support from Central Office could be something as simple as a pat on

the back for a job well done. He shared:

More affirmation would be nice. More, “Hey! I know you’re working your can

off, and we see it!” You can say what you want in your evaluation, but it’s not

the same. That happened at a principal’s meeting one time. We were all in this

Professional Development and they had flown in a consultant and people are

under the table, texting or what not and several people had their heads down or on

their computers or what not and no one was looking at the speaker. They were

hearing but just not looking at the speaker. Then the Deputy Superintendent gets

up in front of the room and says, “I’m really concerned about the amount of

attention that is being given to our speaker. This is stuff everyone needs to know.

Well, someone had the nerve to raise his hand and said, “Excuse me but I am

trying to elevate a crisis that is happening at my school and trying to run

interference. I’m texting, yeah, but I’m listening but I’m also trying avoid

situations in my building that I’m not there to address right now, and everybody

else is exactly right. We’re trying to do our job, but you require us to be here.” It

just took the air out of what she was trying to say and soon it was all coming out.

If you want to build up your staff and get them motivated, it’s that pat on the back

and a little acknowledgment for those in the trenches.

Table 22 shows the teacher responses given under Expectations. Six out of 7

teachers (86%) gave responses on expectations they had for support, student

156

achievement, and student behavior. Four subthemes emerged from this group—Student

Achievement, Colleague Support, Principal Support, and Student Behavior. Teacher

expectations for student achievement and student behavior was covered heavily in the

literature reviewed as well as Principal Support, whereas expectations of Colleague

support was not.

Table 22

Teacher Expectations

Teacher Responses nr pr Found in Literature

Total responses 6 86%

Student Achievement 4 57% yes

Colleague Support 4 57% no

Principal Support 3 43% yes

Student Behavior 2 29% yes

Student Achievement had 4 out of 7 teachers (57%) respond. Student

Achievement is the goal of School Improvement for which teachers are the primary

conduit. On student achievement, T1 explained that her students were not able to do a

particular reading program because they were too low. She also stated that she could not

do centers with them because they would not be able to do them independently.

I teach very low level eighth graders. Their motivation level is rather low. To get

them to do it is difficult. Some days, having an extra teacher in the room would

help because one thing the principal wants is for us to run more small group

instruction where teachers runs a small group while other students do something

else because in whole group students tend to say ”the teacher isn’t talking to me.”

The problem with the students I’m working with at the moment is they’re not

capable of doing independent work real well. Their behavior, decision-making,

157

etc. is not conducive to completing independent work. I almost have to do whole

group because anytime I try to do small group the rest are going nuts. Now North

Carolina has passed a law saying that student scores are a part of teacher

evaluation and of course, teaching below grade level students, and that’s all I

teach, the gains they make are going to be very small, so I feel I am being set up

here if I’m always getting the low kids. I’ll never get the better rating or, the

better score. Low socio-economic status, low ability, are issues also impacting

performance

T6 had similar feelings. She felt she wasn’t well prepared to work with students

functioning below grade level on IEPs. She believed the same was true for her ability to

manage a classroom.

Classroom management doesn't come naturally to me. I have been upfront about

my struggles with it, but my current administrator said I need to figure it out and

not be "a victim." There are several reasons why it's hard: I was always an eager

and well-behaved student, and I don't intuitively understand the misbehavior.

Also, I didn't student teach—I was a paid intern and my "mentor" just let us have

a go of it without assisting us. Finally, I had a TE (Teacher Evaluator) my first

year of teaching, not a CT (Consulting Teacher) because "they didn't have any

more CTs" and she didn't mentor me, she just evaluated me. Also, differentiated

instruction is a problem for me. I don't modify curriculum or assessment (well; I

offer books of various reading levels and I'll read to the non-readers). Otherwise,

I don't know how . . . but I also don't know IF either, when they take the same test

and are held to the same standards.

T5 took a different look at his expectations for student achievement. He believed

158

he could teach all students something, but he must provide the support for them to

achieve. But he also believed that students would only achieve if they wanted to achieve.

Teacher expectation is predetermined by personality. I believe I’m a glass half

full person and believe that all students can learn anything and if I don’t think a

student can learn, he won’t. But because I believe they can, I am going to keep

pushing them and scaffold in supports. That is an innate trait and something good

teachers will do to help students become lifelong learners. It is hard to make

someone a reflective person. You can lead them to that, you can have them go

through it, and then do it, and do it, and do it, but it doesn’t mean they’re going to

do it.

T3 found the expectations of other teachers were not where they should have been

for their Second language learners.

I got my TSEL endorsement, and I am more knowledgeable about teaching the

second language learner, but the people I worked with were not. So it added to

another layer of difficulty and added a level of expectations of the teachers of

children who came from second language homes. One remark, just to show you,

a teacher said was, “They just look at me. They don’t know what I am saying.” I

said, “No, you don’t understand what they are going through, and they do

understand what you are saying. You just need to give them time to process it.”

Teachers don’t present the lesson well enough for them to grasp it. They went

with their talking, but the teachers need to be demonstrating and modeling,

showing and the student will get it just fine. So many of the remarks made by the

teachers help me to know they did not know how to represent this to the kids.

159

The principal sent them off to training, and they didn’t come back too changed.

It’s just a mindset; I think.

Four out of 7 teachers (57%) commented on Colleague Support. Colleague

support, discussed earlier under the theme Experiences, results in collaboration and

problem-solving between teachers. T5 expressed his expectation of having someone who

has already implemented a specific program or strategy to come into his classroom or

school and demonstrate or to go to this person to observe for a day. T6 expressed her

need for more time to meet and collaborate with the Intervention Specialist about her

special needs students. T1 had expectations that her colleagues who were trained to

come back to the school and be the expert on the new technology and computer software

had not experienced what she had expected. T3, as a lead teacher, had expectations of

the teachers on her team to implement the new initiative required by the district. To her

frustration, this was not what was happening.

The third subtheme under Teacher Expectations was Principal Support. Three out

of 7 teachers (43%) described their expectation for principal support and what it would

look like. For example, T1 believed that her principal was not as supportive as she

needed her to be.

I would like her to understand there do need to be consequences for behaviors so

we can have a better learning environment. Her theory seems to be ‘you wouldn’t

have these discipline problems or types of issues if as a teacher you were more

engaging, if you had a better relationship with your students, if you reached out

more to parents, if you were more creative in your discipline tactics, etc. So, she

thinks she is supportive because she says she understands how difficult it is to

work with these students, but in reality her message is often, “If there’s a

160

problem, it’s your problem” and that’s just deflating to hear as a teacher. If kids

are talking during class her response is, “Well, if they respected you and were

engaged they wouldn’t do that.” In theory, you’re right but we are talking about

13 and 14-year-old girls and boys who can’t stand to be out of touch with each

other for more than 10 seconds. We’re talking about kids who are not successful

in school and have never been successful in school, some of them. So it’s a lot to

sell them on school. Being able to say the problem is not entirely the teacher’s

problem, would go a long way. Being able to to say if they are being

disrespectful to your class, what do you need us as administrators to do? I need to

be able to send students from class, so the rest know here’s what happens when

you disrupt in class. Not to discipline by fear but to show there’s natural

consequences. We seem to take away natural consequences.

T5 believed that administrators should not expect teachers to do things they are

not willing to do themselves. He asserted:

Use of data to improve student performance. I believe that it is expected that

teachers are using data to inform instruction and I whole heartedly agree with that.

But I think the district should do what they expect teachers to do. But how do

they go about doing that? I think they try. I have had poor administrators who

have tried and truly in their hearts wanted what was best for the students but they

weren’t purposeful or vengeful or doing things out of spite. I think they thought

they were the best they could do. I think school improvement is important, and

there are larger issues.

T7 had expectations of not only the principal but also of her team leader. She

stated, “I would like more Principal and team leader support along with more time to

161

learn the program and to implement it effectively.”

The final subtheme under Teacher Expectations was Student Behavior. Two out

of 7 teachers (29%) discussed their expectations of student behavior and how poor

student behavior affected their ability to impact student learning. T1, who had stated that

she because her students were “low level” learners they could not handle rotating through

learning stations, one of the initiatives her school was implementing.

One thing the principal wants is for us to run more small group instruction where

teachers run a small group while other students do something else because in

whole group students tend to say ”the teacher isn’t talking to me.” The problem

with the students I’m working with at the moment is they’re not capable of doing

independent work real well. Their behavior, decision making, etc. is not

conducive to completing independent work. I almost have to do whole group

because anytime I try to do small group the rest are going nuts. So I often wonder

if I need a second teacher here or do I need more training for working with these

kids, or is there some piece I am missing. I just got my masters as a reading

specialist so I know I can teach reading but there is something I need more with

this particular group of kids and I haven’t exactly figured out what that is yet.

Student scores are a part of teacher evaluation and of course, teaching below

grade level students, and that’s all I teach, the gains they make are going to be

very small so I feel I am being set up here if I’m always getting the low kids. I’ll

never get the better rating or, the better score. Low socio-economic status, low

ability, are issues also impacting performance.

Similarly, T6 also expressed her expectation of student behavior. She stated that

she didn’t understand misbehavior because it wasn’t something she had ever experienced

162

in her own days as a student.

Classroom management. It doesn't come naturally to me. I have been upfront

about my struggles with it, but my current administrator said I need to figure it out

and not be "a victim." There are several reasons why it's hard: I was always an

eager and well-behaved student, and I don't intuitively understand the

misbehavior. Also, I didn't student teach—I was a paid intern and my "mentor"

just let us have a go of it without assisting us.

Professional development. Professional development was voiced by 9 out of 13

participants (69%) with three subthemes, indicating professional development as another

important factor needed to bring about school improvement. Of the three types of

professional development subthemes, support from colleagues and networking were the

most desired means of professional development for 6 out of 13 participants (46%).

These 6 participants felt peer networking was important for coping with the school

improvement process. Principals were more likely to prefer ongoing professional

development with 3 of the 13 total responses (23%) coming from principals and only 2 of

13 (15%) responses coming from teachers. However, teacher participants talked about

content specific professional development, while no principal touched on this area of

professional development. This indicated that teachers want to grow in new pedagogy,

instructional strategies, and content information.

Table 23 provides a breakdown by subthemes. The topic of professional

development as it pertained to school improvement was not found in the literature.

Table 23

Professional Development

Professional Development nr pr

163

Overall responses 9 69%

Professional Networking 8 62%

On-going 5 38%

Content Specific 3 23%

Professional Networking was previously defined as a way for educators to meet

and discuss similar interests, ideas, and learn from each other. On-going professional

development continues on, year-after-year, often in the same skill or knowledge causing

it to become embedded in the everyday operations, or, it may be a different topic each

year. Content-specific professional development is professional development on specific

content or a curriculum, such as science or reading.

Table 24 provides the frequency response data to two themes that emerged from

principals in the area of Professional Development; Professional networking and on-

going professional development. This theme was not covered in the literature.

Table 24

Professional Development/Principals

Principal responses nr pr

Total responses 4 66%

Professional Networking 3 50%

On-going 3 50%

Content Specific 0 0%

Three out of 6 principals (50%) responding to the theme of professional

development believed that professional networking was crucial for being successful with

the school improvement process. Gaining knowledge, information, and ideas from their

peers who had already been through the process or were currently going through it.

164

P4described networking with a cadre of principals during the District Leadership

Meetings. He stated that he was continuously seeking out new ideas, trying to compare

his programs with those of his peers, and looking for people who were proficient in skills

that he lacks. P5 stated that networking with other principals gave her a strong sense of

self-efficacy and assisted in providing new ways to encourage her staff to implement the

new strategies introduced by the district.

On-going professional development is PD, which continues year-after-year,

whether in the same skills and understanding or in different skills. This form of

professional development supports the staff as lifelong learners and brings in new

ideas, skills, and strategies for delivering instruction, working with students, or

for creating new routines and practices in school and classroom management.

P2 stated that she believed that educators should have to continue to attend

professional development like those in the medical profession.

I wouldn’t mind taking more professional development. I would like to see

what’s out there for the latest discipline strategies. My Assistant Principal and I

are getting ready to take one next week on English Language Leaners. I am

getting a large population of ELL students, and I want to be able to learn

something and how I am going to receive these students. Most of them are in

Kindergarten. I am getting both Hispanic and African; I’m not just getting one

type of group. I’m getting a huge population of African and Hispanic students so

that is the point, to take computer classes and learn how to integrate technology

into curriculum and instruction. If I learn it, I can help my teachers learn it. My

young teachers got it. It’s my old teachers, so, you learn how to take those things

and help them use it; like iPads in the classroom that we try to write grants for.

165

So as leaders, I think we should always participate in some kind of professional

development that’s a given. Medical personnel have to do it; nurses have to do it,

why not educators? I think it needs to be ongoing, and I think it needs to be

relevant. It should be something I can take back and use.

P3 admitted that, even though there are times when the district is wasteful with

professional development money, they do a good job with continuously offering it and

offering the most current and cutting edge practices.

I would like a better understanding of this program and expectations. From the

district’s standpoint, they do provide timely and current professional development

for teachers and for principals, they really do. Whatever is out there in the world

of research they try to bring in and try to give you new ideas and maybe some

new approaches.

P4 stated that he believed one thing his staff had done well was to have ongoing

professional development surrounding creating a positive climate and culture for student

learning.

I think we do some things well. In my mind I know what I want a classroom to

look like, I know what I want an interaction between a teacher and student who

broke a rule to look like, and we spent a lot of time in professional development

structuring what it should look like and what I’m a little bit proud of is that it’s

been recursive instead of always a new PD; we’ve taken the time to go back and

look at PD we’ve already done. Instead of saying, “We’re going to reinvent the

wheel this time, we’re saying, “No, we’re going to get this right, and we’re going

to do these things.” So, those are all factors clearly defining what we want it to

look like and staying focused on it, I think has helped. I think we have a pretty

166

good positive school culture among students. There’s always places where we

could work. Those are all factors.

Table 25 provides the frequency response rates from teachers. Professional

Networking, Content Specific training, and on-going support for new programs were the

subthemes that emerged from teacher interviews.

Table 25

Professional Development/Teachers

Teacher responses nr pr

Total responses 5 71%

Professional Networking 3 43%

On-going 3 43%

Content Specific 2 29%

Teachers believed that professional networking is important to school

improvement with 3 out of 7 teachers (43%) discussing the need for these networks.

They seek out their peers for new ideas, to validate their feelings about the process, or to

provide a means for venting their frustrations. For example, T4 found networking and

collaborating with her peers lead to positive results and was the most effective means of

professional development.

I really think working with other teachers is the professional development I found

to be most helpful. I did several trainings over the summer and was able to come

back and share the techniques in a faculty meeting, which was fantastic. I was

able to present and demonstrate something that was handed down from on high.

The best form of collaboration I have been a part of is the professional learning

community and I know that is kind of a buzz word but is formed around common

167

interests, naturally kids, and essentially the group wanted to know about student

engagement and student involvement and wanting to make sure we were doing it

right and practically the whole classroom was engaged in doing what we were

doing and were committing to the material. We did video tapes of our classroom

and as a group we look at videos not long videos, about 10. We sat together and

looked at this and analyzed that and talked about teacher language and getting

student involved in using the language. I began taking videos of myself to show a

colleague and get input on how to improve. Best thing I have ever done. The

discussions were more theoretical and not sort of nonsense was going on in my

class.

T5 contended that he would like to have someone who has already implemented

the same program come in and show him how it’s done.

I would like to data, or I would like to be trained by someone who has done it

before. So, bring in a group of teachers from a different district who have used

this program and let me hear testimonials from them or even a quick little video

of kids. It doesn’t always come down to numbers; it’s easy to jump to stations

and it isn’t always the bottom line. I would like to hear testimonials from people

who really do it. I’m going into a new school with people who are very

experienced in this program so I am going in with high expectations hoping to

learn from them, which didn’t happen at my last school, unfortunately. I would

love to lead by example, but that isn’t always doable if they’re trying to bring in

reform.

T6 also felt that networking and working collaboratively with others would

enhance her ability to better address the learning needs of all of her students.

168

I need more direct collaboration with the IS. We are working toward that, but his

priority the past two years was math and reading, not Social Studies/Science. We

never co-taught, planned together, created or modified an assessment together.

Three out of 7 teachers (43%) believed content-specific professional development

that targeted new curriculum introduced to teachers and students was important for

supporting changes in instructional delivery. T7 contended:

I think there needs to be more professional development on effective ways to

teach your content. There also needs to be more materials or to show someone

who teaches it effectively. There needs to be more professional development

focused on the content. We were given an hour presentation on how to use a

tablet, but nothing on online resources or ways to effectively use the tablets to

support the content. And PD on instructional strategies to hit all levels of ability.

T1, who was implementing an online reading program, had this to say:

There is probably more to the program than I know, so probably more

professional development would increase my efficacy; being able to integrate a

little more seamlessly instead of ”ok, now we're going to do technology;”; make it

more a part of the curriculum and more blended.

T3 had recently earned her Teaching Second English Learners credentialing. She

believed that knowing how to help students who were second language learners to access

the curriculum was not enough. She believed it would help to know about the culture of

these students:

I think only a piece of my training is missing from the TSEL training. To

understand the culture. Sometimes I think it would help to speak Spanish but to

understand the students’ experiences. It’s just like if you were dealing with

169

children from poverty, you would have to know influences of the poverty on their

real life daily. So, I realize those pieces of understanding their culture are the

pieces that the teachers may be missing, but me too.

Two out of 7 teachers (29%) felt it would be important to have on-going

professional development to support them in their effort to implement new instructional

strategies. T7 believed there needs to be more PD for the use of the new Tablets given to

her students through a grant. She expressed:

There needs to be more professional development on the use of the tablets for

Language Arts. New programs should be purchased by the district or funding

should be provided for schools to buy the program which are specific to Language

Arts.

T5 made the point that teachers have varying levels of need when it comes to

professional development and support.

The problem with that is if you have a couple hundred employees, every

employee is going to be different, you know I might need 3 or 4 trainings to

maintain that and ask the questions or keep moving forward until this is effective

in my mind, where someone else may not need training and others might need

more. That’s the difficulty with implementing something like this because we are

all individuals just like our students, and we take to different levels of support.

Relationships. Relationships ranked 6th as being important for effective school

change. Relationships are how people interact and bond with each other and are

important for providing a support system between staff and students. Positive

relationships produce positive results while negative relationships result in negative

results. Seven out of 13 participants (54%) described relationships and the importance of

170

forming them to produce positive climate and culture. Four out of the13 participants

were principals (31%), and 3 of the 13 participants were teachers (23%) who reflected on

the importance of relationships. Relationship between principals and unions was reported

by 3 of the 6 principals (50%) and principal–teachers relationships was reported by 3 out

of 6 principals (50%) and 1 out of 7 teachers( 14% ). Three out of 6 principals (50%)

reported that the relationship between teachers and their students was important; this was

not the case with teachers. No teacher reported that the teacher–student relationship was

important to their success in influencing student learning. The literature is rich with

research exploring the role relationships play within a school community and the success

of the school. Table 26 provides the frequency of responses.

Table 26

Relationships

Relationship nr pr Found in Literature

Overall responses 7 54%

Unions 3 23% no

Principal/teacher 3 23% yes

Teacher/Student 3 23% yes

Community 2 15% no

Table 27 provides the breakdown of subthemes by principal response to the theme

Relationships.

Table 27

Relationships/Principals

Principal responses nr pr

Total responses 4 67%

Unions 3 50%

171

Teacher/Student 3 50%

Principal/Teacher 2 33%

P1 believed that she was pretty loose about some of the management pieces she

could be asking her staff to do. As long as the teachers did their job, took care of the

students, and worked together as team, she would not make demands on them.

We’re not a very big union school. I don’t try to break anything in the union

contract; I try to honor it. We can’t get anyone to be the union representative for

next year. In the past, when there has been problems, we were going through all

of our changes and people would be fussing. I know there were a number of

times I would be talking with the Instructional Leadership Team chairperson

about what was being said. We just don’t run that kind of a school; we don’t run

a union school. But when people wanted to start filing grievances or doing things

or being precise about something, I would remind her if she wanted to get the

word out that I’m not going to have a family, a team, or you bringing in the union.

We’re going to run this school one way or the other. You’re not going to have it

both ways. If you all want to look at the union contract let’s look at everything, I

can do.

P5 felt that:

Turnaround Principals need to be given an opportunity to lead without the

scrutiny of the Union backlash. Change is not always comfortable, but it is

necessary if you are going to achieve in this era of accountability. The union and

the lack of support from higher up when that becomes a problem is a limitation to

what we can do with change.

172

P6 had the same thing to say about the union:

There are limits on what you can do because the union and the district are at odds

and, as a result, there are no win–win scenarios. Climate and culture often a tone

of distrust and being ‘hung out to dry’ as a result.

Three principals and one teacher believed that the relationship between principal

and teachers is important for bringing about school change. P1 stated:

All school reform depends on staff. School reform needs to have the support of

the staff. Everything I do depends on having a strong team. What I think I have

been able to do here is to build a strong team so that together we are able to move

forward. My experience is that top down initiatives don’t work too well and so I

engage the staff in deciding what changes and what initiative we need to do. I

obviously have ideas and plans I try to get implemented, but I’ve learned not to

try to implement something if I don’t have support of the staff. It’s taken a long

time because you need to develop staff.

P2’s response supported this statement:

As a leader, you have to have a vision, and you have to share it. So, if there is

anything I’m going to do or want to do, I run it past my lead teachers, and they’re

honest with me. I say to them “if it sounds like I’m off the band wagon or if I’m

just rapping, tell me, and I’ll pull back and stop. But you come back with an idea,

but it’s a shared decision so let’s make this decision together.” I’m just the head;

we run this school together. It’s not just my school; it’s all our school, so we run

it together.

P5 also felt that relationship with staff was essential for bringing about real

improvement.

173

I believe you have to build relationships with your staff. You have to have a

mission and vision that they see in you that a staff can see in you. The trust that

you know and can do what you are trying to lead staff to do in the teaching and

learning for students is the most important.

Three of the 6 principals (50%) believed that the relationship between teachers

and students was an important factor for successful instruction and learning. P1 had this

to say:

I am a real teacher or staff advocate. I do more for my teachers and staff than I do

for my families and kids to a detriment. But my belief has always been if the

teachers are well taken care of, they will take care of the kids.

P3 believed “The person who is going to have the most impact on kids and their

instruction are the teachers and what they do in their classrooms, how they do their

instruction and their presentation through their instruction.” P6 believed students would

learn because of the relationship they have with their teachers:

Every student can learn when given the right supports, when their basic survival

needs are met, through relationships built with teachers, and there is a belief

among teachers and building administrators that they can make a difference and in

how they can change to make that difference. Efficacy is everything if you want

to make a difference. Being a teacher should not be about yourself or a paycheck.

This is the wrong reason to be in education.

Table 28 provides the response rate of teachers for only one subtheme.

Table 28

Relationships/Teachers

Teacher Responses nr pr

174

Total responses 3 43%

Community 2 29%

The subtheme of relationship with community had a frequency rate of 2 out of 7

teachers (29%). T3 described what occurred in her school when a local community

agency came to her school to tour.

I learned a little bit this year from a person from the City Gospel Mission. He

funds a lot of stuff because he is in the area. Now he’s on the school board. He

brings a good perspective since our children are from different countries, and he

said if you want the children to learn English they need to be successful in school

and their parents need to learn. So we now have two classes a week at the night

for parents because if the little ones begin to lose their language and when they go

home they can’t talk to their mom

T4 left public education to start a community charter school, sponsored by the

local university. She had this to say about building a relationship with the community:

Two years ago I was working in a charter school started by parents and the

university which had a lateral board membership. I was one of the teachers and

parents on the board. It was a diverse group, and we really felt we were able to

take federal mandates and implement them in our school in a way that was

respectful of our students, parents, and teachers. We were able to take whatever

the State and Federal mandates were and implement them in a way that best fit

our visions and mission. We were able to implement on the local level and not

have to worry about local district control. We were able to sit down together,

175

share drinks, and talk about what we wanted for our students. This was the first

time I ever felt empowered.

Money. Money or resource funding, had a frequency of 7 out of 13 participants

(54%) responding. Responses primarily came from 5 participants who were principals

(38%) and 2 teacher participants (15%). Resource funding is often done through grants,

vouchers, or revenue gained through tax levies. The control of money in each school is

handled mainly through Central Office. The responses covered areas impacted such as

lack of enough funding, schools having to find other ways to fund PD other and not

having true control over their budgets, money spent on failed reforms or reforms that

lasted only a year and then moved on, and need for funding of on-going resources.

The subthemes for Money were not identified as relevant by the respondents as a

whole group, but rather were relevant by either principals or by teachers. The number of

total respondents to this theme made it a relevant area. This was not a topic that was

covered by the literature. Table 29 provides responses about school funding, professional

development, building level control, and continual funding of resources.

Table 29

Money

Money nr pr

Overall responses 7 54%

Building vs. District Control 3 23%

On-going Resources 2 15%

Professional Development 2 15%

Table 30 provides the response rate of principals to two subthemes under Money

—Building vs. District control and Professional Development.

176

Table 30

Money/Principals

Principal Responses nr pr

Total responses 5 83%

Building vs. District Control 3 50%

On-going Resources 0 0%

Professional Development 2 33%

For Principals, Building vs. District control was a significant area under this

theme with 3 out of 6 principals (50%) responding. P1 shared that she was able to save

enough money in her budget to hire staff.

I liked it better when we had direct control of our budgets. I always saved money

and could hire more staff if I needed to. I had lower class sizes than we have

now. We didn’t have much money, and we would save our money for staff, so I

always had enough money to hire 1 or 2 staff than was allocated, which helped to

reduce class sizes. I like to see lower class sizes, especially at kindergarten. I

think 25 is too high.

P4 also responded that he wished he had more control:

It was challenging for me not to always have access to the funding that came with

the SIG grant. A real low point was when the person who had been in charge of

the SIG grant for 2 years left and a new person was now in charge of it. I met

with the new person who had and it became clear to me that not every penny of

every dollar was coming here or was being allocated exactly how I thought and

navigating how to make that happen proved challenging to me. Having clear

177

access to the financing is important so that the decisions we make we can

implement.

P6 expressed it this way:

Most important area of support is financial support. Lack of funds limits what I

can do as an educator. Studies have shown that a lack of financial resources does

impact efficacy. Educators should not be impacted by a lack of money.

Educators are our future, and the government is only hurting us. Why would you

hurt us (educators) when we are responsible for educating the future generation

who will be taking care of us?

The second subtheme under money concerns for principals was money for

professional development. Professional Development is necessary to inform, instruct,

and provide support when implementing new strategies. Principals must have a way to

fund necessary PD for their teachers. The district administrators require principals to use

the money in their own budgets to do this, yet they maintain control by approving or

denying spending requests.

Two out of 6 principals (33%) expressed their views on how the district monitors

and controls money for PD. P2 had this to say:

As a district, we use to have a lot of money but they pulled that back. It’s on the

schools. We have to take Title I money to allow professional development. You

have to put 10% in your budget to allow for professional development.

P3 believed the district spent too much money on a program that required flying

consultants in and then were dropped or faded out after just a couple of years.

178

In some cases they spend thousands of dollars flying these guys in to meet with

principals and they were doing stuff with teachers, then the second year they back

off a little and you don’t see them as often.

Table 31 shows the breakdown of the subthemes that teachers felt were important

when it came to funding needs. Though there were no teacher responses to the subtheme

of Building vs. District control of budget, 2 out of 7 teachers (29%) did respond about

money for more resources.

Table 31

Money/Teachers

Teacher Responses nr pr

Total responses 2 29%

Building vs. District Control 0 0%

On-going Resources 2 29%

Professional Development 0 0%

179

T2 stated, “It's hard to implement without needed resources.” Additionally, T7

replied “There needs to be more funding for materials. New programs should be

purchased by the district or funding should be provided for schools to buy the program

which are specific to Language Arts.”

Motivation. The final area of significant importance to school change as

perceived by principals and teachers was Motivation. Five out of 13 respondents (38%)

found this theme to be pertinent to the success of school reform. Motivation to

implement new strategies resulted in 5 out of 13 participants (38%) discussing their

beliefs about implementing new pedagogy and strategies, while 3 of 13 participants

(23%) discussed their motivation not too. Of the thirteen participants interviewed, 5 out

of 13 participants (38%) were in differing positions than from where they shared their

experiences. Four out of 7 teachers (57%) went to charter schools or overseas. One

administrator left to take a position with the local university. However, he had shared

that when he was not able to get the student scores up he decided to leave. Motivation is

another well-researched area and is included in the literature. Table 32 shows the

responses in the two areas of motivation for both principals and teachers.

Table 32

Motivation

Motivation Responses nr pr Found in Literature

Overall responses 7 54%

To implement 7 54% Yes

To remain in position 3 23% Yes

Literature has shown that principals are less likely to leave their current position

than are teachers. However, literature also shows that principals with a low sense of self-

180

efficacy are more likely to keep the school performing at a status quo level rather than put

forth the effort to implement new programs that they don’t believe in or they have not

had much success in implementing in the past. Table 33 provides the frequency response

rates in the theme of Motivation of principals.

Table 33

Motivation/Principals

Principal Responses nr pr

Total responses 2 33%

To implement 2 33%

To remain in position 1 17%

Though not seen as significant to principals, motivation to leave the position did

come from one principal. It is included here because it shows the impression this

principal had of himself, of the district initiative, and about school leadership.

P3 left his position and took a job with a university. He believed that it was his

lack of enthusiasm to implement the new program that lead to the poor scores of his

building.

As instructional leader, could I have done things differently, should have? Yeah,

probably. The test scores are still not where I want them to be. I want to see all

kids succeed and doing well. Of course we just got the initial report back; we

don’t have the value added information to see any growth or anything. Could we

have done better? Yes, I’m down on myself about where we could have been. I

probably should have presented the initiative in its initial stages when it was first

being rolled out as more of a positive thing and spinning it in that way. I know a

lot of principals came into their buildings and said, “This is how you’re going to

181

do things now, there is no discussion, this is the way it’s going to be” and I know

upper management was OK with that because this is what they wanted to see. I

didn’t take that track because I don’t know that cramming things done people’s

throat is the best way to get buy in. It really is total reflection on me because I

didn’t buy into it completely and totally and right or wrong, that was

communicated to the staff and it’s like “you know we’ve got to do this let’s just

go forward and do it, we’re going to make the best of it.”

P4 was much more positive about how he implemented initiatives in his building:

Late in the second year of the School Improvement Grant (SIG), working with the

county academic coaches, we thought we were really clicking and doing an

effective job on team talking about data. Different teams and different teachers

had come up with some ways in talking about data and getting students to set

goals. Our research shows goal setting improves student achievement and in the

middle school especially as well as the 9/10 and 11/12 teams. Although the

language was pushing back on it, the implementation was there and everybody

established some sort of system where they were getting students to set goals and

reflecting on their work over a certain period of time whether it was a unit or a

week or 3 days.

Table 34 shows the response data of teachers who reported their motivation to

leave or to implement new initiatives.

Table 34

Motivation/Teachers

Teachers/ Responses nr pr

Total responses 5 71%

182

To implement 3 43%

To remain in position 2 14%

Three out of 7 teachers (43%) talked about how they felt implementing new

strategies and pedagogy. T1 made this statement:

There's one program we have that the county wanted us to start using and for my

students 99% of them are reading below grade level and this particular program

they (the county) bought is very difficult for them. It's very different for them and

seeing them struggle with this program; I am, of course, less likely to use that

program and don’t feel confident to explain to administration why I am not using

the program and that I don't want to be constantly frustrating my children.

T3 was excited about using the new framework because it was similar to what she was

already doing.

As a school in (academic) emergency, we had to implement a new framework

given by the district and as we got used to it I found out it was something I had

been doing already and as a lead teacher. My team and the ILT phased that in as

it was already set up, and the centers and the pieces were kept the same. Only the

time was different. Pieces of the lesson were to be kept shorter, and the student

time on centers, and the individual teacher centers were to become longer. For

some people, it cramped their style, but for me it was more like the style I love

which is more student time and less time that the teacher actually had to talk. I

actually realize it at the time that I had actually had the leeway to do that.

T6 also found that implementing a new pedagogy could be rewarding and lead to more

creative instruction.

183

I felt that the CCSS were clear enough that I could logically and easily connect

the dots. We did reports using children's nonfiction books; read a LOT of books,

articles, excerpts on the Social Studies and Science content; answered text-

dependent questions; created Interactive Student Notebooks; created

PowerPoints/Prezis on content topics, etc. The more we did, the more ideas I had,

and the more I felt I improved with assigned tasks for the students. I felt my text-

dependent questions improved—last year I really wanted to start using them, so I

did, but very insecurely.

Among the teachers, four of the respondents had left their previous positions for

positions in charter schools or overseas. However, only two commented about why they

left. T4 was one of these teachers. She stated:

Politically, the experience of public school teachers trying to do the right thing but

after a while you get so tired and discouraged from getting beaten down by the

system that it became a job but not necessarily a passion. I love going to work

every day, but I would quit the minute that feeling ceased because that is when it

becomes a job and no longer a calling. This can affect the entire school culture

because “it’s a job, and I’m just here to do the job;” it can become very

depressing.

T5, who was leaving the country to go overseas to teach, put it this way:

Our school was rated Excellent for 2-3 years and then got bumped down and

redistricted. They took the Talented and Gifted (TAG) kids and moved them.

Our school brought in a high population of low poverty kids and when the scores

dropped the district came in and asked why this did happen? Taking out the

population that does excel and has high parent involvement and replacing it with a

184

population of kids from single parent homes, who spend time alone is going to

impact performance of the whole school. When we got the lower score, I left.

The talk was, and it was my fear, that the test prep stuff would start at the

beginning of the year so these kids could perform on a test for one day for 2 1/2

hours. So they started in September on how the questions were going to be

worded on the test and how to understand the wording. That negatively impacted

everything; so everyone is going to want the higher performing students.

Stamping schools as low performing is wrong because you are basically telling

those kids they are the product of that school and if they come to believe they are

lower functioning and as good as another school it comes back to self-filling

prophecy.

Review of the Main Findings

The following section will provide a triangulation of the data and give a review of

the main findings of this study.

Triangulation of data sources. Data were triangulated between the school

improvement status data retrieved from the NCES; survey data retrieved from the

completed Teacher and Principal Sense of Self-Efficacy Scales, and from the interviews

of study participants. The data revealed a hierarchy of needs that principals and teachers

believed were missing for supporting their efforts to bring about authentic improvement

in their schools. There were originally nine themes that came from the literature. An

additional seven themes emerged from the interviews with the 13 participants in this

study. Of these 16 themes, 9 emerged as being essential to the school improvement

process as perceived by principals and teachers. Within these 9 themes were subthemes,

some of which were from the literature and were a part of the original framework while

185

others emerged out of the interviews.

The themes that emerged as being relevant for school improvement at the building

level were Climate and Culture, Time, Self-efficacy, Expectations, Experiences,

Relationships, Professional Development, Money, and Motivation. The subthemes had

their own hierarchy of relevance among principals and teachers.

Climate and culture, with 85% of participants responding, had the subthemes of

implementation of school improvement processes and student behavior, which proved to

be the most relevant of the six subthemes that emerged under this concept.

Time, with a 77% response rate, emerged with seven subthemes, of which only

two were relevant; management of time, and collaboration with colleagues. Time

management was equally relevant among principals and teachers; however, time for

collaboration with colleagues was more relevant for teachers than for principals.

Self-Efficacy emerged with a 77% response rate as well. Principal self-efficacy

included self-efficacy for instructional leadership, self-efficacy for school management,

and self-efficacy for moral leadership. Of these three subthemes, instructional leadership

was the most relevant subtheme discussed. Teacher self-efficacy included self-efficacy

for instruction, self-efficacy for student engagement, and self-efficacy for classroom

management. Of these subthemes, self-efficacy for instruction emerged as the most

relevant.

Experiences emerged with a 77% response rate. Experiences influence self-

efficacy and expectations, and were context based. Among principals, experiences with

central office support, colleague support, and experiences in instructional leadership were

important in shaping principals beliefs of school improvement. Among teachers,

experiences with colleague support, district support, and principal support were important

186

to influencing respondents’ reactions and opinions of school improvement processes.

Expectations emerged with 77% response rate. 13 subthemes were generated

from the responses as well as from the literature. Five of the subthemes were found in

the literature but were not supported by responses from the respondents. Of the

remaining 8 subthemes, 4 were pertinent among the groups. Student Achievement and

principal support were the most relevant among teachers, while colleague support and

central office support was most relevant among principals.

Professional Development emerged with 69% participants responding. Two areas

of professional development were found to be relevant among the groups. Five out of 7

teachers (71%) believed it was important to have a support network of others who have

had the same training or success with a new strategy or initiative to whom they could turn

to for assistance and information. Three out of 6 principals (50%) believed that it is

important to have ongoing professional development over the same initiative or practice

to have it engrained into the climate and culture.

Relationships were important to 54% of the respondents with 8 subthemes

emerging. Of these 8 subthemes, 5 were considered to be the most relevant to the

participants. Relationships with Unions were more important among principals than

among teachers with 3 out of 6 principals (50%) commenting on their relationship with

the union, while no teachers commented on this subtheme. Additionally, the principal–

teacher relationship was found to be more important to principals than to teachers with 2

out of 6 principals (33%) sharing their beliefs in this area as compared to the 1 out of 7

teachers (14%) who commented. The teacher–student relationship was more important

among principals than among teachers with 3 out of 6 principals (50%) relating their

opinions in this subtheme and zero teachers responding in this area.

187

Next in the hierarchy was money. This qualified as a relevant theme with a

response rate of 54% or 7 out of 13 participants responding, however, the response rates

in three of the subthemes appeared relevant for one group but not the other. Each

subtheme did not qualify them as relevant. District control vs Building control over the

budget and Professional Development funding were considered important to principals

while on-going funding for resources was the only important area to teachers. Three out

of 6 principals (50%) felt they should have control over their budgets as opposed to the

district when making decisions about resources for their students. However, whereas no

principal discussed the need for money to support on-going professional development, 2

out of 7 teachers (29%) felt this was an important area of support for their ability to

effectively implement new strategies. Two out of 6 principals (33%) wanted more

money to provide professional development support for their staff, though not necessarily

on-going, yet no teachers commented in this area.

Finally, Motivation was at the bottom of the hierarchy with 5 out of 13

participants (38%) responding. Under this theme emerged two subthemes, motivation to

implement new initiatives or strategies and motivation to stay in their position. Of these

two subthemes, motivation to implement was seen as an area of importance by both

teachers and principals. The other subtheme, motivation to remain in the position, was

discussed only by teachers.

The results from these findings were a mix of what was expected and themes that

were not initially considered, and, therefore, emerged as unexpected responses. For

example, the theme of Climate and Culture, with 11 out of 13 participants (85%)

responding, was expected because the literature is rich with research in this area;

however, the theme of Time was not considered but turned out to be among the most

188

relevant themes generated from principals and teachers. Also, money emerged as a

relevant theme with 7 out of 13 participants (54%), 5 principals (38%) and 2 teachers

(15%), feeling money for resources was important for supporting improvement efforts.

This was a theme that was not considered when generating start codes nor was it present

in the literature.

There were four means of data collection used in this study. Data on school

performance were retrieved from the NCES. This data were used to determine the

accountability status of each school where participants worked. The Teacher Self-

efficacy Scale and the Principal Self-efficacy Scale measured the self-efficacy of teachers

and principals and were optional for participants. The fourth and primary source of data

collection were the semi-structured interviews with teachers and principals. The

following section will present the data retrieved from the secondary sources and how they

support the findings of the interview responses.

National Center for Educational Statistics data. The data reporting school

improvement status for each of the schools where participants worked came from the

NCES and was used to determine criteria for participant eligibility. The data included the

location of the participant’s district, the determination that the participant taught in a

public school, preferably in an urban area, and whether they had experience in teaching in

a school undergoing corrective action. Four of the 7 (57%) teachers had stated that they

were not currently teaching in a school that was in corrective status, but they had

previously. T1, T2, T4, and T5 had all taught in schools that had gone into corrective

status at least within the last 2 years. Each of them left their schools because of the

demands being made under school improvement, even in Year 1. The data from this

report showed that four of the schools had just recently entered school improvement

189

status. The remaining three schools were all in school improvement year 1 or more.

This data was retrieved from the NCES. As stated, four of the teachers had taught

in schools that had previously been high performing then slipped into school

improvement status. These teachers chose to leave their schools and teach in charter

schools or overseas rather than continue to another year in the improvement process. The

motivation to leave is a subtheme under Teacher Motivation and was addressed in the

literature. Teachers are more prone to leave their positions than are principals

(Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2004; Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001).

Principals are more likely to stay in their position even when entering school

improvement or remaining in school improvement over time. P3 left his position rather

than be non-renewed by his district. Removing the principal is a part of the turnaround

models mandated by the Race to the Top School Improvement Grants. P6 was removed

from her position and placed as assistant principal in another school, as was P5; although

after 3 years she was assigned once again as a principal over a magnet program.

Table 35 shows the number of years each participant operated under school

improvement status.

Table 35

Years in School Improvement

Years in School Improvement P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7

SIY1 X X X X X X X

SIY2

SIY3

SIY4 X X X X X X

Self-efficacy scales. The Teacher Sense of Self-efficacy Scale and the Principal

190

Sense of Self-efficacy Scale was a secondary means of data collection, used to determine

the level of self-efficacy of teachers and principals and to generate additional questions.

Self-efficacy is context specific (Bandura, 2001; Tshcannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy,

2001), so the questions generated from the questionnaires were not necessarily used for

all participants unless their experiences were similar and the responses warranted it. The

self-efficacy scales were not required to be completed, but participants were asked to

complete one. Of the participants who were interviewed, 5 out of 7 teachers (71%)

completed the Teacher Sense of Self-efficacy Scale and 3 out of 6 principals (50%)

completed the Principals Self-Efficacy Scale.

Teacher sense of self-efficacy scale. Six out of the 7 teachers (86%) completed

both the interview and the Teacher Sense of Self-efficacy Scale. The survey measured

teacher self-efficacy in three areas; (a) Efficacy for instructional strategies, (b) Efficacy

for student engagement, and (c) Efficacy for classroom management. Of these three

areas, all of the 6 participants who completed the survey scored themselves lowest for

student engagement. Efficacy for student engagement has no clear definition and is an

obscure concept (Tyler & Boelter, 2008). Student engagement has been shown to be a

multidimensional construct involving many facets of students’ motivation and interest in

school and academics (Zyngier, 2008). Factors that are attributed to self-efficacy of

student engagement include getting students to believe they can successfully complete

assignments, motivating students who show little or no interest in their schoolwork,

assisting families in helping their student do well in school, improving understanding for

failing students, promoting student creativity, and showing an ability to get through to the

toughest students (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001).

Of the interview responses given by all 7 teachers, 3 (43%) discussed student

191

engagement. Teachers often do not feel responsible for engaging students, but rather

expect students to be receptive to instruction, thereby becoming engaged (Harris, 2011).

Schools under the pressure of accountability may have difficulty creating and sustaining a

nurturing environment (Lee, 2012).

The other 3 teachers who scored low in this area of efficacy discussed more of

their ability to deliver instruction. Efficacy for instruction refers to the teacher’s ability

to effectively deliver instruction to all students along with using a variety of assessments,

reteach using alternative methods or explanations, create higher order questions

providing rigor and student discourse, answer difficult questions, and provide challenges

for capable students or use alternative strategies for less capable students (Tschannen-

Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). Teachers’ instructional behaviors can greatly influence

student work habits by encouraging them to participate in classroom activities (Turner &

Patrick, 2004). This area of self-efficacy was the second lowest area of teacher self-

efficacy. Of the 7 teachers, only 1 (14%) scored low over all in all areas of self-efficacy

for instructional strategies. This was the youngest of the group who had only taught 4

years.

Question 24 was also scored low on the self-efficacy scale. Question 24 inquired,

“How well can you provide appropriate challenges for very capable students?” This

question was scored low by 3 out of the 7 teachers (43%) who completed the survey.

Interview responses revealed two teachers who discussed trying to work with their gifted

students.

Self-efficacy for classroom management scored the highest among the 7 teachers.

Efficacy of classroom management includes the ability to control disruptive behavior, get

students to follow classroom and school rules, redirect and calm disruptive or noisy

192

students, make expectations clear for all students, establish routines, and establish a

classroom management system (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). One

hundred percent of the participants who completed the survey believed they had effective

classroom management skills; however, 3 out of 7 (43%) believed they had difficulty

with getting through to difficult students.

Principal sense of self-efficacy scale. Three out of 6 (50%) principals completed

the Principal Sense of Self-efficacy Scale. Principal self-efficacy is defined as a

principal’s judgment of his or her capability to shape a specific course of action to bring

about desired outcomes (Tshannen-Moran & Gareis, 2004). Principal self-efficacy, like

teacher self-efficacy, is context specific. The Principal Sense Self-efficacy Scale

measures three areas of self-efficacy of principals, (a) Efficacy for instructional

leadership, (b) Efficacy for management, and (c) Efficacy for moral leadership. P3, P4,

and P6 completed the survey. P3, the principal who left his position, scored himself high

in all areas with the exception of 5 questions. He scored himself average to low in 4 out

of 6 (66%) areas of management. He scored himself low in only 1 of 6 (16%) area of

instructional leadership in the area of raising student achievement scores. He scored

himself high in the six areas of moral leadership. His responses indicated that he felt he

was not a good manager of operations, time, and paperwork yet was a strong instructional

leader despite low student achievement scores.

P4 scored himself high in 10 out of 18 questions (56%). Of the 6 areas of

instructional leadership he scored himself high in the 4 areas (66%) of managing change,

creating a positive learning environment, raising student test scores, and motivating

teachers. He felt his instructional leadership was low in 2 areas (33%) for facilitating

student learning and generating enthusiasm for a shared school vision. He scored himself

193

low in the 4 management areas (66%) of handling the job demands, monitoring his daily

schedule, handling paperwork, and prioritizing among competing demands. He scored

high in the other 2 areas; coping with job stress and shaping operation policies and

procedures necessary for managing the school. In the area of moral leadership, P4 scored

high in 4 out of 6 areas (66%). He felt that he was strong in being able to promote a

positive image of the school, promoting the prevailing values of the community,

effectively handling the discipline in his school, and promoting ethical behavior among

school personnel. He scored himself low in the moral leadership areas of promoting

school spirit among the student population and promoting exceptional behavior among

students.

P6 scored herself low in 10 out of 18 questions (56%) on the survey and high in 8

out of 18 in the other areas (44%). She scored herself high for instructional leadership by

facilitating student learning and raising student achievement scores. She also scored

herself high in the management areas of monitoring her daily schedule, developing

effective operating policies and handling paperwork. She felt she was high with student

discipline and promoting acceptable behavior; however, she scored herself low for

motivating her teachers, creating a positive learning environment in her school,

promoting ethical behavior among her staff, and generating a shared vision for her

school. These areas all fall under instructional leadership except ethical behavior for

staff, which is moral leadership. In her responses, she believeD she was not a strong

instructional leader and failed to create a climate and culture that promoted a positive

learning environment.

Much like teacher self-efficacy, principal self-efficacy is influenced by the

amount of support, autonomy, and the relationships they have with the leadership at the

194

district level. Low principal self-efficacy will have a negative impact on teacher self-

efficacy, which filters down to student achievement (Finnigan, 2012; Kurt et al., 2012;

Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2004; Ware & Kitsantas, 2011). The effects of low

principal self-efficacy leads to a lack of vision or sense of direction for the school and can

result in a negative climate affecting student achievement (Finnigan, 2011; Leithwood &

Jantzi, 2008; Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2004).

Table 36 provides the response from the Teacher and Principal Sense of Self-

Efficacy Scale. High and low self-efficacy responses are shown by participant for each

area. The area of instruction refers to instructional leadership for principals and

instructional strategies for teachers. Likewise, the area of management refers to

managing the everyday operations of the school for the principal and classroom

management for teachers. The responses on the table show either a positive (+) sense of

self-efficacy or a negative sense (-) of self-efficacy.

Table 36

Survey Results

Theme Principal Sense of Self-efficacy Scale

Teacher Sense of Self-efficacy Scale

P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 T1 T2 T3 T4 5T T6 T7

Climate and Culture + + + - + + + - -

Instruction* + + - + + + + + +

Management** - - - + + + + - -

Moral Leadership + + +

195

Semi-structured Interviews. Interviews revealed that of the 6 principals

interviewed, 3 principals (50%) communicated a sense of strong self-efficacy while 1

principal (13%) communicated a lowered sense of self-efficacy. In the area of

instructional leadership, 3 out of the 6 principals (50%) interviewed reported a sense of

high self-efficacy to lead staff in ways that promoted student learning and achievement.

One principal conveyed a sense of low efficacy in this area. Although, on the PSES, P3

scored himself high for self-efficacy, his interview responses appeared to reveal the

opposite. Additionally, 2 out of 6 principals (33%) reported a high sense of efficacy for

management, while 1 principal (17%) reported a sense of low efficacy in this area. Two

out of the 6 principals (33%) who responded in this area described a sense of high

efficacy for moral leadership.

Table 37 shows the response rate per participant for each theme.

Table 37

Interview response rates per theme

Theme P1

P2

P3

P4

P5

P6

T1

T2

T3

T4

T5

T6

T7

Climate and Culture

X X X X X X X X X X X

Time X X X X X X X X X X

Self-efficacy X X X X X X X X X

Experiences X X X X X X X X X

196

Expectations X X X X X X X X X X

Professional Development

X X X X X X X X X

Relationships X X X X X X X X

Money X X X X X X X

Motivation X X X X X

Findings in the context of the theoretical framework. The theoretical

framework, introduced in chapter 2, addressed seven concepts that are interrelated, each

affecting the other either directly or indirectly, but all having an impact on student

achievement. These concepts, school improvement, teacher self-efficacy, principal self-

efficacy, motivation and expectations, context and experiences, climate and culture, and

student achievement, act on each other with climate and culture being the most

controlling factor. The findings have shown this interrelationship between the concepts

and have provided additional concepts that have been identified by principals and

teachers as having impact on their ability to effectively influence student achievement.

The climate and culture of a school has a radiating effect on every aspect of the

school community. It impacts teacher and principal self-efficacy, which in turn impact

motivation, expectations, and ultimately student achievement. Having a positive and

nurturing climate and culture results in positive experiences or contexts that aid in

strengthening teacher and principals expectations. However, if teachers and principals do

not believe they are effective in making an impact on their students, this could lead to a

negative climate and culture resulting in an opposite effect.

197

Self-efficacy is the belief or perception of an individual in his or her ability to

implement actions or behaviors needed to reach a desired outcome (Tschannen-Moran &

Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). Teacher self-efficacy has an impact on teacher expectations for

student achievement, student behavior, and student engagement and teacher motivation.

According to research, leadership is vital for successful school turnaround and is a highly

desirable resource for teachers yearning to improve (Finnigan, 2011; Price, 2012; Ware &

Kitsantas, 2011). Therefore, principals need to possess a sense of strong self-efficacy to

persevere against the challenges that come with the process of school improvement

(Leithwood & Jantzi, 2008; Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2004; Ware & Kitsantas, 2011)

Low principal self-efficacy has a negative impact on teacher self-efficacy that

filters down to student achievement (Finnigan, 2012; Kurt et al., 2012; Tschannen-Moran

& Gareis, 2004; Ware & Kitsantas, 2011). The effects of low principal self-efficacy

leads to a lack of vision or sense of direction for the school and can result in a negative

climate affecting student achievement (Finnigan, 2011; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2008;

Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2004).

Positive relationships between principals and teachers have been found to

promote higher levels of satisfaction and trust between stakeholders, cohesion around

school goals, and commitment from faculty (Dumay, 2009; Price, 2012). Teachers will

seek to have positive relationships with their principals to gain trust and good working

relations so they can gain what they need to influence their students’ learning. Effective

principals will seek to have positive relationships with teachers to bring about a positive

climate and culture where teachers who are well taken care of will take care of their

students and their learning. These principals work to have their teachers operate as a

team and will empower them to make decisions, have a voice in the shared vision and

198

mission of the school, and expect them to be able to work collaboratively.

Experiences play a role in how effective a teacher or principal feels about their

ability to effectively influence student learning. Bandura (2001) identified mastery as the

most effective means of raising self-efficacy. The more successful a teacher or principal

is in bringing about improvement in performance; the higher their self-efficacy will be

and the more likely they will persevere through outside influences such as poverty. The

less successful a teacher or principal is in bringing about improved performance the more

likely they are to avoid trying or begin to put blame on their inability to be effective on

the student, the parents, or influences that they have no control over. School

improvement has an adverse effect on the self-efficacy of both teachers and principals.

Teachers who initially believed their students could achieve are less sure of their beliefs

in the face of failure (Finnigan & Gross, 2007). When faced with having to change

accountability goals teacher will also change their own efficacy beliefs as well. Being in

school improvement also has an effect on the morale and motivation of teachers in

schools with the greatest student achievement difficulties (Finnigan & Gross, 2007). The

longer teachers are in probation status, the more their expectations decline as well as their

belief in their ability to accomplish the goal of improving student achievement.

Principal behavior shapes the climate and culture of a school (Price, 2012; Starr,

2012), and principal self-efficacy dictates what those behaviors will look like

(Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2004). The higher or stronger a principal’s sense of self-

efficacy, the more likely he or she will cultivate a positive learning environment while

also expediting school improvement policies and practices (Federici, 2013; Federici &

Skaalvik, 2012; Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2004). If a principal chooses to take a path

with the least resistance it allows the staff to become autonomous by requiring them to

199

only meet the compliance standards at their minimum, enough to get improved test scores

they may create an environment where very little sustained learning is taking place

(Knapp & Feldman, 2010, 2011).

Synthesis of findings. The findings in this study have shown that there are clear

interconnections between the themes that emerged through the data. Climate and culture

was the dominate theme and not only showed influence over other areas but also showed

being influenced by each of the other themes. Expectations grow out of teacher and

principal self-efficacy, which is influenced many times by the experiences that the

teachers and principals have been through. By the same token, the need for time greatly

impacts how a teacher or principal believes they can impact student achievement, which

also requires money and resources. Additionally, teacher self-efficacy and principal self-

efficacy greatly impact motivation and effort to implement new strategies, procedures,

and policies or be driving force behind their decision stay in their current position or

leave.

Both teachers and principals spoke of building relationships. Principals spoke of

the need for a strong relationship with the Superintendent to get the support required to

implement school reform initiatives. However, principals preferred to build strong

relationships with teachers to gain their confidence and buy in to effectively implement

new initiatives rather than have to deal with the Union, which they saw as an impediment

to their efforts. Teachers spoke about relationships with community agencies and the

resources these agencies bring into the school for their students.

The stronger the relationship is between a principal and a teacher or a

Superintendent and a principal; the more support is likely to be given. More support

leads to greater effort and motivation to implement change. Lack of support or poor

200

relationships have the opposite effect and lead to a toxic climate for learning.

Professional development, as desired by teachers, should be content specific and

support the new instructional strategies they are required to implement. Additionally, PD

should be network based, so teachers are able to collaborate, reflect, and gain new

knowledge from their colleagues. Professional development, as communicated by

principals, should be on-going and embedded into instruction. However, principals

wished to have control over their budgets to put professional development in place that

best meets the needs of their students and staff.

Practical utility of findings within the profession. The use of these findings

within the arena of school improvement are practical for designing school reform models.

By having principals and teachers at the table when decisions on school reform are being

made, it gives them the ability to voice what they believe is wrong with the school

improvement process and what they believe should be taking place for their individual

schools and students. Schools vary widely and are unique from each other even when in

the same district. What works for one school may not work for another. Therefore, it is

important to look at each school individually and make decisions based on what is known

about the students, families, and community where that school operates. By listening to

what teachers and principals have to say about their schools, their needs, and their vision,

districts and reformers will be able to better custom fit strategies for improvement that is

sustainable and ongoing. Additionally, this study showed that although climate and

culture are at the heart of school improvement, the beliefs that are held by teachers and

principals about their abilities to effectively bring about improved student achievement

do have an impact on whether a school progresses toward improvement or whether it

remains stagnant and in school improvement status.

201

Summary

Chapter 4 presented the findings of this study, which provided answers to the

initial research questions. The overall guiding question to this study was what are

teachers’ and principals’ beliefs about their ability to influence student learning impacted

while implementing school improvement practices? Through the use of semi-structured

interviews, teachers and principals relayed their experiences and beliefs about operating

under school improvement status and how they felt it inhibited their ability to impact

their students’ learning and achievement. Under this guiding question were two

subquestions. SQ1. What factors or experiences do teachers, and principals see as

having an impact on their sense of self-efficacy either negatively or positively during

these changes? SQ2. What knowledge, skills, or abilities do teachers, and principals

believe are necessary, yet are missing, to improve their classroom and leadership

practices to positively impact student learning? Teachers and principals conveyed what

they felt was missing, whether they believed they had the necessary skills to implement

what was being asked of them, and what they believed were obstacles to bringing about

authentic improvement of their schools. Themes and subthemes emerged as a result of

data collection using four sources of data and were presented in tables throughout the

chapter as each theme was discussed. Chapter 5 will elaborate further on these findings

and will provide implications for practice and recommendations for further research.

202

Chapter 5: Implications

There continues to exist pockets of low performing schools across the United

States. These schools, most of which are located in urban districts, remain in corrective

status despite targeted professional development (Clarke, 2009; Evans et al., 2002, Good

& McCaslin, 2008, U.S. DOE, 2010). Though there has been much research on causes of

failed reforms, there is little research that explores the beliefs of teachers and principal

regarding their ability to positively impact student achievement while functioning under

corrective status. This study addressed the gap in research for school level responses to

high stakes accountability policies. The purpose of this study was to explore the self-

efficacy beliefs of principals and teachers about their ability to positively impact student

achievement while also dealing with the climate and culture changes that are brought

about when going through the school improvement process.

This qualitative, multi-case study used the critical incident technique to collect

data from 13 participants who were recruited from online professional learning networks

and social media sites. The results provided building level responses to twelve themes,

nine that teachers and principals believed were needed to enhance their ability to

effectively influence student learning. The responses were sorted and categorized, using

NVivo 10, allowing for distinct themes to emerge. Pertinent sub-themes emerged within

the themes, some shared by both groups and some unique to each.

Using a multiple case study design for this investigation allowed for similar cases

to be reported on a single phenomenon within different contexts, adding strength to the

findings (Yin, 2013). Each of the teachers and principals who participated in the study

became a unique, single unit making each a different case (Yin, 2013). Critical incident

technique, known as CIT, was used to focus on critical events that may impact

203

performance either positively or negatively (Butterfield et al., 2005). The use of multiple

data sources for measuring the same phenomenon has been found to be a highly effective

means of supporting findings on a single phenomenon through triangulation of data (Yin,

2013). By bringing together the various data sources, triangulation addressed the

problems of construct validity because the different data sources not only reported on the

same phenomenon but ultimately supported the findings of each of the other sources

(Yin, 2013).

This study was significant to the arena of school improvement because it brought

out the voices of principals and teachers, key stakeholders in the process who are often

not considered when designing school reform. The opinions, concerns, and ideas of

teachers and principals need to be a part of the school improvement process (Tobin et al.,

2006; Wheatly, 2005) when implementing new strategies and promoting climate and

culture changes. These are the people who have the most impact on student learning and

by including them in the development and design process of school reform would bring

additional insights and practical means of implementation of best practices. This study

was significant therefore in allowing key stakeholders at the building level to have input

into what should take place to improve the climate and culture of their schools and

promote student achievement.

Limitations

The limitations to this study, which were presented in Chapter 3, included a risk

that the wording of the interview questions would change between participants causing

major changes in how each responded. Also, there was a chance of a low number of

respondents, which was also a consideration. An insufficient number of participants

could lead to a lack of lateral replication (Yin, 2013) as well as the inability to make a

204

determination of critical incidents (Butterfield et al., 2005). Another limitation could be a

threat of validity if participants had vague recall of incidents (Butterfield et al., 2005).

However, these potential limitations were addressed through the participant membership

being drawn from a variety of backgrounds and circumstances, such as their number of

years working under accountability sanctions, the type of school they recalled their

experiences from, either charter or public, and the saturation factor where, although from

different backgrounds and contexts, the responses provided aligned with the same

categories with few new themes occurring. This led to the determination that these were

common themes that exist across most school contexts and are shared by most educators

who have been through some part of the school improvement process.

Validity of findings

Four validity checks were made on the responses of each participant. The first

check required that for a theme to be considered a critical incident there had to be a

frequency of 25% among responses. The second check for validity regarded the point of

exhaustion; that point where no new ideas emerged as additional interviews took place.

The third check was a comparison of assumptions made in the scholarly research

presented in the literature. The final check was the reading back of the responses to each

participant to ensure it was transcribed correctly and there was no new information the

respondent wanted to add.

This study was conducted within all ethical boundaries and was approved by the

Institutional Review Board of Northcentral University before any data were collected or

interviews conducted. The use of numerical/alphabetical codes protected the identity of

participants and no identifying information was used in the findings description, which

would breach participant confidentiality. Participants were given a letter of informed

205

consent assuring confidentiality of their identity. Each participant was under no

obligation to complete the study and could withdraw at any time. Additionally,

participants could not to answer specific questions without any penalty.

The remaining sections of this chapter will cover the discussion and implications

of the findings by answering the research questions, the effects of the limitations on the

findings, and future recommendations. Results will also be linked to the research

literature on the themes covered in this study. Recommendations for future research and

professional practice will also be included.

Implications

There was one guiding question that drove this study. Under this guiding

question were two sub-questions.

Guiding question. How are teachers’ and principals’ beliefs about their ability to

influence student learning impacted while implementing school improvement practices?

SQ1. What factors or experiences do teachers and principals see as having an

impact on their sense of self-efficacy either negatively or positively during these

changes?

SQ2. What knowledge, skills, or abilities do teachers and principals believe are

necessary, yet are missing, to improve their classroom and leadership practices to

positively impact student learning?

The implications of the findings for the guiding question will be addressed first

using all the data collected. Then the data will be divided under the two sub-questions to

describe the implications for each. After answering the questions, a new framework will

be introduced that brings together the themes to show the effects of teacher and principal

beliefs on the school improvement process. Finally, recommendations for practical

206

professional and future research will be discussed.

Guiding Question Implications

How are teachers’ and principals’ beliefs about their ability to influence student

learning impacted while implementing school improvement practices?

The nine themes that emerged as critical for teachers and principals were

intertwined, each having an effect on the other. Table 38 shows the results of these

themes. The number of responses are indicated by (nr); the percentage of responses are

indicated by (pr) on the table.

Table 38

Frequency of Responses per theme

Theme nr pr

Climate and Culture 11 85%

Time 10 77%

Self-efficacy 10 77%

Experiences 10 77%

Expectations 10 77%

PD 9 69%

Relationships 7 54%

Money/Funding 6 46%

Motivation 5 38%

Principals and teachers interviewed in this study expressed nine areas they

believed were impacted by the school improvement process. Eleven out of 13

participants (85%) believed that school improvement practices hindered their ability to

promote a positive climate and culture conducive for student achievement. Ten out of 13

participants (77%) cited the areas of time, self-efficacy, and experiences being impacted

by the process. Nine out of 13 participants (69%) also cited professional development as

207

an area which is impacted, 7 out of 13 participants (54%) cited relationships as an

essential area that was impacted, while 6 out of 13 participants (46%) felt that money for

resources was a problem, and 5 out of 13 participants (38%) believed their motivation to

implement the initiative or decision to stay in their position was influenced through their

experience of operating under corrective status.

The participants shared experiences and beliefs in each of the nine areas;

providing insight into what they believed were factors that either promoted or hindered

their ability to influence student learning while also implementing changes in instruction,

policies, and procedures. The question was answered through the emergence of these

nine themes that were found to be essential to how they believed they needed to operate

under corrective status.

The nine themes were divided under the two sub-questions and provide a lens for

understanding how more direct, tangible events effect the motivational and emotional

state of teachers and principals as they attempt to foster a positive influence on students

learning while also complying with the mandates of school reform. Table 39 shows the

themes that answer each sub-research question.

Table 39

Research question with supporting themes

SQ1 SQ2

Climate/Culture Relationships

Time Expectations

Funding Motivation

Experiences Self-efficacy

Professional Development

208

Sub-question 1. What factors or experiences do teachers and principals see as

having an impact on their sense of self-efficacy either positively or negatively?

Experiences were described across several of the other sub-themes by 10 out of

13 participants (77%) and provided examples of what teachers and principals believed

were factors that impacted their self-efficacy. For example, under the larger theme of

climate and culture, 5 out of 13 participants (38%) believed their ability to effectively

implement new practices was greatly impacted given only a limited amount of time to

improve. Participants further cited their experience with limited support for managing

student behavior, which they perceived as having a direct effect on the climate and

culture. Low morale from the stress and pressure of operating under corrective status

was seen as another factor affecting their ability to influence student learning.

Time was another area cited by participants as being a factor that affected their

self-efficacy. Under the theme of time, 10 out of 13 participants (77%) believed that

more time was needed in such areas as creating climate and culture, implementing new

strategies, building relationships, and meeting the basic needs of students. Ten out of 13

participants (77%) believed they needed assistance in better managing their time around

all the required changes and new implementations, and paperwork that comes with school

improvement programs. Four out of 13 participants (31%) felt they needed time to

collaborate with colleagues as a way to share experiences and ideas on how to improve.

Among the teachers, 2 out of 7 (29%) believed they needed more time to become

proficient in one or two new practices rather than trying to implement several at once.

Two out of 6 principals (33%) expressed the need for more time to create climate and

culture change.

Money, or control of budget, and professional development were additional

209

factors that participants reported as impacting their ability to create change in their

schools. Three out of 13 participants (23%) believed they should have more control over

their budgets. This was an area exclusive to principals so 3 out of 6 principals (50%)

expressed their desire to control their own budgets to better align their resources to meet

the learning needs of their students. Further, control of budget would allow principals

control of how professional development is delivered. Five out of 13 participants (38%)

believed that there should be money to provide needed on-going resources to carry out

the new practices. Three out of 13 participants (23%) believed that professional

development should be content specific. The three participants were teachers, which

made this an essential area exclusive to teachers. Three out of 7 teachers (43%)

expressed this need.

Sub-question 2. What knowledge, skills, or abilities do teachers and principals

believe are necessary yet missing to improve their classroom and leadership practices to

positively impact student learning? Both teachers and principals stated that they didn’t

believe they were lacking in skill or knowledge. However, they did describe areas that

they believed were affected by the lack of time, money, and relevant professional

development, and their ability to promote climate and culture change.

Ten out of 13 participants (77%) described how their self-efficacy and

expectations were impacted by specific experiences, either positively or negatively,

during the school improvement process. Seven out of 13 participants (54%) described

their beliefs of the importance of creating relationships to promote a positive climate and

culture that in turn promotes student achievement, yet is greatly affected by a lack of time

to promote these relationships. Five out of 13 participants (38%) described their

motivation to leave their current positions or to implement new initiatives while under the

210

pressure of corrective status.

Ten out of 13 participants (77%) expressed their belief about their self-efficacy

and their ability to effectively influence student learning. Impact on efficacy for

instructional strategies or instructional leadership ability was cited by 10 out of 13

participants (77%), while 4 out of 13 participants (31%) shared their belief about their

ability to manage their classrooms or school. Self-efficacy for student engagement was

relayed by 4 out of 13 participants (31%) and was exclusive to teachers. This gave it a

high level of importance with 4 out of 7 teachers (57%) responding. Self-efficacy for

moral leadership was expressed by 2 out of 13 participants (15%); however, because this

was an area exclusive to principals, the response rate breaks down to 2 out of 6 principals

(33%) making it a critical area for this group. The school improvement process was seen

as the cause of lowered self-efficacy resulting in lowered motivation to implement

strategies as cited by 7 out of 13 participants (54%). Lowered self-efficacy and lowered

motivation also triggered 3 out of 13 participants (24%) to leave their positions rather

than continue to work under corrective status. This low response rate was exclusive to

teachers and broke down to 3 out of 7 teachers (43%) who chose to leave.

Expectations were also cited as a critical area of concern for both principals and

teachers. Colleague support was cited by 4 out of 13 participants (57%) as being

essential for them to be able to gain skills and ideas when implementing new strategies.

Student achievement was exclusive among teachers with 4 out of 7 (57%) and was a

concern due to their evaluations being linked to student performance. Their expectations

were low at times for what they thought their students could manage. Principal support

was an area vital to teachers also. Three out of 7 teachers (43%) expressed their

expectation of being supported by their principal in areas of classroom management and

211

professional development. Two out of 7 teachers (29%) had expectations for student

behavior that was believed to either enhance or interfere with their ability to implement

new instructional practices and relied on the principal to support and assist with

managing disruptions. Three out of 6 principals (50%) expressed the need for Central

Office support in areas of climate and culture change, resources and funding, and clear

communication of the new initiatives.

Relationship building was another area that was seen as being vital for successful

school turn around. The areas of Union relationships, Principal–Teacher relationships,

and Teacher–Student relationships were seen as important exclusively to Principals with

3 out of 6 (50%) listing these areas. Teachers believed they needed to form strong

relationships with the community to secure vital resources for their students. Two out of

7 (29%) teachers identified the community–school relationship as being an important

gateway to resources during school improvement.

The next section will discuss how the findings support current research in each of

these areas and provide a pathway to a new conceptual framework that presents what

factors must be in place to promote positive reactions to school improvement and

changes to school culture.

Discussion of Findings in Relation to Research Literature

The Literature Review presented in Chapter 2 provided rich research in seven of

the nine themes revealed in this study. The two themes not represented in the literature

were Professional Development and Money. Climate and Culture was found to be the

most critical factor as expressed by both teachers and principals. Experiences, Time,

Expectations, and Self-efficacy were also strong among the results. Relationships,

Professional Development, Money, and Motivation were at the lesser end of this

212

hierarchy yet were found to have as much influence on Climate and Culture change as the

other four areas.

Principals are responsible for shaping the climate and culture of their schools.

School Improvement means changing the climate and culture of the school, which

promotes high student achievement. The Principals in this study described the climate

and culture of their schools and what helped promote, or hinder, this culture. One

principal talked of taking care of her staff, another talked about the lack of support from

the district for handling student discipline, while a third described his teachers’ passion

for working with students who come from poverty. Research has shown that building

strong relationships with stakeholders, caring for the well-being of teachers,

strengthening teacher self-efficacy through positive experiences and support, promotes a

strong climate and culture conducive to learning and student achievement (Dumay, 2009;

Fullan, 2006; Kruse, 2008; Price, 2012). Research additionally found that the

Superintendent has a high influence over the climate and culture that exists in schools

(McFarlane, 2010).

Teachers spoke of climate and culture from the perspective of managing student

behavior. Two teachers did not feel completely supported by the principal in their efforts

to manage student behavior in the classroom. One teacher stated that the principal only

thought she was being supportive yet suggested that the teacher needed to be more

creative in her discipline tactics, which the teacher translated as “It’s your problem, deal

with it”. The other teacher described how the principal told her to not become a victim

but didn’t offer solutions. Research suggests that when teacher needs are met through

administrative support and the well-being of teachers is a priority, teacher self-efficacy

improves, which has a direct impact on the climate and culture of the school (Deci &

213

Ryan, 2012; Karsli & Iskander, 2009; Shah et al., 2012; Valli et al., 2012).

Teachers and Principals further described experiences in which they had support

from administration, which promoted their efforts to bring about improvement as well as

experiences they believed showed a lack of support. One principal described how she

was supported by her Assistant Superintendent by allowing her to ask for whatever she

needed for her students and she would try to make it happen. This wasn’t the case with

the previous Assistant Superintendent whom she said really didn’t do much and had very

little communication with her. Research has shown that administrative support and

handling of problems provides principals with increased satisfaction and promotes their

motivation to continue their turnaround efforts (Shah et al., 2009). Another principal

described her experience with being given autonomy over many of her decisions because

of the past performances of her school. She stated that because of this she needed little

support. This supports research that found that people believe that their own behaviors

are effective due to their experiences (Yenice et al., 2012).

Teachers described experiences of principal support for discipline, new teacher

evaluation tools involving the opinions of students, collaborating with colleagues, gaining

new knowledge through professional development, and having to work with low-level

students without having a background in special needs nor the knowledge to be able to

work effectively with this student population. Two teachers described negative

experiences with having to work with low-level students without having the formalized

training to do so. Another teacher described her disagreement with students evaluating

her, while another teacher spoke of positive experiences of collaborating with her

colleagues to gain new information and share ideas. Research has shown that through the

experience of working with low-level students teachers develop low expectations for

214

those students, believing that not all students can learn at a higher level (Bandura, 1977;

Sirota & Bailey, 2009). Teacher collaboration and networking is seen as a type of

professional development and was not found in the research literature but rather emerged

through the interviews with teachers and principals and was considered to be essential for

vicarious experiences in which teachers learn from each other.

Time emerged as another area that ranked high as a critical need for teachers and

principals as they bring about change in their school climate and culture and student

performance. Principals believed they needed time to cultivate the change in the climate

and culture of their schools, to implement the new practices, and to still meet the basic

needs of their students. Teachers desired time to master one or two initiatives and their

implementation as opposed to several new initiatives at once. They also wanted time to

collaborate with their colleagues to share ideas and experiences as a way to learn from

one another. Both principals and teachers wanted assistance with time management for

all that were involved with improving their school. This supports the literature, which

suggests that most school reform targets immediate results, rather than allowing time for

teachers and students to master the content (Davies, 2002). Additional research

established that climate and culture change takes time to become embedded as it replaces

existing norms, structures, and processes (Fullan, 2006).

Expectations were considered important for creating school change. Teachers

held expectations for student achievement, student behavior, principal support, and

colleague support. Student achievement was seen either as not possible except at a

lowered level or quite possible if given the materials and supports needed to promote it.

These responses supported the literature, which purported that teachers hold students to

expectations dependent upon the type of support they receive from their principal and

215

professional community (Kelly & Finnigan, 2003). Teachers held students to higher

expectations when they were supported and were under less stress of job loss (Kelly &

Finnigan, 2007). Another teacher in the study was discouraged by the expectations

exhibited by her colleagues toward second language learners, citing that they didn’t think

the students understood them or could learn due to barriers of language. This supports

the research that teachers with low self-efficacy will either blame students from different

ethnic backgrounds for their own lack of success (Sirota & Bailey, 2009; Sosa & Gomez,

2012; Tucker et al., 2005) or teachers believe they do not possess the skills necessary to

teach this population of students and therefore their efforts will have little or no influence

on their learning (Auwater & Aruguette, 2008).

Principals cited expectations for Central Office support and Colleague support.

Central Office support was described as communicating fully and clearly the plan for

change, providing the necessary training and funding needed to implement change and

providing resources in the way of funding or staffing to support student needs.

Additionally, Principals expected Central Office to provide time for them to meet and

collaborate with colleagues to problem solve, share ideas, and provide support for each

other. The literature did not provide research on principal expectations.

Teacher and Principal Self-Efficacy was another area of high importance for

climate change. Teachers and Principals shared their experiences of self-efficacy as well

as taking an online survey. Teacher self-efficacy has direct impact on student

achievement (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001) while principal self-efficacy has

a direct impact on teacher self-efficacy and therefore an indirect impact on student

achievement (Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2004). The teachers in the study shared

different experiences that both promoted as well as deflated their sense of self-efficacy.

216

One teacher talked about working with low-level students but not being able to show

much progress in their learning due to their limited abilities despite her Master’s Degree

in reading. Another teacher shared that her self-efficacy was high due to the new

initiative of using iPads for language arts and how skillful she found herself to be in the

instruction of their use. Another teacher shared her lowered sense of self-efficacy due to

her low rating on a student survey while another teacher found her self-efficacy to be

lifted when implementing the Common Core Standards and found ways to add creative

new activities. These experiences support the research findings that self-efficacy is a

perspective of how effectively a teacher believes she or he is in influencing student

learning (Tschannen-Moran & Woofolk Hoy, 2001) and that it is influenced by factors as

student conduct, unfamiliarity of content, student ability levels, and principal support

(Tschannen-Moran & Woofolk Hoy, 2001).

Relationships were seen as being essential to bringing about climate and culture

change. Principals shared how they built relationships with teachers, which enhanced

their ability to promote change. Teachers shared how building relationships with the

community helped to bring needed resources to their students. One principal shared that

she builds strong relationships with her teachers, creating a “family atmosphere” where

teachers and students care for each other. This way, she feels she keeps the union at bay

by providing for the needs of her teachers. Another principal shared that it is the

relationship between teachers and students that promotes student achievement. This

supports research that shows that positive and caring relationships where students,

parents, and teachers are valued and cared for is critical to creating a positive and

nurturing climate and culture (Lance, 2010). Additionally, research shows that positive

relationships between principals and teachers promote higher levels of trust and

217

satisfaction resulting in a strong, positive climate and culture (Dumay, 2009; Price, 2012)

and support opportunities to improve teacher self-efficacy and promote positive attitudes

toward change and improvement ( Kruse, 2008). Teachers shared that relationships with

community agencies provided them with information about cultural practices of their

students and brought in resources that helped their students emotionally. The research on

relationship building shows that to create real reform, teachers and administrators need to

value their students first and focus on their needs (Lance, 2010).

Motivation was seen as effecting school improvement. Motivation is an effect of

teacher and principal self-efficacy. Motivation is also an effect of experiences, positive

or negative. Motivation was not as highly ranked in this study; however, it did emerge as

a critical area for either fully implementing or not fully implementing new initiatives, as

well as whether teachers and principals remained in their current position under

corrective status or chose to leave. Of the seven teachers interviewed, four of them

shared that they had left their previous school because of the school moving into

corrective status and they didn’t want to have to go through the improvement process,

which they found overwhelming, saturated with paperwork and trainings. One Principal

chose to leave his position due to what he cited as his inability to raise student test scores

after several years in school improvement status. Under Federal Mandates, one of the

turnaround models is to replace the principal. Rather than be non-renewed, he chose to

resign and take a position at the local university. Research on motivation purports that

when experiencing school improvement, skilled teachers’ self-efficacy may be lowered

leading them to experience a lack of motivation to do their job effectively due to a lack of

belief in their own competence, by what they believe to be poor working conditions that

are not conducive to teaching and learning, or to an atmosphere of unfriendliness and

218

stress (Shah et al., 2012). Further, research indicates that lowered self-efficacy of teacher

and principals leads to a lack of motivation to exert effort in promoting student learning

and achievement (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). The Principal who chose

to leave his position stated that he knew his actions and attitudes toward implementing

the district initiatives were negative and this influenced how the teachers in his school felt

about having to implement them as well. Research conducted by Tschannen-Moran and

Gareis (2004) reflected this reaction, stating that Principals need to understand and

recognize how their attitudes and emotions effect teachers during the change process.

Recommendations for Practice

From the results of this study a framework emerged in the form of a hierarchy of

practical needs which Principals and Teachers believed must be met before moving

toward an improved climate and culture where student achievement is the result. Each

need must be met before the next can happen. When the basic need of time, money,

professional development, and positive experiences do not occur, the other needs will

breakdown creating a toxic climate where learning is not taking place and there is no

progression toward a higher level of improvement. Figure 3 shows the framework, The

Conley Hierarchy.

Student Achievement

Climate and Culture

Time, Money, Professional Development, Experiences

Experiences

Motivation, Expectations, Relationships

219

Figure 3. The Conley Hierarchy for supporting principals and teachers during school improvement.

This hierarchy shows how each level must be met to provide improvement at the

next level. The first level involves meeting the need for more time for implementation

and creation of a climate and culture conducive to learning along with relevant

professional development which is ongoing and aligned to student needs. Additionally at

this level is the need for financial resources to support professional development and

secure resources and material. When these practical needs are met, they will lead to

positive motivation, higher expectations, and stronger relationships. This level will

promote a higher sense of self-efficacy for both teachers and principals which in turn will

result in a positive climate for learning, culminating in higher student achievement.

However, if the practical needs of financial resources, professional development, positive

Principal and Teacher Self-Efficacy

220

experiences, and time for mastery of new strategies and the cultivation of a positive

climate and culture, then the hierarchy will result in a toxic climate that shows little or no

progression toward improvement. In the Center of the hierarchy is Teacher and Principal

Self-efficacy and Climate and Culture. These areas are continuously impacting each

other whether negatively or positively. So providing for the practical needs at the lower

end of the hierarchy will result in continuous improvement that is sustainable.

Recommendation for Future Research. This study revealed that there are

attitudes, opinions, and conflicting beliefs or philosophies that affect the improvement

process of schools that are identified as failing. It would prove valuable to replicate this

study with a larger sample drawn from the same population. Teachers and principals

operate in different contexts across the nation yet have similar concerns and similar needs

when it comes to implementing change.

The Conley Hierarchy of Practical Needs for School Improvement is not context

specific but rather should be viewed as universal. The elements of time, professional

development, positive experiences, and financial resources are needs most teachers and

principals require to be effective in their job. Therefore, doing a quantitative comparison

study between teachers and principals in an achieving school and those in a failing school

would provide insight to whether all elements are needed or only part of the elements are

needed to provide the motivation and expectation of success thereby supporting high self-

efficacy of teachers and principals resulting in higher student achievement.

Another recommendation that would prove beneficial to gaining further insight

into the needs of principals and teachers during the school improvement process may be

to take each element of the Conley Hierarchy and conduct quantitative relational studies

with hypotheses around each element of the framework. Such a study could supply

221

further knowledge into how these elements work together to promote teacher and

principal self-efficacy when working to change and improve the climate and culture of a

school in corrective status.

Conclusion

School success or failure is dependent on the climate and culture in which

students operate every day. Promoting a strong and positive school culture relies on the

experiences that take place daily and the relationships that are built between principals,

teachers, students, and parents. The self-efficacy beliefs of principals and teachers

promote the type of culture found within a school. By making principals and teachers an

integral part of a school improvement design team provides them with the professional

respect and relationships they strive for, permits their voices to be heard, and their ideas

to be considered. By having these key players involved empowers them to work toward

implementing changes themselves, without the feeling of being forced to implement

strategies and programs they disagree with or see the potential for improvement such

changes may bring.

Implementing only one or two changes in a failing school will ensure that the new

practice is well established among the staff and becomes a part of the climate and culture

of the building. Implementing fewer changes will reduce stress and feelings of being

overwhelmed, often experienced by teachers when being asked to implement multiple

new strategies and procedures. Allowing time for changes to become well established

before implementing new ones gives teachers a chance to become proficient in what they

are being asked to do and will lead to higher levels of self-efficacy and confidence, which

also brings about greater student self-efficacy that leads to greater student performance.

For teachers to continue to be motivated, they need positive experiences often

222

found through support from their principals. Principals know teachers are the most

important resource they have because of the amount of time teachers spend with students.

They know that teachers have a strong influence on students either positively or

negatively. Therefore, giving teachers the support they need with instruction, student

engagement, or classroom management will motivate teachers to put forth the effort to

improve their students’ academic performance. The same can be said about principals

and their need for support from Central Office. Superintendents have a great influence

over the climate and culture of a building and therefore can make or break a school and

its attempt at improvement. Principal self-efficacy increases when they have the support

and assistance they need from Central Office to lead the change process in their schools.

Without such support, principals will experience a lowered sense of self-efficacy out of

frustration to create change and will resort to keeping the status quo of their current level

of performance rather than attempt to push their staffs to make change.

Change in the climate and culture of a school occurs through a culmination of all

these areas. What teachers and principals believe about their ability to influence student

learning does matter and does impact whether change is implemented successfully. By

ensuring the their voices are heard, their ideas and opinions are a part of the decision and

design of school improvement changes, and then providing them with the time,

professional development, and resources they need to make it happen will result in

empowerment and strong sense of ability to make change happen and to make it

sustainable and continuous.

223

References

Alam, M. T., & Farid, S. (2011). Factors affecting teacher motivation. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2, 298-304. http://www.ijbssnet.com/journals/Vol._2_No._1%3B_January_2011/30.pdf.

Al-Fadhli, H., & Singh, M. (2006). Teachers’ expectancy and efficacy as correlates of school achievement in Delta, Mississippi. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 19. 51-67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11092-007-9032-9

American Recover and Reinvestment Act, Pub. L 111-5 (2009).

Atkinson, E. S. (2000). An investigation into the relationship between teacher motivation and pupil motivation. Educational Psychology, 20, 45-57. http://dx.dox.doi.org/0144-3410/00/010045-13

Auwater, A. E., & Aruguete, M. S. (2008). Effects of student gender and socio-economic status on teacher perceptions. The Journal of Educational Leadership, 101, 242-246. http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/joer.101.4195-206

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191

Barnett, K. & McCormick, J. (2004). Leadership and individual principal-teacher relationships in schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40, 406-434. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013161X3261742

Beachum, F., & Dentith, A. M. (2004). Teacher leaders creating cultures of school renewal and transformation. The Educational Forum, 68, 276- 285. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131720408984639

Beavans, K., Bradshaw, C., Meich, R., & Leaf, P. (2007). Staff- and school-level predictors of school organizational health: A multilevel analysis. Journal of School Health, 77, 294-302. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.2007.00210.x

Beets, M. W., Flay, B. R., Vuchinich, S., Acock, A. C., Li, K. K., & Allred, C. (2008). School climate and teachers' beliefs and attitudes associated with implementation of the positive action program: A diffusion of innovations model. Prevention Science, 9, 264-275. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11121-008-0100-2

Bell, L., & Kent, P. (2010). The cultural jigsaw: A case study exploring the ways in which sixth-form students perceive school culture. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 38, 8-32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1741143209351663

224

Bieg, S., Rickelman, R. J., Jones, J. P., & Mittag, W. (2013). The role of teachers’ care and self-determined motivation in working with students in Germany and the United States. International Journal of Educational Research, 60, 27-37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2013.04.002

Blankstein, A. (2009). Failure is not an option. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Bolger, R., & Nir, A. E. (2012). The importance of teachers' percieved organizational support to job satisfaction: What's empowerment got to do with it? Journal of Educational Administration, 50, 287-306. http://dx.doi.org:10.1108/0957823121223310

Bosack, A. R., Vega, R. McCaslin, M., & Good, T. L. (2008). Teacher support of student autonomy in comprehensive school reform classrooms. Teachers College Record, 110, 2389–2407. Retrieved from http://www.selfdeterminationtheory.org/SDT/documents/2008_Bozacketal_StudentAutonomyComprehensiveSchoolReformClassrooms_TCR.pdf

Brackett, M. A., Reyes, M. R., Rivers, S. E., Elbertson, N. E., & Salovey, P. (2011). Classroom emotional climate, teacher affiliation, and student conduct. Journal of Classroom Interactions, 46, 27-46. Retrieved from http://ei.yale.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/pub319_Brackettetal_2011_JCI.pdf

Brinson, D., & Steiner, L. (2007). Building collective efficacy: How leaders inspire teachers to achieve [issue brief]. Retrieved from The Center for Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement website: http://deimos3.apple.com/WebObjects/Core.woa/DownloadTrackPreview/learningpt.org.1772155838.01772155841.1774425104.pdf

Butterfield, L. D., Borgen, W. A., Amundson, N. E., & Maglio, A. T. (2005). Fifty years of the critical incident technique: 1954-2004 and beyond. Quality research, 5, 475-497. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1468794105056924

Cagle, K., & Hopkins, P. (2009). Teacher self-efficacy and the supervision of marginal teachers. Journal of Cross disciplinary Perspectives in Education, 2, 25-31. Retrieved from http://jcpe.wmwikis.net/file/view/cagelhopkins.pdf

Cannon, M. D. & Edmondson, A. C. (2005). Failing to learn and learning to fail (intelligently): How great organizations put failure to work to innovate and improve. Long Range Planning, 38, 299-319. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2005.04.005

Cantrell, S. C., & Callaway, P. (December, 2007). High and low implementers of content literacy instruction: Portraits of teacher efficacy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, Austin, TX.

225

Cantrell, S. C., & Callaway, P. (2008). High and low implementers of content literacy instruction: Portraits of teacher efficacy. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 24, 1739-1750. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2008.02.020

Center on Educational Policy. (2008). CEP testimony on NCLB school restructuring. Retrieved from http://www.cep-dc.org/cfcontent_file.cfm?Attachment=Scott%5FTestimony%5FLittleHooverCommission%5F012408%2Epdf

Chan, W., Lau, S. Nie, Y., Lim, S., Hogan, D. (2008). Organizational and personal predictors of teacher commitment: The mediating role of teacher efficacy and identification with school. American Educational Research Journal, 45(3), 597.

http//dox.doi.org/10.3102/00028318259

Chiang, H. (2009). How accountability pressure on failing schools affects student achievement. Journal of Public Economics, 93, 1045-1057. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2009.06.002

Childress, S., Elmore, R., & Grossman, A. (2006). How to manage urban school districts. Harvard Business Review, 84(11), 55-68. Retrieved from http://hbr.org/2006/11/how-to-manage-urban-school-districts/ar/1

Cho, Y., & Shim, S. S. (2013). Predicting teachers’ achievement goals for teaching: The role of perceived school goal structure and teachers’ sense of efficacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 32. 12-21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.12.003

Chong, W. H., Klassen, R. M., Huan, V. S., Wong, I., & Kates, A. D. (2010). The relationships among school types, teacher efficacy beliefs, and academic climate: Perspective from Asian middle schools. The Journal of Educational Research, 103, 183-190. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220670903382954

Clarke, P. (2009). Sustainability and improvement: A problem ‘of’ education and ‘for’ education. Improving Schools, 12, 11-17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1365480208100242

Cohen, J., McCabe, E. M., Michelli, N. M., & Pickeral, T. (2009). School climate: Research, policy, practice, and teacher education. Teachers’ College Record, 111, 180-213. Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentId=15220

Connors, R., & Smith, T. (2011). Change the culture, change the game. New York, NY: Penguin Books.

Corkett, J., Hatt, B., & Benevides, T. (2011). Students and teacher self-efficacy and the connection to reading and writing. Canadian Journal of Education, 34, 65-98. Retrieved from http://ojs.vre.upei.ca/index.php/cje-rce/article/view/355/838

Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

226

Davies, B. (2002). Rethinking schools and school leadership for the twenty-first century: Changes and challenges. International Journal of Educational Management, 16, 196-206. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/095135402104432182

Deal. T. E., & Peterson, K. D. (2009). Shaping school culture: The heart of leadership. San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The 'what' and 'why' of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-268. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Facilitating optimal motivation and psychological well-being across life's domains. Canadian Psychology, 49, 14-23. http://dx.doi.org:10.1037/0708-5591.49.1.14

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2012). Motivation, personality, and development within embedded social contexts: An overview of self-determination theory. In R. M. Ryan (Ed.), Oxford handbook of human motivation (pp. 85-107). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Deke, J., Dragoset, L., Bogen.K., & Gill, B. (2012). Impacts of Title I Supplemental Educational Services on Student Achievement (NCEE 2012-4053). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

de la Torre Cruz, M. J., & Casanova Arias, P. F. (2007). Comparative analysis of expectancies of efficacy in in-service & prospective teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 23, 641-652. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2007.02.005

Desimone, L. M., & Long, D. A. (2010). Teacher effects and the achievement gap: Do teacher and teaching quality influence the achievement gap between Black and White and high- and low-SES students in early grades? Teachers College Record, 112, 3024-3073. Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org/library/abstract.asp?contentid=16047

Dessel, A. (2010). Prejudice in schools: Promotion of an inclusive culture and climate. Education and Urban Society, 42, 407- 429. http://dx.doi.org:10.1177/0013124510361852

Drago-Severson (2012). New opportunities for principal leadership: Shaping school climates for enhanced teacher development. Teachers College Record, 114, 1-44. Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org/library

Dumay, X. (2009). Origins and consequences of schools’ organizational culture for student achievement. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45, 523-555. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013161X09335873v1

227

Duncan, A. (2012, March). Working in the nations’ lowest performing schools: A progress report. Paper presented at the 2nd Annual Building a Grad Nation Summit. Retrieved from U.S. Department of Education website: http://www.ed.gov/news/speeches/working-nations-lowest-performing-schools-progress-report

Dweck, C. (2000). Self-theories: The role of motivation, personality, and development. New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Eaker, R., & Keating, J. (2008) A shift in school culture: Collective commitments focus on change that benefits student learning. Journal of Staff Development, 29(3), 14-17. Retrieved from http://www.nsdc.org/news/issueDetails.cfm?issueID=238

Erdem, E., & Demirel, O. (2007). Teacher efficacy belief. Social Behavior and Personality, 35, 573-586. http://dx.doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2007.35.5.573

Eres, F. (2011) Relationship between teacher motivation and transformational leadership characteristics of school principals. International Journal of Education, 3(2), 1-17. http://dx.doi.org/10.5296/ije.v3i2.798

Evans, L., Thorton, B., & Usinger, J. (2012). Theoretical frameworks to guide school improvement. NASSP Bulletin, 96, 154-171. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/019263651244471

Eyal, O., & Roth, G. (2010). Principals’ leadership and teachers’ motivation self-determination theory analysis. Journal of Educational Administration, 49, 256-275. http://dx.dox.doi.org/10.1108/09578231111129055

Federici, R. A. (2013). Principals’ self-efficacy: Relations with job autonomy, job satisfaction, and contextual constraints. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 28, 73-86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10212-011-0102-5

Federici, R. A., & Skaalvik, E. M. (2011). Principal self-efficacy and work engagement: Assessing a Norwegian principal self-efficacy scale. Social Psychology of Education, 14, 575-600. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11218-011-9160-4

Federici, R. A., & Skaalvik, E. M. (2012). Principal self-efficacy: relations with burnout, job satisfaction, and motivation to quit. Social Psychology of Education, 15, 295-320. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11218-012-9183-5

Fernandez, K. E. (2009). Evaluating school improvement plans and their effect on academic performance. Educational Policy, 25, 338-367. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0895904809351693

Fernet, C., Guay, F., Senécal, C., & Austin, S. (2012) Predicting intraindividual changes in teacher burnout: The role of perceived school environment and motivational factors. Teaching and Teacher Education 28, 514-525. http:/dx.dox.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.11.013

228

Fillis, I. (2006). A biographical approach to researching entrepreneurship in the smaller firm. Management Decisions, 44, 198-212. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00251740610650193

Finnigan, K. S. (2009). Review of Objectifying measures: The dominance of high-stakes testing and the politics of schooling by A. W. Johnson. The Teachers College Record. Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org/books/abstract.asp?ContentId=15850

Finnigan, K. S. (2012) Principal leadership in low performing schools: A closer look through the eyes of teachers. Education and Urban Society, 44, 183-202. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013124511431570

Finnigan, K. S., Daly, A. J., & Stewart, T. J. (2012). Organizational learning in schools under sanction. Education Research International, 2012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2012/270404

Finnigan, K. S., & Gross, B. (2007). Do accountability policy sanctions influence teacher motivation? Lessons from Chicago’s low performing schools. American Educational Research Journal, 44, 594-630. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0002831207306767

Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin, 51, 327-358. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0061470

Freeman, M., de Marrais, K., Preissle, J., Roulston, K., & St. Pierre, E. A. (2007). Standards of evidence in qualitative research: An incitement to discourse. Educational Researcher, 36, 25-32. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X06298009

Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass.

Fullan, M. (2006). Turnaround leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Fullan, M., Hill, P., & Crevola, C. (2006). Breakthrough. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. H. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 569-582. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.76.4.569

Goddard, R. G., Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2004). Collective efficacy: Theoretical development, empirical evidence, and future directions. Educational Researchers, 33(3), 3-13. Retrieved from http://www.greatschoolsnow.com/02ERv33n3-Goddard_Collective_Efficacy.pdf

229

Good, T. L. (2008). In the midst of comprehensive school reform: Principals’ perspectives. Teachers College Record, 110, 2341-2360. Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentID=15277

Good, T. L., & McCaslin, M. (2008). What we learned about research on school reform: Considerations for practice and policy. In M. McCaslin & T. L. Good (Eds.), Teachers college record, special issue: School reform matters, 110, 2475-2495. Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentId=15286

Grayson, J. L., & Alverez, H. K. (2008). School climate factors relating to teacher burnout: A mediator model. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 24, 1349-1363. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016.j.tate.2007.06.005

Gremler, D. D. (2004). The critical incident technique is service research. Journal of Service Research, 7, 65-89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1094670504266138

Gross, B., Booker, T. K., & Goldhaber, D. (2009). Boosting student achievement: The effect of comprehensive school reform on student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31, 111-126. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/01623709333886

Halvorsen, A.-L., Lee, V. E., & Andrade, F. H. (2009). A mixed method study of teachers’ attitudes about teaching in urban and low income schools. Urban Education, 44, 181-224. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0042085908318696

Hannah, S., Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Chan, A. (2012). Leader self-efficacy: A multicomponent approach. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 118, 143-161. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp/2012.03.007

Harris, L. (2011). Secondary teachers’ conceptions of student engagement: Engagement in learning or in schooling? Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 376–386. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.09.006

Henderson, C. L., Bueller, A. E., Stein, W. L., Dalton, J. E., Robinson, T. R., & Anafara, V. A. (2005). Organizational health and student achievement in Tennessee middle schools. NASSP Bulletin, 89, 54-103.

Hofstede, G. (1996). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind: Intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Hong, E., Greene, M., & Hartzell,S.(2011). Cognitive and motivational characteristics of elementary teachers in general education classrooms and gifted programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 55, 250-640. http://dx.doi.10.1177/0016986211418107

Honig, M. I., & Rainey, L. R. (2012) Autonomy and school improvement: What do we know and where do we go from here? Educational Policy, 26, 465-495. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0895904811417590

230

Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. E. (1993). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and the organizational health of schools. The Elementary School Journal, 93, 355-372. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1002017

Hughes, J. N., Wu, W., & West, S. G. (2009). Teacher performance goal practices and elementary students’ behavioral engagement: A developmental perspective. Journal of School Psychology, 49, 1-23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2010.09.003

Isler, I., & Cakiroglu, E. (2009). Teacher’s efficacy beliefs and perceptions regarding the implementation of new primary mathematics curriculum. Proceedings of Cerme 6, Lyon, France. Retrieved from http://ife.ens-lyon.fr/publications/edition-electronique/cerme6/wg10-02-isler.pdf

Jennings, P. A., & Greenberg, M. T. (2009). The prosocial classroom: Teacher social and emotional competence in relation to child and classroom outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 79, 491-525. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0034654308325693

Jerald, C. (2007). Keeping kids in school: What research says about preventing dropouts. Washington, DC: Center for Public Education. Retrieved from http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/Main-Menu/Staffingstudents/Keeping-kids-in-school-At-a-glance/Keeping-kids-in-school-Preventing-dropouts.html

Johnson, S. M., Kraft, M. A., & Papay, J. P. (2012). How context matters in high-need schools: The effects of teachers‘working conditions on their professional satisfaction and their students’ achievement. Teachers College Record, 114(10), 1-39. Retrieved from http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/mkraft/files/teacher_working_conditions_-_tcr_revision_-_final.pdf

Jones, D. (2006, March 8). Schools take a lesson from big business. USA Today. Retrieved from https://www.sallyridescience.com/about_us/press_room/content/58

Karsli, M. D., & Iskender, H. (2009). To examine the effect of the motivation provided by the administration on the job satisfaction of teachers and their institutional commitment. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1, 2252-2257. http://dx.dox.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2009.01.396

Kelly, C. J. & Finnigan, K. (2003). The effects of organizational context on teacher expectancy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39, 603-634. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013161X03257299

Kelly, C. H., Heneman, H., III, & Milanowski, A. (2002). Teacher motivation and school-based performance awards. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38, 372-401. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013161x0238004

231

Kennedy, S.Y. & Smith, J.B. (2013). The relationship between school collective reflective practice and teacher physiological efficacy sources. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29, 132-143. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.09.003

Klassen, R. M., & Chiu, M. M. (2010). Effects on teachers’ self-efficacy and job satisfaction: Teacher, gender, years of experience, and job stress. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 741-756. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0019237

Knapp, M. S., Feldman, S. B. (2011). Managing the intersection of internal and external accountability: Challenge of urban school leadership in the United States. Journal of Educational Administration, 50, 666-694. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09578231211249862

Knoblauch, D., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2008). Maybe I can teach those kids—The influence of contextual factors on student teachers’ efficacy beliefs. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 24, 166-179. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2007.05.005

Konings, K. D., Brand-Gruwel, S., & van Merrienbaer, J. J. G. (2007) Teachers’ perspectives on innovations: Implications for educational design. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 23, 985-997. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.06.004

Kroth, M. (2007). Maslow—Move aside! A heuristical motivation model for leaders in career and technical education. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 44, 5-36. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ830477.pdf

Kruse, S. D. (2008). Reflections on leading and learning for change: An introduction. Education and Urban Society, 40, 655-669. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013124508319532

Kurt, T., Duyar, I., & Calik, T. (2012). Are we legitimate yet? A closer look at the causal relationship mechanisms among principal leadership, teacher self-efficacy and collective efficacy. Journal of Management Development, 31, 71-86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02621711211191014

Lachlan-Haché, J., Naik, M., & Casserly, M. (2012). The school improvement grant rollout in America’s great city schools. Retrieved from the Council of Great City School website: http://www.cgcs.org/cms/lib/DC00001581/Centricity/Domain/4/SIG%20Report.pdf

Lam, C. F., & Gurland, S. T. (2008) Self-determined work motivation predicts job outcomes, but what predicts self-determined work motivation? Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 1109-1115. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2008.02.002

232

Lance, A. (2010). A case study of two schools: Identifying core values conducive to building of a positive school culture. Management in Education, 24, 118-123. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177.0892020608090407

Lee, J. (2012). The effects of teacher-students relationships and academic press on student engagement and academic performance. International Journal of Educational Research, 53, 330-340. http://dx.doi.org/10.106/j.ijer.2012.04.006

Lee, J., & Wong, K. K. (2004). The impact of accountability on racial and socioeconomic equity: Considering both school resources and achievement outcomes. American Educational Research Journal, 41, 797-832. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00028312041004797

Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2008). Linking leadership to student learning: The contributions of leader efficacy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44, 496-528. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013161x08321501

Lindahl, R. A. (2007). Why is leading school improvement such a difficult process? School Leadership and Management, 27, 319-332. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13632430701563288

Margolis, J., & Nagel, L. (2006). Education Reform and the role administrators play in mediating teacher stress. Teacher Education Quarterly, 3, 143-159. Retrieved from http://www.teqjournal.org/backvols/2006/33_4/21margolis%26nagel.pdf

Martin, A. J., & Dowson, M. (2009). Interpersonal relationships, motivation, engagement, and achievement: Yields for theory, current issues, and educational practice. Review of Educational Research, 79, 327-365. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0034654308325583

Martin, N. K., Sass, D. A., & Schmitt, T. A. (2011) Teacher efficacy in student engagement, instructional management, and burn-out: A theoretical model using in-class variables to predict teachers’ intent to leave. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 28, 546-559. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.12.003

McCaslin, M. (2008). Learning motivation: The role of opportunity. Teacher College Record, 110, 2408-2422. Retreived from http://www.tcrecord.org/library/abstract.asp?contentid=15281

McFarlane, D. A. (2010). Perceived impact of district leadership practices on school climate and school improvement. Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 2(2), 53-70. Retrieved from http://www.stu.edu/Portals/0/journal2-2010.pdf

McCormick, J., Ayers, P. L., & Beechy, B. (2006). Teaching self-efficacy, stress, and coping in a major curriculum reform: Applying theory to context. Journal of Educational Administration, 44, 53-70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09578230610642656

233

McCullers, J. F., & Bozeman, W. (2010). Principal self-efficacy: The effects of No Child Left Behind and Florida school grades. NASSP Bulletin, 94, 53-74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0192636510371976

McIntyre, E., & Kyle, D.W. (2006). The success and failure of one mandated reform for young children. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 1130-1144. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.07.008

Mercer, S. N., Nellis, L. M., Martinez, R. S., & Kirk, M. (2011). Supporting students most in need: Academic self-efficacy and perceived teacher support in relation to within-year academic growth. Journal of School Psychology, 49, 323-338. http://dx.doi.org:10.1016/j.jsp.2011.03.006

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Milyavskaya, M., & Koestner, R. (2011). Psychological needs, motivation, and well-being: A test of self-determination theory across multiple domains. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 387-391. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.10.029

Moé, A., Pazzaglia, F., & Ronconi, L. (2010). When being able is not enough: The combined value of positive affect and self-efficacy for job satisfaction in teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 26, 1145-1153. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.02.010

Mojavezi, A., & Tamiz, M. P. (2012). The impact of teacher self-efficacy on the students’ motivation and achievement. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2, 483-491. http://dx.doi.org/10.4304/tpls.2.3.483-491

Moran, C. M., Diefendorff, J. M., Kim T., & Liu, Z. (2012). A profile approach to self-determination theory motivations at work. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 81, 354-363 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2012.09.002

Muller, F. H., & Hanfstingl, B. (2010). Teacher motivation. Journal of Educational Research Online, 2(2), 5-8. Retrieved from http://www.j-e-r-o.com/index.php/jero

Nazari, J. A., Herremans, I. M., Issac, R. G. Manassian, A., & Kline, T. J. (2011). Organizational culture, climate, and IC: An interaction analysis. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 12, 224-248. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14691931111123403

Narvaez, D., Khmelkov, V., Vaydich, J. L., & Turner, J. C. (2008). Teacher self-efficacy for moral education: Measuring teacher self-efficacy for moral education. Journal of Research in Character Education, 4, 3-15. Retrieved from http://www.infoagepub.com/research-in-character-education.html

234

National Commission on Excellence in Education (1984). A nation at risk: The full account. Cambridge, MA: USA Research.

Niesche, R., & Jorgensen, R. (2010). Curriculum reform in remote areas: The need for productive leadership. Journal of Educational Administration, 41, 102-117. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09578231011015449

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C.A. § 6301 et seq. (2002).

Orr, M. T., Berg, B., Shore, R., & Meier, E. (2008). Putting the pieces together: Leadership for change in low-performing urban schools. Education and Urban Society, 40, 670-693. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013124508324018

Osman, A. (2012). School climate the key to excellence. Journal of emerging trend in educational research and policy studies, 3, 950-954. Retrieved from http://www.jeteraps.schlarlinkresearch.org

Payne, C. M. (2011). So much reform, so little change: The persistence of failure in urban schools. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Pretorius, S. G. (2012). The implication of teacher effectiveness requirements for initial teacher education reform. Journal of Social Sciences, 8, 310-317. http://dx.doi.org/10.3844/jssp.2012.310.317

Price, H. E. (2012). Principal-teacher interactions: How affective relationships shape principal and teacher attitudes. Education Administration Quarterly, 48, 39-85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013161X11417126

Puhlak, U., & Alas, A. (2012). Resistance to change in Idian, Chinese, and Estonian organisations. Journal of Indian Business Research, 4, 224-243. http://dx.doi.org10.1108/17554191211274767

Rhee, M. (2010). Putting kids first. In Webber, K. (Ed.), Waiting for Superman. (pp. 127-141). New York, NY: Public Affairs Books

Rim-Kaufman, S. E., & Hamre, B. K. (2010). The role of psychological and developmental science in efforts to improve teacher quality. Teachers College Record, 112, 2988-3023. Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentId=16046

Roache, L., & Lewis, R. (2011). Teachers’ views on the impact of classroom management on student responsibility. Australian Journal of Education, 55, 132-146. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/000494411105500204

Roney, K. Coleman, H., & Schlichting, K.A. (2007). Linking the organizational health of middle grade schools to student achievement. NASSP Bulletin, 91 289-321. http://dox.doi.org/10.1177/0192636507310161

235

Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom. The Urban Review, 3, 16-20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/bf02322211

Rubie-Davies, C. M. (2007). Classroom interactions: Exploring the practices of high- and low- expectations teachers. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 289-306. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/000709906x101601

Sable, J., Plotts, C., & Mitchell, L. (2010). Characteristics of the 100 Largest Public Elementary and Secondary School Districts in the United States: 2008–09 (NCES 2011-301). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Sahertian, P., & Frisdiantara, C. (2012). Collective efficacy as a mediator: The effect of relationship oriented leadership and employee commitment toward organisational values. The journal of American Academy of Business, 18, 300-309. Retrieved from http://www.jaabc.com/journal.htm

Sanzo, K. L., Sherman, W. H., & Clayton, J. (2011). Leadership practices of successful middle school principals. Journal of Educational Administration, 49, 31-45. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1108/09578231111102045

Sontoro, D. A., & Morehouse, L. (2011). Teaching conscientious objectors: Principled leavers of high poverty schools. Teachers College Record, 113, 2670-2704. Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentID=16202

Sanzo, K. L., Sherman, W. H., & Clayton, J, (2010). Leadership practices of successful middle school principals. Journal of Educational Administration, 49, 31-45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09578231111102045

Schwackhamer, L. E., Koellner, K., Basile, C., & Kimbrough, D. (2009). Increasing self-efficacy of in-service teachers through content knowledge. Teacher Education Quarterly, 36, 63-78. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ857476.pdf

Schwarzer, R., & Hallum, S. (2008). Perceived teacher self-efficacy as a predictor of job stress and burnout: Mediation analysis. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 57(s1), 152-171. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2008.00359.x

Shah, M. J., Rehman, M.-U., Akhtar, G., Zafar, H., & Riaz, A. (2012). Job satisfaction and motivation of teachers of public educational institutions. Internation Hournal of Business and Social Science, 3, 271-281. Retrieved from http://www.ijbssnet.com/journals/Vol_3_No_8_Special_Issue_April_2012/31.pdf

Sharoff, L. (2008). Critique of the critical incident technique. Journal of Research in Nursing, 13, 301-309. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1744987107081248

236

Shaterian, M. F., Asadzadeh, D. H., Ahadi, H., & Jomehri, F. (2011) Testing Bandura’s four sources of efficacy information model: The mediating role of teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs on students' academic achievement, European Journal of Teacher Education, 2(17), 8-20. Retrieved from http://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=28879&tip=sid

Sirota, E., & Bailey, L. (2009). The impact of teacher expectations on diverse learners’ academic outcomes. Childhood Education, 85, 253. Retrieved from http://www.acei.org/childhood-education

Siwatu, K. O. (2011). Preservice teachers’ sense of preparedness and self-efficacy to teach in America’s urban and suburban schools: Does context matter? Teaching and Teacher Education 27, 357-365 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.09.004

Siwatu, K.O., Frazier, P., Osaghae, O. J., & Starker, T. V. (2011). From maybe I can to yes I can: Developing pre-service and in-service teachers’ self-efficacy to teach African American students. The Journal of Negro Education, 80, 209-222. Retrieved from http://www.journalnegroed.org/recentissues.htm

Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2007). Dimensions of teacher self-efficacy and relations with strain factors, perceived collective teacher efficacy, and teacher burnout. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 611-625. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.611

Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2009). Does school context matter? Relations with teacher burnout and job satisfaction. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 25, 518-524. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2008.12.006.

Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2010). Teacher self-efficacy and teacher burnout: A study of relations. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 26, 1059-1069. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.11.001

Smadar, L., & Koslowsky, M. (2009). Moderating the collective and self-efficacy relationship. Journal of Educational Administration, 47, 452-462. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09578230910967437

Smith, P. A., & Hoy, W. K. (2007). Academic optimism and student achievement in urban schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 45, 556-568. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09578230710778196

Smyth, J., & McInerney, P. (2007). Teachers in the middle: Reclaiming the wasteland of the adolescent years of schooling. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing.

Sondergeld, T. A., & Koskey, K. L. (2011). Evaluating the impact of an urban comprehensive school reform: An illustration of the need for mixed methods. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37, 94-107. http://dx.doi.org/10/1016/j.stueduc.2011.08.001

237

Sontoro, D., & Morehouse, L. (2011). Teaching’s conscientious objectors: Principled leavers of high-poverty schools. Teachers College Record, 113, 2670-2704. Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org/library/abstract.asp?contentid=16202

Sosa, T., & Gomez, K. (2012). Connecting teacher efficacy beliefs in promoting resilience to support of Latino students. Urban Education, 20(10), 1-34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0042085912446033

Split, J. L., Koomen, H. M. Y., & Thijs, J. T. (2011). Teacher well-being: The importance of teacher-student relationships. Educational Psychological Review, 23, 457-477. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10648-011-9170-y

Starr, K. (2012). Principals and the politics of resistance to change. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 39, 646-660. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1741143211416390

Stroet, K., Opedenakker, M.-C., & Minnaert, A. (2013). Effects of need supportive teaching on early adolescents’ motivation and engagement: A review of literature. Educational Research Review, 9, 65-87. http://dx.doi.org/j.edurev.2012.11.003

Takahashi, S. (2011). Co-constructing efficacy: A “communities of practice” perspective on teachers’ efficacy beliefs. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 27, 732-741. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.12.002

Teague, G. M., Anafara, V. A., Wilson, N. L., Gaines, C. B., & Beavers, J. L. (2012). Instructional practices in the middle grades. NASSP Bulletin, 93(203). http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0192636512458451

Tenebaum, H. R., & Ruck, M. D. (2007). Are teachers' expectations different for racial minority than for European American students? A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 253-273. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.253

Thernstrom, A., & Thernstrom, S. (2003). No excuses: Closing the gap of learning. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

Thoonen, E. E. J., Sleegers, P. J. C., Oort, F. J., Peetsma, T. T. D., & Geijsel, F. P. (2011). How to improve teaching practices: The role of teacher motivation, organizational factors, and leadership practices. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47, 496-536. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013161X11400185

Thorton, B. Shepperson, T., & Canavero, S. (2007). A systems approach to school improvement: Program evaluation and organizational learning. Education, 128, 48-55. Retrieved from http://www.projectinnovation.biz/education.html

238

Tobin, T., Muller, R. O., & Turner, L. (2006). Organizational learning and climate as predictors of self-efficacy. Social Psychology of Education, 9, 301-319. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11218-005-4790-z

Tschannen-Moran, M., & Gareis, C. R. (2004). Principal’s sense of efficacy: Assessing a promising construct. Journal of Educational Administration, 42, 573-585. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09578230410554070

Tschannen-Moran, M. & Gareis, C. R. (2007). Cultivating principals’ self-efficacy: Supports that matter. Journal of School Leadership, 17(1), 89-114. Retrieved from https://rowman.com/Page/JSL

Tschannen-Moran, M., & Johnson, D. (2011). Exploring literacy teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs: Potential sources at play. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 27, 751-761. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.12.005

Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 17, 783-805. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051x(01)00036-1

Tschannen- Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2007). The differential antecedents of self-efficacy beliefs of novice and experienced teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 23, 944-956. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.05.003

Tschumy, R. (2005). Does the principal as CEO analogy work? (Reinventing Education Report 7). Retrieved from Hawaii Educational Policy Center website: http://www.hawaii.edu/hepc/pdf/Reports/ACT_51_Report_07_DoesPrincipalAsCOEWork.pdf.

Tucker, C. M., Porter, W. M., Reinke, W. M., Herman, C. H., Ivery, D. J., Mack, C. E., & Jackson, E. S. (2005). Promoting teacher efficacy for working with culturally diverse students. Preventing School Failure, 50, 29-36. http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/psfl.50.1.29-34

Turner, J. C., & Patrick, H. (2004). Motivational influences on student participation in classroom learning activities. Teacher College Record, 106, 1759-1785. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2004.00404.x

Tyler, K. M., & Boelter, C. M. (2008). Linking Black middle school students’ perceptions of teachers’ expectations to academic engagement and efficacy. The Negro Educational Review 59. Retrieved from http://thener.org/

239

Urick, A., & Bowers, A. J. (2013). What are the different types of principals across the United States? A latent class analysis of principal perception of leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013161X13489019

U.S. Department of Education (U.S.DOE). (2009) The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/implementation.html

U.S. Department of Education (U.S. DOE). (2010). A blueprint for reform: The reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/accountability/schools/accountability.html

Valli, L., & Buese, D. (2007). The changing roles of teachers in an era of high-stakes accountability. American Educational Research Journal, 44, 519-558. http://doi.org/10.3102/0002831207306859

Valli, L., Croninger, R. G., & Buese, D. (2012). Studying high-quality teaching in a highly charged policy environment. Teachers College Record, 114(4), 1-33. Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentID=16651

Vancouver, J. B. (2008). Integrating self-regulation theories of work motivation into a dynamic process theory. Human Resource Management Review, 18, 1-18. http://dox.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2008.02.001

van Uden, J. M., Ritzen, H., & Pieters, J. M. (2013). I think I can engage my students. Teachers’ perceptions of student engagement beliefs about being a teacher. Teaching and Teacher Education, 32, 43-54. http://dox.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.01.004

Vesley, A. K., Saklofske, D. H., & Leschied, A. D. (2013). Teachers—The vital resource: The contribution of emotional intelligence to teacher efficacy and well-being. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 28, 171-189. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0829573512468855

Verešová, M., & Malá, D. (2012). Stress, proactive coping and self-efficacy of teachers. Procedia—Social Behavioral Sciences, 55, 294-300. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.506

Wagner, T., Keagan, R., Lehaey, L. L., Lemmons, R. W., Garnier, J., Helsing, D., . . .Vander Ark, T. (2006). Change Leadership: A practical guide to transforming out schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Wahlstrom, K. L., & Seashore Louis, K. (2008). How teachers experience principal leadership: The roles of professional community, Trust, efficacy, and shared responsibility. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44, 458-495. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013161X08321502

240

Walker, J., & Slear, S. (2011). The impact of principal leadership behaviors on the efficacy of new and experienced middle school teachers. NASSP Bulletin, 95, 46-54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0192636511406530

Ware, H., & Kitsantas, A. (2007). Teacher and collective efficacy beliefs as predictors of professional commitment. Journal of Educational Research, 7, 303-310. http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/joer.100.5.303-310

Ware, H. W., & Kitsantas, A. (2011). Predicting teacher commitment using principal and teacher efficacy variables: An HLM approach. The Journal of Educational Research, 104, 183-193. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220671003638543

Weinstein, R. S. (2002). Reaching higher. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wheatly, K. (2005). The case for re-conceptualizing teacher efficacy research. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 21, 747-766. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2005.05.009

Williams, E. (2010). Evaluation of a school systems plan to utilize teachers’ perceptions of principal leadership to improve student achievement. Challenge: A Journal of Research on African American Men, 15(1), 15-32. Retrieved from http://www.morehouse.edu/centers/mri/challengejournal.html

Willis, L. (2010). Is the process of special measures an effective tool for bringing about authentic school improvement? Management in Education 24, 142-148. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0892020610379314

Woolfolk Hoy, A., Hoy, W. K., & Kurz, N. M. (2008) Teachers’ academic optimism: The development and test of a new construct. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 24, 821-835. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2007.08.004

Wooley, M. E., Strutchens, M. E., Gilbert, M. C., & Martin, W. G. (2010). Mathematics success of Black middle school students: Direct and indirect effects of teacher expectations and reform practices. The Negro Educational Review, 61, 41-59. Retrieved from http://thener.org/

Wrigley, T. (2011). Paradigms of school change. Management in Education, 25(2), 62-66. http://dx.doi.org//10.1177/0892020611398929

Yenice, N., Evren, B., & Ozden, B. (2012). Relationship between self-efficacy perceptions of science teacher candidates and academic control focus. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 4044-4049. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.194

Yeo, L. S., Ang, R. P., Chong, W. H., Huan, V. S., & Quek, C. L.(2008). Teacher efficacy in the context of teaching low achieving students. Current Psychology, 27, 192-204. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12144-008-9034-x

241

Yin, R. K. (2013). Case study research: Designs and methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Yusoff, S. (n.d.) The relationship between principal’s self-efficacy and schools’ factors and principals’ personality traits. Jurnal Pengurusan dan Kepimpinan Pendidikan, 1-12. Retrieved from http://www.academia.edu/733250/THE_RELATIONSHIP_BETWEEN_PRINCIPALSSELF-EFFICACY_AND_SCHOOLSFACTORS_AND_PRINCIPALSPERSONAL_ATTRIBUTES

Zimmerman, J. (2006). Why some teachers resist change and what principals can do about it. NASSP Bulletin, 90, 238-249. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0192636506291521

Zyngier, D. (2008). (Re) conceptualizing student engagement: Doing education, not doing time. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 24, 1765-1776. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2007.09.004

242

Appendixes

243

Appendix A: Letter of Consent

Informed Consent Letter for dissertation studyTeacher and Principals’ Self-Efficacy Effects on School improvement

Dear Educator,

I am a doctoral candidate with Northcentral University. I am seeking teachers, principals, and assistant principals interested in taking part in a qualitative study which explores the effects of teacher and principal self-efficacy on the school improvement process in urban schools.

This study will consist of three phases. Phase one will collect and analyze performance data from the United States Department of Education’s National Center for Educational Statistics on the top 100 urban school districts. Phase two will be an online survey which measures the levels of teacher and principal self-efficacy. The final phase will be interviews with teachers and principals to gain a deeper understanding of the many perspectives which may exist among urban schools going through the improvement process. The additional intent of the interviews is to hear from educators what you perceive to be missing from or needed to improve levels of self-efficacy in promoting student achievement.

This study will take place over two months though individual participation will consist of a 30 minute survey and a one hour interview. I will be the only interviewer in this study. Participation in the study may be terminated at any time without penalty or consequence. All interview participants will have the opportunity to review their statements before being included in the final results.

This study involves a minimal risk of breach of confidentiality should you choose to discuss your participation with others. Participants will be totally anonymous through the use of. a number/letter coding system to protect participant identity. Once the study is completed and has been published a copy of the results will be available at no charge to each participant. Additionally, once the study has been published with the University all data and identifier codes will be deleted and destroyed to ensure further confidentiality.

We would be happy to answer any question that may arise about the study. Please direct your questions or comments to:

Teresa A ConleyDr. Ann Armstrong513-260-3186 or 1-888-628-8269 ext. [email protected] [email protected]

I have read the above description for the study Teacher and Principals’ Self-Efficacy Effects on School Improvement. I understand what the study is about and what is being asked of me. My signature indicates that I agree to participate in the study.Participant's Name : _________________ Researcher's Name: ______________

Participant's Signature: _______________ Researcher's Signature:___________

Date:_____________

244

Appendix B: Instruments and Permissions for Use

245

246

247

248

Appendix C: Interview Guides

Interview Guide for Principals

Please respond to each question with as much accuracy as possible.

1. Please describe a high point of your ability to effectively implement school reform initiatives.

a. How was your self-efficacy impacted during this high point?

2. Please describe a low point in your ability to effectively implement school reform.a. How was your self-efficacy impacted during this low point?

3. What knowledge or skills would help sustain a high point of implementation of school reform initiatives?

4. What knowledge or skills would help improve a low point of implementation of school reform initiatives?

5. What skills do you feel are missing to aid in your ability to positively influence student achievement?

6. Please describe what factors you believe affect your ability to effectively influence the climate and culture of your school and promote your students’ learning and achievement while operating under sanction.

7. How does functioning under sanction impact your ability as an instructional leader?

a. Please give an examplesb. What could have enhanced or supported you in your efforts?

8. Describe what you believe is the most important area of support you need as a principal to effectively turnaround your school.

a. What do you see as some limitations in meeting this goal?

9. What additional skills or knowledge do you believe are needed to help in your effort to bring about authentic, sustainable improvement of you school?

a. How would you like to see these skills supported?

249

Interview Guide for Teachers

Please respond to each question with as much accuracy as possible.

1. Please describe a high point of your ability to effectively implement school reform initiatives.

b. How was your self-efficacy impacted during this high point?

2. Please describe a low point in your ability to effectively implement school reform.

a. How was your self-efficacy impacted during this low point?

3. What knowledge or skills would help sustain a high point of implementation?

4. What knowledge or skills would help improve a low point of implementation?

5.What skills you feel are missing to aid in your ability to positively influence student achievement?

6.Please describe what you believe about student achievement and the need for school reform and improvement.

7.Please describe what factors you believe affect your ability to effectively influence your students’ learning and achievement while operating under sanction.

8.How does functioning under sanction impact your ability to deliver effective instruction to all students?

a. Please give an examplesb. What could have enhanced or supported you in your efforts?

9. What do you believe is the most important area of support you need while to implementing reform initiatives? Why?

10. What additional skills or knowledge do you believe are needed to help in your effort to positively impact student achievement while operating under sanction?

a. How would you like to see these skills supported?

250

Appendix D: Requests to Post Recruitment Notice for Study Participants and Permission

Letter

From Teresa Conley to Thomas Whitby, Educators PLN

Dear Mr. Whitby,

My name is Teresa Conley and I am a dissertation candidate with Northcentral

University as well as a member of Educator PLN. I am writing to ask permission to post a

request to members to take part in my study on principal and teacher beliefs about how

effectively they are able to have positive impact on student learning while operating

under school accountability sanctions. This study will involve a survey as well as

interviews. I am asking to use the Educator PLN site because of its wide member base.

My student will reach out to teachers in grades 3 through 8 who work primarily in urban

school districts. By reaching out to a wide population such as that on Educator PLN, I

will be able to get varying views from teachers and principals operating in different

contexts. The purpose of the study is to determine what principals and teachers view as

being most important for bringing about school improvement and what may need to be

addressed and hasn’t . This then will provide possible new areas of consideration for

professional development in school in corrective status.

I would like to post a brief description of the study, much like the one here, as

well as the survey link and my email address. It is my belief that the PLNs are becoming

an important tool in research due to the availability and their wide membership base.

At the end of the study and my final dissertation acceptance, I would love to post

my results on the Educator PLN site.

251

Thank you in advance for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Teresa A. Conley

Teresa

It's all good. Best of Luck! Keep me posted and let me know if I can help in any

way.

Tom Whitby

Mr. Whitby,

Thank you very much for allowing me to proceed with my project. I am excited to

get the study started and to see what teachers and principals have to say about their own

self-efficacy levels and what they believe they need to improve and increase those levels

for the benefit of children.

Sincerely,

Teresa A Conley

252

Study participation

From:

Jim Burke ([email protected])

Sent: Mon 1/13/14 4:47 AMTo: Teresa A Conley ([email protected])Jim Burke has sent you a message on English Companion Ning

Subject: Study participation

------------Absolutely, Teresa. Good luck with the study! Thanks for asking.

Jim

> Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 01:18:02 +0000 > From: Teresa A Conley > To: Jim Burke > > Hello Mr. Burke,

> My name is Teresa Conley and originally I became a member of the English Companion community in order to recruit teachers for my dissertation study on effects of teacher and principal self-efficacy on the school improvement process in urban schools. I would like to post a request for participants with my contact information so there would be no outside website links posted on this site. There would be no advertising or any links posted. Simply my email address where they can send their interest in participating.

> I said originally because it was indeed my original intent. However, after looking at the site and reading the posts by others, I am finding it interesting and something which I would truly enjoy being a part of. So, it is my intention to continue to be an active member on this site whether I can able to recruit participants or not and will definitely spread the words to my colleague about the English Companion.

>

> Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your response.

>

> Sincerely,

> Teresa A Conley------------

253

Dear Jim,

Thank you for allowing me to post my request for study participants on the

Englishcompanion professional network. I would like to post the results to the study once

I have completed the dissertation and have my degree. I believe that the use of

Professional Learning Networks are becoming a valuable tool in the field of research due

to their large membership base. Their popularity are certainly growing and I find

Englishcompanion to be one of the best.

Thank you again,

Teresa A Conley

254

Appendix E: Recruitment Statements

Description of study and request for participants to be posted on the PLN sites:

Hello! I am a doctoral candidate with Northcentral University working on my

dissertation research project. My study is designed to explore teachers and principals’

beliefs about their ability to positively affect student learning while operating under state

and federal accountability sanctions. The purpose of this study is to identify critical

behaviors or policies which may not have been considered when designing school

reform.

This study will take place in two phases for participants. Phase 1 will involve

completing a survey which measures self-efficacy of teacher or of principals. Phase 2 will

involve interviews of 13 to 15 participants and will be conducted by phone or by

webcam. The surveys consist of 24 questions and will take approximately 30 minutes or

less to complete. The interviews will take no more than an hour. The results from this

study will be used to recommend targeted professional development in areas which

teachers and principals identify as being critical to increasing their self-efficacy for

raising student achievement.

If you have found this short description of my study to be intriguing and you are

interested in being a part of it please click the appropriate link below to gain access to the

letter of informed consent and the survey which pertains to your current position. I am

most interested in teachers 3rd through 8th grade. For further information or questions please

email me at [email protected] and I will respond back within 24 hours.

Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/8Z9MNFR

Principal Sense of Efficacy Scale https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/86Z3CPX

Thank you,

255

Teresa A Conley

Interview recruitment document

by phone or by email

Hello,

I am looked over your responses to the (Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale) or (Principal Sense of Efficacy Scale) and believe that you may have more to offer to this study. I would like to invite you to be a part of the next phase of the study involving a one hour interview. This interview will ask what you believe about your ability to affectively make a difference in student learning and achievement while operating under the accountability sanctions of the State and Federal governments. You are under no obligation to take part in these interviews and if you choose to do so, you may stop and drop out at any time without penalty. Interviews will take place either by webcam (Skype or Google) or by phone, your preference.

Please consider taking part in this next phase of my study by letting me know via my email –

[email protected]