University of Denver

Digital Commons @ DU

Electronic Theses and Dissertations Graduate Studies

1-1-2016

Examining the Relationship Between Principal Leadership and

School Climate
Eric Stephen Lane
University of Denver

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/etd

Part of the Educational Administration and Supervision Commons, and the Educational Leadership
Commons

Recommended Citation
Lane, Eric Stephen, "Examining the Relationship Between Principal Leadership and School Climate"
(2016). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 1094.
https://digitalcommons.du.edu/etd/1094

This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Studies at Digital Commons @ DU. It
has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital
Commons @ DU. For more information, please contact [email protected],[email protected].
EXAMINING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP

AND SCHOOL CLIMATE

__________

A Dissertation

Presented to

the Faculty of the Morgridge College of Education

University of Denver

__________

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Philosophy

__________

by

Eric S. Lane

March 2016

Advisor: Dr. Bruce Uhrmacher

Author: Eric S. Lane
Title: Examining the Relationship Between Principal Leadership and School Climate
Advisor: Dr. Bruce Uhrmacher
Degree Date: March 2016

Abstract

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

transformative school principal leadership and school climate. The population of this

study consisted of two middle schools with grades ranging from six through eight and

one high school with grades ranging from nine through twelve. These schools are within

the state of Texas. Quantitative data were obtained by using two instruments, the

Principal Leadership Questionnaire (Jantzi & Leithwood, 1996) and the School Climate

Assessment Instrument (Alliance for the Study of School Climate, 2014), and evaluated

to determine if (a) correlations exist between the factors of transformational leadership

and school climate, (b) if any predictive linear relationships exist between the factors of

transformational leadership and school climate, and (c) if the individual school site,

employment role, and tenure influence school climate in the tested Texas schools.

This study found that there was: (a) a statistically significant relationship between the six

factors of transformational leadership and the leadership decisions factor of school

climate, and (b) that the factors of transformational leadership influenced the factors of

school climate, and (c) that the school site was the most significant predictor of school

climate.

ii
 Table of Contents

List of Tables .......................................................................................................................v 

Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study ....................................................................................1 

Purpose of the Study ......................................................................................................3 
Research Questions ................................................................................................. 4 
Outline of the Study .......................................................................................................7 

Chapter 2: Review of the Literature.....................................................................................9 

State of the School .........................................................................................................9 
Changing Role of the Principal ....................................................................................11 
Transformational Leadership .......................................................................................16 
Factors of Transformational Leadership ............................................................... 18 
Previous Studies .................................................................................................... 21 
School Climate .............................................................................................................22 
Factors of School Climate ..................................................................................... 24 
Previous Studies .................................................................................................... 26 
Summary ......................................................................................................................29

Chapter 3: Research Methodology.....................................................................................31 

Research Questions ......................................................................................................31 
Hypothesis............................................................................................................. 32 
Population and Sample ......................................................................................... 32 
Participant Demographics ..................................................................................... 32 
Instrumentation and Reliability....................................................................................34 
Data Collection Procedures..........................................................................................39 
Statistical Analyses ......................................................................................................40 

Chapter 4: Results ..............................................................................................................44 

Research Question One ................................................................................................44 
Research Question Two ...............................................................................................48 
Research Question Three .............................................................................................49 
Summary of Findings ...................................................................................................53

Chapter 5: Summary and Discussion .................................................................................54 

Summary of Findings ...................................................................................................54 
Research Question One ......................................................................................... 56 
Research Question Two ........................................................................................ 59 
Research Question Three ...................................................................................... 62 
Implications..................................................................................................................63 
General Implications ............................................................................................. 63 
Implications for Principal Development ............................................................... 64 
Implications for the Hiring Process ...................................................................... 64 

iii
 Recommendations for Future Studies ..........................................................................64 
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................65

References ..........................................................................................................................67 

Appendix A: Permission to Use Principal Leadership Questionnaire ...............................72 

Appendix B: Principal Leadership Questionnaire .............................................................73 
Appendix C: Permission to Use the School Climate Assessment Instrument ...................74 
Appendix D: School Climate Assessment Instrument (Sample) .......................................75 
Appendix E: University of Denver Institutional Review Board Approval ........................76 
Appendix F: Data Collection Letter to Principal ...............................................................76 
Appendix G: Data Collection Letter to Faculty and Staff .................................................77 
Appendix H: Research Question 1 Solution Tables ..........................................................79 
Appendix I: Vita ................................................................................................................82 

iv
 List of Tables

Table 1. Response Rate by Site......................................................................................... 33 

Table 2. Response Rate by Primary Role ......................................................................... 33 
Table 3. Response Rate by Tenure ................................................................................... 34 
Table 4. Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability Coefficients for the PLQ ..................................... 38 
Table 5. Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability Coefficients for the SCAI ................................... 39 
Table 6. Descriptive Characteristics of Variables............................................................. 45 
Table 7. Canonical Solution for Transformative Leadership Predicting School Climate 47 
Table 8. Model Summary of Correlations Between Transformational Leadership and
School Climate .......................................................................................................... 48 
Table 9. Average Mean Scores on the Climate Factors by School ................................... 50 
Table 10. Average Mean Scores on the Climate Factors by Employment Role............... 51 
Table 11. Average Mean Scores on the Climate Factors by Tenure ................................ 52 
Table 12. Statistical Significance Tests for the Full CCA Model..................................... 79 
Table 13. Canonical Correlations for Each Function Separately ...................................... 79 
Table 14. Factor Reduction Analysis ................................................................................ 79 
Table 15. Standardized Canonical Correlations for Dependent Variables ....................... 80 
Table 16. Correlations Between Dependent and Canonical Variables ............................. 80 
Table 17. Standardized Canonical Correlations for Covariates ........................................ 81 
Table 18. Correlations Between Covariates and Canonical Variables ............................. 81 

v
 Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study

It is the objectives and the objectives alone … that dictate the pupil-experiences
that make up the curriculum. It is then these in their turn that dictate the specific
methods to be employed by the teachers and specific material helps and
appliances and opportunities to be provided. And, finally, it is the specific
objectives that provide standards to be employed in the measurement of results.
John Franklin Bobbitt (Au, 2011)

(Calvin – During an Exam) As you can see, I have memorized this utterly useless
piece of information long enough to pass a test question. I now intend to forget it
forever. You've taught me nothing except how to cynically manipulate the system.
Congratulations. (Watterson, 2015)

These contrasting quotes underscore what many feel regarding the condition of

education in the United States. Schools, administrators, students, and parents are

subjected to many conflicting messages about the current priorities in education. Many of

these predictions have been driven by recent changes in educational policy and the

resulting legislation that has affected every state in the union. It is not entirely clear what

style of leader or school factors are best indicated to address these issues.

Few would dispute the value of education. An education can afford opportunities

that would have never been possible were it not for the preparation that one received

while in school. With the fluctuating economy and uncertain times, it is more important

than ever for our nation’s children to receive the proper education and training that will

allow them to acquire a good job and produce the means by which to live (Boyer &

Hamil, 2008). Becoming a productive member of society is a long-standing American

1
goal. Students graduate from high school then proceed to college. If they are successful,

they may benefit economically, politically, and socially (Reed & Justice, 2014).

Unfortunately, there are many issues facing our education system today, and several of

them are having adverse effects on the caliber of the education our students are receiving.

(Boyer & Hamil, 2008).

The role of the principal has changed strikingly over the past few years as the

focus has shifted from only managing schools and overseeing instruction, to being held

fully accountable for student performance. For school leaders to lead their schools, they

must be conscious not only on how they lead but also how they are impacting the climate

of their schools. Even though existing research suggests that school climate significantly

affects student performance, it is typically an area that is overlooked by school

administrators.

As schools have been tasked with these additional responsibilities, the

expectations of the school leaders to meet, these demands have increased. Today’s school

leaders are required to lead in a different manner than they ever had to in the past. They

must do this while addressing issues and problems that are relatively new, complex in

nature and scope, paradoxical and dilemma-filled, and until now unknown to schools.

(National Association of Secondary School Principals, 2007).

These results suggest that the United States may require a public education

makeover. Indeed, students are inadequately prepared in elementary and middle school

for academic success in high school. Consider that 75 percent to 80 percent of urban

children begin kindergarten with an inadequate vocabulary. Many may become

2
discouraged and drop out, leaving the United States in the unenviable position of having

one of the highest dropout rates. High dropout rates are costly to taxpayers. The annual

public cost of dropouts in the state of Texas is $377 million, with an expected lifetime

cost of $19 billion coming from three sources: lost revenue from taxes and fees, increased

Medicaid costs and increased incarceration costs (Wright, 2012).

Leithwood (1994) suggests that transformational approaches to school leadership

are especially appropriate to the myriad challenges facing schools entering the 21st

century. He suggests that these be supported by practicing school administrators and

featured more prominently in principal preparation programs (Valentine & Prater, 2011).

Shaping the educational climate of the school is often considered to be the

primary responsibility of the principal (Snowden & Gorton, 1998). Principals can

reinforce positive norms and values in their daily work, the words that they use, as well

as the Relations that they have with others (Peterson, 2002). When done in a positive

manner, high levels of student performance can also be achieved (Hallinger & Heck,

1998). Therefore, it is critical that principals be aware of the degree of influence that they

have in shaping school climate to successfully promote student performance and

professional development (Martin, 2009).

Purpose of the Study

The rationale for conducting this study is to examine the relationship between the

various aspects of transformative principal leadership and school climate. Findings from

this study may provide deeper insight into the specific factors of transformational

3
leadership and their relationship to school climate factors, which in conjunction could

positively influence student performance.

The following study will help improve the educational situation of students for

many reasons. First, future school leaders will gain a better understanding of the specific

leadership competencies that influence a school’s climate. Also, if the relationship

between transformational leadership and school climate is shown to be valid, schools will

seek candidates with transformational leadership competencies that can improve overall

organizational health.

Research Questions

In this study, the variables that will be used to measure transformational

leadership are the six factors from the Principal Leadership Questionnaire (PLQ),

developed by Jantzi and Leithwood (1996). The variables used to measure school climate

are the three factors derived from the School Climate Assessment Instrument (SCAI),

developed by the Alliance for the Study of School Climate (2014). The following

research questions were examined in this study:

1. Are there significant relationships between transformational leadership and

school climate in the tested Texas schools?

2. Does transformational leadership influence school climate in the tested Texas

schools?

3. Does the individual school site, employment role, and tenure influence school

climate in the tested Texas schools?

4
 Limitations

The following limitations, which focus on the applied methodology, apply to this

study (Heppner & Heppner, 2004).

 The findings of the study will be limited by the validity and reliability of the

instruments.

 The results of the study will be constrained by the accuracy and perception of

the participants. It is assumed that they will respond honestly and interpret the

instrument as intended.

 The findings of the study will be subject to the limitations of survey data

collection methods.

 Due to the small unique sample available for the study, results may not be

generalizable beyond the specific population from which the sample was

drawn.

 The findings of this study will be based on Likert-type questions that do not

allow participants to construct their responses or enable the researcher to

probe for additional insight.

Definitions

The terms necessary to understand this study are defined below.

Attitude and Culture: Examines the pervasive attitudes and cultures that operate

within the school and their relationship to the climate. This factor explores the degree to

which social and communal bonds are present within the school, the attitudes that the

members of the school possess, and the level of pride and ownership they feel. It includes

5
the degree to which efforts in this area are made intentionally or left to chance (Gangi,

2009).

Goal Acceptance: The extent to which the principal promotes cooperation among

organizational members and assists them in working together toward common goals

(Jantzi & Leithwood, 1996).

High-Performance Expectations: The degree to which the principal establishes

expectations for excellence, quality, and high performance on the part of the

organization’s members (Jantzi & Leithwood, 1996).

Individualized Support: The degree to which the principal demonstrates respect

for organizational members and concern about their personal feelings and needs (Jantzi &

Leithwood, 1996).

Intellectual Stimulation: The degree to which the principal challenges

organizational members to reexamine some of the assumptions about their work and

rethink how it can be performed (Jantzi & Leithwood, 1996).

Leadership Decisions: Examines the relationships among decision-making

mechanisms, how administrative authority is manifested and the climate that is created as

a result. This factor includes the degree to which the collective possesses a shared sense

of values and operational vision. It also explores the ways in which the quality of

leadership affects school life (Gangi, 2009).

Modeling: The degree to which the principal sets an example for the

organizational members to follow consistent with the values the principal espouses

(Jantzi & Leithwood, 1996).

6
 School Climate: Teachers’ shared perceptions of their overall work environment

that includes the internal features that distinguish one campus from another and affect

the behavior of its staff members (Hoy, 1990).

Faculty Relations: Examines the relationship between how members of the faculty

relate to one another and its effects on the climate of the school. This factor includes the

degree to which collaboration, respect, the capacity to interact, and a sense of collective

purpose exist among the members of the faculty. It also includes the explicit and clear

expectations among teachers as to how decisions are made and duties are delegated and

performed (Gangi, 2009).

Transformational Leadership: Leadership that moves individuals toward a level of

commitment to achieve school goals by identifying and articulating a school vision,

fostering the acceptance of group goals, providing individualized support, providing

intellectual stimulation, providing an appropriate model, and having high-performance

expectations (Jantzi & Leithwood, 1996).

Vision Identification: The degree to which the principal identifies new

opportunities for the organization and develops, articulates, and inspires others with a

vision of the future (Jantzi & Leithwood, 1996).

Outline of the Study

This chapter contains the overview of the study, including a brief introduction to

the topic, the statement of the problem, the purpose of the study, the research questions,

the limitations and delimitations of the study, and definitions. Chapter 2 is a review of

literature related to the current state of the schools, the changing role of the principal,

7
principal leadership, and school climate. Chapter 3 provides details about the design of

the study, including information about the participants, instruments, data collection

methods, and statistical analyses.

8
 Chapter 2: Review of the Literature

The role of the principal has changed strikingly over the past few years as the

focus has shifted from only managing schools and overseeing instruction, to being held

fully accountable for student performance. For school leaders to lead their schools, they

must be conscious not only on how they lead but also how they are impacting the climate

of their schools.

The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between the

transformative leadership practices of principals and the factors of school climate. For

principals to meet the increasing demands that have been placed upon them with

educational reform measures and heightened accountability, the need to investigate this

relationship further is indicated. The review of related literature is organized into four

major sections. The first section explores the current state of the schools. The second

section discusses how the role of the principal has evolved over the past few years. The

third section is a review of transformational leadership and discusses the various factors

of leadership considered throughout this research study. The fourth section examines the

concept of school climate, and the factors of it considered in this study.

State of the School

Few would dispute the value of education. An education can afford opportunities

that would have never been possible were it not for the preparation that students receive

while in school. With the fluctuating economy and uncertain times, it is more important

9
than ever for our nation’s children to receive the proper education and training that will

allow them to acquire a good job and produce the means by which to live (Boyer &

Hamil, 2008). Becoming a productive member of society is a long-standing American

goal. Students graduate from high school then proceed to college. If they are successful,

they may benefit economically, politically, and socially (Reed & Justice, 2014).

Unfortunately, there are many issues facing our education system today, and several of

them are having adverse effects on the caliber of the education our students are receiving.

(Boyer & Hamil, 2008).

America is losing ground in producing highly intelligent; creative young adults

equal to the tasks presenting themselves worldwide. Neglecting to change the system will

only contribute to America losing its position as a world leader. However, because of our

deteriorating system of public education, other nations are assuming leadership roles in

education, innovation, skilled labor and productivity (Wright, 2012).

School districts throughout the country are also facing challenges in recruiting

and retaining school administrators. Possible causative factors include: increasing

retirement rates among school leaders, dwindling applicant pools, administrators who are

exiting the principalship, inadequate school funding, demanding curricular standards, and

role expectations for today’s school leaders that need new ways of leading and managing

(National Association of Secondary School Principals, 2007).

Goodwin et al. (2005) suggests that schools are also contending with other serious

problems ranging from random outbreaks of violence and crumbling facilities to staff

shortfalls and chronically low academic expectations for students, but many people

10
believe that a scarcity of capable education leaders ranks among the most severe of the

problems. Without strong leaders, she suggests that schools have little chance of meeting

any other challenges.

In 2012, the Obama administration began offering states options to certain

requirements of NCLB in exchange for comprehensive state-developed plans designed to

narrow achievement gaps, increase equity, improve the quality of instruction, and

increase outcomes for students. Thus far 42 states, DC and Puerto Rico have received

flexibility from NCLB (U.S. Department of Education, 2015).

Even with recent changes to the initial NCLB legislation, principals are still faced

with administering batteries of annual tests, assisting struggling sub-groups of children to

meet artificial goals, dealing with more rigid hiring procedures, considering scientifically

based research to provide valid curricular information, and encouraging parents to

become more involved in their children’s education. All of this, principals say, is an

unfunded federal mandate in a time of increasingly limited budgets (Goodwin et al.,

2005).

Changing Role of the Principal

Since the beginning of the principalship in U.S. education, educators have

struggled with the definition of the role of the school leader (National Association of

Secondary School Principals, 2007). Constituents inside and outside of the school have

different perceptions of and influences on the function. Researchers have repeatedly

scrutinized the job and its place in the larger social and educational context, urging

administrators in one decade to be “bureaucratic executives” followed ten years later by

11
“humanistic facilitators” and then “instructional leaders” (Beck & Murphy, 1994). The

principalship has been strongly influenced by reform efforts of the last 20 years and by

powerful economic and social challenges. Principals repeatedly assert that their work has

changed both in its complexity and in the amount of time the work requires (Goodwin et

al., 2005).

The leadership role played by the school principal is critical. Principals perform

many different roles, but the most effective school principals are not only managers and

disciplinarians, but also instructional leaders for the school. Successful principals provide

a shared vision of what good instruction looks like, support teachers with the help and

resources they need to be effective in their classrooms and monitor the performance of

teachers and students, with an eye always on the overall goal—to create school climates

or environments in which all children can achieve their full potentials. (Van Roekel,

2008).

The role of the principal in US schools has not always been one of significance. In

fact, in the early 1800s, schools had no principals, and teachers performed the necessary

administrative, clerical, and even janitorial tasks. These early teachers were supervised by

local school board members who made all administrative decisions. Eventually, the need

arose for a head teacher or a ‘principal teacher’ in each school (Goodwin et al., 2005).

The image of the principalship has shifted over the last decade from a position of

pride and respect to an undesirable role to be avoided. Teachers and counselors who

sought the principalship in the past are not pursuing the position today. Instead, they

consider the incredibly long hours, unreasonable workload, unfair accountability, and

12
undue pressures from all angles and choose to avoid the once-admired seat of authority

(Pierce, 2000). The role of the school leader has grown in recent years to include a

staggering array of responsibilities. School leaders are expected to be educational

visionaries, instructional leaders, assessment experts, disciplinarians, community

builders, public relations experts, budget analysts, facility managers, special programs

administrators, and guardians of various legal, contractual, and policy mandates and

initiatives (National Association of Secondary School Principals, 2007).

Any change introduced to schools is often met with resistance and is doomed to

failure as a result of the reform being counter to this nebulous, yet all-encompassing facet

of school climate (Hinde, 2004). There is still another aspect that is vital to promoting

change: the role of the principal and other school leaders. School leaders include the

principal, teachers, and parents. They all play a role in shaping the climate of schools

(Peterson and Deal, 1998; Hinde, 2002). School leaders determine and enact the

fundamental assumptions of the school climate. They develop supportive organizational

arrangements, consult, monitor and reinforce the change process. Schools with principals

who have these qualities are amenable to change (Hinde, 2004).

There is no doubt that there will continue to be a focus on leadership throughout

the succeeding decades. Stewart (2006) asks,

What are the images of leadership that will take us through this period of
organizational change and school reform? What kind of leadership is needed at all
levels of the school system to lead schools effectively to change and advance even
further than thought possible?

Training and producing effective leaders cannot be limited to imparting beneficial traits

to people. There is a need for organizations and schools that support the collective form

13
of leadership where individuals feel safe, supported and free to think and act creatively.

Huber & West (2002) assert, “The school leader, is most often cited as the key figure in

the individual school’s development, either blocking or promoting changes, acting as the

internal change agent, overseeing the processes of growth and renewal” (p. 1072). The

challenge for leaders is to move from a bureaucratic system of managing people to a

professional system marked by shared problem solving and decision-making. (Bass,

Avolio, Jung, & Berson, 2003).

Leaders also need to understand fully and develop their teams. Leithwood,

Harris, & Hopkins (2008a) suggest that while practices in this category make a

significant contribution to motivation, their primary aim is building not only the

knowledge and skills that teachers and other staff need to accomplish organizational

goals but also the dispositions (commitment, capacity, and resilience) to persist in

applying the knowledge and skills. The more specific practices in this category are

providing individualized support and consideration, fostering intellectual stimulation, and

modeling appropriate values and behaviors. These particular practices not only reflect

managerial actions but as more recent research has demonstrated, are central to the ways

in which successful leaders integrate the functional and the personal (Leithwood et al.,

2008).

The role of the school leader is complex (Parkes and Thomas, 2007) and the focus

on principals as leaders for teaching and learning within the schools and their

responsibility for increased student achievement has risen with recent reform efforts

(Fink and Resnick, 2001; McAdams, 1998). However, leadership practices vary from

14
school to school and narrowing down those critical factors is difficult. In fact,

“Unraveling the effects of principals and instructional leadership practice is a

complicated, if not impossible, business” (Sherman and Crum, 2007). However, while it

is hard to determine the direct effects principals have on student achievement, research

supports the notion that principals undoubtedly impact instruction and the success of

schools, albeit in indirect ways (Hallinger and Heck, 1998). Gurr, Drysdale, and Mulford

found in their case study research on Australian principals that “the principal remains an

important and significant figure in determining the success of a school” (Crum &

Sherman, 2008).

In all research, a critical factor in effective school reform and school change is the

role of the school leader, and they become the chief agent of change in improving the

school (Lashway, 2000). This is not a new factor in school change efforts, but it is an

essential one. Louis and Kruse (1995) found that school leaders continue to be best

positioned to help guide faculty toward new forms of effective schooling. Strong actions

by the administrator on behalf of organizational development are necessary to initiate

school improvement, and once the initiative is underway, it is also required for the

secondary school leader to share leadership, power, authority, and decision-making with

the staff in a democratically participatory way (Hord, 1997). It is only through this new

leadership that schools can meet the challenges of declining budgets, changing

populations, more broad accountability mandates, and the ever-expanding list of issues

(National Association of Secondary School Principals, 2007).

15
 One central finding concerns the importance of leadership during the change

process both as a catalyst and agent for support. For example, in recent years scholars

have begun to differentiate more clearly the nature of leadership that may be needed

during the turnaround stage in schools facing special measures (Hallinger & Heck, 2011).

Transformational Leadership

Stewart (2006) suggests that leadership is an important area of focus for

researchers, in light of the current focus on school accountability. School leaders set the

atmosphere of a campus, establishing various norms for behavior that staff members

follow (Cohen & Mccloskey, 2009). In general, campus leadership can be examined as a

culmination of various activities that lead to an overall responsibility and oversight of

those associated with the campus (Onorato, 2013). Transformational leadership is one of

the most prominent contemporary theories regarding leadership (Moolenaar, Daly, &

Sleegers, 2010).

Burns (1978) provided a comprehensive assessment of leadership and

distinguished among a variety of leadership styles. He suggested the existence of two

common types of leadership: transactional and transformational. The relationships

between most leaders and followers, according to Burns (1978), were transactional,

where the main purpose of the relationship is for an exchange of things that are valued.

This style of leadership is indicated when attempting to maintain the status quo

(Moolenaar et al., 2010). Transactional leadership is contrasted with transformational

leadership, which emphasizes a leader’s ability to recognize the potential skills of an

employee and engage the complete person and not just particular traits. Burns (1978) also

16
wrote that a transformational leader was typically focused on the end product, uniting

staff in the pursuit of goals that match the leader’s vision while finding ways to excite

even the most disenchanted employee. Transformational leadership has been found to

have an impact on teachers’ perceptions of school conditions, their individual

commitment to change, and organizational learning and student outcomes (Hallinger &

Heck, 1998). The result of transformational leadership is the elevation of both leaders and

followers to higher levels of motivation and the development of followers into leaders.

Bass (1999) and Bass and Riggio (2006) expanded upon Burns’ work and

described a transformational leader as one who empowers others to become leaders and

who maintains goal focus among individuals, leaders, and the organization as a whole.

These objectives often go beyond someone’s immediate self-interest and help sustain the

campus as a whole. This emphasis on goal focus was also written about by Sergiovanni

(2007), who stated that a transformational leader practices “purposing” providing a clear

and concise goal focus that unites the organization and encourages commitment. The idea

of transformational leadership has progressively been the center of educational research

and discussion (Bass, 1997; Bums, 1978; Finnigan & Stewart, 2009; Heck & Hallinger,

2005). Transformational leaders tend to focus on improving the overall school

environment to restructure a campus (Stewart, 2006). Because of their role in the school

improvement process, principals find themselves expected to bring visionary leadership

to the campus, a task not regularly taken care of by someone who is only focused on

instruction (Bogler, 2001). When a principal provides evidence that he or she understands

17
the need to empower teachers, there is increased motivation and commitment towards

campus goals (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2005; Marks & Printy, 2003; Sergiovanni, 2007).

Factors of Transformational Leadership

As assessed by the Principal Leadership Questionnaire (PLQ), the factors of

transformational leadership according to Jantzi and Leithwood (1996) are Vision

Identification, Modeling, Goal Acceptance, High-Performance Expectations,

Individualized Support, and Intellectual Stimulation.

Vision Identification

The degree to which the principal identifies new opportunities for the

organization and develops, articulates, and inspires others with a vision of the future

(Jantzi & Leithwood, 1996).

Effective leaders must be able to create a vision that others will follow or

facilitate the collaborative creation of a vision. Some scholars (Fullan & Hargreaves,

1996; Stolp, 1994) suggest that creating a vision through a collaborative process is far

more valuable to the school because more individuals will support an idea they helped

create. The school vision also needs to be student-centric to help unite the faculty

(Leithwood et al., 1999). Visioning is imperative to the establishment of the direction of

an organization, but goals must also be set to achieve this school vision (Mees, 2008).

Modeling

The degree to which the principal sets an example for the organizational members

to follow consistently with the values the principal espouses (Jantzi & Leithwood, 1996).

Modeling behavior allows the principal to set an example for the staff by demonstrating

18
how one should act to facilitate the accomplishment of the school vision and goals (Jantzi

& Leithwood, 1996; Lucas & Valentine, 2002). While reflected in the school vision, the

principal’s beliefs must also be supported by action (Leithwood et al., 2006; Schlechty,

2000). It is essential that the organization members see actions taken by the principal to

model behaviors that are in line with the school’s vision (Mees, 2008).

Goal Acceptance

The degree to which the principal promotes cooperation among organizational

members and assists them in working together toward common goals (Jantzi &

Leithwood, 1996). Goals are considered more precise, whereas the vision is thought of as

more of an overarching concept (Hallinger & Heck, 2002). Goal setting can be effected

by the principal or through a collaborative process, which encourages school level

stakeholders to be more invested in the goals set by the school (Hallinger, 1992)

The gap between current practices and desired practices in a school are identified

when schools create goals (Hallinger & Heck, 2002). Goals must be attainable and are

usually quantifiable, so there is a higher degree of accountability (Hallinger & Heck,

2002; Hallinger & Murphy, 1986). The implementation of both a vision and goals help

increase student achievement by setting a consistent direction for the school (Stolp,

1994).

High-Performance Expectations

The degree to which the principal establishes expectations for excellence, quality,

and high performance on the part of the organization’s members (Jantzi & Leithwood,

1996). Leaders can help followers accomplish school goals by setting high expectations

19
(Leithwood et al., 2006). High expectations help motivate teachers to work toward goal

attainment by comparing current performance to future success (Leithwood et al., 1999).

Individualized Support

The degree to which the principal demonstrates respect for organizational

members and concern about their personal feelings and needs (Jantzi & Leithwood,

1996). Transformational leaders have the ability to recognize each employee’s potential

for growth and achievement, which is described as individualized support (Bass &

Riggio, 2006). This characteristic creates and sustains a climate in which innovations can

grow (Bass & Avolio, 1995). Leaders pay attention to the needs of each follower and are

consistently able to mentor staff to reach individual goals.

Also, transformational leaders who provide individualized support tend to

demonstrate confidence in the abilities of their followers to be innovative, to share

responsibilities and risks with team members, and to recognize the individual

contributions of staff (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2005). In the study conducted by Hauserman

et al. (2013), teachers reported that they perceived the characteristic of individualized

support as the ability of their principal to empower the staff through a focus on

collaboration. Teachers also perceived their principals to be their colleagues, rather than

their bosses; this was exhibited when the principal worked together with teachers to solve

problems (Allen, 2015).

20
 Intellectual Stimulation

The degree to which the principal challenges organizational members to

reexamine some of the assumptions about their work and rethink how it can be performed

(Jantzi & Leithwood, 1996). Intellectual stimulation describes a transformational

leader’s ability to stimulate innovation and creativity within staff members (Bass &

Riggio, 2006). New ideas and solutions to problems are requested from followers, and the

leader is consistently encouraging others to try new things. Through intellectual

stimulation, a transformational leader can encourage teachers to spend more time on

training and professional development, which can stimulate the creation of an innovation-

oriented climate (Leithwood, 1994; Moolenaar et al., 2010).

Hauserman (2013) discovered that teachers perceive the characteristic of

intellectual stimulation as a principal’s ability to convey ideas, honesty, and trust within a

campus. Staff members reported that they believed their leaders were open and receptive

to new ideas and were proactive and consistently fair when dealing with both staff and

students. These principals were perceived by teachers as impacting the change process

positively, especially by including the appropriate staff members in the decision-making

process (Allen, 2015).

Previous Studies

Trepenier, Fernet, and Austin (2012) conducted a study that analyzed the

relationship between a principal’s perceptions of their workplace relationships and their

transformational leadership characteristics. The results showed that principals who

considered their relationships at work to be meaningful had the tendency to view

21
themselves as inspirational leaders with the ability to communicate a sense of mission to

others. Also, the authors discovered that principals who feel a strong sense of self-

efficacy were more likely to display the transformational leadership characteristics.

Goff, Goldring, and Bickman (2014) studied the extent that a principal’s self-

assessment of leadership characteristics matched their teachers’ perceptions of the same

characteristics. They discovered that there is often a large, significant gap between the

two sets of perceptions, suggesting that teacher see and interpret various leadership

characteristics differently than the principals do.

Finnigan and Stewart (2009) found that transformational leadership behaviors

were most frequently evident in high performing schools, lending credence to the belief

that transformational leadership is the most effective form of leadership. This is one

example that documents that transformational leadership is an important component in

the establishment of successful schools and a topic worthy of further study.

School Climate

Since the reform movement of the 1990s, a significant amount of attention has

been placed on school climate and the school principal (Webster, 1994). Several studies

have shown that the essential variable in shaping school climate and guiding reform

efforts is the leadership of the principal (Hamilton & Richardson, 1995; Sergiovanni,

1995; Snowden & Gorton, 1998; Webster, 1994). Schein (1992) concurs and adds, “The

bottom line for leaders is that if they do not become conscious of the cultures in which

they are embedded, those cultures will damage them. Cultural understanding is desirable

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

22
school leaders to be cognizant of their schools’ climates so they can fulfill their

leadership roles effectively (Martin, 2009).

According to Levin (2001), the leader of the school can be a determinate as to

whether or not a school will be successful. Also, Sergiovanni (1995) asserts that the

principal is viewed as having the greatest position of power and influence in maintaining

and improving the quality of the school (Martin, 2009). Many principals often do not

realize that the key to influencing student achievement is by nurturing a positive school

climate (Chiang, 2003; Peterson, 2002). Shaping the climate of the school is considered

to be the primary responsibility of the principal (Snowden & Gorton, 1998). Principals

can reinforce positive norms and values in their daily work, the words that they use, as

well as the relations that they have with others (Peterson, 2002). When done in a positive

manner, high levels of student performance can be achieved (Hallinger & Heck, 1998).

It is often difficult for administrators to recognize if their behaviors are positively

impacting the school climate because they are consistently addressing the daily demands

of their jobs. Principals are typically faced with frustration, stress, or even impairment as

a result of the constant shift in their positions and leaving them little time for them to

reflect on their current practices. Thus, receiving feedback from other stakeholders,

especially faculty members, is essential (Martin, 2009).

In this cultural context, first, the principal is a role model in their school. The

teacher has to notice and interpret the principal’s necessary actions (Fullan, 1992).

Likewise, teachers should observe the principal for signs of how things are going with

respect to experimentation, risk-taking, courage, collaboration, and attitudes towards the

23
necessity of change (Deal & Peterson, 2000). Principals can promote a positive climate,

by acting in a certain way that sends signals to teachers and students that they can achieve

more (Sahin & Şahin, 2011).

The National School Climate Council (2007) suggests that a positive and

sustained school climate is based on patterns of people’s experiences of school life and

reflects norms, goals, values, interpersonal relationships, teaching and learning practices,

and organizational structures. This climate includes norms, values, and expectations that

support people feeling socially, emotionally and physically safe. People are engaged and

respected. Students, families and educators work together to develop, live, and contribute

to a shared school vision. Educators model and nurture an attitude that emphasizes the

benefits of, and satisfaction from, learning. Each person contributes to the operations of

the school as well as the care of the physical environment (Thapa, Cohen, Guffey, &

Higgins-D’Alessandro, 2013).

Factors of School Climate

The variables used to measure school climate are the three factors from the

School Climate Assessment Instrument (SCAI), developed by the Alliance for the Study

of School Climate (2014). They are Attitude and Culture, Faculty Interaction, and

Leadership Decisions.

Attitude and Culture

Examines the pervasive attitudes and cultures that operate within the school and

their relationship to the climate. This factor explores the degree to which social and

communal bonds are present within the school, the attitudes that the members of the

24
school possess, and the level of pride and ownership they feel. It includes the degree to

which efforts in this area are made intentionally or left to chance (Gangi, 2009). The

extent to which a positive school climate exists is considered its culture (Allen, 2015).

Halpin and Croft (1963) found that some of the characteristics of a positive school

climate include high morale and considerable job satisfaction among staff members.

Thapa, Cohen, Higgins-D’Alessandro, & Guffey (2012) suggest that a positive school

climate promotes cohesion, mutual trust, and cooperation among staff members (Allen,

2015).

Faculty Relations

Examines the relationship between how members of the faculty relate to one

another and its effects on the climate of the school. This factor includes the degree to

which collaboration, respect, the capacity to interact, and a sense of collective purpose

exist among the members of the faculty. It also includes the explicit and unambiguous

expectations among teachers as to how decisions are made and duties are delegated and

performed (Gangi, 2009).

Leadership Decisions

Examines the relationships among decision-making mechanisms, how

administrative authority is manifested and the climate that is created as a result. This

factor includes the degree to which the collective possesses a shared sense of values and

operational vision. It also explores the ways in which the quality of leadership affects

school life (Gangi, 2009). Leadership describes the extent to which the principal

provides instructional leadership to the staff of the campus (Allen, 2015). Halpin and

25
Croft (1963) and Hoy et al. (1991) found that open climates featured principals who

displayed sincere, genuine behavior and a high level of consideration for teachers.

Also, the policies of the principal should not hinder the ability of the teachers to do their

jobs, and the principal should exhibit indirect control of staff while providing direction

(Halpin & Croft, 1963). School climate can also be negatively affected by leadership

style. If a principal focuses on routine busywork or attempts to run the organization in a

businesslike, impersonal manner, teachers may not feel positive about their school’s

climate (Halpin & Croft, 1963; Hoy et al., 1991). Lastly, leaders who do not share

leadership and who fail to motivate staff and model appropriately can also influence the

development of a negative school climate (Allen, 2015).

Previous Studies

School climate research tends to be quantitative to better identify patterns of

perceived behavior within an organization (Hoy, 1990; Owens, 2004; Stockard &

Mayberry, 1992). Climate is often studied as an independent variable to determine how it

influences organizational outcomes. Hoy (1990) writes that the main purpose of studying

climate is to determine the most effective strategies for change.

While many factors that affect school climate are often beyond the control of

local schools, such as policy and funding issues that are prevalent at the state level

(Freiberg & Stein, 1999), there are several elements of school climate that can be

controlled within the confines of a campus. It is important to note that there are many

mediating organizational practices that play a key role in the definition and maintenance

of a campus’s climate (Poole, 1985). Litwan (1968) wrote that climate influences the

26
behavior of the whole organization through its influence on individual and small group

behavior.

Leadership is a key component in the development and sustainment of school

climate (Bass & Riggio, 2006; Burns, 1978). Distinct school climates can be created by

varying leadership styles (Litwin, 1968). Owens (2004) and Vos (2012) found that the

behavior of principals was especially influential on school climate, as the specific

strategies used to manage the campus influence the experience of the teachers and the

overall work atmosphere. Hoy and Woolfolk (1993) also found that principal influence

was a key component in the stimulation of teacher efficacy. Bird (2009) discovered that

teachers’ report of their engagement levels was strongly related to their level of trust in

the school, their colleagues, and their principal.

Moolenaar and his colleagues (2010) found that transformational leadership was

positively and significantly related to teachers’ perceptions of their school’s climate of

innovation. They also determined that teachers who were performing administrative tasks

in support of the principal, in addition to their teaching tasks, perceived their school’s

climate as less innovative than those teachers who had no additional administrative tasks.

Regarding the lack of significance, Bulach and Lunenberg (1995) found that there were

no statistically significant differences in school climate as a result of principal leadership

styles, implying that any leadership style could lead to the development of a positive

school climate, especially when the staff is experienced.

Urick and Bowers (2014) found that a principal’s perception of the climate of the

campus was negatively related to the students’ socioeconomic status and the social

27
disorder of the school. Also, the related effect of the principal’s perception of their

influence over instruction on school climate and the school’s connection with the

community was lessened by the extent to which the principal believed their campus’s test

scores and discipline were part of their evaluations.

Teacher perceptions of a principal’s leadership style can also have an impact on

school climate. Rhodes, Camic, Milbum, and Lowe (2009) found that principals can

improve teachers’ perceptions of school climate by exhibiting collaborative decision-

making and attempting to remove obstacles that keep teachers from focusing on

instruction. As a teacher’s perception of leadership improves, they become more effective

in the classroom. This implies that principals who want to affect positively school climate

should focus on providing the necessary support and resources teachers need.

Vos (2012) wrote that an unhealthy school climate can lead to ineffectiveness.

Discovering the climate of a campus is an important component, then, for developing

strategies for management and improvement of the organization’s overall health. For

example, school climate has a significant effect on staff motivation, performance, and job

satisfaction (Litwin, 1968). Hoy and Woolfolk (1993) discovered

that there was a reciprocal relationship between organizational climate and teacher

efficacy.

Since the overall climate of a campus has a significant effect on the job

satisfaction levels of staff members, it is especially important to evaluate organizational

health to maintain positive work performance (Vos 2012). Lastly, a sustainable, positive

school climate encourages the development and learning necessary for students to

28
become productive contributors to a democratic society (Cohen et al., 1999). In

conclusion, as Hoy (1990) writes, organizational health and climate as a whole can be an

important factor in effective change efforts.

Summary

Transformative leadership and a positive school climate collectively contribute to

the overall success of a school. Although the stated objective of many reform efforts is to

align content, teaching, and assessment, the chances of these programs being successful

are remote unless there is a climate is in place that embraces these structural changes.

Transformative leaders are viewed as being vital to improving the effectiveness of an

organization. One possible method for increasing an organization’s effectiveness is by

identifying transformative principal leaders most effective traits, and consequently,

matching those with elements of a compatible climate.

Based on the preceding review of the literature, there is ample evidence that

indicates that transformative leadership and school climate are related. Attempting to

understand one without having an understanding of the other will not obtain the desired

results. As a result, school leaders must have a thorough understanding of their role in

shaping the school climate, as well as the appreciation for which leadership style that is

most appropriate for assisting them in doing so (Martin, 2009). Increasing the body of

knowledge regarding which leadership style would be considered as the best fit for a

school’s climate could potentially lead to assisting organizations in selecting the best

leaders to enhance the effectiveness of the organization. It is hoped that this research

study will help schools in this process.

29
 Theoretical Framework

Transformational leadership, as studied by Burns (1978), is one of the most

prominent contemporary theories regarding leadership. Burns wrote that a

transformational leader was typically focused on the end product, uniting staff in the

pursuit of goals that match the leader’s vision while finding ways to excite even the least

interested employee. Transformational leadership has been found to have an impact on

school climate and student achievement levels (Hallinger & Heck, 1998). School climate

has been a component of the school reform movement since the early 1990s, and the

concept encompasses teachers’ shared perceptions of their overall work environment and

includes the internal features that distinguish one campus from another and affect the

behavior of its staff members (Hoy, 1990). Studying school climate measures helps

assess organizational and individual behavior for the purpose of making changes, if

necessary (Allen, 2015).

Research shows that transformational leadership is positively and significantly

related to teachers’ perceptions of their school’s climate and can lead to positive changes

in student outcomes (Finnigan & Stewart, 2009; Moolenaar et al., 2010). Research also

shows that school climate has a positive influence on student achievement (Caprara et al.,

2006; Ross, 1992). Given that there few studies examine the interrelated nature of

transformational leadership and school climate in conjunction with site-level

characteristics, there is a need for more research to be conducted.

30
 Chapter 3: Research Methodology

The purpose of this correlational study was to examine the relationship between

transformational principal leadership and school climate. Survey data were collected

from a purposeful sample of three schools located in a small suburban school district in

south Texas. Data were analyzed using canonical correlation analysis, Pearson’s product-

moment correlation analysis, and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests.

This chapter is divided into five sections. The first section restates the research

questions and states the hypothesis. The second section outlines the characteristics of the

subjects who participated in this quantitative study. The third section describes the

measurement instruments used to gather data and explore the research questions. The

fourth section describes the systematic procedures used to collect the data. The final

section of the chapter describes the data analysis procedures from the Statistical Package

for the Social Sciences (SPSS) utilized in this study.

Research Questions

The following research questions were examined in this study:

1. Are there significant relationships between transformational leadership and

school climate in the tested Texas schools?

2. Does transformational leadership influence school climate in the tested Texas

schools?

3. Are there differences in school climate means in the tested Texas schools?

31
Hypothesis

Ha: There is a statistically significant relationship between the factors of

transformational leadership, as measured by the Principal Leadership Questionnaire

(PLQ) and the factors of school climate, as measured by the School Climate Assessment

Instrument (SCAI) in the examined Texas schools.

Population and Sample

The population for this study comprised three schools from a small suburban

school district in south Texas. This school district is composed of fifteen campuses (nine

elementary schools, four middle schools, one high school, and one alternative campus),

employs 30 principals and assistant principals and 557 teachers, and has a student

population of 9,689 (Texas Education Agency, 2014).

The participants for this study were Texas school teachers and support personnel.

A middle school, for the purpose of this study, was a school having students in grades six

through eight. A high school, for the purpose of this study, was a school having students

in grades eight through twelve.

The data for this study were collected from Texas school teachers and support

personnel, and the individual was the level of analysis.

Participant Demographics

Data were collected from 218 faculty and staff participants representing three

schools in a small suburban school district in south Texas. During the fall of 2015, the

researcher sent the Qualtrics questionnaire to the 430 faculty and staff members with

email addresses in the schools’ directories. Of the 218 participants who responded, 21

32
responses were deleted due to submitting incomplete surveys or by not completing the

required consent form, leaving a total of 197 qualified participants. Table 1 represents the

number of participants per research site. Tables 2 and 3 provide summary demographics

of the respondents.

Table 1

Response Rate by Site

Responses Percentage
Research Site

School “A” 112 53%

School “B” 60 28%

School “C” 40 19%

Total 212 100%

Table 2

Response Rate by Primary Role

Reponses Percentage
Role

Administrator 14 7%

Faculty 163 77%

Staff 36 17%

Total 213 100%

33
Table 3

Response Rate by Tenure

Tenure in Years Reponses Percentage

Less Than One 8 4%

One to Three 29 14%

Three to Five 16 7%

Five to Seven 20 9%

Seven or More 141 66%

Total 214 100%

Instrumentation and Reliability

Two quantitative survey instruments were used to gather data for principal

transformational leadership and school climate. The Principal Leadership Questionnaire

(PLQ), developed by Jantzi and Leithwood (1996), provided data about transformational

leadership. All six factors of the PLQ were used in the data collection. The six PLQ

factors are (1) Vision Identification, (2) Modeling, (3) Goal Acceptance, (4)

Individualized Support, (5) Intellectual Simulation, and (6) High-Performance

Expectations. The PLQ has both face and construct validity. The items used to create the

factors in the PLQ made sense to measure the concepts examined. Mees (2008) cited

previous studies that provided evidence of construct validity for the PLQ including Prater

(2004) and Schooley (2005).

The School Climate Assessment Instrument (SCAI), originally authored by

Shindler et al. (2003) and published in 2004 by the Western Alliance for the Study of

School Climate (WASSC) has surveys for faculty, parents, and students for elementary,
34
middle and high school levels, that can be administered either individually or in a group

setting (Gangi, 2009). The SCAI has eight factors, but only three were used in the current

study. This decision was made to decrease the overall survey length and to improve the

response rate, but primarily to only use factors of conceptual interest with respect to

leadership. The three SCAI factors examined in this study were (1) Attitude and Culture,

(2) Leadership Decisions, and (3) Faculty Relations. The SCAI has both face and

construct validity. The items used to create the factors in the SCAI made sense to

measure the concepts being studied. Gangi (2009) cited studies from Shindler, Jones,

Williams, Taylor, and Cadenas that provided construct validity for the SCAI and

suggested that recent survey data also evidences there are high correlations among

climate, achievement, and climate subfactors.

The PLQ was used to gather data concerning the principal’s transformational

leadership characteristics. The PLQ consisted of 24 Likert-type questions with six

response options: strongly disagree, disagree, somewhat disagree, somewhat agree, agree,

and strongly agree (Mees, 2008). Each of the six PLQ factors described below used the

same scale.

After the factor name is a description of the factor, the number of items per factor,

and the reliability for each factor expressed as a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient.

Vision Identification: The degree to which the principal identifies new

opportunities for the organization and develops, articulates, and inspires others with a

vision of the future (Jantzi & Leithwood, 1996). This factor has four items and has a

Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of .96.

35
 Modeling: The degree to which the principal sets an example for the

organizational members to follow consistently with the values the principal espouses

(Jantzi & Leithwood, 1996). This factor has four items and has a Cronbach’s alpha

coefficient of .94.

Goal Acceptance: The degree to which the principal promotes cooperation among

organizational members and assists them in working together toward common goals

(Jantzi & Leithwood, 1996). This factor has four items and has a Cronbach’s alpha

coefficient of .94.

High-Performance Expectations: The degree to which the principal establishes

expectations for excellence, quality, and high performance on the part of the

organization’s members (Jantzi & Leithwood, 1996). This factor has four items and has a

Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of .95.

Individualized Support: The degree to which the principal demonstrates respect

for organizational members and concern about their personal feelings and needs (Jantzi &

Leithwood, 1996). This factor has four items and has a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of

.94.

Intellectual Stimulation: The degree to which the principal challenges

organizational members to reexamine some of the assumptions about their work and

rethink how it can be performed (Jantzi & Leithwood, 1996). This factor has four items

and has a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of .92.

The SCAI was used to gather data concerning the schools’ climate factors.

Instead of the typical Likert response type (5 choices ranging from strongly disagree to

36
agree strongly), or simple yes/no responses, actual statements that reflect different levels

of functioning are given as choices for each item. To further describe, there are three

different statements offered to the participant for each of the 80 items, each reflecting low

(Level 1 / accidental), medium (Level 2 / semi-intentional) or high levels (Level 3 /

intentional) of performance. For each item, the participant can rate what they perceive

best reflects their reality in the school, e.g., low, middle-low, middle, high-middle, or

high (Gangi, 2009). Each of the three SCAI factors described below uses the same scale.

After the factor name is a description of the factor, the number of items per factor, and

the reliability for each factor expressed as a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient.

Attitude and Culture: Examines the pervasive attitudes and cultures that operate

within the school and their relationship to the climate. This factor explores the degree to

which social and communal bonds are present within the school, the attitudes that the

members of the school possess, and the level of pride and ownership they feel. It includes

the degree to which efforts in this area are made intentionally or left to chance (Gangi,

2009). This factor has ten items and has a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of .90.

Faculty Relations: Examines the relationship between how members of the faculty

relate to one another and its effects on the climate of the school. This factor includes the

degree to which collaboration, respect, the capacity to interact, and a sense of collective

purpose exist among the members of the faculty. It also includes the explicit and

unambiguous expectations among teachers as to how decisions are made and duties are

delegated and performed (Gangi, 2009). This factor has eleven items and has a

Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of .92.

37
 Leadership Decisions: Examines the relationships among decision-making

mechanisms, how administrative authority is manifested and the climate that is created as

a result. This factor includes the degree to which the collective possesses a shared sense

of values and operational vision. It also explores the ways in which the quality of

leadership affects school life (Gangi, 2009). This factor has eleven items and has a

Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of .95.

Cronbach’s alphas were calculated to determine the reliability or internal

consistency of six factors of the PLQ and the three factors of the SCAI. Table 4 shows

the comparison between the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the PLQ in this study and

the reliability coefficients reported by Jantzi (1996). Table 5 illustrates the comparison

between Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the SCAI in this study and the reliability

coefficients reported by Gangi (2009). Fraenkel and Wallen (2006) suggest that reliability

coefficients greater than .70 are considered acceptable.

Table 4

Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability Coefficients for the PLQ

Cronbach’s Alpha () Cronbach’s Alpha ()

Lane (2015) Jantzi (1996)

Vision Identification .96 .88

Modeling .94 .86

Goal Acceptance .94 .86

High Performance .95 .86

Individualized Support .94 .82

Intellectual Stimulation .92 .77

38
Table 5

Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability Coefficients for the SCAI

Cronbach’s Alpha () Cronbach’s Alpha ()

Lane (2015) Gangi (2009)

Attitude and Culture .90 .88

Faculty Interaction .92 .89

Leadership Decisions .95 .96

Data Collection Procedures

The researcher gained approval from the University of Denver’s Institutional

Review Board (IRB) and the school district in which the study took place before any data

were collected.

Both survey instruments were administered using Qualtrics, along with the

required consent document, and a brief demographic questionnaire. The questionnaire

did not request any personal or sensitive information. Respondents were asked to

identify only the school in which they currently work, their primary role, and

approximate time in their profession. The resulting instrument had 24 questions

regarding transformative leadership and 32 questions about school climate. The last

question was an email capture if respondents wanted to be entered into a drawing for a

$50 gift card per school and one overall chance at an iPad.

The researcher created school specific email panels from the publically available

directory listings on each participating schools’ website. Each of the school principals

was sent a sample email meant to alert the faculty and staff of the impending survey and

to review its purpose and mention the possible incentives. On the targeted
39
commencement date of survey collection, emails were sent to each panel member

recapping what was outlined in the principal emails and providing the researcher’s

contact information. Two reminder emails were sent to either those who had started, but

not finished the survey, or those who had not started it at all.

At the end of the data collection period, the researcher downloaded the respondent

data into the IBM Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 23.0 and

analyzed it for errors. All electronic consent forms were secured to preserve

confidentiality and data was stored on a password protected computer and software

program to protect respondent privacy. Following the completion of the project, the

resulting data set was stripped of all school level identifiers.

Statistical Analyses

Data for this study were quantitative in nature. The level of significance for all

statistical tests was set at α = .05. The data set was first scanned for and then adjusted to

account for any missing data. Responses that were incomplete were removed from the

analysis. The appropriate analyses were then run to ensure the data set met the

expectations for normality, linearity, and homoscedasticity. This included reviewing the

mean scores for each variable, their corresponding values for skewness, and kurtosis, and

then by inspecting their histograms.

This first research question used canonical correlation analysis (CCA) to test the

relationship between the two groups of variables. CCA was used for several reasons.

First, the use of CCA minimized the risk of Type I error because the variables were

assessed simultaneously as opposed to assessed in many univariate statistical tests

40
Figure 1. Illustration of the first function of the canonical correlation analysis with six predictors and
three criterion variables. The canonical correlation is the simple Pearson r between the two synthetic
variables, which were linearly combined from the observed variables.

Second, CCA tested for correlations, not causality. As a result, CCA used two groups of

variables commonly referred to as “predictor” and “criterion” variables as opposed to

“independent” and “dependent” variables that are often used in experimental models.

Figure 1 outlines the canonical model employed in this study (Sherry & Henson, 2005).

Testing a correlational model was appropriate in this study because this model

examines the reciprocal (bidirectional), not unidirectional, relationships between

transformative leadership aspects and elements of school climate. Third, CCA, like other

multivariate tests, tested for the complexity that exists in human behavior. Investigating a

complex relationship through a series of isolated univariate methods may have failed to

reveal significant multivariate relationships (Sherry & Henson, 2005). Testing a

multivariate model allowed for correlations between and within the sets of predictor and

41
criterion variables, and was appropriate in this study because principal leadership is a

complex topic with multiple causes and multiple effects (Szymendra, 2013).

The first step of data analysis explored whether a relationship existed between the

groups of variables. Wilks’ lambda (λ) was used to determine if a significant relationship

existed, as well as the extent of the relationship. Second, each individual canonical

correlation was evaluated to determine if it explained a reasonable amount of variance

between the variable sets. The second step of data analysis focused on identifying which

specific variables contributed to the relationship between the groups of variables.

Standardized canonical function coefficients, structure coefficients, and squared structure

coefficients were then analyzed to determine the amount of variance each variable

contributed to its respective group (Szymendra, 2013).

The second research question was explored by using a Pearson’s product-moment

correlation. This coefficient measures the strength and direction of a linear relationship

between continuous variables. Its value can range from -1 for a perfect negative linear

relationship to +1 for a perfect positive linear relationship. A value of 0 (zero) indicates

no relationship between two variables (Lund Research Ltd., 2013).

Data plotting did reveal a linear relationship between these variables and also did

not reflect any outliers. As testing for normality had already been performed, it was

concluded that the resulting data were normally distributed.

The third research question was explored by using a one-way analysis of variance

(ANOVA) test. This test was appropriate for the following reasons. It can be used to

determine whether there are any statistically significant differences between the means of

42
two or more independent groups, in our example the factors of the school site, primary

role, and tenure and their relationship with the examined climate factors.

It is important to realize that the one-way ANOVA is an omnibus test statistic

and cannot indicate which specific groups were significantly different from each other; it

only indicates that at least two groups were different (Lund Research Ltd., 2013). This

determination can be made by examining the results of either the Tukey or Games-

Howell posthoc test.

The data were already screened and adjusted for outliers and tested for normality.

Homogeneity of variance was examined by using the Levene's test of equality of

variances.

43
 Chapter 4: Results

This study examined the relationship between perceptions of the degree to which

a principal displays the factors of transformational leadership (Vision Identification,

Modeling, Goal Acceptance, Individualized Support, Intellectual Simulation, and High-

Performance Expectations) and the school climate elements (Attitude and Culture,

Leadership Decisions, and Faculty Interactions). The purpose of this chapter is to present

the quantitative findings of the study. This chapter presents the results of data analysis

and findings related to each of the research questions. This chapter closes with a

summary of the findings.

Research Question One

Are there significant relationships between transformational leadership and

school climate in the tested Texas schools? This was tested by conducting a canonical

correlation analysis using the six leadership variables as predictors of the three climate

variables to evaluate the multivariate-shared relationship between the two variable sets

(i.e., transformative leadership and school climate). Table 6 presents the summary

descriptive statistics of the variables used in this study.

44
Table 6

Descriptive Characteristics of Variables

Vision Model Goal Expect Support Intel Culture Faculty Leader

N 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195

Mean 4.62 4.71 4.66 4.97 4.60 4.77 3.24 3.66 3.70

Std. Dev 1.24 1.25 1.22 1.08 1.30 1.11 .69 .70 .82

Variance 1.52 1.56 1.47 1.17 1.68 1.23 .48 .49 .66
- -
Skewness -1.23 -1.27 1.15 -1.67 -1.07 1.19 -.04 -.68 -.78

SE Skew .17 .17 .17 .17 .17 .17 .17 .17 .17

Kurtosis .97 1.20 .94 3.12 .43 1.24 -.03 .48 .88

SE Kurt .35 .35 .35 .35 .35 .35 .35 .35 .35

Reliability .96 .94 .94 .94 .94 .92 .90 .92 .95

The CCA yielded three functions with a canonical R of and squared canonical

correlations (Rc2) of .70, .27, and .17 for each successive Rc2 function. Collectively, the

full model across all functions was statistically significant using the Wilks’ λ = .47

criterion, F(18, 526.57) = 9.09, p < .05. Because Wilks’ λ represents the variance

unexplained by the model, 1 – λ yields the full model effect size in an r2 metric. Thus, for

the set of three canonical functions, the r2 effect size was .54, which indicates that the full

model explained a substantial portion, about 54%, of the variance shared between the

variable sets. The dimension reduction analysis allows the researcher to test the

hierarchal arrangement of functions for statistical significance. As noted, the full model

(Functions 1 to 3) was statistically significant. Function 2 to 3 was also found to be

statistically significant, F(10, 374.00) = 2.01, p = .05. Function 3 (which was the only
45
function that was tested in isolation) did not explain a statistically significant amount of

shared variance between the variable sets, F(4, 188) = 1.47, p = .21. Given the Rc2 effects

for each function, only the first function was considered noteworthy in the context of this

study (48% of the shared variance). The last two functions only explained .07% and

.03%, respectively, of the remaining variance in the variable sets after the extraction of

the first function. Detailed tables of all canonical functions are found in Appendices H

through J.

Table 7 presents the standardized canonical function coefficients and structure

coefficients for Function 1. The squared structure coefficients are also given as well for

each variable. Looking at the Function 1 coefficients, one sees that relevant criterion

variable was primarily Leadership Decisions with Attitude and Culture and Faculty

Interaction making minor contributions to the synthetic criterion variable. This

conclusion was supported by examining the squared structure coefficients. This climate

element also had the largest canonical function coefficient.

It should be noted that Attitude and Culture and Faculty Interactions had modest

function coefficients, but large structure coefficients. This result was due to the

multicollinearity these variables shared with the other criterion variables. These

variables’ structure coefficients all had the same sign, indicating that they were all

positively related.

46
Table 7

Canonical Solution for Transformative Leadership Predicting School Climate

Structure
Variable Standardized Coefficient
Coefficient rs rs2 (%)

Set 1

Attitude and Culture -.12 -.79 61.76%

Faculty Interactions .24 -.68 46.43%

Leadership Decisions -1.09 -.99 97.43%

Rc2 48.33%

Set 2

Vision Identification -.36 -.93 86.31%

Modeling -.26 -.93 86.11%

Goal Acceptance .17 -.88 77.98%

High Expectations .05 -.85 71.56%

Individual Support -.23 -.92 84.65%

Intellectual Stimulation -.43 -.95 89.80%

Regarding the predictor variable set in Function 1, Intellectual Stimulation,

Modeling, Vision Identification, and Individual Support leadership variables were the

primary contributors to the predictor synthetic variable, with secondary contributions by

Goal Acceptance, and High Expectations. Because the structure coefficients for all of

these variables were negative, they were positively related to the climate elements. These

results were generally supportive of the theoretically expected relationships between

transformational leadership and school climate.

47
 Research Question Two

Does transformational leadership influence school climate in the tested Texas

schools? This explored whether or not a relationship existed between respondents’

perceptions of their principals’ transformational leadership qualities and the observed

elements of school climate. Pearson product-moment correlation techniques were used to

analyze the data. Sufficient evidence was found to justify the rejection of the null

hypothesis and accept the alternative (research) hypothesis. Findings indicate a

statistically significant positive relationship exists between the six factors of

transformational leadership (Vision Identification, Modeling, Goal Acceptance,

Individualized Support, Intellectual Simulation, and High-Performance Expectations) and

the three factors of school climate (Attitude and Culture, Leadership Decisions, and

Faculty Interactions). Table 8 presents those results.

Table 8

Model Summary of Correlations Between Transformational Leadership and School

Climate

Attitude Faculty Leadership

Variable and Culture Interactions Decisions

Vision Identification .49** .40** .63**

Modeling .54** .41** .63**

Goal Acceptance .48** .36** .60**

High Expectations .47** .41** .58**

Individualized
Support .52** .42** .63**

Intellectual
Stimulation .50** .48** .66**
**
p < .01 (2-tailed)

48
 Research Question Three

Does the individual school, employment role, and tenure influence school climate

in the tested Texas schools? This explored whether or not a relationship existed between

the individual school sites, employment role, and tenure interacted with the observed

elements of school climate.

At the school level of analysis, the first two climate factor (Attitude and Culture

and Faculty Interactions) both met the Levene’s test for homogeneity of variance with

respective values of p = .56 and p = .09. The last climate factor (Leadership Decisions)

did not, with a value of p = .04. Since this was the case, the alternative Welch’s ANOVA

output was interpreted instead. The climate factor mean for Attitude and Culture differed

statistically significantly by school with Welch's F(2, 88.07) = 5.16, p < .05. The climate

factor for Faculty Interactions was also statistically significant with Welch’s F(2, 88.35)

= 9.89, p < .05. The final climate factor of Leadership Decisions was also significant

with Welch’s F(2, 83.10) = 14.39, p < .05. The school means were all found to be

statistically significantly different at p < .05 and, therefore, I rejected the null hypothesis

and supported the alternative hypothesis. Table 9 illustrates average mean scores on the

observed climate factors by the individual school site.

49
Table 9

Average Mean Scores on the Climate Factors by School

Std.
Climate Factor School N Mean Deviation
School
Attitude “A” 101 3.38 .62
School
“B” 54 3.00 .75
School
“C” 38 3.24 .62
Faculty School
Interactions “A” 101 3.86 .60
School
“B” 54 3.33 .77
School
“C” 38 3.65 .58
Leadership School
Decisions “A” 101 3.97 .65
School
“B” 54 3.27 .86
School
“C” 38 3.62 .75

At the employment role level of analysis, all three climate factors (Attitude and

Culture, Faculty Interactions, and Leadership Decisions) met the Levene’s test for

homogeneity of variance with respective values of p = .26, p = .56, and p = .16. The

climate factor for Attitude and Culture was not statistically significantly at the

employment role level with F(2, 192) = .91, p =.40. The climate factor for Faculty

Interactions was not statistically significant with F(2, 192) = 2.01, p =.13. The final

climate factor of Leadership Decisions was also not significant with F(2, 192) = .62, p

=.44. The employment role means did not differ statistically significantly. Table 10

50
illustrates average mean scores on the observed climate factors by the respondents’

primary employment role.

Table 10

Average Mean Scores on the Climate Factors by Employment Role

Climate Employment Std.

Factor Role N Mean Deviation

Attitude Administrator 13 3.20 .46

Faculty 149 3.21 .71

Staff 33 3.39 .68

Faculty
Interactions Administrator 13 3.30 .55

Faculty 149 3.68 .69

Staff 33 3.73 .71

Leadership
Decisions Administrator 13 3.45 .50

Faculty 149 3.70 .84

Staff 33 3.74 .79

For tenure, all three climate factors (Attitude and Culture, Faculty Interactions,

and Leadership Decisions) met the Levene’s test for homogeneity of variance with

respective values of p = .96, p = .78, and p = .77) The climate factor for Attitude and

Culture was not statistically significantly different by employment role with F(4, 190) =

.47, p =.75. The climate factor for Faculty Interactions was not statistically significant

with F(4, 190) = .21, p =.93. The final climate factor of Leadership Decisions was also

not significant with F(4, 190) = .36, p =.84. The tenure means did not differ

51
significantly. Table 11 illustrates average mean scores on the observed climate factors by

the respondents’ self-identified tenure in years.

Table 11

Average Mean Scores on the Climate Factors by Tenure

Std.
Climate Factor Tenure in Years N Mean Deviation

Attitude Less than 1 5 3.56 .76

1-3 26 3.16 .73

3-5 14 3.33 .68

5-7 18 3.16 .70

7 more 132 3.24 .68

Faculty Interactions Less than 1 5 3.81 1.10

1-3 26 3.60 .72

3-5 14 3.76 .52

5-7 18 3.60 .75

7 more 132 3.67 .69

Leadership Decisions Less than 1 5 3.96 .97

1-3 26 3.58 .84

3-5 14 3.81 .79

5-7 18 3.74 .66

7 more 132 3.68 .84

52
 Summary of Findings

This chapter provided the results of the analysis of the quantitative data collected

using the PLQ and the SCAI instruments to address the three research questions. Overall,

findings revealed that the relationships between the transformational leadership factors

and the school climate factors were statistically significant. Also, there were moderate

positive relationships found between the perceptions of the transformational leadership

factors exhibited by the principals and all of the observed school climate factors. It was

also found that when considering the categories of the school site, primary employment

role, and tenure that significant differences were found only for school site on perceptions

of school climate.

53
 Chapter 5: Summary and Discussion

Schools have been concerned with improving student outcomes since the passage

of No Child Left Behind in 2001 began requiring more rigorous student achievement, as

measured on standardized assessments. Schools in the improvement process often

examine the various leadership and climate factors that play a substantial role in school

effectiveness (Bruggencate, et al., 2012). Therefore, the purpose of this study was to

examine the relationship between transformational leadership and school climate and

consider other factors such as the school setting, employment role, and tenure.

Three schools from a small, suburban school district, participated in this

study. The faculty and staff of these campuses were solicited were solicited to complete

two surveys (PLQ and SCAI). This study used canonical correlation analysis, Pearson’s

product-moment correlations, and analysis of variance tests to investigate the

relationships between (a) transformational leadership and school climate, (b) the

influence of transformational leadership on school climate, and (c) the impact of school

site, employment role, and tenure on school climate.

This chapter elaborates on a summary of the findings, implications, and

recommendations for future research.

Summary of Findings

The research questions addressed whether there was a relationship between a

principal’s degree of transformational leadership and the perceived school climate,

54
evaluated the effect of transformational leadership on school climate, and considered

factors such as school site, primary role, and tenure in relation to school climate. The

following questions guided this study:

1. Are there significant relationships between transformational leadership and

school climate in the tested Texas schools?

2. Does transformational leadership influence school climate in the tested Texas

schools?

3. Does the individual school site, employment role, and tenure influence school

climate in the tested Texas schools?

The alternative hypotheses for the corresponding research questions were the following:

1. There is a relationship between transformational leadership and school climate

in the tested Texas schools.

2. Transformational leadership does influence school climate in the tested Texas

schools.

3. The individual school site, employment role, and tenure do influence school

climate in the tested Texas schools.

Transformational leadership has six factors (vision identification, goal acceptance,

high-performance expectations, individualized support, intellectual stimulation, and

modeling) and school climate has three factors (attitude and culture, faculty interaction,

and leadership decisions). The same relations in the respected questions were examined

for these properties as well.

55
Research Question One

Leadership is a key component in the success of a campus. Transformational

leaders have the potential to positively impact a school’s climate (Bass & Riggio, 2006).

In this study, the six factors of transformational leadership all exhibited significant

positive relationships with the leadership decisions factor of school climate, highlighting

the importance of leadership and understanding the context in which it occurs on a

campus. These results are consistent with the findings of Hallinger & Heck (1998) who

found that transformational leaders have an impact on teachers’ perception of school

climate.

Vision Identification

The degree to which the principal identifies new opportunities for the

organization and develops, articulates, and inspires others with a vision of the future

(Jantzi & Leithwood, 1996). The results of this study found a significant positive

relationship between the vision identification factor of leadership and the leadership

decision factor of school climate. As supported by previous research (Bird et al., 2009;

Rhodes et al., 2009), a teacher’s perception of school climate was strongly related to their

perceptions of the principal’s exhibited vision. When teachers believe their principal

exhibits a high level of these attributes, they identify better with their leader, and that

leads them to feel more positive about the direction and climate of the campus overall

(Allen, 2015).

56
 Modeling

Leaders who display moral and ethical behavior will easily build commitment to

the campus and its goals (Jantzi & Leithwood, 1996). In this study, there was a

significant positive relationship between the modeling aspects of being a leader and the

leadership decisions factor of school climate. Similar to the findings of Owens (2004) and

Vos (2012), the teachers’ perceptions of the school climate were influenced by the

behavior of principals. A leader who is a role model for staff and behaves in accordance

with the values they promote can easily build commitment to the campus and its goals,

which can lead teachers to perceive the school climate as a positive one.

Conversely, Bulach and Lunenberg (1995) found that there were no significant

differences in school climate perceptions as a result of principal leadership behaviors.

They do suggest, however, that a positive school climate is dependent on the leadership

style of the principal matching the maturity level of the faculty. One possible explanation

for the difference in the current study’s findings and those of Bulach and Lunenberg

could be the different survey instruments that were used. The current study used an

instrument that focused specifically on transformational leadership characteristics, while

Bulach and Lunenberg used a survey that simply defined leadership style.

Goal Acceptance

The degree to which the principal promotes cooperation among organizational

members and assists them in working together toward common goals (Jantzi &

Leithwood, 1996). In this study, no significant relationship was discovered between the

57
goal acceptance traits exhibited by a leader and the leadership decisions factor of school

climate.

High-Performance Expectations

The degree to which the principal establishes expectations for excellence, quality,

and high performance on the part of the organization’s members (Jantzi & Leithwood,

1996). In this study, no significant relationship was discovered between the high-

performance expectation traits exhibited by a leader and the leadership decisions factor of

school climate.

Individualized Support

The degree to which the principal demonstrates respect for organizational

members and concern about their personal feelings and needs (Jantzi & Leithwood,

1996). In this study, there was a significant positive relationship between the

individualized support aspect of the leader and the leadership decisions factor of school

climate, similar to the previous research of Hauserman (2013) and Leithwood and Jantzi

(2005). Successful principals recognize that one of the most important components in

student success is the teacher. Teachers felt more positive about their school environment

when their principal values them as a partner in the school program, and not just as a staff

member.

Also, leaders who demonstrate individualized support exhibit more confidence in

the abilities of their staff members, which positively influences school climate. Principals

who provide professional development opportunities and a supportive climate will

particularly influence the school climate factors of environment and collaboration. Also,

58
administrators can impact school climate when they choose to build trusting, cooperative

relationships with teachers, particularly when they recognize the individual needs and

desires of staff.

Intellectual Stimulation

The degree to which the principal challenges organizational members to

reexamine some of the assumptions about their work and rethink how it can be performed

(Jantzi & Leithwood, 1996). The current study found a significant positive relationship

between the intellectual stimulation characteristic of a leader and the leadership decisions

factor of school climate. This is consistent with the previous research completed by

Leithwood (1993) and Moolenaar et al. (2010). Principals who encourage the

development of teacher strengths can motivate teachers to try new instructional strategies.

Also, when teachers believe that the principal will support new initiatives and will help

them work through problems, they are more willing to try something new. This level of

support from the principal will positively influence a teacher’s view of the school

climate.

Research Question Two

Shaping the climate of the school is considered to be the primary responsibility of

the principal (Snowden & Gorton, 1998). Principals can reinforce positive norms and

values in their daily work, the words that they use, as well as the relations that they have

with others (Peterson, 2002). In this project, it was found that all six factors of

transformative leadership did have a statistically significant impact on the three factors of

school climate.

59
 This though is difficult to interpret fully without having a better understanding of

the role played by the conditions that tend to promote the emergence of transformative

leadership. These are typically classified as antecedents.

Leithwood & Jantzi, (2005) suggest that there is little evidence about the role of

antecedents and their impact on transformational leadership. They note that a restricted

range of variables has been explored to date and there is no accumulation of evidence

about any of those variables. This is surprising since a great deal of the educational

leadership literature suggest that the context in which leaders work is of enormous

importance in determining what they do (Deal, 2005). This has typically prompted

research about leadership in one context at a time, for example, whole-school reform,

technology, minority student populations, and social justice (Shields, 2004).

These studies tell us little about how variations in context are related to variations

in leadership practices, the kind of evidence that is needed if we are to become clearer

about the antecedents of transformational leadership and the impact of their effects. More

evidence about an expanded array of theoretically defensible antecedents ought to be a

significant item on the agenda for future transformational leadership research (Leithwood

& Jantzi, 2005).

Some researchers have suggested that school organizations, especially

in today’s reform contexts, are likely to be hostile to the emergence of transformational

leadership. But research, as well as evidence from non-school contexts, suggests the

opposite. For example, Lowe et al.’s (1996) and Dumdum et al.’s (2002) metanalyses

include a comparison of results in private vs. public (assumed to be more bureaucratic)

60
organizations. Contrary to the original hypothesis for this line of inquiry, both studies

found greater evidence of transformational leadership practices in public than in private

organizations. Transformational leadership may well be an effective offset to the effects

of excessive organizational constraint (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2005).

Others have suggested that transformational leadership is also more likely to

emerge in times of crisis. Transformational leaders do this, for example, by creating a

shared sense of direction, clear goals and support and encouragement for peoples’ work.

Findings such as these indicate a high degree of compatibility between transformational

approaches to leadership and the typical contexts in which schools currently find

themselves. Beyond the few antecedents touched on in the review, there is little evidence

of either comprehensive or theoretically guided research on the antecedents to

transformational leadership, an area warranting future research.

Antecedents are likely to be both “interior” and “exterior.” Interior antecedents

include the leader motivations, self-efficacy beliefs, capacities, and personality

characteristics (e.g., optimism, openness) outlined by Popper and Mayseless (2002), for

example. Antonakis and House point to the “…compelling case for incorporating

dispositional arguments and evidence into theories of behavior in organizations” (2002,

p. 23). Educational leadership research as a whole has devoted very little energy to the

study of leaders’ internal lives, with the exception of their values (Begley & Johansson,

2003) and their cognitive processes (e.g., Leithwood & Steinbach, 1995). Exterior

antecedents may well include early family experiences, professional socialization

61
experiences, as well as those policy contexts which receive most of the attention in

current educational research (Judge, Woolf, Hurst, & Livingston, 2006).

Research Question Three

Research has shown definite linkages to an employees’ sense of efficacy when

their role in the organization and tenure is considered. School site-level moderating

factors such as in-school politics, attrition, and external pressures from parents and other

stakeholders can also have an impact on the perceived elements of climate.

It was found that after controlling for the disproportionate number of respondents

from each site, that the only statistically significant factor was the actual school site itself

in predicting the elements of climate. This is difficult to interpret without having a better

grasp of the dynamics present in the individual research sites, but may explain why the

previously cited works were conducted at that level of analysis. Considering the

interplay between those closely related factors, examining the individual components on

their own presents a theoretical challenge.

The study of transformational school leadership moderators would seem to be in

its infancy, and the importance of focusing research attention on this category of

variables seems yet to have been fully appreciated (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2005). They

suggest that the lack of such attention is a plausible explanation for conflicting research

results. Transformational leadership in schools of markedly different sizes, for example,

may have quite different effects on mediating school conditions and student outcomes. In

many cases, the study of moderators has been uninformed by or has not informed theory.

62
While school size or students’ ethnicity may turn out to significantly moderate the effects

of transformational leadership, at this point it is not clear why (Judge et al., 2006).

Leithwood & Jantzi (2005) offer plausible theoretical explanations for the

moderating effects of most of the teacher variables, some of the organizational

conditions, but almost none of the student characteristics. They suggest that much more

theory-informed evidence about the moderators of transformational leadership effects is

in order.

Implications

The findings of this quantitative research study have implications for the

administrators involved in the study, as well as for any administrators interested in the

relationships between transformational leadership and school climate, especially if they

are involved in the school improvement process.

General Implications

The findings of this study can be used by school administrators and teachers to

improve school climate by addressing campus strengths and weaknesses. It is also

important for any district to remember that while an individual school can develop a

specific climate independently of the district as a whole, any changes in school culture or

climate at the district level can affect school climate at the campus level (Tableman,

2004). While making positive changes in school climate can motivate staff and students

to improve, long-term improvement will not be possible without the support of district-

level staff. The district should also be concerned with providing professional

development opportunities that can strengthen the transformational leadership

63
characteristics of their campus leaders and build the efficacy of their teachers (Allen,

2015).

Implications for Principal Development

Given the importance of transformational leadership as a contributing factor to

school climate, it would be reasonable to conclude that regular evaluation of a principal’s

leadership characteristics should be conducted. When feedback is then provided

promptly, campus leaders can ensure they are providing appropriate leadership to their

staff and can make changes or improvements if needed. Also, administrators who wish to

improve students’ work ethic and emphasis on academics should be fully aware of any

school-level factors that could help or hinder student outcomes (Bevans, et al., 2007).

Also, principals can work on developing their transformational leadership skills to impact

positively school climate.

Implications for the Hiring Process

Another area of focus for a district should be the hiring process. District personnel

should be conscious of the leadership style of potential candidates to guarantee that a

principal is chosen who exhibits the transformational leadership characteristics that will

impact school climate the most. The PLQ could be administered to potential hires as a

means of determining the transformational leadership characteristics that person will

exhibit.

Recommendations for Future Studies

Several recommendations are suggested for future research examining the

relationships between transformational leadership, school climate, and student

64
achievement. This study should be replicated by (a) using a larger sample size of schools,

(b) using elementary school campuses, (c) including qualitative data to explore the

relationships between the constructs, and (d) including qualitative data collected from

students and parents to understand their perceptions. This study used only three schools

from a small, suburban school district and could be replicated with a larger sample size

that includes campuses from all areas within the state. This study also focused strictly on

middle and high schools, which could have a completely distinct environment from that

of elementary schools. This implies that there is a need to replicate this study with a

different level of schools to see if similar results would be found. Also, this study focused

on the climate of the campus as a whole. Including qualitative data to explore the

relationships among the constructs is another potential area for research. This study used

strictly quantitative data. A qualitative study would allow researchers to explore more

fully the perception of participants regarding leadership and school climate. Since there is

little research that delineates the means by which a principal achieves an impact on

school outcomes, including qualitative data may gain some insight into this area of

interest Also, research could also be conducted that includes quantitative or qualitative

data collected from students and parents to determine their perceptions of school climate.

Conclusion

The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between

transformational leadership and school climate. This study found that there was: (a)

statistically significant relationship between the six factors of transformational leadership

and the leadership decisions factor of school climate, and (b) that the factors of

65
transformational leadership influenced the factors of school climate, and (c) that the

school site was the most significant predictor of school climate. The findings of this

research were supportive of previous research cited regarding the relationship between

transformative leadership and school climate.

66
 References

Allen, N. (2015). Transformational Leadership and its Relationship to School Climate

and Achievement. The University of Houston - Clear Lake.

Alliance for the Study of School Climate. (2015, November 8). School Climate

Assessment Instrument. Retrieved from Alliance for the Study of School Climate:

http://web.calstatela.edu/centers/schoolclimate/assessment/school_survey.html

Au, W. (2011). Teaching under the new Taylorism: high-stakes testing and the

standardization of the 21st century curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies,

43(1), 25–45. http://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2010.521261

Bass, B. M. (1999). Two Decades of Research and Development in Transformational

Leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(1), 9–

32. http://doi.org/10.1080/135943299398410

Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance

by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. The Journal of Applied

Psychology, 88(2), 207–218. http://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.207

Boyer, A., & Hamil, B. W. (2008). Problems Facing American Education, 2(1), 1–9.

Cohen, B. J., & Mccloskey, M. (2009). Assessing School Climate. The Education Digest,

(April), 45–49.

Crum, K. S., & Sherman, W. H. (2008). Facilitating high achievement: High school

principals’ reflections on their successful leadership practices. Journal of

Educational Administration. http://doi.org/10.1108/09578230810895492

67
Gangi, T. A. (2009). School Climate and Faculty Relationships: Choosing an Effective

Measure. St. John’s University.

Goodwin, R. H., Cunningham, M. L., & Eagle, T. (2005). The changing role of the

secondary principal in the United States: An historical perspective. Journal of

Educational Administration and History, 37(1), 1–17.

http://doi.org/10.1080/0022062042000336046

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1998). Exploring the Principal’s Contribution to School

Effectiveness: 1980 1995 . School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9(2),

157–191. http://doi.org/10.1080/0924345980090203

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2011). Exploring the journey of school improvement:

classifying and analyzing patterns of change in school improvement processes and

learning outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement.

http://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2010.536322

Hinde, E. R. (2004). School culture and change: An examination of the effects of school

culture on the process of change. Essays in Education, 12(Winter). Retrieved

from http://usca.edu/essays/vol122004/hinde.pdf

Hoy, W. K. (1990). Organizational Climate and Ineffectiveness. Journal of Educational

and Psychological Consultation. http://doi.org/10.1207/s1532768xjepc0102_4

Judge, T. A., Woolf, E. F., Hurst, C., & Livingston, B. (2006). Charismatic and

Transformational Leadership: A Review and an Agenda for Future Research.

Zeitschrift Fur Arbeits- Und Organisationspsychologie, 50(4), 203–214.

http://doi.org/10.1026/0932-4089.50.4.203

68
Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2008). Seven strong claims about successful

school leadership. School Leadership & Management, 28(1), 27–42.

http://doi.org/10.1080/13632430701800060

Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2005). A Review of Transformational School Leadership

Research 1996–2005. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4(3), 177–199.

http://doi.org/10.1080/15700760500244769

Lund Research Ltd. . (2015, November 5). One-way ANOVA in SPSS Statistics.

Retrieved from Laerd Statistics: https://statistics.laerd.com/premium/owa/one-

way-anova-in-spss.php

Lund Research Ltd. (2013). Pearson's product-moment correlation in SPSS. Retrieved

November 5, 2015, from Laerd Statistics:

https://statistics.laerd.com/premium/pc/pearson-correlation-in-spss.php

Martin, S. T. (2009). Relationship Between the Leadership Styles of Principals and

School Culture.

Mees, G. W. (2008). The Relationships Among Principal Leadership, School Culture and

Student Achievement In Missouri Middle Schools. University of Missouri -

Columbia.

Moolenaar, N. M., Daly, a. J., & Sleegers, P. J. C. (2010). Occupying the Principal

Position: Examining Relationships Between Transformational Leadership, Social

Network Position, and Schools’ Innovative Climate. Educational Administration

Quarterly, 46(5), 623–670. http://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X10378689

69
National Association of Secondary School Principals. (2007). Changing Role of the

Middle and High School Leader: Learning from the Past - Preparing for the

Future. Reston.

Onorato, M. (2013). Transformational leadership style in the educational sector: An

empirical study of corporate managers and educational leaders. Academy of

Educational Leadership Journal, 17(1), 33–47. Retrieved from

http://ts.isil.westga.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=t

rue&db=bth&AN=87744054&site=eds-live&scope=site

Reed, E., & Justice, M. (2014). College and High School Educators’ Perceptions of

Current College Readiness Levels, 4(14), 37–44.

Sahin, S., & Şahin, S. (2011). The relationship between instructional leadership style and

school culture (İzmir case). Kuram ve Uygulamada Egitim Bilimleri, 11(4), 1920–

1927.

Sherry, A., & Henson, R. K. (2005). Conducting and interpreting canonical correlation

analysis in personality research: a user-friendly primer. Journal of Personality

Assessment, 84(1), 37–48. http://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8401_09

Stewart, J. (2006). Instructional and transformational leadership: Burns, Bass and

Leithwoood. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 54, 1–

29.

Szymendra, M. (2013). The Relationship Between Self-Efficacy , School and Personal

Characteristics, and Principal Behaviors Related to Student Achievement. Lehigh

University.

70
Texas Education Agency. (2014). Texas Academic Peformance Report . Retrieved

November 5, 2015, from TEA Division of Performance Reporting:

http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/tapr/2014/index.html

Thapa, a., Cohen, J., Guffey, S., & Higgins-D’Alessandro, a. (2013). A review of school

climate research. Review of Educational Research, 83(3), 357–385.

http://doi.org/10.3102/0034654313483907

Valentine, J. W., & Prater, M. (2011). Instructional, Transformational, and Managerial

Leadership and Student Achievement: High School Principals Make a Difference.

NASSP Bulletin, 95(1), 5–30. http://doi.org/10.1177/0192636511404062

Wright, L. (2012). Restructuring Public Education for the 21st Century, (107).

U.S. Department of Education. (2015, August 30). Elementary and Secondary Education

Act. Retrieved from U.S. Department of Education: http://www.ed.gov/esea

Van Roekel, N. (2008). Changing Role of School Leadership. NEA Education Policy

Brief.

Watterson, B. (2015, September 1). Bill Watterson Quote. Retrieved from GoodReads:

http://www.goodreads.com/

71
Appendix A: Permission to Use Principal Leadership Questionnaire

72
 Appendix B: Principal Leadership Questionnaire

Principal Leadership Questionnaire

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree
Please respond by considering how well each statement applies to your principal.

Undecided
Disagree
Please use the following scale:

Agree
1=Strongly Disagree 2=Disagree 3=Undecided 4=Agree 5=Strongly Agree

1. My principal has both the capacity and the judgment to overcome most obstacles.     
2. My principal commands respect from everyone on the faculty.     
My principal excites faculty with visions of what we may be able to accomplish if we
3.
work together as a team.     
4. My principal makes faculty members feel and act like leaders.     
5. My principal gives the faculty a sense of overall purpose for its leadership role.     
6. My principal leads by “doing” rather than simply by “telling.”     
My principal symbolizes success and accomplishment within the profession of
7.
education.     
8. My principal provides good models for faculty members to follow.     
9. My principal provides for our participation in the process of developing school goals.     
10. My principal encourages faculty members to work toward the same goals.     
11. My principal uses problem solving with the faculty to generate school goals.     
My principal works toward whole faculty consensus in establishing priorities for
12.
school goals.     
My principal regularly encourages faculty members to evaluate our progress toward
13.
achievement of school goals.     
My principal provides for extended training to develop my knowledge and skills
14.
relevant to being a member of the school faculty.     
My principal provides the necessary resources to support my implementation of the
15.
school’s program.     
16. My principal treats me as an individual with unique needs and expertise.     
My principal takes my opinion into consideration when initiating actions that affect my
17.
work.     
18. My principal behaves in a manner thoughtful of my personal needs.     
My principal challenges me to reexamine some basic assumptions I have about my
19.
work in the school.     
20. My principal stimulates me to think about what I am doing for the school’s students.     
My principal provides information that helps me think of ways to implement the
21.
school’s program.     
22. My principal insists on only the best performance from the school’s faculty.     
My principal shows us that there are high expectations for the school’s faculty as
23.
professionals.     
Adapted from Jantzi & Leithwood, Educational Administration Quarterly, (October, 1996) pp. 533-534. Used by authors’ permission.

73
Appendix C: Permission to Use the School Climate Assessment Instrument

74
 Appendix D: School Climate Assessment Instrument (Sample)

Leadership Decisions
High - Level Three
School has a sense of vision, and a mission that is shared by all staff.
Vision comes from the collective will of the school community.
School's decisions are conspicuously grounded in the mission.
Vast majority of staff members feel valued and listened to.
A sense of "shared values" is purposefully cultivated.
Staff understands selecting priority needs, and has team for "shared decision-making".
Most of the staff has a high level of trust and respect in leadership.
Teacher leadership is systematic and integral to the school's leadership strategy.
Leadership demonstrates a high level of accountability, and finds ways to "make it happen."
Leadership is in tune with students and community.
Leadership is in tune with others' experience of the quality of school climate.

Middle - Level Two

School has a set of policies, a written mission, but no cohesive vision.
Vision comes from leadership.
Policies and mission exist but are not meaningful toward staff action
Selected staff members feel occasionally recognized.
Most share a common value to do what's best for their students.
There is a SDM committee but most real power is in a "loop" of insiders/decision makers.
Some staff have respect for leadership.
Some teachers take leadership roles when they feel a great enough sense of responsibility.
Leadership is highly political about how resources are allocated and often deflects responsibility.
Leadership has selected sources of info about the community and students.
Leadership makes pro forma statements about wanting good school climate.

Low - Level One

School has policies that are used inconsistently.
Vision is absent.
Mission may exist but is essentially ignored.
Administration is seen as playing favorites.
Guiding school values are in constant conflict.
Decisions are made autocratically or accidentally.
Most staff feel at odds with the leadership.
Leadership is seen as solely the domain of the administration.
Leadership seems disconnected to outcomes and find countless reasons why "it can't happen."
Leadership is isolated from the students and community.
Leadership does not see school climate as a necessary interest.

75
Appendix E: University of Denver Institutional Review Board Approval

76
Appendix F: Data Collection Letter to Principal

77
 Appendix G: Data Collection Letter to Faculty and Staff

10/27/2015 Qualtrics Survey Software

Send Date: October 12, 2015 @ 6:00 AM

Link Type: Individual Link Show Link Options

From Address: [email protected]

From Name: Eric Lane

Reply-To Email: [email protected]

Subject: Principal Leadership / School Climate Survey

Message:
ECISD Faculty_Staff Email

Hello Faculty and Staff,

As your principal has made you aware, I am a student researcher from the Unviersity of Denver and I'm conducting a
study that seeks to explore the connection between transformative principal leadership and school climate. The
following survey will first obtain your consent, ask you a few background questions, and then present you with 24
questions about leadership and then 32 questions about school climate. I want to stress again that your school
information, role, and tenure selections will not be linked to your survey reponoses. The survey is also voluntary - you
may end your particpation at any time. Each respondent is entered into a drawing for a $50 gift card per school and
one respondent will have a chance to win a new iPad. Prizes will be awarded sometime in early December of this year.
If you have any questions about this process, you can contact me at [email protected] or 303.956.5174.

The survey should only take a few minutes of your time and I would really appreciate your participation.

Thanks,

Eric Lane
Senior Director of Operations / Industry Faculty
Knoebel Events, Inc.
Fritz Knoebel School of Hospitality Management
Daniels College of Business – University of Denver
2044 East Evans Ave.
Denver CO 80208
303.871.7697

data:text/html;charset=utf-8,%3Cdiv%20style%3D%22margin%3A%200px%3B%20padding%3A%208px%200px%3B%20overflow%3A%20hidden%3B%22%3E… 1/1

78
 Appendix H: Research Question 1 Solution Tables

Table 12

Statistical Significance Tests for the Full CCA Model

Test Name Value Approx. F Hypoth. DF Error DF Sig. of F

Pillais .58 7.58 18.00 564.00 .05

Hotellings 1.04 10.71 18.00 554.00 .05

Wilks .46 9.08 18.00 526.57 .05

Roys .48
Note. Effect…Within Cells Regression Multivariate Tests of Significance (S=3, M=1, N=92)

Table 13

Canonical Correlations for Each Function Separately

Canon
Root No. Eigenvalue Pct. Cum Pct. Cor. Sq. Cor.

1 .94 89.65 89.65 .70 .48

2 .08 7.35 97.00 .27 .07

3 .03 2.99 100.00 .17 .03

Table 14

Factor Reduction Analysis

Hypoth.
Roots Wilks L. F F. Error DF Sig. of F

1 to 3 .46 9.08 18.00 525.50 .05

2 to 3 .90 2.01 10.00 374.00 .03

3 to 3 .97 1.47 4.00 188.00 .21

Note. Hierarchal Statistical Significance Tests in Which the Only the Last Canonical
Function is Tested Separately

79
Table 15
Standardized Canonical Correlations for Dependent Variables

Variable 1 2 3

Attitude and
Culture -.12 1.24 .92

Faculty Relations .24 -1.10 1.15

Leadership
Decisions -1.08 -.23 -1.52
Note. Standardized Weights for all Functions for the Criterion Variable Set

Table 16

Correlations Between Dependent and Canonical Variables

Variable 1 2 3

Attitude and
Culture -.79 .36 .50

Faculty Relations -.68 -.48 .55

Leadership
Decisions -.98 -.14 .07
Note. Structure Coefficients for all Functions for the Criterion Variable Set

80
Table 17

Standardized Canonical Correlations for Covariates

Covariate 1 2 3

Vision -.36 -1.05 -1.44

Modeling -.26 1.33 2.17

Goal Acceptance .17 .83 -1.63

HP Expect .05 -.21 .05

Support -.22 1.16 .12

Intellectual -.43 -2.00 .64

Note. Standardized Weights for all Functions for the Predictor Variable Set
Table 18

Correlations Between Covariates and Canonical Variables

Covariate 1 2 3

Vision -.93 .06 -.25

Modeling -.93 .24 .06

Goal Acceptance -.88 .20 -.29

HP Expect -.85 -.03 .07

Support -.92 .14 .03

Intellectual -.95 -.20 .05

Note. Structure Coefficients for all Functions for the Predictor Variable Set

81
 Appendix I: Vita

Curriculum Vitae 

Eric S. Lane 
5602 Jaguar Way • Littleton CO 80124 
Home: 720.877.1594 • Cell: 303.956.5174 
Email: [email protected] 
 
 
PROFESSIONAL PROFILE 
 
Effective communicator with excellent planning, organizational, and negotiation strengths as 
well as the ability  to lead, reach consensus, establish goals, and attain results. 
Extensive experience in the creation and design of successful student programs with a track 
record of delivering positive results. 
Proven ability to build innovative programs and coursework that foster learning and meet the 
needs of diverse groups. 
 
EDUCATION 
 
PhD, Educational Leadership – Curriculum and Instruction, University of Denver, Denver, CO, Fall 2015 
DISSERTATION:  Examining the Relationship Between Principal Leadership and School Climate 
MHM, Hospitality Management, Hilton College – University of Houston, Houston, TX, 2004 
BA, Social Sciences – Psychology and Sociology, University of Houston, Houston, TX, 1995 
 
TEACHING EXPERIENCE 
 
Industry Faculty, University of Denver, Denver, CO, 2007 to Present 
Teach a wide range of hospitality courses to classes ranging in size from 20 to 50 students. 
 
COURSES DEVELOPED / TAUGHT 

Managing the Restaurant Operation  Managing the Resort Operation  
Hospitality Technology  Managing the Food and Beverage Experience 
DU Vin Wine Festival Course   (Senior Capstone) 
Exploring the World of Hospitality  Wines of the World 
 
HIGHLIGHTS OF PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE 
Senior Director of Operations, Fritz Knoebel School of Hospitality Management, University of Denver, 
Denver, CO, 2006 to Present 
Oversee all aspects of the conference and event center embedded within our school and program. 
Manage all salaried personnel and provide  supervision for hourly staff, when  required.   
Serve as the department’s controller, human resources liaison, and technology systems administrator. 
Other duties include  developing  budgets  and  forecasts,  managing  projects,  providing  academic 
support  and  curriculum integration opportunities, and facility management.  
 

82
 Director of Hospitality Services, Isle of Capri Casinos, Blackhawk, CO, 2004‐2006 
Led two casino properties’ hospitality operations – hotel, food and beverage, and retail.  Supervised a 
team of over 30 salaried managers and 400 hourly staff, and we accommodated several thousand 
guests daily.  
Had full accountability and oversight for an annual budget well in excess of $20 million dollars.  
Assisted with the acquisition of another casino property during my tenure and supervised the 
conversion of their hospitality operations to our branded concepts.  We opened a hotel, several 
restaurants, and bars during this period. 
 
Operations Manager, Isle of Capri Casinos, Blackhawk, CO, 2003‐2004 
Oversaw all operational departments in the absence of an on‐site director.  Was a Colorado Key 
Gaming Employee and reported directly to the property General Manger. 
  
Executive Chef / Food and Beverage Manager, Isle of Capri Casinos, Blackhawk, CO, 2002‐2003 
Directed all food and beverage operations for a large, high volume casino property with a 500 seat 
buffet, 100 seat fine dining steak house, 24 hour deli, casino beverage, banquet center, and employee 
dining facility.  
Supervised all salaried and hourly staff in these areas.  
Other duties included recipe and menu development, training, and quality management. 
 
Corporate Executive Chef, Isle of Capri Casinos, Biloxi, MS, 2000‐2002 
Managed culinary operations for a regional casino company with fourteen properties in six states.   
Directed recipe and menu development, established product specifications, and oversaw our first 
companywide centralized procurement program.  
Conducted quarterly audits at each property to evaluate levels of service, product quality, and 
cleanliness / organization.  Worked directly with property management teams and their staffs on 
training and development opportunities.  
Opened numerous restaurants, bars, and even properties during this time frame.  
Played a key role in creating and then implementing our company’s first ever position specific training 
program. 
 
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 
Certifications 
 
Senior Professional in Human Resources (HR Certification Institute) 
Certified Food and Beverage Executive (American Hotel and Lodging Association)  
Food Service Management Professional (National Restaurant Association) 
Food  Protection  Manager  (ServSafe) 
Advanced  Alcohol  Service  Training  (ServSafe) 
ServSafe Food / Alcohol Proctor & Instructor (ServSafe) 
American Culinary Federation Member 
Introductory Sommelier Certification (Court of Master Sommeliers) 
  
 
 
 
 

83