See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/299536641

Impact of School Leadership on Academic Achievement in Kenyan Secondary

Schools

Thesis · April 2016

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.1427.8807

CITATIONS READS
4 31,658

1 author:

Renson Muchiri Mwangi

KCA University
6 PUBLICATIONS 20 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Renson Muchiri Mwangi on 01 April 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

IMPACT OF SCHOOL LEADERSHIP ON ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT IN KENYAN

SECONDARY SCHOOLS

By

Renson Muchiri Mwangi

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Doctor of Management Program
at the Weatherhead School of Management

Advisors:

Tony Lingham, Ph.D.

Case Western Reserve University

Toni Somers, Ph.D.

Wayne State University

Sheri Perrelli, D.M

Case Western Reserve University

CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY

May 2011
 DEDICATION

Dedicated to my wife, Irene and our daughters, Eunice and Patience

ii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I am foremost indebted to God, who gave me the strength to complete this demanding
research journey (Deuteronomy, 8:18). I am grateful to my wife, Irene Gabriel, for her
unrelenting emotional support and tolerating my long absences from our family. To Eunice
Wachera and Patience Nyawira, our daughters; thank you for being a source of my inspiration
and energy.
I am grateful to Doctor of the Management professors for their sustained encouragement
in the midst of challenges and discouragements. Special mention for Prof. Tony Lingham, Prof.
Toni Somers and Dr. Sheri Perelli, my academic advisers in the DM dissertation, for spending
time to review and critic my work. They bore with my arguments, even when they did not make
sense, offered advice and above all held me accountable. To you all, many thanks. I cannot fail
to mention Professors Dick Buchannan, Bo Carlson, Paul Salipante, and Nick Berente, thank you
for coaching me to deconstruct ideas. And, how can I forget the never tiring ladies, Marilyn and
Sue, without you, I couldn’t have made it, you made life bearable and you were always there for
me, my sincere gratitude to both of you.
I extend my gratitude to Prof. Rosemary Maina, Prof. Daniel Oruoch for the experiential
advice, and psychological and social support. Thank you for being good role models, setting the
bar and giving me space to carry out this project. Caleb Gudo and Chris Ouma have a special
place for stepping into my shoes to bear my burdens at my place of work. To the KCA
community, I am grateful for all the support I received, especially financial.
My longtime friend, Peter Kinuthia deserves a special place for assisting me in the
logistics of data collection, never tiring, never complaining and always available. Many thanks.
My appreciation to the Weatherhead School, the Mandel Center and Beth Morse for the
financial support they gave. Finally yet importantly, I acknowledge my colleagues, the DM 2011
class, we whined, wined, dined and cheered together. Thank you for your citizenship, positive
thoughts, critical ideas, to you all, may God watch over you.

iii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title Page ...............................................................................................................................i

Dedication ..............................................................................................................................ii
Acknowledgement .................................................................................................................iii
Table Of Contents ..................................................................................................................iv
Title Page for Integrative Overview ......................................................................................1
Abstract of Integrative Overview...........................................................................................2
Introduction ............................................................................................................................3
Theoretical Framework ..........................................................................................................5
Findings..................................................................................................................................11
Discussion ..............................................................................................................................14
Conclusion .............................................................................................................................16
Selected Bibiography .............................................................................................................20
Title Page for Qualitative Report ...........................................................................................23
Abstract of Qualitative Report ...............................................................................................24
Introduction ............................................................................................................................25
Literature Review...................................................................................................................27
Methods..................................................................................................................................32
Findings..................................................................................................................................36
Discussion ..............................................................................................................................42
Contributions..........................................................................................................................47
Implications for Practice and Future Research ......................................................................48
Limitations .............................................................................................................................49
References ..............................................................................................................................50
Appendices.............................................................................................................................55
Appendix A ............................................................................................................................... 55
Appendix B ............................................................................................................................... 56
Appendix C ............................................................................................................................... 57
List of Figure for Qualitative Report
Figure 1 ..................................................................................................................................... 46
Figure 2 ..................................................................................................................................... 47

iv
List of Tables for Qualitative Report
Table 1 ...................................................................................................................................... 36
Table 2 ...................................................................................................................................... 38
Table 3 ...................................................................................................................................... 39
Table 4 ...................................................................................................................................... 40
Table 5 ...................................................................................................................................... 42
Title Page for Quantitative Report .........................................................................................58
Abstract of Quantitative Report .............................................................................................59
Introduction ............................................................................................................................60
Research Questions and Conceptual Model ..........................................................................63
Literature Review and Hypotheses ........................................................................................64
Data Analysis and Findings ...................................................................................................76
Discussion ..............................................................................................................................87
Contributions..........................................................................................................................90
Limitations and Future Research ...........................................................................................91
References ..............................................................................................................................93
Appendices.............................................................................................................................99
Appendix A ............................................................................................................................... 99
Appendix B ............................................................................................................................. 100
Appendix C ............................................................................................................................. 101
Appendix D ............................................................................................................................. 102
List of Figures for Quantitative Report
Figure 1 ..................................................................................................................................... 64
List of Tables for Quantitative Report
Table 1 ...................................................................................................................................... 79
Table 2 ...................................................................................................................................... 80
Table 3 ...................................................................................................................................... 81
Table 4 ...................................................................................................................................... 82
Table 5 ...................................................................................................................................... 83
Table 6 ...................................................................................................................................... 85
Table 7 ...................................................................................................................................... 86

v
IMPACT OF SCHOOL LEADERSHIP ON ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT IN KENYAN

SECONDARY SCHOOLS

By

Renson Muchiri Mwangi

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Integrative Research Overview
in the Doctor of Management Program
at the Weatherhead School of Management

Advisors:

Tony Lingham, Ph.D.

Case Western Reserve University

Toni Somers, Ph.D.

Wayne State University

Sheri Perrelli, D.M

Case Western Reserve University

CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY

March 2011

1
IMPACT OF SCHOOL LEADERSHIP ON ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT IN KENYAN
SECONDARY SCHOOLS

ABSTRACT

Studies on student achievement in Kenya have primarily focused on teachers’ classroom

practices neglecting the potential influence of school leadership. In this two-phased study, we
explored the effect of school leadership on student achievement. In the first phase, we used data
obtained from 35 interviews with teachers and school administrators in Kenyan secondary
schools, to gain an understanding of how leadership is enacted and experienced in daily school
routines. We discovered that principal’s engagement, demonstrated commitment, sensitivity to
and focus on continuous improvement, and openness to information and diverse views, impacted
student performance. We recognized in high – but not low performing schools –evidence of the
mindfulness, a characteristic associated with high reliability organizations. In the final phase, we
used responses from 281 schools. Our results indicated that school leadership had moderate but
significant indirect effects on student achievement. A surprise finding was the negative impact of
principals’ advice and support on teachers’ academic press. This we ascribed to teachers’
perception of these practices as paternalistic and demeaning to their professional expertise.

Key Words: School leadership, collective mindfulness, school structure, teachers’ academic
press, trust

2
 INTRODUCTION

Intensified pressure for academic achievement has motivated education researchers as

well as practitioners to focus on classroom and school factors affecting student performance

(Lamb & Fullarton, 2002). On its part, the Kenyan government prioritized science and

mathematics achievement declaring it a national goal (Kanja et al, 2001). In spite of the

government’s intensified efforts and initiatives to improve science and mathematics

achievement, the anticipated results have not being realized (Sifuna & Kaime, 2007).

Conspicuously, the government led initiatives as well as those of the other Kenyan education

stakeholders have paid little attention to the role of school leadership – specifically the principals

–in the realization of the anticipated educational goals. Noting this diminished role of principal’s

leadership in this initiatives and its exclusion from many Kenyan education studies, this research

journey began with an overarching goal of discovering the role and place of principal’s

leadership in the shaping schools’ academic success in Kenya.

This dissertation reports on a two-phased research study that consisted of a qualitative

study in the first phase whose results informed and led to the quantitative study in the second

phase. Drawing on the researcher’s experience in Kenyan education practice, a research proposal

formulated a problem of practice and proposed a conceptual model that was evaluated through a

mixed method study. The research proposal drew on school leadership theories to elucidate the

problem of practice and situate it in school leadership literature. The overarching question was;

how and to what extent does school leadership affect student achievement.

Leadership is constituted in the interactions of an organization’s actors – that is the

leaders and followers (Spillane, Halverson, & Diamond, 2004) and embedded in context (Uhl-

Bien, Marion, & McKelvey, 2007). Context here refers to the “nature of interactions and

3
interdependencies among agents, hierarchical divisions, organizations, and environments” (Uhl-

Bien et al, 2007:299). Leadership involves leveraging these interactions to attain organizational

goals (Spillane et al, 2004; Uhl-Bien et al, 2007). In the school context leadership could be

situated in the day-to-day interactions of the actors. Understanding school leadership practice

therefore requires a reconstruction of the practices through observation and interviews of the

school leaders and administrators – who enact it – and faculty and staff – who experience it.

The general consensus in school leadership studies is that successful schools have good

leaders (Spillane et al, 2004). However, as Spillane and colleagues (Spillane et al, 2004: 4)

affirm “ it has been notoriously difficult to construct an account of school leadership, grounded

in everyday practice, that goes beyond some generic heuristics for suggested practices”.

Motivated by this apparent difficulty in school leadership studies, we set out to explore, discover

and examine the nexus between school leadership and schools’ academic performance situated in

Kenyan secondary schools context. The overall objective of this study was two-fold; a) to

generate a grounded theory of school leadership practice and its broad application in improving

academic performance by conducting semi-structured interviews with school administrators and

teachers, and b) to triangulate the influence of school leadership on schools’ academic

performance by quantification of discovered leadership phenomena and validate the results of the

qualitative study.

The study was organized in a manner to illuminate and develop a deeper understanding of

the school leadership phenomena, and to construct and validate a mechanism through which

school leadership would impact students’ academic achievement. A qualitative study was

designed to uncover the relationship between school leadership and students achievement as it

unfolded in its natural setting within Kenyan secondary schools. This approach facilated the

4
discovery and understanding of actions, beliefs, decisions, behavior, attitudes and the

construction of meanings out of subjective experiences (Babbie, 2007; Creswell, 2009; Suddaby,

2006). A key discovery of the study was the positive association of the concept of mindfulness

and schools’ academic success.

To triangulate these results, the dicovered relationships were quantified and hypotheses

generated in a wider and more extensive quantitative study. A quantitative study was deemed

appropriate in order to generalize the results to more subjects and situations (Golafshani, 2007).

The results revealed a weak but significant indirect principal’s leadership effects on academic

performance. Overall, our study; a) confirmed that school leadership matters – especially

principals’ leadership – when it comes to schools’ academic achievement, and b) revealed that

school leadership influence on students’ academic achievement is modest and significant

although qualitative analysis points to the possibility of a stronger relationship than captured in

the quantitative study.

In the sections that follow, we delve into details of each research including a review of

theories that informed the study followed by reflections on various methods used as well as their

limitations and finally drawing conclusions on the overall accomplishments of the work.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Increased attention to school improvement has led many school effectiveness and

improvement studies to focus on a range of factors that may enhance or constrain academic

achievement (Lamb & Fullarton, 2002). Key among these factors is school leadership. Generally,

it is acknowledged that effective leadership is critical in shaping academic success in schools

(Spillane et al, 2004). Expansive school leadership studies have explored and documented

leadership roles believed to build and nurture schools’ academic success. Ample evidence

5
suggests that school leadership has a significant effect on academic achievement (Hallinger &

Heck, 1998; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2005).

In the last three decades, conversations about school leadership have shifted from the top-

down bureaucratic paradigms embedded in exceptional personalities to collaborative

perspectives rooted in leaders, followers and organizational context (Spillane et al, 2004). In the

school effectiveness and improvement studies, conceptualization of school leadership is

preponderantly focused on curriculum and instruction. This strand of thought draws in school

leaders as influential determinants of schools’ achievement and effectiveness (Heck & Hallinger,

2005) – a framework this study adopted. Available evidence reveals substantial progress in

understanding school leaders’ role in the attainment of schools’ academic goals (Hallinger,

2005).

In spite of the progress made in uncovering the contribution of school leadership to

schools’ academic success, the “how” of leadership remains nebulous (Spillane et al, 2004). It is

not yet clear how leadership is enacted and experienced within the schoolhouse to produce

success or lack of it (Wahlstrom & Louis, 2008; Spillane et al, 2004). Moreover, despite the

general acceptance of the presumed positive leadership effects on academic achievement, doubt

still linger about its validity (Witziers, Bosker, & Krüger, 2003). Conceptual and methodological

issues as well as failure to pay attention to the insights from qualitative studies have been cited as

possible reasons contributing to the lack of a strong and systematic link between school

leadership and academic achievement (Hallinger & Heck, 1998; Murphy, 1988; Wenglinsky,

2002). Motivated by this blind spot in literature, our research journey was weaved to leverage the

intensity and richness of qualitative research and the generalizability power of quantitative

6
research to explore and examine the link between principal’s leadership and schools’ academic

performance.

Despite the widespread consensus that school leadership matters in the attainment of

schools’ academic goals– withstanding the protestations of a few discordant voices – divergent

results have been reported. Some studies have found no link between school leadership effects

while others have reported finding significant effects (Hallinger & Heck, 1998). This divergence

has been attributed to adoption of direct versus indirect leadership effects in school leadership

studies. Studies reporting insignificant leadership effects have mostly adopted direct effect

models. Murphy (1988) noted one of the weaknesses of instructional leadership studies to be

their exclusion of macro level – antecedents of leadership – and micro level factors – mediators

of leadership – from the leadership effects models. Hallinger and Heck (1998:185) in their

literature review report existence of “convincing empirical evidence” of principals’ leadership

impacting school outcomes in a complex indirect mechanism mediated by external and internal

school processes. Leithwood and Mascall (2008) cite disregard of possible mediators of

leadership effects as a limitation in leadership study. In concurrence with the indirect effects

theoretical line of thought, this study, especially at the quantitative stage, adopted the indirect

leadership framework.

A corpus of studies has investigated the influence of school leadership on students’

academic achievement. Mascall et al (2008) while examining the relationship between

distributed leadership and teacher related variables reported a significant positive correlation

between its planned distributed form and teachers’ academic optimism. Teachers’ academic

optimism – a multidimensional construct consisting of; teachers’ academic emphasis, collective

efficacy and teachers’ trust in parents and students – has been associated with positive effects on

7
students’ academic achievement (Beard, Hoy, & Woolfolk-Hoy, 2010; Hoy, Tarter, & Hoy-

Woolfolk, 2006; Smith & Hoy, 2007). Leithwood and Mascall (2008) found moderate but

significant indirect school leadership effects on students’ academic achievement mediated by

teachers’ motivation. Leithwood and Mascall’s results also found principals to be the most

influential sources of leadership. In an earlier study, Leithwood and Jantzi (2000) reportedly

found principal’s transformational leadership mediated by school conditions –purposes and

goals, culture, the relational structures and social networks, information collection and decision

making – having a weak but significant indirect influence on student engagement. Leithwood

and Jantzi (2006) further found principal’s transformational leadership having significant indirect

effect on teachers’ classroom practices via teachers’ motivation but no effect on student

achievement gain.

Possibly, because of moderate effects of leadership on students’ achievement, recent

studies have proposed new school and teacher level constructs that might mediate or moderate

the school leadership influence mechanism. Hoy (2003) in a theoretical analysis proffers

enabling school structure and mindfulness as complementary school level constructs through

which school leaders may influence teachers’ academic optimism and in turn students’ academic

achievement. Mindfulness refers to a state of awareness, receptive attention and recognition of

latent opportunities and threats in the environment (Boyatzis & Mckee, 2005; Brown, M., &

Creswell, 2007). At the organizational level mindfulness is a collective state of awareness that

may be created through interpersonal interactions and is posited to be a desirable aspect of

school culture. School structures – that is hierarchy – define the lines of authority and may

enable or impede attainment of school goals (Hoy, 2003). Whether school structure enables or

impedes achievement of school’s academic goals depends on the enactment and experience of

8
leadership in the schoolhouse (Hoy & Sweetland, 2001). Extant empirical evidence suggests

mindfulness and enabling school structure as significantly impacting teacher related variables of

trust in principal and reduced role conflict (Hoy & Sweetland, 2001; Hoy et al, 2006). Hoy et al

(2006) call for further examination of organizational properties – such as leadership practices –

that nurture mindfulness, and how they influence students’ academic achievement – a task this

research attempted to accomplish.

Investigation of school leadership requires understanding how macro- and micro-

activities of leadership are related (Spillane et al, 2004). Micro-tasks refer to managerial

activities such as supervision while macro-activities include such tasks such as developing and

managing school culture, supporting teachers’ professional growth and development, and

developing and selling school vision (Spillane et al, 2004; Timperley, 2005). Such an

investigation requires studies grounded in the school leaders practices as they interact with other

school actors. In an organizational context, Krieger’s (2005) qualitative study examined how

shared mindfulness – a construct she associated with effective decisions by pilots – was

constructed and enacted in a highly reliable environment. She reported shared mindfulness being

constructed in the interpersonal interactions of the leader and the follower and documented four

facilitators of shared mindfulness – positive reasoning, adoption of multiple perspectives,

thinking loud and substantive acknowledgement of communication – and three inhibitors –

precognitive commitment, non-positive reasoning and overt domination. In a four-year

qualitative study involving observation of interactions and activities of school leaders, Timperley

(2005) found effective leaders to be teacher leaders who stayed close to the instruction practice

and assisted teachers to improve their instruction practices. Our results in the qualitative research

9
study produced homologous results where school principals in successful schools engaged in

positive reasoning, stayed close to the instruction practice and were open to multiple views.

Research Approach and Research Questions

The aim of this research was to explore and discover how school leadership, as exercised

by school principals in Kenyan schools, impacted student achievement. We sought to know;

a) How and what is the nature of school leadership practices as enacted and experienced in

the daily school routines in Kenyan secondary schools?

b) How do these leadership practices influence student achievement?

c) What is the relationship between school leadership and student achievement? Which

factors mediate or moderate this relationship?

In an attempt to answer these questions, we designed a two-stage study – first stage being

a qualitative one while the second one was quantitative. To enrich our knowledge on the practice

of leadership in Kenyan schools we designed a qualitative study that adopted a grounded theory

approach. The study was designed to inductively generate a theory of school leadership situated

in the lived experiences of teachers and principals in Kenyan schools. This involved concurrent

constant comparison and analysis of data collected in order to uncover nuances difficult to detect

using quantitative designs. This facilitated discovery of practices, actions and beliefs of teachers

and principals, and gave us a comprehensive perspective of the practice of school leadership.

The results from the qualitative study gave us insights on possible factors that mediated

school leadership effects on student achievement. This led to the formulation of a path model

that theorized a mechanism that school leadership influenced student achievement. To test the

model a questionnaire with 77 measurement items was designed and used to solicit responses

from teachers and school administrators. Data collected was analyzed using exploratory factor

10
analysis, confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling. The school was used as

the unit of analysis.

FINDINGS

The Qualitative Study

The objectives of the qualitative study were threefold; a) to discover how school

leadership was enacted and experienced in day-to-day running of schools in Kenya, b) to

understand how the everyday practice of school leadership influenced mathematics achievement,

and c) to explicate the differences in school leadership practices in schools with successful

versus less successful performance in mathematics.

To construct an account and an understanding of how school leadership was practiced in

the lived school world, we conducted a qualitative inquiry involving semi-structured interviews

with school principals, teacher leaders (heads of departments) and mathematics teachers. The

face-to-face interviews lasted for approximately one hour. An interview protocol was designed to

elicit narratives from participants about their experiences as school leaders and teachers. Thirty-

five interviews were conducted, recorded and transcribed. The data gathered was analyzed using

the grounded theory approach which involved breaking down the data then conceptualizing and

putting it together in categories and subcategories. Initial coding of the data yielded 937 open

codes that were reduced to 20 categories and finally four major themes confirmed.

Three findings differentiated higher performing schools versus lower performing schools

in the study. First principals in the better performing schools demonstrated higher personal

commitment, dedicated more personal time, and paid personal attention in ensuring mathematics

achievement than principals in poorer performing schools. Principals in higher performing

schools, we discovered purposefully prioritized mathematics masterly through clear and

11
persistent communication of their expectations to the teachers and teacher leaders. On the

contrary, no comparable personal commitment and regularity of emphasis and energy was

reported by principals in lower performing schools.

Secondly, teachers in better performing schools had higher sensitivity to students’ needs

and problems, and reported higher individual commitment to student achievement than their

counterparts in lower performing schools. Narratives of teachers in higher ranked schools

emphasized differentiated needs of individual students, personal investment in effort as well as

encouraging students to have multiple views of solving problems. Lastly, the study results

revealed administrators and teachers in higher performing schools fostering an environment

conducive for learning by emphasizing a sense of community characterized by feedback and

collaboration among school members. This environment, our results suggested, nurtured

mindfulness among the school members, created supportive conditions, and raised teachers’

expectations of their students.

Quantitative Study

Integrating insights from the qualitative study, the next phase of our study sought to

examine effects of various leadership practices on students’ achievement and teacher-related

variables and the mediating effects of collective mindfulness and school structure on this

relation. The principals’ leadership practices were categorized into visibility, inspiration and

influence, and advice and support. Principal’s visibility refers to his/her visible presence to

model values and set priorities for the school by taking time to visit classrooms, have informal

friendly conversations with students and teachers and leading by example (Hallinger, 2003).

Inspiration and influence meant the principal was charismatically engaged with teachers through

articulation of a desirable future, and demonstration of determination and confidence of how that

12
future can be achieved (Bass, 1999). Principal’s advice and support referred to her or his

encouragement of professional growth and reflection among the teachers by talking to them

openly and frequently, providing feedback and giving suggestions and personalized support

(Blase & Blase, 2000).

Data was obtained from a sample of 281 Kenyan secondary schools which yielded

607responses from teachers and 281 responses from school principals. Data was analyzed using

exploratory factor analysis (EFA), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and covariance-based

structural equation modeling (SEM). Seven (7) factors were extracted and validated through

EFA and CFA respectively. Structural equation modeling was used to test the hypotheses

postulated in the structural model.

We found no evidence of any direct leadership effects on students’ academic

achievement. Our results revealed moderate but significant indirect leadership effects on

students’ achievement. These effects were higher in mathematics achievement than in the

aggregated overall achievement. The data indicated that principal’s leadership practices

significantly influenced school variables of collective mindfulness and school structure and

accounted for a substantial amount of the variables variance. Collective mindfulness, we found,

fully mediated the effect of principal’s visibility, inspiration and influence on teachers’ trust in

parents and students and partially mediated the effect of these leadership practices on teachers’

academic press – a school-wide teachers’ press for academic excellence that involves setting

high but achievable academic expectations and challenging students to work hard (Beard et al,

2010). Enabling school structure only partially mediated the effect of principal’s inspiration and

influence on teachers’ academic press. Collective mindfulness and school structures however did

not have any significant direct influence on student achievement but their effect was fully

13
mediated by teachers’ academic press after controlling for school category and principal’s

experience. Contrary to our expectation, we found a negative significant effect of principal’s

advice and support on teachers’ academic press.

DISCUSSION

Both our qualitative and quantitative study results; a) suggest that school leadership is a

significant contributor to students’ academic success especially in mathematics and b) attest to

the importance of school principals’ leadership in the creation and promotion of an environment

conducive for learning. Although the effects of school leadership on student achievement are

modest, they are nevertheless significant, meaningful and cannot be dismissed as inconsequential

(Leithwood & Jantzis, 2000).

Effective school principals, our data reveals, contribute to academic success through an

interactive process where they get involved in the instruction program as participants rather than

overseers lording over teachers. The principals’ technical knowledge of the subject is not as

important as their personal commitment, visible personal interest and support for the instruction

process. This characteristic – clearly documented in the qualitative phase of our study – is

demonstrated by the principal’s informal and friendly dialogue with students and teachers, and

attendance to and participation in instruction activities. By engaging in such interactions, the

principals play a crucial supportive and complementary role in the students’ academic

achievement.

The principals’ visibility – modeling values and setting priorities – and their inspiration

and influence are part of these interactions. To make the interactions meaningful and beneficial

to the school’s academic mission, principals have to be open to new information and be ready to

accommodate diverse views from various school actors. Moreover, they have to get personally

14
involved in instruction activities not just as leaders but at times as followers, implementing the

decisions of their juniors, for example overseeing students’ group discussions when the teachers

have gone home. The involvement and interaction of the principals with other school actors,

especially the teacher, has profound influence on their assumptions about the instruction process.

Assumptions that are influential to their evaluation and awareness of the instruction program

(Spillane et al, 2004).

Inspite of the positive contributions of these interactions and involvement of the

principals we have documented, our surprise results also urges caution. Principals ought to be

careful when they get involved in instructional activities as their zeal for improvement might be

misconstrued to be paternalistic. Teachers consider themselves professionals and competent ones

for that matter, consequently, some activities such as giving advice and individual support while

welcome, need to be carry out in a manner that does not appear to demean or portray them as less

competent. Moreover, evidence from both studies indicate that when rules are applied and

treated as absolutes, teachers view them as obstructive and slows done their quest for success

from their students.

School principals have the onus to create an organizational environment conducive for

learning. Such an environment promotes organization learning. Organizational learning enables

adaptation to change, detection and correction of errors, and encourages continuous improve

(Silins & Mulford, 2002) – a characteristic that was evident in higher performing schools in this

study. Marks et al (2000) associate learning organizations with problem identification and

correction, learning from experience, acquisition of new knowledge and change (cited in Silins

& Mulford, 2002:427). In our case we associated these aspects of organization learning with

collective mindfulness and enabling school structure. Collective mindfulness encampass early

15
problem diagnosis and prevention. Prevention means that the school as an organization has an

effective system for monitoring its policies and practices while early diagnosis implies alertness

to capture warning signals (Drucker, 1994) When the school learning environment is

characterized by collective mindfulness and enabling structures, chances of early diagnosis and

prevention of problems that might interfere with the instruction program are enhanced. Our

findings support principals’ creation of an environment conducive for learning through

inspiration, influence, visibility, and by creating a sense community among school members. In

such an environment school members have comfort working together, share tasks, and assist

each other both socially and professionally.

CONCLUSION

Mindfulness is a concept that appears least emic to organizations such as schools. The

reason for the lukewarm attention could be attributed to its association with high reliability

organizations (HROs) courtesy of Karl Weick and colleagues (Weick & Sutcliffe, 2001).

However, our study reveals that this need not be so. Effective principals, our results indicate, are

vigilant, alert, focused on instruction, ready and willing to correct errors, and open to new

information and diverse –which are attributes associated with mindfulness (see Hoy, Gage, &

Tarter, 2006). These attributes of mindfulness are permeated within the school communities by

principals who are highly visible, inpirational, supportive and influential. Time may be ripe to

integrate collectiuve mindfulness to other aspects of school culture.

As far as we are aware this study is among the first to link collective mindfulness to

student achievement. The outcome though not very strong, is promising. It would be interesting

to examine how collective mindfulness relates with other mediators of school leadership for

example, academic optimism (Hoy, Tarter, & Hoy-Woolfolk, 2006), trust in leaders (Tschannen-

16
Moran, 2001), teachers’ motivation and capacity to perform (Leithwood & Mascall, 2008;

Leithwood & Jantzi, 2006).

Implication for Research

A variety of variables have been proposed and used in previous leadership studies as

mediators or moderators of school leadership’s influence on students’ academic achievement.

For example, Leithwood and Mascall (2008) used teachers’ capacity to perform, teachers’

motivation and work settings as mediators of collective leadership effect on students’ academic

achievement. Hoy (2003) argued that mindfulness and enabling school structure could be

mediators of school leadership’s effect on academic achievement. Wahlstrom and Louis (2008)

examined the effect of principal’s leadership on instructional practice when mediated by

teachers’ self-efficacy and presence of a professional community. McGuigan and Hoy (2006)

noted that principals could impact student achievement by nurturing academic optimism via

enabling structures. This study opted to use collective mindfulness and enabling structures as

mediators of school leadership. Future research could as well consider a larger set of mediators

and moderators in order to capture more leadership effects.

For parsimony and to minimize the demand on the respondents, this study considered

only a handful of factors which were found to have a modest but significant impact on students’

achievement. The school is a conglomeration of many variables that may impact students’

academic achievement with differing intensity. To further unravel the relationship of school

leadership effects on academic achievement, these variables need to be unpacked carefully and

realistically. This study is an incremental positive step towards explicating the paradoxical

relationship between school leadership and student achievement. Nevertheless, it is clear that

17
more needs to be done, especially in the manner school leadership is conceptualized, for larger

leadership effects on student achievement to be realized.

Implication for Practice

Our results suggest that by nurturing collective mindfulness and creating enabling school

structures within the school community, school principals could enable early problem diagnosis

and prevention. To spread the mindfulness contagion principals have to get involved in

instructional practices not only as leaders but also at times as followers. Such involvement opens

opportunities for modeling values and setting priorities for the instruction program. Moreover, by

engaging teachers, sometimes as equals, principals could inspire and influence them to higher

levels of commitment. This does not imply that principals fail to exercise their authority, rather it

means that such authority be exercised with moderation as situation may dictate.

Student achievement intervention programs in Kenya – especially the government

initiated ones – largely overlooked the principals’ role in molding their success. Our results

suggest that this should not be the case. Even though principals may lack technical knowledge of

specific subject areas, our findings indicate that their leadership roles are crucial in promoting

ownership of the programs’ mission and goals.

Limitations

In each instance, our study relied on self-reported face-to-face interviews and

questionnaires from teachers and school principals. The respondents in each stage were reporting

about themselves, their school or bosses and there was real risk of portraying a more or less

benign situation different from reality. Although efforts were made in each study to have

multiple sources – that is, in each school, at least two respondents were interviewed or filled the

questionnaire –the presence of social desirability bias cannot be ruled out.

18
 The study used school category as a proxy measure of schools’ social economic status for

lack of a better and more objective measure in Kenyan schools. A question may be asked if this

is an accurate measure of social economic status of schools and our answer, it is not. Our choice

of this proxy measure was based on the fact that majority of the Kenyan schools in the District

category admit students from low income families and thus schools in this category would be

expected to rank lower than National or Provincial schools in social economic status.

This study was limited to leadership practices related to transformational and

instructional leadership frameworks. Moreover, because of time limits and pressure to meet the

deadlines it was not possible to adopt all the dimensions of the two leadership frameworks. The

study, in the final phase used those dimensions of transformational and instructional leadership

that were discovered in the qualitative phase. Further, other important sources of leadership that

should have been considered, were left out. Future research could incorporate these dimensions

and also consider alternative conceptualizations of school leadership, for example, distributed

leadership (Gronn, 2000; Spillane et al, 2004). It would be interesting, for example, to discover

how distribution of leadership in its planned and unplanned form relates to collective

mindfulness and enabling school structure.

19
 SELECTED BIBIOGRAPHY

Babbie, E. (2007). The practice of social research. . Thomson Wadsworth.

Beard, K. S., Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk-Hoy, A. (2010). Academic optimism of individual
teachers: Confirming a new construct. Teaching and Teacher Education: An
International Journal of Research and Studies , 26 (5), 1136-1144.

Boyatzis, R., & Mckee, A. (2005). Resonant leadership. Boston, MA.: Havard Business
School Press.

Brown, K. W., M., R. R., & Creswell, J. D. (2007). Mindfulness: Theoretical Foundations
and Evidence for its Salutary Effects. Psychological Inquiry , 18 (4), 211-237.

Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods

approaches. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.

Drucker, P. F. (1994). The theory of business. Havard Business review , 95-104.

Golafshani, N. (2007). Understanding reliability and validiity in qualitative research. The

Qualitative Report , 8 (4), 597-607.

Gronn, P. (2000). Distributed properties: A new architecture for leadership. Educational

Management & Administration , 28 (3), 317 - 338.

Hallinger, P. (2005). Instructional leadership and the school principal: A passing fancy
that refuses to fade away. Leadership and Policy in Schools , 4, 221-239.

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.

Heck, R. H., & Hallinger, P. (2005). The Study of Educational Leadership

andManagement: Where Does the Field Stand Today? Educational Management
Administration & Leadership , 33 (2), 229-244.

Hoy, W. K. (2003). An analysis of enabling and mindful school structures: Some

theoretical, research and practical considerations. Journal of Educational
Administration , 41 (1), 87-108.

Hoy, W. K., & Sweetland, S. (2001). Designing Better Schools: The Meaning and
Measure of Enabling School Structures. Educational Administration Quarterly ,
37 (3), 296-321.

20
Hoy, W. K., Gage, C. Q., & Tarter, J. C. (2006). School mindfulness and faculty trust:
necessary conditions for each other. Educational Administration Quarterly , 42
(2), 236-255.

Hoy, W. K., Tarter, C. J., & Hoy-Woolfolk, A. (2006). Academic optimism of schools: A
force for student achievement. American Educational Research Journal , 43 (3),
425–446.

Kanja, C., Iwasaki, H., Baba, T., & Uenda, A. (2001). For the reform of mathematics
education in Kenyan secondary schools. Journal of International Development
and Cooperation , 7 (1), 67– 75.

Krieger, J. L. (2005). Shared mindfulness in cockpit situation: An exploratory analysis.

Journal of Business Communication , 42 (2), 135-167.

Lamb, S., & Fullarton, S. (2002). Classroom and school factors affecting mathematics
achievement: a comparative study of Australia and the United States using
TIMSS. Australian Journal of Education , 46.

Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2005). A review of transformational school leadership

research 1996-2005. Leadership and Policy in Schools , 4, 177-199.

Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2006). Transformational school leadership for large-scale
reform: Effects on students, teachers, and their classroom practices. School
Effectiveness and School Improvement , 17 (2), 201 – 227.

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

organizational conditions and student engagement with school. Journal of
Educational Administration , 38 (2), 112-129.

Leithwood, K., & Mascall, B. (2008). Collective leadership effects on student

achievement. Educational Administration Quarterly 2008; 44 , 44, 529-561.

Murphy, J. (1988). Methodological, measurement and conceptual problems in the study

of instructional leadership. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis , 4 (4),
290-310.

Sifuna, D. N., & Kaime, J. G. (2007). The effect of in-service education and training
(INSET) programmes in mathematics and science on classroom interaction: a case
study of primary and secondary schools in Kenya. African Education Review , 4
(1), 104 – 126.

Silins, H., & Mulford, B. (2002). Schools as learning organizations: The case for system.
teacher and students learning. Journal of Educational Administration , 40 (5),
425-446.

21
Smith, P. A., & Hoy, W. K. (2007). Academic optimism and student achievement in
urban elementary schools. Journal of Educational Administration , 45 (5), 556-
568.

Spillane, J., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. (2004). Towards a Theory of Leadership
Practice: A Distributed Perspective. Curriculum Studies , 3 - 34.

Suddaby, R. (2006). What grounded theory is not. Academy of Management Journal ,

49 (4), 633 – 642.

Timperley, H. S. (2005). Distributed leadership: developing theory from practice.

Journal of Curriculum Studies , 37 (4), 395 - 420.

Tschannen-Moran, M. (2001). Collaboration and the need for trust. Journal of

Educational Administration , 39 (4), 308-331.

Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., & McKelvey, B. (2007). Complexity leadership theory:
Shifting leadership from industrial age to the knowledge era. The Leadership
Quartery , 18, 298-318.

Wahlstrom, K. L., & Louis, K. S. (2008). How teachers experience principal leadership:
The roles of professional community, trust, efficacy, and shared responsibility.
Educational Administration Quarterly , 44 (4), 458 - 495.

Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2001). Managing the unexpected. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.

Wenglinsky, H. (2002). How schools matter: The link between teacher classroom
practices and student academic performance. Education Policy Analysis Archives
, 10 (12).

Witziers, B., Bosker, R. J., & Krüger, M. L. (2003). Educational leadership and student
achievement: The elusive serach for an association. Educational Administration
Quarterly , 39 (3), 398 - 425.

22
 THE ROLE OF SCHOOL LEADERSHIP IN STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT IN

KENYA

By

Renson Muchiri Mwangi

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Qualitative Research Paper
in the Executive Doctor of Management Program
at the Weatherhead School of Management

Advisors:
Dr. Tony Lingham
Dr. Sheri Perelli

CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY

December 2009

23
 THE ROLE OF SCHOOL LEADERSHIP IN STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT IN

KENYA

ABSTRACT

Despite ample documentation that mathematics mastery can affect national

development and notwithstanding long instituted formal government initiatives to
improve it, student mathematics performance at the secondary school level in Kenya has
deteriorated. Studies on mathematics achievement in Kenya have primarily focused on
teachers’ classroom practices neglecting the potential influence of school leadership. We
conducted a qualitative study involving Kenyan school principals and other
administrative and instructional staff to construct an account of how school leadership is
enacted and experienced in the day-to-day practices and how it affects student’s
mathematics mastery. Our findings suggest that principals’ leadership and engagement,
demonstrated commitment, sensitivity and focus on continuous improvement and
openness to information and diverse views, impacts student performance. We recognized
in high – but not low performing schools –evidence of the individual and institutional
mindfulness, a characteristic of high reliability organizations.

Key Words: School leadership, individual mindfulness, organizational mindfulness,

distributed leadership

24
 INTRODUCTION

Intensified interest in mathematics achievement by practitioners and scholars in

developing markets reflects recognition of and enthusiasm for its economic and social

benefits (Lamb & Fullarton, 2002). Despite ample documentation that mathematics

mastery can affect national development and formal government initiatives to improve it,

some developing countries, however, have failed to boost student achievement. Despite

the Kenyan government prioritizing mathematics achievement and declaring it in her

National Development Plan (Kanja et al, 2001), students’ mathematics performance at

the secondary school level has continued to deteriorate (Kenya Institute of Education,

2001; World Bank, 1998). This presents one of the most worrisome challenges of the

Kenyan education community (Global Literacy Project, 2008).

Intensified pressure for achievement has motivated education researchers and

practitioners to focus on classroom and school factors affecting student performance

(Lamb & Fullarton, 2002). Prior research has identified several factors that influence

student achievement including pupils’ self-efficacy (Chemers, Hu, & Garcia, 2001;

Pietsch, Walker, & Chapman, 2003), learning strategies (Pajares, 1996)and motivation

(Robbins et al, 2004), quality of instruction (Marrett, 1987), classroom environment

(Lamb & Fullarton, 2002)and school leadership (Leithwood et al, 2004). In Kenya

specifically, research reveals poor performance in secondary school mathematics to be a

function of poor teaching quality, harsh and unfriendly classroom environment, loss of

interest as students’ progress through the school system, negative attitudes, and poor

administration and management practices (Ackers & Hardman, 2001; Eshiwani, 1985;

Githua & Nyabwa, 2008; Kanja et al, 2005).

25
 A number of researchers in other countries have addressed the relationship

between school leadership and student achievement (Hallinger & Heck, 1998) – but

relatively little such work has been done in Kenya. The few school leadership studies

there have focused on the administrative role of school principals (for example Ngware,

Wamukuru, & Odebero, 2006). Consequently, the nexus of school leadership and

academic performance remains nebulous in the Kenyan context. Moreover, despite

general agreement in school leadership studies that leadership matters in improving

academic performance of schools, less is known about how school leadership is enacted

to develop and sustain in-school conditions that foster innovation and successful

schooling (Spillane, Halverson, & Diamond, 2004). Further, some scholars have

questioned whether school leadership matters contending that there is insufficient

evidence to support its relationship with performance (Witziers, Bosker, & Krüger,

2003).

Our purpose was to understand how school leadership influences the performance

of mathematics in Kenyan secondary schools. In doing so, we aimed to contribute

knowledge to the school leadership literature by constructing an account of how

principals’ leadership is enacted and experienced in the day-to-day practices within

Kenyan secondary schools. Further, our study draws attention to the impact of school

leadership on students’ academic achievement in Kenya, a role that has been overlooked

by Kenyan education researchers and practitioners.

Research Question

26
 In conducting this study we sought to answer the following question:

How and to what extent do school leadership and teacher instructional practices influence

mathematics performance in Kenyan secondary schools?

Below, we review pertinent literature that relates school leadership, instructional

practices and students’ academic performance.

LITERATURE REVIEW

We begin this section by providing a background about the state of mathematics

education in Kenya, noting the limitations of previous studies that have addressed it. We

then proceed to review literature on school leadership and its influence on students’

achievement. Finally we focus on school leadership and teachers’ instructional practices

and their contribution to performance in mathematics.

Mathematics education in Kenya

Kenya is a developing country on the East coast of Africa with a population of

about 40 million. The Kenyan education system has three levels ─ primary school (class

1 – 8), secondary school (form 1 – 4) and post-secondary (university, college, certificate

and vocational training). At class eight (equivalent of grade 8 in USA) students sit for a

national examination, the Kenya Certificate of Primary Education (KCPE), to qualify for

admission to secondary school and in form four (equivalent to grade 12 in the USA

education system) , they sit for the Kenya Certificate of Secondary Education (KCSE)

examination. At both levels students take standardized tests with mathematics as one of

the subjects examined.

The strengthening of mathematics at the secondary school level in Kenya was

declared a priority in the seventh National Development Plan for industrialization and

27
sustainability (Kanja, Iwasaki, Baba, & Uenda, 2001). The performance of mathematics

at the secondary school level has long been a major concern among Kenyan educators

and the general public (Inyega & Thomson, 2002; Kanja, Iwasaki, Baba, & Uenda,

2001). Evidence of deterioration in students’ performance at the secondary school level

presents one of the worrisome challenges to Kenyan education (Global Literacy Project,

2008). In 1998, the Kenyan government with assistance from the Japan International

Cooperation Agency (JICA) initiated the Strengthening of Mathematics and Science in

Secondary Education (SMASSE) project with the hope of strengthening teaching and

learning of mathematics and science subjects. In a baseline study conducted in Kenya

under the auspices of the SMASSE project, poor instructional practices, lack of

professional community, poor content mastery, lack of teaching/learning materials,

negative attitudes, poor administration and management practices were identified as

major causes of poor mathematics in Kenyan secondary schools (Sifuna & Kaime, 2007).

The SMASSE project then advocated for change in teachers’ instructional practices and

recommended a shift from teacher-centered to student-centered instructional methods

through an In-Service Education and Training (INSET) program (Wambui, 2005). In

spite of these efforts – costly in both financial and manpower terms – a recent study

revealed that teachers’ classroom practices had not changed substantially (Sifuna &

Kaime, 2007).

School leadership and academic performance

In the early and mid-1980s, research on school leadership focused primarily on

the individual role of the school head (Camburn, Rowan, & Taylor, 2003). In the 1990s,

however, leadership in schools was increasingly viewed as a collaborative process rather

28
than an exclusively individual activity (Hart, 1995; Heller & Firestone, 1995; Rowan,

1990; Smylie, Conley, & Marks, 2002) and the research focus broadened to include other

players including teachers. This perspective positioned school leadership not just as a

function of what the principal does but rather a “dyadic, shared, relational, strategic,

global and complex social dynamic” model (Avolio et al,2009: 3). Marks and Printy

(2003) posit that school leaders seeking to improve academic performance of their

schools often involve teachers in dialogue and decision making. The belief that

leadership matters when it comes to academic performance is generally accepted within

educational leadership studies (Hallinger & Heck, 1998; Spillane et al, 2004; Wahlstrom

& Louis, 2008), yet some scholars have questioned the validity of this claim (Witziers,

Bosker, & Krüger, 2003). Those that hold this divergent position have argued that there is

no sufficient proof that school leadership really matters. Some empirical studies,

especially in the Netherlands, have reported finding no significant influence of school

leadership on students’ academic performance (Hallinger & Heck, 1998). There is thus

little consensus about how school leaders impact school’s academic outcomes and little is

known about how leadership is enacted within the schoolhouse and the means by which it

influences school outcomes (Hallinger & Heck, 1998; Spillane et al, 2004).These

contrasting positions leave the question about the degree of influence of school leadership

on students’ academic performance unanswered.

Most contemporary studies that have sought to understand the relationship

between school leadership and academic performance have focused on the

distributed/shared aspects of leadership (for example Harris, 2004; Leithwood et al,

2007; Wahlstrom & Louis, 2008). This focus is driven by a widespread belief about the

29
superior benefits of distributed versus concentrated leadership. Moreover, it has been

argued that distributed forms of leadership reflect the reality of the day-to-day division of

labor in schools and minimize the probability of error in decision making by use of

additional information available from diverse, leadership sharing sources. (Leithwood &

Mascall, 2008). Distributed leadership has also been seen to enhance organizational

learning by creating opportunitues for capacity-building and exploiting individual

capacities of its members (Harris, 2004; Leithwood & Mascall, 2008). Hopkins and

Jackson (2002:95) argue that “…distributed leadership along with social cohesion and

trust” are at the core of capacity building. Two forms distributed – additive and holistic

– have been identified by Leithwood et al (2007). The additive or cumulative pattern of

distribution has different individuals uncoordinatedly engaging in leadership activities

while the holistic pattern is a conscious alignment of leadership activities to foster

collaboration between leaders and followers (Gronn, 2000; Mascall et al, 2008).

However, it is not clear which pattern of leadership has greater influence on school

academic performance (Harris, 2004).

This study aims to contribute to extant school leadership literature by seeking to

understand the influence of school leadership on schools’ academic performance and the

applicability of leadership theories to the Kenyan secondary schools’ context.

School leadership, mathematics instructional practices and school performance

Instructional practices refer to clarity of instructional goals, decision making

about curricular content, choice of instructional strategies, uses of instructional time,

grouping practices, and classroom interactions (Creemers & Reezigt, 1997; Leithwood &

Jantzis, 2000). There is general consensus in educational literature that teachers’

30
instructional practices do impact student achievement (Leithwood & Jantzis, 2000). Some

instructional practices – especially in mathematics – are reportedly more effective in

improving students’ performance than others. Mathematics instructional practices are

broadly categorized into learner-centered and teacher-centered approaches, the latter

being referred to as the traditional approach. Learner-centered instructional practices

emphasize high order skills of discovery, reasoning and collaborative learning, and draw

on students’ past experiences and knowledge while the traditional practices confer the

onus of knowledge transmission on the teacher with students playing the passive role of

memorizing and reciting concepts (Stipek et al, 2001).

There is unanimous agreement among educational scholars and practitioners that

learner-centered practices positively influence student performance in mathematics

(McCaffrey et al, 2001; Wenglinsky, 2002). On the other hand, McCaffrey et al (2001)

report finding no significant relationship between the traditional approach and improved

mathematics achievement. In Kenya’s case mathematics instruction in secondary schools

is dominated by traditional instructional practices (Kanja et al, 2001; Sifuna & Kaime,

2007; Wambui, 2005). Consequently, most Kenyan studies have recommended changing

the instructional practices as a way of improving performance (Ackers & Hardman, 2001;

Githua & Nyabwa, 2008; Inyega & Thomson, 2002; Kanja et al, 2001; Wambui, 2005).

These studies have proposed interventions that target the teachers’ classroom activities to

the exclusion of school leadership.

Research has demonstrated a statistically significant – but weak - link between

school leadership and academic performance (Hallinger & Heck, 1996; Leithwood &

Jantzis, 2000). One explanation for this weak link is that school leadership impacts

31
academic achievement indirectly through a mediated process (Hallinger & Heck, 1996).

Some of the mediating variables of school leadership include teacher related factors such

as beliefs and emotional states (Mascall et al, 2008). It is therefore possible that school

leaders, for example principals, could exert indirect influence on a school’s mathematics

performance through teachers’ instructional practices and motivations. Specifically,

distributed forms of leadership have been positively associated with higher academic

performance (Harris, 2004).

A common denominator in Kenyan education studies (including the SMASSE

project) is that none takes into account the role of school leadership in changing teachers’

instructional practices and schools’ mathematics performance. Incongruously, some of

the studies have identified school management and administration to be some of the

causes of poor performance in mathematics (Ackers, Migoli, & Nzomo, 2001; Sifuna &

Kaime, 2007). By overlooking the effects of school leadership, Kenyan studies have left

out a potentially critical factor in successfully changing teachers’ instructional practices

and consequently improving student performance in mathematics. We sought to fill this

gap in Kenyan education literature by conducting a qualitative study to understand how

leadership practices, as enacted by school leaders in their daily activities, influence

secondary school mathematics performance.

METHODS

Methodology

We deemed qualitative research best suited to understand the relationship between

leadership and mathematics performance in Kenyan schools. A key strength of

qualitative research is the ability to give the researcher a comprehensive perspective of

32
the phenomenon under study (Babbie, 2007), facilitating the discovery and understanding

of actions, beliefs, decisions and recognition of nuances in attitudes and behavior that

cannot be easily detected by quantitative methods (Babbie, 2007; Creswell, 2009).

We adopted a grounded theory approach to the research, designing a study that

sought to inductively generate a theory about our phenomenon of interest by the

rigorous constant comparison of data collected and analyzed concurrently (Babbie, 2007;

Strauss & Corbin, 1990; Suddaby, 2006). Theoretical sampling involved the interplay

between theory and data to select new research cases and to re-focus the interview

questions in order gain deeper meaning and understanding of emerging concepts (Strauss

& Corbin, 1990).

Sample

In Kenyan education sector, schools are categorized according to National,

Provincial and District designation. National and provincial schools are government-

aided while district schools are only partially funded by the government. National schools

target academically elite students, provincial schools admit average to above average

students and district school admit average to below average students. Our sample

consisted of thirty five practitioners employed at twelve provincial secondary schools in

one (Eastern) province of Kenya (see Appendix A). Provincial secondary schools were

deemed appropriate for this study as their basic facilities and resources were broadly

similar. We believed that by focusing on provincial secondary schools better comparisons

between successful versus less successful schools could be made as opposed to using

district schools whose widely varying resources and facilities would have challenged

ascriptions of success. Six successful and six less successful schools (so labeled on the

33
basis of mean scores in mathematics in the November, 2008 national examinations)

participated in the study. Provincials schools above first quartile (top 25%) were

categorized as more successful and those below third quartile (bottom 25%) as less

successful. The schools were selected from the Machakos district in Eastern province of

Kenya where the principal researcher’s professional network facilitated respondent

identification. The sample consisted of eleven principals (one principal declined to be

interviewed), twelve teacher leaders (heads of department) and twelve mathematics

teachers. Three respondents (one from each of these three professional classifications)

from each school participated in the study.

Data collection

We conducted semi-structured interviews in Kenya over a two-month period from

June to July, 2009. Face-to-face interviews of approximately sixty minutes were

conducted in a private setting that ensured comfort and confidentiality. Interviews were

conducted on school premises. The interviews were digitally recorded and subsequently

transcribed.

The interviews were guided by an interview protocol consisting of seven open-

ended questions (See Appendix B). The questions were designed to elicit narratives from

the participants about their experiences as school leaders or teachers. Following

Maxwell’s (2005) recommendations, the interview questions were pilot tested and

revisions made where necessary. Data were simultaneously collected and analyzed with

adjustments to the sample and interview protocol influenced by the ongoing emergence

of themes and concepts from in-hand data (Maxwell, 2005; Suddaby, 2006). Constant

comparison of the data influenced the manner in which subsequent interviews were

34
conducted and helped to determine theoretical saturation (Backman & Kyngäs, 1999;

Strauss & Corbin, 1990).

Interviews were conducted within normal business hours and digitally recorded

after securing permission from the respondent. The recorded interviews were secured in

an encrypted drive, transcribed by a professional service and reviewed by the researcher

to ensure transcription accuracy.

Data analysis

The transcripts were read repeatedly and the researcher listened to the recorded

interviews multiple times. The process of data analysis involved breaking down the data

then conceptualizing and putting it back together in categories and subcategories

(Backman & Kyngäs, 1999). The transcriptions were initially subjected to open coding, a

rigorous line by line examination of the data to identify “codable moments” which were

subsequently categorized and labeled, and from which themes and ideas eventually

emerged (Emerson, Fretz, & Shaw, 1995; Maxwell, 2005). Through a process of axial

coding, the emergent categories were compared with data and existing school leadership

theories to identify any explicit connections and relationships between categories and

sub-categories. This process involved exploring relationships between categories to

understand experiences to which they related.

In a third phase of coding (selective coding) core categories were selected,

identified and systematically related to other categories. This involved validating the

relationships, and filling in, refining and developing the selected categories. The

categories were then integrated to arrive at a grounded theory about the role of school

35
leadership in mathematics performance in Kenyan secondary schools. Qualrus software

assisted in coding, systematically organizing themes, patterns and variations in the data.

In the initial reading, words, sentences, and paragraphs were given descriptive

labels. Coding was conducted both manually and facilitated by Qualrus, a coding

software. The open coding resulted in the generation of 937 codes. In the second stage,

the open codes were grouped into categories according to their similarities and

differences. A total of 50 categories were identified. A “comparative analysis” was

undertaken and some categories were eliminated and others were re-categorized. In the

final analysis, 20 categories were selected and 4 major themes were confirmed. The

major themes and selected categories used are presented in Table 1 below.

TABLE 1
Major Themes and Selected Codes
Principal's leadership Participation and interest in mathematics, Sensitivity to failure
behavior symptoms (e.g. teachers comments, events on the ground),
Role modeling
The practice of leadership Appreciation/recognition, openness to input, providing
instructional support, Inclusiveness, involvement in decision
making
Classroom practices Affection to students (e.g. attention to weak students),
Assisting behavior, rapport with students, extra effort,
availability to students,
Sense of community Sense of belonging, participation, ownership, inter-personal
relations, respect, influence, team work

FINDINGS

Our data analysis resulted in the identification of several salient factors that

distinguish Kenyan schools with high mathematics performance from schools that are

markedly less successful.

Finding #1: While principals at all of the schools in our sample acknowledged the
importance of student mathematics mastery, those at higher performing schools

36
demonstrated higher personal commitment and dedicated more personal time and
attention to ensuring mathematics achievement than did principals at lower performing
schools.
The data revealed stark distinctions between the attitudes and behaviors of

principals at higher versus lower performing schools. Leaders at the top performing

schools purposefully prioritized mathematics mastery and clearly and persistently

communicated their expectations to other administrators and teachers. Most principals in

the higher performing schools reported personally involving themselves in the classroom

or engaging directly with students out of the classroom to encourage mathematics

achievement. The principals and administrators of the better schools uniformly reported

dedicating personal time and energy to improve the students’ mathematics skills and

persistent emphasis on importance of mathematics achievement. On the contrary, few

principals at lower performing schools divulged similar levels of personal commitment or

similar intensity and regularity of emphasis on mathematics performance. The data failed

to evidence comparable allocations of time and energy on the part poorer performing

school principals to support and encourage teacher effectiveness and student

achievement.

Better performing school principals reported higher awareness of and concern

about the failure of mathematics mastery and encouraged institutional conversation about

it. Some reported self-involvement in the classroom. Others devised personal

opportunities to communicate and sometimes work with students outside of the

classroom. This intensity of personal involvement, focus and persistent attention was far

less apparent in the narratives of principals in poorer performing schools. From them we

heard more procedural responses about how to address student mathematics deficiency.

These principals acknowledged the problem but were more apt to discuss routine rather

37
 than novel responses to it. These included the maintenance of records, reliance on syllabi

and emphasis on examinations. Table 2 illustrates the support we found in our data for

this proposition.

TABLE 2
Principal’s Commitment to Mathematics

Higher Performing School Lower Performing Schools

Staying close to I have to create a lot of interest [in mathematics] because of the girls. I They [Heads of Departments] supervise the way
mathematics have to be a role model. (Principal 11) the teaching is being done to ensure that the
instruction syllabus coverage is done in good time.
(Principal 10)
I am a member of that mathematics department, I teach and in fact I We have record books where a teacher records ‘I
have one of the form four classes. (Principal 4) have taught this and this’. (Principal 2)
I had to take the leadership role by preaching to the students that We are encouraging teachers to go on and finish
mathematics is like any other subject and can be performed better. the syllabus and do the type of revision that will
(Principal 7) be required. (Principal 3)

We introduced evening discussions for students… when the teachers We don’t have a school mathematics project
leave for home, I come in the evening … and make sure that what the specifically for improving mathematics, not yet.
teacher left for discussion is done. (Principal 8) (Principal 1)
Focus on I like also listening to the teachers as they talk and I keep correcting We started what we called supplementary exams
continuous the language so that they can also have the right attitude towards the for the weak students in mathematics … but I
improvement girls about mathematics. (Principal 11) think since last year but one we have not been
able to do [any]. (Principal 10)

I invite [weak students] to my office and we talk about their grades. We have documents which we follow, like the
(Principal 8) syllabus, which is drawn by the KIE (Kenya
Institute of Education) and other documents
which guide us on how to go about
implementing the curriculum. (Principal 1)
Where you find there are omissions, be very prompt in pointing out, in If need be I take the exercise books from the
a rather encouraging manner. Not criticizing but encourage and show students and check them physically, look at the
the difference. (Principal 7) schemes of work and see whether they correlate
with what is being recorded. (Principal 2)
We always have our remedial teaching, which we do after classes
[and] over the weekends. (Principal 7)
Openness to I normally have open forums with the students. Where they have If we say this is the program to be followed, all
information and problems, they tell us [and] so I am able now to get that information the students will follow what the teacher says.
diverse views and discuss with the teachers. (Principal 8) Again our culture is to follow the right channels
of passing information. (Deputy Principal 1)
I have made it open such that everybody is free to contribute. And in Mine is to issue a general circular to the effect
fact I have told them the principal is not a ‘know it all’. They give me that, whether you missed a lesson for genuine
ideas on anything they think we can put on board to run the school. reasons or otherwise, it is your duty to ensure
(Principal 4) that you cover up for any lessons missed.
(Principal 3)
As I start the day I am in touch at a very personal level and then later
in the day, if I get another opportunity, I still will go round [to gather
information]. (Principal 11)

Finding #2: Our analysis suggests a positive relationship between school performance in
mathematics and teacher sensitivity to and commitment to students’ needs and problems.

2.1: Teachers in better performing schools revealed higher sensitivity to student

needs and problems than did teachers in lower performing schools.

38
 In particular, our data demonstrated higher sensitivity on the part of teachers in

better performing schools about the learning problems and/or special requirements of

students, individual or collective. The narratives of these teachers emphasized the

differentiated needs of singular students and focused efforts teachers took to preclude

failure. Similar efforts and endeavors were absent in the narratives of teachers from the

lower performing schools. Examples of the evidence we found is presented in Table 3.

TABLE 3
Teacher Sensitivity to Student Problems and Needs

Higher Performing Schools Lower Performing Schools

Differentiated attention to weak We also grouped these students; we could deal We need to give more than we give nowadays. And
students them at personal level but according to their even remedial teaching of the weak students, we do
ability. (Teacher 4) not have. (Teacher 10)
We talked about the poor students, how we Mainly I don’t use discussions, as in discussing
[could] help the poor students so that they go up among the students, I rarely do that.(Teacher 2)
and improve math grade. Perhaps we may decide
we pick all the poor students in the whole and we
assign a person or two to take care of them.
(Teacher 11)
You call them individually, you talk [and] you We need a lot of time to be with these students, and if
agree this is where you are going to major, …, the you look at the routine of the day, we are saying, there
weak ones particularly. (Head of department 11) is no such time. (Teacher 1)
Efforts to preclude failure We have encouraged students to come and see us Those projects, if they require a lot of input from the
after classes and also we are free. Like if you teachers, especially sacrifice, you don’t expect a lot of
come here after class you get so many of them support from the teachers. (Head of department 3)
floating here coming for discussion. (Head of
department 8)
We also try to make the subject enjoyable, so that So there was that challenge, as you try to assign them
the students feel free to ask questions. (Teacher 8) [teachers] duties, people will give all sorts of excuses.
(Teacher 1)
You go ahead, outside your academic profession I am not there at night; I am not there during their
as a teacher and even “bribe” with a snack. When private reading over their [students] weekend.
you want to bring them closer, you do anything. (Teacher 3 )
You talk and ask them to give their experiences
why they hate mathematics. (Head of department
11)

2.2: In better performing schools teachers reported higher personal commitment

to student achievement and were more intrinsically motivated to affect it.

The narratives of teachers at higher ranked schools revealed flexibility in

classroom practices and emphasized personal investment (involving time as well as

effort) in devising them. These instructors divulged willingness to engage in non-routine

39
practices and encouraging students to seek different views in solving problems. As

demonstrated in Table 4 below, teachers at lower ranking schools were far less apt to

mention non-routine practices or to reference the use of personal time and energy to

design such.

TABLE 4
Teachers’ Motivation and Commitment

Higher Performing Schools Lower Performing Schools

Teacher’s source of If I feel that students have an urge to do well, I If you have to be devoted to work, you also
motivation am really motivated to give even with nothing have to be recognized and where there is
to receive on my side. So my motivation is devotion there must be a reward. (Teacher 1)
being able to see the students doing well.
(Teacher 11)
When I teach and the students fail to understand Somebody would say “that’s a good idea,
I don’t sleep. (Teacher 8) mostly it is good but the availability of us,
will we all be there for it? How much will we
be paid if we come for it?” So if we won’t be
paid when we take the extra [load] then you
carry it alone. (Teacher 3)
When I see a child working, when I see a child [The teachers] are very interested in whether
comfortable, when I go to that class and I feel or not it will require some part of their time.
they are getting. You feel your emotions getting So we have to ensure that they are given
higher and higher. (Head of department 11) something. (Head of department 3)
Teachers’ commitment Naturally you have the obligation of pursuing So, telling me to come on Saturday to come
and seeing your students do well and of course and assist my own students … I may not be
you love that motivation to work hard [for] comfortable. (Teacher 1)
extra hours [and] even seek other time outside
the normal classroom teaching to try to see your
students are taken care of. (Teacher 7)
And they [teachers] give themselves deadlines; There was the tendency of us teachers also to
it is not only an issue of money. (Principal 7) relax and not giving them [students] enough
practice, there was also the issue of; you give
an exercise and you are not likely to grade.
(Head of department 2)
We are here for the students, so we have to I don’t know maybe that’s the weakness.
work towards one goal, must have one goal. We When we start off something we find
are here to help the students achieve success. ourselves with no time [and] so it dies off.
(Teacher 8) (Teacher 10)
Encouraging student Sometimes I get challenging questions which I [The students] make notes, they also solve
discovery of solutions normally give to the students so that they will some questions in their books and I’ll solve
be forced to think. (Head of department 8) some few problems on the board that is if the
time allows. (Teacher 2)
You give that child a question, particularly
during the revision time, to go and research.
They can be taught by the others then they can
come and present to the whole school. (Head of
department 11)
We also try to make the subject enjoyable, so
that the students feel free to ask questions.
(Teacher 8)

40
Finding # 3: Higher performing schools fostered a learning environment emphasizing a
sense of community among administrators, faculty and students and characterized by
feedback and collaboration.
Our data revealed clear differences in the sense of community in higher

performing schools and lower performing schools. Most teachers and administrators in

the higher performing schools talked of their association as a family, feeling accepted, the

importance of having everybody on board and being unreserved with one other. Most of

teachers and principals in these schools expressed comfort in working together, sharing

tasks and assisting each other both socially and professionally. On the other hand,

teachers and administrators in lower performing schools made little reference to

cohesiveness in their community. There was emphasis of delegation of duties in the

lower performing schools as opposed to collaboration. More of the evidence we found is

presented in table 5.

41
 TABLE 5
School Sense of Community
Higher performing schools Lower performing schools

Harmony among school The students respect teachers. They will even greet But it is like the [previous] principal had a clique
members you on the way; you feel you are free with of teachers who were close to him and another
everybody. (Teacher 8) clique of teachers who were labeled as saboteurs.
(Principal 3)
[We chat] freely and this one really helps us to
forget our stress and our problems that we have out
there and it creates a sense of belonging among the
teachers. (Principal 8)
There is a lot of unity and warmness, whereby the Not many teachers allow team teaching, the
members, they like living as a family and they want reason being that I may feel that am not
the success to be owned by everybody. (Principal competent enough, so by allowing somebody to
11) come into my class while am still there some of
my colleagues feel that it is belittling. (Head of
department 6)
Collaboration versus If teacher A was in charge of CAT one, then teacher We have a briefing in the staff room the
delegation B will lead in CAT 2, another person in the same principal’s briefing he will come there, tell us the
group will take charge of CAT 3 or end of term objectives of the week. (Teacher 5)
exam. So you see once we do it that way everybody
feels part of the team. (Teacher 4)
We go [to the classroom] as a group and talk with We have the idea of the delegation where you find
students. That way they feel we [teachers] have their that [everything] flows from the [principal’s]
interest at heart and they feel we are together. office to the lowest level. (Principal 5)
Therefore they are able to communicate with any of
the teachers without fear. (Teacher 11)
There is cooperation among the math teachers.
They work in a harmony and with the other
teachers. ( Head of department 11)
Rapport with student And whatever you agree with your students, they So they [students] never listened to the teachers.
will, they will do it, anyway, you will enjoy (Principal 3)
teaching. (Teacher 8)
When we started [evening lessons] with them You could hear some other things cropping up,
[students], the boys were cooperative. (Head of the girls complaining here and there. (Teacher 1)
department 4)

Actually there is a lot of support from the teachers We realized that our students mainly don’t revise.
and students. (Head of department 11) It is like they don’t want to revise. (Teacher 2)

DISCUSSION

Our study sought to understand how school leadership practices influence

mathematics performance in Kenyan secondary schools. Our findings suggest principals’

leadership and engagement impacts mathematics performance. These results are similar

to those of Timperley (2005) who attributed success in students’ literacy skills to literacy

leaders who assisted teachers in questioning and changing their instruction practices. In

our study, school principals did not act as instructional leaders, but played a crucial

42
supportive and complementary role in mathematics performance, staying close to

instruction, remaining focused on continuous improvement and being open to diverse

views. These findings are significant given the acknowledged lack of clarity about how

leadership is experienced and enacted to influence academic performance of students

(Wahlstrom & Louis, 2008).

Our findings highlight the importance of the principals’ commitment, sensitivity

and focus on continuous improvement and openness to information and diverse views

(finding # 1). We liken this to the notion of individual mindfulness associated with

Langer (1989) and extended to organizational mindfulness by Weick and Sutcliffe

(2001). Hoy (2003) later extended the idea of mindfulness to schools. Individual

mindfulness is defined as sensitivity to context, openness to new information, creating

new categories and awareness of multiple perspectives (Hoy, 2003; Thornton II &

McEntee, 1995). Organizational mindfulness has five dimensions (or processes) through

which it is manifested, namely; preoccupation with failure, sensitivity to operations,

reluctance to simplify, commitment to resilience and deference of expertise (Hoy, 2003;

Weick & Sutcliffe, 2006). Mindful leaders are sensitive, flexible and have the ability to

appreciate alternative interpretations of contexts (Thornton II & McEntee, 1995).

Mindlessness, on the other hand, is a mindset burdened by old categories and reliant on

routines and programs (Hoy, Gage III, & John, 2006; Thornton II & McEntee, 1995)

Kenyan schools that performed better in mathematics, our study shows, nurtured

mindfulness within the school communities. Mindfulness, according to our findings, was

not just a quality for school leaders but an organizational characteristic facilitated by

mindful leaders. Our analysis revealed that in schools with mindful principals, teachers

43
too, were inclined to mindful behavior when dealing with students (finding #2).

Mindfulness became an organization wide characteristic, as the principal’s propensity for

it permeated to lower levels. To promote mindfulness contagion successful principals got

personally involved in mathematics improvement activities, not just as leaders, but also at

times as followers, implementing the decisions of their juniors, for example overseeing

students’ group discussions when the teachers had gone home. Such direct involvement

meant that they were able to be continually aware of the “danger not yet arisen” (Hoy et

al, 2006). The flow of mindfulness from top to lower levels facilitated student-centered

instructional practices, enhancing performance in mathematics as mindful teachers

encouraged discovery and exploration in their instructional practices. The principals’

direct engagement stimulated higher commitment and professionalism among the

teachers by demonstrating their recognition of the multidimensional perspectives within

the school communities.

As described by Hoy (2003), mindlessness, relies on old categories and veils the

subtlety of context by focusing only on a single perspective. In mindless organizations

rigidity and insensitivity to context is the norm and problems are simplified to fit

established programs and routines (Weick & Sutcliffe, 2006). In our study mindlessness

clearly characterized lower performing schools, where principals were preoccupied, for

example, with syllabi completion, minimized their contact with teachers and relied on

hierarchy to manage and communicate. Mindless management meant that the teaching

and learning process was dominated by one perspective or view point. Adherence to

established government rules and regulations rather than exploration and discovery were

emphasized and little attention was paid to development of students’ abilities, leading

44
many of them to lose interest in learning. This could explain why teachers and principals

in some of the lower performing schools reported a lack of rapport with students and

difficulty maintaining their attention (Finding #3).

Hoy et al (2006) proposed that organizational environment facilitates mindful

behavior. At schools in our sample with a strong sense of community and characterized

by cohesion, harmony, mutual respect and teamwork, student performance was better.

Moreover, a strong sense of community aligns favorably with the African culture where

family bonds are given preeminence. A milieu of cohesion and harmony relates well with

how Kenyan students have been raised. The sense of community present in better

performing schools may create comfort around learning that help students to connect

easily with the teaching and learning process. Further, a sense of community fosters trust

among members – a condition that has been previously associated with school

improvement and student achievement (Bryk & Schneider, 2003; Wahlstrom & Louis,

2008). In our case, it is likely that the sense of community created that environment

conducive for cultivating mindfulness in the school communities. In figure 1 below, we

conceptualize a framework where mindfulness permeated from higher to lower levels in

an environment characterized by cohesion, harmony, mutual respect and teamwork.

45
 FIGURE 1
School Mindfulness Framework

The exercise of mindfulness by principals and their subordinates correlated with

heightened teacher engagement, feelings of empowerment and greater experimentation

with varied instructional practices. Teachers’ engagement is defined as the creation of

possibilities (Lesko, 1986) while teachers’ empowerment is the process where teachers

become responsible for their own growth and are able to resolve their own problems

(Short, 1994). Our data provided evidence of direct positive relationships between

mindful school leadership, teachers’ sense of empowerment and engagement and

students’ academic achievement.

Hoy et al (2006) treat school mindfulness as an aggregation of principal and

faculty mindfulness. However, our findings indicate organizational mindfulness to be

more than an aggregation of the actors within the school community. According to our

results, organizational mindfulness is a function of collaboration across levels and not

46
just aggregation at individual mindfulness. It involves the creation of an environment

conducive to collaboration and trust. In our case, principals were instrumental in the

creation of this mindful organizational environment – a “black box” that not previously

prioritized. . We recommend future research to explore how the constructs of individual

and organizational mindfulness relate to student achievement. Figure 2 below suggests a

causal model that depicts the relationship between principal’s mindfulness, collaboration

and trust, teacher’s engagement and student achievement.

FIGURE 2
Causation Model

CONTRIBUTIONS

Leadership is important in driving innovation in schools (Spillane, Halverson, &

Diamond, 2004). Mindfulness on the other hand is a facilitative state that could create an

environment conducive for discovery and innovation by adopting multiple perspectives

and being open to new categories (Hoy et al, 2006; Ritchhart & Perkins, 2000).

Contemporary school leadership literature posits distribution or shared leadership as

important to instructional practices (Timperley, 2005). For the most part, current school

improvement and achievement studies have treated the concepts of mindfulness and

47
leadership as separately. Our results suggest the benefit of bringing the concept of

mindfulness into school leadership studies.

This study also contributes to the literature on school leadership by exploring the

applicability of theories about it in the milieu of Kenyan secondary schools. The impact

of school leadership on academic performance has received little attention in Kenyan

educational literature. By bringing into focus the role of leadership in the improvement of

schools ‘academic performance, this study hopes to catalyze more scholarly and

practitioner oriented studies on the Kenyan – and greater African ─ educational

environment.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE AND FUTURE RESEARCH

Research on school leadership in Kenya has focused on the administrative roles of

school principals ignoring the possible direct and indirect influence of it on school

academic performance and other sources of leadership. Little has been done to promote

understanding about how school leadership impacts students’ academic achievement, an

emphasis that is ubiquitous in contemporary leadership literature in the developed world

(Mascall et al, 2008). The findings of this study imply that education scholars and

practitioners in Kenya need to pay closer attention to what principals and other school

leaders do in their day-to-day enactment of leadership. Critically, our results suggest that

education policy makers in Kenya must seek to understand the grounded enactment of

school leadership that influences academic performance by facilitating mindful behaviors

within schools.

The mindfulness of principals, instructional leaders (teacher leaders) and teachers

appears to have significant effect on student achievement. We recommend further

48
research to clarify the relationship of leadership – and styles of it – and mindfulness at

various institutional levels in the school systems (The next phase in our own research will

focus on quantitative validation of these constructs). On a practical level, our results

suggest that school administrators and education policy makers can take steps to promote

mindful attitudes and behaviors in the school setting. Because principals’ leadership is

instrumental in facilitating and cultivating mindfulness across various levels within the

school environment, all of them should understand and nurture it in everyday practices.

Deference to expertise, a key characteristic of mindfulness, for example, may facilitate

the practice of shared leadership within the school community.

LIMITATIONS

There are several limitations in this study that should be noted. Our sample was

small, not randomly selected and restricted to provincial secondary schools in a single

region of Kenya. Hence, our results may not be representative of all secondary schools in

other provinces in Kenya or to other types of schools.

In each institution we solicited information from three individuals; the school

principal, the head of the mathematics department and a mathematics teacher. These

interviews were self-reports and although more than one viewpoint from each institution

was obtained we acknowledge the social desirability bias can be ruled out. Our study

required respondents to recount past experiences and there is potential for recall bias.

However, interviewing different respondents requiring them to recount the same or

similar incidences helped to minimize this risk.

Qualitative data analysis largely depends on a researcher’s interpretation and

understanding. The principal researcher having been involved in school administration

49
and teaching at university and secondary school levels in Kenya for over 15 years and,

despite conscious effort to control its effects during the design and implementation of the

study, we recognize the potential for researcher bias.

REFERENCES

Ackers, J., & Hardman, F. (2001). Classroom Interaction in Kenyan Primary Schools.
British Association for International and Comparative Education , 31 (2), 245 -
261.

Ackers, J., Migoli, J., & Nzomo, J. (2001). Identifying and addressing the causes of
declining participation rates in Kenyan primary schools. International Journal of
Educational Development , 21, 361 - 374.

Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. J. (2009). Leadership: Current theories,
research and future directions. Annual Review of Psychology , 60, 421 - 429.

Babbie, E. (2007). The practice of social research. Thomson Wadsworth.

Backman, K., & Kyngäs, H. A. (1999). Challenges of the grounded theory approach to a
novice researcher. Nursing and Health Sciences , 1, 147 – 153.

Bryk, A. S., & Schneider, B. (2003). Trust in schools: A core resource for school reform.
Educational Leadership , 60 (6), 40-44.

Camburn, E., Rowan, B., & Taylor, J. E. (2003). Distributed leadership in schools: The
case of elementary schools adopting comprehensive school reform models.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis , 25 (4), 347 - 373.

Chemers, M. M., Hu, L., & Garcia, B. F. (2001). Academic Self-Efficacy and First-Year
College Student Performance and Adjustment. Journal of Educational
Psychology , 93 (1), 55-64.

Creemers, B. P., & Reezigt, G. J. (1997). School effectiveness and school improvement:
Sustaining links. School effectiveness and school improvement , 8 (4), 396 - 429.

Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods

approaches. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.

Emerson, R., Fretz, R., & Shaw, L. (1995). Writing Ethnographic Field notes. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.

50
Eshiwani, G. S. (1985). Research into methods of teaching mathematics: some results
from Kenya. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and
Technology , 16 (4), 479 – 488.

Githua, B. N., & Nyabwa, R. A. (2008). Effects of advance organizer strategy during
instruction on secondary school students’ mathematics achievement in Kenya’s
Nakuru district. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education ,
6 (3), 439 - 457.

Global Literacy Project. (2008). Retrieved November 28, 2008, from Global Literacy
Program: http://www.glpinc.org/Graphics/Project_Sites/Africa/Kenya/Kenya-
overview.htm

Global Literacy Project. (2008). Kenya Education Challenges. Retrieved November 28,
2008, from Global Literacy Program:
http://www.glpinc.org/Graphics/Project_Sites/Africa/Kenya/Kenya-overview.htm

Gronn, P. (2000). Distributed properties: A new architecture for leadership. Educational

Management & Administration , 28 (3), 317 - 338.

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.

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1996). Reassessing the principal’s role in school
effectiveness: A review of empirical research, 1980–1995. Educational
Administration Quarterly , 32 (1), 5 - 44.

Harris, A. (2004). Distributed leadership and school improvement: leading or misleading.

Educational Management and Administration , 32 (1), 255–267.

Hart, A. W. (1995). Re-conceiving school leadership: Emergent views. Elementary

School Journal. 96 (1), 9–28.

Heller, M. J., & Firestone, W. A. (1995). Who’s in charge here? Sources of leadership for
change in eight schools. Elementary School Journal , 95, 65–86.

Hopkins, D., & Jackson, D. (2002). Building the Capacity for Leading and Learning. In
A. Harris, C. Day, M. Hadfield, D. Hopkins, A. Hargreaves, & C. Chapman,
Effective Leadership for School Improvement (pp. 84–105). London: Routledge.

Hoy, W. K. (2003). An analysis of enabling and mindful school structures: Some

theoretical, research and practical considerations. Journal of Educational
Administration , 41 (1), 87-108.

51
Hoy, W. K., Gage III, C. Q., & John, C. (2006). School mindfulness and faculty trust:
necessary conditions for each other. Educational Administration Quarterly , 42
(2), 236-255.

Inyega, J., & Thomson, N. (2002). Change in attitudes towards teaching strategies in
secondary school teachers in Kenya. ASTE International Conference.
Kennesaw, GA: Association for Science Teachers Education.

Kanja, C., Iwasaki, H., Baba, T., & Uenda, A. (2001). For the reform of mathematics
education in Kenyan secondary schools. Journal of International Development
and Cooperation , 7 (1), 67– 75.

Kenya Institute of Education. (2001). Examination report. Nairobi, Kenya.

Lamb, S., & Fullarton, S. (2002). Classroom and school factors affecting mathematics
achievement: a comparative study of Australia and the United States using
TIMSS. Australian Journal of Education , 46.

Langer, E. J. (1989). Mindfulness. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Book.

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

organizational conditions and student engagement with school. Journal of
Educational Administration , 38 (2), 112-129.

Leithwood, K., & Mascall, B. (2008). Collective leadership effects on student

achievement. Educational Administration Quarterly 2008; 44 , 44, 529-561.

Leithwood, K., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). Review of research
How leadership influences student learning. New York: The Wallace
Foundation.

Leithwood, K., Mascall, B., Sacks, R., Memon, N., & Yashkina, A. (2007). Distributing
leadership to make schools smarter: Taking the ego out of the system. Leadership
and Policy in Schools , 6, 37–67.

Lesko, N. (1986). Conceptualizing teacher engagement. Madison, WI: National Center

on Effective Secondary Schools.

Marks, H. M., & Printy, S. M. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An
integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational
Administration Quarterly , 39 (3), 370 - 397.

Marrett, C. B. (1987). Black and Native American students in precollege mathematics

and science. In D. Linda, Minorities: Their underrepresentation and career
differential in science and engineering (pp. 7-31). Washington, D.C: National
Academy Press.

52
Mascall, B., Leithwood, K., Straus, T., & Sacks, R. (2008). The relationship between
distributed leadership and teachers’ academic optimism. Journal of Educational ,
46 (2), 214-228.

Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand

Oaks, California: Sage Publications.

McCaffrey, D. F., Hamilton, L. S., Stecher, B. M., Klein, S. P., Bugliari, D., & Robyn, A.
(2001). Interactions among instructional practices, curriculum, and student
achievement: The case of standards-based high school mathematics. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education , 32 (5), 493 – 517.

Ngware, M. W., Wamukuru, D. K., & Odebero, S. O. (2006). Total quality management
in secondary schools in Kenya: Extent of practice. Quality Assurance in
Education , 14 (4), 339-362.

Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in achievement settings. Review of Educational

Research , 66, 543-578.

Pietsch, J., Walker, R., & Chapman, E. (2003). The relationship among self-concept, self-
efficacy, and performance in mathematics during secondary school. Journal of
Educational Psychology , 95 (3), 589–603.

Ritchhart, R., & Perkins, D. N. (2000). Life in the mindful classroom: Nurturing the
disposition of mindfulness. Journal of Social Issues , 56 (1), 27 - 47.

Robbins, S. B., Lauver, K., Le, H., Davis, D., Langley, R., & Carlstrom, C. (2004). Do
psychosocial and study skill factors predict college outcomes? A meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin , 130 (2), 261-288.

Rowan, B. (1990). Commitment and control: Alternative strategies for the organizational
design of schools. In C. Cazden, Review of research in education. Washington,
DC.

Short, P. M. (1994). Defining teacher empowerment. Education , 114 (4), 488 – 492.

Sifuna, D. N., & Kaime, J. G. (2007). The effect of in-service education and training
(INSET) programmes in mathematics and science on classroom interaction: a case
study of primary and secondary schools in Kenya. African Education Review , 4
(1), 104 – 126.

Smylie, M., Conley, S., & Marks, H. (2002). Exploring new approaches to teacher
leadership for school improvement. In J. Murphy, The educational leadership
challenge: Redefining leadership for the 21st century (pp. 162–188). Chicago,
IL: University of Chicago Press.

53
Spillane, J., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. (2004). Towards a Theory of Leadership
Practice: A Distributed Perspective. Curriculum Studies , 3 - 34.

Stipek, D. J., Givvin, B. K., Salmon, J. M., & MacGyvers, V. L. (2001). Teachers' beliefs
and practices related to mathematics instruction. Teaching and Teacher
Education , 17, 213 - 226.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory
procedure and techniques. . NewburyPark, London: Sage.

Suddaby, R. (2006). What grounded theory is not. Academy of Management Journal ,

49 (4), 633 – 642.

Thornton II, L. J., & McEntee, M. E. (1995). Learner centered schools as a mindset, and
the connectiion with mindfulness and multiculturalism. Theory into Practice , 34
(4), 250 - 257.

Timperley, H. S. (2005). Distributed leadership: developing theory from practice.

Journal of Curriculum Studies , 37 (4), 395 - 420.

Wahlstrom, K. L., & Louis, K. S. (2008). How teachers experience principal leadership:
The roles of professional community, trust, efficacy, and shared responsibility.
Educational Administration Quarterly , 44 (4), 458 - 495.

Wambui, N. N. (2005). Study on mathematical achievement using the climbing learning

method in Kenyan secondary school. Reform, revolution and paradigm shifts in
mathematics education conference, (pp. 214 - 219). Johor Bahru, Malaysia.

Weick, E. K., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2006). Mindfulness and the quality of organizational
attention. Organizational Science , 17 (4), 514 - 524.

Wenglinsky, H. (2002). How schools matter: The link between teacher classroom
practices and student academic performance. Education Policy Analysis Archives
, 10 (12).

Witziers, B., Bosker, R. J., & Krüger, M. L. (2003). Educational leadership and student
achievement: The elusive serach for an association. Educational Administration
Quarterly , 39 (3), 398 - 425.

World Bank. (1998). Primary and secondary education in Kenya: A sector review.
World Bank.

54
 APPENDICES

APPENDIX A
Demographics of Informants

Respondent Gender Position Performance

1 F Principal Less successful
2 F Head of department Less successful
3 M Teacher Less successful
4 F Principal Less successful
5 M Head of department Less successful
6 F Teacher Less successful
7 M Principal Less successful
8 M Head of department Less successful
9 F Teacher Less successful
10 M Principal More successful
11 F Head of department More successful
12 M Teacher More successful
13 M Principal Less successful
14 M Head of department Less successful
15 M Teacher Less successful
16 F Principal Less successful
17 M Head of department Less successful
18 M Teacher Less successful
19 M Principal More successful
20 M Head of department More successful
21 M Teacher More successful
22 F Principal More successful
23 M Head of department More successful
24 M Teacher More successful
25 M Principal Less successful
26 M Head of department Less successful
27 F Principal Less successful
28 M Head of department Less successful
29 F Teacher Less successful
30 F Principal More successful
31 F Head of department More successful
32 F Teacher More successful
33 M Principal More successful
34 F Head of department More successful
35 F Teacher More successful

55
 APPENDIX B

Interview Protocol

1) Tell me about your background touching on your training, academic background

and experience.

2) Tell me a narrative that would help me understand the vision, mission, culture,
values, and the expectations of your school.

3) Could you please describe your responsibilities that you as a principal/head of

department/teacher are involved in a typical school term?

4) I am interested in mathematics performance in secondary schools; tell me about

some activities or initiatives you have been involved in geared towards enhancing
your school’s performance in mathematics?

5) Could you tell me about one initiative or activity you undertook that really stood
out as a success case in improving mathematics performance in your school?

6) Now tell me about one initiative you undertook that proved not to be successful in
enhancing mathematics performance.

56
 APPENDIX C

Emergent Categories

1 Affection to students 26 Process

2 Appreciation/recognition 27 Respect
3 Assistance and assisting behavior 28 Role modeling
4 Attitude 29 School routine
5 Change 30 Security
6 Consultation 31 Sense of belonging
7 Cooperative behavior 32 Students' involvement
8 Culture 33 Student-teacher relation
9 Decision autonomy 34 Support
10 Delegation 35 Teachers' effort
11 Environment 36 Togetherness
12 Expectations 37 Trust
13 Exposure 38 Vision and mission
14 Fairness 39 Working as a team
15 Inclusiveness 40 Principal's math support
16 Influence 41 Principal's extra effort
17 Information gathering and dissemination 42 Principal's math campaign
18 Inter-personal relations/social bonding 43 Principal's interest in math
19 Involvement in decision making 44 sensitivity to teacher-student relation
20 Lobbying and negotiating 45 rapport with students
21 Math initiatives 46 Perceived causes of failure
22 monitoring teaching 47 Planning and organization
23 Motivation 48 Principal's effort
24 Motivators/demotivators 49 Problem
25 Openness to input 50 Problem solving

57
SCHOOL LEADERSHIP, COLLECTIVE MINDFULNESS AND ACADEMIC

ACHIEVEMENT IN KENYA

By

Renson Muchiri Mwangi

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Quantitative Research

Report
in the Doctor of Management Program
at the Weatherhead School of Management

Advisors:
Tony Lingham, Ph.D.
Case Western Reserve University

Toni Somers, Ph.D.

Wayne State University

CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY

January 2011

58
 SCHOOL LEADERSHIP, COLLECTIVE MINDFULNESS AND
MATHEMATICS ACHIEVEMENT IN KENYA

ABSTRACT

In spite of the long instituted government initiatives to improve mathematics

performance in Kenyan secondary schools, students’ performance in the subject at the
secondary school level in Kenya continues to be poor. Studies on mathematics
achievement in Kenya have primarily focused on teachers’ classroom practices
neglecting the potential influence of school leadership. Using data collected from 273
schools involving 607 mathematics teachers we examined how school leadership
influences schools’ academic performance in Kenyan public secondary schools. We
found school leadership behaviors – principal’s visibility, inspiration and influence – to
have weak but significant indirect effect on mathematics achievement through a
mechanism mediated by collective mindfulness, enabling school structure, teachers’
academic press and trust in parents and students. These results demonstrate and bring into
perspective collective mindfulness and school’s hierarchical structure in school
leadership studies. A surprise finding was the negative impact of principals’ advice and
support on teachers’ academic press. This we ascribed to teachers’ perception of advice
and support as paternalistic and demeaning to their professional expertise.

Key Words: School leadership, collective mindfulness, school structure, teachers’

academic press, trust

59
 INTRODUCTION

A debate on whether school leadership matters when it comes to student academic

achievement continues to rage within the school effectiveness and improvement studies.

Early studies had argued that social economic factors had the greatest influence on

academic achievement and school factors had little effect on the same (Coleman et al,

1966; Jencks et al, 1972). This claim, though empirically validated, was challenged with

an argument that there existed school factors within the control of school leaders which

influence schools’ academic achievement even after controlling for social economic

status (SES) (Lamb & Fullarton, 2002; McGuigan & Hoy, 2006). This includes teacher

related factors such as instructional practices, collective efficacy and trust (Tschannen-

Moran, 2001), academic press (Goddard & Tschannen-Moran, 2001), school culture and

classroom organization (Lamb & Fullarton, 2002). McGuigan and Hoy (2006:204) have

argued that “one of the most important challenges … [is] to identify properties of schools

that make a real difference in academic achievement and that are within the control of

school leaders”. The underlying assumption in this argument is that school leaders have a

role to play in schools’ academic success – a role that cannot ignored.

Ample empirical evidence points to the significance of school leadership in the

determination of academic success in schools, although some doubts linger about the

validity of the claim (Hallinger & Heck, 1998; Spillane, Halverson, & Diamond, 2004;

Wahlstrom & Louis, 2008). Those that question the orthodox position have pointed at

conceptual and methodological problems in school leadership studies supporting the

hypothesis (Bosker & Witziers, 1996; Murphy, 1988; Van de Grift & Houtveen, 1999;

Witziers, Bosker, & Krüger, 2003). For example, Murphy (1988) argued that claims of

60
school leadership effects on student achievement remain unsubstantiated due to

methodological, measurement and conceptual problems. Hallinger and Heck (1998) also

ascribe discrepancies of results in school leadership studies to conceptualization and

methodological issues. The issue is thus not much about the existence of leadership

effects on academic achievement but rather the nature and degree of influence of such

effects on students’ academic achievement and whether the effects are measurable

(Hallinger & Heck, 1996). Contemporary studies have sought to understand the

relationship between school leadership and academic performance while controlling for

SES with the question narrowing down to whether school leadership influences schools’

academic success directly or indirectly through some mediated process.

Those who measure direct effects of leadership and those that use indirect effects

(Hallinger & Heck, 1998; Witziers et al, 2003) have reported divergent results. Studies

that have used direct effects have consistently reported non-existent or weak links

between school leadership and academic achievement (Hallinger & Heck, 1998; Witziers

et al, 2003). One explanation posited for this weak or non-existent link argues that school

leadership affects students’ academic achievement through a mediated mechanism

(Hallinger & Heck, 1998; Murphy, 1988; Witziers et al, 2003). The problem is therefore

to identify variables or factors influenced by school leadership that in turn affect schools’

academic leadership (Mascall et al, 2008).

Murphy (1988) in a research review on instructional leadership noted that failure

to consider micro and macro level contextual aspects of leadership to be one of the

weaknesses in instructional leadership studies. By micro level aspects, Murphy referred

to classroom and school conditions that mediate or moderate school leadership while

61
macro level aspects referred to environmental and organizational factors that influence

school leadership i.e. antecedents of school leadership. Recent studies have proposed

several possible mediators of school leadership effects on students’ academic

performance including; a) teachers’ beliefs and emotional states (Mascall et al, 2008;

McGuigan & Hoy, 2006; Wahlstrom & Louis, 2008), b) trust (Hoy, Tarter, & Hoy-

Woolfolk, 2006; Pillai, Schreisheim, & Williams, 1999; Wahlstrom & Louis, 2008), c)

classroom practices (Leithwood & Mascall, 2008), d) mindfulness (Hoy, Gage, & Tarter,

2006), e) school structure (Hoy, 2003), and e) academic optimism (Hoy et al, 2006).

Notwithstanding the articulation of the importance of school leadership, studies

on school improvement in Kenya have predominantly focused on pedagogical and

classroom practices without taking into account the role of school leadership in such

practices. In spite of some Kenyan studies identifying school management and

administration as some causes of poor academic performance in Kenyan schools (Ackers,

Migoli, & Nzomo, 2001; Sifuna & Kaime, 2007), Kenyan education studies have

paradoxically failed to test their influence on schools’ academic performance. By not

examining the effects of school leadership, Kenyan studies may have overlooked a

potentially critical success factor in schools’ academic success. Consequently, to fill this

lacuna, our study examined the indirect effects of principals’ leadership on schools’

academic performance through process mediated by teachers’ academic press, teachers’

trust in parents and students, collective mindfulness and school structure.

Three objectives guide our contribution to the stream of research on school

leadership and provide the primary motivation for the current study. First, we examined

the role of schools’ leadership in influencing schools’ academic achievement in Kenya,

62
with an aim to initiate a discussion among Kenyan scholars and practitioners of the

efficacy of school leadership and its relationship to academic success in Kenyan schools.

Secondly, we contribute to the extant literature by integrating insights about school

leadership theories to the Kenyan educational environment. Lastly, we explore the

impact of collective mindfulness as a mediating mechanism through which school

leadership influences schools’ academic achievement.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND CONCEPTUAL MODEL

This research addresses the gap in the literature for greater knowledge about the

nature of the role of schools’ leadership on academic achievement in Kenyan schools.

More specifically, this study focuses on the influence of school leadership on collective

mindfulness and enabling structure, and as mechanisms by which leadership affects

schools’ academic achievement. Among the intervention factors considered in prior

studies of leadership effects, mindfulness and school structure have received the least

attention. As such, our study addresses the following research questions:

a) How and to what extent do school leadership effects influence schools’ academic

achievement?

b) How does school leadership affect schools’ collective mindfulness and perceived

structure hindrance?

c) How do collective mindfulness in schools and perceived hindrance of school

structure relate to teachers’ academic press and trust in students and parents and

how does that relationship affect schools’ academic achievement?

We propose a model where principals’ leadership effects on academic outcomes

are mediated by collective mindfulness and enabling school structure. We use the term

63
collective mindfulness to refer to a school wide state of receptive awareness and

heightened attention to environmental cues in order to preclude failure. Figure 1 presents

a nomological network of the hypothesized structural relationships.

In the section that follows, we review literature linking school leadership to

collective mindfulness, perceived hindrance of school structure, teachers’ academic press

and trust in parents and students. In each subsection, we posit hypotheses that describe

how these constructs may be related. We proceed to present our study results in the

methods and data analysis sections. Thereafter we discuss our findings by interpreting

our results and their contribution to literature and practice. Finally, we highlight the

limitations of our study.

FIGURE 1
Conceptual model

LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES

Educational leadership studies conjecture school leadership to be an important

determinant of success in school and student achievement outcomes (Spillane et al,

2004). In spite of the consensus on the significance of leadership in schools, the

64
construction of a unified conceptual framework of school leadership has proved to an

elusive goal for many scholars (Heck & Hallinger, 2005). The lack of an integrated

conceptual framework could be partly ascribed to multiple aspects of leadership such as

strategies for improvement, management of school reform, values, and social justice

(Heck & Hallinger, 2005). Consequently, the question of how school leadership is

enacted within the schoolhouse to produce success remains a “blank spot” (Spillane et al,

2004).

In recognition of this contested space within the school leadership inquiry,

Leithwood et al (1996) call for application of domain specific leadership theories (cited

in Heck & Hallinger, 2005). In the school effectiveness and improvement domain,

school leadership has been conceptualized as predominantly focused on curriculum and

instruction. Instructional leadership and transformational leadership models dominate this

conceptualization. Instructional leadership idealizes effective management of instruction

and development of curriculum as key pillars while transformational leadership views

school leaders as change agents who inspire and influence their followers to higher levels

of commitment to school’s mission and vision (Leithwood & Jantzis, 2000; Witziers et

al, 2003).

For more than thirty years now, transformational and instructional leadership

models have dominated school leadership literature (Hallinger, 2003). In the narrow

focus, instructional leadership involves management, coordination and control of the

school curriculum and instructional program (Hallinger, 2003; Marks & Printy, 2003;

Bush & Glover, 2003). However, on a broader perspective it entails leadership activities

that influence student learning such as defining the school vision, managing the

65
instruction program and promoting a positive school climate for teaching and learning

(Hallinger & Murphy, 1985; Sheppard, 1996). Marks and Printy (2003) also

conceptualize a shared form of instructional leadership where the principal acts as a

facilitator of the teaching and learning process.

Transformational leadership engages teachers and staff to higher levels of

commitment, effort and productivity (Hallinger, 2003; Leithwood & Jantzis, 2000). It

seeks to influence and inspire teachers to find problems and seek solutions through

collaborative effort (Marks & Printy, 2003). While instructional leadership has been

characterized to be transactional (Hallinger, 2003), transformational leadership is posited

to be a contrast of it (Bush & Glover, 2003). Despite the articulated conceptual

distinction between the two, contemporary school leadership studies posit that effective

school leaders require both styles of leadership (Hallinger, 2003).

Mindfulness and School Leadership

The empirical foundation of individual mindfulness theory is grounded in the

seminal work of Langer (1989). Weick & Sutcliffe (2001) have extended this theory to

organizational studies. The concept has been extended to educational studies, for

example, Hoy et al (2006) associate mindfulness in schools with trust, Thorton and

McEntee (1995) link mindfulness to learner centered schools while Ritchhart and Perkins

(2000) review mindfulness as an appropriate educational goal. The concept of

mindfulness has been associated with creativity and increased learning (Cardaciotto,

2005; Ritchhart & Perkins, 2000), innovation (Swanson & Ramiller, 2004; Vogus &

Welbourne, 2003), reduced role conflict in the workplace (Valentine, Godkin, & Varca,

2010) and effectiveness in leadership (Boyatzis & Mckee, 2005).

66
 Mindfulness at the individual level refers to a heightened state of awareness

through scrutiny of existing categories, paying continuous attention to what is happening

around us, and processing of information (Boyatzis & Mckee, 2005; Vogus &

Welbourne, 2003; Weick & Sutcliffe, 2006). Brown, Ryan and Creswell (2007: 212)

define mindfulness to be a “receptive attention to and awareness of present events and

experience”. Mindfulness in individuals manifests through openness to information,

attention to detail and sensitivity to diverse perspectives of context (Hoy, 2003; Thornton

& McEntee, 1995). According to Boyatzis and McKee (2005), mindfulness enables

clarity of what is important and assists in early recognition of and seeking solution to a

problem before it becomes serious. Mindfulness is a blend of optimism and skepticism. It

is optimistic that failures and unpleasant surprises can be avoided and skeptical in that

success is cautiously celebrated to avoid the pitfall of arrogance and complacency (Hoy,

2003; Weick & Sutcliffe, 2001).

Like individuals, organizations can be mindful or less mindful. Organizations are

said to be mindful when the leaders and employees become collectively vigilant and

aware of the present, open to new information and appreciate the multiplicity and

diversity of perspectives with their underlying complexity (Hoy et al, 2006; Knight,

2004; Swanson & Ramiller, 2004). Mindfulness at the organization level is a collective

property that is inherent in participating individuals but is nonetheless not an aggregate of

the individuals’ mindfulness (Swanson & Ramiller, 2004). Collective mindfulness is

more of a joint effort where organizational members pay heedful attention to the

environment and current experiences to circumvent unpleasant surprises deleterious to

the organization, its clients and employees wellbeing. Similar to Brown and colleagues’

67
definition of individual mindfulness, we use collective mindfulness to refer to receptive

attention and awareness to the school context. We expect mindful schools to

continuously scan for subtle cues embedded in the school context that may impede

students’ achievement, be accommodative of diverse opinions, and pay heedful attention

to the teaching and learning process (Hoy et al, 2006).

Collective mindfulness as conceptualized is a desirable aspect of a school’s

culture. School culture tends to influence various school factors such as academic

expectations and teacher related variables to influence students’ academic achievement

(Barnett, McCormick, & Conner, 2001; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2005). Consequently, by

entrenching collective mindfulness in their cultures, schools may enhance the reliability

of their instructional process. Certain principal’s leadership practices, we posit, are

instrumental in the creation and maintenance of school culture (Barnett et al, 2001). It is

therefore appropriate to expect principal’s leadership practices to create, nurture and

maintain collective mindfulness in schools.

In school effectiveness literature, principal’s leadership practices are

predominantly modeled within instructional and transformational leadership frameworks.

Instructional leadership has three core functions namely; a) defining the mission and

vision, b) management of curriculum and instruction process and, c) maintenance of a

positive learning environment (Marks & Printy, 2003). As instructional leaders,

principals have to guarantee that the school’s curriculum and instructional process is

properly managed. They should remain cognizant of, recognize teachers’ professional

expertise, and only intervene to offer advice, guidance and support rather than micro

managing their subordinates (Marks & Printy, 2003). By offering support and advice to

68
teachers, school principals encourage collaborative practices and promote a school-wide

sensitivity and attention to the instructional process. Further, to foster a positive learning

climate, principal maintain a visible presence in school’s curricula and instructional

practices (Krug, 1992). The principal’s visibility encourages dialogue and supports

teachers’ professional growth. Such visibility reportedly influences classroom

instructional practices positively (Blase & Blase, 2000). Consequently, we expect

principal’s visibility, support and advice to foster collective mindfulness in school. We

therefore hypothesize:

H1a: Principal’s support and advice will have a positive impact on collective
mindfulness in schools
H1b: Principal’s visibility will have a positive impact on collective mindfulness

In the school context, transformational leadership is posited to be related to

achievement of higher levels of commitment of teachers (Barnett et al, 2001; Marks &

Printy, 2003). Transformational leadership practices focus on problem finding, problem

solving and collaboration and have the ability to develop collective capacity of the school

actors (Marks & Printy, 2003). Through inspiration and influence, transformational

school leaders challenge teachers to re-examine their present assumptions and to be open

to multiple perspectives. Indeed, Transformational leadership practices have been

associated with desirable teacher outcomes such as extra effort when mediated by school

culture (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2005). Thus, we propose:

H1c: The extent of the school principal’s inspiration and influence will have a
positive effect on the school’s collective mindfulness

School Leadership and School Structure

Schools like other organizations have hierarchical structures that define lines of

authority. However, these structures can either be enabling or hindering to an

69
organization’s endeavor to achieve its goals (Hoy et al, 2006). An enabling school

structure is a hierarchy that helps and guides problem solving whereas a hindering

structure is punitive, coercive and manipulative (Beard, Hoy, & Woolfolk-Hoy, 2010).

An enabling structure is more concerned with supporting and facilitating problem solving

through collaboration and anticipation of the unexpected (Hoy, 2003). Within the school

context, it assists teachers to challenge their present assumptions and facilitates deference

of problem solving to expertise (Hoy, 2003).

However, whether the school structure is enabling or hindering depends on the

perceptions of the school actors. Such perceptions predicated upon the extent to which

leadership is practiced within the schoolhouse (Hoy & Sweetland, 2001). If principal’s

leadership practices are authoritarian, directive and overbearing, then we would expect

school structure to be perceived as obstructive at least by the teachers. Similarly,

leadership practices that are accommodative, supportive and collaborative may lead to

perceptions of an enabling structure. We therefore posit:

H2a: The extent of the Principal’s support and advice will have a negative effect
on perceived hindrance of school structure
H2b: The extent of Principal’s visibility will have a negative effect on perceived
hindrance of school structure
H2c: The extent of Principal’s inspiration and influence will have a negative
effect on perceived hindrance of school structure

Teachers’ Academic Press and Trust in Parents and students

Teachers’ academic press is a construct that reflects the school-wide teachers’

press for academic excellence and involves setting high but achievable academic

expectations and challenging students to work hard (Beard et al, 2010). Teachers’

academic press is “the degrees to which teachers find ways to engage students in

appropriate, academic tasks” (Beard et al, 2010: 1137). Teachers with a high sense of

70
academic press strive to have their students actively engaged in constructive and

worthwhile academic activities (Weinstein & Mignano, 2007). Academic press has been

associated positively with higher student achievement after accounting for social

economic status (Smith & Hoy, 2007).

Teachers’ trust in parents and students refers to teachers’ “willingness to be

vulnerable to another party based on the confidence that the latter party is benevolent,

reliable, competent, honest, and open” (Smith & Hoy, 2007: 559). Research on teachers’

trust in students and trust in parents has consistently shown the two to be one rather than

two concepts (Tschannen-Moran, 2001).Teachers trust parents and students when they

are confident of the parents and students goodwill and cooperation. Such confidence

inspires teachers to set and insist on higher academic goals for their students (Smith &

Hoy, 2007). Consequently, teachers’ trust in parents and students has been positively

associated with higher student achievement even after controlling for social economic

status (Bryk & Schneider, 2003).

One of the characteristics of collective mindfulness is the ability to break set from

old categories such as abandoning rigid, obsolete routines and creating new categories of

processing new information (Hoy et al, 2006). For example in a school where

mindfulness is pervasive, teachers would resist the temptation of stereo typing their

students based on first impressions. Instead, teachers would find new opportunities to

transform students, who would otherwise be classified as irredeemable failures, to

success showcases. Communities in mindful schools speak freely, enacting a more

knowledgeable and smooth flow of information among teachers, administrators, parents

and students (Hoy, 2003). This kind of disposition serves to nurture trust among school

71
members and academic press for excellence. Further, when schools are mindful there is a

collective persuasion on teachers to be vigilant and sensitive to the school’s curriculum

and instruction process. These persuasions may foster norms that are supportive of

teachers academic and teachers’ trust in parents and students. Given the articulated

mediation role of school culture in the school leadership – teacher related variables

relationship (Barnett et al, 2001) and the conceptualization of collective mindfulness as

an aspect of school culture we propose;

H3a: Collective mindfulness in schools mediates the effect of principal’s

leadership practices on teachers’ academic press.
H3b: Collective mindfulness in schools mediates the effect of principal’s
leadership practices on teachers’ trust on parents and students.

Since collective mindfulness is an organizational property grounded in the minds of the

school actors (Swanson & Ramiller, 2004), we expect it to impact academic achievement

indirectly through teacher s’ academic press and their trust in parents and students. We

therefore posit:

H4a: Teachers’ academic press mediates the effect of Collective mindfulness on

school’s academic achievement.
H4b: Teachers’ trust in parents and students mediates the effect of Collective
mindfulness on school’s academic achievement.

When the structure is perceived to be hindering a countervailing effect on the

teachers’ academic press and trust in parents and students would be expected. Therefore;

H5a: Perceived hindrance of school structure will have a negative impact

teachers’ academic press
H5b: Perceived hindrance of school structure will negatively impact on teachers’
trust in parents and students.

METHOD6S

72
The Sample

Survey responses were drawn from a sample of 281 Kenyan public secondary

schools selected from Nairobi and Central provinces in Kenya. Public schools in Kenya

have a uniform curriculum regulated by the government through the Ministry of

Education (MOE). The Ministry of Education centrally determines all education policy

matters such as curriculum development for schools. After completion of a 4-year

secondary school course students are required to sit for standardized National

examinations to qualify for college and University education. Mathematics and

Languages (English and Kiswahili) are compulsory subjects for all students. The central

management of education administration and policy implies that differences between

provinces are minimal and thus our non-random choice of provinces does not

compromise the representativeness of our sample.

Data Collection

Data were collected using a survey instrument administered to mathematics

teachers from the sampled school. The respondents were guaranteed anonymity and

confidentiality. Virtually all teachers and principals in the selected schools responded to

our questionnaires. School principals were requested to provide relevant demographic

data about themselves and of the schools they led. The total number of responses from

teachers was 607 with 33.4% (203) and 66.6% (404) representing proportion of female

and male responses, respectively.

Measures

The seven constructs in this study were inspiration and influence, advice and

support, visibility, collective mindfulness, perceived structure hindrance, teachers’

73
academic press and teachers’ trust in parents and students. Principal’s inspiration and

influence are aspects of transformational leadership while principal’s advice, support and

visibility relate to instructional leadership. Each of these constructs was measured using

item adapted from previous studies. All measurement items used a 6-point Likert scale

with response options ranging from 1 – strongly disagree to 6 – strongly agree. The

constructs’ definitions and their measures are provided in appendix D. Teachers were

requested to assess their principals’ leadership practices. All responses from each school

group of teachers were averaged to produce a single school score for each measurement

item.

Principal’s inspiration and influence. Is an aspect of transformational

leadership that refers to the principal’s charismatic engagement of teachers through

articulation of a desirable future and demonstration of determination and confidence of

how it can be achieved (Bass, 1999). The measures items adapted from Carless, Wearing

& Mann (2000).

Principal’s visibility, advice and support. These are behaviors related to

instructional leadership. Advice and support refers to the principal’s encouragement of

professional growth and reflection among the teachers by talking to them openly and

frequently, providing feedback and giving suggestions and giving individual support

(Blase & Blase, 2000). Visibility refers to the principal’s visible presence to model values

and set priorities for the school (Hallinger, 2003). This implies that the principal takes

time to visit classrooms, have informal friendly conversations with students and teachers

and lead by example. The measurement instruments were adapted from Alig-Mielcarek

(2003).

74
 Collective mindfulness. An organizational property grounded in participating

where organizational members pay heedful attention to the environment and current

experiences to circumvent unpleasant surprises deleterious to the organization, its clients

and employees wellbeing through a process of heedful interrelating (Weick and Roberts,

1993 cited in Swanson & Ramiller, 2004). Measures of collective mindfulness were

adapted from Knight (2004).

Teachers’ academic press. Refers to a school-wide teachers’ press for academic

excellence and involves setting high but achievable academic expectations and

challenging students to work hard (Beard et al, 2010). Measurement instruments are

adapted from Beard et al (2010).

Teachers’ trust in parents and students. Refers to teachers’ willingness to be

vulnerable to parents and students based on their confidence of their benevolence,

reliability and competence (Smith & Hoy, 2007). Measurement instruments are adapted

from Beard et al (2010).

Perceived school structure’s hindrance. School structure is a school hierarchy

that defines the lines of authority and distinctive roles of the players within the school

(Hoy & Sweetland, 2001). Teachers’ Perceptions of the school structure determine if it is

enabling or hindering. The measures were adapted from Hoy & Sweetland (2001).

Academic achievement. The overall school’s score for all subjects and the

mathematics score obtained from 2009’s standardized national examinations were used to

measure academic achievement of schools. These were obtained from official school

records.

75
 Control variables. To account for alternative explanations of the variation of

schools’ academic achievement school size, school category, school type, principal’s

gender, principal’s experience and the principal’s tenure in the current school were used

as control variables. Public schools in Kenya are classified as National, Provincial or

District schools. National schools admit the academically elite students, provincial

schools admit average to above average students and district school admit average to

below average students. There are less than fifteen (out of 6350 schools) National school

in Kenya. Majority of the schools in the District schools category admit students from

low income families and thus schools in this category would be expected to rank lower

than National and Provincial schools in social economic status. We thus used school

category as a proxy measure for school’s social economic status. School type referred to

the gender composition of the students’ population. Some schools admit boys only, girls

only and others admit both boys and girls. Principal’s experience was determined by the

number of years a principal had served in that capacity while principal’s tenure in school

referred to the number of years the principal had served in the current school.

DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

Data collected was analyzed using multivariate methods and covariance based

structural equation modeling (SEM). Prior to SEM analysis, exploratory factor analysis

was used to extract factors that represented the conceptual model’s constructs and

confirmatory factor analysis applied to test the appropriateness of the measurement

model.

76
Data Screening

Prior to commencement of data analysis, the data was screened for missing

values, outliers, errors, and conformity to assumptions of multivariate methods. Initial

examination of the responses revealed that nine (9) cases were unusable due to the high

number of missing responses and deleted. The number of missing values in the

remaining cases was low and less than 5%. We opted to impute the missing values using

the Expectation-Maximization (EM) method since there was minimal discrepancies (<

|0.05|) between EM imputed means and those of original data. For outliers and extremes

values, 41 cases had an absolute z-score greater than 3.0 but only two cases exceeded an

absolute z-score of 4.0. Thus only two items were identified to be extreme cases which

given the large size of our sample (Hair et al, 1998) we felt would not have a significant

effect on the distribution of the data. In the multivariate case, we used the Mahalanobis

distance and only one case was found to be outlying.

To assess the homogeneity of variance of the data scatter plots were used and the

measures of academic achievement’s (Math score and Overall score) variances were

found to be heterogeneous. Further, the Levene’s test was conducted using three non-

metric variables (school size, school category and school type). Two variables (overall

score and math score) had heteroscedastic problems in two of the non-metric variables.

Test for linearity using the standardized residuals plots revealed dependent variables

math score and overall score to have non-stable variances. No significant multi-

collinearity problems were noted as all variance inflation factors were below four (4).

In Kenya, secondary schools admit students according to the aggregate grade

score in class 8 (equivalent to K-8 in USA). Schools have a minimum cut-off point for

77
entry scores that the students must meet in order to be admitted. National schools have

the highest cut-off point followed by Provincial schools while district schools have the

lowest cut-off point. To account for the variation in the cut-off points, schools’

achievement scores were deflated using the reported school cut-off score. We used the

formula;
raw score
Deflated school score= ×1000
school cut-off point

Deflating the achievement scores helped to stabilize the variance by reducing the

variance due to different school cut-off points.

Exploratory Factor Analysis

Before conducting factor analysis we examined the data’s suitability for factor

analysis. Specifically the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy

(MSA), item correlations and partial correlations were used to assess the adequacy of the

data for factor analysis. The overall measure of sample adequacy (MSA) exceeded the

0.50 criterion (MSA = 0.921) and items’ partial correlations were low (< 0.30). Bartlett’s

test of sphericity was significant (4894.4, df = 496, p < 0.001) indicating existence of

significant non-zero correlations among the measurement items. Further, all except two

MSAs for individual items exceeded 0.50 and the two items whose MSAs failed to meet

the set criterion were marked for removal. These results provided support that the data is

appropriate for factor analysis.

To extract the factors we used principal axis factoring (PAF) and promax oblique

rotation method. This choice was found suitable since the underlying factors were

suspected to non-orthogonal and the factors were to be used in subsequent analysis of

structural relationships. The unconstrained initial solution resulted in seven factors

78
explaining 65% of the item variance. However, a few items were found to have low

communalities (< 0.40), others cross-loaded and some did not load significantly on any

factor. The factor model was re-specified by iteratively trimming off the problematic

items. The re-specified model extracted seven (7) factors explaining 72.8% of the item

variance and the items loaded cleanly onto their a prior factors as shown in table 1 below.

TABLE 1
Pattern Matrix, MSAs and Communalities of Extracted Factors

Factor
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 MSA Communalities
PAS1 .581 .203 0.949 0.677
PAS2 .797 0.958 0.662
PAS3 .979 -.239 -.221 0.958 0.674
PAS4 .847 0.96 0.666
PAS5 .896 0.952 0.773
PAS6 .680 0.948 0.563
PAS7 .510 0.95 0.646
PAS8 .570 .210 0.958 0.799
PAS9 .589 0.939 0.688
PII1 .268 .688 0.946 0.525
PII2 .224 .768 0.955 0.543
PII3 .753 0.943 0.557
PII4 .260 .620 0.929 0.568
CM1 .811 0.89 0.652
CM2 .900 0.884 0.817
CM3 .788 0.904 0.666
CM5 .384 .237 0.962 0.555
TT1 .788 0.832 0.568
TT2 .746 0.875 0.624
TT3 .589 0.903 0.467
PSH1 -.572 0.932 0.497
PSH2 -.559 0.918 0.569
PSH3 -1.016 0.889 0.663
TAP1 .810 0.797 0.565
TAP2 .773 0.767 0.524
PV1 .732 0.802 0.407
PV2 .708 0.86 0.613
NB: Following Hair et al’s (1998) rule of thumb, factor loadings below 0.30 were considered insignificant
Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring.
Rotation Method: Promax with Kaiser Normalization

To assess the degree of internal consistency of the measures, Cronbach’s alpha

coefficient was used. As seen in table 2 below shows the alpha coefficients exceeded 0.70

79
 indicating an acceptable level of internal consistency. The factors were labeled according

to the pattern of item loadings and theoretical conceptualization of the constructs the

items were intended to measure. Table 2 below shows the labels of the factors, their

descriptions and the respective Cronbach’s alpha coefficients.

TABLE 2
Factor Labels, Description and Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficients

Alpha
Label Items Description
coefficients
Teacher’s academic press TAP1 – 2 Teachers’ press for academic excellence 0.76
Teachers’ trust in parents Teachers’ willingness to be vulnerable
TT1 – 3 0.76
and students to parents and students
Perceived structure Teachers’ perception of school
PSH1 – 3 0.80
hindrance structure’s hindrance
Receptive attention and awareness to the
Collective mindfulness CM1 – 4 0.86
school context
Principal’s inspiration and Principal’s charismatic engagement of
PII1 – 4 0.92
influence teachers
Principal’s encouragement of
Principal’s advice and
PAS1 – 9 professional growth and reflection 0.93
support
among the teachers
Principal’s visible presence to model
Principal’s visibility PV1 – 2 0.70
values and set priorities

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

We applied confirmatory factor analysis to assess how well the measurement

items represented the model constructs. The descriptive statistics and item correlations

for the measures are shown in appendix A. A seven-factor measurement model was fitted

to the data using factors as extracted in the EFA and evaluated for reliability, convergent

and discriminant validity. As Table 3 indicates, all items loaded significantly to their

respective factors with all factor loadings exceeding 0.50. The Chi-square fit statistic for

the model was significant (χ2 = 490.1, df = 294, p < 0.001) which does not support a good

80
fit. However, since the Chi-square value is affected by the sample size and thus not

reliable when the sample size is large, we opted to use comparative fit index (CFI) and

root mean squared error approximation (RMSEA) as alternative fit indices. The CFI (=

0.956) exceeded the criterion of 0.90 and the RMSEA (= 0.050) met the threshold level

of 0.050 as required and thus the measurement model was found to be a good fit.

TABLE 3
Factor Loadings of Measurement Items
Unstd Std P-
Est. Est. S.E. C.R. value
PAS2 <--- Advice & Support 1.000 0.778
PAS1 <--- Advice & Support 1.022 0.815 0.070 14.561 ***
PAS3 <--- Advice & Support 0.965 0.682 0.070 13.835 ***
PAS4 <--- Advice & Support 1.031 0.796 0.062 16.575 ***
PAS5 <--- Advice & Support 1.000 0.785 0.072 13.879 ***
PAS6 <--- Advice & Support 0.960 0.739 0.075 12.881 ***
PAS7 <--- Advice & Support 0.950 0.750 0.072 13.148 ***
PAS8 <--- Advice & Support 0.896 0.710 0.073 12.291 ***
PAS9 <--- Advice & Support 1.133 0.730 0.089 12.678 ***
PII1 <--- Inspiration and influence 1.000 0.905
PII2 <--- Inspiration and influence 1.022 0.886 0.047 21.972 ***
PII3 <--- Inspiration and influence 0.909 0.840 0.046 19.556 ***
PII4 <--- Inspiration and influence 0.951 0.827 0.050 18.957 ***
CM1 <--- Mindfulness 0.914 0.698 0.062 14.772 ***
CM2 <--- Mindfulness 1.000 0.831
CM3 <--- Mindfulness 1.000 0.797 0.071 14.023 ***
CM4 <--- Mindfulness 0.933 0.752 0.071 13.125 ***
PSH1 <--- Structure 0.945 0.756 0.083 11.331 ***
PSH2 <--- Structure 0.916 0.728 0.083 10.994 ***
PSH3 <--- Structure 1.000 0.773
TAP1 <--- Teachers' press 1.000 0.735
TAP2 <--- Teachers' press 1.282 0.837 0.156 8.196 ***
TT1 <--- Trust 0.937 0.697 0.093 10.067 ***
TT2 <--- Trust 1.000 0.816
TT3 <--- Trust 1.053 0.677 0.107 9.852 ***
PV1 <--- Visibility 1.000 0.632
PV2 <--- Visibility 1.263 0.846 0.181 6.970 ***
Significance: †p < 0.10, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001

81
 To determine the measurement model’s reliability, discriminant and convergent

validity, we used the composite reliability coefficient (CR), average variance extracted

(AVE) and the shared variance. Table 4 below reports the reliability and validity

statistical measures of the model. The results indicate that the model met the required

item reliability (CR > 0.70) and supported the convergence validity (AVE > 0.50) and

discriminant validity (AVE > ASV and AVE > MSV except for inspiration and influence

which was marginal – AVE = 0.71 and MSV = 0.717, this was not considered to be a

serious violation).

TABLE 4
Reliability and validity measures for the measurement model

CR AVE MSV ASV

Teacher’s academic press 0.765 0.620 0.258 0.139
Teachers’ trust in parents and students 0.775 0.537 0.279 0.166
Perceived structure hindrance 0.797 0.566 0.371 0.244
Collective mindfulness 0.854 0.595 0.501 0.328
Principal’s inspiration and influence 0.956 0.710 0.717 0.342
Principal’s advice and support 0.945 0.770 0.717 0.342
Principal’s visibility 0.885 0.797 0.185 0.185

Common method bias. Since our study relied on a common scale for all the

response variables, it was appropriate to examine the extent to which common method

variance may have compromised the responses. We applied a post hoc statistical

procedure to evaluate the threat of common method bias. The construct, teachers’ apathy,

was used as a common factor and observed to have a weak correlation with the study’s

constructs. The items of apathy were negatively worded and randomly inserted within the

survey instruments to enhance the probability of capturing the common method variance.

82
 First we fitted a measurement model where all measures in addition to loading on

their respective factors were also loaded to the common factor. We compared the

common method variance (CMV) -adjusted model fit statistics (χ2 = 553.7, df = 348)

with the unadjusted model fit statistics (χ2 = 490.1, df = 294) which showed a non-

significant change in model fit (∆χ2 = 63.8, df = 54, p > 0.05). Although these results did

not indicate a significant common variance problem, we nonetheless estimated the

common method variance using the lowest correlation between the uncorrelated factor

(apathy) and the model factors (CMV estimate = 0.107) (Lindell & Whitney, 2001). We

then re-computed the correlations measurement model’s reliability and validity measures

as shown table 5 below. All the measurement model’s constructs retained their reliability,

convergent and discriminant validity even after controlling for common method variance.

We however noted that principal’s inspiration and influence and principal’s advice and

support had high correlations and their AVEs < MSV (in bold) but this was not

considered to be serious since they measured principal’s leadership behaviors and thus

some significant correlation was expected.

TABLE 5
Reliability and validity measures for the CMV-adjusted model

CR AVE MSV ASV

Teacher’s academic press 0.76 0.62 0.24 0.14
Teachers’ trust in parents and students 0.77 0.52 0.31 0.16
Perceived structure hindrance 0.77 0.53 0.44 0.25
Collective mindfulness 0.85 0.59 0.55 0.33
Principal’s inspiration and influence 0.92 0.56 0.78 0.34
Principal’s advice and support 0.91 0.73 0.78 0.40
Principal’s visibility 0.75 0.61 0.17 0.17
CR = composite reliability, MSV = maximum shared variance, ASV = average
shared variance, AVE = average variance extracted

83
Hypotheses Testing

In order to test the posited hypotheses we used covariance-based structural

equation modeling (SEM). The structural equation (SE) model that was fitted to the data

is in appendix C and the path coefficients and their respective standard errors are

presented in table 6 below. Also shown in table 6 are the hypotheses represented by

various paths. The model fit statistics apart from the chi-square indicated a good fit (χ2 =

549.9, df = 343, CFI = 0.956, RMSEA = 0.047). The model explained 55.8% of

collective mindfulness variance, 38.2% of structure variance, 35.1% of teachers’ trust in

parents and students’ variance, 37.3% of teachers’ academic press, 5.2% of the

mathematics achievement variance and 1.6% of the overall achievement variance.

84
 TABLE 6
Path Coefficients, Standard Error and Critical Values of the SE model

Un-std Std
Structural paths p-value
Est. Est.
Overall score <--- Teachers’ press 0.205 0.038 0.632
Math score <--- Teachers’ press 0.955 0.164 0.039*
Teachers’ press <--- Mindfulness 0.256 0.248 0.036*
Overall score <--- Mindfulness 0.065 0.012 0.901
Math score <--- Mindfulness -0.297 -0.049 0.598
Teachers’ Trust <--- Mindfulness 0.403 0.380 ***
Teachers’ press <--- Advice & support -0.568 -0.604 0.003** Surprise finding
Mindfulness <--- Advice & support -0.110 -0.120 0.437 H1a not supported
Structure <--- Advice & support -0.112 -0.102 0.551 H2a not supported
Teachers’ Trust <--- Advice & support 0.253 0.262 0.141
Teachers’ press <--- Inspiration & influence 0.348 0.410 0.046*
Mindfulness <--- Inspiration & influence 0.600 0.731 *** H1c supported
Structure <--- Inspiration & influence -0.475 -0.477 0.001** H2c supported
Teachers’ Trust <--- Inspiration & influence 0.102 0.117 0.541
Teachers’ press <--- Visibility 0.252 0.246 0.028*
Mindfulness <--- Visibility 0.269 0.271 0.001** H1b supported
Structure <--- Visibility -0.143 -0.119 0.184 H2b not supported
Teachers’ Trust <--- Visibility -0.056 -0.053 0.602
Teachers’ press <--- Structure -0.335 -0.393 *** H5a supported
Teachers’ Trust <--- Structure 0.123 0.141 0.118 H5b not supported
Overall score <--- Teachers’ Trust 0.563 0.107 0.219
Math score <--- Teachers’ Trust 0.959 0.169 0.051†
Significance: †p < 0.10, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001

From the results in table 6 above, support for hypotheses 1a – c, 2c, and 5a was

found but there was no support for hypotheses 2a, 2b and 5b.

To test the mediation hypotheses, we constructed confidence intervals for indirect

effects using the bias-corrected percentile method via Monte Carlo parametric bootstrap

in AMOS 7.0. The estimates for the indirect effects, their bootstrapped confidence

intervals and the p-values are presented in table 7.

85
 TABLE 7
Indirect Effects and Their Bootstrapped Confidence Intervals
95% confidence
interval
Lower Upper
Estimate p-value Mediator
Limit limit
Teachers’ Trust <--- Visibility 0.093 0.032 0.234 0.003** mindfulness
Teachers’ press <--- Visibility 0.086 0.020 0.207 0.007** mindfulness
Teachers’ Trust <--- Visibility -0.005 -0.064 0.009 0.361 Structure
Teachers’ press <--- Visibility 0.034 -0.048 0.146 0.339 Structure
Teachers’ Trust <--- Inspiration & influence 0.212 0.084 0.425 0.004** mindfulness
Teachers’ press <--- Inspiration & influence 0.196 0.044 0.420 0.009** mindfulness
Teachers’ Trust <--- Inspiration & influence -0.022 -0.125 0.034 0.372 Structure
Teachers’ press <--- Inspiration & influence 0.152 0.043 0.328 0.008** Structure
Teachers’ Trust <--- Advice & support -0.029 -0.181 0.071 0.465 mindfulness
Teachers’ press <--- Advice & support -0.026 -0.165 0.072 0.469 mindfulness
Teachers’ Trust <--- Advice & support -0.012 -0.096 0.022 0.318 Structure
Teachers’ press <--- Advice & support 0.083 -0.059 0.313 0.255 Structure
Overall score <--- Mindfulness 0.229 -0.090 0.821 0.146 Trust
Math score <--- Mindfulness 0.382 0.081 1.060 0.020* Trust
Overall score <--- Mindfulness 0.047 -0.151 0.440 0.457 Press
Math score <--- Mindfulness 0.217 -0.033 0.784 0.084† Press
Significance: †p < 0.10, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001

The results in table 6 and 7 support the hypotheses that collective mindfulness

fully mediates the effect of principal’ visibility, inspiration and influence on teachers’

trust in parents and students. Further from these results we found support for partial

mediation effects for collective mindfulness on principal’s visibility, inspiration and

influence effects on teachers’ academic press. The results indicate that perceived

structure hindrance partially mediates the effect of principal’s inspiration and influence

on teachers’ academic press. No mediation effects for principal’s advice and support

effects were found. Indeed, principal’s advice and support were found to have a

significant direct negative effect on teachers’ academic press (β = –0.604, p < 0.01).

Teachers’ trust in parents and students was found to fully mediate (p < 0.05) the

effect of collective mindfulness on school’s mathematics achievement but not on the

86
overall achievement. Further, teachers’ academic press fully mediated (p < 0.10) the

effect of collective mindfulness on school’s mathematics achievement but not on the

overall schools’ achievement.

Control variables. We decided to control for effects school size, principal’s

gender, school type, principal’s tenure in current school, school category and years

served as principal on academic achievement. Our analysis found school size, principal’s

gender, school type, and principal’s tenure in current school had insignificant effects on

academic achievement. School category which was used a proxy for schools’ social

economic status and years served as principal were found to have a significant effect on

schools’ math (β = 0.505, p < 0.001 and β = 0.171, p < 0.001 respectively) and overall

academic achievement (β = 0.187, p < 0.01 and β = 0.187, p < 0.01 respectively). The

model with controls explained 30.8% of the math achievement variance and 7.9% of

overall achievement variance. Moreover, the effect of teachers’ trust on parents and

students on math and overall academic achieved became insignificant after controlling

for school category and years served as principal. Nevertheless, the effect of teachers’

academic press on math achievement remained significant (β = 0.124, p < 0.05) even

after controlling for school category and years served as principal but its effect on overall

score disappeared after introducing the controls.

DISCUSSION

Our study sought to examine the mechanism through which school leadership

impacts school’s academic achievement. We posited that principal’s leadership

influences academic achievement through a mechanism mediated by collective

mindfulness, perceived hindrance of school structure, teachers’ academic press and

87
teachers’ trust in parent and students. Consistent with findings in extant literature

(Hallinger & Heck, 1998; Leithwood & Mascall, 2008), our results revealed weak but

significant indirect leadership effects on academic achievement in Kenyan public

secondary schools. These findings are significant as they expand our understanding of the

nomological network of principal’s leadership on school’s academic outcomes – an

aspect that has received limited attention in school leadership studies (Hallinger & Heck,

1998; Witziers et al, 2003).

We observed principal’s visibility, inspiration and influence positively impacted

on collected mindfulness in schools. Moreover, collective mindfulness mediated the

effects of principal’s visibility, inspiration and influence on teachers’ academic press and

trust in parents and students – concepts that reportedly have a significant effect on

academic achievement even after controlling for social economic status (Smith & Hoy,

2007). Additionally, we found collective mindfulness to influence academic achievement

indirectly via teachers’ academic press and trust in parents and students. These results

support the theoretical position espoused in school mindfulness literature that

mindfulness could positively influence school academic outcomes (Hoy, 2003; Hoy et al,

2006). Further, we confirm Beard et al (2010) argument that teachers’ academic press

and trust in parents and students affect academic achievement directly.

These results are significant in two ways a) they provide evidence that for the first

time links collective mindfulness in schools to achievement outcomes and, b) elucidate

how collective mindfulness, an element of school culture, relates with certain principal’s

leadership practices to influence academic achievement.

88
 Collective mindfulness has received more attention in organizational studies as a

characteristic emic to high reliability organizations (HROs) (Weick & Sutcliffe, 2001).

Given that schools are not obvious choices of reliability seeking organizations, many

educational scholars have elided the mindfulness concept. Schools are entrusted in

molding lives of future generations and therefore key players in the future development

of future development of nations. When schools become unreliable, the consequence is

failure and when schools fail lives are ruined, dreams shattered and a nation’s future

blighted. Since the ramifications of failure in schools are not immediate, viewing schools

as reliability seeking organizations appears farfetched. However, we only need to look at

the colossal government expenditure on school reforms and improvement initiatives to

acknowledge the relevance of reliability in schools. By acculturating mindfulness in

schools, principal’s and other school leaders enhance reliability in their instructional

practices. They create a culture and process that radically minimizes failure. Mindfulness

encompasses the concept of prevention and early diagnosis of a problem. Preventive care

means that the school as an organization, has an effective system for monitoring its

policies and practices while early diagnosis concocts alertness to capture warning signals

(Drucker, 1994). Our findings suggest that such a culture can be created and nurtured in

schools by principals through their visibility, inspiration and influence. Better still, the

effect of collective mindfulness on academic achievement via teachers’ academic press

holds – albeit weakly – even after controlling for school category (a proxy measure of

school’s SES) and principal’s experience.

Perceived hindrance of school structure, we found, was negatively influenced by

principal’s inspiration and influence. Congruent to Beard et al (2010) finding, we found

89
perceived hindrance of school structure to negatively influence teachers’ academic press.

This implies that when rules are rigidly applied and treated as absolutes rather than

enablers, teachers view them as obstructive and this slows down their press for academic

success. By creating a strong sense of purpose, positive communication of the school’s

mission and vision and being optimistic that school goals are achievable, principals exert

an inspiring influence among the teachers. Thus, rules are no longer perceived to be

hindrances but enablers of academic achievement (Sinden, Hoy, & Sweetland, 2004).

We hypothesized that principal’s advice and support would positively influence

collective mindfulness. This hypothesis was not supported and to our surprise, principal’s

advice and support had a significant negative impact on teachers’ academic press. This

unexpected outcome could be explained by the transactional nature of advice and support

leadership activities like assisting teachers in setting goals and discussing learning

strategies. Teachers are professionals and therefore may consider such kind of leadership

behaviors as demeaning their professional competence and paternalistic. This if true,

could lead to diminished drive for academic excellence.

CONTRIBUTIONS

Principals are largely responsible for the organization and operation of schools

and consequently exert the greatest influence in schools (Leithwood & Mascall, 2008).

This onus demands the creation of an organizational environment conducive for authentic

learning. The establishment of such an environment requires collective application of

Drucker’s (1994) triad of early problem diagnosis, preventive care and cure when the

inevitable occurs. The creation of a culture of collective mindfulness in schools then

becomes a handy tool that principals could use to facilitate early problem diagnosis.

90
Given the receptive awareness, alertness and reflection that collective mindfulness

inculcates, schools that are collectively mindful have a powerful means of monitoring

their policies and practices. Such a mindfulness culture would assist schools to abandon

obsolete practices subtly embedded in the school context.

This study contributes to the leadership literature by drawing to attention the

significance of school leadership and the applicability of leadership theories in the

Kenyan milieu. Research on school leadership has largely ignored the possible direct and

indirect influence of school leadership on schools’ academic outcomes. Little has been

done to promote an understanding of how school leadership impacts academic

achievement – an emphasis that is ubiquitous in contemporary leadership literature in the

developed world (Mascall et al, 2008). It is our hope that our effort will serve as a

catalyst to ignite a lively debate among Kenyan scholars and educators on how school

leadership can be leveraged to produce success.

Secondly, we contribute to the literature through empirical investigation of

collective mindfulness, its relationship to principal’s leadership and consequent impact

on schools’ academic achievement. We believe our study is among the first within the

educational leadership studies to associate collective mindfulness and teachers’

perception of school structure with academic outcomes. We believe this small step will

attract other scholars to replicate similar studies in different contexts leading to the

grounding of a collective mindfulness theory in the schools.

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

Our study used the school as the unit of analysis and thus by design focused on

school level factors that mediate leadership effects on school’s academic outcomes. This

91
means that classroom and individual level factors that have potential to mediate the

effects of school leadership were left out. Given the availability of powerful statistical

computing tools, multi-level designs could be applied in future studies to investigative

the mediating roles of classroom and individual level factors.

Mathematics and overall school achievement were used to measure academic

achievement and the responses were solicited from mathematics teachers only. However,

we noted in our results that some effects may be domain specific, for example, teachers’

academic press significantly influenced mathematics achievement but had not significant

effect on overall achievement. Our results are therefore not generalizable to other subject

areas and there is a need to replicate the study using other subjects like languages and

reading.

This study was limited to leadership behaviors as enacted by principals and

experienced by teachers. Although principals are the most influential sources of

leadership (Leithwood & Mascall, 2008), there exists other important sources of

leadership that should be considered. Specifically aspects of leadership situated in

activity and cognitive theories could be incorporated in future studies. It would be

interesting to discover how distribution of leadership in various forms relates to collective

mindfulness and perception of school structure in schools.

Though we considered collective mindfulness and perceived hindrance of school

structure as covariates affecting certain teacher-related variables, it is possible for school

structure to be an antecedent of collective mindfulness (Hoy, 2003). Future research

could examine alternative intervening mechanisms (e.g. moderation and mediation) of

school structure on the school leadership – collective mindfulness relationship.

92
 Finally, we relied on a common scale for all the responses with teachers assessing

their principals’ leadership behaviors. Though we did not find any significant effect of

common method variance, the threat of social desirability bias looms large. Moreover,

the contemporary nature of the collective mindfulness concept especially in the school

context, means that the measures of collective mindfulness, though reliable and valid,

require further refinement and development to ensure they capture all aspects of

mindfulness.

REFERENCES

Ackers, J., Migoli, J., & Nzomo, J. (2001). Identifying and addressing the causes of
declining participation rates in Kenyan primary schools. International Journal of
Educational Development, 21, 361 - 374.

Alig-Mielcarek, J. M. (2003). A model for success: Instructional leadership, academic

press and student achievement. Educational Policy and Leadership, Ohio State
University: Unpublished PhD Thesis.

Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (2007). Multifactor leadeship questionnaire. Retrieved

February 2010, from Techtied: www.techtied.net/wp-
content/uploads/2008/10/mlq-for-groups.pdf

Barnett, K., McCormick, J., & Conner, R. (2001). Transformational leadership in

schools: Panacea, placebo or problem? Journal of Education Administration, 39
(1), 24-46.

Bass, B. M. (1999). Two decades of research and develpoment in transformational

leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8 (1), 9-
32.

Beard, K. S., Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk-Hoy, A. (2010). Academic optimism of individual
teachers: Confirming a new construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 1-9.

Blase, J., & Blase, J. (2000). Effective instructional Leadership: Teachers perspectives on
how principals promote teaching and learning in schools. Journal of Educational
Administration, 38 (2), 130-141.

Bosker, R. J., & Witziers, B. (1996). The true size of school effects. American
Educational Research Association. New York.

93
Boyatzis, R., & Mckee, A. (2005). Resonant leadership. Boston, MA.: Havard Business
School Press.

Brown, K. W., M., R. R., & Creswell, J. D. (2007). Mindfulness: Theoretical Foundations
and Evidence for its Salutary Effects. Psychological Inquiry, 18 (4), 211-237.

Bryk, A. S., & Schneider, B. (2003). Trust in schools: A core resource for school reform.
Educational Leadership, 60 (6), 40-44.

Bush, T., & Glover, D. (2003). School leadership: Concepts and evidence. National
College for school leadership.

Cardaciotto, L. (2005). Assessing mindfulness: The development of a bi-dimensional

measure of awareness and acceptance. Unpublished Ph.D Dissertation.
Philadelphia, PA: Drexel University.

Carless, S. A., Wearing, A. J., & Mann, L. (2000). A short measure of transformational
leadership. Journal of Business and Psychology, 14 (3), 389-405.

Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E. Q., Hobson, C. J., McPartland, J., Mood, A. M., &
Weinfeld, F. D. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC:
U.S: Government Printing Office.

Drucker, P. F. (1994). The theory of business. Havard Business review, 95-104.

Edmonds, R. (1979). Some schools work and more can. Social Policy, 9, 28-32.

Gage, C. Q. (2003). The meaning and measure of school mindfulness: An exploratory

analysis. Ohio State University: Unpublished Thesis.

Goddard, R. D., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2001). Collective efficacy and trust: A

multilevel analysis. American Educational Research Association, 102, pp. 3-17.
Seattle, WA.

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (1998). Multivariate data
analysis (7th Ed.). Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc.

Hallinger, P. (1994). A resource manual for the principal instructional management

rating scale. Nashville, TN: Center forAdvanced Study of Educational
Leadership, Vanderbilt University.

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

transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education, 33 (3), 329-351.

94
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.

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1996). Reassessing the principal’s role in school
effectiveness: A review of empirical research, 1980–1995. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 32 (1), 5 - 44.

Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. (1985). Assessing the instructional management behaviour of
principals. The Elementary School Journal, 86 (2), 217-247.

Heck, R. H., & Hallinger, P. (2005). The Study of Educational Leadership

andManagement: Where Does the Field Stand Today? Educational Management
Administration & Leadership, 33 (2), 229-244.

Hoy, W. K. (2003). An analysis of enabling and mindful school structures: Some

theoretical, research and practical considerations. Journal of Educational
Administration, 41 (1), 87-108.

Hoy, W. K., & Sweetland, S. (2001). Designing Better Schools: The Meaning and
Measure of Enabling School Structures. Educational Administration Quarterly,
37 (3), 296-321.

Hoy, W. K., Gage, C. Q., & Tarter, J. C. (2006). School mindfulness and faculty trust:
necessary conditions for each other. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42
(2), 236-255.

Hoy, W. K., Tarter, C. J., & Hoy Woolfolk, A. (2006). Academic optimism of schools: A
force for student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 43 (3),
425–446.

Hoy, W. K., Tarter, C. J., & Hoy-Woolfolk, A. (2006). Academic optimism of schools: A
force for student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 43 (3),
425–446.

Jencks, C., Smith, M., Acland, H., & Bane, M. J. (1972). Inequality: A Reassessment of
the effect of family and schooling in America. NY: Basic Books.

Knight, A. P. (2004). Measuring collective mindfulness and exploring its nomological

network. University od Maryland, College Park, MD: Unpublished thesis.

Krug, S. E. (1992). Instructional Leadership: A Constructivist Perspective. Education

Administration Quarterly, 28 (3), 430-443.

95
Lamb, S., & Fullarton, S. (2002). Classroom and school factors affecting mathematics
achievement: a comparative study of Australia and the United States using
TIMSS. Australian Journal of Education, 46.

Langer, E. J. (1989). Mindfulness. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Book.

Leithwood, K. A., & Riehl, C. (2003). What we know about successful leadership.
National College for School leadership.

Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2005). A review of transformational school leadership

research 1996-2005. Leadership and Policy in School , 4, 177-199.

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

organizational conditions and student engagement with school. Journal of
Educational Administration , 38 (2), 112-129.

Leithwood, K., & Mascall, B. (2008). Collective leadership effects on student

achievement. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44, 529-561.

Levinthal, D., & Rerup, C. (2006). Crossing an apparent chasm: Bridging mindful and
less-mindful perspectives on organizational learning. Organization Science , 17
(4), 502-513.

Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. (2001). Accounting for Common Method Variance in
Cross-Sectional Research Designs. Journal of Applied Psychology , 86 (1), 114-
121.

Marks, H. M., & Printy, S. M. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An
integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational
Administration Quarterly , 39 (3), 370 - 397.

Mascall, B., Leithwood, K., Straus, T., & Sacks, R. (2008). The relationship between
distributed leadership and teachers’ academic optimism. Journal of Educational ,
46 (2), 214-228.

McGuigan, L., & Hoy, W. K. (2006). Principal leadership: Creating a culture of academic
optimism to improve achievement for all students. Leadership and Policy in
Schools , 5, 203-229.

Murphy, J. (1988). Methodological, measurement and conceptual problems in the study

of instructional leadership. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis , 4 (4),
290-310.

Pillai, R., Schreisheim, C. A., & Williams, E. A. (1999). Fairness perceptions and trust as
mediators for transformational leadership and transactional leadership:A two-
sample study. Journal of Management , 25, 897–933.

96
Ritchhart, R., & Perkins, D. N. (2000). Life in mindful classrooms: Nurturing the
disposition of mindfulness. Journal of Social Issues , 56 (1), 27-47.

Sheppard, B. (1996). Exploring the transformational nature of instructional leadership.

Alberta Journal of Educational Research , XLII (4), 325-344.

Sifuna, D. N., & Kaime, J. G. (2007). The effect of in-service education and training
(INSET) programmes in mathematics and science on classroom interaction: a case
study of primary and secondary schools in Kenya. African Education Review , 4
(1), 104 – 126.

Sinden, S. E., Hoy, W. K., & Sweetland, S. R. (2004). An analysis of enabling school
structure: Theoretical empirical and research considerations. Journal of
Educational Administration , 42 (4), 462-478.

Smith, P. A., & Hoy, W. K. (2007). Academic optimism and student achievement in
urban elementary schools. Journal of Educational Administration , 45 (5), 556-
568.

Spillane, J., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. (2004). Towards a Theory of Leadership
Practice: A Distributed Perspective. Curriculum Studies , 3 - 34.

Swanson, E. B., & Ramiller, N. (2004). Innovating mindfully with information

technology. MIS Quarterly , 28 (4), 553-583.

Thornton, L. J., & McEntee, M. E. (1995). Learnere centered schools as a mindset, and
the connectiion with mindfulness and multiculturalism. Theory into Practice , 34
(4), 250 - 257.

Timperley, H. S. (2005). Distributed leadership: developing theory from practice.

Journal of Curriculum Studies , 37 (4), 395 - 420.

Tschannen-Moran, M. (2001). Collaboration and the need for trust. Journal of

Educational Administration , 39 (4), 308-331.

Valentine, S., Godkin, L., & Varca, P. E. (2010). Role conflict, mindfulnes and
organizational ethics in an education-based healthcare insitution. Journal of
Business Ethics , 94 (3), 455-469.

Van de Grift, W., & Houtveen, A. A. (1999). Educational leadership and pupil
achievement in primary education. School Effectiveness and School
Improvement , 10 (4), 373-389.

Vogus, J. T., & Welbourne, T. M. (2003). Structuring for high reliability: HR practices
and mindful processes in reliability-seeking organizations. Journal of
Organizational Behavior , 24, 877-903.

97
Wahlstrom, K. L., & Louis, K. S. (2008). How teachers experience principal leadership:
The roles of professional community, trust, efficacy, and shared responsibility.
Educational Administration Quarterly , 44 (4), 458 - 495.

Weick, E. K., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2006). Mindfulness and the quality of organizational
attention. Organizational Science , 17 (4), 514 - 524.

Weick, K. E., & Roberts, K. H. (1993). Collective Mind in Organizations: Heedful

Interrelating on Flight Decks. Administrative Science Quarterly , 38, 357-381.

Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2001). Managing the unexpected. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.

Weinstein, C. S., & Mignano, A. (2007). Elementary classroom management: Lessons

from research and practice (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Witziers, B., Bosker, R. J., & Krüger, M. L. (2003). Educational leadership and student
achievement: The elusive serach for an association. Educational Administration
Quarterly , 39 (3), 398 - 425.

Yu, H., Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2002). The effect of transformational leadership on
teachers' commitment to change in Hong Kong. Journal of Educational
Administration , 40 (4), 368-389.

Yu, H., Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2002). The effects of transformational leadership on
teachers' commitment to change in Hong Kong. Journal of Educational
administration , 40 (4), 368-389.

98
 APPENDICES

APPENDIX A
Means, standard deviations, and correlations for measurement items

99
 APPENDIX B
Measurement Model

100
 APPENDIX C
Structural Model

101
 APPENDIX D
Model Constructs and Measurement Instruments

Inspiration and influence: adapted from (Carless, Wearing, & Mann, 2000), Cronbach’s α = 0.91

Definition Measurement instruments

Is an aspect of transformational The principal in this school
leadership that refers to the 1. Articulates the significance of having a strong sense of
principal’s charismatic engagement purpose in teaching
of teachers through articulation of a 2. Communicates a clear and positive vision for the future
desirable future and demonstration of 3. Talks enthusiastically about what needs to be
determination and confidence of how accomplished
it can be achieved (Bass, 1999) 4. Expresses confidence that school’s academic goals will be
achieved

Principal’s support and advice: adapted from Alig-Mielcarek (2003) (Alig-Mielcarek, 2003),
Cronbach’s α = 0.89

Definition Measurement instruments

Refers to the principal’s The principal in this school
encouragement of professional 1. Gets teachers to look at problems from many perspectives
growth and reflection among the 2. Helps teachers develop their strengths
teachers by talking to them openly 3. Pays attention to individual needs of the teachers
and frequently, providing feedback 4. Provides useful assistance to teachers in setting goals for
and giving suggestions and giving teaching
individual support (Blase & Blase, 5. Gives teachers individual support to help them implement
2000) the teaching and learning strategies.
6. Develops goals that are easily understood
7. Discusses the school's academic goals with teachers at
faculty meetings
8. Actively supports the use in the classroom of skills
acquired during in-service training
9. Always open to new ways of doing things

Principal’s visibility: adapted from Alig-Mielcarek (2003), Cronbach’s α = 0.90

Definition Measurement instruments

Refers to the principal’s visible The principal in this school
presence to model values and set 1. Visits classrooms to discuss school issues with teachers
priorities for the school (Hallinger , and students
2003) 2. Takes time to talk informally to students and teachers
during recess and breaks
3. Participates in extracurricular activities

Teachers’ academic press: adapted from Beard et al (2010), Cronbach’s α = 0.71

102
 Definition Measurement items
Refers to a school-wide teachers’ In this school
press for academic excellence and 1. Teachers press students to achieve in academics
involves setting high but achievable 2. Teachers give students challenging mathematics work to
academic expectations and do
challenging students to work hard 3. The learning environment is orderly and organized
(Beard, Hoy, & Woolfolk-Hoy,
Academic optimism of individual
teachers: Confirming a new construct,
2010)
Trust in parents and students: Adapted from Beard et al (2010), Cronbach’s α = 0.79

Definition Measurement items

Refers to teachers’ willingness to be In this school
vulnerable to parents and students 1. Students can be counted on to do their academic work
based on their confidence of their 2. Teachers believe that students are competent learners
benevolence, reliability and 3. Teachers can count on parents’ support
competence (Smith & Hoy, 2007) 4. Teachers believe what parents tell them
5. Teachers think that most of the parents do a good job (R)
Perceived structure hindrance: adapted from Beard et al (2010), Cronbach’s α = 0.92
Definition Measurement items
Teachers’ perception of school In this school
structure’s hindrance based on how 1. The administration obstructs student achievement
the school hierarchy defines the lines 2. The school rules are used to punish teachers
of authority and distinctive roles of 3. The administration obstructs teaching and learning
the players within the school (Hoy & 4. Administrative rules are substitutes for professional
Sweetland, 2001) judgment
5. The authority of the principal is used to undermine
teachers (R)

Collective mindfulness: adapted from Knight (2004), Cronbach’s α = 0.91

Definition Measurement items
An organizational property grounded In this school
in participating where organizational 1. We are always on the look-out for problems that could
members pay heedful attention to the affect student performance
environment and current experiences 2. We are always on the look-out for ways to help students
to circumvent unpleasant surprises perform better
deleterious to the organization, its 3. We are attentive to the different needs of the students
clients and employees wellbeing 4. We pay much close attention in order to do teach well (R)
through a process of heedful 5. Welcome feedback about ways to improve teaching and
interrelating (Swanson & Ramiller, learning
2004)
Academic achievement
The overall school’s score for all subjects and the mathematics score obtained from 2009’s standardized
national examinations were used to measure academic achievement of schools.

103

View publication stats