Principal Leadership Style

By Frank E. Peart Teacher‟s Diploma

 Buff Bay Primary School, Portland, Jamaica.

A study submitted in conformity with the requirements for the Bachelor of Arts degree (Guidance and Counselling) at The International University of the Caribbean 2006

10

ABSTRACT

The study aimed at discovering “The relationship between principal‟s leade rship style and its effect on teachers‟ performance.”

By Frank E. Peart

The study was confined to eight schools in West Portland: three Primary Schools, three All Age Schools and two High Schools. The sample consisted of fifty eight (58) respondents where fifty were teachers and eight were principals.

The study undertaken revealed that: Teachers depend to a great extent on the advice and support provided by their principal whose leadership is most times not in the best interest of the teachers. The study points out that fifty two percent (52 %) of the teachers are being led by their principals who employed a mixture of each leadership style in their daily routine. While most principals employed a mixture of each leadership style in their daily routine an overwhelming majority of seventy percent (70 %) of the teachers chose the democratic leadership style because of the wide range of  benefits it offers, such as: the ability to share their ideas and opinions, take part in the decision making process and are motivated by rewards for achieving goals.

11

Of interest is the finding that shed a dismal light on the principals where sixty eight percent (68 %) of the teachers disagreed that their principal supports the idea of his teachers furthering their education and directly encouraged them to do so. This is indicative of the fact that more than seventy two percent (72 %) of the teachers only have a Diploma in Education with more than five years in the profession.

12

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I wish to offer with the profound gratitude my indebtedness to the teaching staff  of The International University of the Caribbean, especially those from North Middlesex. The favourable interpersonal relations have helped in no small way to inspire confidence in tackling this research.

I must record my special thanks to the following members of staff in particular who have guided me in this research.

To Mrs. V. Johnson (Lecturer at IUC), my chief advisor whose insight and patience and helpful suggestions guided the work from beginning to end.

To Dr. Adlyn White who in the initial stages guided me in formulating my proposal.

The School staffs, Principals of the schools and teachers of the schools used in this research have been especially cooperative, and I offer my sincere thanks to them.

To Mr. Dwayne Knight who taught me how to make and calculate the tables charts.

13

Finally, I must record my gratitude to my special friend Ms. Camile Franklyn whose personal sacrifice enabled me to pursue this course.

14

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION THE BACKGROUND TO THE PROBLEM.

The Jamaican education system has for sometime experienced low academic performance of students in its primary, all age and secondary schools. As a result many stakeholders have expressed grave concern over this very unfortunate situation. Poor academic performances of some of these students are laid at the feet of the classroom teachers with unlimited amount of blame which in many cases cannot be rationally justified.

The researcher is of the view that the principal‟s leadership style has a tremendous effect on teachers‟ performance and students‟ academic performance. Hence the decision to research the topic: “The “The relationship between principal‟s leadership and its effect on teacher s‟ performance.” performance. ”

School is an important public institution which promotes society‟s educational community and as a result they are subject to high expectations. However, without proper leadership and a mutual environment; the teacher is likely to lack  or be passive to values and behaviours necessary to motivate students into doing well.

15

The researcher has observed from his own teaching experience that different principals lead / operate their schools relatively different and likewise the teachers‟ performance are relatively different. This is evident in students‟ educational achievements during and at the end of their school years at the different levels of the school system: primary, all age and high school.

It is not uncommon to hear stakeholders shower praises or blame on teachers when students do well or do poorly p oorly in the Nation‟s Standardized Tests. We often forget that the instructional leader is the principal. Sometimes because of the lack  of recognition to this fact, some principals fail to conceive that their leadership or lack of it is the main determinant in students‟ educational achievements via their  teachers‟ performance. When this is not the case, it is not uncommon to find  principals who are domineering in supervising the school‟s programmes and constantly sideline teachers and other members of staff, to the detriment of the school‟s goals.

Thus, one of the main reasons for selecting this area of study is based on the researcher‟s own recollections of school principals and their leadership styles and their motivation on teachers for better performance has influenced students into the right direction. The recent resurgence of concerns with the supposed escalations in the number of students attending and leaving schools without being able to read competently, and the record number of headlines in the media expressing disgusts at the Educational system‟s poor achievement record in some

16

schools. Dr. Tufton, (2003). In an analysis of the general educational System Dr. Tufton revealed that 92 percent of school leavers having no academic qualifications. He went on to say that these are persons who have passed no exams and are for the most part barely semi  – literate.  – literate. “This is totally inadequate” said Dr. Tufton. Jamaica Observer 2003. Other such headlines include: „Education on the ropes‟ by Dr. Ralph Thompson Th ompson 2004, Jamaica Observer. Not even a full year since the publication of Dr. Ralph Thompson‟s article, Dr. Davis (2005) referred to the youths in his constituency as a cohort of irredeemable. Other studies and analysis have revealed that poor achievement in school was prevalent in various section of the Island. These concerns heighten the need to investigate the relationship between principal‟s leadership style and its effect on teacher performance.

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

This study is designed to investigate the relationship between principal leadership style and its effect on teacher s‟ performance.

17

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

This study seeks to determine whether or not principal leadership style affects teachers‟ teacher s‟ performance.

Over the years, parents and other stakeholders in the educational system have contended that principal‟s principal ‟s leadership style dictates the outcome of teachers‟ performance, and as a result the principal leadership style has been placed under sharp scrutiny (as teacher performance vary widely throughout West Portland.)

The purpose of this research is to help principals and teachers become more aware of the kind of relationship that needs to be established in the schools which will motivate teachers for greater performance.

Another very important purpose of this study is to assist stakeholders in appreciating the entire role that principals play in the educational institution. This study will also prove valuable to school assessors, especially when assessing the school in general, they will be able to use this new knowledge to link the outcome of students‟ per formance formance to the relationship that exist between the principal and his / her staff.

18

It will also serve to inform principals of the profound consequence their leadership styles play in shaping the outcome of teachers‟ acad emic performance and students‟ educational educational achievement.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

Different leadership styles exist and these range from the authoritarian leadership style to the democratic leadership style. Each has its advantages and disadvantages. Studies have shown that leadership styles of leaders affect their members and their performance either positively or negatively (Hegarty, 1997).

The same is true for school system, where the leader fails to expedite his / her mandate in a manner conducive to the staff and clients; such business is on a course for failure. Therefore, this study is significant in that it will seek to clear the discrepancies as to whether or not principal‟s leadership style affects teachers‟ performance. The fact that, there are discrepancies over such a pertinent subject gives rise to the need for the study. (The educational institutions should not be taken for granted, since they are our formal means of socializing the youths and people in general).

There are a number of assessors and Education Officers who are trained to help teachers improve their performance. This study will prove relevant and add to their existing knowledge. The principals and teachers with whom this issue rest,

19

will gain insights in how best they can cooperate to maximize students‟ interest and performance. It is the view of the researcher that principals and teachers would become more aware of their leadership style. Through this awareness they should be able to create a mutually conducive environment to enhance the school‟s goals through their performance and interaction. The researcher strongly believes that this study will benefit teachers; that is, if it turns out that principal‟s leadership style affects teachers‟ performance, then they will be able to monitor  their own performance as it relates to students‟ achievement. Other stakeholders and the society in general will be able to evaluate the use of their taxed dollars more effectively.

20

CHAPTER TWO REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE Introduction:

It is the researcher‟s view that that the purpose the purpose of a school‟s leadership is to create a productive organization as measured by the quality of learning and behaviour which take place inside the school. This productivity takes place with and through people. Influencing and not demanding is important for productivity. Influencing suggests that the workers accept and agree with the decision or suggestion and are willing to identify with the job. It is a two - way process between a leader and those he or she leads.

The nature of leadership is dependent on the leader and what he or she brings to  – and the job –  job – knowledge, knowledge, skills, values values –  and on the followers –  followers – their their needs, expectations, knowledge, skills and attitudes. It is on this premise that the researcher seeks to investigate the relationship b etween principal‟s leadership style and its effect on teacher s‟ performance.

The way the principal works with his staff and sets the stage for human relationships will make the difference in what type of school he/she directs (Espinosa, 1976). The preceding was an attitude that was advocated by Espinosa some three decades ago, it‟s interesting to note tha t in 2003, 2003, Bennis felt the need

21

to promote the same approach in as much that he refined the concept. Bennis put forward the following ideas.

Today‟s Today‟s school environments have become more complex and diverse where all children are expected to learn and where high learning standards set the vision of  educational success for all students. In a rapidly changing and more technologically oriented society, students will need to acquire the knowledge and skills that will help them achieve success in school and in life. The evolving nature of school environments has placed new demands on Principals. Where knowledge of school management, finance, legal issues and state mandates were once the primary focus for the preparation of school principals.

Education reform has created an urgent need for a strong emphasis on development of Principals leadership skills to promote good teaching and high level learning. Moreover, Principals must recognize and assume a shared responsibility not only for students‟ intellectual and educational development, but also for their teachers and their personal, social, emotional, and physical development. The increasing diversity of school communities places a premium on school Principals whose leadership styles can create a vision of success for all students via their teachers‟ performance (Bennis, 2003).

22

This argument was not a far cry from The Institute for Educational Leadership (2003), after citing a long list of the principal‟s traditional managerial responsibilities, went on to add:

Principals today must also serve as role model not just for his students but also for his teachers. They must know academic content and pedagogical techniques so that they can work with their teachers to strengthen their skills if needs be. They must collect, analyze and use data in ways that fuel excellence. They must rally students, teachers, parents, local health and family service agencies, youth development groups, local businesses and other community residents and partners around the common goal of  raising student performance. And they must have the leadership styles that can foster these skills and knowledge to exercise the autonomy and authority to pursue these strategies.

In fact, on closer examination, many of the goals set out under the mandate of the Jamaican Ministry of Education Youth and Culture and to be more specific the Life long Learning Center and The Human Employment and Resource Training (HEART/ NTA), (2004) will depend on transforming the current hierarchical model of school into that of a professional community. It is important to note that school leadership was the foremost among their concern.

23

Hargreaves spoke about a similar matter when he was invited to address  principals‟ at Oregon about Public School Reform in New Brunswick.

In his presentation, Sustaining Professional Learning Communities, Hargreaves stressed the need for educators to replace “strings of interaction interaction with enduring  bonds and relationships” and to “work and learn in collaborative groups” by  pursuing “professional learning with colleagues” (Hargreaves, 2003, p. 9). He also encouraged principals to embrace “distributed leadership and shared s ystemic res ponsibility” stressing the need for “data guided instructional decisiondecision-making” and the promotion of “continuous, embedded, focused professional development” for teachers (Ibid. p. 25). He further argued for periodic evaluation of school improvement as a way to encourage schools to shift from their positions as “strolling or cruising to moving schools” (Ibid. p. 44).

The researcher is of the view that the relationship betwe en principal‟s leadership style and its effect on teacher s‟ performance is not a new phenomenon but acknowledges that the traditional leadership of non collaboration with teachers was up held due to a primary belief that principals were able to deal successfully with any task or situation single handedly; if truth be told, in some instances the leadership of principals were interpreted as that of a specialist and as such their leadership was viewed as exclusive. While writers such as (Espinosa (1976), and James –  James  – Reid Reid (1982), have long explained the benefits of mutual leadership among principals and their teachers.

24

Nonetheless the trend continues, as current authors on school leadership

(Lambert, 2000; Ogawa & Bossert, 2000; Harris, 2003) contend that it seldom exists in schools. Ogawa and Bossert (2000) proposed that the primary approach to current school leadership was still based on a technical-rational perspective that promoted hierarchical structures and prevented substantive collaboration among school professionals. This technical-rational model of school leadership is founded upon principal omnicompetence rather than collaborative leadership (Hord, 2005). Emihovich and Battaglia (2000) reinforced this belief with findings from their study on the prevalence of collaborative leadership in schools.

Their study found that most principals still perceived their primary roles to be building and program managers rather than collaborative professionals. Jackson (2000) considered the hesitance among principals to share leadership as partly due to the fact that the school effectiveness literature continues to propagate the view of leadership centered around “strong head teach ers with dynamic or forceful  personal qualities” rather than “leadership that is widely spread among educational stakeholders” (p. 70). Ogawa & Bossert, (2000) and Harris (2003) (2003) proposed that it was the hierarchical organizational structure, with its clearly defined roles and communication channels that prevented principals from sharing leadership with teachers.

25

Despite the reasons for the technical-rational approach to school leadership, plus the multiplicity of indiscipline in our schools, it is clear that this approach contrasts significantly with the leadership required in professional learning communities. The new perspective of school leadership, one that supports the “postprinciples of professional learning communities, represents principals as “postheroic leaders” (Louis & Kruse, 1995, p. 23 4) who share the responsibility for  school effectiveness. Schools that embrace the PLC model no longer depend upon a hierarchy of roles based on competence and authority. In these schools, principals take on the role of co-learners who model and facilitate the practices of  questioning, investigating and seeking solutions (Klein-Kracht, 1993; Harris, 2003). In professional learning communities, leadership becomes a shared process as principals recognize the potential of teacher collaboration and actively build leadership capacity on a school-wide level (Lambert, 2000). Sharing leadership and building leadership capacity, the foundations upon which professional learning communities are built, represent a very different perspective of  organizational leadership from the technical-rational approach that currently exists in many schools.

Harris (2003) describes successful school communities as places where a shared sense of purpose is developed between principals and teachers, who then engage in collaborative work and accept joint responsibility for the outcomes of their work. She also argued strongly for the creation of an infrastructure that supported collaboration and a culture that reinforced mutual leadership.

26

Harris arguments though so brief resonated well with that of Morehouse & Tranquilla (2005). They point out in their evaluation of principals, that principals that were most effective were the ones that were sensitive to teacher issues. This success was backed up by effective two way communication between principals and teachers.

Essentially, if schools are to be transformed into the teaching/learning communities that the Ministry of Education envisaged, then foremost among the changes that should be is that of the principal‟s leadership style, style, that is from the traditional non collaborative to one of mutuality among principals and teachers. The importance of the alignment between actual and expected leadership styles in this regard has been highlighted in studies that showed that principal‟s leadership style is the best discriminator between high participation and low participation by teachers (Taylor and Tashakkori, 1997; Huffman & Jacobson, 2003).

Another good reason to do so is because of the high evidence of some of the factors that contribute to teacher satisfaction and better performance.

In a survey of teachers done by Blase, Jo; Blase, Joseph (1999), the teachers revealed that principals who want to promote classroom instruction and better

27

teacher performance must talk openly and freely with teachers about teaching and learning, provide time and encourage peer connections for teachers, empower teachers, embrace the challenge of teachers' professional development, and lead and motivate teachers

The Principal -Teacher Relationship.

The way the principal works with his staff and sets the stage for human relationships will make the difference in what type of school he/she directs (Espinosa, 1976). As a staff developer, the principal must possess skills, knowledge, and creativity to set up with the staff high  – but  – but attainable standards and help them to achieve them (Doggett, 1987).

The principal should be very concerned about the long-term developmental needs of teachers. This can be enhanced by the principal establishing a good work ethics with the teachers and making sure the avenues or medium for effective communication are available and fully utilized. For the school to be effective both the principal and each teacher must realize they need each other in mutual partnership to plan and implement strategies for the effective leadership of the school at their respective levels. Instead many advocate of educational reform in Jamaica argue that principals should have more power without even assessing how they use the enormous power they already have. Dr. Thompson (2006),

28

board member of both the National Council on Education and the Early Childhood Commission is agitating agitating for „more power for principals‟. Dr.  – akin to a corporate Thompson is pushing for more autonomy for principals  – akin executive –  executive  – to to discipline teaching staff for lax performance in the classroom.

However, as James –  James  – Reid Reid (1982) puts it. “The Jamaican School principal ex erts his legal authority as leader of the school, but the extent to which the goals of the school are achieved is to some degree dependent on his leadership and his personal characteristic - she continued; even though his leadership may not be challenged; he may face strong resentment from staff members which will eventually make his administrative performance becomes ineffective, and that is  just the beginning of failure for the school.”

The researcher is of the view that principals should engender a leadership style that supports a style of pedagogy that encourages teachers to motivate and facilitate students‟ learning and also to help students appreciate their role i n their  own learning. In the words of Glasser, (1993), “effective leaders „lead – manage‟ – manage‟ rather than „boss – manage‟. – manage‟. That is, while it is clear that principals have a vested authority that should command respect and duty, it is fool  – hardy  – hardy to think that  just having that authority will get the job done in the best possible way. We should be reminded that teachers are not things and that they operate on complexities such as values, perceptions and (attitudes  – feelings  – feelings and belief). Studies have shown that individuals have a tendency to act in accordance with

29

their feeling and belief, R. Rosenthal and L. Jacobson (1968). Therefore, it is in the best interest of the school that the principal lead his teachers in a way that is amicable to those variables.

Stone (1995) supports Glasser (1993), in his views about principals‟ leadership. “Where pr incipals incipals frequently have low expectations of some teachers; the low expectations adversely affect teachers‟ and students‟ self concepts and overall performance at school. Teachers may internalize these expectations and function accordingly.” This phenomenon phenomenon is referred to as the self fulfilling prophecy.

Hemphill (1990) states, “Schools that are especially effective in teaching children academically are characterized by school pride, collegiality and a sense of  community; which is the result of good leadership. ” Undoubtedly, like Fiedler‟s Contingency Model (1967), the researcher is cognizant that there are several leadership styles that can be effective depending on the situation. Even so, the leader who achieves good results by directives and administrative authorization, without consultation with others is probably the expectation. It is difficult to produce excellence by command when what goes on behind closed classroom doors is not easily monitored or controlled.

The researcher strongly believes that leadership should be shared at all levels to reduce animosity. This belief is held as a fact postulated Dr. Miller (1987), he

30

states, “The “The advantages of shared leadership responsibilities between the principal and teacher promote better instruction and im prove im prove students‟ morale.”

The fact is good leadership empowers all. If teachers are empowered students will be empowered, it is just common sense. It is undoubtedly clear, that different types of situations warrants different types of behaviours. There is hardly any guarantee that every leadership style will always be effective. It should be understood that any leadership style used by the leader while administering the affairs of his/her office is likely to have an effect on the organization‟s performance at all levels be it positive or negative. For all intents and purposes, Fullan and Stiegelbever, (1999) put it together well. “Principals are expected to provide leadership in schools as well as use their managerial skills to ensure that optimum conditions exist for teaching and learning; leadership is always concerned with influencing and inspiring the staff and students of the school to collectively develop a vision of excellence for the school and to work in concert to achieve that vision.”

It can never be overstated that mutual relationship of leadership is a primary ingredient for success in most school communities today; therefore, as principals‟ venture into the educational system it would be wise to note that some principles of leadership are universal: you will only go as far as your team. No matter your astuteness, your devotion, tenacity and know-how, without a supporting team, you will not succeed. And without leaders in that supporting team, you will fail.

31

Theoretical Framework

Likert's leadership styles Theory

American psychologist, R. Likert (1903-1981), identified four main styles of  leadership, in particular around decision-making and the degree to which people are involved in the decision. These leadership styles are: Exploitive authorit ative, Benevolent authoritative, Consultative and Democratic.

In the Exploitive authoritative style, the leader has a low concern for people and uses such methods as threats and other fear-based methods to achieve conformance. Communication is almost entirely downwards and the psychologically distant concerns of people are ignored.

The Benevolent authoritative style is somewhat different in that the leader adds concern for people to an authoritative position; a 'benevolent dictatorship' is formed. The leader now uses rewards to encourage appropriate performance and listens more to concerns lower down the organization, although what they hear is often rose-tinted, being limited to what their subordinates think that the boss wants to hear. Although there may be some delegation of decisions, almost all major decisions are still made centrally.

While the distinction of upward flow of information from subordinates to the leader is clear in the consultative leadership style when compared to the previous two leadership styles, it is still cautious and rose-tinted to some degree.

32

However, in sharp contrast to exploitive authoritative and benevolent authoritative leadership styles, the Democratic leader makes maximum use of  participative methods, engaging people lower down the organization in decision-making. People across the organization are psychologically closer together and work well together at all levels.

Applying Likert’s Theory to Principal / Teacher Relationship

According to Likert‟s research, the researcher researcher is of the view that the principals who will get the best teacher performance are the ones who adopt a democratic leadership style; Likert‟s research shows that democratic leadership means involvement, mutual respect, openness, trust, motivation and commitment. In Likert‟s words „it is an alternative organizational life style‟ which has been found in mainly in successful companies.

The researcher strongly believes that with the proper development and usage of  Likert‟s theory fourth leadership style (democratic) (democratic) principals will reap better performance from their teachers. The researcher is aware that this is not a universal view as traditionalists among others in the Educational system often argued that democratic leadership seems to erode the influence of principals. As a

33

teacher the researcher finds this view contrary to the politics of organizational life in which people at all levels compete for power and influence  – the  – the ingredients of  leadership. Further more it is the belief of the researcher that democratic leadership may increase a principal‟s ability to exert influence over his tea chers. If a principal allows his teachers to take part in management decisions, the influence of that principal is not necessarily eroded. By demonstrating confidence and and trust in his teachers, the principal‟s ability to exert further influence on them may be increased rather than diminished.

Dr. Leigh (2005) supports the researcher arguments. She said that the principal authorized authority does not and cannot command the teachers‟ willingness to devote their creativity and energy to performing their task to the best of their abilities… she expands, the legal authority vested on principals by the Ministry on Education promotes compliance with directives and discipline but does not encourage teachers to exert effort, to accept responsibilities, or to exercise their initiative.

Applying Maslow’s Theory to Principal / Teacher Relationship

Maslow (1970) another theorist, in his theory, Maslow viewed individuals‟ needs rising in five hierarchical levels. These include physiological, security,  – level belongingness, esteem and self actualization needs. Significantly, higher  – level needs do not become active until lower  – level  – level needs are met. Maslow

34

hypothesized that motivational needs at the higher levels promote behaviour that is more important to the organization and vice versa.

 – win situation between The researcher therefore, thinks that there can be a win  – win principals and their teachers. That is, if principals develop and support systems to assist their teachers in a holistic way. This method will essentially give them a broader framework for understanding difficult problems and complex relationships within the school. By deepening their understanding of school culture, these principals will be better equipped to shape the values, beliefs, and attitudes necessary to promote a stable and nurturing learning environment with better teacher performance.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

1. Do principals‟ leadership styles influence teachers‟ per formance? formance? 2. To what extent does the principal leadership style influence teacher motivation for improved / greater performance? 3. What can principals do to improve teacher performance?

35

DEFINITION OF TERMS James - Reid (1991) defines leadership as a dynamic interactive process

involving the leader, followers and the environmental situation.

Encarta (2006), defines effect as an impression that as the ability to produce a

change in the mind of somebody who sees, hears, or reads something, especially one that is deliberately intended or engineered

Encarta (2006), defines relationship as a significant association or similarity

between two or more persons such that prediction can be made.

James - Reid (1991) defines teacher performance as nature in which teacher carry

out classroom instructions among the other school related tasks that teachers expected to take part in order to facilitate and ensure students achievement.

Fraenkel and Wallen (2000) defined the “sample” in research study refers to any

group on which information is obtained. The larger group to which one seeks to apply results is called the population.

Gay (1996) defines the independent variable is an activity or characteristic

believed to make a difference with respect to some behaviour; also referred to as the experimental variable, the cause, the effect and treatment.

36

Gay (1996) defines the dependent variable is the change or difference in

behaviour that occurs as a result of the independent variable; also referred to as the criterion variable, the effect, the outcome, or the post-test.

Gay (1996) defines correlational research according to attempts to determine

whether, and to what degree, a relationship exists between two or more quantifiable variables.

37

CHAPTER THREE RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY Introduction:

The study was undertaken to determine the relationship between principal‟s leadership style and its effect on teacher s‟ performance in three (3) primary schools, three (3) All –  All  – age age schools and two (2) High schools in the parish of  Portland.

Research Design: The research design is correlational.

According to Asher (1976) research design is the organization and logic of the subject, group, data, sources and treatment, allocation from which the comparison necessary to determine knowledge develops

Beaumont et al. (1997) being consistent with Asher (1976) postulated that research design is the selecting of samples, assigning individuals to treatment, measuring out comes, analyzing data and so for the purpose of answering the research.

Also, Fraenkel and Wallen (2000) put forward the view that research design is the overall plan for collecting data in order to answer the research questions. It also describes the specific data analysis techniques or methods that the researcher intends to use.

38

Correlational research according to Gay (1996) is an attempt to determine whether, and to what degree, a relationship exists between two or more quantifiable variables. The purpose then of a correlational study may be to establish relationship (or lack of it) or to use relationship to making predictions.

Discussion of the variables

In an effort to investigate the relationship between principal‟s leadership style and its effect on teachers‟ teacher s‟ performance, the researcher will discuss the independent and dependent variable.

Two variables will be dealt with in this study:

1. Principal‟s leadership style.

2. Teachers performance.

Independent variable: Principal‟s leadership style

Dependent variable: Teachers‟ Teacher s‟ performance

According to Gay (1996) independent variable is an activity or characteristic believed to make a difference with respect to some behaviour; also referred to as the experimental variable, the cause, the effect and treatment. For this study, the independent variable is the principal‟s leadership style. He further states that the dependent variable is the change or difference in behaviour that occurs as a result

39

of the independent variable; also referred to as the criterion variable, the effect, the outcome, or the post-test. The dependent variable in this study is teacher s‟ performance, which is the level to which the teachers carry out their task in the classroom, with the students and in the school at large.

Teachers‟ Teachers‟ performance will be high or low, depending on the quality of the independent variable and its effect on the teachers ‟ performance. If the relationship is good / amicable, then performance may be good, if, on the other hand, the relationship is poor, then performance may be poor.

The independent variable is hypothetically linked in the following manner:

When the atmosphere of the school is open, there is open communication between  – back between them, and teachers principal and teachers. There is constant feed  – back become involved in the whole decision making process. On the other hand, if the climate of the school is closed, there is a minimum of communication, little or no feed –  feed – back, back, little or no involvement and limited support for teachers. In an atmosphere which is open, therefore, the teachers will feel free to communicate with their principal and other staff and may have a better sense of purpose. This will result in a mutual relationship and consequent good performance.

40

If the principal of a school is committed to his school program, he/she will plan and address concerns for the needs of the teachers. This would lead to consideration on his part in providing for the professional growth and personal welfare of the teachers.

Willingness on the part of the teachers to help each other will stem from the  principal‟s sense of commitment, and will result in the teachers understanding better what is expected of them and will plan for the needs of their students. If  they understand both the expectations of the school and the needs of their students, then they ought to plan and work towards these ends. If they plan well, and are able to teach well, then they ought to succeed in their performance

Where a teacher perceives himself as a member of the school organization; and as such, must make his contribution in terms of teaching, and makes sure that his students learn, he will prepare well, and will experience pleasure in seeing them learn. This will result in a good relationship and his performance will be better.

Where there is a good healthy working relationship between the principal and the teachers‟ teacher s‟,, there is rapport and consequently, understanding. The principal is able

41

to help the teachers grow professionally and this may boost the teachers to perform better.

The following Research questions were tested in this study:

1. Do principals‟ leadership styles influence teachers‟ performance? 2. To what extent does the principal leadership style influence teacher motivation for improved / greater performance? 3. What can principals do to improve teacher performance?

The Sample

According to Fraenkel and Wallen (2000) the “sample” in research study refers to any group on which information is obtained. The larger group to which one seeks to apply results is called the population. Two samples were drawn from this study. They were samples (a) principals and sample (b) classroom teachers from eight schools in West Portland. The decision was taken to use schools at all levels throughout the communities. Hence the researcher having three primary schools, three all age schools and two high schools.

Primary school (A) consists of twenty six (26) teachers including the principal, the vice principal and the guidance counselor; the student population is seven hundred and ninety eight (798). Primary school (B) consists of six teachers (6) and one principal; the student population is one hundred and fifty two (152).

42

Primary school (C) consists of ten teachers (10) and the principal; the student population is three hundred and five (305)

All age school (D) consists of thirteen (13) teachers including the principal, the vice principal and the guidance counselor; the student population is three hundred and eighteen (318). All age school (E) consists of six (6) teachers including the principal; the student population is one hundred and thirty eight (138). All age school (F) consists of six (8) teachers including the principal and vice principal; the student population is one hundred and fifty (150).

High school (G) consists of thirty (30) teachers plus the principal, one vice principal one Guidance Counselor; the student population is eight hundred and fifty six (856). High school (H) consists of thirty five (35) teachers plus the principal, two vice principals two guidance counselor; the student population is eight hundred and seventy six (870).

From the total 126 teachers and 8 principals the following were chosen as the sample: 50 teachers and 8 principals.

43

Table 4.1 shows the number of participants by gender

Participants

Gender Males

Total

Females

Principals

2

6

8

Teachers

10

40

50

The table 4.1 shows that thirty (50) teachers and three (8) principals participated in this research. Of the eight principals six were females and two males; while of  the fifty teachers forty or 80 % were females and ten or 20 % were males.

44

Table 4.2 shows the number of participants, Qualification, Years of experience, and Age Range.

Respondent

No. in

Qualification

No.

Each

Years of 

No.

Age range

No. in age range

10

-

26-33

-

11-15

-

34-42

1

Above 16

8

Above 43

7

1-5

11

18-25

7

6-10

10

26-33

9

11-15

21

34-42

15

16 and above

8

Above 43

19

experience

category Principal

Teacher

8

50

Bachelors in Education

Bachelors in Education

8

12

Diploma in Education

38

Pre - Trained

0

Table 4.2 indicates that the fifty teachers were chosen to respond to the questionnaire items; while the eight principals were selected to respond to interview. All the principals in the sample had Bachelors Degrees in Education; they have served for over sixteen years in the teaching profession. Similarly all but one principal were in the above 43 age range, the other was in the 34  – 42  – 42 age range. The sample consisting of the fifty teachers was more varied in that the

45

teachers were more disbursed across the different ranges: of the fifty teachers, thirty eight or 76 % had Diplomas in education while the remaining twelve or 24 % had Bachelors Degrees in Education; none of the teachers were in the Pre  –  Trained category. Eleven or 22 % served in the profession between one and five years, ten or 20 % served in the profession between six and ten years, twenty one or 42 % served in the profession between eleven and fifteen years, the remaining eight or 16 % served for over sixteen years. Seven or 14 % were in the age range of eighteen to twenty five, nine or 18 % were in the age range of twenty six to thirty three, fifteen or 30 % were in the age range of thirty four to forty two; the remaining nineteen or 38 % were in the age range of over forty three.

46

Table 4.3 shows the distribution of the participants from the eight schools that participated in this study.

Schools used in the sample

Number

Total

A

8

8

B

7

7

C

6

6

D

6

6

E

4

4

F

4

4

G

7

7

H

8

8

Total

50

50

Table 4.3 shows that five participants from schools A and H were selected respectively, four participants each from schools B, C, D and G. And two participants each from schools E and F. this method was used to reflect the number of teachers in each of these schools.

The teachers selected in this research were chosen by means of random sampling. This technique was used as it is thought to yield the best sample from the given population. Furthermore, Gay (1996), random sampling allows for all individuals

47

in the defined population to have an equal and independent chance of being selected for the sample. The total of eight principals was used purposively because the researcher felt that this relatively small sample in its entirety exhibits the characteristics likely to yield the desired information. Gay (1996) supports the use of purposive sampling in that it may help the researcher to acquire an in - dept understanding of the data of interest.

The category of persons who participated could be considered to have a direct bearing on the problem and more importantly its solution. It is the researcher‟s belief that they will satisfactorily provide the information needed to help in the carrying out the research.

Instrumentations

According to Beaumont et al. (1997), the instrument is simply the mechanism for obtaining the data. This can be questionnaire or an interview schedule, or an observation instrument.

Fraenkel and Wallen (2000), being consistent with Beaumont et al. (1997) state that the whole process of collecting data is called instrumentation. They further state that data refer to the kinds of information researchers obtain on subjects of  their research. Demographic information, such as age, gender, ethnicity, religion and so forth, is one kind of data.

48

For the purposes of this study the following instruments were used: 1. Questionnaires for teachers 2. Interview for principals Questionnaire items are aimed at exposing the matter, identifying the cause  –  effect/ relationship and bringing closure to the matter from the teachers‟ po int of  view. Interview schedules for principals are also critical to the outcome of this research.

Questionnaires

Questionnaires have been widely commended by researchers for their practicability, especially in situations where the researcher has limited time at his or her disposal. The use of questionnaires allows information to be garnered from many individuals at the same time and administered collectively. According to Webb (1966) the questionnaire extends the investigator‟s powers and techniques of observation by reminding the respondent of each item, helping to insure the same response to the same item from all respondents, and tending to standardize and objectify the observation of different enumerators (by singling out particular aspects of the situation and by specifying the units and terminology for describing the observations) Bastick and Matalon (2004) support this view. They emphasized, it is relatively easy to get a large sample with questionnaires, since they are easy to distribute and can be filled in by many people at the same time.

49

Questionnaires are said to yield a high response rate, and because they allow for anonymity, respondents usually feel free to pass on information which they may not have, had the situation been otherwise.

In light of the points advanced in support for the use of questionnaires, the researcher found this type of instrument very appropriate, as information had to be collected from individuals with very limited time and who were drawn from miles apart and sometimes needed transportation to make the delivery, for these reason, it seems then that with a sample of fifty teachers, the questionnaire was the most economical data –  data  – collecting collecting instrument to be used.

Interviews

According to Good (1972) the interview in its simplest form is as old as face to face communication communication between two persons. Gay (1996) advanced Good‟s argument and justifies the use of interview schedule eloquently. The benefit of the interview schedule is that the researcher can obtain more accurate answers to the questions during an interview because he had the added advantage of interpreting facial expressions, tone of voice and gestures of the individuals. Also, if the sociologist does not understand the answer he receives, he can ask the individual to restate it, clarify or explain it more fully.

50

The matter of subjectivity sometimes surrounds the use of interview schedule, however, the researcher is mindful and appreciates the fact that he maintains his professionalism and upholds the ethical guidelines of his profession.

After evaluating the points, the researcher considered the interview schedule an appropriate instrument and one which could reasonably be used as the researcher had adequate time to get to the eight principals.

Validity and Reliability

According to Asher (1976), validity is a measurement, a concept indicating authenticity, truth, genuineness of results or observation which is useful, a purpose; also, the extent to which measurements can predict other measurements. In research validity is the extent to which accurate conclusion about cause and effect relationship can be stated.

According to Beaumont et al. (1997) validity is the degree to which a test measure what it is intended to measure; a test is valid for a group. The degree to which the conclusions is drawn about the behaviour of a group or represent what actually occurs.

51

According to Asher (1976), reliability is a concept indicating reliability of studies agreement among observers, or relationship among similar measures. The questionnaire and questions will be self-developed and written in simple language.

Response Mode

Teachers selected for the sample used the 5  – point  – point Likert scale to respond to the questionnaire. The 5 –  5  – point point Likert scale is an instrument that asks an individual to respond to a series of statements by indicating whether she or he Strongly Agrees (SA), Agree (A), is Undecided (UN), Disagree (D), or Strongly Disagree (SD) with each statement.

The Pilot Instrumentation Administration

Before the final form of the questionnaire was prepared for distribution to the respondents, a pilot or pre-testing was carried out. Fifteen teachers were selected randomly and were asked to respond to the proposed questionnaire items on the five point Likert scale. This was done to ensure validity and reliability. Reliability of research refers to the consistency of the methods, conditions and results of  whatever research is being carried out. In other words test/measurement should be

52

conducted in a systematic manner to ensure reciprocity. Validity refers to how the test/data scores are used and interpreted and not the instrument itself.

Good (1972) insists on the importance of tryout exercise for the purposes of  validation in terms of practical use.

Reason for the pilot study:

1. The pilot study was done to test the reliability and validity of the instrument.

2. To find out if the instruments used could give reliable and valid information of  the scores.

3. To find out if the sample was appropriate for the selected group.

4. To identify ambiguities or grammatical errors that might be present in each item.

5. To determine the time required to complete the instrument and to assist in determining the reliability of each instrument.

The result of the Pilot Study

The fifteen teachers responded to the proposed questionnaire items; of which, a total of five were found to be having more than one interpretation, confusing and vague. This led to the rewriting of items which presented problems and a

53

re-administering of them. In the second tryout the participants answered each items correctly as they were directly related to the particular question suggesting that the items were valid. However, no statistical analysis was done to substantiate this. These items were not too difficult because all items were responded to with related answers.

Data Analysis

Gay postulated (1996), analysis of data usually involves application of one or more statistical techniques; data are analyzed in a way that permits the researcher to test the research hypothesis or answer the research questions.

According to Fraenkel and Wallen (2000) data analysis is the process of  simplifying data in order to make it comprehensible and data is any information obtained about a sample population. Frequency distribution is a tabular method of  showing all the scores obtained by a group of individuals. The data collected in this research will be analyzed using the various mathematics instruments such as:  pie charts, tables and bar graphs. These will determine whether or not principal‟s leadership style affects teachers‟ teacher s‟ performance.

Limitations

According to Gay (1996), limitation is an aspect of a study which the researcher knows may negatively affect the results or generalizability of the results, but over which he or she has no control.

54

1. Sample size might be too small to make a generalization hence this has affected reliability. 2. The scope of this study is only on  principal‟s leadership style there might be other factors affecting teacher s‟ performance. 3. The instrument may itself not be a true reflection of the thinking of the subjects. 4. Generalization Generalizatio n can only be made with regards to this particular sample. 5. The sample size is not a representation of the entire Portland. It is therefore not possible to make generalization about all the schools in Portland.

Summary

After reading and analyzing the views of the authorities in the field of leadership and teacher performance; one would realize that principal‟s leadership style is of  vital importance to teacher performance and the general out come of stude nts‟ achievement. Failure in the principal‟s principal‟s leadership style style leads to dysfunctional teachers and often results in poor teacher performance.

It is argued that for teachers‟ teacher s‟ performance to improve greatly there must be full a participatory leadership mechanism in the schools. The democratic leadership style is one of such ways of getting parties, organization and people working to produce the best results. It is the opinion of the researcher that principals and

55

teachers are no different, therefore, with the proper usage of the democratic leadership style teachers‟ teacher s‟ performance will improve.

56

CHAPTER FOUR

Presentation, Analysis and Discussion of Results

This chapter presents data obtained from fifty teachers and eight principals‟ questionnaire and a nd interview with respect to: “The relationship between principal‟s leadership style and its effect on teachers‟ performance.” The data were pr esented and analyzed using the 5 –  5  –  point  point Likert scale, for teachers‟ questionnaire. The scale ranged from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree. The principals were taken through interview schedules. The data were analyzed using the relevant tables and figures such as pie charts and bar charts.

Discussion and Interpretation of Teachers Questionnaires

Research Question 1: Do principal’s leadership style influence teachers performance?

To find out if principal‟s leadership style influenced influenced teachers‟ performance. Questions 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 from the teachers‟ questionnaires were used to determine the degre e as to whether or not no t principal‟s leadership style influenced teachers‟ performance.

57

Figure 4.4 shows the respondents‟ perception as it relates to what leadership style their principal uses in his /her daily routine

Authoritarian

16% Democratic

52%

32%

Laissez-faire

A mixture of each

Figure 4.4 indicates that twenty six (26) or fifty two percent (52 %) of the principals used a mixture of each leadership style. Sixteen (16) or thirty two percent (32 %) of the respondents principals used the democratic style of  leadership. Eight (8) or sixteen percent (16 %) of the respondents principals used the authoritarian leadership style. None of the principals use the Laissez-faire leadership style.

Analysis of the figure revealed some interesting findings. If the researcher is to appreciate each leadership style as it really is, then one can conclude that the majority of the respondents have been through some trying times and also through some favourable times as well. It is important to note that only sixteen (16) or thirty two percent (32 %) of the respondents are being led under the democratic style of leadership despite the numerous evidence and writers that have expressed its conduciveness for better performance. Theorists and educators such as Likert and James –  James – Reid Reid have written extensively about the benefits of the full

58

participatory form of leadership style which is essentially democratic; this analysis revealed that only sixteen (16) or thirty two percent (32 %) of the respondents are exposed to this style of leadership.

Figure 4.5 shows the respondents ‟ perception as it relates to what leadership style employed by their principal will motivate them to put out their best performance as teachers.

10%

Democratic

20% 70%

Laissez-faire A mixture of each Authoritarian

Figure 4.5 indicates that thirty - five (35) or seventy percent (70 %) of the respondents chose the democratic leadership style. Ten (10) or twenty percent (20 %) of the respondents chose a mixture of each leadership style. Five (5) or ten percent (10 %) of the respondents chose the authoritarian leadership style. None of the respondents responded to the Laissez  – faire  – faire style of leadership.

The researcher is of the view that the respondents who chose a mixture of each leadership style represent a small number that subscribed to Fiedlers Contingency Model of leadership; where the principal act as it suits him/ her depending on the situation. The results indicated a number of fundamental elements in the schools system as it relates to principals and teachers relationship. While the majority of 

59

the respondents choose the leadership style that is empirically proven to yield better job satisfaction which will eventually lead to better performance (JamesReid 1995), a significant number of the respondents choose otherwise despite the perceived, potential and actual consequences that these leadership styles entail. The researcher recalled that despite what is recorded in history about the German Nazi leader, Adolph Hitler (1889 –  (1889  – 1945) 1945) his support remained strong even when he was consumed by his own folly. Also some of the respondents perceived themselves to be weak and do not want to be held responsible when things go wrong. Perhaps they are of the view that if they have a leader who is strong, ruthless and self-serving then they would be safe.

Figure 4.6 shows the respondents perception as it relates to whether or not their  principal‟s leadership style influences their teaching p erformance.

SA

8% A

20% UN

72%

D SD

Figure 4.6 shows that thirty six (36) or seventy two percent (72 %) of the respondents Strongly Agreed that t heir principal‟s leadership style influenced their teaching performance. Ten (10) or twenty percent (20 %) of the respondents Agreed that their principal‟s leadership style influenced their teaching

60

performance. Four (4) or eight percent (8 %) of the respondents were undecided while none of the respondents respond to the Disagree or Strongly Disagree item.

The high degree of positive responses in the Strongly Agreed and Agreed are  – Reid consistent with current literature on the subject. Espinosa (1976), James  – Reid teach ers‟ performance (1982) and Doggett (1987) all concur with the view that teachers‟ are influenced by their principal‟s leadership style. The researcher is of the view that, the eight percent (8 %) of respondents who were undecided as to whether or not their their principal‟s leadership style influences their teaching performance took  that stance perhaps because of their world view on leadership.

It is important to note that this question does not show or seek to find out whether or not principal‟s leadership style style influences teachers‟ teachers ‟ performance positively or negatively.

Figure 4.7 shows the respondents‟ respondents ‟ perception as it relates to how their principal‟s communicate high expectation for the performance of students and staff.

61

12% 30%

SA A UN

58%

D SD

Figure 4.7 shows that twenty nine (29) or fifty eight percent (58 %) of the respondents Agreed that their principal communicate high expectations for the performance of students and staff. Fifteen (15) or thirty percent (30 %) of the respondents Disagreed that th at their principal‟s communicate high expectations for the performance of students and staff. Six (6) or twelve percent (12 %) of the respondents Strongly Agreed, where as there were no responses for the option Undecided or Strongly Disagree.

The high degree of positive responses from the respondents towards their  principal‟s leadership style in this regard is a good sign. The researcher is still concerned because a thirty percent (30 %) degree of negativeness is still relevant in that, these teachers (on an average reach at least thirty five (35) students per day). Further more while writers such as Doggett (1987) and Bennis (2000), emphasized the importance of a principal whose leadership style can create a vision of success for all students via their t eachers‟ performance; performance; this should be high but attainable and principal should help both teachers and students achieve

62

this. On the other hand, the researcher cannot take the thirty percent (30 %) of the respondents who Disagreed for granted, as Stone (1995 ), points out, “Where  principals frequently have low expectations of some teachers‟ and students‟ self self concepts and overall performance at school. Essentially teachers may internalize these expectations and function accordingly. ”

Figure 4.8 shows the res pondents‟ res pondents‟ perception as it relates to their principal‟s creation of an environment that optimizes learning for teachers and students.

20%

SA

8% 14% 4%

A UN D

54% SD

Figure 4.8 shows that twenty seven (27) or fifty four percent (44 %) of the respondents Disagreed that their principal creates an environment that optimizes learning for teachers and students. Ten (10) or twenty percent (20 %) of the respondents Strongly Disagreed that their principal creates an environment that optimizes learning for teachers and students. Seven (7) or fourteen percent (14 %) of the respondents Agreed, four (4) or eight percent (8 %) of the respondents Strongly Agreed, while two (2) or four percent (4 %) were Undecided.

63

On close analysis of the figure the researcher recognized that over seventy percent (70 %) of the respondents responded negatively towards their principal in this regard. This high degree of negativeness is not good. Especially when you recognize that, had these responses been more positive than negative it could be interpreted as behaviours that encourage excellence among teachers.

Figure 4.9 Respondents‟ Respondents ‟ perceptions of their principal as it relates to their close supervision of teachers to improve the quality of instruction.

SA

6% 22% 52%

A UN

20%

D SD

Figure 4.9 shows that twenty six (26) or fifty two percent (52 %) of the respondents Strongly Disagreed that their principal demonstrated close supervision of teachers to improve the quality of instruction. Eleven (11) or twenty two percent (22 %) of the respondents Agreed that their principals demonstrated close supervision of teachers to improve the quality of instruction. Ten (10) or twenty percent (20 %) Disagreed, three (3) or six percent (6 %) of the

64

respondents Strongly Agreed while there was no response for the Undecided option.

This is another highly negative perception from the respondents towards their  principals‟ leadership style. This may be the facts as perceived by the respo ndents or it may be so due to the fact that some principals assign such roles to their senior teachers and grade supervisors. The reality however, is that many times after the senior teachers and the grade supervisors get acquainted with the teachers they are placed in charge of, they tend to relax their supervisory role and they along with the teachers become tardy.

All this points to what Hargreaves (2003) alluded to when he encouraged  principals to embrace “distributed leadership and shared systemic responsibility” stressing the need for “data guided instructional decision decision –   – making” making” and the  promotion of continuous, embedded, focused professional development” for  teachers. He further argued for periodic evaluation of school improvement as a way to encourage schools to shift from their positions as “strolling or cruising cruising to moving schools.” In other words, words, whether or not principals assign personnel to over see these aspects of the school‟s programme it is his duty to ensure that they work effectively. Other wise it would amount to a waste of time.

65

Figure 4.10 shows the t he respondents‟ perception as it relates to their principals‟ creation of a supportive and caring environment to promote professional growth for his staff.

28%

12%

SA A

16%

44%

UN D SD

Figure 4.10 shows that twenty two (22) or forty four percent (44%) of the respondents Agreed that their principal created a supportive and caring environment to promote professional growth for his staff. Fourteen (14) or twenty eight percent (28 %) of the respondents Disagreed that their principals create a supportive and caring environment to promote professional growth for his staff. Eight (8) or sixteen percent (16 %) of the respondents were Undecided at the time, Six (6) or twelve percent (12 %) of the respondents Strongly Agreed that their principals create a supportive and caring environment to promote professional growth for his staff. There was no response for the Strongly Disagree item.

Based on the analysis of this particular question, it is evident that most principals are heading in the right direction. Nonetheless there is still room for improvement. Bennis (2003) conceded that principals must recognize and assume a shared responsibility not only for students‟ intellectual and educational development, but also for their teachers. Therefore, with most of the respondents yielding a positive 66

response towards their principals is really a step in the right direction. This kind of positive response will no doubt contribute to the organization‟s development and by extension to the improvement of students‟ achiev ement via better teachers performance.

Figure 4.11 shows shows the respondents‟ perception as it relates to how their principal communicates respect and courtesy for everyone by the manner in which he/ she deals with them, thus setting the norm for behaviour in the school.

SA

4%

20%

A

22%

UN D 54%

SD

Figure 4.11 shows that twenty seven (27) or fifty four percent (54 %) of the respondents Agreed that their principal communicates respect and courtesy for everyone by the manner in which he/ she deals with them, thus setting the norm for behaviour in the school. Eleven (11) or twenty two percent (22 %) of the respondents Disagreed that their principal communicates respect and courtesy for everyone by the manner in which he/ she deals with them, thus setting the norm for behaviour in the school. Ten (11) or twenty percent (20 %) of the respondents

67

Strongly Agreed that their principal communicates respect and courtesy for everyone by the manner in which he/ she deals with them, thus setting the norm for behaviour in the school. Two (2) or four percent (4 %) of the respondents Strongly Disagreed that their principal communicates respect and courtesy for everyone by the manner in which he/ she deals with them, thus setting the norm for behaviour in the school; where as there was no response for the Undecided item. The results show a high degree of positiveness from the respondents towards their principal‟s principal‟s leadership style in this regard, in fact, fact, when principals are found to be doing well in this area, it is said that they are on the right path towards improving behaviours that encourage excellence (Wallace 1996).

Figure 4.12 shows sh ows the respondents‟ perception as it relates to the relationship between school morale and motivation for performance.

SA

8%

A

12%

20%

60%

Un D SD

Figure 4.12 indicates that thirty (30) or sixty percent (60 %) of the respondents Strongly Agreed that there is a relationship between school morale and motivation for performance. Ten (10) or twenty percent (20 %) of the respondents Agreed

68

that there is relationship between school morale and motivation for performance. Six (6) or twelve percent (12 %) of the respondents were Undecided as to whether or not there is a relationship between school morale and motivation for performance. This may be as a result of a practice sustained by a number of  teachers who generally locked themselves away from the affairs of the school. Four (4) or eight percent (8 %) of the respondents Disagreed that there is a relationship between school morale and motivation for performance. There was no response for the item Strongly Disagree.

This question was used specially to sum up research question one. It is the view of  the researcher that if school morale is high, then there will be more motivation for better performance. However, while this particular question does not address the degree of morale in schools, it is relevant in that there is a relationship between school morale and motivation for performance.

According to White (1979) quoting Theodorson and Theodorson who defined morale as a commitment to group goals on the part of group members, confidence in the group‟s eventual attainment of these goals, a nd satisfaction with the group experience. High moral involves beliefs in the rightness and importance of goals of a group, willingness to work for these goals, and belief in their ultimate achievement.

69

Therefore, when morale is high in a school it is understandable that, the  principal‟s goals are compatible with the teachers‟ ideals and values and hence group members will feel satisfaction in working for these goals because they believe the group will succeed in attaining them.

Research Question 2: To what extent does the principal leadership style influence teachers motivation for improved / greater performance?

To find out out the extent to which principal‟s leadership style influence teachers‟ for  improved/greater performance. Questions 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 from the teachers‟ questionnaire were used to determine to what e xtent does the principal‟s leadership style influence teacher s‟ motivation for improved / greater performance

Figure 4.13 shows the respondents‟ perception as it relates to their principal supporting the idea of teachers‟ teachers ‟ furthering their education and directly encouraged them to do so.

70

16%

SA

10% 22%

A UN

52%

D SD

Figure 4.13 shows that twenty six (26) or fifty two percent (52 %) of the respondents Disagreed that their principal supported the idea of teachers furthering their education and directly encouraged them to do so. Eleven (11) or twenty two percent (22 %) of the respondents Agreed that their principal supported the idea of teachers furthering their education and directly encouraged them to do so. Eight (8) or sixteen percent (16 %) of the respondents Strongly Disagreed that their principal supported the idea of teachers furthering their education and directly encouraged them to do so, five (5) or ten percent (10 %) of  the respondents Strongly Agreed that their principal supported the idea of teachers furthering their education and directly encouraged them to do so, while there was no response for the Undecided item.

The researcher correlated figure 4.2, and figure 4.13 (figure 4.2 gives the details of the respondents qualifications) to find out if there is a relationship between what the respondents say and what their actual qualifications are. On close examination of figure 4.2 one will notice that more than seventy two percent 71

(72 %) of the respondents are Diploma trained. The researcher interprets this as the entry level qualification for this particular profession; in fact only twelve (12) or twenty four percent (24 %) of the respondents had Bachelor Degrees. This may be indicative of the aforementioned analysis. With all factors considered this result is highly negative towards the principals ‟ leadership styles. The matter is further compounded when one recognized that thirty nine (39) or seventy eight percent (78 %) of the respondents had over five years of experience in the profession.

Figure 4.14 shows the respondents perception o f their principal‟s awareness of his responsibilities as leader of the school.

SA

8% 12%

20%

A UN

60%

D SD

Figure 4.14 shows that thirty (30) or sixty percent (60 %) of the respondents Agreed that their principal is fully aware of his responsibilities as leader of the school. Ten (10) or twenty percent (20 %) of the respondents Strongly Agreed that their principal is fully aware of his responsibilities as leader of the school. Six

72

(6) or twelve percent (12 %) of the respondents Disagreed that their principal is fully aware of his responsibilities as leader of the school. Four (4) or eight percent (8 %) of the respondents Strongly Disagreed that their principal is fully aware of  his responsibilities as leader of the school. None of the respondents respond to the Undecided item.

Close analysis of these results showed that over seventy percent (75 %) of  respondents Agreed that their principal is fully aware of his responsibilities as leader of the school. While this question does not look directly at the effectiveness of the principal as leader of the school, the researcher found it relevant in that there is an alignment between what is perceived, expected and what is actually done by the principal as leader of the school. The importance of this cannot be overstated. As writers such as (Taylor and Tashakkori, 1997; Huffman & Jacobson, 2003) postulated p ostulated that the principal‟s leadership style is the best discriminator between high participation and low participation by teachers.

Figure 4.15 shows shows the respondents‟ perception of their principal‟s leadership style and whether or not it is universal to all his staff.

73

6% 12% 40%

42%

SA A UN D SD

Figure 4.15 indicates that twenty one (21) or forty two percent (42 %) of the leadership respondents Agreed that their principal‟s le adership style is universal to all his staff. Twenty (20) or forty percent (40 %) of the respondents Disagreed that their  principal‟s leadership style is universal to all his staff. Six (6) or twelve percent (12 %) of the respondents Strongly Agreed that t heir principal‟s leadership style is universal to all his staff. While three (3) or six percent (6 %) of the respondents Strongly Disagreed that their principal‟s leadership style is universal to all his staff. There was no response for the Undecided item.

Responses to this question revealed a problem that has plagued many organizations over the years. The analysis showed that fifty four percent (54 %) of  the respondents had a positive outlook o utlook that their principal‟s leadership style is universal to all his staff, almost contrasting to this figure is the remaining forty six percent (46 %) of the staff disagreei ng that their principal‟s style is universal to all his staff. The researcher is of the view that what really exists in these schools is a phenomenon that has plagued interpersonal relationships in many organizations and gets watered down in production (and in the case of schools  – teachers  – teachers

74

performance. Biases, let us face it, how many persons are going to extend themselves to their true potential if th ey perceive that they won‟t be recognized or  be appreciated for it? The matter gets worst when it is no longer a perception but a fact. The result is indicative of what many persons refer to as: different stokes for  different folks.

Figure 4.16 shows the respondents‟ perception concerning their principal‟s establishment of good interpersonal relations between his students, his staff and the community.

SA

10% 20%

A

20% UN 50%

D SD

Figure 4.16 shows that twenty five (25) or fifty percent (50 %) of the respondents Agreed that their principal established good interpersonal relations between his students, his staff and the community. Ten (10) or twenty percent (20 %) of the respondents Strongly Agreed that their principal established good interpersonal relations between his students, his staff and the community. Similarly ten (10) or twenty percent (20 %) of the respondents Disagreed that their principal

75

established good interpersonal relations between his students, his staff and the community. There was no response for the Undecided item.

This relatively high degree of positiveness from the respondents toward their principals is very important in that the researcher interprets this leadership style as one that is in the best interest of the school in general. Although these principals can do very little to change the socioeconomic status of parents, they have realized the effect of parents‟ involvement in students‟ learning and so work with  parents to facilitate their children‟s learning. Parents‟ involvement involvement may help to improve teacher performance in that they can provide voluntary assistance to teachers and school by participating in extra  – curricular  – curricular activities, assisting or encouraging children in homework assignments and meeting with teachers to discuss their children‟s child ren‟s welfare (Rutherford 1985) and (The Institute for Educational Leadership 2003).

Figure 4.17 shows shows the respondents‟ perception as it relates to whether or not their principal compromised the standards and safety of the school.

76

40%

30%

SA A

10%

20%

UN D SD

Figure 4.17 shows that twenty (20) or forty percent (40 %) of the respondents Strongly Agreed that their principal compromised the standards and safety of the school. Fifteen (15) or thirty percent (30 %) of the respondents Disagreed that their principal compromised the standards and safety of the school. Ten (10) or twenty percent (20 %) of the respondents were Undecided as to whether or not their principal compromised the standards and safety of the school. The researcher is of the view that the respondents who were Undecided took this stance because they believed that matters such as security and standards are portfolios of the Ministry of Education and not principals. None of the respondents respond to the Strongly Agree item. Another matter of concern coming from the analysis is the high degree of respondents who Agreed that their principals compromised the standards and safety of the school. According to Tranquilla (2005), principals that were most effective were the ones that were se nsitive to teachers‟ issues. Standards and safety safe ty are crucial teachers‟ issues, which should not b e treated lightly.

77

The researcher recalled going to a number of these schools to administer the questionnaires, on three occasions it was the time when the (Nutri  – Products)  – Products) truck were delivering Nutri-buns. The crowd of outsiders, their dress, appearance, language and general behaviour were appalling, for the fifteen minutes to half an hour these people were let loose on the school compound without any form of  supervision. This was compounded by the fact that incidence of violence against teachers by students and outsiders had risen in recent years (TVJ news, 2005).

Figure 4.18 shows the respondents ‟ perception as it relates to the question: My principal works cooperatively with his staff encouraging their participation in the decision making process to address school programmes.

SA 14%

16% A UN 28%

38%

D 4% SD

Figure 4.18 indicates that nineteen (19) or thirty eight percent (38 %) of the respondents Disagreed that their principal worked cooperatively with his staff  encouraging their participation in the decision making process to address school programmes, fourteen (14) or twenty eight percent (28 %) of the respondents Agreed that their principal worked cooperatively with his staff encouraging their participation in the decision making process to address school programmes. Eight

78

(8) or sixteen percent (16 %) of the respondents Strongly Agreed that their principal worked cooperatively with his staff encouraging their participation in the decision making process to address school programme. Seven (7) or fourteen percent (14 %) of the respondents Strongly Disagreed that their principal worked cooperatively with his staff encouraging their participation in the decision making process to address school programme. Two (2) or four percent (4 %) of the respondents were Undecided as to whether or not that their principal work  cooperatively with his staff encouraging their participation in the decision making process to address school programmes.

This result is very interesting, first of all, a majority with a difference of eight percent (8 %) Disagreed that their principal worked cooperatively with his staff  encouraging their participation in the decision making process to address school programme.

The researcher is of the view that some principals operate with their teachers on a need to know basis, and with that thinking they make decisions and take actions without consulting with the teachers. It is believed that after senior staff meetings a filtered version is given to the rest of the staff. The researcher recalled a conversation with a particular teacher who expressed her disapproval of her “he just surprised all principal‟s principal ‟s leadership style: she remarked that her principal, “he

79

of us when he got up and said that he is going to give the vacant position to a particular teacher. Just like that in a staff meeting. ” When the principal was “we should approached about his uncollaborative behaviour, the principal said , “we live and let others live”, live ”, and that was the end of it. it. if that was not enough writers such as Dr. Thompson (2006), board member of both the National Council on Education and the Early Childhood Commission. Spoke about „More power for   principals‟. Dr. Thompson is pushing for more autonomy for principals  – akin  – akin to a corporate executive –  executive  – to to discipline teaching staff for lax performance in the classroom.

Such behaviour does not motivate or encourage better performance. What it does, is that it creates resentment. James –  James  – Reid Reid (1982), an expert in the Educational system, sum this up well, she postulated. “The Jamaican School principal ex erts his legal authority as leader of the school, but the extent to which the goals of the school are achieved is to some degree dependent on his leadership and his personal characteristic - she continued; even though his leadership may not be challenged; he may face strong resentment from staff members which will eventually make his administrative performance become ineffective, and that is  just the beginning of failure for the school.

80

Figure 4.19 shows shows the respondents‟ perception of their principal as it relates to whether or not he or she explored opportunities to improve his teachers‟ performance . 10% 50%

SA

10% 30%

A UN D SD

Figure 4.19 indicates that twenty five (25) or fifty percent (50 %) of the respondents Disagreed that their principal explored opportunities to improve his teachers‟ performance. Fifteen (15) or thirty percent (30 %) of the respondents Agreed that their principal explored opportunities to improve his teachers‟ performance. Five (5) or ten percent (10 %) of the respondents Strongly Agreed that their principal explored opportunities to impr ove his teachers‟ performance. Similarly the same number Strongly Disagreed that their principal explored opportunities to improve his teachers‟ performance. None None of the respondents respond to the Undecided item.

The analysis of the results does not say well for the principals, since over fifty percent (50 %) of the respondents responded negatively towards their principal‟s leadership style as it relates to the extent to which the principal seek to improve teachers‟ teacher s‟ performance. Many writers have written extensively on how principals ought to behave. For example, in a survey of teachers done by Blase, Jo; Blase, Joseph (1999), the teachers revealed that principals who want to promote

81

classroom instruction and better teacher performance must talk openly and freely with teachers about teaching and learning, provide time and encourage peer connections for teachers, empower teachers, embrace the challenge of teachers' professional development, and lead and motivate teachers. The Jamaican Ministry of Education and Youth have and continued to make great strides in making the necessary necessary preparation to improve teachers‟ performance in the classroom. Numerous workshops and seminars have been arranged for teachers to improve their skills, so that students‟ achievement can be maximized.

Bennis (2003), points out that principals must recognize and assume a shared responsibility not only for students‟ intellectual and educational development, but also for their teachers. They must know academic content and pedagogical techniques so that they can work with their teachers to strengthen their skills if  needs be.

Summary and response to principals’ Interview

Interview questions 1, 2, and 3 dealt with the biographical data of the principal. These are analyzed and interpreted on figure 4.1 to 4.3, the remaining interview questions will seek to answer research question 3. Research Question 3: What can principals do to improve teachers’ performance?

82

To find out what principals can do to improve their teachers‟ performance. Interview questions 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 8 , and 9 from the principals‟ interview interview schedule were used to determine the degree as to whether or not principal‟s leadership style influences teachers‟ performance.

The responses from the eight principals were very similar.

Interview question 4. What strategies do you have in place for teachers who you find to be performing poorly?

The principals spoke of a) monitoring programmes, b) demonstration lessons in the form of workshops and staff development in addition to frequent evaluations to give feedback.

Interview question 5. How do you boost teachers’ morale?

The principals spoke of boosting teachers‟ morale through enco uragement, praise, and public recognition in the form of awards; a number of principals were very vocal on the matter. They said that teachers are more satisfied when they experience a sense of recognition; they feel good about their work - a sense of   – fulfillment which in turn acts as a strong motivator for personal worth and self  – fulfillment even better performance. Some principals emphasized the need to have an on going incentive programme in place because often times, the feelings of teachers are taken lightly.Interview question 6 . What is your belief on cooperation among principals and their teachers?

83

The principals‟ responses responses to this question were almost theoretical. They said that it is very important as principals need the cooperation and support of the teachers to carry out the vision and mission of the school in an effective manner.

Interview question 7. Do you allow your teachers to be active participants in the decision making process of school programme?

All the principals agreed that they allowed their teachers to be active participants ing process of schools‟. Some principals mentioned that in the decision mak ing teachers should understand their individual position as a staff member. They said this to emphasize that some decisions have to be made at different levels with the staff and it was not a matter of excluding some teachers. Others talked about the ills of excluding teachers from the decision making that affect the entire school. They said that if teachers help to formulate the policies they tend to be more willing to see and ensure that they materialized and are successful, they would not allow them to fail. However, some times, if they are not a part of the decision making they may put up passive resistance; which will lead to failure for the whole school.

Interview question 8. Do you think that your teachers would perform better if  they were more pleased with your leadership style?

The principals were very pensive when this question was asked. They all agreed and disagreed to some extent that their leadership styles may or may not be to the liking of all the teachers, but they unanimously argued that there

84

are many other factors that may cause teachers to perform poorly and most times these factors are caused by situations that are beyond the control of the principals. For example, the matter of salary, inflation, the physical appearance of the classroom and school, security at school and in recent times high levels of  indiscipline and even violence against them from students. Other factors may cause the teachers to perform poorly and thus affect students‟ achievement.

Interview question 9. Is it a policy of yours to concern yourself about your teachers’ social development beyond the classroom?

One particular principal said that this was something that she was looking into as a way to be more connected with her teachers. The principals who were in the system for a long period of time said that this gesture is good when the teachers are reciprocal, but in reality most times teachers are not too receptive of this and found it to be inquisitive. Another principal asserted that, many of our teachers are socially better off than us principals even though we are the principals and supposedly get a bigger salary. Another principal in expressing her reluctance in getting involved in teachers‟ social development remarked that it is not that teachers‟ social development is not important or that it does not concern her. However, past experience had led her to believe that teachers are sometimes skeptical about the motive of such concerns and very often one  principal‟s misfortune is generalized so well that it paints a dismal picture of all principals who attempted to concern themselves them selves about teachers‟ social development.

85

Summary After the data were collected from the questionnaires and interview schedules about “The relationship between principal‟s leadership style and its effect on teachers‟ performance.” The data were analyzed anal yzed and the results revealed that teachers depend to a great extent on the advice and support provided by their principals. The study also confirmed that teachers are more satisfied with principals whose leadership is one that allow principals to make themselves available to assist in the instruction and professionalism of his students and teachers for better performance on a whole.

The researcher is of the opinion that all the principals and teachers in all the schools in Jamaica should be exposed to the full participatory form of leadership style which is essentially democratic, especially those principals and teachers in rural schools in Jamaica.

86

CHAPTER FIVE SUMMARY, IMPLICATION AND RECOMMENDATION

The chapter of summarizations and conclusions looks backward and also forward through consideration of applications, recommendations and needed research (Good, 1972)

The writer now attempts to present an over view of the research unde rtaken in order to determine “The relationship between principal‟s principal‟s leadership style and its effect on teachers performance.” The sample con sisted of fifty eight respondents. Fifty (50) teachers and eight (8) principals from eight (8) schools in West Portland: three Primary Schools, three All Age schools, and two High Schools.

The data gathered attempted to answer the following research questions: 1. Do principals‟ leadership styles influence teachers‟ p erformance? 2. To what extent does the principal leadership style influence teacher motivation for improved / greater performance? 3. What can principals do to improve teacher performance?

87

Findings The main findings are as follows: 1. The study confirmed what writers such as Espinosa (1976), James –  James  – Reid Reid (1982) and Doggett (1987) were in fact saying that principal ‟s leadership style actually influenced teachers‟ performance. The study showed that o ver ninety  percent (90 %) of the teachers agreed that their principal‟s leadership style actually influenced their performance.

2. A majority of fifty two percent (52 %) of the teachers are being led by their principals who employed a mixture of each leadership style in their daily routine. While an overwhelming majority of seventy percent (70 %) of the teachers chose the democratic leadership style because of the wide range of  benefits it offers, such as: teachers who are led by a principal who employ the democratic style of leadership are allowed to share their ideas and opinions, take part in the decision process and are motivated by rewards for achieving goals.

3.

Eighty percent (80 %) of the teachers agreed that their principal communicated high expectations for the performance of students and staff. Despite the fact that seventy four percent (74 %) of the teachers disagreed that their principal created an environment that optimizes learning for teachers and students.

88

4.

Fifty eight percent (58 %) of the teachers disagreed that their principal demonstrated careful supervision of teachers to improve the quality of  instruction. This is further compounded by the fact that sixty percent (60 %) of the teachers disagreed that their principal explored opportunities to improve his teachers‟ performance.

5.

Eighty percent (80 %) of the teachers agreed that there is a relationship between school morale and motivation for performance.

6.

Seventy four percent (74 %) of the teachers‟ agreed that their principal communicated respect and courtesy for everyone by the manner in which he/she deals with them, thus setting a norm for behaviour in the school. This contrasted significantly to the fifty four percent (54 %) of the teachers who disagreed that their principal‟s principal ‟s leadership style is universal to all his staff.

7.

Sixty eight percent (68 %) of the teachers disagreed that their principal supported the idea of them furthering their education and directly encouraged them to do so. This is indicative of the fact that more than seventy two percent (72 %) of the teachers only have a Diploma in Education with more than five years in the profession.

8.

Seventy percent (70 %) of the teachers agreed that their principal tries to establish good interpersonal relations between his students, his staff and the

89

community. Yet fifty two percent (52 %) of the teachers disagreed that their principal worked cooperatively with his staff encouraging their participation in the decision making process to address school programmes.

9.

Sixty percent (60 %) of the teachers agree that their principal compromises the standards and safety of the school.

b esides principal‟s leadership 10. The study study revealed that there are other factors besides style that may contribute to teachers‟ performance such as the matter of  salary, inflation, the physical appearance of the classroom and school, security at school and in recent times high levels of indiscipline and even violence against teachers from students.

Implications The results of the study based on the responses from the respondents on the questionnaires and interviews showed that teachers‟ performance is highly dependent on the qualitative value of the relationship between principal‟s leadership and its effect on the teachers, Also important to their performance are the other variables that affect their job satisfaction such as classroom ambiance and school morale. If these are not in place then the consequences will reflect in

90

their work. Students will not get the level of teaching and instruction that a satisfied teacher would give.

It is very essential for parents to recognize their role in the education of their children. Parents can help both the principals and teachers in order to make their children achieve more academically. They can offer assistance in the following areas and more according to their abilities: extra curricular activities act as Teachers‟ Aid and wor k in the canteen. The fact is when parents and the community support school the teachers tend to demonstrate a higher level of  performance. Students will benefit greatly from this both academically and socially. The principals too will find their job more meaningful in that they will not think that they are alone in operating the school programme. When the principal, teachers and parents are in unison the school morale will be high, this will allow very little room for selfish-gratification which can sometimes be detrimental to students and the school on a whole.

While it is important for principals to communicate high expectations for the performance of students and staff; it is even more important that principals create an environment that optimizes learning for the teachers and students. The implication of this is that teachers and even students thrive on reciprocity.

91

Therefore, the principal is to facilitate the creation of a school ethos that everyone can be proud of.

Principals should recognize that teachers who are satisfied add value to their  performance which will result in better students‟ academic achievement. Wh en teachers are empowered they also empower their students. Principals‟ should recognize the need to empower and motivate their teachers in a way that the teachers appreciate the urge to improve themselves both academically and professionally in order to help in boosting their performance and enhance students‟ academic achievement. This should not be taken lightly as Maslow hypothesized that motivational needs at the higher levels promote behaviour that is more important to the organization and vice versa. Therefore teachers will reflect the behaviour and attitudes that they have acclimatized.

Recommendations

The following recommendations were made:

1.

Principals and teachers should recognize the need for a good balance in their relationship to meet the needs of the school.

92

2.

Principals should employ the participatory participator y style of leadership which is essentially democratic; teachers are more appreciative of this and tend to perform better under such leadership.

3.

Principals should use suggestions that they have been given to help improve teachers‟ performance and stop viewing them as id eals.

4.

The relevant stake holders and other relevant authorities need to take the matter of school security and safety seriously and do something about it in order to restrain what appears to be a trend in school violence.

5.

The school should recognize the vast resource and skills that parents and the community at large have and use them to the benefit of the school; this will be an advantage to the community as well.

6.

Recognize that good education for all cannot take place in a state of  inadequacy. The payment of salaries for teachers and principals that are comparative to current inflation rates. The development of proper infrastructures that are well equip to meet the needs of the students.

93

Conclusion

The researcher is of the view that if schools are to be transformed into the learning communities that the Jamaican Ministry of Education and Youth envisaged, then the relationships between principal and teachers have to be based on the democratic style of leadership. It is the researcher‟s fervent view that th e democratic style of leadership is the best style of leadership where principal and teachers are concerned because of its numerous benefits, some of which are outlined in the review of literature.

The results that were gathered and analyzed in this study concurred with the views of numerous writers such as Espinosa (1976), James  – Reid  – Reid (1982) and Doggett (1987) (1987) that principal‟s leadership style profoundly affects teachers‟ performance. Therefore, it is in the interest of the principal and teachers to support and employ a collaborative approach in their relations to ensure that the schools‟ programmes and students are not incapacitated. This is even more relevant when one examines some of the compelling implications that may occur if this is not done: such as the degree to which students‟ instructions for academic achievements will be catered for by teachers

94

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1.

Achilles, C. M., and William J. Price. (2001) "What Is Missing in the Current Debate About Education Administration (EDAD) Standards!" http://www.aasa.org/publications/tap/Winter_2001.pdf 

2.

Anglin-Hyman, Rhona. (2000). Education &Society- An Introduction. Kingston Publishers Limited, Kingston, Jamaica

3.

Beairsto, B (1999). Learning to Balance Bureaucracy and Community as an Educational Administrator. In B. Beairsto and P. Ruohotie (Eds.), The education of educators: enabling professional growth for teachers and administrators. Tampere, Finland: University of Tampere.

4.

Deal, Terrence E. (1993) "The Culture of Schools." In Educational Leadership and School Culture, McCutchan Publishing Berkeley,

California; USA.

95

5.

Department of Education. (2002). A quality learning agenda policy statement on K-12: Quality schools, high results. Fredericton: Province

of New Brunswick.

6.

Gay, L. R. (1996). Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis th

and Application 5 Edition. Prentice Hall, Inc. Simon and Schuster

Company Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458.

7.

th

Gross, Richard. (2005). The Science of mind and behaviour 4 Edition. British Library Cataloging in Publication dated in.

8.

Hogan, R.; R. Raskin; and D. Fazzini. (1990). "The Dark Side of  Charisma." In Measures of Leadership, 343-54 New Jersey: Leadership

Library of America, Inc.

9.

Hoy, K. Wayne and Miskel, G. Cecil. (1982) Educational nd

Administration: Theory, Research, and Practice 2

Edition. Random

th

House Inc., 201 East 50 Street, New York, N.Y. 10022

96

10.

L. S. Vygotsky. (1978). Mind in Society : The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University press.

11.

Matalon, A. Barbara. Bastick, Tony (2004) Research: new and practical approaches. Stevenson‟s Lithographers, Kingston, Jamaica.

12.

nd

Morgan, T Clifford. (1977) Introduction to General Psychology. 2 Edition., McGraw –  McGraw – Hill, Hill, New York.

13.

Reid- James, Olga. (2000). Theory and application in Educational Administration, Faculty of Arts and Education, The university of The

West Indies, Bridgetown, Barbados

14.

Reid-James, Olga. (1991). Teaching: Its Management and Functions. Kingston Publishers Limited, Kingston, Jamaica.

15.

Skinner, B.F. (1938). The Behaviour of Organism: An Experimental Analysis. New York: Appleton- Century Crofts.

97

16.

Thompson. Ralph. (2004). “Education on the ropes.” The Jamaica Observer. Kingston, Jamaica.

17.

Tufton, Dr. (2003). “Low CXC grades expose struggling Education Sector.” The Jamaica Observer. Kingston, Jamaica

18.

Weaver, L. Richard., Sandra Hybels. (2004). Communication Effectively th

6 Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill.

19.

White, Adlyn. (1979) Placement, Intern Supervision, School and Intern Characteristics in Relation to Morale and Achievement. University of 

the West Indies Mona, Jamaica.

20

Bennis, Warren, Parikh, Jagdish and Lessem, Ronnie (2003), Beyond Leadership: Balancing Economics, Ethics and Ecology

21

ttp//: www. Leadership and schools @ Yahoo. Com.

98

QUESTIONNAIRE ON TEACHER‟S PERCEPTION OF THEIR PRINCIPAL‟S LEADERSHIP STYLE AND ITS EFFECT ON TEACHER PERFORMANCE. CONFIDENTIAL

Dear Teachers:

This questionnaire is designed to solicit your response as it relates to: “The relationship between principal‟s leadership style and its effect on teacher  with the managerial running performance.” performance. ” Principal‟s leadership style has to do with of the school and the influence and inspiration of his staff and students to collectively ensure excellence for all concerned. There is no right or wrong answer. It is a matter of how you feel. We therefore expect you to be very frank  and truthful in expressing your feelings. The information you give is necessary to guide administration in setting up programmes helpful to teachers. Therefore, if  you feel one way, and give your opinion in another direction, you will misguide administrators and you will not be of assistance to future teachers.

So please be frank. This questionnaire is completely confidential, and no else will know of your views, opinions, and feelings. Do not give your names. The information is for research only, and nothing will be communicated to any other person. Thanks for your help. Frank Peart, (Student) International University of the Caribbean.

99

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ANSWERING TEACHERS QUESTIONNAIRE

Below are twenty (20) questionnaire items. Items one (1) and two (2) are biographical data. Your name is not required and your responses will be treated with strict confidence. The remaining eighteen (18) items directly relate to the research topic: “The relationship between principal‟s leadership style and its its effect on teachers performance.”

Please follow the instructions carefully.

Items one (1) to five (5) require you to place a tick

on the line of the category category

or range that suits you best. Item six (6) requires you to make your own decision.  – point Items seven (7) to twenty (20) are on the five point Likert Scale. The 5  – point Likert scale is an instrument that asks an individual to respond to a series of  statements or questions by indicating whether she or he Strongly Agrees (SA), Agree (A), is Undecided (UN), Disagree (D), or Strongly Disagree (SD) with each statement.

If you Strongly Agree to the question or statement please place a tick

under SA;

if you Agree place a tick under A; if you are Undecided place a tick under UN; if  you Disagree, place a tick under D; and if you Strongly Disagree place a tick  under SD.

100

Sample

Teachers’ questionnaire questionnaire

1. What is your gender? _____Male_____Female  – 25) 2. In which age group do you belong? ___ (18  – 25) ___ (26 –  (26 – 33) 33) ___ (34 –  (34  – 42) 42) ___ (43 and above). 3. How many years of experience do you have? __ (1-5) __ (6-10) __ (11-15) ___ (16 and above). 4. What is your academic qualification? ____ (Pre-Trained) ___ (Diploma trained) ____ (Bachelors-Degree). 5. What leadership style does your principal use in his /her daily routine? ____ (Authoritarian) ____ (Democratic) _____ (Laissez-faire) (Laissez-fair e)

____ (Dictator)

_____ (A mixture of each). 6. What leadership style employed by your principal you feel will motivate you to perform to the best of your ability? _______________

101

Strongly Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly Agree Disagree 5 – Point Likert Scale

SA

A

UN

D

SD

5

4

3

2

1

7. My principal‟ leadership style infl uences my teaching performance. 8. My principal communicates c ommunicates high expectations for the performance of students and staff. 9. My principal creates an environment that optimizes learning for teachers and students. 10. My principal principal demonstrates demonstrates close close supervision of teachers to improve the quality of instruction. 11. My principal creates a supportive and caring environment to promote professional growth for staff. 12. My principal communicates respect and courtesy for everyone by the manner in which he deals with them, thus setting a norm for behaviour in the school. 13. There is a relationship between school morale and motivation for performance. 14. My principal supports the idea of  furthering my education education and directly encourages me to do so 15. My principal is fully aware of his responsibilities as leader of the school 16. My principal principal leadership leadership style is is universal to all his staff  17. My principal tries to establish good interpersonal relations between his students, his staff and the community. 18. My principal compromises the standards and safety of the school. 19. My principal works cooperatively with his staff encouraging their participation in the decision making process to address school programmes. 20. My principal explores opportunities to improve his teachers‟ performance.

102

Sample

Principals’ Interview Schedule

1.

Which of the following age group do you belong? ___ (18  – 25)  – 25) ___ (26 –  (26 –  33) ___ (34 –  (34 – 42) 42) ___ (43 and above)

2.

Which of the following range do you belong in terms of teaching experience? ___ (1 –  (1  – 5) 5) ___ (6 –  (6 – 10) 10) ___ (11 –  (11 – 15) 15) ___ (16 and above).

3.

What may I ask is you academic qualification?

4.

What strategies do you have in place for teachers who you find performing poorly?

5.

How do you boost teachers‟ morale?

6.

What is your belief on cooperation among principals and their teachers?

7.

Do you allow your teachers to be active participants in the decision making process of school programme?

8.

Do you think that your teachers would perform better if the were more pleased with your leadership style?

9.

Is it a policy of yours to concern yourself about teachers‟ social development beyond the classroom?

103

Sample Letter to Principal.

Frank Peart 16 Halls Avenue Port Antonio Portland P.O., January 27, 2006 The Principal Hope Bay All Age School Hope Bay P.O., Portland

Dear Principal, I am a final year student at the International University of the Caribbean. As a part of the requirement for the Bachelor of Guidance and counseling Degree programme. I am currently conducting a research to investigate: The relationship  between principal‟s leadership style and its effect on teacher performance.

I am asking your permission to conduct this research at this institution from some teachers who can provide the necessary information of the topic under investigation. The information received is going to be used for the research only. With thanks.

Yours truly, ……………. Frank Peart.

104

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1.

Achilles, C. M., and William J. Price. (2001) "What Is Missing in the Current Debate About Education Administration Administration (EDAD) Standards!" http://www.aasa.org/publications/tap/Winter_2001.pdf 

2.

SOCIETY- An Anglin-Hyman, Rhona. (2000). EDUCATION & SOCIETYIntroduction. Kingston Publishers Limited, Kingston, Jamaica

3.

Beairsto, B (1999). Learning to balance bureaucracy and community as an educational administrator. In B. Beairsto and P. Ruohotie (Eds.), The education of educators: enabling professional growth for teachers and administrators. Tampere, Finland: University of Tampere.

4.

Deal, Terrence E. (1993) "The Culture of Schools." In Educational Leadership and School Culture, McCutchan Publishing Berkeley,

California; USA.

105

5.

Department of Education. (2002). A quality learning agenda policy statement on K-12: Quality schools, high results. Fredericton: Province

of New Brunswick.

6.

Gay, L. R. (1996). Educational Research: Competencies for analysis th

and application 5 Edition. Prentice Hall, Inc. Simon and Schuster

Company Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458.

7.

th

Gross, Richard. (2005). The Science of mind and behaviour 4 Edition. British Library Cataloging in Publication dated in.

8.

Hogan, R.; R. Raskin; and D. Fazzini. (1990). "The Dark Side of  Charisma." In Measures of Leadership, 343-54 New Jersey: Leadership

Library of America, Inc.

9.

Hoy, K. Wayne and Miskel, G. Cecil. (1982) Educational nd

Administration: Theory, Research, and Practice 2

Edition. Random

th

House Inc., 201 East 50 Street, New York, N.Y. 10022

106

L. S. Vygotsky. (1978). Mind in Society : The development of higher

10.

Psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University press.

11.

Matalon, A. Barbara. Bastick, Tony (2004) Research: new and practical Lithographers, Kingston, Jamaica. approaches. Stevenson‟s Lithographers,

12.

Morgan, T Clifford. (1977) Introduction to General Psychology. nd

2

13.

McGraw – Hill, Hill, New York. Edition., McGraw – 

Reid- James, Olga. (2000). Theory and application in Educational Administration, Faculty of Arts and Education, The university of The

West Indies, Bridgetown, Barbados

14.

Reid-James, Olga. (1991). TEACHING: ITS MANAGEMENT AND FUNCTIONS. Kingston Publishers Limited, Kingston, Jamaica.

15.

Skinner, B.F. (1938). The behaviour of organism: An experimental analysis. New York: Appleton- Century Crofts.

107

16.

Thompson. Ralph. (2004). “Education on the ropes.” The Jamaica Observer. Kingston, Jamaica.

17.

Tufton, Dr. (2003). “Low CXC grades expose struggling Education Sector.” The Jamaica Observer. Kingston, Jamaica

18.

Weaver, L. Richard., Sandra Hybels. (2004). Communication Effectively th

6 Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill.

19.

White, Adlyn. (1979) Placement, Intern Supervision, School and Intern Characteristics in Relation to Morale and Achievement. University of 

the West Indies Mona, Jamaica.

20.

http//: www. Leadership and schools @ Yahoo. Com.

108