Practice Proposal Writing: Chapters 1, 2, 3
Timothy D. McCarthy
St. John’s University
Chapter I
INTRODUCTION
The Purpose of the Study
This was a preliminary study examining one of the 21 responsibilities of leadership as
defined by Marzano, Waters, and McNulty (2005). This study examines the flexibility of a high
school principal and the impact on student achievement by using the Marzano, Waters, and
McNulty (2005) conceptual framework for developing effective principals. The research used
qualitative case study design where principals and teachers were used as subjects. The ultimate
goal and purpose of this study was to examine the principal’s perception of flexibility and school
conditions, which behaviors of flexibility most significantly impact student learning, and how the
conditions and behaviors impact student learning. Research reported to guide and support these
findings is reviewed in chapter two and was used to develop data analysis.
Background
There is growing evidence that weak school leadership leads to poor school performance
and that leadership is a key factor for success in fostering the learning of students. Bryk et al.
(2010) melded quantitative and qualitative research designs in conducting research in Chicago
public schools regarding how the five essential supports of school leadership, parent and
community ties, professional capacity, a student-centered climate, and an instructional guidance
system impact student learning and ultimately school improvement. In their study conducted
from 1990 to 1996, they found “not even one case of sustained school improvement in Chicago
where local leadership remained chronically weak (Bryk et al., 2010 p. 199).” They further note
that without strong school leadership, it will be highly unlikely that that school will see
significant improvement.
In another study conducted by Marzano, Waters and McNulty (2005) states, “whether a
school operates effectively or not increases or decreases a student’s chances of academic success
(p. 3)” and the leadership within these schools is “considered to be vital to the successful
functioning of many aspects of a school (p. 5).” The most important aspect of schooling, and our
ultimate goal, is to educate the children that we teach. Marzano (2005) points out that student’s
opportunity to learn is linked to the leadership in a school building as noted by the studies
conducted by Duke and Canady (1991), Dwyer (1986), and Murphy & Hallinger (1989).
Although there are many studies linking aspects of schooling to leadership, Marzano (2005)
illustrates that there is a lack of research supporting leadership and student achievement.
Donmoyer (1985), as quoted by Marzano (2005) states, “Recent studies of schools
invariably identify the principal’s leadership as a significant factor in a school’s success.
Unfortunately these studies provide only limited insight into how principals contribute to their
school’s achievements (p. 6).” To draw a conclusion on the impact of leadership behaviors on
student achievement, Marzano (2005) conducted a meta-analysis which refers to “an array of
techniques for synthesizing a vast amount of research quantitatively...[which] allows researchers
to form statistically based generalizations regarding the research within a given field (p. 7),” This
research spanned over 35 years while encompassing 69 quantitative studies regarding leadership
and student achievement. They concluded from this analysis that principals can have a profound
impact on student achievement. From this, they outline 21 responsibilities, or behaviors, of a
principal and their respective correlations with student achievement with an average correlation
of .25. Flexibility, as defined by Marzano (2005), is the “extent to which leaders adapt their
leadership behavior to the needs of the current situation and are comfortable with dissent (p.
49).” This behavior has the second highest correlation (.28) with student achievement, which
denotes the significance of this responsibility. Specific behaviors that Marzano (2005) associates
under the umbrella of flexibility are:
- Adapting leadership style to the needs of specific situations
- Being directive or nondirective as the situation warrants
- Encouraging people to express diverse and contrary opinions
- Being comfortable with making major changes in how things are done
As this research has shown that school leadership effects student learning, developing and
maintaining a sense of flexibility is essential for an effective building leader which suggests there
is need to research which behaviors of flexibility most significantly impact student learning.
Leithwood et al. (2004) state that there is “much to learn about which forms of leadership
are most likely to foster student learning and how such successful forms of leadership, often
exercised at a distance from students, eventually make a contribution to their learning (p. 17).”
Rowan (1996), as cited by Leithwood et al. (2004), provides a framework that “assumes that
variation in workplace performance is a function of the capacities, motivations and commitments
of a workplace personnel, the characteristics of the settings in which they work and the external
environment” (p. 17). According to this framework, the leader is a crucial component of school
leadership and this leader plays an integral role in navigating the everyday internal and external
demands of a school system. This framework has been used to in educational contexts to
examine how schools and districts respond to various policies and the extent to which these
responses were successful.
Statement of the Problem
Leithwood et al. (2004) claims that “evidence argues for research aimed less at the
development of particular leadership models and more at discovering how such flexibility is
exercised by those in various leadership roles (p. 22).” Given the importance of the
responsibilities of principals, the problem is that there is lack of research on leadership behavior
of flexibility. As a result, the researcher will examine this problem through qualitative,
phenomenological, research. The research will examine how principals exercise flexibility in
their leadership roles to create conditions in their schools which promote student learning in
secondary schools on Long Island, New York.
Research Questions
The following research questions were used to guide the study.
 What are current situations that call for responsiveness?
 How do leaders exercise their leadership knowledge skills to adapt to these variables?
 How do principals adapt his or her leadership style to the needs of the current situation?
 What can we learn about teacher practices and school conditions when high school
principals are asked open-ended questions about their perceived leadership practice of
flexibility?
 What are the specific teacher practices, school conditions, and behaviors of leadership
flexibility that impact student learning?
Significance of the Study
This research may allow principals in the study and others to determine ways in which
they are utilizing flexibility to impact student learning and will potentially benefit students,
teachers, principals, and schools to positively influence student achievement.
Definition of Terms
Responsibility- Marzano (2005) defines responsibility as a leadership behavior exhibited by a
building principal.
Student Learning- the perceived increase the expected passing rate of students at any given task
Flexibility- the extent in which a principal adapts his or her leadership style to fit the needs of a
particular situation.
School leader- the head of a school building and/or principal of a school building.
Chapter II
Guiding Questions
 How does the schools organizational structure of a school influence leadership
behaviors?
 What types of schools are the most likely to allow for the greatest leadership flexibility?
 What leadership approaches are necessary to be an effective leader?
 What leadership knowledge skills are necessary to be an effective leader?
 How can principals adapt his or her leadership style to the needs of the current situation?
Organizational Structure
Types of Schools
Leadership Approaches
Knowledge Skills
Flexibility
Organizations can be boiled down to three main structures: bureaucratic, participatory,
and alternative models of organizational structure. Much research and several studies have been
devoted to these ideas, yet there are some researchers and theorists that have pioneered these
particular facets of organization. It has been said that it is “the school administrator’s job is to
contribute to the achievement of organizational effectiveness (Lunenburg, 2008, p. 44).” The
means in which one achieves effectiveness varies from person to person and organization to
organization. Bureaucratic structures and theorist Max Weber postulate that the effectiveness is
achieved by a highly centralized organization with clear rules and highly specialized tasks/jobs
that are to be strictly followed. For Weber, his “ideal” bureaucracy includes division of labor,
rules, hierarchy of authority, impersonality, and competence. The division of labor requires that
the all tasks within the organization are divided into highly specialized jobs with rules that allow
one to perform according to predetermined concrete rules. The hierarchy is characterized by a
clear chain of command from the top down, and these managers have an impersonal attitude
towards their subordinates. Finally, the competence component bases employment on
qualifications and gives promotions based on past job-performance (Lunenburg, 2008).
Participatory organizations, as characterized by Douglas McGregor and Renesis Likert,
focus on supportive relationships, group decisions, and high performance goals; it is the polar
opposite of Weber’s model. These organizations and be further described as team oriented where
communication flows freely in all directions, a stark contrast to Weber’s top down flow of
communication. McGregor postulates that actions by managers come from the ideas they hold
about their employees. He says that these conceptions of people fit into one of two categories,
Theory X and Theory Y. Those who would be categorized as “X” are those who dislike work,
and because of this they must be directed and controlled. Theory Y would be a person who is
genuinely happy and committed to what they are doing, and they may even seek and accept
responsibility. When the manager feels that their subordinates are characterized as Theory X,
then a bureaucratic structure similar to Weber would be implemented. On the contrary, if they
view their employees as Theory Y, then a participatory structure would be used (Lunenburg,
2008).
In addition to McGregor, another theorist, Renesis Likert, explains organizational
structures in participatory terms. Renesis Likert explains his model of organizational structure
along a continuum according the relationship between the superior and the subordinate. His
model, System 4, is naturally divided into four categories: System 1 (exploitive-authoritative),
System 2 (benevolent-authoritative), System 3 (consultive), and System 4 (participative). In his
model, he explains that system 4 (similar to McGregor’s Theory Y) is ideal and that System 1
(similar to McGreor’s Theory X and Weber’s bureaucratic model) is on the opposite side of the
continuum (Lunenburg, 2008).
Alternative models stem from both participatory and bureaucratic models, and one
leading theorist is Henry Mintzberg. These models tend to be more complex as they include
more factors, yet they can also be less rigid in terms of their definition. In his model, Mintzberg
suggests that organizations can be different along three dimensions: the key part of the
organization that determines success or failure, the major method the organization it uses to
coordinate its activities (the prime coordinating mechanism), and the type of decentralization
used determines how much subordinates are involved in the decision. From this, Mintzberg
states that the strategies an organization adopts and the extent to which it practices that strategy
(or structural organization) will result in five structural configurations: simple structure, machine
bureaucracy (like Weber’s model), professional bureaucracy, divisonalized form, and adhocracy
(similar to Likert’s System 4 and McGregor’s Theory Y). It is noted that many of these practices
are similar to, or a combination of, bureaucratic and participatory structures (Lunenburg, 2008).
With these organizational structures in mind, Glickman, Gordon, and Ross-Gordon
(2010) named three types of schools that would fit into these organizational structures. The types
of schools that they defined were conventional, congenial, and collegial. The conventional
school would be characteristic of a bureaucratic organizational structure which is dependent on
hierarchy and professional isolation. The congenial school is also characterized by professional
isolation with a strong dependency on hierarchy yet members are friendly and sociable. The
collegial school has a commitment to vision and goals by making informed decisions
democratically. This last school is similar to a participatory model of organizational structure,
and Glickman (2010) calls for a paradigm shift from the conventional school to that of collegial.
To meet the challenges of obtaining a collegial school, Glickman (2010) offers four
supervisory approaches which form a continuum for leadership styles that can and should be
adapted to a particular situation. These four approaches are nondirective, collaborative, directive
informational, and directive control. Nondirective control is where the administrator steps back
and allows the teacher to take control in a truly participatory model. The collaborative approach
encourages all parties involved to share their opinions of a particular problem or situation in
order to create a decision supported by all. When the leader uses the directive informational
approach, they are giving the choice of a select amount of options where directive control is
more bureaucratic in nature as a directive is given.
Waters and Grubb (2004) synthesize McREL’s knowledge taxonomy of four types of
knowledge that is essential to be an effective leader. The four types are contextual knowledge
(knowing when to fulfill responsibilities and practices), experiential (knowing why the
responsibilities and practices are important), declarative knowledge (knowing what
responsibilities and practices to fulfill), and procedural knowledge (knowing how to fulfill
responsibilities and research-based practices). Waters (2004) states that in order to be an
effective and sustained leader, one must be well versed in each knowledge area. This is similar to
Glickman’s (2010) concept of supervision where one needs to be able to navigate between the
knowledge, interpersonal, and technical skills in order to serve as the glue for an organization
which seeks to improve academic achievement.
Marzano (2005) summarizes flexibility with the work of Paul Hersey and
Kenneth Blanchard on the theory of situational leadership where the leader adapts his or her
behavior according to the staff and the situation. When followers are unable and willing, one
would use the “telling style” to have the staff to perform a task. If the followers are unable but
willing, the leader will facilitate this process using a “participating style.” If the staff is unwilling
but able, he or she would have to implement the “selling style,” and if the followers are both
willing and able, the leader should implement the “delegating style” of leadership. This too is
similar to Glickman (2010) and Waters (2004) as flexibility is imperative in matching a
leadership style to an organizational structure or type of school as “the effective leader realizes
that no one leadership style is appropriate for al followers and all situations and accurately
discerns which styles are appropriate for which followers in which situations (Marzano, 2005, p.
18)” as today’s leaders need to “respond to the knowledge explosion, technological innovations,
and the changing needs of students and society … in the face of an ever changing environment
(Lunenburg, 2008, p. 57).”
Chapter III
METHODOLOGY
Methodology
This study applied the qualitative phenomenological research technique of descriptive
case study methodology to examine individual and multiple perspectives about the importance of
flexibility in building leadership and its impact on student learning. Yin (2011) justifies
qualitative research so that one can conduct an “in-depth studies about a broad array of topics,
including your favorites, in plain and everyday terms (p. 6).” Shank (2006) describes the
phenomenological process of inquiry that is grounded in human experience as it plays out for an
individual.
I will be collecting data through qualitative research to see what we can learn from
principals when high school principals are asked open-ended questions about their perceived
leadership practice of flexibility and its impact on student learning. To collect data, I will be
interviewing principals in secondary schools in Long Island based on their experiences, using
surveys, and focus groups. From the data collected through interviews, the data will be coded to
see which specific teacher practices, school conditions, and behaviors of leadership flexibility
that impact student learning; all of which will be triangulated to ensure validity. I will develop an
instrument for interview, coding, and triangulating data so that I have a clear sense of how the
instrument will work and be implemented within my study for accuracy and validity.
WORKS CITED
Bryk, A. S., Sebring, P. B., Allensworth, E., Luppescu, S., & Easton, J. Q. (2010). Organizing
Schools for Improvment: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press.
Glickman, C. D., Gordan, S. P., & Ross-Gordon, J. M. (2010). Supervision and Instructional
Leadership. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Leithwood, K., Seashore Louis, K., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How Leadership
Influences Student Learning. New York, NY: The Wallace Foundation.
Lunenburg, F. C., & Ornstein, A. C. (2008). Educational Administration: Concepts and
Practices . Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School Leadership that Works.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.
Shank, G. D. (2006). Qualitative Research: A Personal Skills Approach. Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Pearson.
Wright, J. H., & Harris, S. (2010). The role of the Superintendent in Closing the Achievement
Gap in Diverse Small School Districts. Planning and Changing, 220-233.
Waters, T., & Grubb, S. (2004). Leading Schools: Distinguishing the Essential from the
Important. Retrieved May 10, 2013, from Oregon Department of Education:
http://www.ode.state.or.us/teachlearn/subjects/elarts/reading/literacy/summerinstitute/res
ources/leadingschools.pdf
Yin, R. K. (2011). Qualitative Research from Start to Finish. New York, NY: Guilford Press.