A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY OF THE INCLUSION OF NON-INSTRUCTIONAL
SCHOOL EMPLOYEES IN INDIANA IMPROVEMENT EFFORTS
A DISSERTATION
SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
BY
JEANNE FREDERICKS
DISSERTATION ADVISOR: DR. WILLIAM SHARP
BALL STATE UNIVERSITY
MUNCIE, INDIANA
JULY 2010
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my loving husband, William J. Fredericks,
who understands what makes me tick and loves me in spite of it.
i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This dissertation is the culminating activity of a decade-long study in
educational leadership. I have many people to thank for their support and
encouragement during my time of study.
First of all, I would like to acknowledge the following professors who exerted
significant influence on my growth and development while enrolled as a graduate
student at Ball State University: Dr. Marilyn Quick and Dr. Thalia Mulvihill as
exemplars for women seeking leadership positions in education; my dissertation
committee chair, Dr. William Sharp, for guiding me through the writing process and
doing his best to help me understand school finance; Dr. Joseph McKinney, for his
patience in helping me understand the intricacies of special education law; and Drs.
Barbara Graham and Nancy Brooks for sharing their knowledge and expertise in
curriculum. I would also like to thank Dr. Amy Leahy, along with Dr. Brooks and Dr.
McKinney for serving as members of my dissertation committee.
Secondly, I wish to extend to Marty Kuhns, Administrative Coordinator with
the Department of Educational Leadership, my deepest and most sincere thanks for
her help and friendship. Marty is the cog that makes the wheel turn for students in
the department.
Next, I would like to thank Jim Coyle, Northwest Evaluation Association
Regional Manager, and Drs. Robert L. Zimmerman and Lynn E. Lehman, retired
public school superintendents under whom I have worked, for their encouragement
to complete my doctorate. I also owe a great deal of gratitude to Dr. John Atha who
preceded me in completing his doctorate. I drew upon his experience to understand
ii
the process and write my dissertation. I also wish to acknowledge Melissa Brisco for
acting as my sounding board throughout the research process.
Last but not least, I feel compelled to mention my children who I admire
greatly for different reasons--Nicolas, Jaclyn, and Jamie. But most of all, I want to
thank my husband for his patience, support, and guidance while I worked to earn a
doctoral degree. He made many sacrifices over the years while I studied, read, and
wrote...studied, read, and wrote. I could not have been successful without his logic
and ability to challenge my thinking.
I would like to end by thanking my daughter, Jaclyn Brinks, J.D., for the time
she gave to edit my dissertation.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
i
Acknowledgements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
Table of Contents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv
Appendices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
List of Figures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii
List of Tables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ix
CHAPTER
1.
INTRODUCTION
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
Statement of the Problem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
Purpose of the Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3
Significance of the Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4
Research Questions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4
Delimitations of the Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5
Definitions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.
8
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10
Educational Reform. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
School Improvement in Indiana. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17
Organizational Theory and Behavior. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
20
iv
Shared Leadership. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Stakeholder Inclusiveness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.
Work Roles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
29
Qualities of Effective Team Members. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
36
Learning Organizations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
39
Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
41
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
43
Research Questions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Research Design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
45
Description of Sample. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
The Instrument. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
50
Data Collection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Data Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
57
Limitations of the Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
4.
PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Random Sample and Response Rate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Section 9 - Demographic Information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Section 7 - School Improvement Model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Section 8 - School Performance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
v
Section 1 - School Improvement Team. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Section 2 - School Improvement Tasks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Section 3 - Working With Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Section 4 - Stakeholder Group Benefits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Section 5 - Limitations to Involvement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
Section 6 - Principal's Beliefs and Actions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .112
5.
SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
Statement of the Problem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .113
Review of the Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
Summary of the Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .121
Discussion of the Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .132
Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .148
Recommendations for Further Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .156
Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
vi
APPENDICES
Appendix A
Survey Instrument. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
Appendix B
Approval Letter from the Institutional Review Board. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
Appendix C
Email Invitation to Participate in the Test-Retest Reliability Pilot. . . . . 187
Appendix D
Second Request to Participate in the Pilot Test-Retest Method to
Determine Reliability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
Appendix E
Follow-up Letter of Appreciation to Participants in the Pilot for the
Test-Retest Reliability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
Appendix F
Email Invitation to Participants in the Retest Portion of the Pilot for
the Test-Retest Reliability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
Appendix G
Second Request to Participants in the Retest Portion of the Pilot
Test-Retest Method to Determine Reliability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
Appendix H
Results of Cohen's Kappa Coefficient for the Test-Retest Reliability. . . 198
Appendix I
Email Invitation to the Random Sample Requesting Participation
in the Research Study Online Survey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
Appendix J
Reminder Email Notice Sent to Research Study Online Survey
Non-Respondents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
Appendix K
Final Email Notice Sent to Research Study Online Survey
Non-respondents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
Appendix L
Raw Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
vii
Improvement Stakeholders viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1
Average kappa for each section of the survey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Figure 2
Ranking of Stakeholder Groups By Importance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
Figure 3
Stakeholder Importance Compared with Levels of Participation. . . . . 139
Figure 4
Stakeholder Importance Compared with Task Completion and
Complexity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
Figure 5
Stakeholder Importance Compared with Direct Instruction. . . . . . . . . . 142
Figure 6
Stakeholder Importance Compared with Stakeholder Group
Benefits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
Figure 7
Factors that Limit Stakeholder Participation in School
Improvement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
Figure 8
Stakeholder Participation Compared with Delegation of Authority. . . 147
viii
Improvement Stakeholders ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1
Comparison of Population size, Target Sample Size, Surveys
Emailed, and Completed Surveys. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Table 2
Section 9 - Item 25. As defined by the Indiana Department of
Education, which of the classifications listed below describes your
school?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Table 3
Section 9 - Item 26. What is your current school enrollment?. . . . . . . . . 64
Table 4
Section 9 - Item 27. Are you male or female?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Table 5
Section 9 - Item 28. Including this school year, how many years have
you been employed as a principal at this or any other school? Count
part of a year as one year.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Table 6
Section 7 - Item 20. Which improvement model provides the
framework for your school improvement efforts? Select only one. . . . 67
Table 7
Participation of Non-Instructional Employees by School
Improvement Model - Most Used Models. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
70
Table 8
Participation of Non-Instructional Employees by School
Improvement Model - For Schools Where Non-Instructional
Employees Participate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Table 9
Section 8 - Item 21. Did your school make Adequate Yearly Progress
under NCLB for the 2008-09 school year?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
71
Table 10
Section 8 - Item 22. What P.L. 221 school improvement and
performance category placement did your school earn during the
2008-09 school year?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
73
ix
Improvement Stakeholders
Table 11
Comparison of P.L. 221 School Improvement and
Performance Category Placement and Inclusion of Non-Instructional
Employee Participation in School Improvement Teams - All Schools. . 73
Table 12
Comparison of P.L. 221 School Improvement and
Performance Category Placement and Inclusion of Non-Instructional
Employee Participation in School Improvement Teams Actively Participating. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
Table 13
Section 8 - Item 23. Is your school currently in school improvement? 75
Table 14
Section 8 - Item 24. What percent of your school's population
qualifies for free or reduced lunch?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Table 15
Comparison of Free and Reduced Priced Lunch Populations and
Participation by Non-Instructional Employees in School
Improvement Teams - All Schools. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Table 16
Comparison of Free and Reduced Priced Lunch Populations and
Participation by Non-Instructional Employees in School
Improvement Teams - Participating Employees Only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Table 17
Section 1 - Item 1. Identify LICENSED school employee groups who
actively participate in the work of school improvement. A licensed
school employee is defined as any individual who holds an
instructional, administrative, and/or school services personnel
license. Check ALL that apply. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Table 18
Section 1 - Item 2. Identify NON-INSTRUCTIONAL school employee groups
who actively participate in the work of school improvement. A noninstructional school employee has no responsibility for instructing
students as part of his/her daily job responsibilities. Check ALL that
apply. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
x
x
Improvement Stakeholders xi
Table 19
Section 1 - Item 3. Identify NON-EMPLOYEE groups who actively
participate in the work of school improvement. Check ALL that
apply. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Table 20
Section 2 - Item 4. Identify the tasks performed by LICENSED
employee groups to improve your school. Check ALL that apply. . . . . . 85
Table 21
Section 2 - Item 5. Identify the tasks performed by NONINSTRUCTIONAL employee groups to improve your school. Check
ALL that apply. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Table 22
Section 2 - Item 6. Identify the tasks performed by NON-EMPLOYEE
groups to improve your school. Check ALL that apply. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Table 23
Response Averages for Section 20 through Section 22. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Table 24
Section 3 - Item 7. To what extent do LICENSED school employee
groups work directly with students to help them master academic
standards?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Table 25
Section 3 - Item 8. To what extent do NON-INSTRUCTIONAL school
employee groups work directly with students to help them master
academic standards?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Table 26
Section 3 - Item 9. To what extent do NON-EMPLOYEE groups work
directly with students to help them master academic standards?. . . . . . 92
Table 27
Response Averages for Table 24 through Table 26. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Table 28
Identify the benefits you most often associate with each stakeholder
group when working to improve your school. Check ALL that apply.
Section 4 - Item 10. Licensed Employees. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
xi
Improvement Stakeholders xii
Table 29
Identify the benefits you most often associate with each stakeholder
group when working to improve your school. Check ALL that apply.
Section 4 - Item 11. Non-Instructional Employees. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Table 30
Identify the benefits you most often associate with each stakeholder
group when working to improve your school. Check ALL that apply.
Section 4 - Item 12. Non-Employee Groups. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Table 31
Response Averages for Table 28 through Table 30. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Table 32
Section 4 - Item 13. Rank each group according to the value it
brings to your school improvement efforts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
Table 33
Section 5 - Item 14. Identify the extent to which the following factors
limit your ability to include LICENSED employees in school
improvement activities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .102
Table 34
Section 5 - Item 15. Identify the extent to which the following factors
limit your ability to include NON-INSTRUCTIONAL employees in school
improvement activities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .103
Table 35
Section 5 - Item 16. Identify the extent to which the following factors
limit your ability to include NON-EMPLOYEE groups in school
improvement activities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .104
Table 36
Response Averages for Table 33 through Table 35. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
Table 37
Select the descriptor that best describes your beliefs and actions
when working with different school improvement groups.
Section 6 - Item 17. LICENSED Employee Groups. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .108
xii
Improvement Stakeholders xiii
Table 38
Select the descriptor that best describes your beliefs and actions
when working with different school improvement groups.
Section 6 - Item 18. NON-INSTRUCTIONAL Employee Groups. . . . . . . . . 109
Table 39
Select the descriptor that best describes your beliefs and actions
when working with different school improvement groups.
Section 6 - Item 19. NON-EMPLOYEE Groups. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
Table 40
Response Items for Table 37 through Table 39. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
Table 41
Overview of the Findings for Question 1 Through Question 7. . . . . . . . . 134
xiii
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
This dissertation is a study describing the role public school noninstructional employees--secretaries, custodians, bus drivers, and cafeteria
workers--play in the school improvement process. The study was based on the
degree to which non-instructional employees were involved in achieving the
school's vision and targeted student learning goals as reported by public school
principals in Indiana. The first chapter of the dissertation specifies the purpose for
the study and the specific problem addressed, and it describes its significance in the
current context of school accountability and reform. An overview of the
methodology used is also provided. Remaining pages in the chapter acknowledge
delimitations within the study and identify important terms and definitions for the
purpose of creating greater understanding of the topic.
Statement of the Problem
In August of 1981, Secretary of Education T. H. Bell created the National
Commission on Excellence in Education, which was charged with the task of
examining the quality of education in the United States and reporting its findings to
the nation. The commission found the "declines in educational performance" could
be attributed to the dilution of secondary school curricula, lowered expectations,
Improvement Stakeholders 2
less time relegated to academic study as compared to other countries, and serious
problems with teacher preparation and recruitment. Since the launch of Sputnik in
1957 and the publication of A Nation at Risk (1983) legislatures, business and
industry, state educational agencies, the public, and even U.S. presidents have
demanded greater accountability for higher performance by today’s public schools.
In efforts to comply with federal and state accountability statutes like the No Child
Left Behind Act of 2001 (U.S. Department of Education) and Indiana’s Public Law
221 (Indiana Department of Education), school officials and leaders have adapted
principles for quality performance from organizational improvement models such
as the Baldrige National Quality Program, Total Quality Management, Site-Based
Decision-Making, and systems thinking. Regardless of the model selected by schools
to guide improvement, great value is placed on the decision-making capabilities of
those individuals closest to students: principals, teachers, parents, and community
members. There is, however, an often forgotten segment of the school community
that “works hard behind the scenes in often indispensable roles” and yet is valued
little as team members in school improvement efforts (AFT, p. 2). Despite
contributions to school operations, these silent partners in public school systems—
bus drivers, cafeteria workers, custodians, and secretaries—are often viewed as
outsiders in organized school improvement efforts. Schools miss valuable
opportunities to gain a unique perspective from school employees who interact with
students daily in settings outside the classroom and who often fill an important
niche providing support services for the school community. Internal and external
Improvement Stakeholders 3
publics alike often view non-instructional employees as having a sympathetic ear
and a willingness to listen when teachers, administrators, and board members seem
unapproachable. Yet a void exists in public school cultures where almost half of its
total employee population is overlooked when school teams comprised of licensed
employees are organized to improve schools. Public schools are not the inclusive
organizations they profess to be when this large, indispensable segment of noninstructional employees is disenfranchised and denied full membership in the
school community.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this descriptive research study was to explore the beliefs and
practices of public school principals with regard to the inclusion of noninstructional employees in school-wide improvement efforts to increase academic
achievement. Current models for continuous school improvement emphasize the
importance of including all stakeholders in the improvement process in order to
realize the greatest gains in student achievement. By accessing the beliefs and
practices of public school principals, the researcher was able to determine the
extent to which non-instructional school personnel are valued, acknowledged, and
included in organizational processes to improve student learning and organizational
quality. Findings from this study provided the foundation for recommending ways
to better include and tap into the strengths and talents of non-instructional
employees to improve the school and promote learning.
Improvement Stakeholders 4
Significance of the Study
The examination of Indiana public school principals' perceptions and
practices related to the inclusion of non-instructional employees for the purpose of
improving public schools makes important contributions to the body of research
regarding continuous school improvement by: (a) expanding existing knowledge
relevant to organizational improvement through the inclusion of a large group of
school employees typically excluded from improvement efforts; (b) providing new
insights into biases existing in today's public schools, which devalue noninstructional school employees who typically lack social status within the school
community; and (c) improving school improvement models by redefining the role
non-instructional employees might play in the process.
Research Questions
The research questions addressed in this study were as follows:
1. To what extent are non-instructional employees included in school
improvement groups and activities?
2. Does the complexity of school improvement tasks completed by noninstructional employees differ from the tasks completed by other
stakeholder groups?
3. What factors limit the inclusion of non-instructional employees in school
improvement?
4. To what extent do principals' beliefs and actions influence the inclusion
or exclusion of non-instructional employees in the school improvement
process?
Improvement Stakeholders 5
5. Does a relationship exist between the school improvement model used
and the inclusion of non-instructional employees in school improvement
efforts?
6. Are schools that fail to meet annual state and federal academic
benchmarks more likely to include non-instructional employees in school
improvement efforts?
7. Are high poverty schools more likely to include non-instructional
employees in school improvement efforts?
8. Are non-instructional employees valued differently than other school
improvement stakeholder groups?
Delimitations
Delimitations in this study are as follows:
1. The sample population was limited only to principals of Indiana public
schools during the second half of the 2009-2010 school year.
2. The study is based on the degree to which participants accurately and
honestly self-report their perceptions and behaviors.
3. No single improvement model is used to improve schools in Indiana.
Therefore, strategies to include non-instructional employees may vary
widely depending on the model used.
4. The study tackles a sensitive issue regarding the extent to which noninstructional employees might be excluded from school improvement
efforts.
Improvement Stakeholders 6
5. The study specifically addresses bus drivers, cafeteria workers, custodians,
and secretaries. As a result, the findings may not be generalizable to other
non-instructional employee groups.
Definitions
Accountability: the practice of holding educational systems responsible for
the quality of their products—students’ knowledge, skills, behaviors, and attitudes
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): Indiana public schools must make AYP for
both the overall student population and student subgroups, which include economic
background, race/ethnicity, limited English Proficient, and special education. The
Indiana Statewide Test for Educational Progress Plus (ISTEP+) in mathematics and
language arts, student attendance rates (for elementary and middle schools), and
graduation rate (for high schools) are the measures used to calculate AYP (Indiana
Department of Education).
Licensed School Employee: sometimes referred to as a certified employee, any
individual who holds an instructional, administrative, and/or school services
personnel license issued through the Office of Educator Licensing and Development,
Indiana Department of Education.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001: "An act to close the achievement gap with
accountability, flexibility, and choice, so that no child is left behind" (U.S.
Department of Education).
Non-Employee: any individual not employed by the school, e.g., community
members, business representatives, parents, and members of the school board.
Improvement Stakeholders 7
Non-Instructional Employee: also known as support staff and classified staff,
the term refers to a school employee who holds no responsibility for instructing
students as part of his or her daily work expectations; e.g., bus drivers, custodians,
cafeteria workers, and school secretaries.
Public Law 221: " Indiana's comprehensive accountability system for K-12
education. Passed by the Indiana General Assembly in 1999 – prior to the federal No
Child Left Behind Act of 2001, the law aimed to establish major educational reform
and accountability statewide" (Indiana Department of Education).
School Improvement: "...raising student achievement through [focussing] on
the teaching-learning process and the conditions that support it" (Hopkins, 2001, p.
13).
Site-based Management: a change in the structure of school governance
where principals and teachers are empowered to make informed decisions at the
local level regarding the teaching and learning process to improve student
achievement. (Midgley & Wood, 1993)
Stakeholder: one who is involved in or affected by a course of action
(Merriam-Webster)
Systems Thinking: a conceptual framework, body of knowledge, and set of
tools that reveal and make clear existing patterns, purposefully used towards
creating change within organizations (Senge, 1990).
Improvement Stakeholders 8
Task Complexity: level of cognitive and/or technical difficulty associated with
or degree of expertise required to complete a unit of work specific to the school
improvement process.
Title I - Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged: Part of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act, its purpose is "to ensure that all children
have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education and
reach, at a minimum, proficiency on challenging State academic achievement
standards and state academic assessments" (U. S. Department of Education).
Summary
Bracey (2009) wrote, "Ever since the launch of Sputnik in 1957, schools have
been seen as the failing institution in America. An endlessly repeated claim has been
that for America to 'succeed,' the nation needs more 'high-quality' schools" (p. 1).
Over 50 years later, the nation's public schools continue to be scrutinized for the
quality of education provided to students. Under IC 20-31-5-1, Indiana principals
must develop a three-year school improvement plan with "input from a committee
of persons interested in the school, including administrators, teachers, parents, and
community and business leaders appointed by the principal." Even Indiana law fails
to acknowledge the potential impact non-instructional employees might have on
improving school quality. Collins (2001) suggests organizations get the right people
on the bus in the right seats. This study seeks to determine whether noninstructional school employees are invited to ride the school improvement bus and,
if so, what seats are available to them. School improvement literature advises
Improvement Stakeholders 9
schools to include all stakeholders in school improvement efforts.
Chapter 1 lays the foundation for the study through the introduction,
problem and purpose statements, research questions, delimitations, and definitions
of terms needed for accurate understanding of the topic. Looking ahead, Chapter 2
presents a review of the literature related to school improvement and the inclusion
of stakeholders in organizational quality. Chapter 3 explains the methodology used
to carry out this descriptive research study, while Chapter 4 presents a detailed
analysis of the data. Finally, Chapter 5 ties the previous chapters together in a
summary that reviews the results, interprets the findings, and provides
recommendations for further study.
CHAPTER 2
Review of the Literature
Introduction
In The Six Secrets of Change, Fullan (2008) lists the second secret as
connecting peers with purpose through purposeful peer interaction. The author
states, "...show me a cohesive, creative organization, and I'll show you peer
interaction all the way down" (p. 43). Thus begins the review of theory and research
related to stakeholder involvement in efforts to improve organizational quality
through a "we-we solution." Fullan counsels:
Peer interaction must be purposeful and must be characterized by
high-capacity knowledge and skills (Secret Four). Leaders have to
provide direction, create the conditions for effective peer interaction,
and intervene along the way when things are not working as well as
they could. (p. 49)
It is through effective peer interaction that organizational identity and commitment
are expanded to create a "social glue" that builds coherence, collective purpose, and
capacity among stakeholders. Fullan goes on to explain, "When peers interact
purposefully, their expectations of one another create positive pressure to
accomplish goals important to the group" (p. 63). During the past century, public
Improvement Stakeholders 11
education has evolved from a management style based on Douglas McGregor's
Theory X and Frederick Taylor's efficiency principles to an environment where
participative management, McGregor's Theory Y, prevails and "no stakeholder is
more important than any other" (Fullan, 2008, p. 26). For the purpose of this study,
purposeful peer interaction was viewed as a stakeholder conglomerate comprised
of licensed employees, non-instructional employees, and non-employees who work
within the school to improve the quality of education delivered to students. Hopkins
(2001) declared the work of school improvement stakeholders as "general efforts to
make schools better places for pupils and students to learn in" (p. 11). Each
conglomerate division can be further subdivided as follows:
1. Licensed employees
a. principals
b. assistant principals
c. teachers
d. instructional coaches
e. guidance counselors
f. media specialists
g. school nurse
2. Non-instructional employees
a. bus drivers
b. cafeteria workers
c. custodians
Improvement Stakeholders 12
d. school secretaries
3. Non-employees
a. representatives from business and industry
b. parents of school-age children
c. community members (no children currently enrolled in school)
d. school board members
This chapter will explore further the introduction of stakeholder
participation in public schools through the lenses of educational reform and
organizational theory. The discussion begins with a look at past efforts to reform
U.S. public education.
Educational Reform
To best understand school improvement efforts, it is necessary to begin with
an overview of the demands placed on schools by educational reform movements
within the U.S. The most recent wave of reform can be linked to its beginning in the
mid-twentieth century when Nicholas DeWitt partnered with the National Science
Foundation to produce the 1955 publication Soviet Professional Manpower: Its
Education, Training, and Supply, an exposé regarding Russia's educational plan to
advance technologically. The Korean War and the publication of DeWitt's book were
accompanied by three Soviet events that provided the impetus for America's effort
to reshape its schools:
1. testing of atomic weaponry from 1949 through 1953,
2. Soviet detonation of RDS-37, the hydrogen bomb, in 1955, and
Improvement Stakeholders 13
3. the successful 1957 launch of the satellite Sputnik into space.
Soviet Professional Manpower, RDS-37, and Sputnik were viewed as threats to the
superiority of the United States as a world power and its national security. Sputnik's
launch stimulated a decade-long race to space between the Soviet Union and the
U.S.; the purpose, to establish scientific superiority and show military strength.
Congress responded by establishing the National Defense Education Act of 1958,
which focused primarily on improving education in science, mathematics, and world
languages. The "space race" between the Soviets and the United States unofficially
ended when Apollo 11 astronaut Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon July 21, 1969.
The U.S. was once again leading the world technologically.
Despite educational reform precipitated by the Cold War and the Soviet
technological threat, the nation's schools fell under the scrutiny of the U.S.
Government once again. In 1981, the National Commission on Excellence in
Education was created with the expressed purpose of studying "the quality of
learning and teaching in the nation's schools, colleges, and universities, both public
and private" and was charged to report its findings and make recommendations by
April 1983 to T. H. Bell, then Secretary of Education for the U.S. Department of
Education. The commission found high school curricula to be too general, lacking
rigor, and requiring only minimal expectations. Recommendations from the
commission to improve education for students included:
1. increased high school graduation requirements,
Improvement Stakeholders 14
2. increased entrance requirements and performance standards by colleges
and universities,
3. implementation of standardized achievement tests,
4. better textbooks and educational materials,
5. assigning more homework,
6. longer school days and school years,
7. better classroom management and maintaining classroom discipline,
8. better prepared teachers who receive rewards and incentives for
performance,
9. holding educators and elected officials accountable as effective leaders
employed to achieve these reforms, and
10. financial support needed for educational excellence provided by the
citizenry. (www.ed.gov)
By 1991, America 2000 legislation was proposed under the leadership of
President George H. Bush. The legislation was couched as a national strategy "to
provide national leadership for the implementation of national goals" (Swartz, R. B.
& Robinson, M. A., 2000, p. 177). Discretionary funds would be used to jumpstart the
creation of national standards and national tests by professional organizations. The
proposed legislation faced insurmountable political challenges from both
republicans and democrats. Killed by a senate filibuster, America 2000 met its
demise but paved the way for President Bill Clinton's Goals 2000 initiative.
Improvement Stakeholders 15
Often seen as the predecessor to the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
(NCLB), Goals 2000: Educate America Act or P. L. 103-227 became law in 1994 and
required each state to create a school improvement plan, establish high academic
standards, and measure student academic progress. The eight educational goals
established by Goals 2000 addressed "school readiness, school completion, student
academic achievement, leadership in math and science, adult literacy, safe and drugfree schools...teacher professional development and parental participation."
Although Goals 2000 was couched as a voluntary program, schools that "opted out"
passed up significant levels of federal funding. (National Center for Home
Education)
A year later, the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and
the National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP) teamed up to
report their findings in Breaking Ranks: Changing an American Institution. The
Breaking Ranks commission, comprised of educational practitioners (principals,
assistant principals, teachers, students, professors, and members of the Carnegie
Foundation and NASSP), made over 80 recommendations to improve education in
general and high schools for the twenty-first century. Paramount within the study's
findings was the need for high schools of the new millennium to be "much more
student-centered and above all much more personalized in programs, support
services, and intellectual rigor" (p. vi). The fifth printing of Breaking Ranks occurred
in 2001, the same year that NCLB was authorized by Congress. In order to increase
the quality of U. S. schools, NCLB called for implementation of higher academic
Improvement Stakeholders 16
standards, yearly standardized testing of basic skills in mathematics and language
arts (or reading and writing), accountability for performance, reporting of every
student enrolled in high school to military recruiters and institutions of higher
learning, more parental choice in selecting schools, and the goal of closing the
achievement gap for disadvantaged and disabled students.
The standards set by NCLB continue today. Schools receiving Title I funding
and declared "in need of improvement" face penalty timelines; consequences
increase in severity over time. After two years "in school improvement," Title I
schools must allow students to transfer to other schools and spend ten percent of
their Title I allocation on teacher professional development. Supplemental services
or tutoring must be provided to eligible students after three years in school
improvement. The fourth year mandates "corrective action," whereby drastic
measures such as replacing school staff and extending the school day are
implemented. Title I schools declared failing after five years "face takeover by the
state or a contracted private education firm" (Peterson, 2005, p. 1).
Two years prior to passage of the No Child Left Behind Act, the Indiana
General Assembly established its own K-12 accountability system through Public
Law 221 (P.L. 221). Indiana later incorporated the requirements of NCLB into P.L.
221. As a result, schools are placed in improvement categories based on student
performance on the Indiana Statewide Test for Educational Progress Plus (ISTEP+)
and required to make Adequately Yearly Progress where all students are expected
to show proficiency with the state's academic standards. To that end, Indiana Code
Improvement Stakeholders 17
20-31-5-1 requires the school principal to coordinate the development of a
continuous school improvement and student achievement plan. The principal must
appoint a strategic planning committee made up of various stakeholder groups,
specifically administrators, teachers, parents, and community and business leaders.
Indiana Code fails to include non-instructional employees in the list of required
stakeholders for inclusion in the strategic planning process.
The previous overview explains the historical perspective of educational
reform and establishes the inception of site-based decision-making and stakeholder
inclusion for improving school quality. Historically, non-instructional employees
have not often been mentioned in the literature as necessary participants for
improving schools. Therefore, it is important to understand the manner in which
stakeholders are expected to interact within the organization to accomplish
identified school goals. Before proceeding to a discussion of organizational theory
and stakeholder involvement for the purpose of improving schools, an
understanding of Indiana's definition of school improvement must be established.
School Improvement in Indiana
Generally, school improvement can be defined as site-based efforts with the
purpose of making schools better places where students can learn at optimal levels.
In Indiana, school improvement more specifically involves a three-pronged
approach focused on meeting legal standards, raising student achievement through
a quality assurance process involving school stakeholders, and acquiring
Improvement Stakeholders 18
accreditation through the Indiana Department of Education or a departmentapproved accrediting agency. Clarification of each component follows.
Regarding accreditation, schools must first comply with 40 legal standards
required by Indiana Code or law related to, but not inclusive of, health and safety,
time, curriculum offerings, instructional staff, participation in state assessments,
and accurate and timely submission of all state reports. The Office of School
Accreditation and Awards acts as liaison between Indiana schools and other
certifying agencies by verifying compliance with the legal standards. However,
schools work directly with certifying agencies when non-compliance occurs.
Secondly, each school is required to design a strategic and continuous school
improvement and achievement plan that is reviewed and revised annually then
submitted to the Indiana Department of Education. The plan must focus on high
levels of student achievement for all students by analyzing the strengths and
weaknesses of the school, identifying goals and benchmarks for immediate
improvement, and organizing efforts to achieve those goals. Levels of student
achievement are measured by the number of students showing proficiency with the
Indiana Academic Standards, as determined by student performance on the ISTEP+.
Additional metrics must be included in the school improvement plan, namely
attendance rate for elementary and middle schools and graduation rate for high
schools. Other required plan components include:
1. a list of statutes and rules to be waived,
2. a description and location of the curriculum,
Improvement Stakeholders 19
3. a stipulation to maximize parental participation,
4. a provision to maintain a safe and disciplined learning environment for
students and teachers,
5. a proviso for the coordination of technology initiatives, and
6. a professional development program that includes a summary analysis of
data regarding student learning, strategies, programs, and services to
address student learning needs; activities to implement the strategies,
programs, and services; evaluation of the impact of the activities; and
assurance the program complies with the State Board's core principles
for professional development. (Indiana Department of Education)
The third and remaining accreditation component requires review by the
Indiana Department of Education of student achievement indicators. Indiana Code
20-31-8-1 states, "the performance of a school's students on the ISTEP program test
and other assessments recommended by the education roundtable and approved by
the State Board are the primary and majority means of assessing a school's
improvement" (Indiana Department of Education). As stipulated by Indiana Code
20-31-8-4, the state board will place each school in one of five categories or
designations of school improvement based on the percent of annual improvement
or progress demonstrated by the school on mandated assessments. The five
categories are Exemplary Progress, Commendable Progress, Academic Progress,
Academic Watch (Priority), and Academic Probation (high priority). This third
accountability component, established by Indiana's P.L. 221, is one of two laws
Improvement Stakeholders 20
established to ensure that Indiana students and schools continue to improve. The
second law, the federally enacted NCLB incorporated into Indiana's P.L. 221,
requires measurement of student performance in mathematics, English/language
arts, and science. Schools receiving federal Title I funds that fail to make adequate
yearly progress face progressive consequences through increasing levels of state
supervision in school operations (U.S. Department of Education). In the near future,
Indiana will be moving to a student growth model for accountability purposes.
Since the latter part of the twentieth century, educational reform in Indiana
has been accompanied by laws and statutes that mandate the continuous
improvement of its students and schools, as measured by standardized tests in
mathematics, language arts, and now science and social studies. The researcher will
turn to an exploration of organizational theory and behavior to aid understanding of
the processes schools have utilized to meet federal and state mandates for school
improvement.
Organizational Theory and Behavior
To effectively understand organizational behavior in terms of school
improvement and inclusion of various stakeholder groups, an exploration of
classical, socio-political, open systems, and path-goal theories must first occur. The
discussion will turn first to classical theory.
Any discussion of classical theory must acknowledge the contributions made
by Max Webber, Frederick Taylor, and Ellwood P. Cubberly. Hanson (2003)
discusses Webber's "bureaucratic administration" as control of the organization by
Improvement Stakeholders 21
rational authority. Webber believed that "knowledge endows authority with
rationality," which flows through the organization to "directly control human
activity to the point of high predictability and maximum efficiency" (p. 15). Webber
(1964) identified the following five principles necessary for maximum efficiency
within the organization:
1. Hierarchical Structure: A pyramid configuration of authority exists where
each manager/leader is responsible for the actions and decisions of his or
her subordinates.
2. Division of Labor: Individuals are assigned responsibilities and tasks based
on their specific training, skill, and experience.
3. Control by Rules: Uniformity, predictability, and stability across the
organization are ensured by a system of rules that guide the actions and
decisions of managers.
4. Impersonal Relationships: A lack of personal relationships adds rationality to
the organization. Interactions among members are based on codified rules
governing the system.
5. Career Orientation: Compensation and opportunity within the organization
are based on knowledge (expertise), seniority, rank, and/or merit. (p. 339)
Webber saw organizations as hierarchical structures where the leaders were
managed by rules and regulations and employee participation within the hierarchy
was determined by the skill set each individual could offer the organization.
According to classical theory, leaders are assumed and expected to possess the
Improvement Stakeholders 22
greatest amount of knowledge, skills, expertise, and experience. Hanson (2003)
notes:
Therefore, no one else is more qualified to sort out the tangles of
problem situations and set the organization back on the track of
maximum efficiency. In pursuit of this task, the leader is supported
by the full weight of the formal organization hierarchy and all the
power, information, and resources that the hierarchy can bring
into focus. (p. 157)
Prior to publication of Webber's five bureaucratic principles, Taylor's
application of engineering principles to management tasks provided the foundation
for scientific management in public schools. Cubberly applied Taylor's ideas to the
educational setting and an analogy for public education was born, that of school as
factory and people as pieces of machinery. Classical theory describes the completely
rational organization, but Hanson (2003) points out, "All of us know that
organizations do not operate that way. In the real world they appear to function as
unequal parts of democracy, bureaucracy, and autocracy."
McGregor (2006) created two theories to describe human nature and
articulated the influence they had on managers' attitudes towards employees in the
workplace. McGregor's Theory X aligns with the engineering and scientific
principles of Taylor and Webber. Theory X assumes that people dislike work, are
unmotivated, need direction, and must be controlled with either incentives or
punishment. Further, it is assumed that employees are not dependable, cannot be
Improvement Stakeholders 23
trusted to make good decisions, and have little concern with organizational goals.
Thus, upper management defines job responsibilities, makes decisions, distributes
awards based on explicitly defined criteria, and punishes those who fail to strictly
comply with the rules. The idea of organizational stakeholder had not yet been
conceptualized and years would pass before federal and state laws would lead to
decentralization of school authority and shared leadership in public schools.
In deference to the manner in which organizations operate in the real world,
a second theory exists that describes organizations "as a collection of social
systems" where "people share power and differ in their view of what must be done"
through political action (Hanson, 2003, p. 43). The Hawthorne Studies (1927-1932)
resulted in important findings related to this second theory, sociopolitical theory.
These studies found that workers acted as members of informal groups rather than
as individuals and could generate political power to move the organization toward
achieving specific interests. Griffiths (1957) defined informal groups as a "system of
interpersonal relations which forms within an organization to affect decisions of the
formal organization..." (p. 384).
McGregor's Theory Y is more in keeping with socio-political theory. Unlike
Theory X, Theory Y assumes people will commit to and assume responsibility for
achieving goals they understand, are capable of making decisions and directing their
own behavior, and are eager and able to grow and learn. Moreover, the theory
assumes that employees have a need to achieve and want to contribute to the
success of the organization. Theory Y, then, implies a more participative style of
Improvement Stakeholders 24
leadership that establishes workplace conditions and operations where personal
and organizational objectives can be achieved.
Like socio-political theory, the third organizational theory for consideration-open systems theory--addresses the role external as well as internal stakeholders
play in achieving organizational goals. Hanson (2003) writes,
Open system theory concentrates on the dependency of relationships
and exchanges between the organization and its external environment.
An organization such as a school is a creature of its environment
because it is supported by and in turn supports the social, political,
and cultural offerings and demands of society. (p. 111)
Organizations are not isolated, closed systems dealing only with internal publics and
culture, but continually renewing systems that interact with external publics and
the surrounding environment as well. Applying open system theory to Indiana's
requirements for improving school quality, a justification exists to include
representatives from external stakeholder groups for participation on committees,
councils, and ad hoc groups.
Finally, House's (1971) Path-Goal Theory of Leadership aligns with open
systems theory and proposes that leadership style is situational and can affect
motivation, performance, and job satisfaction among individuals and groups. House
(1971) and House and Dessler (1974) identify four different leadership styles
associated with path-goal leadership: directive, supportive, achievement-oriented,
and participative. In the fourth style, participative leadership, the leader consults
Improvement Stakeholders 25
with, receives input from, and gives serious consideration to the viewpoint of her
subordinates prior to making decisions. Path-Goal theory promotes a leadership
style coherent with Indiana Code 20-31-5-1 that requires stakeholder inclusivity in
school improvement efforts.
Whether incorporating a managerial style, sharing leadership with internal
stakeholders, or opening the school to interact with the wider community, inclusion
of all stakeholders in school improvement efforts is supported by organizational
theory. The next step, then, is to examine the manner in which school leaders share
responsibility by including stakeholder groups in the work of school improvement.
Shared Leadership
Marzano, Waters, and McNulty (2005) conducted a meta-analysis of the
research on educational leadership and identified 21 responsibilities that define the
role of an effective school leader. Based on their findings, the researchers created
five steps as part of a coordinated action plan to support school leaders in their
efforts to increase student achievement. Step one of five--develop a strong school
leadership team--applies here. Few if any school leaders possess all the necessary
skills as defined by the 21 responsibilities; hence, Marzano, Waters, and McNulty
recommend sharing leadership responsibility with individuals organized as a
"purposeful community." In School Leadership that Works, Marzano et al. define a
purposeful community as "one with the collective efficacy and capability to develop
and use assets to accomplish goals that matter to all community members through
agreed-upon processes" (p. 99). McGregor's Theory Y applies here. In other words,
Improvement Stakeholders 26
members of the "purposeful community" share the belief that collectively they can
stimulate important change, individual assets can be used and developed, and
strong, well-articulated reasons exist for the purpose of accomplishing identified
goals using agreed-upon group processes. However, the authors most often define
membership in a purposeful school community as staff, which literally translates in
their book to mean teachers and administrators. Little attention in the discussion of
the "purposeful community" is paid to including non-licensed employees as
substantive members in the work of the school improvement.
On the other hand, one-time chief executive officer of General Electric, Jack
Welch (2001) pushed informality in the organization where "everybody's welcome
and expected to go at it" (p. 384). Welch defined "informality" as making everyone
count and making sure everyone knows they count. Similarly, Kouzes and Posner
(1987) wrote about the importance of including everyone to accomplish the vision
of the organization:
This sense of teamwork goes far beyond the leader and his or her
immediate subordinates. It includes peers, superiors, customers,
suppliers--all those who must support the vision...Those in the
organization who must produce the results feel a sense of ownership.
They feel empowered, and when people feel empowered, they are
more likely to use their energies to produce extraordinary results. (p. 11)
In shared leadership, school quality depends on the symbiotic relationship that
exists among those included in school improvement efforts. Fullan (2008)
Improvement Stakeholders 27
explained, "It is helping all employees find meaning, increased skill development,
and personal satisfaction in making contributions that simultaneously fulfill their
own goals and the goals of the organization" (p. 25). In other words, no stakeholder
is more important than any other stakeholder. Licensed and non-instructional
employees and non-employees all have important roles to fulfill when working
towards school quality. Further exploration follows regarding the degree to which
different stakeholder groups are either included in or excluded from efforts to
improve Indiana's public schools.
Stakeholder Inclusiveness
Equality is defined by Anderson (1999) as an "ideal of social relations, in
which people from all walks of life enjoy equal dignity, interact with one another on
terms of equality and respect, and are not vulnerable to oppression by others. In
order to function as equals in society, individuals must share a 'common stock of
cultural capital'" (p. 615). Lamont and Lareau (1988) defined cultural capital as
"widely shared, high status cultural signals (attitudes, preferences, formal
knowledge, behaviors, goods and credentials) used for social and cultural exclusion"
(p. 159). Anderson believed that equality of educational opportunity for all sectors
of society is a responsibility of the educational elite or those in society who hold
positions of responsibility and leadership. In public schools, it is the principal who
holds responsibility for mediating inequalities.
Improvement Stakeholders 28
Two mechanisms systematically work against equality and transmit
disadvantage: social and spatial segregation and group stereotypes. Both work to
deprive the disadvantaged of cultural capital.
Social and spatial segregation work to isolate, separate, and limit the
development of social capital for the disadvantaged. Additionally, elites are deprived
of social capital as well when segregated from those with lower social and
workplace status. Lacking opportunities to associate with the disadvantaged, the
educational elite lack competence with "language, styles of communication, body
language, manners, and other subtle cultural habits of the less advantaged" (p. 603).
Workplace segregation decreases the opportunity for all internal stakeholders to
gain cultural capital. The disadvantaged and elite have much to learn and gain from
one another.
In addition, social and spatial segregation perpetuate group stereotypes and
contribute to the negative emotions that often exist between socially stratified
group members. Many times, elites associate disgust, contempt, distrust, and
resentment with the disadvantaged, while positive qualities are most often linked to
the advantaged. Both perspectives reinforce avoidance, segregation, and feelings of
discomfort when individuals from different social strata are grouped together.
According to Anderson, the elite must possess more than academic knowledge to
facilitate equality through integration within the organization. Elites must also have
first-hand personal knowledge of the disadvantaged through constant personal
interaction across social lines. Unlike the educational system's elite (administrators
Improvement Stakeholders 29
and teachers), non-instructional employees are often viewed within the educational
hierarchy as the disadvantaged and provided only limited access to full membership
in the school community. For example, important school committees include
principals, teachers, parents, and community members, while non-instructional
employees are excluded. Integration of the advantaged and disadvantaged must
meet more than a standard of tokenism. Inclusive opportunities must exist in
schools where substantial numbers of the disadvantaged are present with the elite,
enough to warrant their presence as desired and valued equals. Additionally, work
roles must be considered when discussing exclusion and inequality.
Work Roles
Ronald Humphrey (1985) studied the relationships and perceptions of
subordinate workers in workplace settings. Humphrey researched subordinates'
beliefs about their subordinate co-workers and managers. Based on the findings of
Jackman and Senter (1983), Humphrey suggested that "...people make trait
distinctions between occupations as well as [social] classes. Thus, it seems likely
that people think secretaries are less talented, ambitious, aggressive, etc., than their
bosses" (p. 242). Believing in the likelihood that subordinates generally possess
inferior traits to their managers, Humphrey set out to determine the extent to which
workers can accurately judge the talents and abilities of their coworkers and how
work roles influence their judgment. Humphrey found that subordinates'
impressions of their coworkers and managers were greatly influenced by the roles
each plays in the organization and that coworkers and managers tend to accept the
Improvement Stakeholders 30
behavior they see at face value. Individuals situated in the upper ranks of the
organizational hierarchy and assigned greater levels of responsibility were
perceived as better skilled, more capable, and possessing greater numbers of quality
traits than others of equal ability in lower rungs of the hierarchy. In other words, the
power structure found in organizations may lead to false perceptions subordinates
have about each other and their managers. Humphrey suggests the distorted
perceptions of subordinates and managers might lead to extended problems within
the workplace.
Conceivably, the structural-cognitive biases could reduce workers'
morale and productivity as well as make it difficult for organizations
to promote their most talented workers. Equally important, theories of
self-reflected appraisal suggest that being systematically underevaluated
may have harmful effects on self-esteem and overall health and
well-being. (p. 251)
In the School Administrator, Fitzwater (2009) stated that the effectiveness of
leaders should be judged by the degree of productivity of all members of the
organization. Productivity is maximized when "workers feel appreciated, when their
talents are being fully used and when their leader is their advocate." In order to
promote a healthier, more efficient, and effective workplace experience and culture,
the work of Humphrey and Fitzwater suggests the need to more fully incorporate all
members of the school community in organized efforts to improve school quality,
regardless of where in the workplace hierarchy they are situated.
Improvement Stakeholders 31
Geert Hofstede (1984) researched the impact of culture on work-related
values patterns and the correlation between one's quality of life and quality of work
life, which combine to create the quality of (total) life. Hofstede identified four
dimensions of culture that can be used to define workplace values:
1. power distance - the extent to which the less powerful person in a society
accepts inequality in power and considers it normal;
2. individualism - where each person looks first to satisfying his/her own
interests as compared to collectivism where each person is first attached
to a group;
3. masculinity - individuals are encouraged to be "assertive, ambitious, and
competitive, to strive for material success, and to respect whatever is big,
strong, and fast" versus femininity, which expects the individual to serve
and care for children and the weak; and,
4. uncertainty avoidance - the extent to which individuals avoid situations
viewed as "unstructured, unclear, or unpredictable." (p. 390)
Findings from Hofstede (1994) identified United States culture as having a medium
power distance, being highly individualistic, having a below average masculinity
rating, and possessing weak uncertainty avoidance. Hofstede's findings, when
applied to the culture of U.S. public schools, would suggest support for including
socially segregated individuals in collaborative efforts to achieve organizational
goals. Hanson (2003) identified similar factors that affect the relationship between
specific leadership styles and subordinate performance and attitudes. Specifically,
Improvement Stakeholders 32
the perception of one's abilities and degree of personal authority shape the attitudes
and performance of employees. Likewise, factors such as task complexity and
ambiguity stimulate or discourage worker motivation. The personal characteristics
and environmental factors associated with workplace subordinates identified by
Hofstede and Hanson might suggest to the educational elite that stakeholders from
all levels of the school hierarchy are capable of full, successful participation in the
organization.
Most books, articles, research studies, and other related documents written
to support school improvement efforts list the necessity of including a variety of
stakeholder groups, namely administrators, teachers, students, parents, and
community members. Rarely documented in the literature is the necessity to include
non-instructional employees as viable and contributing members to school
improvement efforts. The documents cited below are rare exceptions that
specifically promote including non-instructional employees as valuable members of
the school community in efforts to reform, refine, and renew the quality of our
nation's schools.
In April 2002, the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) published It Takes
a Team: A Profile of Support Staff in American Education for the purpose of
revealing information about the important role support staff play in America's
public schools. The personnel groups collectively known as school support staff are
also identified by the following titles: classified employees, non-certified staff, noninstructional staff, and school-related personnel. The AFT describes support staff as
Improvement Stakeholders 33
the "living infrastructure" of public education, which "make up nearly forty percent
of the total number of employees working in American schools" (p. 1). The AFT
reported among its findings the following data specific to this study:
(1) many positions held by support staff are low paid;
(2) overall, 37 percent of all public school support personnel are part-time
employees without access to many of the benefits available to full-time
workers; and
(3) misperceptions exist that no special knowledge, skills or training are needed
to complete job responsibilities when, in fact, many support staff positions
require physical strength, good judgment, specific technical skills, and
education-related knowledge.
Considering the findings reported above, a possibility exists that low pay, the parttime nature of work responsibilities, and misperceptions associated with the
cognitive capacity and technical capabilities of non-instructional employees might
promote the social segregation and stereotypes mentioned earlier, limiting full
inclusion in school improvement groups and activities. Reeves (2010) summarizes it
best.
Most principals, however, already have a full-time job, and they
need a practical method for distributing leadership. The most
effective principals understand that custodians, cafeteria workers,
bus drivers, and every adult in the system is a teacher through
behavior, their interactions with students and parents, and their
Improvement Stakeholders 34
specific actions any time they are on the job. They understand
that there is a difference between a job that is described as
"driving a bus" and one that is described as "caring for the lives
of children and getting them safely from their home to school
and back. (p. 7)
Taking this point a step further, Carlson, Clemmer, Jennings, Thompson, and
Page (2007) introduce five key "E-principles": empathy, equality, encouragement,
education, and empowerment. Carlson et al. believe the E-principles, when present
in organizations, promote a healthy workplace environment that stimulates
employee potential and cooperation, which contribute to the attainment of
organizational goals. The E-principles of equality and empowerment are most
applicable to this study. In this instance, organizational equality is promoted when
each individual is "understood to have equal value, deserving equal levels of respect
and dignity" (p. 428). With equality comes a sense of individual worth and
empowerment that organizations can channel to promote organizational quality.
School improvement site-based councils would open membership to noninstructional employees as well as stakeholders (principals, teachers, and parents)
usually recruited to serve. Markavitch (1994) and Fager (1998) emphasize the
importance of including all educational stakeholders in the planning and
implementation phase of school improvement efforts. Markavitch incorporates
cafeteria, office, and custodial staff members in planning for improved effectiveness
within their specified work roles, which also supports an environment more
Improvement Stakeholders 35
conducive to learning. In addition to focusing on the learning environment, Fager
urges schools to include all stakeholders in developing the school profile to generate
collective understanding and action towards improving services to learners.
The National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP) published a
commentary for the purpose of reshaping the American high school called Breaking
Ranks (2001). Its purpose: to improve learning and promote high achievement for
all students. Of the document's 81 specific recommendations, the following four
give recommendations for including support staff in efforts to reform our nation's
high schools:
1. The support staff of a high school--secretaries, custodians, cafeteria
workers and others--will also be encouraged and assisted in their own
career growth and drawn into the larger school community as adults who
can promote the well-being of students" (p. 63). The report goes on to
explain further the role support staff can play in school improvement:
"Members of the support staff who keep abreast of elements of school
improvement better appreciate the changes in the school and can
contribute from their own areas of specialization" (p. 66).
2. The teachers, adjunct teachers, paraprofessionals, support staff,
volunteers, and members of the community who staff the high school will
represent a wide array of talents, perspectives, and backgrounds. (p. 69)
3. The superintendent will work collaboratively to build a vision for
improving teaching and learning and attaining educational goals. The
Improvement Stakeholders 36
superintendent will educate the community about the needs of schools
and nurture the development of shared leadership throughout the
district. (p. 73)
4. "Each high school will establish a site council to work with the principal
in reaching decisions to make the school an effective organization" (p.
73). The report suggests that, besides administrators and teachers,
schools should consider students, parents, support staff, and
neighborhood residents without children for membership on site
councils.
Although specific to re-inventing high schools, the recommendations made in
Breaking Ranks have implications for improving school quality at all levels through
the improvement efforts of all stakeholder groups, including bus drivers, cafeteria
workers, custodians, and school secretaries. The literature related to effective teams
provides insight into the selection of individuals for participation in school
improvement groups, selection blind to social status or segregation within the
workplace and the community-at-large.
Qualities of Effective Team Members
Setting aside the technical skills needed to complete the tasks associated
with school improvement, consideration should also be given to the personal
strengths of individuals when putting teams together to improve the school.
When selecting team members, Maxwell (1995) believes leaders must match
each individual's gifts and abilities with the job to be performed and determine the
Improvement Stakeholders 37
extent to which the individual will "fit" the team. Temperament, personality, and
passion are as important to team success as background, job experience, and skills.
To assist leaders in selecting effective team members, Maxwell has identified the
foundational qualities that all successful teams share.
Team members must first establish personal relationships and learn to care
for one another and look out for each other. Individuals that first treat each other
with courtesy, respect, and support can work together to accomplish goals. Besides
caring for one another, team members must also know what is most important, or
what they are trying to accomplish. A sense of purpose through clearly established
goals must guide the work of the team. Developing caring relationships and
establishing clearly defined goals provide the foundation for successful teams.
Team members must also be able to communicate openly, honestly, and
respectfully. An environment must exist where individuals can offer information,
knowledge, experience, suggestions, and constructive criticism without fear of
reprisal. Lencioni (2002) believes that productive conflict actually leads to the best
possible solution in the shortest amount of time. Team members must be able to
listen first then speak to solve problems. Effective communication increases team
productivity.
Once team members care for each other, understand goals, and communicate
effectively, they are ready to start growing as a team by learning together. Maxwell's
teams learn together on a regular basis as well as through small flexible groups.
Improvement Stakeholders 38
Team members also teach each other after acquiring new knowledge as a result of
attending conferences, workshops, and seminars.
Maxwell (1995) goes on to define the way teams grow and work together as
"team fit" (p. 142). A good team fit requires an attitude of partnership, consistent
courtesy and respect among players, a desire to contribute to the team, and an
expectation that others will contribute in return. Team members must also learn to
trust one another. Lencioni (2002) wrote:
In the context of building a team, trust is the confidence among
team members that their peers' intentions are good, and that
there is no reason to be protective or careful around the group.
In essence, teammates must get comfortable being vulnerable
with one another. (p. 195)
Likewise, Maxwell stated, "Trust allows team members to begin working as a single
unit, to begin accomplishing the things that together they recognize as important"
(p. 143). As a result, mutual trust makes it possible for team members to place the
best interest of the team above their individual needs. Sacrificing one's personal
needs leads to stronger team identity. Although each team member plays a special
role, sacrifice means taking a role that fits the goals and needs of the organization.
Maxwell said, "He [the team player] must be willing to give up part of himself for the
team's success...It all comes down to the desire and dedication of the individuals on
the team" (p. 148).
Improvement Stakeholders 39
Finally, each person must believe that the cause is worth the price and
demonstrate a level of commitment that assures team success. Lencioni (2002)
wrote, "Members of great teams improve their relationships by holding one another
accountable, thus demonstrating that they respect each other and have high
expectations for one another's performance" (p. 213). Accountability for
performance leads to successful attainment of team goals.
Once the qualities of effective team members are identified and used to aid in
the selection of stakeholders for school improvement, the effective team must go
about the business of changing the organization to attain identified goals. In
organizations, desired change occurs as a result of learning.
Learning Organizations
Peter Senge (2009) states:
--we can then build 'learning organizations,' organizations where
people continually expand their capacity to create the result they
truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are
nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and where people
are continually learning how to learn together. (p. 3)
According to Senge, it is no longer possible to "'figure it out' from the top, and have
everyone else following the orders of the 'grand strategist'" (p. 4). Senge further
explains:
The organizations that will truly excel in the future will be the
organizations that discover how to tap people's commitment
Improvement Stakeholders 40
and capacity to learn at all levels in an organization. (p. 4)
If all individuals are learners, then all stakeholders have the capacity to generate
learning--not just the person at the top or the school's elite. Learning organizations
are places where all community members generate new understandings for the
purpose of creating new realities. With principal as designer, steward, and teacher,
an inclusive school improvement team can learn to re-create itself by looking
system-wide to produce extraordinary results related to identified goals. Senge
identifies five principles and practices or "disciplines" that intermingle to grow
learning organizations: systems thinking, personal mastery, mental models, building
shared vision, and team learning.
Systems thinking, the fifth discipline, is the cornerstone for organizational
learning that ties all disciplines together. Systems thinking allows organizations to
look at the whole rather than concentrate on the parts, and people are viewed as
active participants in creating a future based on that wider viewpoint.
Another discipline, personal mastery, involves individual learning. Senge
states,
Organizations learn only through individuals who learn. Individual
learning does not guarantee organizational learning. But without it
no organizational learning occurs. (p. 139)
Personal mastery involves commitment to a lifelong process of learning in order to
manage the gap between the organization's current reality and establishing a shared
Improvement Stakeholders 41
vision (a third discipline) for the future. Organizational learning arises from
individual learning.
Mental models, Senge's third discipline, refers to "deeply ingrained
assumptions, generalizations, or even pictures and images that influence how we
understand the world and how we take action" (p. 8). Learning organizations must
uncover deeply ingrained beliefs and actions that thwart individual and collective
learning. Dialogue is the vehicle by which team learning (the last discipline) breaks
down ingrained assumptions and generalizations to enhance the team's ability to
"create the results its members truly desire" (p. 236). The process of school
Improvement is bound tightly by deeply ingrained assumptions of inclusion and
exclusion. Schools operating as learning organizations have the power to generate
new inclusionary models for school improvement.
Summary
Fullan (2008) best encapsulates current thought and practice related to
stakeholder involvement in school improvement efforts when he wrote, "The key is
in enabling employees to learn continuously and to find meaning in their work and
in their relationship to coworkers and to the company as a whole" (p. 12). The best
leaders find opportunities to foster positive coworker relationships through
purposeful peer interaction. Indiana Code 20-31-5-1 requires public school
principals to create a broad-based school improvement planning committee made
up of a variety of stakeholders: administrators, teachers, parents, and community
members. A glaring segment of the school community remains missing in the law as
Improvement Stakeholders 42
well as the literature. Non-instructional school employees--bus drivers, cafeteria
workers, custodians, and schools secretaries--are an often forgotten segment of the
school community, who provide indispensable services yet are rarely included as
team members in school-wide initiatives and related activities. Senge (1990)
captures the essence of an all-inclusive learning organization:
The organizations that will truly excel in the future will be the
organizations that discover how to tap people's commitment and
capacity to learn at all levels in an organization. (p. 4)
As a result of events like the launching of Sputnik, publication of documents
like A Nation at Risk, and school accountability mandates under NCLB and P.L. 221,
America's public schools have moved from a top-down managerial approach
(classical theory) to organizations where internal and external stakeholders are
included in school planning and decision-making (sociopolitical and open systems
theories). Despite efforts to increase stakeholder inclusiveness in the work of
schools, inequities still exist. Anderson (2009) addressed the social and spatial
segregation and group stereotypes associated with the elite and the disadvantaged.
Humphrey (1989) exposed segregation associated with workplace stereotypes.
Segregation between the elite (administrators and teachers) and the disadvantaged
(non-instructional staff) continues in public schools today. Symptoms of that
inequity are revealed through the absence of non-instructional employees in school
improvement literature and the practice of excluding non-instructional employees
from school improvement committees and activities as well.
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Introduction
As a result of the lingering effects from reports like A Nation at Risk (1983)
and federal statues such as the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (U.S. Department of
Education) and Indiana's Public Law 221 (Indiana Department of Education), public
schools today are held accountable for increasingly higher levels of student learning
and academic performance in language arts and mathematics. Schools are also
challenged to adopt school improvement frameworks to foster continuous
improvement in order to side step sanctions accompanying failure to show
adequate yearly progress (AYP) and improved academic performance on state highstakes assessments. Many, if not most, school improvement models call for effective
leadership, collaboration, cooperation, and shared decision making at the school
level, which includes all stakeholders--administrators, teachers, students, parents,
non-instructional employees, and community members. Despite the inclusion of
secondary players (students, parents, community members and non-instructional
employees) in the school improvement process, administrators and teachers play
the largest and most significant role in designing school improvement plans to
increase student achievement. When schools organize for improvement efforts, the
Improvement Stakeholders 44
valuable contributions non-instructional staff members make to the daily
operations of schools and their knowledge of and interactions with students are
largely disregarded. In retrospect, individuals leading school improvement efforts
miss an important and often-overlooked perspective provided by the role noninstructional employees play throughout the school year. This study takes a look at
the perceptions and practices of school principals across Indiana regarding the
extent to which bus drivers, cafeteria workers, custodians, and school secretaries
are included in groups and assigned tasks related to school improvement. The
chapter sections that follow reintroduce the study's research questions, the
research design, and a description of the manner in which subjects were selected for
inclusion in the study.
Research Questions
Eight research questions guided the study:
The research questions addressed in this study were as follows:
1. To what extent are non-instructional employees included in school
improvement groups and activities?
2. Does the complexity of school improvement tasks completed by noninstructional employees differ from the tasks completed by other
stakeholder groups?
3. What factors limit the inclusion of non-instructional employees in school
improvement?
Improvement Stakeholders 45
4. To what extent do principals' beliefs and actions influence the inclusion
or exclusion of non-instructional employees in the school improvement
process?
5. Does a relationship exist between the school improvement model used
and the inclusion of non-instructional employees in school improvement
efforts?
6. Are schools that fail to meet annual state and federal academic
benchmarks more likely to include non-instructional employees in school
improvement efforts?
7. Are high poverty schools more likely to include non-instructional
employees in school improvement efforts?
8. Are non-instructional employees valued differently than other school
improvement stakeholder groups?
Research Design
Review of the literature revealed little information related to the role noninstructional employees play in school improvement efforts. Therefore, the
researcher examined various research methods to determine which would best lend
itself to the study of a phenomenon new to the educational field. Williams (2007)
states, "The descriptive research approach is a basic research method that examines
the situation, as it exists in its current state" (p. 66). According to Glatthorn (1998),
"the purpose of descriptive research is to describe a phenomenon...they [descriptive
studies] can be especially valuable as one of the early stages in a research project"
Improvement Stakeholders 46
(p. 36). Following Williams' and Glatthorn's prescription, the researcher determined
the use of a quantitative, descriptive research design using survey methodology
would be most appropriate for gathering the perceptions of Indiana public school
principals regarding the value they placed on the role non-instructional employees
play in school improvement efforts.
Based on The Tailored Design Method (Dillman, Smyth, & Christian, 2009), a
Likert-style survey using SurveyMonkey, an online survey and questionnaire tool,
was constructed by the researcher. SurveyMonkey software assists in survey
construction through the use of professionally designed templates and themes for
survey design, over 20 different question formats, response collection tools, and a
variety of reporting and data analysis features (www.surveymonkey.com). The
research instrument for this study was distributed through the Internet to a
stratified random sample of elementary and secondary school principals across
Indiana. The researcher identified several basic components critical to the school
improvement process, which the survey addressed through the following nine
sections:
Section 1:
School Improvement Team
Section 2:
School Improvement Tasks
Section 3:
Working with Students
Section 4:
Stakeholder Group Benefits
Section 5:
Limitations to Involvement
Section 6:
Principal's Beliefs and Actions
Improvement Stakeholders 47
Section 7:
School Performance Model
Section 8:
School Performance
Section 9:
Demographic Information
Items in Section 1 identified employee and non-employee groups that
actively participated in committees and completed improvement related tasks.
Section 1 items were included to reveal any tendencies by principals to either
include or exclude defined stakeholder groups. Section 2 items worked to delineate
the specific school improvement tasks completed by various stakeholder groups.
Tasks vary by cognitive and technical complexity. Items in Section 2 were used to
determine whether specific stakeholder groups were assigned more or less complex
tasks. Section 3 items were used to determine the extent to which each group
worked directly with students to master academic standards by exploring the level
of engagement between non-instructional employees and non-employees and
students. Section 4 sought to verify the value placed on various stakeholder groups
by principals. In other words, did principals value any stakeholder group above
another when working to achieve improvements in student learning? Section 5
identified the various challenges that limit stakeholder involvement. Items in
Section 5 defined discrepancies in the degree to which stakeholders were involved
that resulted from limiting factors such as time, job responsibilities, and the costs
associated with scheduling school improvement events. Section 6 explored the
principal's beliefs and actions when directing stakeholders for school improvement.
Items in Section 6 explored expectation discrepancies in output that principals
Improvement Stakeholders 48
associated with various stakeholder groups. Section 7 asked respondents to name
the school improvement model used to improve the quality of his/her school. To set
the current context for school improvement levels of participants' schools, Section 8
asked respondents to reveal whether Adequate Yearly Progress had been made,
share the school's performance category placement during the previous school year,
whether the school was currently delegated as "in school improvement," and the
percentage of students receiving free or reduced priced lunch. Although schools
with significant numbers of poor and minority students are often associated with
poor academic performance, the outcome of research completed by Doug Reeves
(2003) showed poverty and low student achievement are not mutually exclusive.
Demographic questions in Section 9 included the following information:
1. Type of school,
2. Enrollment,
3. Gender of the principal,
4. Experience of the principal.
The type of school is based on the "urban-centric locale code system"
developed by the National Center for Educational Statistics and the Census Bureau
in 2005 and 2006. Schools are classified as either rural, town, suburban, or
metropolitan (NCES, 2009). A school's specific classification can be accessed
through the Indiana Department of Education website. Enrollment is defined as the
number of students enrolled in the school on September 15 or "count day" of each
year. Free or reduced priced lunch subgroups include students who qualify to
Improvement Stakeholders 49
receive either free or reduced priced lunch during the school day. Gender is defined
as either male or female. Experience of the principal is listed by accumulated years
in the principalship at all schools.
Description of the Sample
Indiana public school principals during the 2009-2010 school year at the
elementary, middle, and high school levels were surveyed and considered the unit of
analysis in this study. In its 2008 Adequate Yearly Progress Report, the Indiana
Department of Education listed the total number of public elementary schools at
1,163, junior high/middle schools at 317, and high schools at 365. The researcher
identified 1,845 Indiana public school principals as the population for study. Charter
schools were included in the study, however, vocational, alternative, and special
education schools were excluded. The total number of schools grouped by
classification was:
Elementary Schools
1,170 (62.87%)
Junior High/Middle Schools
319 (17.14%)
High Schools
372 (19.98%)
Total
1,861 (100.00%)
Using the Table for Determining Sample Size from a Given Population (Krejcie and
Morgan, 1970), the researcher calculated 320 public school principals were needed
for an appropriate sample population with a 95% confidence level. To determine
the number of respondents needed in each school category, the percentages used
from the preceding table were applied as follows:
Improvement Stakeholders 50
Elementary Schools
201 (62.87%)
Junior High/Middle Schools
55 (17.14%)
High Schools
64 (19.98%)
Total
320 (100.00%)
Online survey response rates range from a medium rate of 26% to an average
response rate of 41% when the sample size is less than 1000 recipients (People
Pulse). To reach a targeted 50% response rate, the researcher increased the sample
size by 180 to reach a total sample size of 500 recipients. The revised sample size
for each category was determined to be as follows:
Elementary Schools
Junior High/Middle Schools
314 (62.87%)
86 (17.14%)
High Schools
100 (19.98%)
Total
500 (100.00%)
Random sampling techniques were used. Schools were placed in an Excel
spreadsheet by school category and state identification number. Every fourth school
in the list was selected for participation in the study. Only principals at each of the
randomly selected public schools identified for the study were considered for
participation.
The Instrument
The Tailored Design Method (Dillman, Smyth, & Christian, 2009) was used by
the researcher to develop a self-administered survey. The Tailored Design Method is
a scientific approach to designing surveys that utilizes a variety of combined
Improvement Stakeholders 51
features to reduce total survey error and provide survey procedures that motivate
all those contacted to respond. Tailored Designed surveys also motive participants
to respond as a result of the benefits that accrue (social exchange theory) rather
than the expected costs associated with completing the survey, e.g., time.
The survey instrument (Appendix A) contained 28 items in nine sections.
Section 1 focused on the make-up of improvement teams and contained three items.
Section 2 identified the specific tasks each school improvement group completed
and also contained three items. Section 3 explored the extent to which school
improvement groups work directly with students to improve learning and
contained three items. Section 4 contained four items and looked at the benefits
each stakeholder group brought to the school improvement process. Section 5
focused on the factors that limit stakeholder involvement and contained three items.
Three items in Section 6 collected the principal's beliefs and actions related to the
different employee groups. Section 7 identified the school's improvement model and
contained only one item. Four items in Section 8 focused on school performance and
the percent of students qualifying for free or reduced priced lunch. Section 9 focused
on demographic information and contained four items.
Russ-Eft (1980) states, "validity is considered to be the most important
dimension of a research instrument, because it indicates the extent to which the
instrument measures what it was intended to measure" (p. 5). To establish validity,
a draft of the survey instrument was distributed to the following five experts in the
field of education and school improvement:
Improvement Stakeholders 52
1. Ms. Leslie Ballard, Director, NCA CASI/AdvancED, Indiana State University
2. Ms. Melissa Brisco, Noblesville Schools, Supervisor of Curriculum and
Informational Technology, NCA CASI/AdvancED Quality Assurance Review
Team Chair
3. Dr. Joyce Fulford, Associate Director, NCA CASI/AdvancED, Indiana State
University
4. Dr. Lynn Lehman, Assistant Professor, Department of Educational
Leadership, Ball State University
5. Mr. Dick Spohr, Illinois NCA CASI Ambassador
The expert panel reviewed the survey instrument to check for face and
content validity and improve overall quality of the instrument. The researcher used
suggestions received from the expert panel to revise, edit, and establish validity of
the survey instrument. Dr. James Jones, Assistant Director of Research Design and
Analysis at Ball State University, provided feedback in the areas of survey
appearance, clarity, and length.
Williams (1980) states, "...reliability assesses the degree to which an
indicator will yield the same results on repeated applications" (p. 5). The test-retest
method was used to establish reliability whereby a small group of principals were
asked to complete the same survey at two different moments in time. Smaller
degrees of discrepancy between the test and retest pilot survey results indicate
greater test-retest reliability. An email invitation (Appendix C) to participate in the
pilot survey was sent to 30 randomly selected principals who were not included in
Improvement Stakeholders 53
the research study. Of those 30 invited to participate 7 selected the survey link
embedded in the email and completed the test portion of the test-retest method.
One week later, a second email with a survey link (Appendix D) was sent to the 23
principals who had not yet responded, again requesting their participation. Seven
additional principals responded which brought the total test-retest population to 14
individuals. A third email (Appendix E) was sent thanking principals for their
participation and alerting them that in seven days they would be asked to complete
the same survey a second time, the retest portion of the test-retest. A fourth email
(Appendix F) included a link to the retest survey and was completed by 13 of the 14
principals who originally completed the survey. A follow-up reminder (Appendix G)
was emailed to the one principal failing to complete the retest survey. The
remaining principal failed to respond, which brought the total test-retest population
to 13 principals. Results from the test-retest were then emailed to Dr. James Jones
who performed a Cohen's kappa coefficient, a statistical measure of inter-rater
agreement for quantitative items. Garson (2009) defines inter-rater reliability as,
"Estimation based on the correlation of scores between/among two or more raters
who rate the same item, scale, or instrument" (webpage). The kappa was calculated
for each item on the survey instrument and interpreted using the following cut-offs
established by Landis and Koch (1977):
Improvement Stakeholders 54
_____________________________________________________________________________
Kappa Statistic
Strength of Agreement
______________________________________________________________________________
<0.00
Poor
0.00-0.20
Slight
0.21-0.40
Fair
0.41-0.60
Moderate
0.61-0.80
Substantial
0.81-1.00
Almost Perfect
The median kappa for all sections of the survey instrument was .611, which puts the
reliability of the survey instrument in the substantial range according to the chart
above. The code "nc" (not calculated) was assigned to survey items were the kappa
coefficient could not be calculated due to instances were one variable was a
constant. In other words, all test/retest participants marked the same value on both
the test and retest portions of the pilot. It cannot be determined that the consistency
indicated the scale was working properly when no variety occurs in the responses
participants mark. As a result, no kappa value appears. Analysis of Cohen's kappa
coefficient for the survey instrument are located in Appendix H. Average kappa
values for each survey section are included in Figure 1.
Improvement Stakeholders 55
Median Kappa for Each Section of the Survey
0.834
9
0.871
8
0.767
Survey Sections
7
0.160
6
0.115
5
4
0.363
3
0.364
0.611
2
0.851
1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Median Kappa
Figure 1. Median kappa for each section of the survey. Five sections fall into the
substantial agreement or almost perfect agreement category except for Section 3
through Section 6, which fall into the slight or fair agreement categories.
Data Collection
Permission was granted to the researcher by the Institutional Review Board
at Ball State University (Appendix B) to conduct the research study. Ethical
guidelines and practices were strictly followed. Anonymity of the participants and
their schools and confidentiality with survey responses were protected throughout
the study.
Improvement Stakeholders 56
Names and email addresses of the study's participants, randomly selected
Indiana public school principals, were attained through the Indiana Department of
Education website. All principals selected for participation received an email
invitation to participate (Appendix I), which included a link to the survey for ease in
accessing the survey electronically. SurveyMonkey was the web-based application
used to collect participant responses to the survey items.
Based on the leverage-saliency theory proposed by Groves, Singer, and
Corning (2000), the following features were used to encourage all survey recipients
to respond:
1. a cover letter design (email invitation) was used to appeal to the helping
tendencies of the respondents,
2. respondents were personally addressed,
3. an electronic "thank you" was sent in appreciation for quick responses,
4. three opportunities to complete the survey were provided,
and
5. participants were informed that opportunities to respond and the
number of individuals selected were limited.
Following the suggestions of Dillman, Smyth, and Christian (2009), the survey was
also designed "respondent-friendly, with carefully organized questions in [an] easyto-answer format" (p. 26).
After an elapsed time of seven days, an email reminder with a link to the
survey (Appendix J) was sent to those principals who had not yet responded. After
Improvement Stakeholders 57
an additional two-week period, a third request with a link to the survey (Appendix
K) was emailed to the remaining principals who had failed to respond. Access to
survey results was limited to the researcher. At the conclusion of the study, all data
related to the survey were copied and stored on a portable electronic device, housed
in a locked storage container in the researcher's office, and deleted from the Survey
Monkey data collection site.
Data Analysis
The design features incorporated by SurveyMonkey were used to analyze the
raw data collected through the researcher-designed survey instrument. Response
summaries were available by individual participant or researcher-generated filtered
groups. The following statistical measures were calculated: frequency distribution,
rank order, and response average.
Limitations of the Study
Limitations inherent in the design of the study included the following:
1. There was a lack of current literature and completed research studies
regarding the role of non-instructional employees in school improvement
efforts.
2. As reported by the Indiana Department of Education website, contact
information for individuals reportedly serving as school principals were
inaccurate.
3. Surveys were emailed directly to randomly selected principals, but the
researcher had no control as to whether or not the person actually
Improvement Stakeholders 58
completing the survey was the principal identified for participation in the
study.
4. A number of emails were undeliverable due to email filters, blocked sites,
and the ability of principals to remove their names from survey lists.
5. Validity of the study was dependent upon the degree of congruence
between principals' reported perceptions and practices and their actual
beliefs and actions.
6. The study was limited to a random sample of Indiana public school
principals during Spring 2010.
Summary
The purpose of Chapter 3 was to explain the methodology used in this
descriptive study to better understand the extent to which non-instructional
employees were valued and included as active stakeholders in school improvement
efforts. The researcher designed a survey instrument using the Tailored Design
Method. An expert panel was used to establish face and content validity of the
survey instrument and the test-retest method was used to determine reliability.
Data were collected electronically from a stratified random sample of Indiana public
school principals in early 2010. The researcher collaborated with Dr. James Jones to
analyze data using the statistical program SPSS. Chapter 4 will present the results
obtained using the methodology described above.
CHAPTER 4
Presentation and Analysis of the Data
Introduction
As described in Chapter 1, this descriptive study investigated the beliefs and
practices of Indiana public school principals to determine the extent to which noninstructional employees were included in school-wide improvement efforts to
increase academic achievement. Current improvement models expect schools to
include all stakeholders in the improvement process. The researcher focused on the
various ways non-instructional employees participate in school improvement
activities compared to licensed and non-employee stakeholder groups.
Consideration was given to the make-up of school improvement teams, tasks
associated with improvement efforts, the degree to which non-instructional
employees work with students, the value added by groups, and the beliefs and
actions of principals when working with stakeholder groups. Factors that limited
stakeholder inclusion were also considered. Data collected through the use of an
online survey are presented and summarized in 40 tables using descriptive
statistics, specifically frequency, percentage, and average response
Improvement Stakeholders 60
Eight research questions guided this study:
1. To what extent are non-instructional employees included in school
improvement groups and activities?
2. Does the complexity of school improvement tasks completed by noninstructional employees differ from the tasks completed by other
stakeholder groups?
3. What factors limit the inclusion of non-instructional employees in school
improvement?
4. To what extent do principals' beliefs and actions influence the inclusion
or exclusion of non-instructional employees in the school improvement
process?
5. Does a relationship exist between the school improvement model used
and the inclusion of non-instructional employees in school improvement
efforts?
6. Are schools that fail to meet annual state and federal academic
benchmarks more likely to include non-instructional employees in school
improvement efforts?
7. Are high poverty schools more likely to include non-instructional
employees in school improvement efforts?
8. Are non-instructional employees valued differently than other school
improvement stakeholder groups?
Improvement Stakeholders 61
Random Sample and Response Rate
The data collection process began on April 4, 2010 with an initial email
request (Appendix I) sent to 500 Indiana public school principals who were
randomly selected to participate in the research study. An active link to the online
survey, delivered through SurveyMonkey, was embedded in the email to facilitate
immediate participation and completion of the survey. On April 16, a second email
(Appendix J) was sent to participants who had not yet responded, again requesting
that participants complete the survey. On April 22, a third and final email request
(Appendix K) was delivered to those participants who had still failed to respond. Of
the 500 principals selected to participate in the study, 185 completed the survey for
a response rate of 37.00%. The study's population size, targeted sample size, and
actual number of surveys emailed and completed by participants are summarized in
Table 1.
Improvement Stakeholders 62
Table 1
Comparison of Population Size, Target Sample Size, Surveys Emailed, and Completed
Surveys
Population
Target
Sample Size
Surveys
Emailed
Surveys
Completed
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
1163
63.04%
202
63.13%
315
63.00%
119
64.32%
Middle
Schools
317
17.18%
55
17.19%
86
17.20%
39
21.08%
High
Schools
365
19.78%
63
19.69%
99
19.80%
27
14.59%
Elementary
Schools
Total
1845 100.00% 320 100.00% 500 100.00% 185 100.00%
Note. Of the 500 surveys emailed, 21 surveys "bounced back" as undeliverable due
to email filters, changes in personnel, incorrect email addresses, and a survey option
for opting-out.
Although located in later sections of the survey instrument, demographic
information in Section 9, information regarding the various improvement models
used by schools in Section 7, and school performance levels for the 2008-09 school
year in Section 8 will immediately follow to best establish a clear context for
participants' responses.
Section 9 - Demographic Information
Section 9 of the survey instrument contained four items requesting
information related to type of locale, school enrollment, the principal's gender, and
years of experience as principal.
Improvement Stakeholders 63
Information housed on the Indiana Department of Education's website
classifies schools according to the type of locale in which schools are located. For
purposes of this study, schools were identified as either rural, town, suburban, or
metropolitan. The greatest response came from principals of rural schools (46.9%)
followed by suburban school principals (19.2%). The distribution of locale types for
schools in the study is found in Table 2.
Table 2
Section 9 - Item 25. As defined by the Indiana Department of Education, which of the
classifications listed below describes your school?
Type of Locale
Frequency
Percent
Rural
83
46.89%
Town
27
15.25%
Suburban
34
19.21%
Metropolitan
33
18.64%
Total
177
100.00%
Item 26 of Section 9 asked study participants to indicate their school
enrollment according to the ranges given. Survey respondents represented schools
that ranged in size from less than 100 students to more than 2,000 students. Of the
178 respondents, 25 principals served the smallest schools. One (.56%) principal
reported a school enrollment of less than 100, while 24 (14.04%) others identified
school enrollments of 100-300 students. Of the remaining 153 respondents, 72
(40.44%) reported school enrollments of 301-500 students and 67 (37.64%)
Improvement Stakeholders 64
indicated that their schools served student populations of 501-1,000 students.
Larger schools with enrollments of 1,001-2,000 were led by 13 (7.30%) principals.
Only one participant (.56%) led a school larger than 2,000 students. A detailed
summary of enrollment ranges by school level is included in Table 3.
Table 3
Section 9 - Item 26. What is your current school enrollment?
<100
501-1,000
1001-2000
N
N
%
N
%
Elementary 0 0.0% 20 17.7% 55 48.7% 33 29.2%
Schools
4
3.5%
1
.9%
Middle
Schools
1 2.6%
3
7.9% 11 28.9% 20 52.6%
3
7.9%
0
0.0%
High
Schools
0 0.0%
1
3.7%
6
22.2% 0
0.0%
All Schools
1
N
%
100-300
N
%
301-500
N
%
%
6 22.2% 14 15.9%
.6% 24 13.5% 72 40.4% 67 37.6% 13
7.3%
>2000
1
Of the 185 principals who completed the online survey, 175 (94.59%)
indicated their gender by answering Item 27. Of those responding, 102 (58.29%)
principals identified themselves as male while 73 (41.71%) indicated they were
female. A detailed summary of the respondents' gender by school level is included in
Table 4.
.6%
Improvement Stakeholders 65
Table 4
Section 9 - Item 27. Are you male or female?
Male
Female
Total
School Type
N
%
N
%
N
%
Elementary Schools
52
46.85%
59
53.15%
111
100.00%
Middle Schools
26
70.27%
11
29.73%
37
100.00%
High Schools
24
88.89%
3
11.11%
27
100.00%
102
58.29%
73
41.71%
175
100.0%
Total
The final survey item in Section 9, Item 28 asked respondents to indicate
their years of experience as principal. Of the 178 respondents, 7 (3.93%) principals
indicated they were in their first year and 28 (15.73%) reported holding the
position between 2 and 3 years. Three categories included the largest portion of
principals by experience: 41 (23.03%) principals reported having 4-6 years of
administrative experience, 34 (19.10%) indicated 7-10 years, and 49 (27.53%)
principals made up the largest group with 11-20 years acting as principal. Nineteen
(10.67%) principals reported having a minimum of 20 years experience. A summary
of the respondents' administrative experience is included in Table 5.
Improvement Stakeholders 66
Table 5
Section 9 - Item 28. Including this school year, how many years have you been
employed as a principal at this or any other school? Count part of a year as one year.
Years of Experience as
School Principal
Frequency
Percent
First Year
7
3.93%
2-3 Years
28
15.73%
4-6 Years
41
23.03%
7-10 Years
34
19.10%
11-20 Years
49
27.53%
20+ Years
19
10.67%
Total
178
100.00%
Section 7 - School Improvement Model
Section 7 of the survey instrument contained only one item that asked
respondents to identify the improvement model that guided their school
improvement efforts. Of 176 responses to Item 20, 64 (36.36%) principals reported
using AdvancED/North Central Association for Commission on Accreditation and
School Improvement (NCA CASI). According to the responses of 30 (17.05%)
principals, the second most frequently used school improvement model was the
Title I Continuous School Improvement Process (SWP/TAS). Additionally, 29
(16.48%) principals indicated the Locally-Developed Planning Model, also known as
the Optional Format, was the framework guiding their school improvement efforts.
Improvement Stakeholders 67
A summary of the school improvement models used by respondents is included in
Table 6.
Table 6
Section 7- Item 20. Which improvement model provides the framework for your school
improvement efforts? Select only one.
Improvement Model
N
%
AdvancED/NCA CASI
64
36.36%
Center for Research on Learning and Technology
0
0.00%
Connecting Learning Assures Successful Students (C.L.A.S.S.)
3
1.70%
Effect Schools Strategic Planning for the 21st Century/PDK
1
0.57%
High Schools That Work/ Southern Regional Educational
Board
0
0.00%
Independent Schools Association of the Central States
(ISACS)
0
0.00%
13
7.39%
Indiana Student Achievement Institute (INSAI)
9
5.11%
Journey to Learning Planning and Performance Program/ IU
0
0.00%
Koalaty Kid/American Society for Quality (ASQ)
0
0.00%
Locally-Developed Planning Model (Optional Format)
29
16.48%
Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award for Education
9
5.11%
Quality Learning/ Langford International
1
0.57%
School Improvement - Focusing on Student
Performance/NSSE
3
1.70%
Standard-Bearer District-Wide Model/CLSR
3
1.70%
Indiana Essential Schools/IDOE
Improvement Stakeholders 68
The School Portfolio/ Education for the Future/ Victoria
Bernhardt
1
0.57%
Title I Continuous School Improvement Process (SWP/TAS)
30
17.05%
Other
10
5.68%
Total
176
100.00%
A breakdown of participation in school improvement teams by noninstructional employees for all schools where AdvancED/NCA CASI, the LocallyDeveloped Planning Model (Optional Format), and the Title I Continuous School
Improvement Process (SWP/TAS) were used as models for school improvement is
included in Table 7. Of 123 schools using the three models mentioned above, 70
(56.91%) principals reported including non-instructional employees while 53
(43.09%) principals indicated that non-instructional employees did not participate
in school improvement teams. The highest percentage of non-instructional
employees that participated on school improvement teams was demonstrated by 22
(73.33%) schools using the Title I model, followed by 37 (57.81%) schools using the
AdvancED/NCA CASI model. Only 11 (37.93%) principals using the Optional Format
reported including non-instructional employees in school improvement teams.
Additionally, a breakdown of participation for schools using the
aforementioned models where non-instructional employees actually participated is
included in Table 8. Of the 70 principals that reported involving non-instructional
employees, 61 (87.14%) principals reported including school secretaries. The next
most included non-instructional employees were custodians, as indicated by 33
Improvement Stakeholders 69
(47.14%) principals. Cafeteria workers ranked third regarding inclusion, according
to 23 (18.57%) principals. Bus drivers were the least included non-instructional
employees, as revealed by only 13 (18.57%) principals.
Table 7
70
Improvement Stakeholders
Participation of Non-instructional Employees by School Improvement Model - Most Used Models
Actively
Participate
None Actively
Participate
N
%
N
%
AdvancED/NCA CASI - 64 Schools
37
57.81%
27
42.19%
Locally-Developed Planning Model/ Optional Format - 29 Schools
11
37.93%
18
62.07%
Title I Continuous School Improvement Process (SWP/TAS) - 30 Schools
22
73.33%
8
26.67%
Total
70
56.91%
53
43.09%
Table 8
Participation of Non-Instructional Employees by School Improvement Model - For Schools Where Non-Instructional Employees
Participate
Bus
Drivers
Cafeteria
Workers
Custodians
School
Secretaries
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
10
27.03%
15
40.54%
23
62.16%
33
89.19%
Locally-Developed Planning Model - 11 Schools
1
9.09%
3
27.27%
3
27.27%
11
100.00%
Title I Continuous School Improvement Process
(SWP/TAS) - 22 Schools
2
9.09%
5
22.73%
7
31.82%
17
77.27%
13
18.57%
23
32.86%
33
47.14%
61
AdvancED/NCA CASI - 37 Schools
Total
%
87.14%
Improvement Stakeholders 71
Section 8 - School Performance
Section 8 of the survey instrument contained four items that identified the
extent to which schools met adequate achievement levels in school performance as
defined by the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) and Indiana's Public
Law 221 (P.L. 221). Principals were also asked to report the percentage of students
in their schools who receive free and reduced price lunches.
Of the 177 respondents to Item 21, 91 (51.98%) principals reported making
Adequately Yearly Progress for the 2008-09 school year under NCLB, while 82
(46.33%) principals indicated their schools failed to meet that annual standard of
performance. Three (1.69%) principals indicated their schools were exempt from
NCLB accountability requirements as newly formed schools. A summary of
academic performance related to Adequate Yearly Progress by respondents schools
is included in Table 9.
Table 9
Section 8 - Item 21. Did your school make Adequate Yearly Progress under NCLB for
the 2008-09 school year?
Frequency
Percent
Yes
92
51.98%
No
82
46.33%
3
1.69%
177
100.00%
Does Not Apply (e.g., new school)
Total
Improvement Stakeholders 72
Item 22 in Section 8 was used to determine the category placement of
respondents' schools under Indiana P.L. 221. Of the 178 respondents, 45 (25.28%)
principals reported their schools made exemplary progress, 28 (15.73%) schools
made commendable progress, and 33 (18.53%) made academic progress. Thus, 106
(59.55%) schools made gains in academic performance on the state's high-stakes
test, the Indiana Statewide Test for Educational Progress Plus (ISTEP+). Sixty-eight
(38.20%) schools failed to make adequate progress according to the combined
responses of 59 (33.14%) principals whose schools were placed in the Academic
Watch category and 9 (5.05%) schools identified for Academic Probation. As stated
previously, four (2.25%) new schools were exempt from accountability
requirements under P.L. 221. A distribution of the category placement for all
respondents' schools is included in Table 10.
Of 174 schools, 104 (62.74%) principals reported participation of noninstructional employees in the school improvement process (See Table 11). As the
level of performance category moved from exemplary progress to academic
probation the number of non-instructional employees involved in school
improvement teams increased. Forty-five principals reported a category status of
Exemplary Progress, yet only 27 (60.0%) indicated that non-instructional
employees were included in improvement activities. On the opposite end of the
continuum, a mere 9 principals reported a status of Academic Probation, yet 7
(77.78%) indicated participation by non-instructional employees. A detailed
summary is included in Table 11 and Table 12.
Improvement Stakeholders 73
Table 10
Section 8 - Item 22. What P.L. 221 school improvement and performance category
placement did your school earn during the 2008-09 school year?
Frequency
Percent
Exemplary Progress
45
25.28%
Commendable Progress
28
15.73%
Academic Progress
33
18.53%
Academic Watch
59
33.14%
Academic Probation
9
5.05%
Does Not Apply (e.g., new school)
4
2.24%
178
100.00%
Total
Table 11
Comparison of P.L. 221 School Improvement and Performance Category Placement
and Inclusion of Non-Instructional Employee Participation in School Improvement
Teams - All Schools
Actively
Participate
Not
Participating
N
%
N
%
Exemplary Progress (45)
27
60.00%
18
40.00%
Commendable Progress (28)
17
60.71%
11
39.29%
Academic Progress (33)
19
57.58%
14
42.42%
Academic Watch (59)
34
57.63%
25
42.37%
Academic Probation (9)
7
77.78%
2
22.22%
104
62.74%
70
37.26%
Total
Improvement Stakeholders 74
Table 12
Comparison of P.L. 221 School Improvement and Performance Category Placement
and Inclusion of Non-Instructional Employee Participation in School Improvement
Teams - Actively Participating
Bus
Drivers
Cafeteria
Workers
Custodians
School
Secretaries
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
Exemplary
Progress (27)
3
11.11%
6
22.22%
10
37.04%
24
88.89%
Commendable
Progress (17)
3
17.65%
3
17.65%
5
29.41%
15
88.24%
Academic
Progress (19)
4
21.05%
6
31.58%
9
47.37%
16
84.21%
Academic
Watch (34)
4
11.76%
12
35.29%
16
46.06%
29
85.29%
Academic
Probation (7)
0
0.00%
1
14.29%
3
42.86%
5
71.43%
Total
14
12.31%
28
24.21%
43
40.55%
89
83.61%
Of the 176 principals responding to Item 23 in Section 8, 107 (60.79%) study
participants indicated their schools were not in school improvement; 69 (39.20%)
failed to make adequate academic progress for two consecutive years, which
merited school improvement status. A summary of school improvement status for
the respondents' schools is included in Table 13.
Improvement Stakeholders 75
Table 13
Section 8 - Item 23. Is your school currently in school improvement?
Frequency
Percent
Yes
69
39.20%
No
107
60.79%
Total
176
100.00%
The last item on the survey in Section 8 asked principals to indicate the
percentage of their student populations receiving free and reduced priced lunches.
Of the 178 respondents, 32 (17.97%) principals reported that 0-25% of students
received financial assistance when purchasing school lunches. The two largest
school populations where students received financial assistance when purchasing
lunch were represented by 72 (40.44%) principals and 50 (28.08%) principals who
had lunch populations between 26-50% and 51-75% respectively. The last
remaining category--75-100%--included the schools of 24 (13.48%) principals.
Thus, 122 (69.32%) respondents led school improvement efforts where 25-75% of
the total school population received lunches that were free or offered at a reduced
price. A distribution of the free and reduced priced lunch populations by percent for
schools in the study is located in Table 14.
Improvement Stakeholders 76
Table 14
Section 8 - Item 24. What percent of your school's population qualifies for free or
reduced lunch?
Frequency
Percent
0-25%
32
17.97%
26-50%
72
40.44%
51-75%
50
28.08%
76-100%
24
13.48%
178
100.00%
Total
Additionally, the breakdown by percent of free and reduced priced lunch for
schools in the study and corresponding inclusion of non-instructional employees is
included in Table 15 and Table 16. Of 178 responses, 97 (54.49%) principals
reported inclusion of non-instructional employees on school improvement teams
while 81 (45.51%) principals responded that non-instructional employees do not
participate in school improvement teams. Schools with the highest free and reduced
priced lunch recipients (76-100%) reported the highest level of participation by
non-instructional employees. As the level of poverty decreases so too does the level
of participation by non-instructional employees. Fourteen (43.75%) principals of
schools with a free and reduced priced lunch population of 0-25% reported
inclusion of non-instructional employees in school improvement efforts while 33
(45.83%) principals of schools with 26-50% poverty levels, 29 (58.0%) principals of
schools with 51-75% poverty levels, and 21 (87.5%) principals of schools with 76-
Improvement Stakeholders 77
100% poverty levels reported including non-instructional employees. A detailed
comparison is included in Table 15.
Looking specifically at the 97 schools where non-instructional employees
were included, principals most often reported school secretaries (81.67%) as
participating in improvement teams followed by custodians (40.0%), cafeteria
workers (23.44%), and bus drivers (12.65%). A detailed comparison is included in
Table 16.
Table 15
Comparison of Free and Reduced Priced Lunch Populations and Participation by NonInstructional Employees in School Improvement Teams.
Actively
Participate
None Actively
Participate
N
%
N
%
0-25% - 32 Schools
14
43.75%
18
56.25%
26-50% - 72 Schools
33
45.83%
39
54.17%
51-75% - 50 Schools
29
58.00%
21
42.00%
76-100% - 24 Schools
21
87.50%
3
12.50%
Total
97
54.49%
81
45.51%
Improvement Stakeholders 78
Table 16
Comparison of Free and Reduced Priced Lunch School Populations and Inclusion of
Non-Instructional Employees in School Improvement Teams - Participating Only
Bus
Drivers
Cafeteria
Workers
Custodians
School
Secretaries
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
0-25% (14)
2
14.29%
3
21.43%
7
50.00%
13
92.86%
26-50% (46)
5
10.87%
14
30.43%
20
43.48%
39
84.78%
51-75% (29)
6
20.69%
8
27.59%
11
37.93%
25
86.21%
76-100% (21)
1
4.76%
3
14.29%
6
28.57%
13
61.90%
Total
14
12.65%
28
23.44%
44
40.00%
90
81.67%
Section I - School Improvement Team
Section 1 of the online survey instrument contained three items that dealt
specifically with identifying stakeholder groups that actively participate in school
improvement efforts. Active participation was defined as membership in at least one
school improvement group where input is valued and has the capacity to stimulate
change efforts. Respondents were given lists of possible stakeholders from three
different groups--licensed employees, non-instructional employees, and nonemployees--and asked to identify all individuals whom they included in their school
improvement efforts. Table 17 through Table 19 displays the distribution of
principals' responses regarding the three previously identified stakeholder groups.
Improvement Stakeholders 79
The most common school improvement participant is the principal.
According to 184 respondents, 184 (100%) principals indicated they actively
participate in school improvement efforts. According to 149 (80.98%) principals,
the second most involved stakeholder group is teachers while 102 (55.44%) named
guidance counselors and 79 (42.94%) identified assistant principals as common
participants in the work to improve schools. Instructional coaches were named by
78 (42.39%) principles and media specialists were mentioned by 66 (35.87%). Only
31 (16.85%) respondents identified the school nurse as a participant on school
improvement teams. Interventionists, directors of technology and athletics, and
additional student services personnel were additional roles mentioned in the
"other" category. The data suggest the school principal and teachers are the most
common licensed employees on school improvement teams. A summary of the
licensed school employee groups included in the respondents' school improvement
efforts is included in Table 17.
Improvement Stakeholders 80
Table 17
Section 1 - Item 1. Identify LICENSED school employee groups who actively participate
in the work of school improvement. A licensed school employee is defined as any
individual who holds an instructional, administrative, and/or school services personnel
license. Check ALL that apply.
Licensed School
Employees
Frequency
Percent
184
100.00%
79
42.94%
149
80.98%
Instructional Coach
78
42.39%
Guidance Counselor
102
55.43%
Media Specialist
66
35.87%
Nurse
31
16.85%
Principal
Assistant Principal
Teacher
In response to Item 2 in Section 1 regarding the active participation of noninstructional school employees, 96 (54.86%) principals most often identified school
secretaries as active participants in school improvement groups. However, 74
(42.29%) principals stated that bus drivers, cafeteria workers, custodians, and
school secretaries were not included in school improvement activities. Of the four
non-instructional roles listed on the survey, bus drivers were identified least often
as participants on school improvement teams. Only 15 (8.57%) of the 175 principals
responding to the item included bus drivers. Cafeteria workers were identified by
32 (18.29%) principals and custodians were selected by 49 (28.00%) principals.
Other non-instructional employees mentioned by respondents included an
Improvement Stakeholders 81
internship coordinator, case manager, and family services coordinator. A summary
of the non-instructional school employee groups actively participating in school
improvement activities according to survey respondents is included in Table 18.
Table 18
Section 1 - Item 2. Identify NON-INSTRUCTIONAL school employee groups who actively
participate in the work of school improvement. A non-instructional school employee
holds no responsibility for instructing students as part of his/her daily job
responsibilities. Check ALL that apply.
Non-Instructional
School Employees
Frequency
Percent
Bus Drivers
15
8.57%
Cafeteria Workers
32
18.29%
Custodians
49
28.00%
School Secretaries
96
54.86%
None of the Above
74
42.29%
According to principals' responses to both Item 2 and Item 3, non-employee
stakeholder groups were included in school improvement efforts to a greater extent
than were the non-instructional employees. In regard to non-employee groups, 176
(96.17%) principals identified parents as active contributors towards improving the
school and 100 (54.64%) acknowledged the participation of community members.
Additionally, 89 (48.63%) and 63 (34.43%) principals listed representatives from
business and industry and school board members respectively as completing the list
of non-employee participants in school improvement activities. One respondent
listed students in the "Other" category as a stakeholder group. A summary of non-
Improvement Stakeholders 82
employee groups actively participating in school improvement efforts is included in
Table 19.
Table 19
Section 1 - Item 3. Identify NON-EMPLOYEE groups who actively participate in the
work of school improvement. Check ALL that apply.
Non-Instructional
School Employees
Frequency
Percent
89
48.63%
Parents
176
96.17%
Community Members
100
54.64%
63
34.43%
Business and Industry
School Board Members
Section 2 - School Improvement Tasks
Section 2 of the survey instrument contained three items that identified six
broad tasks associated with school improvement efforts. Respondents were asked
to identify the specific tasks each stakeholder group was asked to complete as part
of the school improvement process. Tasks included developing the school
improvement profile, creating a vision, mission, and belief statements, identifying
school goals, collecting and analyzing data, monitoring implementation of initiatives
and programs, and program evaluation. In order to better understand the degree to
which stakeholder groups complete school improvement tasks, response averages
for each stakeholder group were calculated and a comparison by response average
is included in Table 23.
Improvement Stakeholders 83
Using response averages to Item 4, 179 (97.54%) principals indicated they
take part in completing the six tasks associated with school improvement. According
to 158 (86.32%) principals, teachers were the next most frequently mentioned
group to work on tasks identified in the survey. Of the 183 respondents, 98
(53.57%) principals identified counselors and 83 (45.17%) listed assistant
principals as licensed stakeholders involved in task completion. Seventy-two
(30.53%) and 49 (26.45%) principals included in the task completion list
instructional coaches and media specialists respectively. Of all licensed
stakeholders, only 17 (7.24%) principals indicated school nurses are involved in
completing school improvement tasks (see Table 20). The mean for licensed
employee completion of tasks was 50.83%.
Item 5 of Section 2 addressed the extent to which non-instructional
employees are included in task completion for the purpose of improving the school.
Data suggest this stakeholder group is the least involved in school improvement
task completion efforts. Accordingly, only 48 (26.51%) principals indicated that the
school secretary was included in completing school improvement tasks. Seventeen
(9.19%) principals reported including custodians and 11 (6.04%) mentioned
cafeteria workers. According to response averages, the least consulted noninstructional employees are bus drivers, mentioned by only 6 (3.24%) principals
(see Table 21). Of note is the fact that 72 respondents skipped Item 5 in the survey.
No response item was included in the survey where principals could indicate no
Improvement Stakeholders 84
participation by non-instructional groups. The mean for non-instructional employee
completion of tasks was 10.44%.
Item 6 collected information regarding task completion by non-employees.
The data would suggest that non-employees share a greater responsibility for task
completion than non-instructional employees, but not as great a responsibility as
licensed employees. Of 183 respondents, 105 (59.85%) principals indicated that
parents are involved in the completion of school improvement tasks. Of the
remaining stakeholders belonging to this group, 58 (32.67%) principals included
community members and 54 (30.59%) principals indicated that school board
members took part in task completion (see Table 22). The mean for non-employee
completion of tasks was 35.52%.
A detailed summary of the tasks performed by all stakeholder groups is
included in Table 20 through Table 22. A summary and comparison of response
averages and means across stakeholder groups is included in Table 23.
85
Improvement Stakeholders
Table 20
Principal
Assistant
Principal
Teacher
Instructional
Coach
Counselor
Media
Specialist
Nurse
Response
Average
Mean
Section 2 - Item 4. Identify the tasks performed by LICENSED employee groups to improve your school. Check ALL that apply.
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
178
97.27%
77
42.08%
135
74.18%
53
28.96%
90
49.18%
46
25.14%
17
9.29%
45.50%
Developing
Vision,
Mission,
Beliefs
178
97.27%
85
46.45%
173
94.54%
74
40.44%
116
62.39%
62
32.88%
25
1.37%
53.62%
Identifying
School Goals
178
97.27%
85
46.45%
180
98.36%
84
45.90%
107
58.47%
56
30.60%
19
10.38%
54.63%
Collecting &
Analyzing
Data
176
96.17%
81
44.26%
172
93.99%
84
45.90%
105
57.38%
50
26.88%
19
10.38%
53.57%
Monitoring
180
98.36%
84
45.90%
146
79.78%
74
40.44%
87
47.54%
38
20.77%
10
5.46%
48.32%
Program
Evaluation
181
98.91%
84
45.90%
141
77.05%
65
35.52%
85
46.45%
41
22.40%
12
6.56%
47.54%
Response
Average
179
97.54%
83
45.17%
158
86.32%
72
39.53%
98
53.57%
49
26.45%
17
7.24%
50.83%
Developing
School
Profile
86
Improvement Stakeholders
Table 21
Bus
Drivers
School Improvement Tasks
Cafeteria
Workers
Custodians
School
Secretaries
Response
Average
Mean
Section 2 - Item 5. Identify tasks completed by NON-INSTRUCTIONAL employee groups to improve your school.
Check ALL that apply.
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
7
3.78%
10
5.41%
20
10.81%
59
31.89%
12.97%
11
5.95%
20
10.81%
30
16.22%
66
35.68%
17.17%
Identifying School Goals
9
4.86%
13
7.03%
22
11.89%
45
29.32%
13.28%
Collecting and Analyzing Data
1
.54%
5
2.70%
6
3.24%
46
24.86%
7.84%
Monitoring Implementation of
School Improvement
Initiatives
4
2.16%
10
5.41%
12
6.49%
41
22.16%
9.06%
Program/Initiative Evaluation
4
2.16%
9
4.86%
12
6.49%
28
15.14%
7.16%
Response Average
6
3.24%
11
6.04%
17
9.19%
48
26.51%
10.44%
Developing School Profile
Developing Vision, Mission,
and/or Beliefs
72 Respondents Skipped This Item
Note. The researcher assumes "No Response" signifies that respondents did not include bus drivers, cafeteria workers, custodians, or
school secretaries in completing school improvement tasks.
87
Improvement Stakeholders
Table 22
School Improvement Tasks
Business &
Industry
Parents
Community
Members
School Board
Members
Response
Average
Mean
Section 2 - Item 6. Identify the tasks performed by NON-EMPLOYEE groups to improve your school.
Check ALL that apply.
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
Developing School Profile
61
34.66%
118
67.05%
61
34.66%
33
18.75%
38.78%
Developing Vision, Mission,
and/or Beliefs
72
40.91%
138
78.41%
80
45.45%
46
25.14%
47.48%
Identifying School Goals
63
35.80%
132
75.00%
68
38.64%
36
20.45%
42.47%
Collecting and Analyzing Data
35
19.89%
67
38.07%
38
21.59%
23
13.07%
23.16%
Monitoring Implementation of
School Improvement
Initiatives
41
23.30%
81
46.02%
45
25.57%
32
18.18%
28.27%
Program/Initiative Evaluation
51
28.98%
96
54.55%
53
30.11%
32
18.18%
32.96%
Response Average
54
30.59%
105
59.85%
58
32.67%
34
18.96%
35.52%
Note. Responses to the "Other" category in Item 6 included individuals identified in the licensed employees category in Item 4. One
exception came from a single respondent who mentioned including students in the non-employee group.
Improvement Stakeholders 88
Table 23
Response Average and Mean for Section 20 through Section 22
Licensed
Employees
N
Non-Instructional
Employees
N
%
6
3.24%
Business &
Industry
83 45.27% Cafeteria
Workers
11
6.04%
Parents
158 86.32% Custodians
17
9.19%
Instructional
Coach
72 39.53% School
Secretaries
48
26.51%
Counselor
98 53.57%
Media
Specialist
49 26.45%
Nurse
17
Principals
Assistant
Principals
Teacher
Mean
%
Non-Employees
179 97.54% Bus Drivers
N
%
54
30.59%
105
59.85%
Community
Members
58
32.67%
School
Board
Members
34
18.96%
7.24%
50.83%
Mean
10.44%
Mean
35.52%
Section 3 - Working With Students
Section 3 of the survey instrument contained three items that sought to
identify the extent to which school improvement stakeholder groups worked
directly with students to help them master academic standards. A four-point Likert
scale was used to determine the frequency of interactions between all school
Improvement Stakeholders 89
improvement stakeholder groups and students. Data are displayed first for the
licensed employee group.
Of the 184 respondents, 181 (98.34%) principals reported that teachers
worked directly with students often, as indicated by the lowest response average of
1.02 for Item 7. The second largest response to Item 7 identified instructional
coaches as a group that worked most often with students to master academic
standards, according to 98 (53.26%) respondents and a response average of 1.41.
Media specialists and guidance counselors were identified as the next most likely
licensed school employee groups to work directly with students, as reported by 79
(42.93%) and 63 (31.24%) respondents respectively. Answering rarely or never,
105 (57.07%) principals indicated the least likely licensed employee to work
directly with students on academics was the school nurse. The response average for
nurses was 3.07. The mean for the degree to which licensed employees work with
students was 1.89. The distribution of the principals' responses and the response
average for each licensed employee group is included in Table 24.
Improvement Stakeholders 90
Table 24
Often
N
%
Sometimes
Rarely
Never
N
%
N
%
N
%
Response
Average
Section 3 - Item 7. To what extent do LICENSED school employee groups work directly
with students to help them master academic standards?
Principal
46 25.00%
96
52.17%
41
22.28%
1
.54%
2.00
Assistant
Principal
19 10.33%
58
31.52%
25
13.59%
4
2.17%
2.24
Teacher
181 98.34%
2
1.09%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
1.02
Instructional Coach
98 53.26%
19
10.33%
6
3.26%
5
3.72%
1.41
Counselor
63 34.24%
79
42.94%
21
11.41%
3
1.66%
1.78
Media
Specialist
79 42.93%
69
37.50%
17
9.24%
6
3.26%
1.71
29
15.76%
58
31.52%
47
25.54%
3.07
Mean
1.89
Nurse
4
2.17%
The degree to which non-instructional employees work directly with
students to master academic standards was addressed through Item 8 in Section 3.
Of 180 respondents, 64 (35.56%) principals identified school secretaries as working
instructionally with students often or sometimes for a response average of 2.81. Of
the remaining non-instructional employee groups, 154 (85.56%) principals
indicated that bus drivers rarely or never worked with students to master academic
standards, a 3.58 response average. Much like bus drivers, 157 (87.22%) principals
Improvement Stakeholders 91
reported cafeteria workers and 152 (84.44%) principals responded that custodians
rarely or never worked with students to improve learning. Response averages for
cafeteria workers and custodians were 3.50 and 3.42 respectively. With the
exception of school secretaries, the data suggest there is limited expectation for
pairing non-instructional employees with students to increase academic learning.
The mean for the degree to which licensed employees work with students was 3.33.
The distribution of the principals' responses and the response average for each noninstructional employee role for Item 8 in Section 3 is included in Table 25.
Table 25
Often
Sometimes
Rarely
Never
Response
Average
Section 3 - Item 8. To what extent do NON-INSTRUCTIONAL school employee groups
work directly with students to help them master academic standards?
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
Bus Drivers
1
.56%
11
6.11%
45
25.00%
109
60.56%
3.58
Cafeteria
Workers
3
1.67%
11
6.11%
55
30.56%
102
56.67%
3.50
Custodians
2
1.11%
17
9.44%
60
33.33%
92
51.11%
3.42
School
Secretaries
12
6.67%
52
28.89%
73
40.56%
42
23.33%
2.81
Mean
3.33
Item 9 in Section 3 collected information regarding the extent to which nonemployees work directly with students to master academic standards. Of 183
Improvement Stakeholders 92
respondents, 137 (74.86%) principals identified parents as the non-employee group
that often or sometimes work with students to improve learning, for a response
average of 2.02. Of the remaining non-employee groups, 86 (46.49%) principals
reported that community members were the second most likely group to often or
sometimes help students academically, as indicated by a 2.61 response rate.
Individuals least likely to provide instructional support for students were school
board members, according to 155 (84.70%) principals for a response rate of 3.55.
The mean for the degree to which non-employees work with students was 2.78. A
detailed distribution of the principals' responses and the response average for each
non-employee group for Item 9 in Section 3 is included in Table 20.
Table 26
Often
Sometimes
Rarely
Never
Response
Average
Section 3 - Item 9. To what extent do NON-EMPLOYEE groups work directly with
students to help them master academic standards?
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
Business &
Industry
10
5.40%
44
2.16%
66
36.07%
55
30.05%
2.95
Parents
53
28.96%
84
45.41%
33
17.84%
12
6.56%
2.02
Community
Members
19
10.27%
67
36.22%
57
30.81%
36
19.67%
2.61
1
.54%
14
7.57%
46
25.14%
109
59.56%
3.55
Mean
2.78
School
Board
Members
Improvement Stakeholders 93
As reported by survey respondents, a comparison of principals' perceptions
regarding the degree to which stakeholder groups assist students with mastering
academic standards is included in Table 27.
Table 27
Response Averages for Table 24 through Table 26
Response
Average
NonInstructional
Employees
Response
Average
NonEmployees
Response
Average
Principal
2.00
Bus Drivers
3.58
Business &
Industry
2.95
Assistant
Principal
2.24
Cafeteria
Workers
3.50
Parents
2.02
Teacher
1.02
Custodians
3.42
Community
Members
2.61
Instructional
Coach
1.41
School
Secretaries
2.81
School Board
Members
3.55
Counselor
1.78
Media
Specialist
1.71
Nurse
3.07
Mean
1.89
Mean
3.33
Mean
2.78
Licensed
Employees
Section 4 - Stakeholder Group Benefits
Section 4 of the survey instrument contained four items that asked principals
to identify the benefits or qualities they most often associated with each of the three
Improvement Stakeholders 94
school improvement stakeholder groups. Principals were also asked to rank-order
each group according to the value added to their school improvement efforts. The
distribution of the principals' responses for each item in Section 4 is included in
Table 28 through Table 30. A summary for all stakeholder groups is included in
Table 31.
Item 10 worked specifically to reveal principals' perceptions about the
qualities they associated with licensed employees in the work to advance school
improvement efforts. Of the 182 respondents, 175 (96.15%) principals most often
identified relationship to students as an important benefit. The second most
frequently occurring response, as noted by 173 (95.05%) principals, was licensed
employees' ability to work cooperatively with others. The third most common
quality identified by 171 (93.96%) principals was commitment to the school
followed by employees' job-related experience and/or skill set, as indicated by 164
(90.10%) respondents. Visibility within the community was the least selected
quality, as indicated by only 87 (47.80%) of 182 respondents. The response average
for the degree to which licensed employees add value to school improvement efforts
was 85.08%. A summary of the qualities and benefits licensed employees bring to
school improvement efforts as indicated by survey respondents is included in Table
28.
Improvement Stakeholders 95
Table 28
Identify the benefits you most often associate with each stakeholder group when
working to improve your school. Check ALL that apply.
Section 4 - Item 10. Licensed Employees
Group Benefits
Frequency
Percent
Educational Preparation or Degrees Earned
157
86.26%
Job-related Experience and/or Skill Set
164
90.10%
Leadership Potential
157
86.26%
Ability to Work Cooperatively with Others
173
95.05%
Commitment to the School
171
93.96%
Visibility within the Community
87
47.80%
Relationship to Students
175
96.15%
Response Average
85.08%
Item 11 was designed to disclose principals' perceptions about the qualities
they associated with non-instructional school employees in efforts to improve their
schools. As was previously indicated for licensed employees, 163 (92.09%)
principals most often identified the relationship of non-instructional employees to
students as a benefit. Like principals' responses related to licensed employees again,
the second most frequently occurring response was non-instructional employees'
ability to work cooperatively with others, as noted by 161 (90.96%) principals. Also,
similar to licensed employees, the next most common quality identified by 158
(89.80%) principals was commitment to the school. Non-instructional employees'
Improvement Stakeholders 96
job-related experience and/or skill set ranked fourth, as indicated by 128 (72.32%)
respondents. Educational preparation was the least selected quality, indicated by
only 55 (31.07%) respondents. Data suggest that principals value many of the same
qualities demonstrated by both licensed and non-instructional stakeholder groups
when thinking about school improvement. The response average for the degree to
which non-instructional employees add value to school improvement efforts was
66.42%. A summary of the qualities and benefits non-instructional employees bring
to school improvement efforts as indicated by survey respondents is included in
Table 29.
Table 29
Identify the benefits you most often associate with each stakeholder group when
working to improve your school. Check ALL that apply.
Section 4 - Item 11. Non-Instructional Employees
Group Benefits
Frequency
Percent
Educational Preparation or Degrees Earned
55
31.07%
Job-related Experience and/or Skill Set
128
72.32%
Leadership Potential
76
42.94%
Ability to work Cooperatively with Others
161
90.96%
Commitment to the School
159
89.80%
Visibility within the Community
81
45.76%
Relationship to Students
163
92.09%
Response Average
66.42%
Improvement Stakeholders 97
Although principals responded similarly for licensed and non-instructional
employees, Item 12 revealed a difference in principals' perceptions regarding the
qualities they associated with non-employees to improve their schools. Of the 177
respondents to Item 12, 152 (85.88%) principals most often identified nonemployees' commitment to the school as a significant benefit. The second most
frequently occurring response for non-employees was their ability to work
cooperatively with others, as noted by 134 (75.71%) principals, while relationship
to students was the third most commonly identified quality by 125 (70.62%)
principals. Similar to principals' responses for licensed and non-instructional
employees, non-employees' job-related experience and/or skill set ranked fourth, as
indicated by 118 (66.67%) respondents. Educational preparation or degrees earned
was the least selected quality, as indicated by only 54 (30.51%) respondents. The
response average for the degree to which licensed employees add value to school
improvement efforts was 60.43%. A summary of the qualities and benefits nonemployees bring to school improvement efforts as indicated by survey respondents
is included in Table 30.
Improvement Stakeholders 98
Table 30
Identify the benefits you most often associate with each stakeholder group when
working to improve your school. Check ALL that apply.
Section 4 - Item 12. Non-Employee Groups
Group Benefits
Frequency
Percent
Educational Preparation or Degrees Earned
54
30.51%
Job-related Experience and/or Skill Set
118
66.67%
Leadership Potential
69
39.98%
Ability to work Cooperatively with Others
134
75.71%
Commitment to the School
152
85.88%
Visibility within the Community
95
53.67%
Relationship to Students
125
70.62%
Response Average
60.43%
The distribution by percent of principals' responses for all stakeholders
groups and response averages for Item 10 through Item 12 is included in Table 31.
Improvement Stakeholders 99
Table 31
Response Averages for Table 28 through Table 30
Licensed
Employees
NonInstructional
Employees
NonEmployees
Educational Preparation or Degrees Earned
86.26%
31.07%
30.51%
Job-related Experience and/or Skill Set
90.10%
72.32%
66.67%
Leadership Potential
86.26%
42.94%
39.98%
Ability to work Cooperatively with Others
95.05%
90.96%
75.71%
Commitment to the School
93.96%
89.80%
85.88%
Visibility within the Community
47.80%
45.76%
53.67%
Relationship to Students
96.15%
92.09%
70.62%
Response Average
85.08%
66.42%
60.43%
Group Benefits
In Item 13 of Section 3, respondents were asked to rank each stakeholder
group by importance according to the value the group adds to improve the school.
Of 182 principals responding to the item, 178 (97.89%) principals ranked licensed
employees most important to school improvement efforts with a response average
of 1.01. Non-instructional employees were ranked second in importance, according
to 138 (75.82%) principals. The response average for non-instructional employees
was 2.20. Non-employees were ranked least important by 137 (75.27%) principals.
The average response for non-employees was 2.75. A summary of the ranking by
principals is included in Table 32.
Improvement Stakeholders 100
Table 32
Section 4 - Item 13. Rank each group according to the value it brings to your school
improvement efforts.
Ranked 2
Important
N
%
178
97.80%
2
1.09%
0
0.00%
1.01
Non-Instructional
Employees
2
1.10%
138
75.82%
38
20.88%
2.20
Non-Employees
2
1.10%
42
23.08%
137
75.27%
2.75
Licensed Employees
N
%
Ranked 3
Least
Important
N
Response
Average
Ranked 1
Most
Important
%
Section 5 - Limitations to Involvement
Section 5 of the survey instrument contained three items that asked
principals to identify the factors that limit their ability to involve different
stakeholder groups in school improvement efforts. The response average for each
factor was used to compare principals' responses across three different stakeholder
groups: licensed employees, non-instructional employees, and non-employees. The
distribution of the principals' responses by individual stakeholder groups is
included in Table 33 through Table 35. A comparison of limiting factors across
stakeholder groups is presented in Table 36.
Responses to Item 14 through Item 16 revealed that principals judged the
greatest limiting factor to involving all stakeholder groups as the challenge to find
common dates and times for school improvement meetings and activities. Response
averages for finding common dates and times were: licensed employees, 2.16; noninstructional employees, 2.08; and non-employees, 1.83. Additionally, common to all
Improvement Stakeholders 101
stakeholder groups were the two least limiting factors to stakeholder inclusion,
contractual agreements and level of earnings. Response averages for principals'
responses for contractual agreements were: licensed employees, 2.66; noninstructional employees, 3.10; and non-employees, 3.64. Response averages for level
of earnings were: licensed employees, 3.41; non-instructional employees, 3.30; and
non-employees, 3.69 (see Table 36).
Regarding licensed personnel specifically, 116 (64.81%) principals indicated
the additional costs associated with school improvement efforts either highly or
moderately limited the inclusion of this stakeholder group. Additional costs
associated with funding school improvement meetings and activities, a response
average of 2.20, ranked second to finding dates and times. According to 110
(61.45%) principals, the third most limiting factor to including licensed personnel
was the need to hire substitutes, indicated by a response average of 2.25.
Principals responded differently when asked to identify other factors that
limited the inclusion of non-instructional employees and non-employees. Of the 179
respondents, 95 (54.28%) principals identified job responsibilities as the second
most limiting factor as either highly or moderately limiting for non-instructional
employees and 99 (55.93%) principals identified the same challenge for nonemployees. Response averages regarding limitations brought on by job
responsibilities for non-instructional employees was 2.33 and 2.35 for nonemployees. Response averages for the additional costs needed to fund improvement
activities were: non-instructional employees, 2.54; and non-employees, 3.47. Finally,
Improvement Stakeholders 102
respondents ranked the need for substitutes as the fourth most limiting factor, as
indicated by a response average for non-instructional employees of 3.03 and 3.63
for non-employees. A detailed summary for each stakeholder group is included in
Table 33 through Table 35.
Table 33
Highly
Limiting
Moderately
Limiting
Slightly
Limiting
Not
Limiting
Response
Average
Section 5 - Item 14. Identify the extent to which the following factors limit your ability
to include LICENSED employees in school improvement activities.
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
Contractual
Agreement
28
15.64%
56
31.28%
42
23.46%
52
29.05%
2.66
Job
Responsibilities
16
8.94%
78
43.58%
56
31.28%
28
15.65%
2.54
Additional
Costs
55
30.73%
61
34.08%
33
18.44%
29
16.20%
2.20
Need for
Substitutes
51
28.49%
59
32.96%
41
22.91%
27
15.08%
2.25
Level of
Earnings
2
1.12%
29
16.20%
38
21.23%
106
59.22%
3.41
Finding
Common
Meeting
Dates and
Times
47
26.26%
73
40.78%
43
24.02%
16
8.94%
2.16
Improvement Stakeholders 103
Table 34
Highly
Limiting
Moderately
Limiting
Slightly
Limiting
Not
Limiting
Response
Average
Section 5 - Item 15. Identify the extent to which the following factors limit your
ability to include NON-INSTRUCTIONAL employee groups in school improvement
activities.
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
Contractual
Agreement
23
13.14%
25
14.29%
22
12.57%
103
58.86%
3.10
Job
Responsibilities
38
21.71%
57
32.57%
49
28.00%
29
16.57%
2.33
Additional
Costs
40
22.86%
39
22.29%
46
26.29%
49
28.00%
2.54
Need for
Substitutes
23
13.14%
23
13.14%
37
21.14%
90
51.43%
3.03
Level of
Earnings
11
6.29%
17
9.71%
35
20.00%
107
61.14%
3.30
Finding
Common
Meeting
Dates and
Times
58
33.14%
52
29.71%
37
21.14%
25
14.29%
2.08
Improvement Stakeholders 104
Table 35
Highly
Limiting
Moderately
Limiting
Slightly
Limiting
Not
Limiting
Response
Average
Section 5 - Item 16. Identify the extent to which the following factors limit your
ability to include NON-EMPLOYEE groups in school improvement activities.
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
8
4.52%
8
4.52%
8
4.52%
150
84.75%
3.64
Job
Responsibilities
47
26.55%
52
29.38%
29
16.38%
45
25.42%
2.35
Additional
Costs
9
5.08%
11
6.21%
29
16.38%
125
70.62%
3.47
Need for
Substitutes
2
1.13%
4
2.26%
8
4.52%
159
89.83%
3.63
Level of
Earnings
2
1.13%
10
5.65%
9
5.08%
152
85.88%
3.69
Finding
Common
Meeting
Dates and
Times
83
46.89%
51
28.81%
22
12.43%
19
10.73%
1.83
Contractual
Agreement
Improvement Stakeholders 105
Table 36
Response Averages for Table 33 through Table 35
Licensed
Employees
Non-Instructional
Employees
NonEmployees
Response
Average
Rank
Response
Average
Rank
Response
Average
Rank
Contractual
Agreement
2.66
5
3.10
5
3.64
5
Job Responsibilities
2.54
4
2.33
2
2.35
2
Additional Costs
2.20
2
2.54
3
3.47
3
Need for
Substitutes
2.25
3
3.03
4
3.63
4
Level of Earnings
3.41
6
3.30
6
3.69
6
Finding Common
2.16
1
2.08
1
1.83
Meeting Dates and
Times
Note. Factors ranked 1 are the most limiting while those ranked 6 are the least
limiting.
1
Section 6 - Principals' Beliefs and Actions
Section 6 of the survey instrument contained three items that asked
principals to describe their beliefs and actions when working with different school
improvement groups. Based on principals' responses for Item 17 through Item 19,
comparison was made between licensed employee, non-instructional employee, and
non-employee groups using the response average for all belief and action
statements. The distribution of the principals' responses by individual stakeholder
Improvement Stakeholders 106
group is included in Table 37 through Table 39 and a comparison of the principals'
beliefs and actions across stakeholder groups is presented in Table 40.
In responses concerning Item 17 regarding licensed employees, 176 (100%)
principals agreed or strongly agreed they expected participation in school
improvement activities. Another most commonly agreed upon belief among all
(100%) respondents was the high value they placed upon licensed employees' input
about school improvement. Also, every principal (100%) strongly agreed or agreed
that they expected group members to competently complete improvement tasks.
Although 145 (82.38%) principals indicated they have the final say regarding school
improvement, this item ranked lowest of the eight belief and action statements
presented in the survey (see Table 37). The mean for principals' reported beliefs
and actions when working with licensed employees to improve the school was 1.25.
Principals' responses related to the non-instructional employee group varied
from the responses they gave for licensed personnel. Of the 170 respondents, 152
(89.41%) principals indicated they highly valued or valued the group's input
regarding school improvement. Despite the high percentage of principals indicated
they valued the input received from non-instructional employees, 136 (80.00%)
principals also responded that they have the final say when determining the
direction of school improvement efforts. Additionally, 126 (70.79%) principals
indicated they expected non-instructional employees to competently complete
school improvement tasks. Ranking last of the eight belief and action statements,
only 91 (53.53%) principals reported recruiting bus drivers, cafeteria workers,
Improvement Stakeholders 107
custodians, and/or school secretaries to lead school improvement efforts (see Table
38). The mean for principals' reported beliefs and actions when working with noninstructional employees to improve the school was 2.00. The data suggest that
although principals reported valuing the input of non-instructional personnel, they
reported being more likely to have the final say and less likely to recruit noninstructional employees to participate in school improvement efforts.
Respondents' beliefs and actions related to non-employees parallel their
responses about non-instructional employees. Of the 174 respondents to Item 19 in
Section 6, 167 (94.98%) principals agreed or strongly agreed that they valued the
input of parents, school board members, and community and business groups. Also,
151 (86.78%) respondents indicated they recruited members of this stakeholder
group for participation in improvement activities. Similar to principals' responses
regarding non-instructional employees, 138 (79.31%) principals agreed or strongly
agreed they had the final say when working with this group to improve the school.
The lowest rated of the six belief and action statement dealt with recruitment of
participants. Only 104 (59.77%) principals indicated they recruit non-employees to
act as leaders of school improvement activities (see Table 39). The mean for
principals' reported beliefs and actions when working with non-employees to
improve the school was 1.90.
108
Improvement Stakeholders
Table 37
Select the descriptor that best describes your beliefs and actions when working with different school improvement groups.
Strongly
Agree
Somewhat
Agree
N
%
N
I expect participation in improvement
activities
166
94.32%
10
I recruit individuals to participate in
improvement activities.
140
79.55%
I recruit individuals to lead improvement
activities.
133
I find and provide time for groups to work
on improvement tasks.
%
Somewhat
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Response
Average
Section 6 - Item 17. LICENSED Employee Groups
N
%
N
%
5.68%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
1.06
33
18.75%
2
1.14%
0
0.00%
1.21
75.57%
43
24.43%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
1.24
122
69.32%
49
27.84%
1
5.68%
2
1.14%
1.33
I expect the group to competently complete
improvement tasks.
159
90.34%
17
9.66%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
1.10
I value the group's input about
improvement.
169
96.02%
6
3.41%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
1.07
I ask the group to make important decisions
about school improvement.
146
82.95%
29
16.48%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
1.17
I have the final say regarding improvement
efforts.
70
39.77%
75
42.61%
23
13.07%
7
3.98%
1.81
Mean
1.25
109
Improvement Stakeholders
Table 38
Strongly
Agree
Somewhat
Agree
Somewhat
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Response
Average
Section 6 - Item 18. NON-INSTRUCTIONAL Employee Groups
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
I expect participation in improvement
activities
50
29.41%
82
48.24%
29
17.06%
9
5.29%
1.98
I recruit individuals to participate in
improvement activities.
59
34.71%
74
43.53%
27
15.88%
9
5.29%
1.92
I recruit individuals to lead improvement
activities.
30
17.65%
61
35.88%
60
35.29%
19
11.18%
2.40
I find and provide time for groups to work
on improvement tasks.
37
21.76%
76
44.71%
37
21.76%
19
11.18%
2.22
I expect the group to competently complete
improvement tasks.
65
38.24%
61
35.88%
28
16.47%
14
8.24%
1.89
I value the group's input about
improvement.
96
56.47%
56
32.94%
11
6.47%
6
3.53%
1.57
I ask the group to make important decisions
about school improvement.
42
24.71%
65
38.24%
46
27.06%
15
8.82%
2.20
I have the final say regarding improvement
efforts.
76
44.71%
60
35.29%
22
12.94%
12
7.06%
1.82
Mean
2.00
110
Improvement Stakeholders
Table 39
Strongly
Agree
Somewhat
Agree
Somewhat
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Response
Average
Section 6 - Item 19. NON-EMPLOYEE Groups
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
I expect participation in improvement
activities
50
28.74%
74
42.53%
36
20.69%
13
7.47%
2.07
I recruit individuals to participate in
improvement activities.
81
46.55%
70
40.23%
17
9.77%
4
2.30%
1.67
I recruit individuals to lead improvement
activities.
36
20.69%
68
39.08%
56
32.18%
13
7.47%
2.27
I find and provide time for groups to work
on improvement tasks.
35
20.11%
95
54.60%
34
19.54%
9
5.17%
2.10
I expect the group to competently complete
improvement tasks.
72
41.38%
66
37.93%
24
13.79%
11
6.32%
1.85
114
64.52%
53
30.46%
5
2.87%
2
1.15%
1.40
I ask the group to make important decisions
about school improvement.
52
29.89%
71
40.80%
36
20.69%
14
8.05%
2.07
I have the final say regarding improvement
efforts.
79
45.40%
59
33.91%
21
12.07%
9
5.17%
1.76
Mean
1.90
I value the group's input about
improvement.
Improvement Stakeholders 111
Table 40
Response Items for Table 37 through Table 39
Licensed
Employees
Non-Instructional
Employees
NonEmployees
Response
Average
Rank
Response
Average
Rank
Response
Average
Rank
I expect participation
in improvement
activities
1.06
1
1.98
5
2.07
5
I recruit individuals to
participate in
improvement
activities.
1.21
5
1.92
4
1.67
2
I recruit individuals to
lead improvement
activities.
1.24
6
2.40
8
2.27
8
I find and provide time
for groups to work on
improvement tasks.
1.33
7
2.22
7
2.10
7
I expect the group to
competently complete
improvement tasks.
1.10
3
1.89
3
1.85
4
I value the group's
input about
improvement
1.07
2
1.57
1
1.40
1
I ask the group to
make important
decisions about school
improvement.
1.17
4
2.20
6
2.07
5
I have the final say
regarding
improvement efforts.
1.81
8
1.82
2
1.76
3
1.25
1
2.00
3
1.90
2
Mean
Improvement Stakeholders 112
Summary
One hundred and eighty-five Indiana public school principals completed a
nine-section online survey that was developed to gather data on their perceptions
and practices related to the inclusion and value of stakeholder groups in school
improvement activities. Chapter 4 has served as the vehicle for presenting the data
collected from principals' responses to the survey's nine sections. Although
collected in survey sections seven through nine, data related to the type of school
improvement model used, level of school performance established by students'
academic performance on the state's high-stakes test, and demographic information
were presented first in the chapter to establish a context for principals' responses.
Data from Section 1 through Section 3 were presented to establish the extent to
which stakeholders were included in school improvement groups and the tasks they
completed. Data from Section 4 provided a description of principals' perceptions
regarding the benefits each stakeholder group brought to school improvement
efforts. Section 5 data presented information about factors that limit the inclusion of
stakeholder groups. Data from Section 6 were presented to reveal respondents'
beliefs and attitudes related to their leadership of the school improvement process.
The data suggest that principals place differing value on licensed employees, noninstructional employees, and non-employees when confronted with efforts to
improve school performance, which in turn affects the degree to which these
different stakeholder groups are included and used to improve the school.
CHAPTER 5
Summary and Discussion
Introduction
To assist the reader, Chapter 5 of the dissertation revisits the research
problem and reviews the methodology used in the study. The results and a
discussion of the implications are summarized in the major sections of this chapter.
Statement of the Problem
The wave of educational reform that began in the 1950s continues to build
and impact the work of schools well into the twenty-first century. For over 50 years,
politicians, special interest groups, and the business community have branded U. S.
public schools as failing in their primary mission: to adequately prepare children for
the rigors of maintaining democracy and U. S. status as a global power. Historical
events--such as the 1957 launch of Sputnik by the Soviet Union, publication of A
Nation at Risk, and passage of federal legislation like the No Child Left Behind Act of
2001--laid the foundation for the current demand placed on schools to show annual
increases in academic achievement as determined by student performance on
standardized testing. Public Law 221, Indiana's school accountability law, requires
representative stakeholder groups to collectively and collaboratively design,
implement, monitor, and evaluate school improvement plans that address areas for
Improvement Stakeholders 114
immediate improvement. Indiana Code 20-31-5-1 stipulates the appointment of
administrators, teachers, parents, and community members to broad-based
committees for the purpose of completing tasks associated with the school
improvement process. There is, however, a sector of the school community that is
excluded from educational research and literature, state statute, and mandated
school improvement processes. School bus drivers, cafeteria workers, custodians,
and school secretaries are non-instructional employees who interact closely with
students on a daily basis and provide indispensable services, yet rarely included as
team members in school-wide initiatives and related activities. Public schools are
not the inclusive organizations they profess to be when this large segment of the
school community is disenfranchised and denied full membership in collective
efforts to improve learning for all students. Reeves (2010) advises principals to
distribute leadership among stakeholders including "custodians, cafeteria workers,
bus drivers, and every adult in the system..." (p. 7).
Review of the Methodology
As stated in Chapter 1, current school improvement models emphasize the
importance of including all stakeholders in the improvement process to best realize
the greatest gains in student achievement. The purpose of this descriptive research
study was to examine the beliefs and practices of public school principals regarding
the extent to which they include non-instructional employees in school-wide efforts
to realize success with established goals through a state-approved school
improvement framework and process.
Improvement Stakeholders 115
This study used a quantitative, descriptive research design to examine the
beliefs and actions of Indiana public school principals regarding the inclusion of
non-instructional employees when appointing members to school improvement
teams, assigning tasks for completion, determining the benefits accrued and value
added by including specific stakeholders groups, and establishing factors that limit
stakeholder inclusion in school improvement efforts.
The Tailored Design Method (Dillman, Smyth, & Christian, 2009) was
consulted to produce a survey instrument design that generated trust, encouraged
participation, and reduced survey error. The researcher then utilized SurveyMonkey,
an online survey and questionnaire tool, to design a Likert-style self-administered
survey instrument, deliver the survey to a statewide random distribution of public
school principals, and collect and analyze participants' responses. The survey
contained twenty-eight items in nine sections. Section 1 identified employee and
non-employee groups that actively participate as members of school improvement
committees and contained three items. Section 2 focused on the tasks completed by
school improvement stakeholders and contained three items. Section 3 collected
information regarding the extent to which stakeholder groups work directly with
students to gain knowledge and skills and contained three items. Section 4 focused
on identifying the benefits and value that different stakeholder groups brought to
school improvement efforts and contained four items. Section 5 sought to identify
factors that limit stakeholder inclusion and contained three items. Section 6 focused
on principals' beliefs and actions when working with different improvement groups
Improvement Stakeholders 116
and contained three items. Section 7 contained only one item that asked principals
to identify the model or framework used for school improvement. Section 8 asked
principals to declare their schools improvement status and contained four items.
Section 9 identified demographic characteristics of respondents and their schools
and contained four items.
Since research and literature specifically naming bus drivers, cafeteria
workers, custodians, and school secretaries and their inclusion in school
improvement efforts is limited, survey items were designed according to
requirements set out in state statute and literature related to site-based
management and shared leadership. In Section 1 through Section 3, respondents
were asked to identify specific stakeholder groups that actively participated in
school improvement (Section 1), performed school improvement tasks (Section 2),
and worked directly with students to master academic standards (Section 3). The
specific stakeholder choices were:
1. Licensed employees
a. principals
b. assistant principals
c. teachers
d. instructional coaches
e. guidance counselors
f. media specialists
g. school nurses
Improvement Stakeholders 117
2. Non-instructional employees
a. bus drivers
b. cafeteria workers
c. custodians
d. school secretaries
3. Non-employees
a. representatives from business and industry
b. parents of school-age children
c. community members (no children currently enrolled in school)
d. school board members
In Section 4, principals were asked to identify the benefits they most often associate
with licensed employees, non-instructional employees, and non-employees. The
choices were:
1. Educational preparation or degrees earned
2. Job-related experience and/or skill set
3. Leadership potential
4. Ability to work cooperatively with others
5. Commitment to the school
6. Visibility within the community
7. Relationship to students
Respondents were also asked in Section 4 to rank the three stakeholder groups by
the value they added to school improvement efforts. The choices were:
Improvement Stakeholders 118
1. Most Important (1st)
2. Important (2nd)
3. Least Important (3rd)
In Section 5, principals were asked to evaluate the extent to which contractual
agreements, job responsibilities, additional costs, need for substitutes, level of
earnings, and finding common meeting dates and times might limit their ability to
include stakeholder groups in efforts to improve the schools. The choices were:
1. Highly Limiting
2. Moderately Limiting
3. Slightly Limiting
4. Not Limiting
In Section 6, principals were asked to select the descriptor that best
characterized their beliefs and actions when working with different school
improvement groups. Items included principals' expectations for stakeholder
recruitment, participation, and competent completion of tasks, finding and
providing time for groups to meet, and the weight placed on and value given to
stakeholder input and decision making. Descriptor choices were:
1. Strongly Agree
2. Somewhat Agree
3. Somewhat Disagree
4. Strongly Disagree
Improvement Stakeholders 119
Validity of the survey instrument was established by consulting a panel of
experts in the field of education. The survey instrument was distributed to panel
members who reviewed the survey to improve overall quality of the instrument and
establish face and content validity. Panel suggestions were used to revise the
instrument. Reliability was established through administration of pilot tests using
the test-retest method.
Participants in the study served as Indiana public school principals during
the 2009-2010 school year. On May 6, 2009, the Indiana Department of Education
listed the total number of public schools as 1,861. For the purpose of this study,
schools were divided into three categories based on grade level and were identified
as either elementary schools, middle schools, or high schools. Schools housing
elementary and middle levels were included in the study as elementary schools.
Schools listed as junior/senior high schools were placed in the high school category.
The researcher consulted Krejcie and Morgan (1970) to determine the
appropriate size for the sample population, which was calculated to be 320
participants. To reach a targeted 50% response rate, the researcher increased the
sample size by 180 to reach a total sample size of 500 recipients. The sample
population was randomly selected by stratified category and included both public
and charter schools. Schools were placed in the appropriate category and ordered
by the state-assigned school number. Every fourth school was selected to generate
the appropriate sample size by category. The number of schools selected for each
stratified sample were:
Improvement Stakeholders 120
Elementary Schools
Junior High/Middle Schools
314 (62.87%)
86 (17.14%)
High Schools
100 (19.98%)
Total
500 (100.00%)
Principals of the randomly selected schools made up the sample population for this
research study. Contact information for study participants was obtained through the
Indiana Department of Education website and principals' email addresses were
obtained by telephone from that same department.
All principals selected for the study received an email invitation to
participate (Appendix I), which included a link to the survey for ease in accessing
the survey electronically. After an elapsed time of seven days, an email reminder
with a link to the survey (Appendix J) was emailed to the principals failing to
respond. After an additional seven-day period, a final electronic email appeal
(Appendix K) was delivered to the remaining principals who had not yet responded.
A total of 185 completed surveys were returned for a response rate of 37.0%.
The researcher worked with research consultant Dr. James Jones of
University Computing Services at Ball State University to analyze test-retest data
using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). The design features
incorporated by SurveyMonkey collected responses to survey items and provided
analysis tools whereby response summaries were available by individual or
researcher-generated filtered groups. The following statistical measures were
calculated: frequency distribution, rank order, and response average.
Improvement Stakeholders 121
Summary of the Results
The population selected by the researcher for this study was comprised of
the 1,861 Indiana public school principals identified on the state's Department of
Education website. Mathematical calculations determined the target sample size to
be 320 principals based on Krejcie and Morgan's (1970) Table for Determining
Sample Size from a Given Population. To increase the possibility of a higher response
rate, the researcher emailed surveys to 500 principals and received 185 responses
for a response rate of 37.0%.
Of the 185 respondents, 119 (64.32%) were elementary school principals, 39
(21.08%) were junior high and middle school principals, and 27 (14.59%) were high
school principals. As defined by Type of Locale, 83 (46.89%) of respondents' schools
were established in rural areas, 27 (15.25%) were situated in towns, 34 (19.21%)
were suburban, and 33 (18.64%) were located in metropolitan areas. School
enrollments for participants in the study included 1 (.6%) school with less than 100
students, 24 (13.5%) schools with 100-300 students, 72 (40.4%) schools with 301500 students, 67 (37.6%) schools with 501-1,000 students, 13 (7.3%) schools with
1001-2000 students, and 1 (.6%) with more than 2,000 students. One hundred two
(58.29%) principals participating in the study were male while 73 (41.71%) were
female. Years of experience as principal was reported as 7 (3.93%) first year
principals, 28 (15.73%) with 2-3 years experience, 41 (23.03%) with 4-6 years
experience, 34 (19.1%) with 7-10 years of experience, 49 (27.53%) with 11-20
years of experiences, and 19 (10.67%) with more than 20 years of experience.
Improvement Stakeholders 122
Responding to questions about school improvement and performance, 64
(36.36%) principals indicated they used AdvancED/North Central Association for
Commission on Accreditation and School Improvement as the framework for
improving their schools, 30 (17.05%) principals reported following the Title I
Continuous School Improvement Process, and 29 (16.48%) used the Optional
Format designed by the Indiana Department of Education. Of the 53 (30.11%)
remaining schools, 13 (7.39%) schools used the Indiana Essential Schools model, 9
(5.11%) schools followed the Indiana Student Achievement Institute (INSAI) model,
9 (5.11%) schools incorporated the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award for
Education. Twenty-two (12.5%) other schools used a variety of models to guide
their school improvement efforts. Of 123 schools using AdvanceED/NCA CASI, the
Title I model, and the Optional Format, 70 (56.91%) principals reported including
non-instructional employees on school improvement teams. The greatest inclusion
of non-instructional employees by percent was demonstrated by 22 (73.33%)
schools using the Title 1 model, followed by 37 (57.81%) schools using the
AvanceED/NCA CASI model and 11 (37.93%) schools using the Optional Format.
The data would suggest that schools invested in the Title I Continuous School
Improvement Model best utilize non-instructional employees in school
improvement teams.
Under the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 92 (51.98%) principals
reported making adequate yearly progress for the 2008-09 school year while 82
(46.33%) do not meet the requirement. Four (2.24%) schools were newly opened
Improvement Stakeholders 123
and thus exempt from the requirement. Under Public Law 221, 45 (25.28%) schools
made exemplary progress, 28 (15.73%) made commendable progress, and 33
(18.53%) made academic progress. Sixty-eight (38.20%) failed to make gains in
academic achievement. Of those 68 schools, 59 (33.14%) were placed under
academic watch and 9 (5.05%) were placed on academic probation. Four (2.25%)
schools were exempt from accountability requirements. Sixty-nine schools were
identified as "in school improvement" and operating under state sanctions for
failing to show increases in student achievement on the Indiana Statewide Test for
Progress Plus (ISTEP+). Of 174 schools, 104 (62.74%) reported participation by
non-instructional employees in school improvement efforts. As the level of
performance category moves from exemplary progress to academic probation, the
number of non-instructional employees involved in school improvement teams
increases. Forty-five principals reported a category status of Exemplary Progress,
yet only 27 (60.0%) indicated that non-instructional employees were included in
improvement activities. On the opposite end of the continuum, a mere 9 principals
reported a status of Academic Probation, yet 7 (77.78%) indicated participation by
non-instructional employees.
Determined by the number of students receiving free and reduced priced
lunches, 32 (17.97%) schools reported poverty rates of 0-25%, 72 (40.44%) schools
reported poverty rates between 26-50%, 50 (28.08%) schools identified poverty
rates between 51-75%, and 24 (13.48%) schools identified poverty rates of 76100%. Schools with the highest free and reduced priced school lunch recipients
Improvement Stakeholders 124
reported the highest level of participation by non-instructional employees. Data
would suggest that as the level of poverty within the school decreases, so too does
the level of participation by non-instructional employees in efforts to improve the
school.
Section 1 of the survey instrument focused on stakeholder groups that
actively participate or serve on school improvement committees, councils, teams,
and study groups to complete the tasks associated with school improvement. Active
participation was defined for respondents as membership in at least one school
improvement group where input is valued and has the capacity to stimulate change
efforts. Three stakeholder groups were presented for consideration: licensed school
employees or principals, teachers, and other certificated employees; noninstructional school employees or bus drivers, cafeteria workers, custodians, and
school secretaries; and non-employees or business, parents, community, and school
board members.
As determined by responses to Item 1 through Item 3 in Section 1, the
stakeholders most involved as school improvement team members were principals,
teachers, and parents of school-age children. Evaluating the list of licensed
employees, all principals (100.00%) indicated that they actively serve on school
improvement teams, while 80.98% listed teachers as active team members.
According to 54.86% of respondents, the most involved non-licensed employees
were school secretaries. Of the non-employee group, 96.17% of principals indicated
that parents were actively involved in improvement teams. Approximately half of all
Improvement Stakeholders 125
respondents indicated participation by guidance counselors (55.43%), community
members (54.64%), and representatives from business and industry (43.63%). As
reported by principals participating in the survey, the stakeholders least involved as
participants in school improvement teams were school bus drivers (8.57%), nurses
(16.85%), cafeteria workers (18.29%), and custodians (28.00%).
Section 2 of the survey focused on the complexity of school improvement
tasks that participating stakeholders were asked to complete. Task complexity is
defined as the level of cognitive and/or technical difficulty associated with a task or
the degree of expertise required to complete a unit of work specific to the school
improvement process. As identified by the researcher, the six broad tasks associated
with school improvement efforts are:
1. Developing the school profile
2. Developing vision, mission, and beliefs
3. Identifying school goals
4. Collecting and analyzing data
5. Monitoring implementation of school improvement initiatives
6. Program/initiative evaluation
The response average was used to evaluate and compare the different school
improvement tasks performed by stakeholders. Of the licensed employee group,
principals indicated that principals (97.54%) and teachers (86.32%) were most
involved in the completion of tasks associated with school improvement efforts.
Parents (59.85%) ranked third in task completion. Principals reported being highly
Improvement Stakeholders 126
involved in task completion, as over 96% of principals indicated their involvement
in performing all six tasks. In response to teachers' involvement in the six tasks,
principals indicated that teachers were most involved in identifying school goals
(98.36%); developing the vision, mission, and beliefs (94.54%); and collecting and
analyzing data (93.99%).
Of the non-employee group, principals identified parents (59.85%) as
completing the greatest number of school improvement tasks. According to
principals, parents were most involved in developing the vision, mission, and/or
beliefs (78.41%), identifying school goals (75.00%), and developing the school
profile (67.95%). Parents were least involved in collecting and analyzing data
(38.07%). Overall, the non-employee group most often helped develop the vision,
mission, and beliefs; identify school goals; and assist in developing the school
profile. Non-employees were least involved in collecting and analyzing data.
Non-instructional employees were least involved in performing the school
improvement tasks associated with school improvement. According to over a
quarter of the principals surveyed (26.51%), school secretaries were the most
active participants of the non-instructional group. School secretaries were most
involved in developing the vision, mission, and beliefs (35.68%); developing the
school profile (31.89%); and identifying school goals (29.32%). Other noninstructional employees--bus drivers, cafeteria workers, and custodians were
minimally involved in completing the six tasks. Only 11 (5.95%) principals reported
the involvement of bus drivers in developing the vision, mission, and beliefs. Twenty
Improvement Stakeholders 127
(10.81%) principals reported cafeteria workers as being involved in that same task,
and 30 (16.22%) reported involvement of custodians. Overall, principals indicated
non-instructional employees were least involved in collecting and analyzing data,
monitoring implement of school improvement initiatives, and program/initiative
evaluation. Seventy-two survey participants (38.91%) indicated no involvement by
non-instructional staff in completing school improvement tasks.
Calculation of the mean for each stakeholder group as reported by principals
showed licensed employees (50.83%) as most involved in the completion of school
improvement tasks, non-employees (35.52%) ranked second in their involvement,
and non-instructional employee (10.44%) completed the fewest number of tasks.
Section 3 of the survey focused on the extent to which stakeholders worked
directly with students to help them master academic standards. Response averages
were used to make a comparison between various stakeholders and stakeholder
groups. Survey respondents indicated that licensed employees work most often
with students to master academic content, as represented by a mean of 1.89. Nonemployees ranked second to licensed employees regarding the extent to which they
work with students, as indicated by a mean of 2.78. Principals responded that noninstructional employees were the least likely group to work with students towards
mastering academic standards with a mean of 3.33.
Of all licensed school employees, principals indicated that teachers (1.02),
instructional coaches (1.41), and media specialists worked most often with students
to improve learning. Principals (2.00), assistant principals, and school nurses were
Improvement Stakeholders 128
the least likely employees to work with students to achieve proficiency with the
standards.
Of the non-instructional group, principals reported the school secretary
(2.81) would more often work with students than custodians (3.42), cafeteria
workers (3.50), or bus drivers (3.58).
Of the third stakeholder group, non-employees, principals indicated that
parents (2.02) worked most often with students to advance learning. Community
members were next in line with a mean of 2.61, followed by representatives from
business and industry with a mean of 2.95. School board members (2.78) ranked
only in front of bus drivers (3.58) from the non-instructional employee group.
Section 4 focused on identifying the benefits that principals often associate
with each stakeholder group when working to improve the school. Principals were
asked to select from the following benefits:
1. Educational preparation or degrees earned
2. Job-related experience and/or skill set
3. Leadership potential
4. Ability to work cooperatively with others
5. Commitment to the school
6. Visibility within the community
7. Relationship to students
Principals indicated that they associate the greatest benefit to school
improvement efforts with licensed employees by an average response rate of
Improvement Stakeholders 129
85.08%. The group benefits most valued by principals were: relationship to
students (96.15%), ability to work cooperatively with others (95.05%),
commitment to the school (93.96%), and job-related experience and/or skill set
(90.1%). Principals valued least licensed employees' visibility within the community
(47.8%).
Non-instructional employees received the second highest responses when
considering benefit to school improvement with a response rate of 66.42%.
Principals responded that they judged the greatest benefits of non-instructional
employees to be their relationship to students (92.09%), ability to work
cooperatively with others (90.96%), and commitment to the school (89.8%). Of least
benefit to school improvement efforts were non-instructional employees' leadership
potential (42.94%) and educational preparation (31.07%).
Non-employee groups brought the least benefit to school improvement
efforts as indicated by a principal response rate of 60.43%. Principals indicated they
believed the greatest benefits to school improvement by non-employees were their
commitment to the school (85.88%), ability to work cooperatively with others
(75.71%), and their relationship to students (70.62%).
Principals were also asked to rank the stakeholder groups according to the
value each brings to school improvement efforts. Principals ranked licensed
employees as most important (1.01), non-instructional employees as second (2.20),
and non-employees as the least important (2.75) group. The ranking indicated by
Improvement Stakeholders 130
principals aligns with the degree of benefit they associate with each stakeholder
group.
Section 5 focused on the factors that principals believe limit their ability to
involve different stakeholder groups in school improvement efforts. Principals
agreed that the greatest factor that limits the inclusion of all stakeholders is the
challenge to find common meeting dates and times. Response averages for licensed
employees was 2.16; non-instructional employees, 2.08; and, for non-employees
1.83. Of the three stakeholder groups, principals indicated that finding time for nonemployees to participate is the most challenging.
According to principals, the second greatest factor limiting the involvement
of licensed employees is the additional costs (2.20) associated with school
improvement activities followed by the need to obtain substitutes (2.25). For noninstructional employees and non-employees, principals pointed to job
responsibilities (2.33 and 2.35 respectively) as the second factor most limiting to
inclusion and additional costs as third (2.54 and 3.47 respectively). Principals
reported that the least limiting factors for all stakeholder groups were the existence
of contractual agreements and stakeholders' level of earning. To summarize, time
and money are the limiting factors principals most often associate with involving all
stakeholders.
Section 6 of the survey focused on principals' beliefs and actions when
working with different school improvement groups. Principals were asked to
Improvement Stakeholders 131
strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with the
following statements:
1. I expect participation in improvement activities.
2. I recruit individuals to participate in improvement activities.
3. I recruit individuals to lead improvement activities.
4. I find and provide time for groups to work on improvement tasks.
5. I expect the group to competently complete improvement tasks.
6. I value the groups input about improvement.
7. I ask the group to make important decisions about school improvement.
8. I have the final say regarding improvement efforts.
According to principals' responses, licensed employees were rated highest
with a mean of 1.25, while non-employees were ranked second with a 1.90 mean
followed by non-instructional employees, with a mean of 2.00.
In regard to licensed employees, principals most often agreed that they
expected participation (1.06), valued the group's input (1.07), and expected
improvement tasks to be completed with competence. Principals least agreed with
having the final say regarding school improvement (1.81).
Where non-instructional employees were included, principals most often
agreed that they value the group's input (1.57), but had the final say (1.82) when
making decisions about school improvement. Like the licensed employees,
principals expected non-instructional employees to competently complete school
Improvement Stakeholders 132
improvement tasks (1.89). Principals least agreed with the statement that they
recruited non-instructional employees to lead improvement activities (2.40).
Principals' responses related to non-employees showed that they valued the
group's input (1.40), recruited individuals to participate in school improvement
activities (1.67), but had the final say regarding improvement efforts (1.76). Like
their responses for non-instructional employees, principals agreed least with the
statement that they recruited non-employees to act in leadership roles when
working to improve the school.
Discussion of the Results
At the opening of this study, the researcher set out to answer the following
eight research questions:
1. To what extent are non-instructional employees included in school
improvement groups and activities?
2. Does the complexity of school improvement tasks completed by noninstructional employees differ from the tasks completed by other
stakeholder groups?
3. What factors limit the inclusion of non-instructional employees in school
improvement?
4. To what extent do principals' beliefs and actions influence the inclusion
or exclusion of non-instructional employees in the school improvement
process?
Improvement Stakeholders 133
5. Does a relationship exist between the school improvement model used
and the inclusion of non-instructional employees in school improvement
efforts?
6. Are schools that fail to meet annual state and federal academic
benchmarks more likely to include non-instructional employees in school
improvement efforts?
7. Are high poverty schools more likely to include non-instructional
employees in school improvement efforts?
8. Are non-instructional employees valued differently than other school
improvement stakeholder groups?
The first seven questions were answered in Chapter 4 and the Summary of Results
of Chapter 5. An overview of the findings is included in Table 41. The final question
will be answered by comparing the perceptions of study principals as reported
through the survey instrument and the literature relevant to stakeholder inclusion.
Improvement Stakeholders 134
Table 41
Overview of the Findings for Question 1 through Question 7
Research Question
1. To what extent are
non-instructional
employees included in
school improvement
groups and activities?
Findings
As a group, non-instructional employees are the least
included stakeholders in activities associated with
school improvement. Of the non-instructional
employee group, school secretaries participate most
often. Bus drivers are the least included stakeholder in
the school improvement process. Principals, teachers,
and parents are the most included stakeholders in
efforts to improve schools.
2. Does the complexity
of school
improvement tasks
completed by noninstructional
employees differ from
the tasks completed
by other stakeholder
groups?
The school improvement tasks completed by noninstructional employees are fewer in number and less
complex than the tasks completed by licensed
employees. Non-employees are mainly involved in
developing the vision, mission, and beliefs, and
identifying school goals, whereas licensed employees
are responsible for completing all six tasks related to
school improvement. Findings for non-employees were
similar to that of the non-instructional employee
group.
3. What factors limit the
inclusion of noninstructional
employees in school
improvement?
Factors most limiting to the inclusion of all stakeholder
groups are finding time for groups to meet and the
costs associated with school improvement activities.
An additional factor that highly limits the inclusion of
non-instructional employees is job responsibilities.
4. To what extent do
principals' beliefs and
actions influence the
inclusion or exclusion
of non-instructional
employees in the
school improvement
process?
Principals judged the inclusion of licensed employees
most important, whereas non-instructional employees
ranked second and were judged important and nonemployees were judged as least important. Principals
most valued in all stakeholders their relationship to
students, commitment to the school, ability to work
cooperatively with others, and job-related experience
and skills. However, principals least associated
leadership qualities and educational preparation with
both non-instructional employees and non-employees.
These findings align with the limited participation by
non-instructional employees and completion of tasks
with lower degrees of complexity.
Improvement Stakeholders 135
Contrary to the importance they placed on the value of
the input of non-instructional employees, principals
indicated that principals had the final say when
making decisions about school improvement and
ranked last the recruitment of non-instructional
employee as leaders for school improvement efforts.
5. Does a relationship
exist between the
school improvement
model used and the
inclusion of noninstructional
employees in school
improvement efforts?
Of the school improvement models principals reported
using, AdvanceED/NCA CASI, the Locally-Developed
Planning Model (Optional Format), and the Title I
Continuous School Improvement Process (SWP/TAS)
were most often used. Of those three models, 73.33%
of schools using the Title I model reported including
non-instructional employees in the school
improvement process. Of schools using the
AdvancED/NCA CASI model, 57.81% reported
including non-instructional employees. Schools using
the Optional Format were the least inclusive as only
37.93% of all study principals reported including bus
drivers, cafeteria workers, custodians, and school
secretaries in school improvement efforts.
6. Are schools that fail to
meet annual state and
federal academic
benchmarks more
likely to include noninstructional
employees in school
improvement efforts?
Under Public Law 221, schools are assigned
performance categories based on student performance
and improvement on the Indiana State Test for
Progress Plus (ISTEP+). Adequate Yearly Progress is
computed into the calculation. As the level of
performance category moved from exemplary
progress to academic probation, principals reported
that the number of non-instructional employees
involved in school improvement teams increased.
7. Are high poverty
schools more likely to
include noninstructional
employees in school
improvement efforts?
Principals with the highest free and reduced priced
lunch recipients (76-100%) reported the highest level
of participation by non-instructional employees. As the
level of poverty decreased so too did the level of
participation by non-instructional employees.
Improvement Stakeholders 136
There is an old twentieth century adage that says, "If it ain't broke, don't fix
it." In other words, any attempt at improvement is futile and may even turn out to
be harmful or disruptive. Since the launch of Sputnik in 1957, business leaders and
politicians have judged public schools to be broken and in need of repair. Since that
time, civic and government officials have continued to use their power and influence
to transform the nation's public schools from failing to triumphant, a non-negotiable
transformation that seeks to better prepare our nation's children for college and the
workplace to sustain freedom, democracy and U. S. dominance in a global economy.
During these past 50 years, public schools have morphed from institutions
organized as bureaucracies emphasizing authority and accountability to inclusive
organizations where management is site-based and leadership is shared with
stakeholders. Lashway (1996) states, " Today they [principals] are encouraged to be
'facilitative leaders' by building teams, creating networks, and 'governing from the
center'" (p. 2). A fundamental tenet unpinning this study is the value principals
place on different stakeholder groups, which affects the way teams are created and
governed from the center. A critical analysis of the study's results shows Indiana
public school principals do value non-instructional employees differently than they
value other school improvement stakeholder groups. As the reader moves through
the Discussion of Results, the "importance" ranking of each stakeholder group by
principals will be used as an anchor throughout the discussion (See Figure 2).
Improvement Stakeholders 137
LICENSED EMPLOYEES
Most Important
#1
NON-INSTRUCTIONAL
EMPLOYEES
Important
#2
NON- EMPLOYEES
Least Important
#3
Figure 2. Ranking of Stakeholder Groups By Importance. Study principals rated
licensed employees as most important (#1), non-instructional employees as
important (#2), and non-employees as least important (#3) to school improvement
efforts.
Aside from their own participation in school improvement teams, principals
indicated the greatest segment of participating team members were parents and
teachers. To a more limited degree, guidance counselors, assistant principals,
community members, and business partners also participated. All the stakeholders
mentioned above are categorized as either licensed employees or non-employees.
The smallest representation on school improvement teams came from stakeholders
identified as non-instructional employees. Of that group, secretaries were included
more often than bus drivers, cafeteria workers, and custodians. Of all three
Improvement Stakeholders 138
stakeholder groups, bus drivers were the least included members in school
improvement efforts.
Not only were licensed employees more likely to participate in school
improvement groups and activities, but principals also rated licensed employees as
the most important group to add value to their schools' improvement efforts. Noninstructional employees were rated second in importance, followed by the least
valued group, the non-employees (See Figure 3). Because school improvement in
Indiana is primarily defined as increasing student achievement, the highest
participation in school improvement activities and the "most important" rating
given to the licensed employee group by principals (which is mostly instructional by
role definition) make sense and are easily defensible. However, the "importance"
rating and participation levels for the remaining two groups lack congruence.
Principals rated non-instructional employees more important than non-employees,
yet non-employees participate in school improvement teams and activities to a
greater degree than do the non-instructional employees. At this point in the
discussion, principals' statements and actions seem at odds with each other. Were
non-employees valued to the degree described by principals, their importance to
school improvement efforts would rank second, above non-instructional employees,
rather than last. Inherent in the process of rank ordering stakeholder groups by
importance tells the readers that principals do place different value on each of the
three groups.
LICENSED
EMPLOYEES
Most Important
#1
NON-INSTRUCTIONAL
EMPLOYEES
Important
#2
NON- EMPLOYEES
Least Important
#3
Least Active ----------------------> Most Active
Participation
Participation
Improvement Stakeholders 139
Figure 3. Stakeholder Importance Compared with Levels of Participation. Principals
indicate that licensed employees most often participate in school improvement
teams and activities, followed by non-employees. Non-instructional employees were
the least participative stakeholder group.
Principals also indicated that school improvement tasks completed by
stakeholder groups were different and of varying complexity. Licensed employees,
namely principals and teachers, were involved in the completion of all six tasks
associated with the school improvement process. Of the six tasks, collecting and
analyzing data, monitoring implementation, and program/initiative evaluation
require analytical thinking and specialized knowledge and skills developed through
specific training. Non-employees--parents, business representatives, and
Improvement Stakeholders 140
community members--were more likely to complete tasks associated with lower
complexity: developing the school profile; developing the vision, mission, and
beliefs; and identifying school goals. Of these three tasks, identifying school goals is
the most complex, requiring analysis and evaluation to identify areas for
improvement. Non-instructional employees were minimally involved in task
completion and, for the most part, completed work on one task: developing the
school's vision, mission, and beliefs, which is associated with the lowest level of
complexity. Humphrey (1985) found that subordinates' impressions of their
coworkers and managers were greatly influenced by the role each plays in the
organization and that coworkers and managers tend to accept the behavior they see
at face value. Completion of less complex tasks and lower levels of participation in
school improvement activities by bus drivers, cafeteria workers, custodians, and
school secretaries suggest lower expectations for and confidence in the value noninstructional employees bring to the school improvement process. Although
principals indicated that they value non-instructional employees over nonemployees, non-instructional employees completed the fewest and least complex
tasks of all stakeholders (See Figure 4).
LICENSED
EMPLOYEES
Most Important
#1
NON-INSTRUCTIONAL
EMPLOYEES
Important
#2
NON- EMPLOYEES
Least Important
#3
Program Evaluation
Monitoring Implementation
Collecting & Analyzing Data
Identifying School Goals
Developing School Profile
Developing Vision, Mission,
Beliefs
Less Complex----------------> More Complex
Improvement Stakeholders 141
Figure 4. Stakeholder Importance Compared with Task Completion and Complexity.
Licensed employees complete all tasks associated with school improvement. Noninstructional employees completed the fewest and least complex tasks associated
with improvement efforts.
Along that same line, principals also identified the extent to which different
stakeholder groups worked directly with students to master academic standards. As
would be expected, licensed employees worked most often with students for the
purpose of academic learning followed by non-employee groups then noninstructional employees. Despite the fact non-instructional employees interact daily
Improvement Stakeholders 142
with students, bus drivers, cafeteria workers, custodians, and school secretaries
LICENSED EMPLOYEES
Most Important
#1
NON-INSTRUCTIONAL
EMPLOYEES
Important
#2
NON- EMPLOYEES
Least Important
#3
Least Academic-------------------------> Most Academic
Support
Support
spent the least time of all stakeholder groups helping children learn (See Figure 5).
Figure 5. Stakeholder Importance Compared With Direct Instruction. Licensed
employees most often worked with students to increase academic learning followed
by non-employees. Non-instructional employees were the least likely adults to
support content area learning.
Principals identified licensed employees as providing the greatest benefit to
improvement efforts. Principals acknowledged appreciation for licensed employees'
relationship with students, their ability to work cooperatively with others,
commitment to the school, job-related experiences, and leadership potential.
Clearly, principals believe that licensed employees bring value to school
Improvement Stakeholders 143
improvement efforts far beyond that of other stakeholder groups. Although ranked
second to the licensed employee group, the benefits of participation by noninstructional employees were identical to that of licensed employees with two
exceptions: educational preparation and leadership potential. Ranked last of the
three groups, non-employees were judged to provide the least benefit to school
improvement efforts; however, non-employees were rated high for their
commitment to the school. Despite the benefits accrued through stakeholder
participation, few principals associate educational preparation and leadership
potential with non-instructional employees and non-employees. Both values were
tied to licensed employees.
It is interesting that benefits gained through stakeholder participation align
with the principals' rank order of groups by importance. Principals judged licensed
employees to be the most important group providing the greatest benefit to in the
school improvement process. Although non-instructional employees were ranked
second in their importance, they were perceived as providing almost identical
benefits as licensed employees. Non-employees were rated least important and
provided the fewest benefits among the three groups (See Figure 6). Leadership
potential and educational preparation were least associated with both noninstructional employees and non-employees. Hofstede's (1984) research related to
"power distance" is applicable here. Wu (2006) defines Hofstede's concept of power
distance as "the power inequality between superiors and subordinates" (p.34).
Distinct lines are drawn between managers and subordinates where strong
Improvement Stakeholders 144
organizational hierarchies and power distance exist. However, when the
hierarchical structure flatlines and low power distance prevails, lines between
management and subordinates blur. The fact that few principals in the study placed
high value on the leadership potential of non-instructional employees and nonemployees suggests an established moderate to high power distance rather than a
low one. Consideration of principals' responses related to leadership potential
would suggest that a discrepancy exists between the reported values assigned to
LICENSED EMPLOYEES
Most Important
#1
NON-INSTRUCTIONAL
EMPLOYEES
Important
#2
NON- EMPLOYEES
Least Important
#3
Low Association---------------------> High Association
non-instructional employees and the actions of principals.
Leadership Potential
Educational Preparation
Relationship to Students
Work Cooperatively with Others
Commitment to the School
Job-related Experience and Skill Set
Visibility within the Community
Leadership Potential
Educational Preparation
Figure 6. Stakeholder Importance Compared with Stakeholder Group Benefits.
Principals indicated that licensed and non-instructional employees provide the
greatest benefit to improving schools. Principals also indicated that they valued
Improvement Stakeholders 145
least the leadership potential and educational preparation of both the noninstructional and non-employee groups
Despite the level of participation and benefits associated with various
improvement groups, principals were challenged to find common meeting dates and
times for groups to meet, by the costs associated with funding school improvement
activities, and by stakeholders' competing job responsibilities--all of which were
viewed as limitations to including every stakeholder. Additionally, the need for
procuring substitutes for licensed personnel was also acknowledged as a significant
limiting factor. Principals indicated that contractual agreements and earnings were
of little concern (See Figure 7). Therefore, limits were perceived as limits, whether
LICENSED EMPLOYEES
Most Important
#1
NON-INSTRUCTIONAL
EMPLOYEES
Important
#2
NON- EMPLOYEES
Least Important
#3
Least Limiting----------------------> Most Limiting
related to licensed employees, non-instructional employees, or non-employees.
Finding Common Dates and Times
Additional Costs
Job Responsibilities
Need for Substitutes
Contractual Agreements
Earnings
Figure 7. Factors that Limit Stakeholder Participation in School Improvement.
Principals indicated that finding common times and the costs associated with
Improvement Stakeholders 146
improvement activities were most limiting to including all stakeholders in efforts to
improve their schools.
Principals also revealed their beliefs and expectations as school
improvement leaders. Principals expect licensed employees to participate in school
improvement activities and value their input about improvement. Principals also
believe and expect licensed employees to competently complete tasks associated
with school improvement. Of special interest is the fact that principals rely on the
decision-making capabilities of licensed employees and work collaboratively with
that group to make important decisions. On the other end of the spectrum,
principals highly value input provided by the non-instructional employees and nonemployees as well, but do not delegate decision-making to these groups. When
working with stakeholders other than licensed employees, principals use their
authority to make decisions surrounding improvement rather than relinquish
power to subordinates--bus drivers, cafeteria works, custodians, school secretaries,
parents, representatives of business and industry, and community members. It
appears power distance fluctuates according to the stakeholder group involved.
Principals will more likely share authority with licensed employees than the
remaining stakeholder groups (See Figure 8). The expanded authority granted to
licensed employees aligns with the "most important" rating given to that group by
principals.
Non-instructional employees were rated "important" and possessed many of
the same qualities valued in licensed personnel. However, the authority granted to
Improvement Stakeholders 147
non-instructional employees is greatly limited compared to that of licensed
personnel. Most principals agree that they seldom recruit non-instructional and
LICENSED EMPLOYEES
Most Important
#1
NON-INSTRUCTIONAL
EMPLOYEES
Important
#2
NON- EMPLOYEES
Least Important
#3
Limited -----------------------------> Expanded
Authority
Authority
non-employee stakeholders to lead school improvement activities.
Delegation of Authority
Shared Decision-Making
Participation Expected
Input Valued
Input Gathered
Voluntary Participation
Figure 8. Stakeholder Participation Compared with Delegation of Authority.
Although non-instructional employees possess many of the same qualities
associated with licensed employees, principals relinquish less authority to noninstructional employees.
Comparison of stakeholder involvement in the school improvement process
was analyzed according to the following factors:
1. Rating the importance to school improvement groups (anchor)
2. Level of participation in school improvement activities
3. Task completion and complexity
Improvement Stakeholders 148
4. Benefits associated with stakeholder groups
5. Limiting factors associated with stakeholder participation
6. Expectations for participation and delegation of authority
Despite representation by all stakeholders in the school improvement process,
principals value groups differently and expect the depth of contribution to vary by
group. Principals judge licensed employees as the most important players in school
improvement efforts and as a result relinquish greater authority to them. Parents
make up the largest segment of the non-employee stakeholder group and are invited
as worthy partners in collective efforts to improve the school. Despite efforts to
become more inclusive and collaborative through site-based management and
shared decision-making and although viewed as important by principals, noninstructional employees often sit on the outside of school improvement and are
nonetheless excluded.
Recommendations
To assist those interested in and responsible for implementing a school
improvement process, the researcher will recommend a thoughtful and deliberate
process to address equitable inclusivity of highly qualified stakeholders. The twostep process includes:
1. Identifying stakeholder needs by matching the character traits and technical
skills desired to the tasks associated with school improvement, then
2. Aggressively recruiting and developing stakeholders for maximum
performance related to the work of school improvement.
Improvement Stakeholders 149
In order to expand participation by non-instructional employees in school
improvement efforts, school leaders must look beyond the text of Indiana Code 2031-5-1, which mandates inclusion of administrators, teachers, parents, and
community and business leaders, to the statute's intent: incorporation of site-based
management and distributed decision-making inclusive of all stakeholders groups
for the purpose of improving schools. In looking beyond the letter of the law,
stakeholder inclusion shifts from a state-mandated procedure to process by which
principals are empowered with the ability to thinking critically for the purpose of
establishing a "purposeful community" (Marzano, Waters, and McNulty, 2005)
composed of individuals from all walks of life who possess the right technical skills
and essential characteristics of quality team players.
To implement this researcher's plan, school leaders must first complete a
needs assessment that matches school improvement tasks with stakeholders'
technical skills. The seven tasks associated with the school improvement process
are:
1. Developing the school profile
2. Developing the vision, mission, and beliefs
3. Identifying school goals, interventions, and assessments
4. Developing stakeholders' knowledge and skills
5. Collecting and analyzing data
6. Monitoring implementation of school improvement initiatives
7. Evaluating initiatives and programs associated with school-wide goals
Improvement Stakeholders 150
Successful completion of each task requires specialized technical skills and an
understanding of the school improvement process as it relates to that task.
The school profile is a stand-alone document that includes a collection of
meaningful data, which tell a story about the school and establishes the context for
school improvement. Three sub-tasks must be accomplished to complete the profile:
gather relevant data; sort data into categories applicable to the local community,
students, and instructional practices; and identify implications for the school
improvement plan. Technical skills needed for creating the school profile include
word processing, experience with spreadsheets, collecting and displaying data, and
knowledge of state requirements for components of the school improvement plan.
The second task to be accomplished is developing the school's vision,
mission, and beliefs. Prior to developing these guiding documents, school
improvement stakeholders should perform an environmental scan to determine the
knowledge, skills, and processes students will need for the kind of world in which
they will most likely to live. Current literature, the Internet, and interviews with
leaders from all walks of life are sources for scanning the environment. Information
from the environmental scan serves as the foundation for creating a vision for the
school's future, identifying the mission or the school's purpose, and articulating
beliefs and values that underpin both the mission and vision. Technical skills
required for this task include research and interview skills; knowledge of and
facilitation skills related to defining and articulating vision, mission, and beliefs,
Improvement Stakeholders 151
communication skills; and experience with word processing and creating
spreadsheets, graphs, and charts.
The third task includes identifying school goals, assessments, and
interventions. In Indiana, school goals are oriented towards improving student
achievement in mathematics and language arts, identifying both formative and
summative assessments to determine the progress students make towards
identified school goals, and defining interventions or strategies to improve student
learning and academic performance. Technical skills include data analysis, analyzing
trends in performance data, the ability to ask appropriate and essential questions,
identifying areas of strength and weakness, writing goals, and identifying relevant
assessment tools and interventions.
The fourth task to be completed is developing stakeholders' knowledge and
skills essential to raising student achievement and overall performance of the
school. Persons responsible for coordinating school improvement efforts must look
to developing the knowledge and skills of all stakeholders--not just that of teachers
and administrators. Thus, the researcher side steps the term "professional
development" and utilizes the concept of "stakeholder training and development."
Administrators and teachers do not alone bear the responsibility for school
improvement where there exists belief in the equitable inclusion of all stakeholders.
The essential qualities of every team member must be realized to increase
commitment towards total stakeholder inclusion and the collective capacity of the
improvement team. Technical skills required to build stakeholder capacity include
Improvement Stakeholders 152
financial expertise to establish a funding mechanism for training and development
activities; design, presentation, and facilitation skills for the scope of training;
research and development skills; communication skills; and word processing skills
that support the development of training materials.
Once the school profile has been created, the vision, mission, and beliefs have
been articulated, school goals, assessments, and interventions have been identified,
and stakeholder training and development are well underway, relevant and timely
data must be collected and analyzed to determine the school's progress towards
meeting identified school goals. Technical skills required for this fifth task include
critical thinking, aptitude for asking good questions, capacity for identifying relevant
data and analyzing data trends, capability for navigating data warehousing systems,
experience with creating spreadsheets and manipulating data to produce desired
reports.
The sixth task includes monitoring the school's action plan to assure the
agreed-upon interventions are being implemented fully and with fidelity.
Implementation is often the most difficult component to establish and monitoring is
central to establishing accountability for implementation by the school's
stakeholders. Monitoring links the daily operations of the school to the written
action plan and allows for "just-in-time" corrective action where needed. Technical
skills for monitoring implementation include knowledge of and experience with
research-based interventions, experience with classroom walk-throughs, facilitation
skills for conducting data meetings, collecting and analyzing data, communicating
Improvement Stakeholders 153
depth of implementation, and vested authority to ensure accountability for
implementation.
The seventh and final task deals with the summative evaluation of schoolwide initiatives and programs that have been implemented to meet improvement
goals. At the heart of evaluation is the feedback process, which is used to understand
and verify the impact made by initiatives and programs tied to school goals.
Informed by feedback, stakeholders are better able to make knowledgeable
decisions when planning for future action. Evaluation tools include surveys,
questionnaires, focus groups, data warehousing systems, and observations.
Technical skills include the ability to develop effective surveys and questionnaires,
group facilitation skills, oral communication skills, effective questioning techniques,
the ability to develop trust and confidence among stakeholders, the ability to design
and conduct evaluation processes, and word processing skills and experience with
spreadsheets to produce reports that document results.
Selecting stakeholders for the work of school improvement is an intricate
and complex process. The technical skills associated with each improvement task
must be considered to best build high performance school improvement teams;
however, technical skill is not a stand-alone criterion for stakeholder selection.
Coordinators of school improvement processes must also consider the human
element (personal traits) of stakeholder selection, the essence of a quality team
member.
Improvement Stakeholders 154
Stakeholder selection is not just about who the person is or the role they fill
as a licensed employee, non-instructional employee, or non-employee. Strong team
members are defined too by what they do and how they do it. After matching
improvement tasks with requisite technical skills, school leaders should consider
the personal characteristics of high-performing team members when selecting
stakeholders for school improvement. The following personal characteristics should
be considered when recruiting and selecting stakeholders:
1. Actively participate and work to solve problems
2. Competent, committed, disciplined, and reliable
3. Effectively communicate
4. Cooperate and demonstrate flexibility
5. Treat others with respect and engender trust
6. Value learning
First of all, effective team members actively participate and work to solve
problems. Active participation is defined as involvement in school improvement
activities where input is given to stimulate and achieve desired change. Individuals
come prepared for meetings and fully engage in the work at hand. Effective team
members willingly work with others on a variety of problems with the end-goal of
finding solutions.
Secondly, members of high performing teams are competent, committed,
disciplined, and reliable. Competent team members are seen as possessing sufficient
knowledge, skill, abilities, or qualifications necessary to complete the tasks at hand.
Improvement Stakeholders 155
Individuals must also be devoted to achieving the team's purpose and outcomes.
Commitment was highly rated by study principals as a characteristic associated with
all stakeholder groups. Effective team members exhibit discipline by adhering to the
protocols and norms of group behavior and process. Finally, team members must be
consistently reliable by accomplishing assigned tasks and doing their fair share.
Quality team members are also effective communicators. They are able to
express ideas clearly, directly, honestly, and with respect. They also actively listen to
understand first and speak second. They consider the ideas of others without
debating and arguing every point in order to generate meaningful dialogue in a
solutions-oriented manner.
Quality team members must also cooperate with others and figure out ways
to work together to accomplish tasks. High-performing teams are collegial as well as
collaborative in nature. Flexibility is also a highly desired trait. School improvement
teams live and work in ambiguity and change. Team members must be able to cope
with change, even revel in it, and compromise when necessary. Individuals must be
firm in their beliefs yet open to what others have to offer.
Another important trait for consideration when recruiting stakeholders for
school improvement teams is the key to building positive relationships--establishing
trust. Effective team members interact with courtesy and respect, show
understanding and appropriate support when needed, and hold confidentiality
sacred. High quality team members act with integrity and keep promises made; if
Improvement Stakeholders 156
broken, team members repair the damage. Trust is the linchpin for the entire school
improvement process.
Finally, quality team members want to continue to learn, grow in knowledge
and skill, and solve problems critical to improving schools. Learning expands the
capacity of individuals and organizations to create the reality they want to be.
Senge (1999) wrote, "Small changes can produce big results--but the areas of
highest leverage are often the least obvious" (p. 62). Creating a process for selecting
and including stakeholders from all walks of life in school improvement activities is
a small change, but has the ability to produces big results. Once the work of school
improvement is analyzed to determine the technical skills needed for successful
completion of tasks and characteristics of high-performing team members are
identified, school leaders can begin to match skills and characteristics to candidates
from every niche in the community. School leaders can then recruit stakeholders for
their knowledge, skills, and potential for making a difference in the school
improvement process. This new process will assist school leaders in getting the
right people on the bus, in the right seats, no matter what part of the school
community they represent.
Recommendations for Further Study
The purpose of this study was to explore the perception of Indiana public
schools principals regarding the extent to which non-instructional stakeholders
were included in the school improvement process. Eight questions were analyzed
and answered despite limited research and literature related to the topic. As with
Improvement Stakeholders 157
any process of inquiry and research, new questions surface that demand further
exploration. The following recommendations are presented to stimulate further
inquiry and discovery related to stakeholder participation in school improvement.
1. Studies related to specific school improvement models should be
conducted to determine "what works" in school improvement.
2. Studies related to the comparison of school improvement models and
student performance on ISTEP+ should be conducted to determine if
specific improvement models have greater impact on student
achievement.
3. Studies related to non-instructional employees' perceptions of the school
improvement process should be conducted to provide additional insight
into improving the process and improving public schools.
4. Studies related to non-employee perceptions of the school improvement
process should be conducted to provide additional insights into
improving both the process and public schools.
5. Studies related to the inclusion of instructional aides in the school
improvement process should be conducted to provide additional insights
into the value to school improvement associated with instructional
support staff.
6. Studies related to stakeholder inclusion in high poverty schools should be
conducted to understand cultures of inclusivity in school improvement
efforts.
Improvement Stakeholders 158
7. Educational leadership programs at colleges and universities should
include mandatory coursework dedicated to the study of site-based
management and shared decision-making to assist future administrators
in developing skills that promote successful collaboration.
8. Partnerships between schools and accrediting agencies should be
developed to promote better understanding of and skill with
improvement processes.
Summary
Indiana Code 20-31-5-1 requires Indiana school principals to coordinate the
development of a continuous school improvement and student achievement plan.
The principal must appoint a strategic planning committee made up of
administrators, teachers, parents, and community and business leaders. However,
the accountability statute for school performance fails to include non-instructional
employees--bus drivers, cafeteria workers, custodians, and school secretaries--in
the list of required stakeholders for inclusion in the strategic planning process.
Despite daily contact with students and teachers, this blue-collar segment of the
school population is rarely included in the work of school improvement and valued
little as potential leaders in efforts to make schools better places for children. Fullan
(2008) said, "...show me a cohesive, creative organization, and I'll show you peer
interaction all the way down" (p. 43). In today's public schools, peer interaction
related to school improvement means collaboration by licensed educators, parents,
community members, and a limited number of school secretaries at best. These are
Improvement Stakeholders 159
the elite of school improvement. Reeves (2010) said, "The most effective principals
understand that custodians, cafeteria workers, bus drivers, and every adult in the
system is a teacher through their behavior, their interactions with students and
parents, and their specific actions any time they are on the job" (p. 7). Public schools
are not the inclusive organizations they profess to be when this large, indispensable
segment of non-instructional employees is disenfranchised and denied full
membership in the school community.
This study set out to explore the beliefs and practices of public school
principals to determine the extent to which non-instructional employees were
included in school-wide improvement efforts to increase student achievement.
Currently, little research exists in this area. Thus, a descriptive research approach
using survey methodology was used to gather the perceptions of principals
regarding the value they place on the role of non-instructional employees in school
improvement. The Tailored Design Method (Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian,
L. M., 2009) was used to design the survey instrument, which was delivered online
to a representative random sample.
The study revealed that a majority of Indiana public school principals rely
heavily on the participation of licensed employees and parents to complete the work
of school improvement. Moderate levels of business and community members were
included in teams and activities to increase school quality. Participation by noninstructional employees was limited mainly to school secretaries and rarely
included bus drivers, cafeteria workers, and custodians. Despite educational reform
Improvement Stakeholders 160
that transitioned public schools from bureaucratic institutions to organizations
founded on the principles of site-based management and shared decision-making,
non-instructional employees remain mostly segregated from the educational elite
where student improvement efforts are concerned. Humphrey (1985) stated,
"...people make trait distinctions between occupations as well as [social] classes.
Thus, it seems likely that people think secretaries are less talented, ambitious,
aggressive, etc., than the bosses" (p. 242). Based upon the extent to which noninstructional employees are excluded from participation in school improvement
activities, Humphrey's research has implications for workplace settings more than
twenty-five years later.
The study also revealed that non-instructional employees were valued
differently from other stakeholders in the tasks associated with school
improvement. When they do participate, non-instructional employees complete less
complex tasks than do other stakeholder groups, are viewed as lacking leadership
potential, and hold less authority than realized by licensed employees. Despite these
perceived limitations, principals ranked non-instructional employees second to
licensed employees and higher than non-employees in the value they bring to school
improvement efforts.
In order to expand participation by non-instructional employees in school
improvement efforts, school leaders must read between the lines of Indiana Code
20-31-5-1 and look beyond the letter of the law. In doing so, stakeholder inclusion
shifts from a state-mandated procedure to a process where principals are
Improvement Stakeholders 161
empowered to establish a "purposeful community" (Marzano, Waters, and McNulty,
2005) composed of individuals from all walks of life who possess the right technical
skills and essential characteristics needed for school improvement efforts. To assist
leaders in recruiting qualified stakeholders from all segments of the population, the
researcher recommends a thoughtful and deliberate process to address equitable
inclusivity of highly qualified stakeholders. The two-step process includes:
1. Identifying school improvement stakeholders by matching essential
character traits and technical skills to tasks associated with school
improvement, then
2. Aggressively recruiting and developing stakeholders for maximum
performance based on the match between needs, traits, and skills.
It is through expanded and equitable inclusivity and effective peer interaction that
organizational identity and commitment create a social glue that builds coherence,
collective purpose, and capacity among stakeholders. Fullan (2008) said, "When
peers interact purposefully, their expectations of one another create positive
pressure to accomplish goals important to the group" (p. 63). Maybe Jack Welch
(2001) said it best, "Everybody's welcome and expected to go at it" (p. 384).
Improvement Stakeholders 162
References
American Federation of Teachers. (2002). It takes a team: A profile of support staff in
American education. A report from the Paraprofessionals and School Related
Personnel Division.
Anderson, E. (2007). Fair Opportunity in Education: A democratic equality
perspective. University of Chicago, 595-622.
Anderson, E. (1999). "What is the point of equality?" Ethics 109, 287-337.
Bracey, G. (2009). The Bracey report on the condition of education, 2009. Education
and the Public Interest Center and the Education Policy Research Unit.
Carlson, C., Clemmer, F., Jennings, T., Thompson, C., & Page, L. J. (2007).
Organizational development 101: Lessons from Star Wars. The Journal of
Individual Psychology, 63(4), 424-439.
Collins, J. (2001). Good to great. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, Inc.
Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2009). Internet, mail, and mixed-mode
surveys: The tailored design method. (3rd ed.) Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley &
Sons, Inc.
Fager, J. (1998). All students learning; Making it happen in your school. Northwest
Regional Educational Laboratory. Retrieved on April 9, 2009 from
www.nwrel.org/request/feb98/all studentslng.html
Fullan, M. (2008). The six secrets of change: What the best leaders do to help their
organizations survive and thrive. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Improvement Stakeholders 163
Fritzwater, I. W. Subordinates matter: A test of leadership effectiveness. The School
Administrator. Retrieved on April 9, 2009 from
www.aasa.org/publications/content.cfm?ItemNumber=4137.
Garson, G. D. (2009). Reliability analysis. Retrieved on December 31, 2009 from
http://faculty.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/PA765/reliab.htm#rater
Glatthorn, A. A. (1998). Writing the winning dissertation: A step-by-step guide.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
Griffiths, D. E. (1957). Toward a theory of administrative behavior. Administrative
Behavior in Education, Ronald Campbell and Russell Gregg, eds. NY: Harper &
Row.
Groves, R. M., Singer, E., & Corning, A. (2000). Leverage-saliency theory of survey
participation: Description and an illustration. Public Opinion Quarterly,
64(3), 299-308.
Hanson, E. M. (2003). Educational administration and organizational behavior. (5th
ed.) Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Hofstede, G. (1994). Management scientists are human. Management Science
International, 40 (1). INFORMS, pp. 4-13.
Hofstede, G. (1984). The cultural relativity of the quality of life concept. The
Academy of Management Review, 9 (3). Academy of Management, pp. 389398.
Hopkins, D. (2001). School improvement for real: Educational change and
development. New York, NY: Routledge Falmer.
Improvement Stakeholders 164
House, R. (1971). A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science
Quarterly (16).
House, R., & Dessler, G. (1974). The path-goal theory of leadership: Some post hoc
and a priori tests. in Contingency Approaches to Leadership. James Hunt and
Lars Larson, eds. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Humphrey, R. (1985). How work roles influence perception: Structural-cognitive
processes and organizational behavior. American Sociological Review. 50 (2),
pp. 242-252.
Indiana Department of Education. (2008). Public Law 221 fact sheet. Retrieved on
June 30, 2010 from www.doe.in.gov/pl221/2008/PL221_Fact_Sheet.pdf
Indiana Department of Education. (2009). Public Law 221 category placements: by
the numbers. Retrieved on June 30, 2010 from
www.doe.in.gov/pl221/2008/PL221_Data_Summary_0809.pdf
Indiana Department of Education. (2008). IC 20-31-5 Chapter 5 strategic and
continuous school improvement and achievement plan. Retrieved on April
12, 2009 from www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title20/ar31/ch5.html
Jackman, M. R., & Scheuer Senter, M. (1982). Different therefore unequal: belief
about trait differences between groups of unequal status. In Donald J.
Trieman and Robert V. Robinson (Eds.), Research in Social Stratification and
Mobility (pp. 123-143). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Improvement Stakeholders 165
Kouzes, J. M. & Posner, B. Z. (1987). The leadership challenge: How to get
extraordinary things done in organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
Inc.
Krejcie, R. & Morgan, D. (1960). Population Size and Random Sample Size Needed
for Representatives of that Population (Table1, page 25). Education and
Psychological Measurement, 30, pp. 607-610; and Small-sample techniques,
The NEA Research Bulletin (1960), 38.
Krejcie, R. V. & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research
activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30, 607-610.
Lamont, M. & Lareau, A. (1988). Cultural capital: Allusions, gaps and glissandos in
recent theoretical developments. Sociological Theory, 6(2), 153-168.
Landis, J. R. and Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for
categorical data in Biometrics. Vol. 33, pp. 159-174.
Lashway, L. (1996). The strategies of a leader. Eugene, OR: Eric Clearinghouse on
Educational Management. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED406718)
Lencioni, P. (2002). The five dysfunctions of a team: A leadership fable. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Maxwell, J. C. (1995). Developing the leaders around you: How to help others reach
their full potential. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, Inc.
McGregor, D. (2006). The human side of enterprise annotated edition. New York,
NY: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Improvement Stakeholders 166
Markavitch, V. (1994). Living the effective schools philosophy. The School
Administrator, 51(6), 26-28.
Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works:
From research to results. Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development. CO: McREL.
McGregor, D. (2006). The human side of enterprise: Annotated edition. New York,
NY: McGraw-Hill.
Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary. Retrieved on May 6, 2010 from
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stakeholders
Midgley, C., & Wood, S. (1993). Beyond site-based management: Empowering
teachers to reform schools. Phi Delta Kappa, 75, 1993.
National Association of Secondary School Principals. (1996). Breaking ranks:
Changing an American institution. Reston, VA.
National Center for Educational Statistics. Common Core of Data. Retrieved on
December 30, 2009 from http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/rural_locales.asp
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The
imperative for educational reform. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government
Printing Office.
National Center for Home Education. The history of Goals 2000. Retrieved on May 13,
2010 from www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000010/200209010.asp
Improvement Stakeholders 167
People Pulse. Survey response rates: Tips on how to increase response rates.
Retrieved on December 30, 2009 from www.peoplepulse.com.au/SurveyResponse-Rates.html
Peterson, K. (2005). NCLB goals and penalties. Retrieved on May 13, 2010 from
www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000010/200209010.asp
Reeves, D. B. (2003). High performance in high poverty schools: 90/90/90 and
beyond. Retrieved on May 5, 2010 from
www.sabine.k12.la.us/online/leadershipacademy/high%20performance%2
090%2090%2090%20and%20beyond.pdf
Reeves, D. B. (2010). Transforming professional development into student results.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Russ-Eft, D. F. (1980). Validity and reliability in survey research. Technical Report
No. 15. Statistical Analysis Group in Education, American Institutes for
Research
Schwartz, R. B. & Robinson, M. A. (2000). Goals 2000 and the standards movement.
Bookings Papers on Education Policy, 173-206.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning
organization. New York, NY: Currency Doubleday.
U. S. Department of Education. Public law print of PL 107-110, the No Child Left
Behind Act of 2001. Retrieved on May 13, 2010 from
www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html
Improvement Stakeholders 168
U. S. Department of Education. Title I - improving the academic achievement of the
disadvantaged. Retrieved on June 30, 2010 from
www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg1.html
Webber, M. (1964). The theory of social and economic organization. Talcott Parsons,
ed., A. M. Henderson and Talcott Parsons, trans. New York: The Free Press.
Welch, J. (2001). Jack: Straight from the gut. New York, NY: Warner Books, Inc.
Williams, C. (2007). Research methods. Journal of Business & Economic Research,
March, Vol. 5, No. 3. Retrieved on December 30, 2009 from
www.cluteinstitute-onlinejournals.com/PDFs/200768.pdf
Wu, M. Y. (2006). Hofstede's cultural dimensions 30 years later: A study of Taiwan
and the United States. Intercultural Communication Studies, XV(1). Retrieved
on May 19, 2010 from www.uri.edu/iaics/content/2006v15n1/04%20MingYi%20Wu.pdf
Improvement Stakeholders 169
APPENDIX A
Survey Instrument
Improvement Stakeholders 170
Improvement Stakeholders 171
Improvement Stakeholders 172
Improvement Stakeholders 173
Improvement Stakeholders 174
Improvement Stakeholders 175
Improvement Stakeholders 176
Improvement Stakeholders 177
Improvement Stakeholders 178
Improvement Stakeholders 179
Improvement Stakeholders 180
Improvement Stakeholders 181
Improvement Stakeholders 182
Improvement Stakeholders 183
APPENDIX B
Approval Letter from the Institutional Review Board
Improvement Stakeholders 184
Improvement Stakeholders 185
APPENDIX C
Email Invitation to Participate in the Test-Retest Reliability Pilot
Improvement Stakeholders 186
[FirstName]
I am currently working on a research study regarding school improvement to
complete my dissertation through Ball State University. I designed a survey to use in
my study and need to run a pilot Test-Retest to determine reliability of the
instrument. You are one of thirty principals randomly selected to participate in the
test-retest pilot, which involves completing the survey and then taking the survey a
second time two weeks later. Completing the survey will only take approximately 15
minutes of your time.
Participation in the Test-Retest involves only minimal risk, is voluntary, and will be
kept strictly confidential. Neither you nor your school will be identified in any way.
Your willingness to help with this portion of my study would be greatly appreciated.
If you are interested in participating, just click on the link, which will take you
directly to the survey.
[SurveyLink]
This link is uniquely tied to this survey and your email address. Please do not
forward this message.
Thank you for participating!
Jeanne Fredericks
Jeanne Fredericks, Ed.S.
Director of Curriculum and Instruction
Noblesville Schools
1775 Field Drive
Noblesville, IN 46060
Office: (317) 773-3171
Fax: (317) 773-7845
Cell: (317) 716-1976
jeanne_fredericks@mail.nobl.k12.in.us
Please note: If you do not wish to receive further emails from us, please click the link
below, and you will be automatically removed from our mailing list.
[RemoveLink]
Improvement Stakeholders 187
APPENDIX D
Second Request to Participants in the Pilot Test-Retest Method
to Determine Reliability
Improvement Stakeholders 188
March 15, 2010
Second request for help with dissertation survey from J. Fredericks
[FirstName]
Last week you should have received an email asking you to take part in a test/retest
to establish reliability of my dissertation survey by completing an online survey
about the involvement of non-instructional employees in your school improvement
efforts. If you have already completed the test portion of the test/retest, please
accept my sincere thanks.
If you have not and you still plan to help with my dissertation, you may access the
survey now by clicking on the link found below.
Here is a link to the survey:
[SurveyLink]
This link is uniquely tied to this survey and your email address. Please do not
forward this message.
Thank you so much for choosing to help me complete my dissertation and also give
back to education by participating in this brief, yet important, test/retest survey.
Sincerely,
Jeanne Fredericks
Please note: If you do not wish to receive further emails from us, please click the link
below, and you will be automatically removed from my mailing list.
[RemoveLink]
Improvement Stakeholders 189
APPENDIX E
Follow-up Letter of Appreciation to Participants in the Pilot
for the Test-Retest Reliability
Improvement Stakeholders 190
Dissertation Survey
March 15, 2010
[FirstName]
Thank you so much for completing the "test" portion of the test/retest for my
dissertation study. In approximately seven days you will be asked again to complete
the same survey as the "retest."
You may use the link found below to view the survey again.
[SurveyLink]
Your willingness to participate is critical to my study regarding the inclusion of noninstructional employees in school improvement efforts.
Again, thanks so much for your help. Your participation adds to the body of
knowledge surrounding school improvement.
Sincerely,
Jeanne Fredericks
Please note: If you do not wish to receive further emails from us, please click the link
below, and you will be automatically removed from our mailing list.
[RemoveLink]
Improvement Stakeholders 191
APPENDIX F
Email Invitation to Participate in the Retest Portion of the Pilot for
Test-Retest Reliability
Improvement Stakeholders 192
Dissertation Survey Retest
March 24, 2010
[FirstName]
I want to thank you again for volunteering to participate in a test-retest reliability
pilot. Enclosed you will find the exact same survey you completed approximately
two weeks ago. As a reminder, the test-retest reliability of a survey instrument is
estimated by completing the same survey with the same respondents at different
moments of time. The closer the results of the two surveys, the greater the testretest reliability of the survey instrument.
I would ask that you complete the survey as soon as possible. Ideally, everyone
participating should have the same gap in time between completing the survey the
first and second times. Since everyone who is participating in this pilot was very
responsive two weeks ago, it is important for the sake of accuracy to have a similar
responsiveness this time.
Here is a link to the survey:
[SurveyLink]
This link is uniquely tied to this survey and your email address. Please do not
forward this message.
If you have any questions or comments about this study, I would be happy to talk
with you. As well, my faculty advisor is Dr. William Sharp. He can be contacted by
email at bsharp@bsu.edu or by telephone at (765) 285-8488.
Thank you again for willingness to help me complete this study, which is geared
towards supporting schools in their improvement efforts.
Sincerely,
Jeanne
Jeanne Fredericks, Curriculum Director
Noblesville School
1775 Field Drive
Noblesville, IN 46060
Phone: 317-773-3171
Fax: 317-773-7845
Improvement Stakeholders 193
Please note: If you do not wish to receive further emails from us, please click the link
below, and you will be automatically removed from our mailing list.
[RemoveLink]
Improvement Stakeholders 194
APPENDIX G
Second Request to Participants in the Retest Portion of the Pilot Test-Retest Method
to Determine Reliability
Improvement Stakeholders 195
April 2, 2010
Second Request: Dissertation Retest from J. Fredericks
[FirstName]
A couple of weeks ago, you completed the test portion of the test/retest for my
dissertation about the involvement of non-instructional employees in your school
improvement efforts. Last week you should have received an email asking you to
take part in the RETEST to establish reliability of my dissertation survey. If you have
already completed the Retest portion of the test/retest, please accept my sincere
thanks.
If you have not and you still plan to help with my dissertation test/retest, you may
access the survey now by clicking on the link found below.
[SurveyLink]
This link is uniquely tied to this survey and your email address. Please do not
forward this message.
Thank you so much for choosing to help me complete my dissertation and also give
back to education by participating in this brief, yet important, Retest survey.
Sincerely,
Jeanne
Jeanne Fredericks
Director of Curriculum and Instruction
Noblesville School
1775 Field Drive
Noblesville, IN 46060
Phone: (317) 773-3171
Email: jeanne_fredericks@mail.nobl.k12.in.us
Please note: If you do not wish to receive further emails from us, please click the link
below, and you will be automatically removed from our mailing list.
[RemoveLink]
Improvement Stakeholders 196
APPENDIX H
Results of Cohen's Kappa Coefficient for the Test-Retest Reliability
Improvement Stakeholders 197
Cohen's Kappa Coefficient for the Test/Retest Reliability of the
Survey Instrument: A Descriptive Study of the Inclusion of NonInstructional School Employees in Indiana Improvement Efforts
Section 1: School Improvement Team
kappa
Licensed Employees Who Actively Participate
a1a Principal
nc
a1b Assistant Principal
1.000
a1c Teacher
1.000
a1d Instructional Coaches
.851
a1e Guidance Counselor
.632
a1f Media Specialist
1.000
a1g Nurse
.432
Median - Item 1
.926
Non-Instructional Employees Who Actively Participate
a2a Bus Drivers
nc
a2b Cafeteria Workers
.186
a2c Custodians
.714
a2d School Secretaries
.571
Median - Item 2
.571
Non-employees Who Actively Participate
a3a Representatives from Business & Industry
.851
a3b Parents of School-Age Children
nc
a3c Community Members
.588
a3d School Board Members
1.000
Median - Item 3
.851
Median - Section 1
.851
Section 2: School Improvement Tasks
kappa
Licensed School Employees - Developing School Profile
a4a1 Principal
nc
a4a2 Assistant Principal
.837
a4a3 Teacher
.000
a4a4 Instructional Coaches
.286
a4a5 Guidance Counselor
.317
a4a6 Media Specialist
.689
a4a7 Nurse
1.000
Median - Item a4a
.503
Note. "nc" - not calculated
The Kappa coefficient could not be calculated because one variable was a constant.
Improvement Stakeholders 198
Licensed Employees - Developing Vision, Mission, Beliefs
a4b1 Principal
nc
a4b2 Assistant Principal
1.000
a4b3 Teacher
nc
a4b4 Instructional Coaches
.708
a4b5 Guidance Counselor
1.000
a4b6 Media Specialist
.632
a4b7 Nurse
.811
Median - Item a4b
.811
Licensed Employees - Identifying School Goals
a4c1 Principal
nc
a4c2 Assistant Principal
1.000
a4c3 Teacher
nc
a4c4 Instructional Coaches
.571
a4c5 Guidance Counselor
.588
a4c6 Media Specialist
.650
a4c7 Nurse
nc
Median - Item a4c
.619
Licensed Employees - Collecting and Analyzing Data
a4d1 Principal
nc
a4d2 Assistant Principal
1.000
a4d3 Teacher
nc
a4d4 Instructional Coaches
.571
a4d5 Guidance Counselor
.432
a4d6 Media Specialist
1.000
a4d7 Nurse
nc
Median - Item a4d
.786
Licensed Employees - Monitoring Implementation
a4e1 Principal
nc
a4e2 Assistant Principal
1.000
a4e3 Teacher
.632
a4e4 Instructional Coaches
.708
a4e5 Guidance Counselor
.512
a4e6 Media Specialist
1.000
a4e7 Nurse
nc
Median - Item a4e
.708
Note. "nc" - not calculated
The Kappa coefficient could not be calculated because one variable was a constant.
Improvement Stakeholders 199
Licensed Employees - Program/Initiative Evaluation
a4f1 Principal
nc
a4f2 Assistant Principal
1.000
a4f3 Teacher
1.000
a4f4 Instructional Coaches
.708
a4f5 Guidance Counselor
.576
a4f6 Media Specialist
.837
a4f7 Nurse
nc
Median - Item a4f
.837
Non-Instructional Employees - Developing School Profile
a5a1 Bus Drivers
nc
a5a2 Cafeteria Workers
.632
a5a3 Custodians
.811
a5a4 School Secretaries
.689
Median - Item a5a
.689
Non-Instructional Employees: Developing Vision, Mission, Goals
a5b1 Bus Drivers
nc
a5b2 Cafeteria Workers
.378
a5b3 Custodians
.553
a5b4 School Secretaries
.553
Median - Item a5a
.553
Non-Instructional Employees: Identifying School Goals
a5c1 Bus Drivers
nc
a5c2 Cafeteria Workers
nc
a5c3 Custodians
nc
a5c4 School Secretaries
.243
Median - Item a5a
.243
Non-Instructional Employees: Collecting and Analyzing Data
a5d1 Bus Drivers
nc
a5d2 Cafeteria Workers
nc
a5d3 Custodians
.000
a5d4 School Secretaries
.417
Median - Item a5a
.209
Non-Instructional Employees: Monitoring Implementation
a5e1 Bus Drivers
nc
a5e2 Cafeteria Workers
nc
a5e3 Custodians
.000
a5e4 School Secretaries
.276
Median - Item a5a
.138
Note. "nc" - not calculated
The Kappa coefficient could not be calculated because one variable was a constant.
Improvement Stakeholders 200
Non-Instructional Employees: Program/Initiative Evaluation
a5f1 Bus Drivers
nc
a5f2 Cafeteria Workers
.000
a5f3 Custodians
.000
a5f4 School Secretaries
.000
Median - Item a5a
.000
Non-Employees: Developing School Profile
a6a1 Business and Industry
nc
a6a2 Parents
.571
a6a3 Community Members
.708
a6a4 School Board Members
nc
Median - Item a6a
.640
Non-Employees: Developing Vision, Mission, and Beliefs
a6b1 Business and Industry
.696
a6b2 Parents
.512
a6b3 Community Members
.588
a6b4 School Board Members
.588
Median - Item a6b
.588
Non-Employees: Identifying School Goals
a6c1 Business and Industry
.696
a6c2 Parents
.571
a6c3 Community Members
.571
a6c4 School Board Members
.632
Median - Item a6c
.602
Non-Employees: Collecting and Analyzing Data
a6d1 Business and Industry
.759
a6d2 Parents
.689
a6d3 Community Members
.837
a6d4 School Board Members
nc
Median - Item a6d
.759
Non-Employees: Monitoring Implementation
a6e1 Business and Industry
.759
a6e2 Parents
.689
a6e3 Community Members
.650
a6e4 School Board Members
1.000
Median - Item a6e
.724
Note. "nc" - not calculated
The Kappa coefficient could not be calculated because one variable was a constant.
Improvement Stakeholders 201
Non-Employees: Program/Initiative Evaluation
a6f1 Business and Industry
a6f2 Parents
a6f3 Community Members
a6f4 School Board Members
Median - Item a6f
Median - Section 2
.659
.143
.571
nc
.571
.611
Section 3: Working with Students
kappa
Licensed School Employees
a7a Principals
.656
a7b Assistant Principals
.559
a7c Teachers
nc
a7d Instructional Coaches
.689
a7e Counselor
.421
a7f Media Specialist
.588
a7g Nurse
.333
Median - Item 7
.574
Non-Instructional School Employees
a8a Bus Drivers
.364
a8b Cafeteria Workers
.255
a8c Custodians
.426
a8d School Secretaries
.364
Median - Item 8
.364
Non-Employees
a9a Business and Industry
.386
a9b Parents
.108
a9c Community Members
.200
a9d School Board Members
.453
Median - Item 9
.293
Median - Section 3
.364
Note. "nc" - not calculated
The Kappa coefficient could not be calculated because one variable was a constant.
Improvement Stakeholders 202
Section 4: Stakeholder Group Benefits
Licensed Employees
a10a Educational Preparation or Degrees Earned
.000
a10b Job-related Experience and/or Skill Set
nc
a10c Leadership Potential
.000
a10d Ability to Work Cooperatively with Others
nc
a10e Commitment to the School
nc
a10f Visibility within the Community
.286
a10g Relationship to Students
nc
Median - Section 10
.143
Non-Instructional Employees
a11a Educational Preparation or Degrees Earned
.317
a11b Job-related Experience and/or Skill Set
.000
a11c Leadership Potential
.553
a11d Ability to Work Cooperatively with Others
nc
a11e Commitment to the School
nc
a11f Visibility within the Community
.432
a11g Relationship to Students
.000
Median - Section 11
.432
Non-Employees
a12a Educational Preparation or Degrees Earned
.323
a12b Job-related Experience and/or Skill Set
.000
a12c Leadership Potential
.286
a12d Ability to Work Cooperatively with Others
.054
a12e Commitment to the School
.000
a12f Visibility within the Community
.000
a12g Relationship to Students
.300
Median - Item 12
.293
Rank Employees According to Their Value for School Improvement
a13a Licensed Employees
nc
a13b Non-Instructional Employees
.818
a13c Non-Employees
.811
Median - Item 13
.815
Median - Section 4
.363
Note. "nc" - not calculated
The Kappa coefficient could not be calculated because one variable was a constant.
Improvement Stakeholders 203
Section 5: Limitations to Involvement
Licensed Employees
a14a Contractual Agreement
.540
a14b Job Responsibilities
.693
a14c Additional Costs
.166
a14d Need for Substitutes
.382
a14e Level of Earnings
.136
a14f Finding Common Meeting Dates and Times
.354
Median - Item 14
.368
Non-Instructional Employees
a15a Contractual Agreement
.104
a15b Job Responsibilities
.000
a15c Additional Costs
.000
a15d Need for Substitutes
.125
a15e Level of Earnings
.323
a15f Finding Common Meeting Dates and Times
.329
Median - Item 15
.115
Non-Employees
a16a Contractual Agreement
nc
a16b Job Responsibilities
.074
a16c Additional Costs
.300
a16d Need for Substitutes
.000
a16e Level of Earnings
.000
a16f Finding Common Meeting Dates and Times
.440
Median - Item 16
.074
Median - Section 5
.115
Note. "nc" - not calculated
The Kappa coefficient could not be calculated because one variable was a constant.
Improvement Stakeholders 204
Section 6: Principal's Beliefs and Actions
Licensed Employees
a17a I expect participation.
a17b I recruit individuals to participate.
a17c I recruit individuals to lead.
a17d I find and provide time for groups to work.
a17e I expect competent completion of tasks.
a17f I value the group's input.
a17g I ask the group to make important decisions.
a17h I have the final say.
Median - Item 17
Non-Instructional Employees
a18a I expect participation.
a18b I recruit individuals to participate.
a18c I recruit individuals to lead.
a18d I find and provide time for groups to work.
a18e I expect competent completion of tasks.
a18f I value the group's input.
a18g I ask the group to make important decisions.
a18h I have the final say.
Median - Item 18
Non-Employee Groups
a19a I expect participation.
a19b I recruit individuals to participate.
a19c I recruit individuals to lead.
a19d I find and provide time for groups to work.
a19e I expect competent completion of tasks.
a19f I value the group's input.
a19g I ask the group to make important decisions.
a19h I have the final say.
Median - Item 19
Median - Section 6
kappa
nc
.079
nc
.000
.188
nc
.000
.053
.053
.079
.014
.319
.347
.489
.537
.119
.023
.160
.470
.449
.234
.155
.125
.294
.194
.263
.249
.160
Section 7: School Improvement Model
kappa
a20 Which model is used for SIP?
.767
Median - Section 7
.767
Note. "nc" - not calculated
The Kappa coefficient could not be calculated because one variable was a constant.
Improvement Stakeholders 205
a21
a22
a23
a24
Section 8: School Performance
Did your school make AYP for 2008-09?
Performance category earned?
In school improvement?
Percent of free and reduced priced lunch?
Median - Section 8
kappa
.867
.886
.494
1.000
.877
a25
a26
a27
a28
Section 9: Demographic Information
School Classification
School Enrollment
Gender
Experience as a Principal
Median - Section 9
kappa
.639
.879
1.000
.789
.834
All Sections
kappa
.611
Median
Note. "nc" - not calculated
The Kappa coefficient could not be calculated because one variable was a constant.
Improvement Stakeholders 206
APPENDIX I
Email Invitation to the Random Sample Requesting Participation in the Research
Study Online Survey
Improvement Stakeholders 207
April 2010
Noblesville Schools/Fredericks/School Improvement Research Study
[FirstName]
I am writing to ask for your help in completing a research study regarding school
improvement efforts by Indiana public schools. My research, entitled A Descriptive
Study of the Inclusion of Non-Instructional School Employees in Indiana
Improvement Efforts, examines the extent to which non-instructional staff members
are included in efforts to improve schools and increase student achievement. Your
knowledge and experience as the instructional leader in your school is essential to
this study.
Participation in the study involves only minimal risk, is voluntary, and will be kept
strictly confidential. Neither you nor your school will be identified in any way. If you
decide to participate, your completion of the online survey will indicate your
consent to participate.
Out of respect for your busy schedule, the linked online survey should take no more
than 15 minutes to complete.
Here is a link to the survey:
[SurveyLink]
This link is uniquely tied to this survey and your email address. Please do not
forward this message.
You can learn more about your rights as a research subject by contacting the IRB at
Institutional Review Board, Research Compliance, Sponsored Programs Office, Ball
State University, Muncie, IN 47306, (765) 285-5070, irb@bsu.edu.
If you have further questions or comments about this study, please feel free to
contact me directly at (317) 773-3171 or jeanne_fredericks@mail.nobl.k12.in.us.
You can also reach my Ball State University faculty advisor, Dr. William Sharp, at
bsharp@bsu.edu or (765) 285-8488 with any questions you may have.
By taking a few minutes to share your opinions and experiences related to school
improvement, you will be helping me complete my doctoral studies and, at the same
time, giving back to our educational profession. I hope you enjoy completing the
survey and look forward to receiving your responses.
Thanks for your participation!
Jeanne Fredericks
Improvement Stakeholders 208
Jeanne Fredericks
Director of Curriculum and Instruction
Noblesville Schools
1775 Field Drive
Noblesville, IN 46060
Please note: If you do not wish to receive further emails from us, please click the link
below, and you will be automatically removed from our mailing list.
[RemoveLink]
Improvement Stakeholders 209
APPENDIX J
Reminder Email Notice Sent to Research Study Online Survey Non-Respondents
Improvement Stakeholders 210
April 2010
Thank You/Friendly Reminder
[FirstName]
Last week you should have received an email asking you to complete an online
survey about the involvement of non-instructional employees in your school
improvement efforts. If you have already completed the survey, please accept my
sincere thanks.
If you have not and you still plan to do so, you may access the survey now by
clicking on the link found below:
[SurveyLink]
Thank you for choosing to complete this brief, yet important, survey.
Sincerely,
Jeanne Fredericks
Jeanne Fredericks
Director of Curriculum and Instruction
Noblesville Schools
1775 Field Drive
Noblesville, IN 46060
Phone: (317) 773-3171
jeanne_fredericks@mail.nobl.k12.in.us
Please note: If you do not wish to receive further emails from us, please click the link
below, and you will be automatically removed from our mailing list.
[RemoveLink]
Improvement Stakeholders 211
APPENDIX K
Final Email Notice Sent to Research Study Online Survey Non-Respondents
Improvement Stakeholders 212
[FirstName]
Subject: Third and Final Request for Help with School Improvement Survey
Two weeks ago, a survey was emailed to you seeking your views about the
involvement of non-instructional employees in your school improvement efforts. To
the best of my knowledge, I have not yet received your response. If you have already
completed the online survey, please accept my sincere thanks.
I am emailing you in the hope that you will still be willing to participate in the
survey. Your response is vital to producing accurate results for this study. It is only
by hearing from nearly everyone in the sample that I can ensure the results truly
represent the opinions and practices of public school principals across Indiana.
You may access the online survey now by clicking on the link found below:
[SurveyLink]
Thank you for choosing to complete this brief, yet important, survey.
Sincerely,
Jeanne
Jeanne Fredericks
Director of Curriculum and Instruction
Noblesville Schools
1775 Field Drive
Noblesville, IN 46060
Office: (317) 773-3171
jeanne_fredericks@mail.nobl.k12.in.us
Please note: If you do not wish to receive further emails from us, please click the link
below, and you will be automatically removed from our mailing list.
[RemoveLink]
Improvement Stakeholders 213
APPENDIX L
Raw Data
214
Improvement Stakeholders
Section 1 - School Improvement Team
Item
1
Principal
184
100.00%
Item
2
Bus Drivers
15
8.57%
Business & Industry
Item
3
89
48.6%
Assistant Principal
79
42.94%
Cafeteria Workers
32
18.29%
176
Parents
96.2%
Teacher
149
80.98%
Custodians
49
28.00%
Community
Members
100
54.6%
Instructional
Coach
78
42.39%
School
Secretaries
96
54.86%
School Board
Members
63
34.4%
Guidance
Counselor
102
55.43%
None of the
Above
74
42.29%
2
Other
1.09%
Media
Specialist
66
35.87%
21
Total
183
Other
12.00%
31
Total
175
Nurse
16.85%
13
Other
7.07%
Total
184
215
Improvement Stakeholders
Section 2 - School Improvement Tasks
Licensed Employees
Item
Principal
a4a
178
97.27%
a4b
178
97.27%
a4c
178
97.27%
a4d
176
96.17%
a4e
180
98.36%
a4f
181
98.91%
Non-Instructional Employees
Response
Average
179
97.54%
Item
Bus Drivers
a5a
7
3.78%
a5b
11
5.95%
a5c
9
4.86%
a5d
1
.54%
a5e
4
2.16%
a5f
4
2.16%
Non-Employees
Response
Average
6
3.14%
Business &
Item
Industry
a6a
61
34.66%
a6b
72
40.91%
a6c
63
35.80%
a6d
35
19.89%
a6e
41
23.30%
a6f
51
28.98%
Response
Average
54
30.59%
Assistant
Principal
77
42.08%
85
46.35%
85
46.45%
81
44.26%
84
45.90%
84
45.90%
Teacher
135
74.18%
173
94.54%
180
98.36%
172
93.99%
146
79.78%
141
77.05%
Instructional
Coach
53
28.96%
74
40.44%
84
45.90%
84
45.90%
74
40.44%
65
35.52%
Guidance
Counselor
90
49.18%
116
62.39%
107
58.47%
105
57.38%
87
47.54%
85
46.45%
Media
Specialist
46
25.14%
62
32.88%
56
30.60%
50
26.88%
38
20.77%
41
22.40%
17
25
19
19
10
12
Nurse
9.29%
1.37%
10.38%
10.38%
5.46%
6.56%
21
31
28
23
23
23
Other
11.48%
16.94%
15.30%
12.57%
12.57%
12.57%
83
45.17%
Cafeteria
Workers
10
5.41%
20
10.81%
13
7.03%
5
2.70%
10
5.41%
9
4.86%
158
72
98
53.57%
49
17
7.24%
25
13.57%
Custodians
20
10.81%
30
16.22%
22
11.89%
6
3.24%
12
6.49%
12
6.49%
39.53%
School
Secretaries
59
31.89%
66
35.68%
45
29.32%
46
24.86%
41
22.16%
28
15.14%
23
28
24
22
24
26
Other
12.43%
15.14%
12.97%
11.89%
12.97%
14.05%
Total
73
87
68
62
62
51
11
48
26.51%
School Board
Members
33
18.75%
46
25.14%
36
20.45%
23
13.07%
32
18.18%
32
18.18%
25
Parents
118
67.05%
138
78.41%
132
75.00%
67
38.07%
81
46.02%
96
54.55%
17
9.19%
Community
Members
61
34.66%
80
45.45%
68
38.64%
38
21.59%
45
25.57%
53
30.11%
7
9
7
9
9
10
Other
3.98%
5.11%
3.98%
5.11%
5.11%
5.68%
Total
127
153
144
81
101
114
105
58
34
9
4.83%
6.04%
59.85%
86.32%
32.67%
18.96%
26.45%
Total
182
183
183
181
182
182
216
Improvement Stakeholders
Section 3 - Working With Students
Licensed Employees
Item
Often
a7a
46
25.00%
a7b
19
10.33%
a7c
181
98.34%
a7d
98
53.26%
a7e
63
34.24%
a7f
79
42.93%
a7g
4
2.17%
Non-Instructional Employees
Item
Often
a8a
1
.56%
a8b
3
1.67%
a8c
2
1.11%
a8d
12
6.67%
Non-Employees
Item
Often
a9a
10
5.40%
a9b
53
28.96%
a9c
19
10.27%
a9d
1
.54%
Sometimes
96
52.17%
58
31.52%
2
1.09%
19
10.33%
79
42.94%
69
37.50%
29
15.76%
41
25
0
6
21
17
58
Rarely
22.28%
13.59%
0.00%
3.26%
11.41%
9.24%
31.52%
1
4
0
5
3
6
47
Never
.54%
2.17%
0.00%
3.72%
1.66%
3.26%
25.54%
Response Average
2.00
2.24
1.02
1.41
1.78
1.71
3.07
Total
184
106
183
128
166
171
138
Sometimes
11
6.11%
11
6.11%
17
9.44%
52
28.89%
45
55
60
73
Rarely
25.00%
30.56%
33.33%
40.56%
109
102
92
42
Never
60.56%
56.67%
51.11%
23.33%
Response Average
3.58
3.50
3.42
2.81
Total
166
171
171
179
Sometimes
44
2.16%
84
45.41%
67
36.22%
14
7.57%
66
33
57
46
Rarely
36.07%
17.84%
30.81%
25.14%
55
12
36
109
Never
30.05%
6.56%
19.67%
59.56%
Response Average
2.95
2.02
2.61
3.55
Total
175
182
179
170
217
Improvement Stakeholders
Section 4 - Stakeholder Group Benefits
Licensed Employees
Item
Frequency
a10a
157
a10b
164
a10c
157
a10d
173
a10e
171
a10f
87
a10g
175
Non-Instructional Employees
Item
Frequency
a11a
55
a11b
128
a11c
76
a11d
161
a11e
159
a11f
81
a11g
163
Non-Employees
Item
Frequency
a12a
54
a12b
118
a12c
69
a12d
134
a12e
152
a12f
95
a12g
125
Percent
86.26%
90.10%
86.26%
95.05%
93.96%
47.80%
96.15%
Percent
31.07%
72.32%
42.94%
90.96%
89.80%
45.76%
92.09%
Percent
30.51%
66.67%
39.98%
75.71%
85.88%
53.67%
70.62%
Stakeholder Value to School Improvement Efforts
Item
Most Important (1st)
Important (2nd)
a13a
178
2
a13b
2
138
a13c
2
42
Least Important (3rd)
0
38
137
Response Average
1.01
2.20
2.75
Total
180
178
181
218
Improvement Stakeholders
Section 5 - Limitations to Involvement
Licensed Employees
Item
Highly Limiting
a14a
28
15.64%
a14b
16
8.94%
a14c
55
30.73%
a14d
51
28.49%
a14e
2
1.12%
a14f
47
26.26%
Non-Instructional Employees
Item
Highly Limiting
a15a
23
13.14%
a15b
38
21.71%
a15c
40
22.86%
a15d
23
13.14%
a15e
11
6.29%
a15f
58
33.14%
Non-Employees
Item
Highly Limiting
a16a
8
4.52%
a16b
47
26.55%
a16c
9
5.08%
a16d
2
1.13%
a16e
2
1.13%
a16f
83
46.89%
Moderately Limiting
56
31.28%
78
43.58%
61
34.08%
59
32.96%
29
16.20%
73
40.78%
Slightly Limiting
42
13.46%
56
31.28%
33
18.44%
41
22.91%
38
21.23%
43
24.02%
Not Limiting
52
29.05%
28
15.64%
29
16.20%
27
15.08%
106
59.22%
16
8.94%
Response Average
2.66
2.54
2.20
2.25
3.41
2.16
Total
178
178
178
178
175
179
Moderately Limiting
25
14.29%
57
32.57%
39
22.29%
23
13.14%
17
9.71%
52
29.71%
Slightly Limiting
22
12.57%
49
28.00%
46
26.29%
37
21.14%
35
20.00%
37
21.14%
Not Limiting
103
58.86%
29
16.57%
49
18.00%
90
51.43%
107
61.14%
25
14.29%
Response Average
3.10
2.33
2.54
3.03
3.30
2.08
Total
173
173
174
173
170
172
Moderately Limiting
8
4.52%
52
29.38%
11
621%
4
2.26%
10
5.65%
51
28.81%
Slightly Limiting
8
4.52%
29
16.38%
29
16.38%
8
4.52%
9
5.08%
22
12.43%
Not Limiting
150
84.75%
45
25.42%
125
70.62%
159
89.83%
152
85.88%
19
10.73%
Response Average
3.64
2.35
3.47
3.63
3.69
1.83
Total
174
173
174
173
173
175
219
Improvement Stakeholders
Section 6 - Principal's Beliefs and Actions
Licensed Employees
Item
Strongly Agree
a17a
166
94.32%
a17b
140
79.55%
a17c
133
75.57%
a17d
122
69.32%
a17e
159
90.34%
a17f
169
96.02%
a17g
146
82.95%
a17h
70
39.77%
Non-Instructional Employees
Item
Strongly Agree
a18a
50
29.41%
a18b
59
34.71%
a18c
30
17.65%
a18d
37
21.76%
a18e
65
38.24%
a18f
96
56.47%
a18g
42
24.71%
a18h
76
44.71%
Non-Employees
Item
Strongly Agree
a19a
50
28.74%
a19b
81
46.55%
a19c
36
20.69%
a19d
35
20.11%
a19e
72
41.38%
a19f
114
64.52%
a19g
52
28.89%
a19h
79
45.40%
Somewhat Agree
10
5.68%
33
18.75%
43
24.43%
49
27.84%
17
9.66%
6
3.41%
29
16.48%
75
42.61%
Somewhat Disagree
0
0.00%
2
1.14%
0
0.00%
1
5.68%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
23
13.07%
Strongly Disagree
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
2
1.14%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
7
3.98%
Response Average
1.06
1.21
1.24
1.33
1.10
1.07
1.17
1.81
Total
176
175
176
174
176
175
175
175
Somewhat Agree
82
48.24%
74
43.53%
61
35.88%
76
44.71%
61
35.88%
56
32.94%
65
38.24%
60
35.29%
Somewhat Disagree
29
17.06%
27
15.88%
60
35.29%
37
21.76%
28
16.47%
11
6.47%
46
27.06%
22
12.94%
Strongly Disagree
9
5.29%
9
5.29%
19
11.18%
19
11.18%
14
8.24%
6
3.53%
15
8.82%
12
7.06%
Response Average
1.98
1.92
2.40
2.22
1.89
1.57
2.20
1.82
Total
170
169
170
169
168
169
168
170
Somewhat Agree
74
42.53%
70
40.23%
68
39.08%
95
54.60%
66
37.93%
53
30.46%
71
40.80%
59
33.91%
Somewhat Disagree
36
20.69%
17
9.77%
56
32.18%
34
19.54%
24
13.79%
5
2.87%
36
20.69%
21
12.07%
Strongly Disagree
13
7.47%
4
2.30%
13
7.47%
9
5.17%
11
6.32%
2
1.15%
14
8.05%
9
5.17%
Response Average
2.07
1.67
2.27
2.10
1.85
1.40
2.07
1.76
Total
173
172
173
173
173
174
173
168
Improvement Stakeholders
Section 7 - School Improvement Model
Item
a20a
a20b
a20c
a20d
a20e
a20f
a20g
a20h
a20i
a20j
a20k
a20l
a20m
a20n
a20o
a20p
a20q
a20r
Total
Frequency
64
0
3
1
0
0
13
9
0
0
29
9
1
3
3
1
30
10
166
Percent
38.55%
0.00%
1.81%
0.60%
0.00%
0.00%
7.83%
5.42%
0.00%
0.00%
17.47%
5.42%
0.60%
1.81%
1.81%
0.60%
18.07%
6.02%
100.00%
220
Improvement Stakeholders
Section 8 - School Performance
Adequate Yearly Progress
Item
Frequency
a21a
92
a21b
82
a21c
3
Total
177
Percent
51.98%
46.33%
1.69%
100.00%
P L. 221 Performance Category
Item
Frequency
a22a
45
a22b
28
a22c
33
a22d
59
a22e
9
a22f
4
Total
178
Percent
25.28%
15.73%
18.53%
33.14%
5.05%
2.24%
100.00%
School Improvement Status
Item
Frequency
a23a
69
a23b
107
Total
176
Percent
39.20%
60.79%
100.00%
Free and Reduced Priced Lunch Population
Item
Frequency
Percent
a24a
32
17.97%
a24b
72
40.44%
a24c
50
28.08%
a24d
24
13.48%
Total
178
100.00%
221
Improvement Stakeholders
Section 9 - Demographic Information
School Type
Item
a25a
a25b
a25c
a25d
Total
Frequency
83
27
34
33
177
Percent
46.89%
15.25%
19.21%
18.64%
100.00%
School Enrollment
Item
Frequency
a26a
1
a26b
24
a26c
72
a26d
67
a26e
13
a26f
1
Total
178
Percent
0.6%
13.5%
40.5%
37.6%
7.3%
.6%
100.00%
Gender of Principal
Item
Frequency
a27a
102
a27b
73
Total
175
Percent
58.29%
41.71%
100.00%
Years of Experience as Principal
Item
Frequency
a28a
7
a28b
28
a28c
41
a28d
34
a28e
49
a28f
19
Total
178
Percent
3.93%
15.73%
23.03%
19.10%
27.53%
10.67%
100.00%
222