University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The relationship between ethnicity, self-efficacy, and beliefs about diversity to instructional and transformational leadership practices of urban school principals

(USC Thesis Other)

The relationship between ethnicity, self-efficacy, and beliefs about diversity to instructional and transformational leadership practices of urban school principals

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS i

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ETHNICITY, SELF-EFFICACY, AND BELIEFS ABOUT
DIVERSITY TO INSTRUCTIONAL AND TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP
PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS

by

James R. Marín
_________________________________________________________________________

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

December 2013

Copyright 2013 James R. Marín
LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to take the opportunity to thank many individuals who have helped me make
this dissertation possible. First and foremost, I would like to thank my chair, Dr. Ruth Chung,
who served as my advisor for the past year-and-a-half. Her expertise, patience, and guidance
helped me successfully navigate the dissertation process. I would also like to thank my other
committee members, Dr. Rudy Crew and Dr. Sylvia Rousseau for pushing me intellectually and
spiritually as a school leader. Your experiences as principals and superintendents have greatly
shaped my thinking and illuminated my fire to challenge systems of educational inequity. It is
my desire to follow the footprints of leadership you have both left behind. I’m also grateful for
the support of Dr. Maryann Wu for providing me valuable feedback throughout the dissertation
process and to Dr. Yuying Tsong for her technical assistance in the dissertation process.
Words cannot express the gratitude and deepest appreciation that I have for my mother
(Sylvia Rojas), father (Jimmy Marín), and brother (Jason Marín). My mother’s emotional
support gave me the strength to keep moving forward; especially when my work as an urban
school principal became difficult to balance with the dissertation process. My father’s
mentorship as a former principal provided me with guidance and support in understanding my
role as an educational leadership and helped me continuously think through how my work as a
school leader is making a difference. My brother’s daily and weekly phone calls reminded me of
my obligation to finish what I start!
I further want to thank Juan C. Dominguez for unconditional love, encouragement and
patience on a daily basis. You pushed me, motivated me and helped me stay standing when I felt
like falling. I couldn’t have completed my dissertation without you. I further want to thank my
best friend Claudia Rojas for always believing in me; especially on my most challenging days!
LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS iii

Lastly, I want to thank my grandmother, Dolores Rojas, for giving up everything to come to the
United States and showing me that anything is possible with hard work and belief in oneself!

LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements ii
List of Tables vii
Abstract viii
Chapter I: Introduction 1
Background of the Study 4
Instructional Leadership 4
Historical Context 4
Description of Instructional Leadership 4
Instructional Leadership and Transactional Leadership 5
Dimensions of Instructional Leadership 6
Defining the School Mission 8
Manages the instructional Program 9
Promotes a Positive School Climate 11
Transformational Leadership 12
Description of Transformational Leadership 12
Background of Transformational Leadership Theory 13
Bass’ Transformational Leadership Theory 14
Individualized Influence (Charisma) 15
Inspirational Motivation 15
Intellectual Stimulation 16
Individualized Consideration 16
Empirical Studies Measuring Transformational Leadership 16
Importance of the Study 19
Purpose of the Study 20
Research Questions 20
Organization of the Study 21

Chapter II: Literature Review 22
Sources of Self-Efficacy 23
Enactive Mastery 23
Vicarious Experiences 25
Verbal Persuasion 27
Physiological and Emotional States 28
Effects of Self-Efficacy 29
Choice Behavior 29
Effort and Persistence 30
Thought Patterns and Emotional Reactions 30
Self-Efficacy Studies Related to Principal Leadership 31
Beliefs, Attitudes and Values Towards Diversity 36
Sue’s Model of Personal Identity 38
Optimal Theory Applied to Identity Development (OTAID) 42
Six Phases of OTAID 44
Phase 0: Absence of Conscious Awareness 44
Phase 1: Individuation 44
Phase 2: Dissonance 45
LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS v

Phase 3: Immersion 45
Phase 4: Internalization 45
Phase 5: Integration 46
Phase 6: Transformation 47
Studies Measuring Principal Beliefs towards Diversity 47
Summary 50
Purpose of the Study 52
Research Questions 52
Research Question 1 52
Hypothesis 1a 52
Research Question 2 53
Hypothesis 2a 53
Research Question 3 53
Hypothesis 3a 53

Chapter III: Methodology 54
Participants 54
Instruments 55
Instructional Leadership 56
Transformational Leadership 57
Self-Efficacy 58
Beliefs, Attitudes and Values Towards Diversity 59
Procedure 59

Chapter IV: Results 61
Preliminary Analyses 61
Intercorrelations 61
Analyses of Research Questions 63
Research Question 1 63
Instructional Leadership Practices 64
Transformational Leadership Practices 64
Research Question 2 65
Research Question 3 66
Post-Hoc Analyses 67
Post-Hoc Question 1 68
Post-Hoc Question 2 69
Post-Hoc Question 3 70

Chapter V: Discussion 71
Discussion of Results 71
Relationship Between Professional Self-Efficacy and 71
Instructional and Transformational Leadership
Relationship Between Professional Beliefs about Diversity and 74
Instructional and Transformational Leadership
Relationship Between Racial/Ethnic Groups and Instructional 76
and Transformational Leadership
LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS vi

Additional Findings 76
Implications 77
Limitations of Study 81
Future Directions 82
Conclusion 83

References 85

Appendices
Appendix A: Information Sheet for Non-medical Research 91
Appendix B: Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale 93
Appendix C: Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) 97
Appendix D: Principal Self-Efficacy Survey 100
Appendix E: Personal Beliefs About Diversity Scale 103

LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS vii

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: 4
th
Grade NAEP Reading Scores 2
Table 2: 8
th
Grade NAEP Reading Scores 2
Table 3: Dimensions of Instructional Management 7
Table 4: Empirical Studies Measuring Self-Efficacy and Principal Leadership 31
Table 5: Tripartite Development of Personal Identity 38
Table 6: Components of Cultural Competence 41
Table 7: Demographic Characteristics of Sampled Principals 55
Table 8: Description of Subsections of PIMRS 56

Table 9: Means, Standard Deviations, and Zero-order Pearson Product 62
Correlations

Table 10: Summary of Simultaneous Regression Analysis for Self-Efficacy 64
and Instructional and Transformational Leadership

Table 11: Summary of Simultaneous Regression Analysis for Beliefs, 66
Attitudes, and Values toward Diversity and Instructional and
Transformational Leadership Practices

Table 12: Multivariate and Univariate Analysis of Variance for Instructional 67
and Transformational Leadership Practices with Significant Post Hoc
Tests by Race

Table 13: Means and Standard Deviations of Instructional and Transformational 67
Leadership by Race/Ethnicity

Table 14: Multivariate and Univariate Analysis of Variance for Instructional 68
and Transformational Leadership Practices

Table 15: Means and Standard Deviations of Instructional and Transformational 69
Leadership by School Type

Table 16: Multivariate and Univariate Analysis of Variance for Professional 70
Self-Efficacy

Table 17: Means and Standard Deviations for Professional Self-Efficacy 70

LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS viii

Abstract

This study seeks to contribute to the literature on instructional and transformational
leadership among urban school principals by investigating the relationship between instructional
and transformational leadership on the one hand, and professional self-efficacy (comprised of
both skills and practices) and professional beliefs and attitudes towards diversity, on the other.
The purpose of this study was to determine whether self-efficacy and beliefs and attitudes
towards diversity predict whether urban school principals exercise instructional and/or
transformational leadership. This study also sought to determine whether ethic/racial differences
occurred among principals exercising instructional and/or transformational leadership. Data was
collected from 139 urban school principals in Southern California who completed an online
survey consisting of queries for demographic information as well as questions from the Principal
Instructional Management Rating Scale, the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, the Principal
Self-Efficacy Survey, and the Professional Beliefs About Diversity Scale.
Multiple regression analyses revealed a positive relationship between professional self-
efficacy (skills and practices) and professional beliefs and attitudes towards diversity with the
frequency in which urban school principals engaged in instructional and transformational
leadership practices. The study also found that White urban school principals reported more
frequent use of instructional leadership practices than their African-American counterparts. No
significant ethnic/racial differences among principals occurred in the area of transformational
leadership. Interestingly, the study found that urban charter school principals had a higher level
of professional self-efficacy and positive belief towards diversity than traditional district
principals. Lastly, implications and directions for future research are discussed.
LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 1

CHAPTER I
Introduction
In 2001, President George W. Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)
overwhelmingly passed by both houses of Congress. The law was intended to raise the quality
of education received by the nation’s children, particularly low-income students of color in urban
schools, by holding principals and other school leaders accountable for achieving results. Under
NCLB legislation, school principals are responsible for: 1) ensuring all students receive a quality
state standards-based curriculum measured by state standards tests; 2) ensuring all teachers are
“highly qualified” to teach content and grade level curriculum ; and 3) ensuring all students meet
academic growth targets in English and Math as measured by federal “Annual Yearly Progress”
(AYP) goals. Schools not meeting federal AYP goals were subject to sanctions that could
ultimately end in school restructuring or even school closure.
Sadly, not much has changed since the adoption of NCLB. In March 2011, Secretary of
Education, Arne Duncan, stated that close to 80 percent of schools in the country are on track not
to meet federal proficiency targets in reading and math (Armario, 2011). Rather than issuing
federal sanctions, Secretary Duncan has advocated for Congress to revamp key accountability
measures and provide states with waivers so that states create their own accountability
benchmarks as long as they continue receiving federal funds to implement federal common core
standards and participate in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) testing.
NAEP, a congressionally mandated assessment of the nation’s children in reading and math in
the 4
th
and 8
th
grade level has revealed little progress from 2002 to 2011 in reading scores
disaggregated by race / ethnicity as indicated in Table 1 and Table 2.

LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 2

Table 1 - 4
th
Grade NAEP Reading Scores
2002 NAEP 4
th
Grade Reading Scores 2011 NAEP 4
th
Grade Reading Scores
Ethnicity Proficient
or
Advanced
Basic Below Basic Ethnicity Proficient
or
Advanced
Basic Below
Basic
White 51% 75% 25% White 55% 78% 22%
Black 14% 40% 60% Black 19% 49% 51%
Latino 17% 44% 56% Latino 21% 51% 49%

Table 2 - 8
th
Grade NAEP Reading Scores
2002 NAEP 8
th
Grade Reading Scores 2011 NAEP 8
th
Grade Reading Scores
Ethnicity Proficient
or
Advanced
Basic Below Basic Ethnicity Proficient
or
Advanced
Basic Below
Basic
White 45% 84% 16% White 48% 85% 15%
Black 14% 55% 45% Black 16% 59% 41%
Latino 16% 57% 43% Latino 20% 64% 36%

These results demonstrate how chronic and severe the racial and ethnic achievement gap
continues to be. Moreover, these results seem to suggest a lack of national urgency to do
anything about closing the racial and ethnic achievement gap; especially in light of Secretary
Duncan’s position to provide states NCLB waivers as long as they adopt federal common core
standards and continue participating in NAEP testing.
Though NCLB has not realized its intent to move schools to higher proficiency rates in
reading and math, it has intensified educational accountability across the country for educating
all students and placed higher expectations for school leaders to create effective schools;
especially in urban schools historically marked by low student academic achievement among
racial and ethnic minorities (Zastrow, C.V., 2006). In the context of schools, strong leadership
meant strong principals; and strong principals meant effective schools (Edmonds, 1979; Marzano
et al., 2005). Studies have demonstrated that effective schools led by an effective principal
increased or decreased a student’s chances of academic success. Marzano et al. (2005) showed
LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 3

that students attending effective schools as opposed to ineffective schools, have a 44 percent
difference in their expected passing rate on a test that has a typical passing rate of 50 percent.
This means that if we were to compare two schools with similar characteristics with the only
difference being that one school is effective and the other ineffective, “we would expect 72
percent of the students in the effective school to pass the test and only 28 percent in the
ineffective school to pass- a difference of 44 percent” (Marzano et al., 2005, p. 4). The results
are even more startling if schools in the top 1 percent of achievement rates are compared to
schools in the bottom 1 percent. In this comparison, 85 percent of students attending the top 1
percent of schools would be expected to pass the test as opposed to 15 percent of students
attending the bottom 1 percent of schools- a difference of 70 percent! (Marzano et al., 2005).
These studies beg the question- what type of school leadership produce effective schools?
Three decades of empirical research studies have answered this question by pointing to
instructional and transformational leadership. While leadership theorists have pointed to the
positive effects of instructional and transformational leadership practices on student
achievement, urban school leaders serving low-income students of color seldom exercise these
forms of leadership (Marzano et al., 2005). According to Boykin and Noguera (2011), the lack
of school leadership in urban schools largely contributes to the existing racial and ethnic
achievement gap. Limited studies have examined variables that influence and predict whether
urban school principals practice instructional and transformational leadership practices in schools
with the intent of closing the racial and ethnic achievement gap. As a result, this study examines
the tenants of instructional and transformational leadership as the dependent variable and self-
efficacy and beliefs and values towards diversity among urban school principals as the
LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 4

independent variable. Specifically, this study measures whether a principal’s level of self-
efficacy and their beliefs and values towards diversity is associated with instructional and/or
transformational leadership practices.
Background of the Study
This study focuses on the dependent variable of two leadership models : instructional
leadership and transformational leadership. Instructional and transformational leadership theory
provides an understanding of the specific practices associated with effective schools and
indirectly with closing the racial and ethnic achievement gap.
Instructional Leadership
Historical context. Much is known about instructional school leadership and its
connection to effective schools. The term “instructional leadership” largely came about as a
result of several studies in the 1970s and 1980s of principals in urban elementary schools who
managed to produce high academic achievement among poor children (Hallinger, 2010). It was
intended as a response to the 1966 Coleman Report which concluded that schools do not
influence student academic achievement, but rather was “exclusively a function of family
background” (Sweeney, 1982, p. 346). Early studies of effective schools discovered that the
behaviors and practices of school principals do [emphasis added] make a difference and can
transcend the barriers of poverty and family circumstances by controlling and influencing the
educational conditions experienced by students in the classroom.
Description of instructional leadership. Instructional leadership is defined as the
actions a principal takes to promote student learning (Bevoise, 1984). “Generally, such actions
focus on setting school-wide goals, defining the purpose of schooling, providing the resources
LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 5

needed for learning to occur, supervising and evaluating teachers, coordinating staff
development programs, and creating collegial relationships with and among teachers” (Bevoise,
1984, p. 15). Instructional leadership is concerned with developing the structures, policies,
procedures and job functions to support teaching and learning (Mitchell, D. E. & Tucker, S.,
1992). The heart and soul of instructional leadership lies in a principal’s ability to coordinate,
control, supervise, and develop curriculum and instruction in the school (Hallinger, 2003).
Instructional leadership views the principal as the primary actor responsible for influencing
student learning outcomes. While teachers are directly responsible for delivering academic
services to students via classroom instruction and assessment, the principal is seen as the person
responsible for ensuring this happens (Hallinger, 2010). As a result, instructional leadership has
been characterized as a directive top-down approach to school leadership (Barth, 1990; Day et
al., 2001 as cited in Hallinger, 2003).
Instructional leadership and transactional leadership. The control and influence held
by the principal under the model of instructional leadership fits the traditional paradigm of
leadership termed- transactional leadership. Transactional leadership theory was put forth by
political sociologist, James MacGregor Burns, in his seminal book titled Leadership (1978).
Burns conceptualized transactional leadership to “focus on the exchanges that occur between
leaders and their followers” (Northouse, 2007, p. 176). In a transactional leadership model,
followers are expected to complete certain tasks, responsibilities and practices expected by the
supervising leader in exchange for some form of compensation (i.e. recognition, monetary
reward). In the context of schools, principals manage and guide teachers and other school staff
to move towards a predetermined set of goals (Hallinger, 2003). In the case of instructional
LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 6

leadership, predetermined goals revolve around teaching and learning. As an instructional
leader, the principal ensures school staff implement practices that lead to the development and
achievement of teaching and learning (Hallinger & Murphy, 1985). These results lead to first-
order changes in schools. Such changes are incremental and are intended to fine-tune status quo
systems through a series of small steps (Marzano et al., 2005). When principals make first-order
changes they seek “to influence conditions that directly impact the quality of curriculum and
instruction delivered to students in classrooms. Examples of instructional leadership behaviors
that produce first-order effects include the principal’s setting school-wide goals, direct
supervision of teaching, and coordination of the curriculum” (Hallinger, 2003, p. 338).
Instructional leadership as a form of transactional leadership paints a picture of the school
principal as an instructional expert charged with leading and managing school staff. As leaders,
principals are charged with: leading staff towards an instructional vision; leading staff to
accomplish specific instructional goals and outcomes; and inspiring staff to persevere in the face
of adversity. As managers, principals are charged with ensuring staff follow the expectations
communicated around curriculum and instruction (Hallinger, 2003). When principals lead and
manage they become hands-on leaders “hip-deep in curriculum and instruction (Cuban, 1984 as
cited in Hallinger, 2003) and unafraid of working directly with teachers on the improvement of
teaching and learning (Bossert et al., 1982; Cuban 1984; Dwyer, 1986; Edmonds, 1979;
Hallinger et al., 1996; Hallinger & Murphy, 1986; Heck et al., 1990; Leithwood, Begley &
Cousins, 1990 as cited in Hallinger, 2003).
Dimensions of instructional leadership. The most frequently cited model of
instructional leadership was developed by Hallinger and Murphy (1985). The model presented
LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 7

by Hallinger and Murphy (1985) divide the instructional leadership role of the principal into
three general dimensions: 1) defining the school mission; 2) managing the instructional program;
and 3) promoting a positive learning climate. As indicated in Table 3, specific policies, practices
and behaviors of school principals are subdivided for each dimension (Hallinger & Murphy,
1985).
Table 3 - Dimensions of Instructional Management
Defines the Mission Manages the Instructional Program Promotes a Positive School Climate
1. Framing school goals
2. Communicating school goals
1. Supervising and evaluating
instruction
2. Coordinating curriculum
3. Monitoring student progress
1. Protecting instructional time
2. Promoting professional
development
3. Maintaining high visibility
4. Providing incentives for teachers
5. Enforcing academic standards
6. Providing incentives for students

Each dimension of Hallinger and Murphy’s instructional leadership model has been
found to have an indirect or direct effect on school outcomes. According to Hallinger and
Murphy (1985), principals carry out each job function by way of direct and indirect activities.
Indirect activities consists of policies and practices that represent school-wide expectations
designed to shape teacher and student behavior in the absence of direct supervision (Hallinger &
Murphy, 1985). “Indirect principal activity is advantageous in that it does not require constant
supervision and therefore consumes less of the principal’s time. The major disadvantages of
indirect activity is that effectiveness of policy implementation in the absence of direct
supervision requires teacher commitment to the policies” (Hallinger & Murphy, 1985, p. 220).
Achieving full teacher commitment is difficult given the wide array of teacher experiences,
beliefs and perceptions of school improvement.
LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 8

Direct activities, by contrast, are designed to involve the principal in the detailed
oversight of teacher and student behaviors. “The foremost example of direct activity is clinical
supervision, in which the principal works with teachers individually in a systematic and focused
fashion to promote improved instruction” (Hallinger & Murphy, 1985, p. 221). The direct
involvement of the principal in supervising teachers and students allows principals the
opportunities to “tailor programs or methods to meet the needs of individual teachers” and
students (Hallinger & Murphy, 1985, p. 221). This approach, however, is extremely time
consuming and requires a high degree of skill on the part of the principal (Hallinger, 2003).
Hallinger and Murphy (1985) suggest principals are most effective when they use both direct and
indirect approaches to leading and managing curriculum and instruction.
Defining the school mission. As instructional leaders, principals are charged with the
responsibility of defining, shaping, communicating and monitoring the mission of a school. How
well a principal achieves this responsibility is dependent on whether the principal is able to
articulate a “vision” that connects a shared sense of purpose for staff and students to guide the
work they do in the classroom (Hallinger & Murphy, 1985). School missions and visions are
often broken down into measurable goals monitored by the principal (Hallinger & Murphy,
1985). Defining, shaping, communicating and monitoring specific goals to support a clear
mission and vision to guide school performance has been found to be a central characteristic of
principals in high achieving schools (Bossert et al., 1982). Moreover, empirical studies cited by
Susan Printy (2010) “affirm that principals who develop compelling missions and goals,
establish cultures of collaboration and trust and encourage instructional improvement that draw
teachers together in joint work to improve teaching and learning (p. 115). An instructional
LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 9

leadership international meta-analysis conducted by Robinson et al. (2008) found seven
empirical studies that yielded evidence of the importance of establishing school-wide goals and
expectations. Twenty-one indicators in the dimension of establishing goals and expectations
from the seven empirical studies resulted in an average effect of 0.42 standard deviations; a
moderately large and educationally significant effect on student outcomes (Robinson, et al.,
2008). Marzano et al. (2005) also found a moderate relationship between goal setting and
student achievement outcomes. His meta-analysis study of school leadership practices among
U.S. principals generated an effect size of 0.24 measuring the relationship between
communication and monitoring of clear school-wide goals for student achievement.
Manages the instructional program. This dimension contains traditional job functions
carried out by principals directly relating to curriculum and instruction. It includes “coordinating
the classroom objectives of teachers with those of the school, providing instructional support to
teachers, and monitoring classroom instruction through numerous informal classroom visits”
(Hallinger & Murphy, 1985, p. 222). Interestingly, there is little evidence cited in empirical
studies to support the notion that close supervision of instruction directly results in greater
student achievement. Nonetheless, principals of instructionally effective schools have been
found to closely coordinate curriculum and monitor student progress more frequently than
principals of instructionally ineffective schools (Robinson et al., 2008). Marzano et al. (2005)
found an effect size of 0.20 between the involvement of principals in curriculum, instruction and
assessment with student achievement outcomes. Robinson et al. (2008) found an even greater
effect size on student achievement outcomes when principal involvement in curriculum,
instruction and assessment was analyzed on an international scale. Robinson et al. (2008) found
LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 10

eighty indicators related to a principal’s ability to plan, coordinate and evaluate teaching and the
curriculum across nine international empirical studies measuring the impact of instructional
leadership on student outcomes. This dimension was found to have an average effect size of
0.42 on student outcomes. The studies reviewed by Robinson et al. (2008) concluded that
principals in high-performing schools directly affected teacher practices and thereby student
outcomes in the following ways: 1) principals in high-performing schools were more personally
involved in planning, coordinating, and evaluating teaching practices; 2) principals in high-
performing schools were more directly involved in coordinating and overseeing curriculum; 3)
principals in high-performing schools observed classroom instruction and provided teachers
feedback more frequently than those in lower-performing schools as reported by teachers; and 4)
there was greater emphasis in higher performing schools on ensuring that staff systematically
monitored student progress.
The most significant way principals indirectly affected student outcomes was by
promoting and participating in teacher learning and development (Robinson et al., 2008).
Seventeen effect sizes from six studies were calculated in this area to have an average effect size
of 0.84 standard deviations. “With student background factors controlled, the more that teachers
report their school leaders [the principal] to be active participants in teacher learning and
development, the higher the student outcomes (Robinson et al., 2008, p.663). Principals who
directly coached teachers to improve their teaching and engaged teachers in discussions about
teaching and learning were found to raise teacher motivation and self-efficacy (Hallinger, 2003).
Marzano et al. (2005) in their meta-analysis found 31 empirical studies dealing with the way
principals monitor and evaluate instruction. They found a 0.27 effect size on student
LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 11

achievement outcomes when principals monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of school
practices and their impact on student learning (Marzano et al., 2005).
Promotes a positive school climate. Hallinger and Murphy’s (1985) last general
instructional leadership dimension referred to the principal’s ability to influence the “norms and
attitudes of the staff and students that influence learning in the school” (p. 223). Hallinger and
Murphy (1985) theorized that principals can influence student and teacher attitudes “through the
creation of a reward structure that reinforces academic achievement and productive effort;
through clear, explicit standards embodying what the school expects from students; through the
careful use of school time; and through the selection and implementation of high-quality staff
development” (p.223). Robinson et al. (2008) found an effect size of 0.27 on student
achievement across 8 international studies when principals engage in practices that influence
school culture.
In their meta-analysis of school leadership, Marzano et al. (2005) found several positive
effect sizes of principal practices affecting student achievement outcomes. Marzano et al. (2005)
found an effect size of 0.25 on student achievement outcomes when the principal fostered shared
beliefs and a sense of community and cooperation. Their study yielded an effect size of 0.19
when principals recognize and celebrate accomplishments and acknowledges failures; and an
effect size of 0.24 when principals recognize and reward individual accomplishments. When
principals consistently provide teachers with materials and professional development necessary
for the successful execution of their jobs, Marzano et al. (2005) found an effect size of 0.25. One
of the strongest findings of the meta-analysis conducted by Marzano et al. (2005) was in
protecting instructional time in the classroom. They found protecting instructional time resulted
LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 12

in a 0.27 effect size on student achievement. When principals protected “teachers from issues
and influences that would detract from their instructional time or focus,” higher gains in student
achievement were recorded.
Transformational Leadership
Description of transformational leadership. Like instructional leadership,
transformational leadership was another popular model of leadership that captured the impact
school principals have on student achievement outcomes. Unlike instructional leadership,
however, transformational leadership is not concerned in developing structures, policies,
procedures and job functions to support teaching and learning. Rather, transformational
leadership is about inspiring others to believe in a greater purpose. Northouse (2007) defines
transformational leadership as “the process whereby a person engages with others and creates a
connection that raises the level of motivation and morality in both the leader and the follower.
This type of leader is attentive to the needs and motives of followers and tries to help followers
reach their fullest potential (p. 176). Transformational leadership seeks to change and transform
people. Under this model, principals seek to transform the feelings, attitudes and beliefs of
teachers and school staff towards a common purpose (Mitchell, D. E. & Tucker, S., 1992).
Transformational leadership is focused on developing staff capacity rather than on developing
organizational structures and systems. It is less about gaining compliance and more about
gaining confidence, trust, relationships and personal investment (Mitchell, D. E. & Tucker, S.,
1992). Transformational principals believe quality education will arise when all staff share
similar beliefs and attitudes and fully agree on the purpose and goals of their work with students
(Leithwood, K. A., 1992; Michell, D. E. & Tucker, S., 1992).
LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 13

Background of transformational leadership theory. Though transformational
leadership as a theory dates back to James MacGregor Burn’s classic work titled Leadership, it
was not discussed among school leadership scholars and practitioners until the mid-to-late 1990s
as a result of the school restructuring movement that eventually led to the adoption of state
academic standards (Hallinger, 2003). Transformational leadership came to be a concept that
represented the ideals of shared leadership, teacher leadership and distributed leadership
(Hallinger, 2003). Early advocates of school transformational leadership voiced a “broader
dissatisfaction with the instructional leadership model, which many believed focused too much
on the principal as the center of expertise, power and authority” (Hallinger, 2003, p. 330).
Proponents of transformational leadership argued instructional leadership emphasized a top-
down management approach that prevented teachers and other school staff from actively
influencing and shaping the decisions that affect curriculum, instruction and assessment practices
(Mitchell, D. E. & Tucker, S., 1992). “Whereas transactional leadership [instructional
leadership] results in expected outcomes, transformational leadership results in performance that
goes well beyond what is expected” (Northouse, 2007, p.184).
Many of the transformational leadership concepts applied to schools came out of the
business restructuring efforts of the 1980s and 1990s. As businesses sought to downsize and
focus on developing the capacity of their workers, businesses moved from Type A toward Type
Z organizations (Leithwood, K. A., 1992). Leithwood (1992) states “Type A
organizations…centralize control and maintain differences in status between workers and
managers and among levels of management” (p.8). Type Z organizations on the other hand,
“rely on strong cultures to influence employees’ directions and reduce differences in the status of
LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 14

organizational members. Type Z organizations emphasize participative decision making as
much as possible. They are based on a radically different form of power that is ‘consensual’ and
‘facilitative’ in nature- a form of power manifested through other people, not over other people”
(Leithwood, K. A., 1992, p. 9). Much like businesses, schools were called to restructure their
practices to meet greater efficiency and gain higher student achievement; especially after the
1983 Nation at Risk Report and the federal government’s call for stronger accountability
measures in the 1990s (Barth, 1986).
School restructuring efforts pushed principals to adopt second-order changes. Second-
order changes seek to disrupt and drastically alter common practices; “it involves dramatic
departures from the expected, both in defining a given problem and in finding a solution”
(Marzano et al., 2005, p. 66). Second-order changes seek deep changes that “alter the system in
fundamental ways, offering a dramatic shift in direction and requiring new ways of thinking and
acting” (Marzano et al., 2005, p.66). The most persistent challenges facing education today (i.e.
racial achievement gap, parent involvement, teacher under performance) require principals and
other school leaders to engage in second-order change practices. Fritz (1984) and Marzano et al.
(2005) argue that most principals and school leaders approach these persistent challenges from a
first-order perspective, which is one of the main reasons why little progress is achieved in these
areas.
Bass’ Transformational Leadership Theory. The most widely used theory guiding
transformational leadership was developed by Bass (1985, 1990). Bass theorized that
transformational leadership can be captured by four categories: individualized influence
(charisma), inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration.
LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 15

Bass further theorized that leaders would be more likely to transform the beliefs, attitudes and
behaviors of others to create second-order change if they exhibit the qualities and characteristics
of each category.
Individualized influence (charisma). This first category “describes leaders who act as
strong role models for followers; followers identify with these leaders and want very much to
emulate them” (Northouse, 2007, p. 181). Leaders who demonstrate individualized influence or
charisma provide followers with a vision and a sense of mission (Griffith, 2004). Historical
leaders who are commonly viewed as charismatic leaders include: Mohandas Gandhi, Martin
Luther King, Jr. and Nelson Mandela. The image of a charismatic principal can be difficult to
reach. Griffth (2004) states this category is the most difficult quality to exemplify because it is
largely dependent on inherent personality characteristics. Principals who are perceived by
teachers to have a strong presence, are able to articulate a vision and speak with authority on a
topic are thought to be charismatic (Bogler, 2001).
Inspirational motivation. This category is “descriptive of leaders who communicate
high expectations to followers, inspiring them through motivation to become committed to and a
part of the shared vision of the organization” (Northouse, 2007, p. 183). To do this, leaders often
use symbols and emotional appeals to focus their followers’ efforts to achieve more than they
would in their own self-interest (Griffith, 2004). Inspirational motivational leaders continuously
seek to remind their followers of the abilities and skills they possess to excel. One of the most
common ways principals motivate and inspire teachers is by consistently pointing out what it is
they are doing well with a verbal or written note of encouragement and continued support.
LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 16

Intellectual stimulation. Intellectual stimulation refers to the leader’s ability to guide
followers to rethink traditional procedures and to examine situations in new and novel ways
(Griffth, 2004). “It includes leadership that stimulates followers to be creative and innovative
and to challenge their own beliefs and values as well as those of the leader and the organization
(Northouse, 2007, p. 183). Leaders intellectually stimulate their followers when they
intentionally guide them to try new approaches and develop innovative ways of dealing with
organizational issues (Northouse, 2008). When leaders do this, they are perceived by others as
thinking outside of the box. Principals who encourage and guide teachers to operate in this way
often raise the individual and collective efficacy of teachers to better their instructional craft
(Griffith, 2004).
Individualized consideration. This last category speaks to the way leaders treat those
they influence and the degree to which leaders willingly delegate projects or responsibilities to
them in order to enhance their learning experiences (Griffith, 2004). This category represents
“leaders who provide a supportive climate in which they listen carefully to the individual needs
of followers” (Northouse, 2007, p. 183). Principals fulfill this role when they act as coaches and
advisors to teachers while trying to assist them in reaching their desired outcome.
Empirical studies measuring transformational leadership. Various studies have
found a positive relationship between transformational leadership and school performance. In a
study examining the direct effect of principal transformational leadership on school outcomes,
such as school staff turnover and school performance, and the indirect effect on these outcomes
through school staff job satisfaction, Griffth (2004) found a significant relationship between
principals who were perceived as transformational leaders with teacher job satisfaction. Teacher
LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 17

job satisfaction contributed to less staff turnover and greater student achievement. When survey
data were disaggregated by schools with majority of students enrolled in the Free and Reduced-
price Meals (FARMS) program, teacher job satisfaction positively affected student outcomes
more than non-FARMS participating schools. “This result suggest that principals who display
characteristics of transformational leaders may have more beneficial effects on student
achievement for schools having more disadvantaged students than schools having less
disadvantaged students” (Griffith, 2004, p. 347).
A meta-analysis of 32 empirical studies of school transformational leadership by
Leithwood and Jantzi (2005) also found a positive relationship between transformational
leadership practices and teacher job satisfaction. Leithwood and Jantzi (2005) also found a
positive relationship between transformational leadership and the following school outcomes:
positive school culture, stronger organizational commitment, change in teacher practices and
increased collective teacher efficacy. These outcomes were found to have a positive indirect
effect on student achievement outcomes. Fifteen of the 32 empirical studies reviewed by
Leithwood and Jantzi (2005) between 1996 and 2005 measured the effect of transformational
leadership and specific student outcomes (i.e. test scores, class participation, engagement). Nine
of the 15 studies found positive indirect effects on student achievement indicators. Though
transformational leadership practices are not directly linked to school and student performance,
they have been found to influence conditions that lead to positive performance.
Thus far, instructional and transformational leadership have been discussed as theories to
describe the specific behaviors, practices and outcomes of school principals towards creating
effective schools and student achievement results. Both of these theories frame the dependent
LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 18

variable of the study. But as previously noted in the introduction, both of these leadership
practices serve as the exception rather than the norm among urban school principals. Limited
studies have examined variables that influence and predict whether urban school principals serve
as instructional and transformational leaders focused on closing the racial and ethnic
achievement gap. Self-efficacy and professional beliefs towards diversity are two of those
variables. As a result, this study examines the extent to which self-efficacy and professional
beliefs towards diversity among urban school leaders transfers to specific practices associated
with both forms of leadership. By studying self-efficacy and professional beliefs towards
diversity as an independent variable, we may be able to deepen our understanding of what drives
urban school principals to act as instructional and transformational leaders. The connection
between self-efficacy and professional beliefs towards diversity with instructional and
transformational leadership may shed new light on school leadership and shape new implications
for the work of urban school principals.
While there are no empirical studies linking professional beliefs of urban principals
towards diversity with leadership practices, several empirical studies have found positive
connections between self-efficacy and principal leadership. “Principals with a strong sense of
self-efficacy have been found to be persistent in pursuing their goals and more willing to adapt
strategies to meeting contextual conditions (Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2004, p. 574).
Osterman and Sullivan (1996) found that principals with high self-efficacy viewed change as a
process and were steadfast in their efforts to achieve their goals. Lyons and Murphy (1994)
found that when confronted with problems, principals with high self-efficacy did not interpret
their inability to solve the problems immediately as failure. Lyons and Murphy (1994) also
LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 19

found the opposite- when confronted with failure, principals with low-self-efficacy did not
persist in their original course of action and blamed others when goals were not achieved.
Importance of the Study

School leadership matters. Principals are charged with the immense responsibility of
ensuring teachers effectively deliver quality classroom instruction that results in measurable
student learning outcomes. This focus often competes with the plethora of other responsibilities
principals must fulfill to operate effective schools (i.e. monitor school spending, manage school
discipline, involve stakeholders in school governance, maintain a clean and safe school campus
and involve parents in their children’s education). NCLB has pushed principals to identify and
respond to academic achievement gaps for various students in ways that they have never had to
previously address. NCLB has made it socially, ethically and morally unjustifiable to accept the
idea that some kids will achieve and others will not. Educators are expected to embrace the
notion that all students across all demographic characteristics have the potential to reach high
academic achievement levels. This belief, however, is saliently dependent on how effectively
principals fulfill their role as an instructional and transformational leader; especially since
empirical studies have found both forms of leadership to impact student achievement. Given the
persistent existence of the racial and ethnic academic achievement gap, there is a need to further
understand influential factors impacting a principal’s ability and decision to serve as an
instructional and transformational leader. Two of these factors include self-efficacy and one’s
personal and professional beliefs, attitudes and values regarding issues of diversity. Both of
these variables have been frequently studied in teachers but not as thoroughly in school
principals. As a result, these factors may provide insight on whether principals believe they are
LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 20

capable of serving as instructional and transformational leaders focused on closing the racial and
ethnic achievement gap. These factors may also help identify what introspectively pushes and
motivates urban school principals to carry out instructional and transformational leadership
practices.
Purpose of the Study
This study aims to measure whether a principal’s personal and/or professional level of
self-efficacy and their professional beliefs, attitudes and values towards diversity can influence
their decision to intentionally implement instructional and/or transformational leadership
practices. The racial/ethnic background of urban school principals will be taken into account
when measuring the relationship between self-efficacy and the beliefs, attitudes and values
towards diversity held among urban school principals with instructional leadership and
transformational leadership practices.
Research Questions.
The following are the primary research questions investigated through this study:
1. Does urban school principal’s professional self-efficacy predict the extent to which they
exercise instructional and/or transformational leadership practices?
2. Do urban school principal’s beliefs, attitudes and values towards diversity predict the
extent to which they implement instructional and/or transformational leadership
practices?
3. Are there racial / ethnic group differences in the extent to which urban school principals
implement instructional and/or transformational leadership practices?

LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 21

Organization of the Study
Chapter 2 provides an overview and analysis of how personal and professional self-
efficacy develops among urban school principals. The chapter explores the factors that influence
the self-efficacy of urban school principals and whether those influences are likely to result in
instructional and/or transformational leadership practices. The chapter also provides an analysis
of how beliefs, attitudes and values about diversity are adopted and how these beliefs, attitudes
and values potentially influence the way in which urban school principals view the racial and
ethnic achievement gap.
Chapter 3 presents the methodology used in the study and the demographic
characteristics of the urban school principals who participated in the study. An explanation of
the survey instruments to measure personal and professional self-efficacy; beliefs, attitudes and
values about diversity; instructional leadership and transformational leadership in urban school
principals is also presented. Lastly, the procedures for data collection and analysis are reviewed.
Chapter 4 explains the findings of the study, including correlations between the variables
and answers to the research questions.
Chapter 5 provides a discussion of the study results, its limitations and implications for
both researchers and practitioners interested in understanding the relationship between self-
efficacy and beliefs, attitudes and values towards diversity with instructional and
transformational leadership practices of urban school principals.

LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 22

CHAPTER II
Literature Review
The following review of literature examines the two independent variables hypothesized
to positively influence whether instructional and transformational leadership is exercised in
urban schools: principal self-efficacy and principal beliefs and values towards diversity.
Because little is known how these two variables affect instructional and leadership practices
among urban school principals, this examination of literature seeks to shed new light in the area
of leadership by making specific connections between self-efficacy and beliefs about diversity
with the work of urban school principals.
The first part of the literature review examines self-efficacy using Bandura’s framework
to understand the sources and effects of self-efficacy. Bandura’s framework offers a perspective
to understand when and why school principals believe in their abilities to achieve specific tasks
and the values that influence school principals to engage in specific actions. It also provides an
understanding of how specific factors in the environment shape the way principals view their
ability to achieve specific outcomes.
In the second part of the literature review, two theoretical models are reviewed to
understand how school principals develop their beliefs, attitudes and values towards diversity in
hope that they become instructional and transformational leaders aimed at closing the racial and
ethnic academic achievement gap. These theoretical models are Sue’s (2003) Development of
Personal Identity (DPI) model and Myer’s (2001) Optimal Theory Applied to Identity
Development (OTAID) model.

LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 23

Sources of Self-Efficacy
Self-efficacy has generally been defined as a kind of personal expectation or judgment
concerning one’s capability to accomplish a specific task or action. Bandura (1986) defines it as
“people’s judgments of their capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required to
attain a designated type of performance” (p. 391). Self-efficacy is not concerned with the skills
one has but with judgments of what one can do with whatever skills one possesses (Bandura,
1997). Though it may sound similar to an outcome expectation, self-efficacy is not concerned
about the consequence that the action will produce but rather about a judgment of one’s
capability to accomplish a certain level of performance. Bandura (1986) argues that one’s
actions are influenced by the way they think about themselves as a result of their environment.
These experiences ultimately create learning and shapes whether or not someone believes they
have the abilities to complete a given task or action. According to Bandura (1997), self-efficacy
is mitigated by four factors: 1) enactive mastery experiences; 2) vicarious experiences; 3) verbal
persuasion; and 4) physiological and affective states. Bandura (1997) believes it is important to
understand each of these sources of self-efficacy because it influences the amount of effort and
persistence that a person devotes to a task or action to bring about a desired outcome. These
sources of self-efficacy can provide an understanding of what motivates urban school principals
to believe they can serve as instructional and transformational leaders.
Enactive mastery. Enactive mastery, commonly referred to as “learning by doing,” is
the most influential source of information affecting self-efficacy because it is grounded in
personal experience. When people successfully complete a task or action, their level of self-
efficacy rises. Similarly, failing to achieve a task or action decreases a person’s level of self-
LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 24

efficacy (Bandura, 1997). Such experiences are powerful because principals use these
experiences to make judgments about their abilities. The more consistent the experience
(positive or negative) in achieving a task or action, the stronger one’s beliefs about their abilities
becomes. Over time, people come to cognitively believe that they either can or cannot achieve a
specific task or action towards a desired action. These beliefs become psychologically planted in
one’s cognitive schema and influence how similar tasks or actions are approached in the near
future. Bandura (1997) states that:
people act on their efficacy beliefs and assess the adequacy of their self-appraisal from
the performances they manage to achieve. Performance successes generally raise beliefs
of personal efficacy; repeated performance failure lower them, particularly if the failures
occur early in the course of events and do not reflect lack of effort or adverse external
circumstances. (p. 81)
Self-efficacy is significantly dependent on how the performed task or action is cognitively
processed given the feedback of others. If the completion of a task or action is deemed
successful by others, self-efficacy towards completing a similar task or action will be high
(Bandura, 1997).
The literature on enactive mastery may help explain why some principals hold higher
self-efficacy levels than others when it comes to serving as instructional or transformational
leaders. Urban school principals who manage to accomplish successful school outcomes and
attribute these outcomes to their abilities, may more than likely have a higher self-efficacy than
principals with little successes. Successful experiences coupled with positive recognition can
push principals to continue walking in a positive direction. The more teachers, parents or
LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 25

students communicate positive feedback as a result of the principal’s action, the higher self-
efficacy the principal is likely to have to continue to engage in similar tasks and actions. This is
especially the case when urban school principals are viewed as instructional or transformational
leaders; a rare depiction of an urban school principal. Such feedback on the other hand, can also
be dangerous if the principal did not produce successful outcomes. In addition to feedback, the
amount of effort expended to complete a task or action can affect self-efficacy. If a principal is
not successful at a given task or action, but recognize they did not put fourth much effort in the
desired outcome, self-efficacy may be unaffected. On the other hand, if the principal put forth
effort to complete a task or action and was unable to bring about a desired outcome, their level of
self-efficacy is likely to decline by attributing their deficiencies to lack of abilities (Bandura,
1997).
Vicarious experience. Self-efficacy has also been found to be influenced by how well
others perform the same or similar tasks or actions at a given time frame. People are able to
judge how well they are capable of completing a task or action by comparing themselves to
others. Unlike enactive mastery in which people directly performance a task or action and
cognitively assess how well they performed, under vicarious experiences people need not
necessarily experience completing the action or task (Bandura, 1997). Rather, they are able to
judge their abilities by comparing themselves to those perceived to be similar. If one’s perceived
skill level is similar to someone who achieved a specific task or action, self-efficacy is likely to
rise or remain positive (Bandura, 1997). The same applies if the opposite occurs. Bandura
states:
LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 26

More often in everyday life, people compare themselves to particular associates in similar
situations, such as classmates, work associates, competitors, or people in other settings
engaged in similar endeavors. Surpassing associates or competitors raises efficacy
beliefs, where as being outperformed lowers them. (Weinburg et al., 1979 as cited in
Bandura, 1997, p. 87)
Vicarious experiences are heavily dependent on relevant models. “The greater the
assumed similarity, the more persuasive are the models’ success and failures. If people see the
models as very different from themselves, their beliefs of personal efficacy are not much
influenced by the models’ behavior and the results it produces” (Bandura, 1997, p. 87). In
addition to similar models, Bandura (1997) argues that self-efficacy is affected by whether or not
these models also have the competencies to produce proficient outcomes in a given task or
action. Proficient models transmit knowledge and teach effective skills and strategies for
managing environmental demands that are perceived to limit successful completion of a task or
action (Bandura, p.88). Bandura argues that people tend to maintain a positive self-efficacy
when they know that others have achieved the results they are seeking to achieve. Self-efficacy
tends to decline if a task is deemed difficult and models do not exist of successful completion of
a task or action.
The literature on vicarious experiences may help explain how urban school principals
come to perceive their level of self-efficacy for the work they do. Because urban schools serving
low-income students of color across the United States generally produce low academic results,
urban school principals may place a significant emphasis on successful models of urban school
principals to maintain a high level of self-efficacy. For some urban school principals, successful
LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 27

principals leading under similar conditions may spark their level of self-efficacy if they believe
they are similar to the successful principals. On the other hand, there may not be any effect on
self-efficacy if urban school principals do not believe successful principals of similar schools are
relatable to them. In these circumstances, urban school principals may even begin to lose self-
efficacy in their abilities if they do not believe models of successful urban school principals exist
as instructional and transformational leaders.
Verbal persuasion. A third influence found to influence self-efficacy is verbal
persuasion. Verbal persuasion occurs when people are “persuaded verbally that they possess the
capabilities to master given tasks” (Bandura, 1997, p. 101). Verbal persuasion can positively
increase self-efficacy if the recipient of the persuasion already believes they can produce desired
results through their action. People with a moderate-to-high self-efficacy level often use verbal
persuasion to mobilize greater effort and sustain it if they harbor self-doubts and dwell on
personal deficiencies when difficulties arise (Bandura, 1997). Unauthentic verbal persuasion,
however, can have the opposite effect. Encouragement that is perceived to be unrealistic can
reinforce low self-efficacy for people who already have a poor belief in their capabilities.
Verbal persuasion is most frequently occurs in the form of evaluative feedback about
one’s performance in completing a task or action. According to Bandura (1997), “evaluative
feedback highlighting personal capabilities raises efficacy beliefs” (p. 102). Feedback,
especially from a supervisor, communicating progress as a result of one’s abilities can raise self-
efficacy. While recognition of hard work may serve as positive feedback, it generally does not
increase self-efficacy because the feedback does not validate one’s abilities. The same is true for
devaluative feedback. Such feedback may undermine people’s belief in themselves; especially if
LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 28

devaluative feedback centers on one’s skills or abilities. Those who do not have a history of
success at a given task or action are more likely to be negatively affected from devaluative
feedback.
Urban school principals who receive positive on the job feedback associated with their
capabilities are likely to have a much higher level of self-efficacy for leading their school than
those who receive feedback associated with hard work. Direct feedback from parents, teachers
and district administrators in regards to their ability to instructionally lead the school can affect a
principal’s level of self-efficacy depending on how much confidence they have about their
ability to serve as instructional leaders. Because most principals serve as operational leaders
more than instructional leaders, they often have a low self-efficacy to lead instructionally and
more often than not defer this work to teacher leaders, curriculum coaches or assistant principals
(Hallinger 1985; Marzano, 2005).
Physiological and emotional states. The last source of self-efficacy is influenced by
somatic information conveyed by physiological and emotional states (Bandura, 1997). Somatic
indicators refer to any physical and/or emotional changes that come about as a result of an
activity or task. Physical and/or emotional changes in one self often occur as a result of stress
(Bandura, 1997). When individuals experience physical, mental or emotional stress at a time
when their self-efficacy is low, they are more likely not to believe in their capabilities. This is
especially true when one’s focus is on their physiological or emotional state rather than on the
target task or action. Citing Pennebaker & Lightner (1980), Bandura (1997) argues that “the less
absorbed people are in activities and events around them, the more they focus attention on
themselves and notice their bodily states and reactions in taxing situations” (p.107). When this
LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 29

happens, people tend to question their ability to get a task or action done. When self-efficacy is
high, people are able to work through physiological and emotional stresses to get a task or action
completed.
Bandura’s (1997) sources of self-efficacy provide an understanding of what can
potentially affect a school principal’s level of self-efficacy. Each of these sources can impact a
principal’s level of self-efficacy at any given time they serve as instructional and/or
transformational leaders. The level of self-efficacy held by a principal significantly effects the
choices they make, their level of effort and persistence and how they think and emotionally
respond to a given situation (Bandura, 1997). Each of these effects are discussed in the
following section.
Effects of Self-Efficacy
Choice behavior. People make daily decisions about what courses of action to purse and
how long to continue those actions. “Decisions involving choice of activities and certain social
milieus are partly determined by judgments of personal efficacy. People tend to avoid tasks and
situations they believe exceed their capabilities, but they undertake and perform assuredly
activities they judge themselves capable of handling” (Bandura, 1997, p. 393). According to
Bandura (1997), being able to accurately appraise personal capability in relation to the proposed
tasks or actions is important.
People who grossly overestimate their capabilities undertake activities that are clearly
beyond their reach. As a result, they get themselves into considerable difficulties,
undermine their credibility, and suffer needless failures….People who underestimate
LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 30

their capabilities also bear costs that are more likely to result in self-limiting rather than
adverse forms (Bandura, 1997, p. 393-394).
Bandura argues the most beneficial efficacy judgments are those that slightly exceed what one
can do at a given time because it leads people to undertake realistically challenging tasks and
provide motivation for progressive self-development (Bandura, 1997).
Effort and persistence. In addition to affecting whether certain tasks and/or actions will
be undertaken, self-efficacy also determines “how much effort people will expend and how long
they will persist in the face of obstacles or aversive experiences” (Bandura, 1997, p. 394).
People with stronger levels of self-efficacy towards a particular task and/or action often display
greater persistence and effort in overcoming challenges associated with the target task and/or
action. That is, people are more inclined to overcome the self-doubts they may have about their
ability to perform the target task and/or action. Overcoming self-doubts tends to reinforce and/or
build strong self-efficacy towards similar tasks and/or actions in the future.
Thought patterns and emotional reactions. Self-efficacy has also been found by
Bandura (1997) to influence thought patterns and emotional reactions to situations involving
tasks and/or actions perceived to be incapable of achieving. People who consistently believe they
do not have the capabilities to perform a task or action begin to form thought patterns that focus
on their limitations (Bandura, 1997). In contrast, people with strong self-efficacy in their
capabilities to achieve a task and/or action sustain greater cognitive attention and effort to the
demands of the task and/or action (Bandura, 1997). Positive cognitive attention and belief in
one’s capabilities often results in positive emotional reactions towards a task and/or action. The
same is true when the opposite occurs (Bandura, 1997).
LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 31

Self-Efficacy Studies Related to Principal Leadership
Few empirical studies have measured the relationship between self-efficacy among
school principals and specific leadership outcomes. These studies are indicated in Table 4.
Table 4 - Empirical Studies Measuring Self-Efficacy and Principal Leadership
Study Design Population Sample Measurement Tool
Hillman (1983)
DeMoulin (1992)
Gill (1993)
Lyons & Murphy (1994)
Dimmock & Hattie (1996)
Imants & De Brabander (1996)
Modlin (1996)
Roberts (1997)
Lynn (2000)
Hernandez-Mezquita et al. (2001)
Lloyd-Zannini (2001)
Lucus (2003)
Smith et al. (2006)
Gareis & Tschannen-Moran (2005)
King (2005)
Leithwood & Jantzi (2008)
Cost-Hernandez (2010)
Moak (2010)
Survey
Survey
Survey
Survey
Survey
Survey
Survey
Survey
Survey
Survey
Survey
Survey
Survey
Survey
Survey
Survey
Survey
Survey
Principals
Principals
Principals
Principals
Principals
Principals
Principals
Principals
Principals
Principals
Principals
Principals
Principals
Principals
Principals
Principals
Principals
Principals
19
212
N/A
121
50
121
11
273
183
N/A
129
89
284
588
127
96
133
123
PES
CAI
N/A
Bandura Based
PSES
N/A
PES
PES
Self-Efficacy Scale
N/A
PES
N/A
PSES
PSES
NGSS
PSES
PSES
PSES

Most studies measured self-efficacy among principals using the Principal Self-Efficacy Survey
(PSES) developed by Smith and Guarino (2005). Others used the Principal Efficacy Scale.
Many of these studies provided a unique understanding between the relationship of self-effiacy
and principal leadership.
One of the earliest studies of principal self-efficacy was conducted by Hillman (1983).
Hillman’s study studied expectations and self-efficacy among 19 elementary school principals in
Michigan. Half of the principals led schools classified as low-achieving schools and the other
half led high-performing schools based on proficiency levels on the Michigan Educational
Assessment Program (MEAP). Hillman’s study wanted to measure the relationship between
expectations and self-efficacy of both principal groups with student achievement on the MEAP.
LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 32

Hillman found no significant relationship between the expectations and self-efficacy of school of
elementary school principals in Michigan with student achievement on the MEAP. It was
unclear what instrument was used to measure expectations and self-efficacy. It would have been
interesting to see whether each factor resulted in a different outcome if measured separately.
In a later study, DeMoulin (1992) looked at the relationships among motivation,
confidence and stress to measure the perceived level of self-efficacy among principals in the
midsouthern and northeastern United States. DeMoulin (1992) analyzed the responses of 212
principals on the Career Awareness Index (CAI), a 100 question survey. Principals with a high
level of self-efficacy were found to have minimal additional assigned duties outside of
instructional monitoring and used a minimal number of sick/personal days. Principals measuring
a low self-efficacy level were found to generally have increased additional duties outside of
instructional monitoring, higher enrolled schools and a high number of sick/personal days used.
This study was one of the earliest to highlight some of the effects of high self-efficacy among
school principals. This study inferred that school districts can raise principal self-efficacy when
principals were not given many additional responsibilities outside of monitoring classroom
instruction.
Leithwood and Jantzi’s (2008) study seemed to expand DeMoulin’s work by studying
how the district office contributed to the self-efficacy of school principals in relation to
Bandura’s (1997) four sources of self-efficacy: enactive mastery, vicarious experiences, verbal
persuasion and physiological and affective states. Using a 134 item question principal survey
from a pool of 96 principals, Letihwood and Jantzi’s (2008) study concluded that the district
leadership was strongly related to principal self-efficacy. Principals had a higher level of self-
LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 33

efficacy when district leaders directly worked with them to design the organization, developed
people (teachers and staff), managed the instructional program and assisted in setting clear
directions for school improvement. This study was important because it demonstrated that the
district office can shape mastery experiences when principals received training and support in
these four areas.
The work of Lyons and Murphy (1994) examined the relationship between self-efficacy
and the use of various power among principals in a large metropolitan school district in a western
state. Using a two phase correlational design, Lyons and Murphy (1994) had 25 principals
complete a self-efficacy questionnaire followed by a random sample of their teachers completing
a survey to describe their use of power. Results of the study confirmed the research hypothesis
that self-efficacy was positively related to expert and referent power and negatively related to
legitimate, coercive and reward power. Lyons and Murphy (1994) define expert power as “the
expertise to influence the work performance of others” (p. 3). Referent power is achieved
through a leader’s personality and personal attributes. Principals demonstrating a strong
association with expert and referent power (termed internal power) had a strong belief in their
ability to impact student achievement. Principals who relied on coercive and reward power
(termed external power) to manage the school did not believe they could impact student
achievement. This study provided a connection between principal management styles and their
efficacy level to impact student achievement. For purposes of my study, it may loosely seem
that expert and referent power is associated with transformational leadership while coercive and
reward power is associated with instructional leadership.
LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 34

An important study of principal self-efficacy dealing with the stress of managing change
during school restructuring was conducted by Dimmock and Hattie (1996). Using the Principals’
Self-Efficacy Scale, which consist of twelve vignettes testing how confident principals would be
to secure a successful resolution in twelve situations, Dimmock and Hattie (1996) found that
“principals with high self-efficacy are more likely to accommodate and cope with change, and
possibly accrue more benefits for their teachers and students as a consequence of restructuring”
(p. 74). This is an important finding given that generally speaking, most school restructuring
occurs in urban settings. While it was important to know that principals with high self-efficacy
cope with change, it will be interesting to note whether principals with high self-efficacy
implement instructional and/or transformational leadership practices.
Another relevant study dealing with principal self-efficacy was a study by Lucas (2003).
This study connected principal self-efficacy to instructional leadership through a 63 question
survey to measure how efficacious middle school principals felt about implementing the seven
recommendations by the Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development in their report titled:
Turning Points 2000 (Jackson & Davis, 2000). A total of 89 principals in the Midwest
participated in the survey. The report focused on turning around middle school performance and
made the following seven recommendations to middle school principals:
 Teach a curriculum grounded in rigorous, public academic standards for what students
should know and be able to do, relevant to the concerns of adolescents and based on how
students learn best.

 Use instructional methods designed to prepare all students to achieve higher standards
and become lifelong learners.

 Staff middle grades schools with teachers who are expert at teaching young adolescents
and engage teachers in ongoing, targeted professional development opportunities.
LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 35

 Organize relationships for learning to create a climate of intellectual development and a
caring community of shared educational purpose.

 Govern democratically, through direct or representative participation by all school staff
members, the adults who know students best.

 Provide a safe and healthy school environment as part of improving academic
performance and developing caring and ethical citizens.

 Involve parents and communities in supporting student learning and healthy
development.

Lucus’ (2003) study revealed that middle school principals had the highest level of self-efficacy
to provide a safe and healthy school environment and had the lowest self-efficacy for ensuring
teachers use a curriculum grounded in rigorous standards. Principals also had a low self-efficacy
for monitoring instructional methods. These findings are significant because monitoring
curriculum and instruction are the heart and soul of instructional leadership. This study suggest
that principals may not feel comfortable being instructional leaders.
The closest study measuring principal self-efficacy to instruction was conducted by
Smith et al. (2006). Smith et al. (2006) surveyed 284 principals from 12 states about their self-
efficacy in fostering effective instructional environments using the Principal Self-Efficacy
Survey (PSES). Smith et al. (2006) explored three research questions. The first question
explored the relationship between nine demographic variables of the principal and their self-
efficacy beliefs. Demographic factors included race, gender, years in education, years as a
principal at a particular school, total years as a principal, academic degree of the principal,
number of students enrolled at principal’s school, percent of students on free/reduced lunch, and
location of the school (urban, suburban, or rural). The second question examined whether there
LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 36

were significant differences between perceived beliefs of principals and actual practices of
principals. Principals were asked to report the amount of time spent per week on items related to
the two factors of instructional effectiveness and management skills. The last question aimed to
measure the principals rated their beliefs regarding the effectiveness of their efforts to facilitate
effective instruction in their schools.
Smith et al. (2006) made some interesting findings. Female principals were found to
have a higher self-efficacy when it came to instructional leadership. Principals with a high
proportion of free/reduced lunch and principals working in larger schools also demonstrated a
high self-efficacy in instructional leadership. Female principals of schools with a high
free/reduced student lunch population were found to also have a high level of self-efficacy when
it came to time devoted to instructional leadership activities. Not surprisingly, survey analysis
concluded that overall, more principals reported spending more time on general school
management activities than on instructional leadership activities. Fifty-six principals (20%) in
the study reported that” they have the ability to facilitate effective teaching and learning, but
there are external variables hindering their efforts” (Smith et al., 2006, p. 14). The findings of
this study are important because this dissertation study will build upon this work by measuring
self-efficacy among urban school principals in the areas of instructional and transformational
leadership.
Beliefs, Attitudes and Values towards Diversity
In addition to measuring the instructional and/or transformational leadership self-efficacy
of urban school principals, this study also measures whether beliefs, attitudes and values towards
LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 37

diversity of urban school principals influences their decision to be instructional and/or
transformational leaders.
A substantial amount of studies has documented that principals hold different beliefs
about students that lead to differential treatment (Pohan & Aguilar, 2001). Much of these beliefs
are centered on diverse students who do not fit within educational norms due to race/ethnicity,
social class, gender, religion, languages (other than English), disability and sexual orientation.
These beliefs, attitudes and values have often served to reinforce low expectations, negative
stereotypes, biases/prejudices and cultural misconceptions of these students (Pohan & Aguilar,
2001). Pohan and Aguilar (2001) argue “attitudes represent a network of several beliefs that can
be used to predict behavior” (p. 160). Their argument rests on Bandura’s social cognitive theory
which states that beliefs mediate knowledge and action (behaviors/skills) (Pohan & Aguilar,
2001). Under this framework, the beliefs of school principals “serve as filters for their
knowledge bases and will ultimately affect their actions” on both a personal and professional
level (Pohan & Aguilar, 2001, p. 160). This is why Brown (2004) argues that school principals
must critically examine their personal beliefs about diversity and their professional behaviors if
the racial and ethnic academic achievement gap is to be closed. This means principals must
problematize “those taken-for-granted practices that we no longer notice unless we are explicitly
asked to do so” (Brown, 2004, p. 332).
Two theoretical models that help explain how principals form their beliefs, attitudes and
values about diversity are Sue’s (2003) Development of Personal Identity (DPI) model and
Myer’s (2001) Optimal Theory Applied to Identity Development (OTAID) model. Each of these
LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 38

models ties belief systems to identity and view beliefs, attitudes and values towards diversity as a
reflection of how one views themselves.
Sue’s Model of Personal Identity
The development of one’s personal beliefs, attitudes and values towards diversity is
inextricably linked to human development and self-identity (Sue, D. W. & Sue, D., 2003). The
experiences acquired along the human development cycle influence the formation of one’s self-
identity (Sevig, T. D. et al., 2000). Sue, D. W. and Sue, D. (2003) capture the complexity of this
process through their tripartite framework for understanding the multiple dimensions of identity
as seen in Table 5.
Table 5 - Tripartite Development of Personal Identity

At the universal level, all individuals share characteristics common to humanity. All humanity
shares common biological and physical characteristics, common life experiences (birth, death,
love, sadness, etc.), have a sense of consciousness / self-awareness and have the ability to use
symbols such as language (Sue, D. W. & Sue, D., 2003). At the universal level, “all individuals
are, in some respects, like all (emphasis added) other individuals” (Sue, D. W., 2001, p.793).
Universal Level: Homo Sapiens
 common life experiences
 biological and physical similarities
 self-awareness
 ability to use symbols

Group Level: Similarities and Differences
 race
 ethnicity
 culture
 gender
 sexual orientation
 marital Status
 religious preference
 disability / ability
 geographic location
 age
 socioeconomic status
Individual Level: Uniqueness
 genetic endowment
 non-shared experiences
LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 39

At the group level, individuals develop group identities associated with race, ethnicity,
culture, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, religious preference, disability/ability,
geographic location, age and socioeconomic status. At this level, “all individuals are, in some
(emphasis added) respects, like some other individuals” (Sue, D. W., 2001, p.793). People form
connections to various groups by virtue of social, cultural, and political socializations (Sue, D.
W. & Sue, D., 2003). While people may associate with more than one group membership, there
is usually one or two group identities people associate with more than others (Sue, D. W. & Sue,
D., 2003). These associations significantly shape one’s individual identity and serve as
“powerful reference groups in the formation of worldviews” (Sue, D. W., 2001, p.794).
The individual level represents the unique experiences through which people view the
world. It is the point at which all experiences and associations influence the way one views
themselves and the world they live in. At this level, “all individuals are, in some respects, like
no other individuals” (Sue, D. W., 2001, p.794). “Our unique genetic endowment guarantees
that no two individuals are identical. Even identical twins, who theoretically share the same
gene pool and are raised in the same family, are exposed to not only shared but also many non-
shared experiences” (Sue, D. W., 2001, p. 794). Non-shared experiences allow people to form
unique identities, beliefs, attitudes and values (Sue, D. W. & Sue, D., 2003). Sue (2001) argues
that “a holistic approach to understanding personal identity demands that we recognize all three
levels: individual (uniqueness-like no others), group (shared cultural values and beliefs with
reference groups), and universal (common features of being human)” (Sue, D. W., 2001, p.794).
This means that each level of identity influences the other and my even change it.
LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 40

Speaking from a multicultural competent counseling framework, Sue (2001) argues that
association with group identity; especially based on racial/ethnic classification is given less
importance in understanding our identities. People generally feel comfortable understanding
their identity in relation to the human universal level because it is viewed as acceptable truth.
One cannot argue, for example, that we do not share the same physiological and emotional
functions. The same is true for the individual level. Generally, people understand that they are
responsible for developing their own identity. Sayings such as “be your own person,” “stand on
your own two feet,” and “don’t depend on others but yourself” reinforce this understanding (Sue,
2001). Group association and identity, however, seems to be difficult to process. “Issues of
race, gender, sexual orientation, and disability seem to touch ‘hot buttons’ in all of us because
they bring to light issues of oppression and the unpleasantness of personal biases” (Sue, D. W.,
2001, p. 795). This could be one reason why group identity is rarely discussed and processed.
Failure to fully understand our own group identity presents a challenge understanding groups
that are different from our own perceived group(s) (Sue, D.W., 2001). This could also be a way
of understanding why the racial and ethnic academic achievement gap continues to be so
pervasive in U.S. society. Nonetheless, school principals must acknowledge that group identities
shape our worldviews; specifically identities rooted in different racial and ethnic experiences.
Differences in group identities grounded in racial and ethnic experiences challenge
school principals to become culturally competent. Sue et al. (1982) define cultural competence
in three categories: (a) attitudes/beliefs- an understanding of one’s own cultural conditioning that
affects personal beliefs, values and attitudes; (b) knowledge- understanding and knowledge of
the worldviews of culturally different individuals and groups; and (c) skills- use of culturally
LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 41

appropriate intervention/communication skills. Table 7 outlines the components of cultural
competence that Sue et al. (1982) believe are important for people (i.e. principals) working with
diverse racial/ethnic populations from a counseling perspective. Sue (2001) argues that adopting
a cultural competence framework is about social justice; meaning it is centered on providing
equal access and opportunity to attain quality educational outcomes.
Table 6 – Components of Cultural Competence
Belief/Attitude Knowledge Skill
 Aware and sensitive to own
heritage and valuing/respecting
differences.
 Aware of own
background/experiences and biases
and how they influence
psychological processes.
 Recognizes limits of competencies
and expertise.
 Comfortable with differences that
exist between themselves and
others.
 In touch with negative emotional
reactions toward racial/ethnic
groups and can be nonjudgmental.
 Aware of stereotypes and
preconceived notions.
 Respects religious and/or spiritual
beliefs of others.
 Respects indigenous helping
practices and community networks.
 Values bilingualism.

 Has knowledge of own
racial/cultural heritage and how it
affects perceptions.
 Possesses knowledge about racial
identity development.
 Knowledgeable about own social
impact and communication style.
 Knowledgeable about groups one
works or interacts with.
 Understands how race/ethnicity
affects personality formation,
vocational choices, psychological
disorders, and so forth.
 Knows about sociopolitical
influences, immigration, poverty,
powerlessness and so forth.
 Understands culture-bound, class-
bound, and linguistic features of
psychological help.
 Knows the effects of institutional
barriers.
 Knows bias of assessment.
 Knowledgeable about minority
family structures, community and
so forth.
 Knows how discriminatory
practices operate at a community
level.
 Seeks out educational, consultative,
and multicultural training
experiences.
 Seeks to understand self as
racial/cultural being.
 Familiarizes self with relevant
research on racial/ethnic groups.
 Involved with minority groups
outside of work role: community
events, celebrations, neighbors, and
so forth.
 Able to engage in a variety of
verbal/nonverbal helping styles.
 Can exercise institutional
intervention skills on behalf of
clients.
 Can seek consultation with
traditional healers.
 Can take responsibility to provide
linguistic competence for clients.
 Has expertise in cultural aspects of
assessment.
 Works to eliminate bias, prejudice,
and discrimination.
 Educates clients in the nature of
one’s practice.

According to Sue (2001), there are four obstacles that seem to block the path toward
attaining cultural competence: (1) unable to acknowledge personal biases because people
perceive and experience themselves as moral, decent and fair; (2) unable to honestly examine,
explore, and discuss in public unpleasant racial realities such as prejudice, stereotyping, and
LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 42

discrimination; (3) unable to accept responsibility for any action or inaction that may directly or
indirectly perpetuate injustice; and (4) unable to deal with embedded emotions (fear, guilt, anger,
etc.) often associated with painful racial memories and images. Being culturally competent
means that one can no longer escape personal responsibility for adopting a social justice
perspective of education.
Optimal Theory Applied to Identity Development (OTAID)
A second model that explores identity development and shapes the beliefs, attitudes and
values held towards diversity is Myers’ et al. Optimal Theory Applied to Identity Development
(OTAID). The OTAID was developed by Myers et al. (1991) in response to identity
development models that restrict identity to a specific category or group (i.e. African-American,
Mexican, Asian, Female, Gay/Lesbian) and incorporates elements of cultural competence.
Myers et al. (1991) argue that people do not fit in only one (emphasis added) identity group. For
example, someone can be African-American, female, poor and lesbian. In most cases however,
identity is only viewed from one of these perspectives rather than the intersection of all
identities. For Myers et al. (1991), restricting identity into one category is a form of oppression
and takes a suboptimal worldview.
Myers et al. (1991) argues that people either see the world from an “optimal” or
“suboptimal” perspective. Under an “optimal” worldview, people adopt a “holistic conceptual
system designed to foster peace and harmony within (emphasis added) and subsequently among
(emphasis added) people” (Myers et al., 1991, p. 56). According to Myers et al. (1991), “optimal
means the best possible [option] under a specific set of conditions. The set of conditions labeled
optimal are those yielding peace, joy, harmony, and the increased well-being of the whole” (p.
LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 43

57). When people live in an optimal worldview, they develop a solid sense of self filled with
intrinsic feelings of worth and value (Myers et al., 1991). A “suboptimal” worldview, on the
contrary, relies on a fragmented sense of self and others (Myers, et al., 1991). It results in a
desire and need to be “better than” others. One’s full potential is not allowed to flourish in a
suboptimal worldview. For Myers et al. (1991), assigning people to a racial classification creates
a fragmented sense of self and results in a feeling of oppression. Under this view, the world is
viewed through a lens of conflict and division; the multiple forms of one’s identity are not
allowed to co-exist and co-habitat with one another. Nor are differences among others allowed
to exist and flourish (Myers et al., 1991).
The OTAID model seeks to elevate people above a mindset that normalizes social
injustices and inequities by raising their consciousness and sense of self to an optimal level of
existence. It seeks to push people to examine their worldview and relationship to others in the
universe. At its highest level of existence, the OTAID model aims to guide people to a place of
deep understanding, respect and appreciation of self and others in the universe through self-
discovery, self-awareness and self-reflection. Under an OTAID, the pervasive racial and ethnic
academic achievement gap is recognized as a suboptimal construction; meaning as a system
constructed to maintain power over others either consciously or unconsciously. Over time,
people come to adopt an optimal or suboptimal worldview as people interact with the
sociocultural environment around them (Myers et al., 1991). Educators, specifically school
principals, are not immune to the world around them. Their beliefs, attitudes and values about
education, teachers and students are influenced by the way they see the world. According to
LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 44

Myers et al. (1991), personal beliefs are grounded in “philosophical assumptions and principles
that structure the way one views the world” (p. 56).
Six Phases of OTAID. Myers et al. (1991) developed six developmental phases
designed to capture individual progression from a suboptimal to an optimal identity. Throughout
each development phase, self-identity grows from a narrow perspective to a broad and inclusive
one. “The individual moves from a rather segmented way of viewing the world to a more
holistic worldview. To attain this holistic worldview, the individual embarks on a journey of
self-discovery and self-acceptance” (Myers et al., 1991, p. 59). For purposes of this study, these
phases are useful in understanding the identities of school principals and how they view their
role as instructional and/or transformational leaders. These development phases can be
measured qualitatively through interviews or focus groups since a qualitative instrument has not
been developed.
Phase 0: Absence of Conscious Awareness. At this level, individuals lack awareness of
being. At this phase, people do not formulate a sense of self as separate and possess a sense of
innocence. This phases is typically associated with childhood.
Phase 1: Individuation. This development phase views the world as the way it is
(emphasis added). Individuals lack awareness of any view of self other than the one to which
they are initially introduced and rarely assign particular meaning or value to any aspect of their
identity. At this level a principal may view the academic achievement gap as socially acceptable
and be unaware that he/she has the ability to serve as an instructional and/or transformational
leader.
LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 45

Phase 2: Dissonance. This development phase views the world from a place of wonder
and inquiry. People begin to wonder who they are. People begin to “affectively explore those
aspects of self that may be devalued by others. This experience triggers conflict between what
individuals believe they are and a false image of self that would be inferior. Consciously or
unconsciously, individuals may internalize sociocultural values that hold a negative view of self”
(Myers et al., 1991, p. 59). As an example of this level, a principal may overhear teachers share
that he/she is an ineffective leader because he/she never visits classrooms. School data suggest
that African-American students are not learning. This leads the principal to begin to question his
performance as a leader, threatening his self-image as an effective school leader.
Phase 3: Immersion. At phase three, people begin to focus their energy on people like
themselves who are also devalued. According to Myers et al. (1991) “this acceptance enables
people to learn about and appreciate the devalued aspects of themselves. Individuals may
‘immerse’ themselves, directly, or vicariously, or both, in the culture of the devalued group”
(Myers et al., 1991, p. 59). To stick with our example, principals who begin to realize they are
ineffective may begin to pay greater attention to other principals who are also deemed
ineffective. At this phase, this same principal may even work with other principals or their
superiors at the district office to develop his/her skills and pay greater attention to issues
affecting African-American students.
Phase 4: Internalization. At this phase, people begin to feel good about who they are.
“Individuals have effectively incorporated feelings of worth associated with the salient aspects of
self resulting in an increased sense of security (Myers et al., 1991, p. 59). At this level,
principals begin to accept their strengths and shortcomings. They being to draw strength on the
LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 46

areas of their identity they feel confident about and begin to reflect on the areas in need of
improvement. A Latino male principal, for example, may begin to accept that even though the
students in the school he leads are low-income and majority Latino, he does not fully understand
the learning issues experienced by these students because he grew up middle-class and immune
from the socioeconomic problems in the community he leads.
Phase 5: Integration. Phase five enters the optimal world view. At this level, people
have a deeper understanding of themselves and begin to change their assumptions about the
world. People reach a developed sense of self and form positive perceptions of others previously
viewed from a limited perspective. People begin to have a deeper sense of community and
establish authentic relationships with others who are different then themselves. At this level, a
conceptual switch begins to occur and “individuals begin to understand the true nature of
oppression as reflecting the nature of one’s worldview: All people can oppress or be oppressed,
depending upon one’s assumptions about one’s self and relationships to others” (Myers et al.,
1991, p. 59). When school principals reach phase 5, they take full ownership and responsibility
for the school they lead. They are conscious of school conditions and more importantly,
conscious of how their identity shapes outcomes. At this level, a principal of color understands
that they can create oppressive conditions for students of color based on what they choose not to
do (i.e. confront negative assumptions that low-income students of color can’t learn). This
means principals become critical conscious educational leaders focused on “redressing social
injustices and developing enduring educational practices embodying equity” (Brown, 2004, p.
333). Impatience for others who do not view the racial and ethnic achievement gap, however,
may surface during interactions with deficit thinking individuals.
LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 47

Phase 6: Transformation. At phase 6, people “experience a fundamental shift in
worldview based on the realization of the interrelatedness and interdependence of all things and
are empowered to define their reality based on spiritual awareness rather than external
circumstances. All forms of life are accepted and valued for their contribution to the greater
good of the whole” (Myers et al., 1991, p. 60). Under a transformation phase, urban school
principals view themselves as moral and ethical leaders charged with the responsibility of
serving all students, teachers and parents. They view the existence of the racial and ethnic
academic achievement gap as a direct violation of this principle. In essence, urban principals
become committed to equity.
Educators [principals] committed to equity understand and create opportunities for
learning of all students by dealing with issues of context and achievement. Equity deals
with socioeconomic and political disparities in the larger social order and how they are
reflected in school routines, procedures, curriculum and textbook adoption, and
classroom pedagogies. Leaders for equity examine power relations within schools and
society, scrutinize differential schooling, and critique social class stratifications (Brown,
2004, p.333-334).
Phase 6 of the OTAID model represents the highest form of consciousness. People are fully
aware of the thought process guiding their actions and the effect these actions have on others.
Studies Measuring Principal Beliefs, Attitudes and Values towards Diversity
Few empirical quantitative studies have measured the beliefs, attitudes and values of
principals towards diversity. All empirical studies measuring beliefs, attitudes and values
towards diversity have focused on classroom teachers. These studies have largely revolved
LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 48

around preparation programs, interventions, experiences, and/or professional development
opportunities.
One of the earliest instruments measuring beliefs, attitudes and values of educators
towards diversity was developed by Henry (1986). Henry (1986) developed the Cultural
Diversity Awareness Inventory (CDAI), a 5-point Likert scale self-administered questionnaire of
28 agree/disagree opinion statements to examine general cultural awareness of educators. It was
intended for educators delivering direct services to culturally diverse elementary school children.
The CDAI, measures culture using Aragon’s (1973) five traits of culture: (1) values and beliefs;
(2) communication; (3) social relationships of mother/child, woman/man, uncle/niece, etc., (4)
basic diet and food preparation; and (5) dress or common costume. Henry (1986) categorized
responses according to sense of responsibility, discomfort, adaptations and accommodations.
Larke (1990) used the CDAI to assess the cultural sensitivity levels of 51 preservice elementary
teachers who had taken at least one multicultural education course. Majority of preservice
teacher responses revealed a general feeling of discomfort working with diverse populations and
only one-fifth admitted a preference to work with such students.
Other researchers who used the CDAI were Davis and Turner (1993) and Davis and
Whitener-Lepanto (1994). Davis and Turner (1993) administered the CDAI to elementary
preservice teachers in in teacher education program in southern states. Majority of preservice
teachers in this study exhibited cultural sensitivity in the areas of the culturally diverse family,
cross-cultural communication, assessment, and creation of a multicultural environment using
multicultural methods and materials. Davis and Whitener-Lepanto (1994) administered the
CDAI to 637 student teachers enrolled in an elementary teacher education program in the
LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 49

Southeast to measure their attitudes towards students from culturally diverse families. Majority
of preservice teachers were found to be culturally sensitive to the needs of culturally diverse
students; especially in the area of communicating with diverse families.
Another instrument that has been used to measure beliefs, attitudes and values towards
diversity is the Survey of Multicultural Education Concepts (SMEC) developed by Moore and
Reeves-Kazelskis (1992). This instrument assess beliefs and attitudes about multicultural
education with items representing racism, sexism, stereotyping, linguistic views, special
holidays, and educational practices. Moore and Reeves-Kazelskis (1992) “used the SMEC to
determine whether formal instruction in multicultural education, including lectures and an oral
dialogue between two professors of different racial backgrounds would produce changes in 31
preservice teachers’ beliefs about basic concepts related to the topic. Results of the
pretest/posttest study suggested that carefully planned and implemented formal instruction may
be used to change preservice teachers’ beliefs about cultural diversity” (Brown, 2004, p.335).
Like the CDAI, however, the validity and reliability of the SMEC has not been verified.
Other studies measuring the beliefs, attitudes and values of educators towards diversity
were carried out by Tatto (1996) and Solomon and Levine-Rasky (1994). Tatto (1996) created a
nine-question survey to measure the beliefs and attitudes of 817 preservice teachers towards
culturally diverse students. One-hundred and thirteen faculty members also participated in the
survey but they were directed to answer how they would like their graduates to answer. Results
revealed that faculty members and students “shared a commitment to the ideals of social justice
and fairness in regard to teaching diverse students” (Brown, 2004, p. 336). Solomon and Levin-
Rasky’s (1994) study explored Canadian educators’ perspectives on multicultural and anti-racist
LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 50

education policy and practices within schools. A little more than 1,000 teachers in 57
elementary and secondary schools from five school jurisdictions across Canada took a 55
statement survey using a 5-point Likert response scale. Results revealed that teachers needed
development in three areas: race and ethnospecific information about students, pedagogical
strategies for classroom use and competence development for working with diverse students.
Summary
Little is known about the self-efficacy and beliefs, attitudes and values towards diversity
of urban school principals with respect to their role as instructional and transformational
leadership in an era of high accountability for the academic performance of all students; in
particular, students of color. This chapter examined self-efficacy using Bandura’s framework to
understand the sources and effects of self-efficacy. Self-efficacy, the belief about one’s
capabilities to bring out a desired outcome, is influenced by personal motivation level and
interactions with the environment. Four sources of self-efficacy affect whether people believe
they are capable of producing a desired action or task: (1) enactive mastery experiences; (2)
vicarious experiences; (3) verbal persuasion; and (4) physiological and emotional states. Each of
these sources of self-efficacy influence whether people choose to participate in a specific action,
exhaust effort and persistence to accomplish an action and how they think and feel about
themselves.
Though there has not been many studies measuring self-efficacy among school
principals, Hillman’s (1983) study found no relationship between the self-efficacy of elementary
school principals and academic achievement. The measurement instrument in this study was
unclear and the sample size was small. DeMoulin’s (1992) study was much more reliable. He
LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 51

found that principals who had a high level of self-efficacy as measured in the Career Awareness
Index (CAI) were found to have minimal additional assigned duties outside of instructional
monitoring and used a minimal number of sick/personal days. Leithwood and Jantzi’s (2008)
study also found a contributing external factor influencing principal self-efficacy. Their study
demonstrated that principal self-efficacy is strongly affected by the actions of the district office.
The studies by Lyons and Murphy (1994) and Dimmock and Hattie (1996) confirmed the
assumption that principal confidence level in how they manage and deal with conflict reflects
self-efficacy. Smith’s et al. (2006) study was the most relevant to this study because they used
the Principal Self-Efficacy Survey (PSES) and discovered that female principals had higher self-
efficacy as instructional leaders. Surprisingly, they also found that principals leading schools
with a high number of free/reduced lunch population were more efficacious instructional leaders
than principals of schools with a low free/reduced population.
Unlike self-efficacy, there were no quantitative studies that measured the professional
beliefs, attitudes and values towards diversity of school principals. The studies most closely
related with beliefs, attitudes and values about diversity measured classroom teachers. These
studies largely measured the extent to which preservice teachers valued working with culturally
diverse students. Pohan and Aguilar’s (2001) work captured how beliefs, attitudes and values
towards diversity affect student learning. Citing multiple studies, they argue that attitudes about
diversity represent a network of several beliefs that predict behavior. These beliefs are closely
associated with self-identity. Sue’s (2003) model of personal identity was used to gain an
understanding of how beliefs, attitudes and values towards diversity are formed. Sue’s model
tied beliefs, attitudes and values towards diversity as an outcome of identity. Finally, Myer’s et
LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 52

al. (1991) OTAID model was used to understand an identity model that embraced a commitment
to the existence of all forms of diversity, in particular to race and ethnicity. Myer’s et al. (1991)
OTAID model is based on 6 phases of identity, the highest being phase 6: transformation. This
model suggest that principals who reach a transformation phase are likely to be committed to
diversity and adopt a positive worldview that values the welfare and contribution of diverse
groups in society.
Purpose of the Study
Given the impact that self-efficacy and one’s beliefs, attitudes and values towards
diversity has on student learning outcomes, this study will measure how these variables influence
the work of urban school principals as instructional and transformational leaders. This study
specifically seeks to understand whether principals are more likely to implement instructional
leadership and/or transformational leadership practices in urban schools when they have a high
level of self-efficacy as school leaders and hold positive beliefs, attitudes and values towards
diversity.
Research Questions
The following research questions and hypothesis were investigated through this study:
Research Question 1
1. Does urban school principal’s professional self-efficacy predict the extent to which they
exercise instructional and/or transformational leadership practices?
Hypothesis 1: A higher level of self-efficacy will predict higher reported levels of
instrumental leadership practices among urban school principals.

LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 53

Research Question 2
1. Do urban school principal’s beliefs, attitudes and values towards diversity predict the
extent to which they implement instructional and/or transformational leadership
practices?
Hypothesis 2: An urban school principal’s beliefs, attitudes and values about diversity
will predict whether they implement transformational leadership practices.
Research Question 3
Are there racial / ethnic group differences in the extent to which urban school principals
implement instructional and transformational leadership practices?
Hypothesis 3: There will be racial/ethnic group differences in the extent to which urban
school principals implement instructional and transformational leadership practices
aimed at closing the racial and ethnic academic achievement gap.

LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 54

CHAPTER III
Methodology
This study investigates the relationship between self-efficacy and the beliefs, attitudes
and values towards diversity of urban school principals and their ability to implement
instructional and transformational leadership practices to close the racial and ethnic academic
achievement gap. The following chapter includes information on the participants used for the
study, the instruments utilized and the procedures for data collection.
Participants
Elementary and secondary urban school principals were selected from various school
districts, charter organizations and private schools in Southern California. A total of 139 urban
school principals in Southern California volunteered to participate in the study. Participants in
the sample ranged in age from 29 to 59 years old (M=41.96 years, SD=7.12). The number of
years participants served as urban school principals ranged from 1 to 18 years (M=6.35 years of
experience, SD=3.51). Male principals comprised 53.2% (n=74) of the sample, while female
principals comprised 46.8% (n=65) of the sample. Participants’ gender, ethnicity, education, type
of school they lead and grade level of school they lead are presented in Table 7.

LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 55

Table 7
Demographic Characteristics of Sampled Principals
______________________________________________________________________________
Demographic Descriptive Statistics
a
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Total Sample Size 139
Age 41.96 (7.12)
Sex
Male 74 (53.20%)
Female 65 (46.80%)
Education
Bachelor’s Degree 2 (1.40%)
Master’s Degree 123 (88.50%)
Doctoral Degree 14 (10.10%)
Years of Experience 6.35 (3.50)
Ethnicity
Asian 16 (11.50%)
African-American 26 (18.70%)
Latino 58 (41.70%)
White 38 (27.30%)
Other 1 (0.07%)
Type of School
District Public School 77 (55.40%)
Charter Public School 57 (41.00%)
Private School 5 (3.60%)
Level of School
Elementary School 27 (19.40%)
Middle School 65 (46.80%)
High School 46 (33.10%)

a
reported as M(SD) or n (valid %) unless otherwise noted

Instruments
As shown in Appendix A, principals were provided with an informed consent form prior
to participating in the study and were made aware that all survey responses would remain
confidential. The survey itself was divided into five sections: 1) Demographic and background
information (Appendix B); 2) Instructional leadership assessment (Appendix B); 3)
LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 56

Transformational leadership assessment (Appendix C); 4) Self-efficacy (Appendix D); and 5)
Beliefs, attitudes and values towards diversity (Appendix E). The instruments used for this study
are described in detail below.
Instructional Leadership
Instructional leadership, a dependent variable, was measured by the Principal
Instructional Management Rating Scale developed by Hallinger and Murphy (1985). This
instrument is broken down into three sections and ten subsections as described in Table 8.
Table 8
Description of subsections of PIMRS
Section I:
Defining the School Mission
Section II:
Managing the Instructional Program
Section III:
Promoting an Instructional School
Climate.
 Framing the school
goals
 Communicating the
school goals
 Supervising and evaluating
instruction
 Coordinating the curriculum
 Monitoring student progress
 Protecting instructional time
 Maintaining high visibility
 Providing incentives for teachers
 Promoting professional development
 Providing incentives for learning

This scale was developed by Hallinger and Murphy (1985) to measure how well principals
participate in the activities that were found to directly impact classroom instruction. Consistent
with the literature, these three sections and ten subsections define the principal as an instructional
leader. There are a total of 50 questions with 10 subscales. Each subscale consists of 5
questions. The survey asks principals to rate to what extent they perform the action in each
statement using a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from a rating of (1) almost never to a rating of (5)
almost always. The instrument is scored by calculating the mean for each of the 10 subscales:
(1) framing the school goals; (2) communicating the school goals; (3) supervising and evaluating
instruction; (4) coordinating the curriculum; (5) monitoring student progress; (6) protecting
instructional time; (7) maintaining high visibility; (8) providing incentives for teachers; (9)
LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 57

promoting professional development; (10) providing incentives for learning. A high score in a
specific job functions indicates active leadership in that area (Hallinger & Murphy, 1987).
Principals who obtain a high score across the various job functions are perceived as engaging in
instructional leadership behaviors associated with principals in effective schools (Hallinger &
Murphy, 1987). It is important to note, however, that the PIMRS ratings do not measure the
quality of principal instructional leadership.
The PIMRS provides strong content validity. Content validity ensures that the test items
under consideration measure all of the dimensions or facets of a given construct. The PIMRS
measures three major constructs: 1) defining the school mission; 2) managing the instructional
program; and 3) promoting an instructional school climate. Content validity was derived by
expert ratings measuring the relationship between the test item questions and instructional
leadership behaviors. The survey was also found to have strong construct validity. This suggests
that item-responses from each participant across the 3 major constructs were similar and stable
for each participant who took the survey. Each of these constructs is measured by specific
actions achieved by the principal. Internal Reliability ratings of the PIMRS have been found to
have a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.75 (Hallinger & Murphy, 1987).
Transformational Leadership
Transformational leadership, a dependent variable, was measured by the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) developed by Bass & Avolio (1990). This instrument
measures the extent to which principals participate in the actions found in the literature to
transform their staff’s attitudes and beliefs towards a common vision. The instrument asks
principals to evaluate themselves on a variety of qualities and behaviors found to be associated
LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 58

with transformational leadership. The instrument also asks school staff to evaluate their
principal on the same leadership qualities and behaviors to ensure principal self-ratings are
aligned to their staff ratings. For this study, only principal self-ratings were used. The MLQ has
a total of 45 questions scored using a 4 point Likert scale ranging from a score of 0 (not at all) to
a score of 4 (Frequently, if not always). For purposes of the study, however, 11 questions were
not included in the survey because they were not related to school leadership. As a result, a total
of 34 questions were provided on the study survey. The instrument directs the principal and staff
to leave a question blank if they are unsure or do not know how to answer a specific question.
Internal Consistency Reliability ratings for the MLQ were found to have a Cronbach’s alpha
coefficient of 0.86 and strong construct validity (Muenjohn & Armstrong, 2008).
Self-Efficacy
Principal self-efficacy was measured using the Principal Self-Efficacy Survey (PSES)
developed by Smith and Guarino (2005). It is divided into three main sections. The first section
is a fourteen-item inventory assessing principal self-efficacy in two domains: instructional
leadership skills and instructional leadership practices. The second portion of the PSES, contains
eight items and is related to the amount of time principals spend in a week on typical activities.
The last section of the PSES is a question that asks principals to rate their beliefs regarding the
effectiveness of their efforts to facilitate effective instruction in their school. Principals are
asked to read each statement which begins with the phrase “my beliefs in my abilities to…” and
rate it using a four point rubric: 1) Very weak beliefs in my abilities, (VW); 2) weak beliefs in
my abilities (W); Strong beliefs in my abilities (S); 4) very strong beliefs in my abilities (VS).
The second part of the survey calls principals to rate the amount of time they spend on various
LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 59

tasks according to a four point rubric: 1) less than 10%; 2) between 10% and 30%; 3) between
30% and 50% and 4) more than 50% of the time. Internal Consistency Reliability ratings for the
PSES were found to have a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of .86 and .74 for Instructional
Leadership and Management Skills, and Practices (amount of time spent on activities),
respectively, and strong construct validity (Smith and Guarino, 2005).
Beliefs, Attitudes and Values Towards Diversity
Beliefs, attitudes and values towards diversity was measured using the Professional
Beliefs About Diversity Scale (PBDS) developed by Pohan & Aguilar (2001). The instrument
has 22 questions and is intended to measure the extent to which principals hold beliefs, attitudes
and values that positively embrace diversity. Principals were asked to rate each statement on a 5
value Likert scale ranging from A= strongly disagree to E= strongly agree. Measuring beliefs,
attitudes and values towards diversity among school principals may shed light on how these
views influence their decision to intentionally serve as instructional and/or transformational
leaders. The Professional Beliefs About Diversity Scale was found to have a Cronbach’s alpha
coefficient of 0.85. Pohan and Aguilar (2001) also found strong construct validity with the
Professional Beliefs About Diversity Scale.
Procedure
Prior to administering the above mentioned surveys to urban principals, a meeting was
organized with urban school district superintendents or their designees to share the purpose of
the study. Permission was asked to administer the optional survey to principals in the district.
Once permission was granted to administer the survey to principals in selected public school
districts and charter school organizations, an email was sent to principals explaining the purpose
LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 60

and goals of the study along with an invitation to participate in the study. An email was sent to
private school principals to participate in the study whose schools were located in urban
communities and whose student demographics were similar to surrounding public schools.
Survey questions were administered using the online Qualtrics survey software. To maintain
confidentiality of the participants, only the primary investigators for this study were granted
access to data. All identifying information from the survey was kept in a separate location from
survey responses. The average time to complete the survey was approximately 28 minutes. As
an incentive for completing the survey, principals were given the opportunity to enter a raffle to
win one of ten iCard gift cards.

LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 61

CHAPTER IV
Results
The following chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the results of the study,
including preliminary analyses, analyses of the three research questions, as well as post-hoc
analyses exploring the differences between those principals working at public district schools
and those at charter schools.
Preliminary Analyses
Intercorrelations
As a dichotomous variable, sex was included in correlational analysis. Results indicated
that sex was the only variable that was not significantly correlated with the other measured
variables, while age had a statistically significant inverse relationship. This suggests that while
there were no gender differences in instructional or transformational leadership when it came to a
principal’s self-efficacy (skills and practices) and beliefs and attitudes about diversity, there were
differences when it came to age. Principals who were older in this study exercised significantly
less instructional and transformational leadership practices, had lower self-efficacy in their
instructional leadership and management skills and practices, and were less likely to hold beliefs,
attitudes, or values that embrace diversity.
All 10 sections of the PIMR (Instructional Leadership) were significantly correlated with
each other, as expected, and they were also significantly correlated with MLQ (Transformational
Leadership), Self-efficacy (both Skills and Practices component), as well as PBDS (beliefs,
attitudes, and values toward diversity). The means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations of
the measured variables are presented in Table 10.
LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 62
62

Table 9
Means, Standard Deviations, and Zero-order Pearson Product Correlations
Variables M SD 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
1. Sex - - .05 -.01 .06 .02 .02 .07 .11 .04 .04 .09 .13 .06 .01 .07 .03 .10
2. Age 41.67 7.81 - -.28** -.25** -.34*** -.26** -.33*** -.33*** -.33*** -.24** -.34*** -.19* -.32*** -.39*** .37*** -.30*** -.46***
3. Frame 3.22 .63 - .85*** .80*** .63*** .74*** .75*** .62*** .65*** .71*** .61*** .83*** .72*** .67*** .44*** .55***
4. Comm 4.11 .72 - .81*** .67*** .80*** .79*** .72*** .75*** .77*** .74*** .89*** .70*** .72*** .41*** .54***
5. Supervise 4.11 .77 - .72*** .90*** .86*** .73*** .76*** .83*** .78*** .92*** .79*** .80*** .50*** .65***
6. Coordinate 4.05 .60 - .72*** .70*** .62*** .63*** .66*** .67*** .78*** .60*** .63*** .43*** .48***
7. Monitor 4.13 .79 - .89*** .77*** .82*** .83*** .83*** .94*** .77*** .81*** .53*** .65***
8. Protect 4/15 .74 - .78*** .81*** .83*** .81*** .93*** .73*** .76*** .48*** .62***
9. Visibility 3.76 .85 - .79*** .71*** .79*** .86*** .68*** .72*** .38*** .56***
10. Teacher 4.09 .80

.82*** .82*** .89*** .71*** .73*** .49*** .60***
11. PD 4.13 .75

.82*** .90*** .78*** .79*** .47*** .70***
12. Learning 4.05 .82

- .90*** .71*** .76*** .48*** .61***
13. PIMRS_O 3.98 .66

- .81*** .84*** .52*** .68***
14. MLQ 3.84 .49

- .86*** .47*** .75***
15. PSES-S 2.99 .63

- .46*** .75***
16. PSES-P 2.32 .37

- .53***
17. PBDS 3.70 .43

-

Note. All scores are scaled scores. 1: Sex (1 = Male, 2 = Female); 2: Age; PIMRS = Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale – 3: Frame = Framing
school goals, 4: Comm = Communicate the school goals, 5: Supervise = Supervising and evaluating instruction, 6: Coordinate = Coordinating the curriculum, 7:
Monitor = Monitoring student progress, 8: Protect = Protecting instructional time, 9: Visibility = Maintaining high visibility, 10: Teacher = Providing incentives
for teachers, 11: PD = Promoting professional development, 12: Learning = Providing incentives for learning, 13: PIMRS_O = overall PIMRS scores
(instructional leadership); 14: MLQ = Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (transformational leadership); PSES = Principal Self-Efficacy Survey – 15. PSES-S
= Self-efficacy in instructional leadership and management skills; 16. PSES-A = self-efficacy in practices (amount of time spent on activities); 17. PBDS =
Beliefs about diversity scale

* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .000
LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 63 63

Analyses of Research Questions
Research Question 1: Does urban school principal’s professional self-efficacy predict the
extent to which they exercise instructional and/or transformational practices?
Instructional leadership practices. Ten simultaneous multiple regression analyses were
conducted to examine if urban school principals’ professional self-efficacy (skills and practices)
significantly contributed to their practices in instructional leadership. Bonferroni corrections
were employed to control the familywise error rate and possible inflated Type I error when
examining multiple criterion variables.
Statistical significance level for instructional leadership practices criterion variables was
reduced to .005 (.05/10). Results from the multiple regression analyses indicated that
professional self-efficacy in skills was a significant contributor and predictor of urban principals’
exercise for all aspects of instructional leadership practices, with self-efficacy in practices being
a significant contributor and predictor for only two aspects of instructional leadership practices
in supervising and evaluating instruction,  = .16, p = .004, and monitoring student progress,  =
.20, p < .001. Overall, self-efficacy contributed significantly to between 42 to 68% of the
variances explained in different aspects of instructional leadership practices. This suggests that
when considering both professional self-efficacy in skills and practices, those urban school
principals who have higher professional self-efficacy in skills tend to engage in more
instructional leadership practices across all 10 aspects. In addition, those urban school principals
who have high professional self-efficacy in practices employ more instructional leadership
practices specifically in supervising and evaluating instruction and monitoring student progress.
Table 11 summarizes the regression analysis statistics for both instructional and
transformational leadership practices.
LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 64 64

Table 10
Summary of Simultaneous Regression Analysis for Self-Efficacy and Instructional and Transformational Leadership
Practices
Variables R

R
2
F B SE β p
Instructional Leadership
Frame .68 .46 58.72* .001
Skills* .59 .07 .59 .001
Practices .29 .12 .17 .017
Comm .73 .53 76.67* .001
Skills* .77 .08 .68 .001
Practices .19 .13 .10 .140
Supervise .82 .67 134.93* .001
Skills* .89 .07 .72 .001
Practices* .34 .12 .16 .004
Coordinate .65 .42 48.89* .001
Skills* .52 .07 .54 .001
Practices .29 .12 .18 .015
Monitor .83 .68 147.39* .001
Skills* .89 .07 .72 .001
Practices* .43 .12 .20 .001
Protect .77 .60 100.77* .001
Skills* .81 .07 .69 .001
Practices .32 .12 .16 .009
Visibility .72 .52 73.91* .001
Skills* .94 .09 .69 .001
Practices .13 .15 .06 .404
Teacher .75 .57 88.97* .001
Skills* .82 .08 .65 .001
Practices .41 .14 .19 .004
PD .80 .63 117.75* .001
Skills* .86 .07 .72 .001
Practices .28 .12 .14 .019
Learning .77 .59 97.32* .001
Skills* .88 .08 .67 .001
Practices .39 .14 .17 .006
Transformational Leadership .86 .74 193.13* .001
Skills* .63 .04 .81 .001
Practices* .13 .07 .10 .045
Note. Instructional Leadership – Frame = Framing school goals, Comm = Communicate the school goals, Supervise
= Supervising and evaluating instruction, Coordinate = Coordinating the curriculum, Monitor = Monitoring student
progress, Protect = Protecting instructional time, Visibility = Maintaining high visibility, Teacher = Providing
incentives for teachers, PD = Promoting professional development, Learning = Providing incentives for learning
* Statistically significant predictor

Transformational leadership practices. Results from the multiple regression analysis
revealed that both professional self-efficacy in skills and practices were significant contributors
and predictors of urban school principals’ transformational leadership,  = .81, p < .001;  = .10,
p = .045, respectively. They accounted for a significant 74% of the variances in transformational
LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 65 65

leadership practices, F (2, 136) = 193.13, p < .001. This suggests that when considering both
professional self-efficacy in skills and practices, those urban principals who reported higher self-
efficacy in skills or practices engaged in more transformational leadership practices.
Research Question 2: Do urban school principal’s beliefs, attitudes and values towards
diversity predict the extent to which they implement instructional and/or transformational
leadership practices?
Eleven simultaneous multiple regression analyses were conducted to examine if urban
school principals’ beliefs, attitudes, and values about diversity significantly contributed to their
practices in instructional and transformational leadership practices. Bonferroni corrections were
employed for the first 10 multiple regressions for instructional leadership practices criterion
variables to control the familywise error rate and possible inflated Type I error when examining
multiple criterion variables. Statistical significance level for instructional leadership practices
criterion variables was reduced to .005 (.05/10).
Results from the multiple regression analyses indicated that urban school principals’
beliefs, attitudes, and values about diversity was a significant predictor and contributor in all 10
aspects of their instructional leadership practices, as well as their transformational leadership
practices. Moreover, it contributed significantly to between 23 to 49% of the variances
explained in different aspects of instructional leadership practices, and 56% of the variances
explained in transformational leadership practices. This suggests that those urban school
principals who embrace diversity more also tend to engage more in instructional and
transformational practices. Table 12 summarizes the regression analysis statistics for both
instructional and transformational leadership practices with beliefs, attitudes, and values about
diversity as the predictor.
LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 66 66

Table 11
Summary of Simultaneous Regression Analysis for Beliefs, Attitudes, and Values toward Diversity and Instructional
and Transformational Leadership Practices
Variables R

R
2
F B SE β p
Instructional Leadership
Frame .55 .30 58.33 .81 .11 .55 <.001
Comm .54 .29 57.14 .91 .12 .54 <.001
Supervise .65 .42 98.94 1.17 .12 .65 <.001
Coordinate .48 .23 41.62 .68 .11 .48 <.001
Monitor .65 .43 101.52 1.20 .12 .65 <.001
Protect .62 .38 84.63 1.07 .12 .62 <.001
Visibility .56 .32 63.78 1.12 .14 .56 <.001
Teacher .60 .36 77.53 1.12 .13 .60 <.001
PD .70 .49 133.02 1.23 .11 .70 <.001
Learning .61 .37 80.54 1.17 .13 .61 <.001
Transformational Leadership .75 .56 173.08 .86 .07 .75 <.001
Note. Instructional Leadership – Frame = Framing school goals, Comm = Communicate the school goals, Supervise
= Supervising and evaluating instruction, Coordinate = Coordinating the curriculum, Monitor = Monitoring student
progress, Protect = Protecting instructional time, Visibility = Maintaining high visibility, Teacher = Providing
incentives for teachers, PD = Promoting professional development, Learning = Providing incentives for learning
Research Question 3: Are there racial / ethnic group differences in the extent to which
urban school principals implement instructional and/or transformational leadership
practices?
A 2 (instruction and transformational leadership practices) by 4 (race/ethnicity groups)
multivariate variances of analysis (MANOVA) was conducted to examine if there were
differences in instructional or transformational leadership practices between Latino, White,
African-American, and Asian urban school principals. Due to the small sample size of those
who reported “other” as their racial/ethnic background (n = 1), the “other” group was excluded
from the analysis for this research question.
Results of the MANOVA were significant, Wilks’  = .88, F (6, 266) = 2.82, p = .011, 
2

= .060, with homogeneity of variance-covariance assumed, Box’s M = 11.73, F (9, 30258.63) =
1.26, p = .254. Follow up univariate analyses of variances indicated that there were only
racial/ethnic group differences in instructional leadership practices, F (3, 134) = 4.37, p = .006,

2
= .089. Additional Scheffe post hoc analyses, with equal variances assumed, Levene’s F (3,
LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 67 67

134) = .35, p = .792, further revealed that the only differences in overall instructional leadership
practices were found between White and African-American urban school principals in that White
urban school principals reported more frequent use of instructional leadership practices than their
African-American counterparts, p = .006. No significant differences were found in
transformational leadership practices amongst the 4 groups.
Table 13 summarizes the MANOVA results with significant post hoc analyses, and Table
14 describes the means and standard deviations in instructional and transformational leadership
practices for Latino, White, African-American and Asian urban school principals.
Table 12
Multivariate and Univariate Analysis of Variance for Instructional and Transformational Leadership Practices
with Significant Post Hoc Tests by Race
Source Wilks’  F df p Significant post hoc test
Race .88 2.82 6 .011
Instructional 4.37 3 .006 White > Black
Transformational 1.98 3 .120

Table 13
Means and Standard Deviations of Instructional and Transformational Leadership by Race/Ethnicity
Latino White African-American Asian
n = 58 n = 38 n = 26 n = 16
M SD M SD M SD M SD
Instructional 3.96 .66 4.23 .66 3.64 .56 4.01 .66
Transformational 3.87 .50 3.92 .50 3.64 .45 3.81 .46

Post-Hoc Analyses
It was observed that a large number of principals from traditional public school districts
and charter school districts participated in the study. Three post hoc analyses were conducted to
answer questions about the possible differences between those principals from traditional public
school districts and those from charter school districts. Due to the small sample size (n = 5),
principals from private schools were excluded from the post-doc analyses.
LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 68 68

Post-Hoc Question 1: Do charter school principals engage in more instructional and
transformational leadership practices than principals in traditional district schools?
A 2 (instruction and transformational leadership practices) by 2 (school types)
multivariate variances of analysis (MANOVA) was conducted to examine if there were
differences in instructional or transformational leadership practices between traditional public
and charter public urban school principals.
Results of the MANOVA were significant, Pillai’s Trace = .40, F (2, 131) = 44.42, p <
.001, 
2
= .404, with homogeneity of variance-covariance not assumed, Box’s M = 16.81, F (3,
1575255.78) = 5.51, p = .001. Follow up univariate analyses of variances indicated that there
were significant differences in instructional and transformational leadership practices between
traditional and charter public urban school principals in that charter public urban school
principals reported more frequent use of instructional and transformational leadership practices
than their traditional public school counterparts, F (1, 132) = 49.92, p < .001, 
2
= .274, F (1,
132) = 89.53, p < .001, 
2
= .404, respectively.
Table 15 summarizes the MANOVA results, and Table 16 describes the means and
standard deviations in instructional and transformational leadership practices for traditional and
charter public urban school principals.
Table 14
Multivariate and Univariate Analysis of Variance for Instructional and Transformational Leadership Practices
Source Pillais’ Trace F df p 
2

School Type .40 44.42 2 .000 .404
Instructional 49.92 1 .000 .274
Transformational 89.52 1 .000 .404
Table 15
Means and Standard Deviations of Instructional and Transformational Leadership by School Type
Traditional Public School Charter Public School
n = 77 n = 57
M SD M SD
LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 69 69

Instructional 3.68 .65 4.38 .44
Transformational 3.56 .45 4.19 .27

Post-Hoc Question 2: Do charter school principals have a higher level of professional self-
efficacy than principals in traditional district schools?
A 2 (Self Efficacy in Skills and Practices) by 2 (school types) multivariate variances of
analysis (MANOVA) was conducted to examine if there were differences in professional self-
efficacy skills and practices between traditional public and charter public urban school
principals.
Results of the MANOVA were significant, Pillai’s Trace = .42, F (2, 131) = 48.30, p <
.001, 
2
= .424, with homogeneity of variance-covariance not assumed, Box’s M = 20.90, F (3,
1575255.78) = 6.85, p < .001. Follow up univariate analyses of variances indicated that there
were significant differences in both professional self-efficacy in skills and practices between
traditional and charter public urban school principals in that charter public urban school
principals reported higher level of professional self-efficacy in both skills and practices than their
traditional public school counterparts, F (1, 132) = 89.19, p < .001, 
2
= .403, F (1, 132) = 31.53,
p < .001, 
2
= .193, respectively.
Table 17 summarizes the MANOVA results, and Table 18 describes the means and
standard deviations in professional self-efficacy for traditional and charter public urban school
principals.
Table 16
Multivariate and Univariate Analysis of Variance for Professional Self-Efficacy
Source Pillais’ Trace F df p 
2

School Type .42 48.30 2 .000 .424
Skills 89.19 1 .000 .403
Practices 31.53 1 .000 .193

LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 70 70

Table 17
Means and Standard Deviations of Professional Self-Efficacy by School Type
Traditional Public District Charter District
n = 77 n = 57
M SD M SD
Instructional 2.65 .53 3.46 .43
Transformational 2.20 .27 2.52 .40

Post-Hoc Question 3: Do charter school principals have a more positive view of diversity
than principals in traditional district schools?
An independent sample t-test was conducted to examine if there were differences in their
beliefs, attitudes, and values toward diversity between traditional and charter public urban school
principals. Results indicated that the differences were statistically significant, t (132) = -8.26, p
< .001, with equal variances assumed, Levene’s F = 3.41, p = .067. Charter public urban school
principals were more likely to embrace diversity in their beliefs, attitudes, and values (n = 57, M
= 4.01, SD = 3.07) than their traditional public school counterparts (n = 77, M = 3.51, SD =
3.38).

LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 71 71

CHAPTER V
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to conduct an empirical investigation of the relationship
between professional self-efficacy and professional beliefs about diversity among urban school
principals, on the one hand, and instructional leadership and transformational leadership, on the
other hand. The goal of this study was twofold: 1) to measure whether the level of self-efficacy
urban school principals have about their work is related to the degree in which they engage in
instructional and/or transformational leadership practices; and 2) to measure whether the beliefs
urban school principals have about diversity has any bearing on how they approach their work as
instructional and/or transformational leaders. Results of this study suggest that professional self-
efficacy and professional views about diversity can both be used as important variables to
understand the influences on instructional and transformational leadership practices among urban
school principals. The following chapter provides a summary and discussion of the results, as
well as theoretical and applied implications. Limitations of this study are also discussed as well
as possible directions for future research.
Discussion of Results
Relationship between professional self-efficacy and instructional and
transformational leadership.
This study sought to explore whether there was a relationship between an urban school
principal’s level of professional self-efficacy beliefs in skills and practices and the extent in
which they engage in instructional and/or transformational leadership. It was hypothesized that
urban school principals who have a stronger level of self-efficacy would engage in more
behaviors associated with instructional and transformational leadership. A statistically
significant relationship was found between professional self-efficacy beliefs of urban school
LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 72 72

principals and each of the 10 subscales of instructional leadership. Of the ten subscales of
instructional leadership, two had the strongest relationship to professional self-efficacy beliefs:
monitoring student progress and supervising and evaluating instruction. This result supports
Marzano’s et al. (2005) findings that monitoring student progress and supervising and evaluating
instruction had the greatest effect size on student learning. Interestingly, however, these results
contradicted the results of Smith et al. (2006) and Lucus (2003), in which both studies did not
find a relationship between self-efficacy and instructional leadership. It should be noted,
however, that both studies did not use the PIMRS to measure instructional leadership.
Urban school principals in the study may have believed monitoring student progress and
supervising and evaluating instruction were the most important functions of their job as
instructional leaders. This finding may suggest that principals in the study had a positive belief
in their ability to monitor student progress and supervise and evaluate instruction. Marzano et al.
(2005) argues that higher accountability standards since No Child Left Behind, have pushed
more principals to serve as instructional leaders than ever before. Moreover, school leaders
administrative preparation programs are placing greater significance on instructional leadership
rather than on operational leadership (Boykin & Noguera, 2011). Both of these reasons can
support greater self-efficacy among principals to monitor student progress and supervise and
evaluate classroom instruction.
Furthermore, it can be assumed that majority of principals in the study had successful
experiences monitoring student progress and supervising instruction and therefore, possessed a
higher level of self-efficacy in practice to complete this work. This assumption would support
Bandura’s work around enactive mastery; commonly referred to as “learning by doing.”
Bandura (1997) argues that our experiences are powerful because we use these experiences to
LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 73 73

make judgments about our abilities, and the more consistent the experience (positive or negative)
in achieving a task or action, the stronger one’s beliefs about their abilities becomes. This is
especially true if positive feedback is received following completion of this task.
The finding that urban school principals recorded a strong self-efficacy towards
monitoring student progress and supervising and evaluating instruction supports the literature on
school leadership. Hallinger and Murphy (1985) argue that both of these activities have a direct
effect on the quality of instructional program at school sites. Moreover, both of these tasks had
the greatest effect size in Marzano’s meta-analysis of school leadership behaviors (Marzano et
al., 2005). This is especially true in urban schools in need of first-order changes (Marzano et al.,
2005). Usually, schools in need of first-order changes are those that do not have systems in
place to ensure teaching and learning take place daily. Principals who closely supervise and
evaluate instruction and monitor student progress are able to create first-order change by
“influencing conditions that directly impact the quality of curriculum and instruction delivered to
students in classrooms” (Hallinger, 2003, p. 338).
Secondly, it was hypothesized that a relationship occurs between a principal’s level of
professional self-efficacy in skills and practices and the extent to which they engage in
transformational leadership practices. This study also supported this hypothesis, as professional
self-efficacy was correlated to transformational leadership. Urban school principals reported a
strong relationship between their professional self-efficacy and the frequency in which they
engage in transformational leadership practices. The positive relationship between both of these
variables connects to the Bandura’s work around effort and persistence. The majority of the
questions on the MLQ speak to the level of effort and persistence school leaders demonstrate
around specific decisions. Bandura (1997) argues individuals with higher self-efficacy towards a
LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 74 74

particular task often display greater persistence and effort to accomplish the task and/or action.
Principals in the study reported spending more effort and persistence assisting, guiding and
modeling how to achieve desired outcomes. While this study cannot confirm any previous
studies linking principal self-efficacy to transformational leadership practices, this study can
support several studies that found a positive connection between self-efficacy and general
principal leadership. For example, Tschannen-Moran & Gareis (2004) found a connection
between principals having a high level of self-efficacy and their ability to pursue their goals and
Osterman and Sullivan (1996) found principals who exhibited a strong sense of professional self-
efficacy viewed change as a process and not as an event. The connection found between
professional self-efficacy and transformational leadership confirms that a principal’s level of
self-efficacy can influence the extent to which they are able to inspire and motivate others
towards an outcome. When this happens, Marzano et al. (2005) argue that schools experience
second-order changes; changes to a school’s assumptions, beliefs and ways of doing things.
Relationship between professional beliefs about diversity and instructional and
transformational leadership.
This study also sought to measure whether there is predictive a relationship between an
urban school principal’s beliefs, attitudes and values towards diversity and the extent to which
they implement instructional and/or transformational leadership practices. It was hypothesized
that principals who hold positive professional beliefs, attitudes and values towards diversity
would also serve as transformational leaders. Results revealed that a principal’s professional
beliefs, attitudes and values towards diversity were related to not only instructional leadership,
but also transformational leadership. Transformational leadership, however, had a stronger
relationship to professional views towards diversity than instructional leadership.
LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 75 75

Several plausible explanations could be given to account for this relationship. Pohan and
Aguilar (2001) argue that attitudes and beliefs predict decisions and behaviors. Generally, the
more positive the belief and attitude towards a task or action, the more likely it is that a task or
action will result more favorably. Under this thinking, it could be theorized that principals who
had a positive belief, attitude and value towards issues of diversity, would be more likely to
engage in behaviors associated with transformational leadership because it involves leading
others towards a more inclusive perspective of the world. More often than not, a more inclusive
attitude and belief towards others is not representative of status quo thinking. Principals must
make a conscious decision to lead others towards a position that may not be mainstream
thinking; especially if in involves issues pertaining to diverse and marginalized groups. Because
public schools are often the place where diversity is experienced first-hand, especially in urban
schools, it is plausible to conclude that principals in urban schools must be culturally competent
to some degree and be more comfortable embracing diversity than their suburb principal peers.
This may not mean that urban school principals are well versed in all of the intricacies associated
with diversity, but it does mean that principals in urban schools are going to have a better attitude
about the diverse students, parents and communities they serve. Doing so may mean that
principals have an “optimal” worldview as defined by Myers et al. (1991) as a “set of conditions
yielding peace, harmony and well-being” (p. 57). Myers et al. (1991) argues that the closer one
is to adopting an optimal personal identity, the more they are able to have a more holistic world
view about those who are different than them. It’s possible that principals in the study acquired a
holistic view about diverse issues, which in turn raised their awareness to engage in practices to
ensure the schools they lead do the same.
LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 76 76

Relationship between racial/ethnic groups and instructional and transformational
leadership.
Lastly, this study also sought to measure whether there were any racial/ethnic group
differences in instructional or transformational leadership results. It was hypothesized that there
would not be any significant group differences among the racial/ethnic groups who participated
in the study. Four racial/ethnic groups participated in the study: Asians (n=17); African-
American (n=26); White (n=39); and Latino (n=57). Results revealed there were only
statistically significant differences among White and African-American principals when it came
to implementing instructional leadership differences. White urban school principals in the study
reported more frequent use of instructional leadership practices than their African-American
counterparts. It is not exactly known what factors contributed to this group difference. One
plausible explanation may be that White principals may have been younger than African-
American principals in the study. Age was found to have a statistically significant inverse
relationship in the study. Those principals who were older in the study reported significantly less
instructional or transformational leadership, lower self-efficacy in their instructional leadership
and management skills or practices, and less likely to hold beliefs, attitudes, or values that
embrace diversity.
Additional Findings
Additional findings of this study revealed charter school principals engaged more
frequently in practices associated with instructional and transformational leadership than
principals serving in traditional district schools on all ten subscales of instructional leadership
and transformational leadership scale. One possible conclusion may be that charter schools
engage in more alternative instructional programs than district schools, thereby forcing charter
LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 77 77

school principals to play a more active role in supervising and supporting instruction. By their
very nature, charter schools were designed to be innovative alternative educational spaces than
traditional district schools. As a result, charter school principals often exhibit qualities
associated with transformational leadership as a means of survival. The study also revealed that
charter school principals had a higher level of professional self-efficacy than traditional district
schools. District school principals reported having to deal with more paper work and
bureaucracy issues than charter school principals. This may be one reason why traditional
school district principals had a lower level of self-efficacy to engage in practices associated with
instructional and/or transformational leadership. A second is that by default, charter school
principals have more to lose than district school principals if student achievement results do not
show continuous growth. Charter schools are more dependent on results and have more pressure
to prove themselves to keep themselves alive than do schools in traditional districts. Urban
charter school principals also agreed with more statements supporting diversity than principals
serving in traditional schools. This finding is interesting because charter schools tend to have a
public reputation for not serving students of diverse needs. However, in the last 5-10 years,
charter schools in urban communities of color have opened to provide families better options
than local traditional district neighborhood schools (National Center for Education Evaluation,
2010).
Implications
The results of this study provide important implications for school principals, district
leaders, school leadership programs and educational researchers. The role of professional self-
efficacy and professional beliefs, attitudes and values towards diverse populations must continue
to be considered as important variables when developing an understanding of what motivates
LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 78 78

urban school principals to engage in behaviors and decisions associated with instructional and
transformational leadership. Few empirical studies have considered the relationship between
these variables and instructional and transformational leadership behaviors of urban school
principals. Most empirical studies focusing on instructional and transformational leadership
have focused on understanding how these leadership characteristics have been carried out in
schools, in the work principals do with teachers, or with the way leadership characteristics affect
students. Few studies have examined cognitive and metacognitive influences on instructional
and transformational leadership. This study serves as a beginning to do just that. It explores
beliefs among principals that motivate them to want to be instructional and transformational
leaders. This study makes the case that serving as an instructional and transformational leader is
a choice more than an obligation. More work is needed to examine the mindsets of urban school
principals and its relationship to leadership practices; especially given that urban school
principals serve student populations that are traditionally academically underperforming.
The results of this study revealed that there is a positive relationship between the self-
efficacy beliefs of urban school principals and the extent to which they engage in behaviors
associated with instructional leadership. This finding is important because it confirms the notion
that behaviors among principals is dependent on what they believe about their abilities.
Principals with greater confidence in their abilities to perform actions that support classroom
instruction are likely to engage in these behaviors more frequently. The implication of this
finding is especially important when you consider that urban school leaders working with diverse
student populations are called to be instructional and transformational leaders now more than
ever. After a decade of federal oversight under No Child Left Behind, urban schools across the
country continue to lag behind suburban schools in student achievement outcomes. While one
LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 79 79

cannot say that suburban school principals are stronger instructional and transformational
leaders, what is certain is that the success of urban schools is highly dependent upon principals
who are strong instructional and transformational leaders (Marzano et al., 2005; Boykin &
Noguera, 2011). That is to say that if principals in urban schools do not exhibit strong
instructional leadership skills and actions, urban schools are likely to continue to trail behind
suburban schools; especially given that low-income students of color enter the educational
system significantly behind their white and Asian peers (Boykin & Noguera, 2011).
This study also revealed a positive relationship between the self-efficacy beliefs of urban
school principals and the extent to which they engage in behaviors associated with
transformational leadership. This finding is important because it supports the notion that
principals in urban schools can and should inspire others to believe in a greater purpose. While
instructional leadership is about ensuring the science of teaching and learning is done well,
transformational leadership is about ensuring that the art of teaching and learning is executed.
This requires school principals to generate a sense of purpose among teachers that guides them to
teach with passion, skill and consciousness. Transformational leadership is about transforming
the feelings, attitudes and beliefs of teachers and school staff towards a common purpose
(Mitchell & Tucker, 1992). In urban schools, that purpose has to be ensuring all students receive
a rigorous and quality education that closes the racial/ethnic achievement gap. Principals who
have a more developed sense of self-efficacy will be more likely to transform the beliefs,
attitudes and values of the schools they lead.
While much attention has been given to issues of school diversity in the last decade, there
have been limited attempts to understand the relationship between beliefs of school principals
with respect to diversity and the connection to their work as instructional and transformational
LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 80 80

leaders. This study identified a positive relationship between both variables. In this study, there
was a positive relationship between urban school principals who “agreed” or “strongly” agreed”
with statements supporting issues of diversity with the frequency in which they engaged in
behaviors associated with instructional and transformational leadership. Of the two forms of
leadership, transformational leadership had the strongest relationship to beliefs about diversity.
This outcome reveals that the beliefs principals have about diversity can impact the extent to
which principals inspire, excite and energize teachers around a greater sense of purpose and
consciousness to close the racial/ethnic achievement gap. This is especially important in urban
schools, given students there tend to come from racially and ethnically diverse backgrounds.
School leaders charged with hiring urban school principals should consider the beliefs principal
candidates have about diverse populations and the impact these views may have on their
decisions to serve as transformational leaders. More work is needed to better understand how
beliefs about diversity among urban school principals shift over time and influence their sense of
purpose. For example, do beliefs about diversity change over time among urban school
principals or do they stay the same?
Lastly, the results of this study revealed that urban charter school principals had a strong
relationship between their level of self-efficacy and beliefs about diversity with the extent to
which they engage in instructional and transformational leadership practices than did urban
district school principals. While this finding is interesting, more empirical studies are needed to
investigate the differences between the work of urban charter school principals and urban district
principals to determine some of the factors that may influence urban charter school principals to
have a higher level of self-efficacy and positive belief about diversity.

LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 81 81

Limitations of Study
Several limitations of this study must be taken into consideration. First, results of the
study were dependent on the way principal’s self-rated themselves in the areas of instructional
leadership, transformational leadership, self-efficacy and beliefs towards diversity. As a result,
responses from principals may have been inflated. Similarly, the study was limited to principals
who volunteered to take the survey via email working in one of 10 districts or organizations in
Southern California (6 school districts and 4 charter organizations). Principals who volunteered
to take the survey may not necessarily be reflective of the majority of principals in the districts or
organizations in which they work. In fact, principals who volunteered to participate in the
survey may have a greater interest in school leadership or care about the topic more than others.
As a result, caution should be taken before generalizing the findings to other urban school
principals in other school districts or organization in other geographic regions.
A third limitation of this study was the sample size. A total of 139 urban school
principals participated in the study. Of the 139 urban school principals who participated in the
study, 77 worked in district schools and 57 worked in charter organizations. Although as a whole
the total sample size is a respectable number, a much larger sample size is needed to be able to
make stronger conclusions about the results. This is especially true when comparing district
school principals to charter school principals. A sample of 57 charter school principals is not
nearly a big enough sample to conclude that charter school principals have a greater sense of
self-efficacy and greater positive belief towards diversity than district school principals.
A fourth limitation of the study included the lack of triangulation of data in the study.
Because of time constraints, surveys were only administered to random principals. Findings
from the study could have been much stronger if teachers and students or parents were also
LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 82 82

surveyed to measure the congruency of responses between principals and stakeholders. This
would have reduced bias in the study and painted a clearer and stronger picture of principal
leadership, self-efficacy and views towards diversity.
Lastly, because of the type of design used for this study, causal relationships could not be
concluded. Statistical analyses could only be provided on the degree of the relationship between
instructional and transformational leadership with self-efficacy and beliefs towards diversity. It
could not be established that the level of self-efficacy caused principals to serve as instructional
and/or transformational leaders nor that a principal’s beliefs towards diversity caused them to be
transformational leaders.
Future Directions
Given the current attention on the adoption of the national common core standards as a
means to ensure all states provide a rigorous and college-ready education for all students, the
opportunity to continue research in the area of school leadership tied to self-efficacy and
diversity remain strong. While this study provided an introductory analysis of the relationship
between instructional and transformational leadership among urban school principals with
professional level of self-efficacy and professional beliefs towards diversity, it would be valuable
to conduct a study to measure the extent to which professional self-efficacy influences principals
to want to be instructional and/or transformational leaders. It would also be valuable to measure
the extent to which a principal’s belief system towards diversity can influence them to want to
become better instructional and/or transformation leaders. Conducting such a study will help
school administrative preparation programs to focus on the role self-efficacy and beliefs towards
diversity in their curriculum and performance standards.
Because self-efficacy and beliefs towards diversity have to do with one’s mindset, future
research may want to include a combination of self-reports, interviews, observations and case
LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 83 83

studies to provide an even greater understanding of the factors that influence and shape an urban
school principal’s self-efficacy and beliefs towards diversity. Gaining this awareness can help
aspiring urban school leaders to understand the importance of their mindset as leaders towards
ensuring students of color reach achievement outcomes and as a result, close the racial/ethnic
educational achievement gap.
With the increase of charter schools in urban communities serving students of color,
future research may also want to consider why principals in these schools have a higher level of
self-efficacy and positive view of diversity that motivates them to be better instructional and
transformational leaders. This area of study may be fruitful because it speaks to the type of
educational system that best creates conditions for urban school principals to believe in their
capabilities as instructional and transformational leaders.
Lastly, future research may want to measure whether or not urban schools led by
principals who self-report themselves to have a high level of self-efficacy to serve as
instructional and/or transformational leaders do in fact create conditions that help teachers and
students reach higher educational outcomes (i.e. higher reading and math performance, higher
graduation rates, lower dropout rates etc.) than teachers and students in schools led by principals
who do not self-report a higher level of self-efficacy. The same may be considered for urban
school principals who self-report a greater commitment to diversity. The purpose of such a study
is to really measure whether teacher and student achievement outcomes really matter as a result
of these leadership traits.
Conclusion
This study sought to contribute to the current literature on instructional and
transformational leadership among urban school principals by investigating whether there was a
relationship between both forms of leadership with professional self-efficacy and professional
LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 84 84

beliefs about diversity. Results of this study revealed that professional self-efficacy in skills was
a significant contributor and predictor of urban school principals’ exercise of all aspects of
instructional leadership practices, with self-efficacy practices being a significant contributor and
predictor for only two aspects of instructional leadership- supervising and evaluating instruction.
Professional self-efficacy was also positively correlated to transformational leadership. A
principal’s belief towards diversity was strongly related to both instructional and
transformational leadership. This study further found that urban charter school principals had a
higher level of professional self-efficacy and positive view towards diversity than urban district
school principals.
While many studies have demonstrated the positive effects of instructional and
transformational leadership among principals on student achievement, this study provided a
unique opportunity for principals and school leadership preparation programs to gain an
understanding of the specific relationship between a principal’s professional self-efficacy and
professional beliefs towards diversity on the frequency in which principals engage in
instructional and transformational leadership behaviors. This study highlighted the importance
that self-efficacy and beliefs towards diversity may have on the work of school principals as
instructional and transformational leaders. Understanding the role of self-efficacy and beliefs
towards diversity among urban school principals can begin to shed light on what motivates
principals to decide to be instructional and transformational leaders to narrow and eventually
close the racial/ethnic achievement gap in education.

LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 85 85

References
Armario, C. (2011, March 9). Duncan: 82 percent of U.S. schools may be labeled ‘failing’ under
no child left behind. The Associated Press. Retrieved from
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/09/failing-schools-82-percent_n_833653.html.

Barth, R. (1986). On sheep and goats and school reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 68(4), 293-296.

Barth, R. (1990). Improving Schools from Within. San Francisco, Ca: Jossey-Bass.

Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2),
122-147.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and Performance beyond Expectation. New York, New York:
Free Press.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1990). Multifactor leadership questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press.

Bass, B. M. (1990). “From transactional to transformational leadership: good, better, best.”
Organizational Dynamics, 3(3), 26-40.

Bass, B. M. (1997). Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend
organizational and national boundaries? American Psychologist, 52(2), 130-139.

Bevoise, W. D. (1984). Synthesis of research on the principal as instructional leader.
Educational Leadership, 41(5), 14-20.

Blase, J., & Blase J. (1999). Principals’ instructional leadership and teacher development:
teachers’ perspectives. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(3), 349-378.

Blase, J., & Blase J. (2000). Effective instructional leadership teachers’ perspectives on how
principals promote teaching and learning in schools. Journal of Educational
Administration, 38(2), 130-141.

Bogler, R. (2001). The influence of leadership style on teacher job satisfaction. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 37(5), 662-683.

Bossert, S. T., Dwyer, D. C., Rowan, B., Lee, G. V. (1982). The instructional management role
of the principal. Educational Administration Quarterly, 18(3), 34-64.

LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 86 86

Boykin, A. W. & Noguera, P. (2011). Creating the Opportunity to Learn: Moving From
Research To Practice To Close the Achievement Gap. Alexandria, Virginia: ASCD.

Brown, K. M. (2004). Assessing preservice leaders’ beliefs, attitudes, and values regarding
issues of diversity, social justice, and equity: a review of existing measures. Equity &
Excellence in Education, 37(4), 332-342.

Cuban, L. (1984). Transforming the frog into a prince: effective schools research, policy, and
practice at the district level. Harvard Educational Review, 54(2), 129-151.

Cagle, K. and Hopkins, P. (2009). Teacher self-efficacy and the supervision of marginal
teachers. Journal of Cross –Disciplinary Perspectives in Education, 2(1), 25-31.

Davis, L. E., & Turner, J. S. (1993, November). An investigation of the cultural sensitivity level
of elementary preservice teachers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-
South Educational Research Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED372054).

Davis, L.E., & Whitener-Lepanto, V. (1994, November). Preservice teaches and culturally
diverse families: How do they perceive one another? Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED383680).

Day, C., Harris, A. & Hadfield, M. (2001). Challenging the orthodoxy of effective school
leadership. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 4(1), 39-56.

DeMoulin, D. F. (1992). Demographic characteristics associated with perceived self-efficacy
levels of elementary, middle and secondary principals. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, Knoxville, TN.

Edmonds, R. (1979). Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational Leadership, 37(1), 15-
24.

Erickson, E. H. (1959). Identity and the Life Cycle. New York, New York: International
Universities Press, Inc.

Fancera, S. F. & Bliss, J. R. (2011). Instructional leadership influence on collective teacher
efficacy to improve school achievement. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 10, 349-370.

Fritz, R. (1984). The path of least resistance: Learning to become the creative force in your own
life. New York: Fawcett Columbine.

Gay, G. & Kirkland, K. (2003). Developing cultural critical consciousness and self-reflection in
preservice teacher education. Theory into Practice, 42(3), 181-187.

Griffth, J. (2004). Relation of principal transformational leadership to school staff job
LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 87 87

satisfaction, staff turnover, and school performance. Journal of Educational
Administration, 42(3), 333-356.

Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading educational change: reflections on the practice of instructional and
transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education, 33(3), 329-351.

Hallinger, P. (2005). Instructional leadership and the school principal: a passing fancy that
refuses to fade away. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4(3), 221-239.

Hallinger, P. (2010). Developing instructional leadership. Developing Successful Leadership,
11(2), 61-76.

Hallinger, P., Bickman, L., & Davis, K. (1996). School context, principal leadership and student
achievement. Elementary School Journal, 96(5), 498-518.

Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. (1985). Assessing the instructional management behavior of
principals. The Elementary School Journal, 86(2), 217-247.

Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. (1986). The social context of effective schools. American Journal
of Education, 94(3), 328-355.

Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. (1987). Assessing and developing principal instructional leadership.
Educational Leadership, 45(1), 54-61.

Heck, R. H. (1992). Principals’ instructional leadership and school performance: implications
for policy development. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14(1), 21-34.

Heck, R., Larson, T., & Marcoulides, G. (1990). Principal instructional leadership and school
achievement: validation of a causal model. Educational Administration Quarterly, 26,
94-125.

Henry, G. (1986, October). Cultural diversity awareness inventory = Inventorio sobre el
reconocimiento de diveras culturas. Hampton, VA: Hampton University.
Mainstreaming Outreach Project. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED282657).

Hillman, S. J. (1983). Contributions to achievement: The role of expectations and self-efficacy
in students, teachers, and principals. Unpublished master’s thesis. Indiana University,
Bloomington.

Hipp, K.A. & Bredeson, P.V. (1995). Exploring connections between teacher efficacy and
principal’s behavior. Journal of School Leadership, 5(2), 136-150.

Hochschild, J. & Scovronick, N. (2003). The American Dream and the Public Schools. New
York, New York: Oxford University Press.
LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 88 88

Ingram, P. D. (1997). Leadership behaviours of principals in inclusive educational settings.
Journal of Educational Administration, 35(5), 411-427.

Jackson, A. W., & Davis, G. A. (2000). Turning Points 2000: Educating adolescents in the 21
st

century. New York: Teachers College Press.

Larke, P. J. (1990). Cultural diversity awareness inventory: Assessing the sensitivity of
preservice teachers. Action in Teacher Education, 12(3), 23-30.

Leithwood, K. A. (1992). The move toward transformational leadership. Educational
Leadership, 49(5), 8-12.

Leithwood, K., Begley, P., & Cousins, B. (1990). The nature, causes and consequences of
principals’ practices: an agenda for future research. Journal of Educational
Administration, 28(4), 5-31.

Leithwood, K. & Jantzi, D. (2000). Principal and teacher leadership effects: a replication. School
Leadership & Management, 20(4), 415-434

Leithwood, K. & Jantzi, D. (2000). The effects of transformational leadership on organizational
conditions and student engagement with school. Journal of Educational Administration,
38(2), 112-129.

Leithwood, K. & Jantzi, D. (2005). A review of transformational school leadership research
1996-2005. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4(3), 177-199.

Leithwood, K. & Jantzi, D. (2008). Linking leadership to student learning: The contributions of
leader efficacy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(4), 496-528.

Leithwood, K. & Louis, K. S. (2012). Linking Leadership to Student Learning. San Francisco,
Ca: Jossey-Bass.

Lucus, S. E. (2003). The development and impact of principal leadership self-efficacy in middle
level schools: Beginning an inquiry. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

Northouse, P.G. (2007) Fourth Edition. Leadership- Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action. Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that work: From
research to results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.

LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 89 89

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

McCormick, M. J. (2001). Self-efficacy and leadership effectiveness: applying social cognitive
theory to leadership. Journal of Leadership Studies, 8, 22-33.

Mitchell, D.E., & Tucker, S. (1992). The move toward transformational leadership. Educational
Leadership, 49(5), 30-35.

Moore, T., & Reeves-Kazelskis, C. (1992, November). The effects of formal instruction on
preservice teachers’ beliefs about multicultural education. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No.ED354231).

Muenjohn, N., & Armstrong, A. (2008). Evaluating the structural validity of the multifactor
leadership questionnaire (MLQ), capturing the leadership factors of transformational-
transactional leadership. Contemporary Management Research, 4(1), 3-14.

Myers, L. J., Speight, S. L., Highlen, P.S., Cox, C. I., Reynolds, A. L., Adams, E. M., & Hanley,
P. (1991). Identity development and worldview: toward an optimal conceptualization.
Journal of Counseling & Development, 70(1), 54-63.

Pophan, C. A., & Aguilar, T. E. (2001). Measuring educators’ beliefs about diversity in personal
and professional contexts. American Educational Research Journal, 38(1), 159-182.

Printy, S. (2010). Principals’ influence on instructional quality: insights from US schools.
School Leadership & Management, 30(2), 111-126.

Robinson, V. M. J., Lloyd, C.A., & Rowe, K. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on student
outcomes: an analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 635-674.

Schunk, D. H., Pintrich, P.R., & Meece, J. L. (2008) Third Edition. Motivation in Education:
Theory, Research and Applications. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson
Education.

Smith, R. W., & Guarino, A.J. (2005). Confirmatory factor analysis of the principal self-efficacy
survey. Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, 9(1), 81-86.

Sevig, T. D., Highlen, P. S., & Adams, E. M. (2000). Development and validation of the self-
identity inventory (SII): a multicultural identity development instrument. Cultural
Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 6(2), 168-182.

Sue, D. W. (2001). Multidimensional facets of cultural competence. The Counseling
LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 90 90

Psychologist, 29(6), 790-821.

Sue, D. W. & Sue, D. (2003) Fourth Edition. Counseling the Culturally Diverse: Theory and
Practice. New York, New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Sue, D. W., Bernier, J. B., Durran, M., Feinberg, L., Pedersen, P., Smith, E., & Vasquez-Nuttall,
E. (1982). Position paper: Cross-cultural counseling competencies. The Counseling
Psychologist, 10, 45-52.

Sweeney, J. (1982). Research synthesis on effective school leadership. Educational Leadership,
39(5), 346-352.

Tavernise, S. (2011, April 6). Numbers of Children of Whites Falling Fast. The New York Times,
p. A14.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional
Assistance. (2010). The evaluation of charter school impacts (NCEE Publication No.
ED510574). Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED510573.pdf

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

Zastrow, C.V. (2006). Closing the staffing gap and ensuring effective teaching for students who
need it most. Education Week, 25(19), 34-35.

LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 91 91

APPENDIX A
INFORMATION SHEET FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
You are asked to participate in a research study conducted by James R. Marín, M.Ed., and Ruth
H. Chung, Ph.D., from the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California.
The results will contribute to the completion of James R. Marín’s doctoral dissertation. You were
selected as a possible participant in this study because you are a urban school principal. Your
participation is voluntary.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY The purpose of this study is to gather information about how you
feel about making career decisions and how your relationships with your parents, along with
your cultural background, may influence your career decision-making. The questions you will be
asked are about activities involved in deciding on a career, your relationships with your parents,
and your cultural practices. Your participation in this study will help us to understand the
factors that are important to Asian American college students as they begin deciding on a career
to pursue. You should read the information below, and ask questions about anything you do not
understand, before deciding whether or not to participate. Please take as much time as you need
to read the consent form. You may also decide to discuss it with your family or friends.
Completion of this questionnaire will constitute consent to participate in this research project.

PROCEDURES You are asked to complete the following online questionnaire that will take
about thirty minutes to complete. If you are unable to complete the questionnaire in one setting,
you may save your progress and return to the website at a later time.

POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO PARTICIPANTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY Your participation
in this study will help us with ongoing research in the area of principal instructional and
transformational leadership practices.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION By participating in this survey, you
are eligible to enter a raffle to win one of 10 icard gift cards worth $20, which can be used to
shop at hundreds of stores or eat at over 50 restaurants of your choice. A list of redeemable
stores and restaurants can be viewed at www.icardgiftcard.com. In order to participate in the
raffle, you will need to provide your name and e-mail address at the end of the survey, which
will be stored separately from your survey responses. You will be notified at the e-mail address
you provide us, if you are chosen as a raffle winner.

CONFIDENTIALITY Information obtained in the survey will only be reported in an
aggregated form without any potentially identifiable descriptions connected to individuals. Any
information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be identified with you will
remain confidential and will be disclosed only with your permission or as required by law. When
the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no information will be
included that would reveal your identity. Your responses to the online survey will be
downloaded directly by James R. Marín, M.Ed. Only members of the research team will have
access to the data associated with this study. The data will be stored in the investigator’s office in
LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 92 92

a locked file cabinet and password protected computer. The data will be stored for three years
after the study has been completed and then destroyed.

PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL You can choose whether to be in this study or not.
If you volunteer to be in this study, you may withdraw at any time without consequences of any
kind. You may also refuse to answer any questions you don’t want to answer and still remain in
the study. The investigator may withdraw you from this research if circumstances arise which
warrant doing so. If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to
contact Ruth Chung, Ph.D. at rchung@usc.edu, James R. Marín. at jamesrma@usc.edu, or call or
visit (213) 740-9323, at the Rossier School of Education, USC, WPH 802, Los Angeles, CA
90089-4038.

RIGHTS OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS You may withdraw your consent at any time and
discontinue participation without penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or
remedies because of your participation in this research study. If you have any questions about
your rights as a study participant or you would like to speak with someone independent of the
research team to obtain answers to questions about the research, or in the event the research staff
can not be reached, please contact the University Park IRB, Office of the Vice Provost for
Research Advancement, Stonier Hall, Room 224a, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1146, (213) 821-
5272 or upirb@usc.edu.

LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 93 93

APPENDIX B
PRINCIPAL INSTRUCTIONAL MANAGEMENT RATING SCALE
(HALLINGER & MURPHY, 1985)

PART I: Please provide the following information about yourself:
(A) School Name: ____________________________

(B) Years, at the end of this school year, that you have worked with the current principal:
______1 ______5-9 ______more than 15
______2-4 ______10-15

(C) Years experience as a teacher at the end of this school year:
______1 ______5-9 ______more than 15
______2-4 ______10-15

PART II: This questionnaire is designed to provide a profile of principal leadership. It consists
of 50 behavioral statements that describe principal job practices and behaviors. You are asked to
consider each question in terms of your observations of the principal's leadership over the past
school year.

Read each statement carefully. Then circle the number that best fits the specific job behavior or
practice of this principal during the past school year. For the response to each statement:

5 represents Almost Always
4 represents Frequently
3 represents Sometimes
2 represents Seldom
1 represents Almost Never

In some cases, these responses may seem awkward; use your judgment in selecting the most
appropriate response to such questions. Please circle only one number per question. Try to
answer every question. Thank you.

To what extent does your principal . . . ?
ALMOST NEVER ALMOST ALWAYS
I. FRAME THE SCHOOL GOALS
1. Develop a focused set of annual school-wide goals 1 2 3 4 5

2. Frame the school's goals in terms of staff
responsibilities for meeting them 1 2 3 4 5

3. Use needs assessment or other formal and informal
methods to secure staff input on goal development 1 2 3 4 5

4. Use data on student performance when developing
the school's academic goals 1 2 3 4 5

LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 94 94

5. Develop goals that are easily understood and used
by teachers in the school 1 2 3 4 5
II. COMMUNICATE THE SCHOOL GOALS
6. Communicate the school's mission effectively
to members of the school community 1 2 3 4 5

7. Discuss the school's academic goals with teachers
at faculty meetings 1 2 3 4 5

8. Refer to the school's academic goals when making
curricular decisions with teachers 1 2 3 4 5

9. Ensure that the school's academic goals are reflected
in highly visible displays in the school (e.g., posters
or bulletin boards emphasizing academic progress) 1 2 3 4 5

10. Refer to the school's goals or mission in forums with
students (e.g., in assemblies or discussions) 1 2 3 4 5
III. SUPERVISE & EVALUATE INSTRUCTION
11. Ensure that the classroom priorities of teachers are
consistent with the goals and direction of the school 1 2 3 4 5

12. Review student work products when evaluating
classroom instruction 1 2 3 4 5
13. Conduct informal observations in classrooms on a
regular basis (informal observations are unscheduled,
last at least 5 minutes, and may or may not involve
written feedback or a formal conference) 1 2 3 4 5

14. Point out specific strengths in teacher's instructional
practices in post-observation feedback (e.g., in
conferences or written evaluations) 1 2 3 4 5

15. Point out specific weaknesses in teacher instructional
practices in post-observation feedback (e.g., in
conferences or written evaluations) 1 2 3 4 5
IV. COORDINATE THE CURRICULUM
16. Make clear who is responsible for coordinating the
curriculum across grade levels (e.g., the principal,
vice principal, or teacher-leaders) 1 2 3 4 5

17. Draw upon the results of school-wide testing when
making curricular decisions 1 2 3 4 5

18. Monitor the classroom curriculum to see that it covers
the school's curricular objectives 1 2 3 4 5

LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 95 95

19. Assess the overlap between the school's curricular
objectives and the school's achievement tests 1 2 3 4 5

20. Participate actively in the review of curricular materials 1 2 3 4 5
V. MONITOR STUDENT PROGRESS
21. Meet individually with teachers to discuss student
progress 1 2 3 4 5

22. Discuss academic performance results with the faculty
to identify curricular strengths and weaknesses 1 2 3 4 5

23. Use tests and other performance measure to assess
progress toward school goals 1 2 3 4 5
24. Inform teachers of the school's performance results
in written form (e.g., in a memo or newsletter) 1 2 3 4 5

25. Inform students of school's academic progress 1 2 3 4 5
VI. PROTECT INSTRUCTIONAL TIME
26. Limit interruptions of instructional time by public
address announcements 1 2 3 4 5

27. Ensure that students are not called to the office
during instructional time 1 2 3 4 5

28. Ensure that tardy and truant students suffer specific
consequences for missing instructional time 1 2 3 4 5

29. Encourage teachers to use instructional time for
teaching and practicing new skills and concepts 1 2 3 4 5

30. Limit the intrusion of extra- and co-curricular
activities on instructional time 1 2 3 4 5
VII. MAINTAIN HIGH VISIBILITY
31. Take time to talk informally with students and
teachers during recess and breaks 1 2 3 4 5

32. Visit classrooms to discuss school issues with
teachers and students 1 2 3 4 5

33. Attend/participate in extra- and co-curricular activities 1 2 3 4 5

34. Cover classes for teachers until a late or substitute
teacher arrives 1 2 3 4 5

35. Tutor students or provide direct instruction to classes 1 2 3 4 5
VIII. PROVIDE INCENTIVES FOR TEACHERS
LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 96 96

36. Reinforce superior performance by teachers in staff
meetings, newsletters, and/or memos 1 2 3 4 5

37. Compliment teachers privately for their efforts or
performance 1 2 3 4 5
38. Acknowledge teachers' exceptional performance by
writing memos for their personnel files 1 2 3 4 5

39. Reward special efforts by teachers with opportunities
for professional recognition 1 2 3 4 5

40. Create professional growth opportunities for teachers
as a reward for special contributions to the school 1 2 3 4 5
IX. PROMOTE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
41. Ensure that inservice activities attended by staff
are consistent with the school's goals 1 2 3 4 5

42. Actively support the use in the classroom of skills
acquired during inservice training 1 2 3 4 5

43. Obtain the participation of the whole staff in
important inservice activities 1 2 3 4 5

44. Lead or attend teacher inservice activities concerned
with instruction 1 2 3 4 5

45. Set aside time at faculty meetings for teachers to
share ideas or information from inservice activities 1 2 3 4 5
X. PROVIDE INCENTIVES FOR LEARNING
46. Recognize students who do superior work with formal
rewards such as an honor roll or mention in the
principal's newsletter 1 2 3 4 5

47. Use assemblies to honor students for academic
accomplishments or for behavior or citizenship 1 2 3 4 5

48. Recognize superior student achievement or improvement
by seeing in the office the students with their work 1 2 3 4 5

49. Contact parents to communicate improved or exemplary
student performance or contributions 1 2 3 4 5

50. Support teachers actively in their recognition
and/or reward of student contributions to and
accomplishments in class 1 2 3 4 5

LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 97 97

APPENDIX C
MULTIFACTOR LEADERSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE (MLQ)
(BASS & AVOLIO, 1990)

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire
Leader Form

My Name:____________________________________________ Date:__________________

Organization ID #:_________________________________Leader ID #: _________________

This questionnaire is to describe your leadership style as you perceive it. Please answer all items on this
answer sheet. If an item is irrelevant, or if you are unsure or do not know the answer, leave the answer
blank.

Forty-five descriptive statements are listed on the following pages. Judge how frequently each statement
fits you. The word “others” may mean your peers, clients, direct reports, supervisors, and/or all of these
individuals.

Use the following scale:

1. I provide others with assistance in exchange for their efforts………………………......................0 1 2 3 4
2. I re-examine critical assumptions to question whether they are appropriate………………….......0 1 2 3 4
3. I fail to interfere until problems become serious…………………………………………………..0 1 2 3 4
4. I focus attention to irregularities, mistakes, exceptions, and deviations from standards……..........0 1 2 3 4
5. I avoid getting involved when important issues arise………………………………………………0 1 2 3 4
6. I talk about my most important values and beliefs…………………………………………………0 1 2 3 4
7. I am absent when needed…………………………………………………………………………...0 1 2 3 4
8. I seek differing perspectives when solving problems………………………………………………0 1 2 3 4
9. I talk optimistically about the future………………………………………………………………..0 1 2 3 4
10. I instill pride in others for being associate with me………………………………………………...0 1 2 3 4
11. I discuss in specific terms who is responsible for achieving performance targets………………….0 1 2 3 4
12. I wait for things to go wrong before taking action…………………………………………….........0 1 2 3 4
13. I talk enthusiastically about what needs to be accomplished……………………………………….0 1 2 3 4
Not at all Once in a while Sometimes Fairly often Frequently , if not always

0 1 2 3 4

LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 98 98

14. I specify the importance of having a strong sense of purpose………………………………………0 1 2 3 4
15. I spend time teaching and coaching…………………………………………………………………0 1 2 3 4
16. I make clear what one can expect to receive when performance goals are achieved………………..0 1 2 3 4
17. I show that I am a firm believer in “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”……………………………..........0 1 2 3 4
18. I go beyond self-interest for the good of the group…………………………………………………0 1 2 3 4
19. I treat others as individuals rather than just as a member of a group……………………………….0 1 2 3 4
20. I demonstate that problems must become chronic before I take action……………………………..0 1 2 3 4
21. I act in ways that build others’ respect for me…………………………………………....................0 1 2 3 4
22. I concentrate my full attention on dealing with mistakes, complaints, and failurs………………….0 1 2 3 4
23. I consider the moral and ethical consequences of decisions………………………………………....0 1 2 3 4
24. I keep track of all mistakes…………………………………………………………………………..0 1 2 3 4
25. I display a sense of power and confidence…………………………………………………………..0 1 2 3 4
26. I articulate a compelling vision of the future………………………………………………………...0 1 2 3 4
27. I direct my attention toward failures to meet standards……………………………………………...0 1 2 3 4
28. I avoid making decisions…………………………………………………………………………….0 1 2 3 4
29. I consider an individual as having different needs, abilities, and aspirations from others…………..0 1 2 3 4
30. I get others to look at problems from many different angles………………………………………...0 1 2 3 4
31. I help others to develop their strengths………………………………………………………………0 1 2 3 4
32. I suggest new ways of looking at how to complete assignments…………………………………….0 1 2 3 4
33. I delay responding to urgent questions………………………………………………………………0 1 2 3 4
34. I emphasize the importance of having a collective sense of mission………………………………..0 1 2 3 4
35. I express satisfaction when others meet expectations……………………………………………….0 1 2 3 4
36. I express confidence that goals will be achieved……………………………………………………0 1 2 3 4
37. I am effective in meeting others’ job-related needs…………………………………………………0 1 2 3 4
38. I use methods of leadership that are satisfying……………………………………………………...0 1 2 3 4
39. I get others to do more than they are expected to do………………………………………………..0 1 2 3 4
40. I am effective in representing others to higher authority…………………………………………..0 1 2 3 4
41. I work with others in a satisfactory way……………………………………………………………0 1 2 3 4
LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 99 99

42. I heighten others’ desire to succeed………………………………………………………………...0 1 2 3 4
43. I am effective in meeting organizational requirements……………………………………..............0 1 2 3 4
44. I increase others’ willingness to try harder…………………………………………………………0 1 2 3 4
45. I lead a group that is effective………………………………………………………………………0 1 2 3 4

LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 100 100

APPENDIX D
PRINCIPAL SELF-EFFICACY SURVEY (PSES)
(SMITH & GUARINO, 2005)

PRINCIPAL SELF-EFFICACY SURVEY
PRINCIPAL SURVEY
1. Gender
___ M
___ F

2. Ethnicity
___ Asian
___ African American
___ Hispanic
___ White
___ Other: ___________

3. Total number of years as a professional
educator (including this year) is: _____

4. Total number of years as the head principal at 5. Total number of years as a head principal
(including this year) in your career is: _____ this school (including this year) is: _____

5. Total number of years as a head principal 6. Number of students in your school: _____
(including this year) in your career is: _____

7. Highest degree completed: 8. I serve at:
___ Bachelor ___ elementary
___ Master ___ middle school
___ Master +30/specialist ___ high school
___ Doctorate ___ alternative school grade
level(s) served: ______
___ other

9. My school is: 10. Percentage of students on free/reduced
___ public lunch:________
___ private
___ charter
___ other

11. My school is:
___ Rural
___ Urban
___ Suburban
LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 101 101

Definition
This principal survey asks you to make a series of judgments about your experiences as a head
administrator for a school.

Instructions
You are asked to read the following items and rate the strength of your beliefs in your abilities to
attain the
following outcomes. These items should be answered from your perspective as a school principal
working
to produce an effective teaching and learning environment. You are to indicate the degree to
which you
agree or disagree with each statement by darkening the appropriate oval.

Scale 1=Very Weak Beliefs in My Abilities (VW)
2=Weak Beliefs in My Abilities (W)
3=Strong Beliefs in My Abilities (S)
4=Very Strong Beliefs in My Abilities (VS)
STATEMENTS:
My beliefs in my abilities to…

1. influence teachers to utilize effective teaching and learning practices are
2. provide effective modeling for teachers regarding effective teaching and learning practices are
3. use research on teaching and learning to guide strategic planning for accomplishment of
school goals are
4. plan effective activities and experiences which facilitate teachers’ beliefs in their abilities to
Provide effective teaching and learning activities to their students are
5. use data collected from teacher observations to inform schoolwide
efforts for improving teaching and learning are
6. regularly perform effective observations of teachers are
7. stay abreast of current best practices for facilitating effective teaching and learning are
8. communicate needs and goals necessary to enhance effective instructional effectiveness to
faculty are
9. provide experiences that foster and facilitate high levels of teacher motivation towards
teaching and learning are
10. protect instructional time so that effective teaching and learning can take place
11. facilitate an atmosphere that provides fair and consistent discipline for all students are
12. maintain healthy school/community relations are
13. maintain a schoolwide atmosphere that is conducive to teaching and learning are
14. buffer teacher from unnecessary paperwork

LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 102 102

Answer items 15-22 in terms of the amount of time spent per week on the following activities.

Scale:
1=Less than 10%
2=Between 10% and 30%
3=Between 30% and 50%
4=More than 50%

15. Classroom observations
16. Follow-up to classroom observations (e.g., teacher conferences)
17. Meetings with parents
18. Dealing with discipline
19. Completing paperwork
20. Attending seminars for personal and professional growth
21. Attending school activities (e.g., ball games, concerts, etc)
22. Planning professional activities that enhance teaching and learning at your school
23. Which of the following best expresses you beliefs regarding your ability to facilitate effective
teaching and learning at your school?
(a) The time I spend engaged in improving teaching and learning at my school is generally
productive and worthwhile
(b) The time I spend engaged in improving teaching and learning at my school is hampered by
policy and/or other impediments
(c) The time I spend engaged in improving teaching and learning at my school makes little
difference and leaves me feeling discouraged and/or depressed
(d) I have quit spending much time attempting to facilitate instructional effectiveness because the
efforts do not make a difference

LEADERSHIP PRACTICES OF URBAN SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 103 103

APPENDIX E
Professional Beliefs About Diversity Scale
(Pohan & Aguilar, 2001)
A = strongly disagree B = disagree C = no opinion D = agree E = strongly agree

1. Teachers should not be expected to adjust their preferred mode of instruction to
accommodate the needs of all students.
2. The traditional classroom has been set up to support the middle-class lifestyle.
3. Gays and lesbians should not be allowed to teach in public schools.
4. Students and teachers would benefit from having a basic understanding of different
(diverse) religions.
5. Money spent to educate the severely disabled would be better spent on programs for
gifted students.
6. All students should be encouraged to become fluent in a second language.
7. Only schools serving students of color need a racially, ethnically, and culturally diverse
staff and faculty.
8. The attention girls receive in school is comparable to the attention boys receive.
9. Tests, particularly standardized tests, have frequently been used as a basis for segregating
students.
10. People of color are adequately represented in most textbooks today.
11. Students with physical limitations should be placed in the regular classroom whenever
possible.
12. Males are given more opportunities in math and science than females.
13. Generally, teachers should group students by ability levels.
14. Students living in racially isolated neighborhoods can benefit socially from participating
in racially integrated classrooms.
15. Historically, education has been monocultural, reflecting only one reality and has been
biased toward the dominant (European) group.
16. Whenever possible, second language learners should receive instruction in their first
language until they are proficient enough to learn via English instruction.
17. Teachers often expect less from students from the lower socioeconomic class.
18. Multicultural education is most beneficial for students of color.
19. More women are needed in administrative positions in schools.
20. Large numbers of students of color are improperly placed in special education classes by
school personnel.
21. In order to be effective with all students, teachers should have experience working with
students from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds.
22. Students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds typically have fewer educational
opportunities than their middle-class peers.
23. Students should not be allowed to speak a language other than English while in school.
24. It is important to consider religious diversity in setting public school policy.
25. Multicultural education is less important than reading, writing, arithmetic, and computer
literacy.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study seeks to contribute to the literature on instructional and transformational leadership among urban school principals by investigating the relationship between instructional and transformational leadership on the one hand, and professional self-efficacy (comprised of both skills and practices) and professional beliefs and attitudes towards diversity, on the other. The purpose of this study was to determine whether self-efficacy and beliefs and attitudes towards diversity predict whether urban school principals exercise instructional and/or transformational leadership. This study also sought to determine whether ethic/racial differences occurred among principals exercising instructional and/or transformational leadership. Data was collected from 139 urban school principals in Southern California who completed an online survey consisting of queries for demographic information as well as questions from the Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale, the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, the Principal Self-Efficacy Survey, and the Professional Beliefs About Diversity Scale. ❧ Multiple regression analyses revealed a positive relationship between professional self-efficacy (skills and practices) and professional beliefs and attitudes towards diversity with the frequency in which urban school principals engaged in instructional and transformational leadership practices. The study also found that White urban school principals reported more frequent use of instructional leadership practices than their African-American counterparts. No significant ethnic/racial differences among principals occurred in the area of transformational leadership. Interestingly, the study found that urban charter school principals had a higher level of professional self-efficacy and positive belief towards diversity than traditional district principals. Lastly, implications and directions for future research are discussed.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

An exploration of principal self-efficacy beliefs about transformational leadership behaviors

PDF

The relationships between teacher beliefs about diversity and opportunities for culturally and linguistically diverse students, reflectiveness, and teacher self-efficacy

PDF

What is the relationship between self-efficacy of community college mathematics faculty and effective instructional practice?

PDF

How principals lead Title I schools to high academic achievement: a case study of transformative leadership

PDF

A new era of leadership: preparing leaders for urban schools & the 21st century

PDF

Effective leadership practices used by middle school principals in the implementation of instructional change

PDF

The effects of coaching on building and sustaining effective leadership practice of an urban school administrator

PDF

Principal leadership -- skill demands in a global context

PDF

Leadership matters: the role of urban school principals as transformational leaders in influencing parent engagement to disrupt educational inequities

PDF

An exploration of leadership capacity building and effective principal practices

PDF

Hawaiʻi public school principals' level of technology use and the meaningful integration of technology in their school

PDF

How principals lead Title I schools to high academic achievements: a case study of transformative leadership

PDF

The relationship between culturally responsive self-efficacy and attitudes of trauma-informed practices among K-12 educators

PDF

Effective transformational and transactional qualities of 7-8 intermediate school principals who create and sustain change in an urban school setting

PDF

Employing cognitive task analysis supported instruction to increase medical student and surgical resident performance and self-efficacy

PDF

How effective professional development in differentiated instruction can save Hawaii's Catholic schools

PDF

The secondary school principal's role as instructional leader in teacher professional development

PDF

Co-constructing community, school and university partnerships for urban school transformation

PDF

Efective leadership practices used by elementary school principals in the implementation of instructional change

PDF

Co-constructing community, school and university partnerships for urban school transformation: Year two

Asset Metadata

Creator Marín, James R. (author)

Core Title The relationship between ethnicity, self-efficacy, and beliefs about diversity to instructional and transformational leadership practices of urban school principals

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 10/21/2013

Defense Date 09/05/2013

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag diversity,Ethnicity,instructional leadership,OAI-PMH Harvest,school leadership,self-efficacy,transformational leadership,urban school principals,urban schools

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Chung, Ruth (committee chair), Crew, Rudolph (committee member), Rousseau, Sylvia G. (committee member)

Creator Email james.marin@animo.org

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-340869

Unique identifier UC11297219

Identifier etd-MarinJames-2111.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-340869 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-MarinJames-2111.pdf

Dmrecord 340869

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Marín, James R.; Marin, James R.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA