Out

NOTE TO USERS
This reproduction is the best copy available.
UMI
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL COMMUNICATION BEHAVIORS
AND SCHOOL CLIMATE
IN THREE MAINE ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
By
Andrea E. Pomroy
B.A. University of Denver, 1968
M.A. Teachers College, Columbia University, 1969
M.Ed. University of Maine, 1993
A THESIS
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Education
(in Educational Leadership)
The Graduate School
The University of Maine
May, 2005
Advisory Committee:
Gordon A. Donaldson, Jr., Professor of Education, Advisor
Janet Fairman, Assistant Research Professor
Sarah Mackenzie, Assistant Professor in Educational Leadership
George Marnik, Clinical Professor in Educational Leadership
John Sherblom, Professor of Communication and Journalism
UMI Number: 3169627
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI
UMI Microform 3169627
Copyright 2005 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company
300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
Copyright 2005 Andrea E. Pomroy
ii
LIBRARY RIGHTS STATEMENT
In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for an
advanced degree at The University of Maine, I agree that the Library shall make it
freely available for inspection. I further agree that permission for fair use copying
of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Librarian. It is understood
that any copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed
without my written permission.
Signature: C2
Date:
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL COMMUNICATION BEHAVIORS
AND SCHOOL CLIMATE
IN THREE MAINE ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
By Andrea E. Pomroy
Thesis Advisor: Dr. Gordon A. Donaldson, Jr.
An Abstract of the Thesis Presented
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the
Degree of Doctor of Education
(in Educational Leadership)
May, 2005
School principals communication competence has long been thought to
shape the climate and performance of the schools they lead. Despite widespread
belief that principals need to be good communicators, clarifying the patterns, styles,
and skills of effective principal communication has proven difficult. The goal of
this study was to explore the links between principal-teacher communication and
school climate from the perspectives of teachers and principals. The research
question that guided this investigation was: How do principals and teachers perceive
the link between principal communication behaviors and school climate?
A comparative case study methodology was employed. Three Maine
principals and 22 teachers from their small elementary schools were interviewed
using structured interview protocols and open-ended follow-up questions. Teachers
were asked about their principals communication and its impact on their
professional practice. Principals were asked to describe their own communication
patterns. Both groups were asked questions concerning three indicators of positive
school climate: team identity, the principals vision, and participatory decision
making. Data were analyzed using the NUD*IST software program to determine
patterns of congruity between teachers and their principals, communication
behaviors that appeared to be linked to climate factors, and similarities and
differences across the cases.
The three principal cases presented very useful contrasts in communication
patterns, styles, and school climate. Despite the small size of the schools, teachers
reported more interchanges with principals through formal channels than through
face-to-face channels. The content of principals communication tended to
emphasize non-instructional topics, leading most teachers to report little impact on
their practice. Principals communication behaviors were linked to teachers
perceptions of school climate. When principals and teachers understandings of
vision and the processes governing decision-making were more consistent with one
another, the teachers reported a more positive climate.
These findings support the proposition that principals patterns and styles of
communication shape teachers conception of the professional climate. They carry
implications that can guide principals and their supervisors regarding leadership
performance and preparation programs. Principals have the opportunity to positively
affect the climates of their schools by developing and sharing their visions with their
teachers and by consistently using a predictable participatory decision-making
process.
To my husband, Keith
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to acknowledge the patience and hard work of my committee.
Thank you Gordon, George, Janet, John, and Sally. It has been a privilege to work
with you. My thanks go to the principals, teachers, and secretaries at Adams,
Beauport, and Centerville, for graciously allowing me into their schools. I would
like to thank my family: Shawn and Patty for their love and support; Nancy and Jim
for countless acts of kindness; my mother Arietta for her patience; and of course, my
husband Keith, to whom this work is dedicated and without whom it would not have
been possible.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION................................................................................................................. iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................................................ iv
LIST OF TABLES.......................................................................................................... ix
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................. 1
2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE...................................................................... 7
Organizational Communication and Leadership..................................... 7
Communication and the School Principal..............................................13
Principal Communication and School Climate....................................... 22
Summary.................................................................................................. 30
3. METHOD..............................................................................................................31
Goal and Research Questions................................................................ 31
Definitions of Terms................................................................................ 32
Case Selection..........................................................................................34
Description of the Sample.......................................................................38
Data Collection........................................................................................42
Development of Protocols..................................................................... 43
Confidentiality..........................................................................................46
Data Analysis...........................................................................................47
Trustworthiness.......................................................................................50
v
4. PRINCIPAL COMMUNICATION BEHAVIORS......................................... 54
Adams Elementary School.....................................................................56
Ms. Allen describes her communication patterns....................56
The Adams teachers describe Ms. Allens
communication........................................................................... 61
Adams-Summary........................................................................69
Beauport School..................................................................................... 72
Ms. Boston describes her communication patterns................. 72
The Beauport teachers talk about Ms. Bostons
communication............................................................................77
Beauport-Summary.....................................................................86
Centerville Elementary School............................................................... 90
Mr. Cox describes his communication patterns.......................90
The Centerville teachers talk about Mr. Coxs
communication............................................................................95
Centerville-Summary.................................................................102
Summary of All Sites............................................................................ 106
Descriptions of the Principals Communication
behaviors...................................................................................106
Clarity, Level of Principal Communication, and Impact
on Practice.................................................................................112
Discrepancy Analysis................................................................113
vi
5. SCHOOL CLIMATE FACTORS....................................................................120
Adams.....................................................................................................122
Ms. Allen talks about teacher team identity........................... 122
The Adams teachers talk about team identity........................ 123
Ms. Allen talks about her vision..............................................126
The Adams teachers talk about Ms. Allens vision...............128
Ms. Allen talks about decision-making..................................130
The Adams teachers talk about decision-making..................132
Beauport............................................................................................... 135
Ms. Boston talks about teacher team identity....................... 135
The Beauport teachers talk about team identity...................137
Ms. Boston talks about her vision....................................... 139
The Beauport teachers talk about Ms. Bostons vision 141
Ms. Boston talks about decision-making................................142
The Beauport teachers talk about decision-making...............145
Centerville.............................................................................................. 148
Mr. Cox talks about teacher team identity.............................148
The Centerville teachers talk about team identity..................150
Mr. Cox talks about his vision............................................... 153
The Centerville teachers talk about Mr. Coxs vision.......... 154
Mr. Cox talks about decision-making.................................... 156
The Centerville teachers talk about decision-making........... 158
vii
School Summaries 161
Adams.......................................................................................161
Beauport...................................................................................164
Centerville................................................................................ 167
Comparison of the Climates of the School Sites................................169
Major Observations.............................................................................. 173
Other Factors......................................................................................... 178
6. DISCUSSION.....................................................................................................179
Overview.................................................................................................179
Findings and Discussion........................................................................ 186
Implications for Practice....................................................................... 196
Implications for Future Research........................................................200
Concluding Remarks............................................................................202
REFERENCES..............................................................................................................204
APPENDICES............................................................................................................... 215
Appendix A. Interview Protocols................................................................ 216
Appendix B. Informational Letters.............................................................. 224
Appendix C. Consent Forms.........................................................................227
Appendix D. List of Codes............................................................................232
Appendix E. Interview Dates........................................................................235
BIOGRAPHY OF THE AUTHOR............................................................................. 237
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1 Description of Schools............................................................................38
Table 3.2 Profiles of Principals............................................................................... 38
Table 3.3 Teacher Participant Profiles by Sites.................................................... 39
Table 3.4 Teacher Participants by Discipline.........................................................42
Table 4.1 Principal Communication Behaviors and Topics-Adams................... 70
Table 4.2 Principal Communication Behaviors and Topics-Beauport............... 88
Table 4.3 Principal Communication Behaviors and Topics-Centerville........... 104
Table 4.4 Principal Communication Behaviors and Topics- All Sites.............. 108
Table 5.1 Climate Factor Agreement.................................................................... 170
Table E. 1 Interview Dates-Adams........................................................................236
Table E.2 Interview Dates-Beauport.....................................................................236
T able E. 3 Interview Dates-Centerville 23 6
ix
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
School administrators are frequently frustrated by the problem of
communication between their staffs and themselves. Sometimes it seems that school
personnel are playing a long-running game of "telephone," hoping the intended
messages make it through the lines without being distorted at the receiving end. Not
only do mundane communications, both written and verbal, get lost and distorted,
but more important ideas that need to be shared often are not communicated well
(Donaldson, 1991; Hoy & Hoy, 2003; Sernak, 1998; Villani, 1999; Wolcott, 1973).
In my own experience as an elementary school principal, it seemed that
sometimes I was not communicating even simple messages clearly enough to the
faculty, because messages did not always seem to get through. I also found to my
surprise that even after several years, there seemed to be some teachers who did not
really understand my basic philosophies of education. Even though I felt that I was
sharing my ideas with them, they did not seem to know me nor what I thought I was
communicating to them. Other principals with whom I worked reported the same
concerns about their own communication.
This frustration and confusion about my own communication led me to
investigate the topic of school communication. This eventually led me to a study of
organizational communication and climate, which brought me to this investigation
of school principals communication with their teachers and school climate. The
1
purpose of this study is to explore perceptions about the link between principals
communication behaviors and school climate.
Researchers point out some of the problems of perceived lack of
communication. According to Harris and Moran (1984), communication does not
necessarily mean understanding (p. 33). It is this lack of understanding that
underlies the frustrations of communication. T.E. Harris (1993) pointed out that
understanding occurs when the listener fully comprehends the other persons frame
of reference, point of view, and feelings regarding a subject (p. 239). Individuals
may selectively perceive information (Harris, P.R. & Moran, p. 32). That is, they
hear the message through a filter of past experience, attitude, and knowledge. This
may or may not distort the message.
Both Wolcott (1973) and Donaldson (1991) conducted ethnographic studies
of school principalships. Communication was one area that each one focused on in
his investigation. Although these studies were conducted in different times and
places, some of their conclusions were similar. Both principals found that
communication was important to staff members. When staff members in these two
studies perceived that communication was ineffective, inconsistent, or infrequent,
they experienced confusion, discomfort, or failed to understand the goals of the
principal.
When effective, open communication from the principal is not present, there
can be a negative effect on school climate. Blase and Blase (2004) found that
ineffective or ill-timed communication from the principal can cause anger,
2
resentfulness, and discomfort on the part of teachers. Principal insincerity and
behavior on the part of the principal that teachers regarded as unfair caused
increased teacher anger, frustration, and a sense of futility; teachers also lost trust
in their principals (Blase & Blase, p. 130).
Communication is a necessary part of school leadership and a large part of
what principals spend their days doing. According to Blase and Anderson (1995),
effective principals... [spend] a great deal of time and effort on clarifying and
reinforcing their expectations (p. 100). The ability to communicate effectively is an
expectation for success as a principal. The Interstate School Leaders Licensure
Consortium (ISLLC) includes communication from the school administrator as a
component in three of its six standards for school leaders (Missouri Professors of
Educational Administration, 2005). The major professional organizations for school
principals include communication skills in their standards as well (National
Association of Elementary School Principals [NAESP], 2001; National Association
of Secondary School Principals [NASSP], 2005).
Communication has been linked to the school environment. Sergiovanni
(2000) cites studies by MacBeath, Boyd, Rand, and Bell in the 1990s that asked
stakeholders what characteristics they would identify in good schools. Teachers
listed communication as a key component. When the responses were organized by
categories, the importance of communication was again demonstrated. According
to Sergiovanni, School climate and relationships are obviously affected by
3
organization and communication in the school.... School climate [lies] at the
center... [it] was mentioned most often by all groups (pp. 100-101).
Principal communication and leadership styles have been linked to school
effectiveness and school climate. Levine (1989) says that effective school research
reinforces the need for strong leaders who create an inclusive positive climate. Open
communication with the administration is one factor that surfaces often as related to
a positive school climate for teachers (Barth, 1990; Deal & Peterson, 1999; Miller,
Brownell, & Smith, 1999; Saphier & King, 1985; Taylor & Tashakkori, 1995).
Effective principals have an open door policy...a willingness to listen (Levine, p.
188). They are good speakers and good listeners (p. 193). It is their job to
empower and entrust (p. 138) teachers with decision making powers, and to
provide them with the positive support that they need. In their study of 24 American
schools, Marks and Printy (2003) found a relationship between principal leadership
and student achievement. They reported that schools where principals had and
shared a strong vision, encouraged professional collaboration among the teachers,
and shared instructional leadership with the teachers showed higher achievement
than schools where this leadership model was not present.
The principal plays a large part in the development and management of the
school culture and climate (Blase & Anderson, 1995). School cultures and climates
are built through the everyday business of school life (Saphier & King, 1985, p.
72). Principals communicate, in words and actions, the values of the school. They
4
maintain the rituals and important traditions that have supported the school spirit
over the years (Peterson and Deal, 1998).
Communication is an important factor in all organizations, including schools
(Harris, P.R. & Moran, 1984; Pepper & Thomas, 2002). It appears that principals
communication with teachers can affect school climate and school climate can
affect that communication (Sergiovanni, 2000; Villani, 1999). The goal of this study
is to explore what principals and teachers have to say about the link between
principal communication and school climate. To that end, the following research
questions have been developed: (1) How do principals perceive the link between
principal communication behaviors and school climate? (2) How do teachers
perceive the link between principal communication behaviors and school climate?
These perceptions about principals communication with their teachers form the
basis for my inquiry. It was my hope that learning about these links between
communication and school climate would provide insights into this communication-
climate relationship. These insights then would translate into implications for
principals professional practice and ultimately to improvement of school climate.
In order to investigate this question, I chose to interview teachers and
principals in selected Maine elementary schools regarding principals
communication and school climate. Twenty-five participants were interviewed,
including 22 teachers and three principals. The interviews were held during the
2003-2004 school year. Participants were asked to identify and comment on
principal communication behaviors in their schools. They also were asked to discuss
5
their perceptions of the school climate dimensions of team identity, the principals
vision, and decision-making.
Before investigating the relationship between principals communication and
school climate, it was necessary to explore some background concepts in the
literature. In the next chapter I present a review of the relevant literature on
communication, leadership, and organizational culture and climate and their
implications for schools. In Chapter 3 , 1 present my research questions in more
detail, explain the process of obtaining the sample for this study, provide a detailed
description of the research sites, and describe the methods used to explore this topic
in three Maine elementary schools. Chapters 4 and 5 contain a presentation of the
results of 50 interviews conducted at these schools. Chapter 4 presents the
responses to questions regarding principal communication behaviors. Chapter 5
presents the responses concerning school climate questions. Finally, in Chapter 6 1
discuss my findings, their applications for professional practice, and implications for
further research.
6
Chapter 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
In order to understand the relationship between principal communication
behaviors and school climate, I will first explore some basic concepts in the
literature. The following review presents literature on communication, leadership,
principal communication, and school climate. These concepts form the basis for the
design of the study presented here.
Organizational Communication and Leadership
Communication is a central fact of human society. The quality of the
communicative interactions between members of a society shapes the quality of the
relationships between those individuals and the organizations in which they find
themselves. In fact communication has been called the most important tool we
have (Harris, P R. & Moran, 1984, p. 31) and the structure on which truth and the
good life hinge (Habermas, as cited by Burleson & Kline, 1979, p.414).
Communication between human beings is not linear; it is transactional. Both the
receiver and the sender are involved (Harris, T.E., 1993). To be effective,
communication must.. .be understood.. .believed.. .and accepted (Dowling &
Sayles, 1978, p. 224). It is through this interaction of sender and receiver that
communication happens and changes and growth can occur in an organization.
Leaders need to be able to observe the need for changes (Harris, P.R. &
Moran, 1984; Harris, T.E & Sherblom, 2002; Schein, 1992). A maturing, changing
organization is a learning organization (Schein, p. 363), one that is capable of
7
maintaining itself and yet adapting to needed change. These changes can be simple
ones or they can be truly transformative (Burns, 2003). Transformative changes are
those that create a basic alteration or a metamorphosis (p. 24) in the
organization. The changes that occur are dependent on the quality and direction of
the communication in place. When communication is one-way from the top, the
true changes or the learning (Argyris, 1982, p.86) that needs to take place is
stifled. Argyris called this limited type of change Model I communication which
leads to what he calls single loop learning (p. 86). When information is
controlled from the top there is limited provision for feedback, which prevents the
organization from benefiting from the input of the subordinates in the organization.
In addition, the subordinates are not made aware of all relevant information. One
way to control others is to control information and control the meaning of things
for others (p. 86).
According to Argyris (1982), The preferred method of communication and
organizational learning is called Model II (p. 102). A Model II organization uses
communication to allow the members of the organization to participate in the
change cycle. This is referred to as double loop learning (p. 102). In this type of
organization, information is freely shared and the subordinates are able to
participate in the changes that are made. The basic assumptions of the organization
are tested and revised, moving the organization forward. Communication in this
type of organization is not a tool for control, but a tool for growth (Argyris).
8
Rait (1995) commented on Argyriss Model I organizations. He said that
they operate with a unilateral.. .cool rationality (p. 84-85) that controls
information and prevents the double loop learning that encourages organizational
growth. If appropriate feedback is not recognized, a group cannot move forward.
When new information comes to the organization, old assumptions and ideas will
color how this information is perceived. In processing new data, we are misled by
our previous theories and may subsequently distort new information (p. 81). Rait
says that in a Model II organization information is processed and used through a
system of collaborative inquiry leading to the double-loop learning (p. 85) that
will lead to organizational change and growth. Communication is used as a tool to
increase the participation of all to the betterment of the organization.
Likert (1967) proposed a similar concept. His term for an effective
organization was a System 4 organization (p. 47). A System 4 organization
includes supportive relationships... group decision making and group methods of
supervision... [and] high-performance goals for the organization (p.47). In this
type of organization, the subordinates are trusted, information flows up and down
the organization, and goals are set by the group rather than from the top. The
relationship between the management and the employees is key to the success of
the organization. According to Likert the success of this superior-subordinate
relationship is to a great extent dependent on the subordinate. The subordinates
perception of the situation, rather than the supervisors, determines whether or not
the experience is supportive (p. 48).
9
As early as 1938, Barnard (Hanson, 1991; Hoy & Miskel, 1994/1993)
presented a slightly different but related point of view about the importance of the
individual subordinates and their power in the organization. The individuals in an
organization, he said, were the actual sources of power for the leader.
Organizations for him were cooperative enterprises (Greenfield, 1994/1975)
where the subordinates actually make the decision personally or collectively
whether to obey or disobey a directive from superordinates (Hanson, 1991, p. 80).
In a later work Barnard (1968) again spoke of this decision to receive a
message from a superior. He said that four conditions need to be met before a
communication from a superior can be accepted: (a) the message is understood, (b)
it is believed to be in accordance with the mission of the organization, (c) the
receiver considers the message to be compatible with his personal interest as a
whole (p. 168), and (d) he is able .. .to comply with it (p. 168). In other words,
the subordinate, the listener has the power to determine the success of the
communication and will make a decision about his or her willingness to receive it.
Other authors have discussed the power of the subordinate in the organization.
Burns (2003) also spoke of the importance of the empowerment (p. 26) of
the members of an organization. He said that by empowering the organizational
members, the leader is able to motivate them to rise about narrow interests and
work together for transcending goals (p. 26), thus creating leaders out of
followers. He calls this change from the ground up (p. 240). He goes on to say
10
that the vital role of leadership is to create and expand the opportunities that
empower people to pursue happiness for themselves (p.240).
Kanter (1997) refers to the process of employee participation in decision
making as flattening (p. 276) an organization. She says that allowing decisions to
be made at a lower level increases job satisfaction, commitment, and personal and
group productivity (p. 276). In addition she says that when employees experience
the flatter organizational structure that includes them in the decision-making
process, they deal differently with those below them. This increases the job
satisfaction of everyone in the organization (Evans, 1996; Hersey & Blanchard,
1988; Kanter). In order for employees to feel a part of this process, the leader must
use a leadership style that is appropriately inclusive and encourages open two-way
communication. An employee-oriented, participatory leadership style is one that
promotes this open type of communication (Falcione, Sussman, & Herden, 1987;
Miller, K., 1999; Sergiovanni, 2000).
Thus the leader of an organization is a component in determining the
environment of that organization. Numerous authors have written about qualities
that define effective leadership. Great leaders have been referred to as great
men/women possessing special qualities, as people who were at the right place at
the right time, as individuals who were particularly caring or insightful, as great
improvisationists, supporters of others dreams (Thayer, 1988), or good enough
mother[s] (Stacey, 1996, p. 122).
11
A leader has been defined as the principal dynamic force that stimulates,
motivates, and coordinates the organization in the accomplishment of its
objectives (Rost, 1991, p. 49) and a person who arrangfes] a situation so that
various members of a group, including the leader, can achieve common goals with
maximum economy (p. 51). An important part of the leader-follower relationship
is the development of the leadership potential in all the members of an
organization. As Fullan (2001a) puts it, Ultimately, your leadership... will be
judged as effective or ineffective not by who you are as a leader, but by what
leadership you produce in others (p. 137, emphasis in original). A leader can be
said to be the head follower (Sergiovanni, 2000, p. 168). Included and/or implied
in all these definitions are references to communication skills. These skills are
central factors in effective leadership (Osterman, 1993) and assist the leader in
explaining his or her ideas and vision.
The literature cited above has summarized the importance of
communication in the lives of every member of an organization. The
communication of the leader of the organization is a key to the growth of the
organization. A structure that embraces change, maintains open multi-directional
lines of communication, and encourages employee participation in the decision
making of the organization has been found most appropriate to enhance that
growth. The leader-follower relationship is important to the development of an
organization. By empowering the subordinates of an organization, the leader
develops their leadership potential and commitment to the organization. In the next
12
section, I will review literature that applies these principals of organizational
communication and leadership to the school setting.
Communication and the School Principal
In schools, as in other organizations, communication is an important factor
in the daily life of the employees. The leader of the school is the principal and he
or she relies on communication as tool for leading the school. The principal has
been found to be a key component in the effectiveness of a school (Blase & Kirby,
1992; Bolman & Heller, 1995; Bryk, Camburn, & Louis, 1999; McDonald &
Keedy, 2002). Marks and Printy (2003) studied restructured schools. They analyzed
the relationship between instructional leadership on the part of the principal and
school performance. They found that When the principal elicits high levels of
commitment and professionalism from teachers and works interactively with
teachers . .. schools . . . are organizations that learn and perform at high levels
(p. 393).
In their study on transformational leadership and student engagement
Leithwood and Jantzi (1999) found that there was a significant relationship
between transformational leadership practices and student engagement (p. 10).
Student engagement was defined as the extent to which students identify with
school and feel they belong (p. 10). This factor has been linked to the
identification of at-risk students, to identifying potential dropouts, and ultimately to
student achievement. In addition, their study showed an even stronger relationship
between transformational leadership and other organizational conditions (p. 18).
13
The organizational conditions they included were the extent to which members of
the school understand ...the explicit and implicit purpose and directions for the
school (p. 7), the school decision-making process, shared meanings and values
(p. 10), and the quality of the relationships within the school. This study was
replicated by the same researchers a year later (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2000) with
similar results. Both studies indicated that principal leadership had... significant
effect on engagement [of students] (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2000, p.8).
Larsens (1987) research on leadership behaviors and academic
achievement found that instructional leadership behavior is an important influence
on student achievement (p. iii). In this study, teachers in low-achieving and high-
achieving schools were asked to rate their principals based on a pre-determined set
of leadership behaviors which were considered most important (p. 35) by a panel
of experts. Principals in high-achieving schools exhibited 10 of these behaviors
significantly more often than principals in low-achieving schools. Included in
these significantly more frequent behaviors were communication behaviors such as
clearly communicated goals, visibility in the classrooms, and discussions with the
teachers concerning classroom practices. In addition, principals and teachers in
high-achieving schools showed evidence of more agreement concerning the
prevalence of these behaviors than did the staffs of the low-achieving schools. The
author proposed further study as to the time spent on various types of leadership
behaviors of principals.
14
A 2003 study that explored that topic was conducted for the Metropolitan
Life Insurance Co. and reported in Education Week (February 11, 2004). Through a
series of surveys researchers found that principals and other stakeholders had
different ideas about what the principals were spending their time doing. Principals,
teachers, parents, and students were polled regarding their perceptions about how
principals spend their time. The author reported that the survey... showed that
principals paint a more favorable picture of their leadership abilities and their
schools climates than do instructors, pupils, and parents (Reid, 2004, p. 6). The
report went on to say the following about one set of survey items.
Asked to determine what percentage of time their principals spend on
various aspects of their jobs, teachers believe that principals spend 37
percent of their time on reporting and compliance and 24 percent of their
time on guiding and motivating the faculty. Principals, however, said they
spent 35 percent of their time on guiding and motivating teachers and 24
percent of their time on reporting and compliance. (Reid, p.6)
The author went on to report that Reg Weaver, the president of the National
Education Association (NEA), said that this survey is a reality check to principals
that their best efforts to motivate teachers.. .are falling short (Reid, 2004,p. 6). The
ethnographies that follow also indicate that sometimes principals do not spend as
much time communicating with teachers as they might think they do. In addition,
these three researchers found that communication is a powerful tool.
15
Wolcott, Donaldson, and Pepper all conducted ethnographic studies of
principalships. In different times, places, and circumstances they all learned about
the importance of communication in the job of the school principal.
Wolcott (1973) conducted a yearlong ethnographic study of an elementary
school principalship. Teachers comments about the principal in question
reinforced the importance of communication in the climate of the school. Nearly
all the negative comments that teachers made about this principal focused on
ineffective or inadequate communication that caused confusion and stress for
teachers: I think hes a little dense here in not realizing that when he sits in the
staff meeting and doesnt get any feedback from the teachers... He is going about it
in the wrong way. He forgets things, puts them off too long, and forgets to tell
us... so we all rush about madly . . . It kind of bugs teachers . . . You have to put
up with the forgetting aspect(p. 288). Ed does not spell things out clearly
enough as to his expectations, particularly along the line of structure(p. 290).
Does he want us to structure the classroom, or give them a lot of freedom? . . . To
tell you the truth, Ive been here a year and a half and I dont know myself (p.
291). Although teachers liked to work for this principal, they found his lack of
communication disorienting. They found it hard to follow his lead at times,
because he was unclear about his own direction.
Donaldson (1991) studied his own high school principalship. In addition to
monitoring his own activities, he surveyed his staff about his years as their
principal. Communication was one area in this survey. Communication with him
16
was defined as contacts and included direct and indirect forms of communication.
Commenting on what he had learned about his own communication, Donaldson
said, In general.. .staff communication with me, in nearly all forms, occurred less
than daily and often less than weekly. For someone who projected himself as an
active principal, this feedback was startling. . . . If I did not communicate often
verbally, through what medium was I leading the school? (p. 51). In addition, he
surveyed the teachers about their perceptions of his goals. He found that although
he had communicated many of his important goals to them, there was some
discrepancy between how he saw himself and how they saw him. He concluded
that he had not been able to communicate his complete agenda with them
effectively, thus creating a disconnect between his perceptions and theirs. He
found that these reports do not depict a principal who is in touch enough to
maintain relationships with staff and to enhance the goals of the school (p. 62).
Both Wolcott and Donaldson found that communication from the principal was an
important component of the principalships they were studying.
Kaye Pepper (Pepper & Thomas, 2002) also studied her own principalship.
She reports on her first year as the principal of an elementary school in need of
changes. When she arrived at her new school she found herself in an environment
of underlying distrust between the veteran staff and the new staff members.... low
student achievement.. .lack of parental involvement, and an undercurrent of
discontent among the teachers, other staff, and students (p. 160). She attempted to
run the school the way that previous administrators had, with a firm hand,
17
permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
dictating orders about how things would be and attempting to make changes that I
felt would be for the better (p. 160).
As time went on she realized that her attempts at telling people how to
change were not producing results. She realized that to make real changes in the
school, she had to change her leadership style and make real alterations in the way
things were done there. Transformational leadership seemed to be an answer. I
needed to move the teachers and other staff toward a more collaborative, collegial
stance (Pepper, & Thomas, 2002, p. 161). She discovered that communication
with her staff members was the key. By initiating a discussion of the school
problems and her own ideas, Ms. Pepper was able to get the faculty involved in the
improvement of the school.
This conversation further opened the door to discussion of how the teachers
could work together to make positive changes in the school.... This led to
the discussion of collaboration and shared leadership.... The teachers and
other staff began meeting often to discuss changes that were necessary and
improvements that were being made. (p. 163)
Ms. Pepper discovered that by involving teachers in two-way
communication opportunities with her and other staff members, she was able to
involve them in the changes that needed to be made in the school. Although these
changes were slow in coming, she had shown the staff how to use communication
with each other to make them happen. Not all staff members had embraced the
change, but the staff realized that it was a slow process and only time would
18
continue to improve relationships within the school (Pepper & Thomas, 2002, p.
165).
As Pepper and Thomas (2002) discovered, communication can be the key to
successful school change and growth. Blumberg and Greenfield (1986) reported
that when communication is not effective or not frequent enough this process is
impeded. When principals do not communicate enough with teachers about good
practices, these practices are not present in the classroom as often as they should
be. But when principals successfully communicate to their teachers commitment
to courses of action can be developed and nurtured (p. 230). Schools can grow and
change when communication from the principal is effective.
The principal is but one of the staff members with potential to make
positive things happen in the school (Ackerman, Donaldson, & van de Bogert,
1996). The effective principal exhibits leadership that is a reciprocal process that
enables members of a school community to construct meaning that leads toward a
common purpose (Sergiovanni, 2000, p. 171). The effective principal becomes a
leader of leaders (Schlechty, 1990, p.43). In this way, commitment in an
organization, such as a school, is developed as part of the day to day relationships
within the organization, not by mandated from the top. (Fullan, 2001a). These
relationships are carried out through two-way communication.
As the head of the school, the principals communication interactions are
key to the development of relationships within the school, as in any workplace. A
strong school environment can be fostered by the creation of an inclusive
19
professional environment (Mackenzie, 2000), an environment in which teachers are
part of the decision-making process. In a successful school "the principal believes
that when given the opportunity to make important decisions about school goals,
purpose, and values, teachers and students will respond by morally embodying
these goals, purposes, and values in their actions (Sergiovanni, 2000, p. 62).
As a school becomes a learning organization, the principal becomes the
lead learner, (Senge, et al., 2000, p. 15) guiding and supporting the changes and
learnings of the teachers. All the members of the school community are learning
together how to make the school grow and change in a positive way. Of the five
disciplines listed by Senge, et al. as essential to growth in the professional
community, three are related to the development and communication of a vision for
the school. They are personal mastery by the principal of his/her own sense of
vision; shared vision, the ability to articulate the vision and make it a collective
one; and team learning, or group learning (p.7). When a principal is able to
articulate a clear vision he or she draws others into its development and change is
facilitated.
Licata, Teddlie, and Greenfield (1990) surveyed over 1700 teachers in
grades K-8 concerning their principals visions. What they found was that teachers
more easily related to principals who were willing to share and modify their visions
with input from the teachers. These were the principals, the teachers said, whose
leadership would last and support school improvement.
20
[Teachers have a] preference for a public vision adopted through critical
examination by various reference groups in the schools.. .a school vision
may be less like dogma and more like a hypothesis that can be modified
based on new information. Principals who understand the social realities of
developing and fostering a viable school vision may endure to provide the
kind of stable and continuous leadership required to bring about needed
changes in their schools, (p. 99)
The results of Wynnes (1989) 15 years of research on effective schools
also indicate the importance of a shared school vision. Effective schools are
led... by vigorous principals who clearly make known their values and principles
(p. 132). He goes on to say that these values and principles can help shape the
identity of the schools. This identity he says is one feature of an effective school.
In a school, the leadership and communication of the principal have been
shown to have an effect on the academic success of the school. Effective school
research emphasizes the importance of instructional leadership in school
achievement. Communication behaviors on the part of the principal that contribute
positively to school success include clearly communicated goals and visions and
discussions with teachers about classroom practices. Researchers have found that
ineffective or inadequate communication from the principal can cause confusion,
disorientation, and lack of understanding on the part of the teachers in the school.
In the next section, I will explore the relationship between the principals
communication and the climate of the school.
21
Principal Communication and School Climate
In order to provide a base of understanding for the discussion of school
climate that follows, I will first present some foundational literature regarding
organizational culture. Organizational culture and climate are terms that have been
defined in a variety of ways. In fact Culture enjoys as many definitions as there
are people who study it (Deal, 1995, p. 111). Some authors even use these terms
interchangeably. For the purposes of this study, I will be using a definition of
climate based on the work of Edgar Schein (1992). Schein describes climate as the
uppermost level of a three-tiered construct of organizational culture.
The culture of an organization can be thought of as a pattern of shared
orientations that binds the organization together and gives it a distinctive identity
(Hoy & Hoy, 2003, p. 276) or as the elements [that] give all human organizations
internal meaning, purpose, and cohesion (Deal, p. 110). Culture is based on the
basic assumptions and beliefs that lie hidden below the surface of conscious
awareness. The values of an organization, which are often based on the beliefs of
the leader, lie above the level of basic assumptions. On the surface are the actions
of the members. These actions, the things that we can see and measure can be
called the climate of an organization (Dennison as cited by Payne, 2000; Schein,
1992). The behaviors observed in the climate can be conveniently grouped into
dimensions. Some examples of the dimensions of climate in the business world are
customer orientation...quality orientation... quality emphasis.. .team
work...cooperation...employee satisfaction (Wiley & Brooks, 2000, p. 183).
22
The culture of a school can be examined like the culture of any
organization. Sergiovanni (2000) defines school culture as the normative glue that
holds a particular school together (p.l). Strong school culture, or character, (p.
23) leads to a sense of commitment, which leads to greater achievements. Fullan
(2001a) emphasizes the importance of relationships in the development of a strong
school. Principals and teachers will only be mobilized by caring and respect, by
talented people working together and by developing shared expertise (p. 63).
School culture is recognized as a key factor in the success of a school.
Schools with a strong positive culture have a greater chance of success and
achievement (Fullan, 2001a, b; Sergiovanni, 2000). Sergiovanni describes this as
the schools character (p. 23). He explains that Shared commitments pull
people together and create tighter connections among them and between them and
the school...These factors count in helping students learn at higher levels (p. 23).
Negative school cultures that foster destructive attitudes and mistrust will
prevent schools from making the most of their potential (Fullan, 2001a; Sarason,
1995). Sarason describes the type of school culture that is not successful in its
attempts to make academic improvements. Pervasive in the school culture is a
suspiciousness of, hostility toward, and derogation of formal attempts to evaluate
the effectiveness of educational activities and programs (p. 82). These negative
environments create barriers to change and growth.
The climate of a school can be viewed in the same way as climates in other
types of organizations. The activities and practices that one can observe on the
23
surface represent deeper held feelings and attitudes. School climate is a
relatively enduring quality of the school environment that is experienced by
teachers, influences their behaviors, and is based on their collective perceptions of
behavior (Hoy & Hoy, 2003, p. 274). The climate of a school influences not only
the day to day experience of the teachers and other professionals, it also influences
the quality and effectiveness of the educational experience for the students in their
care. Schools with positive climates and expectations for students and staff are
able to show achievement beyond socio-economic expectations (Brookover, et. al.,
1982).
Various authors have described characteristics of positive, effective school
climate. Their descriptions echo one another. To Crowe, Hausman, and Scribner
(2002) these characteristics include a shared commitment to student achievement,
collaboration between and among the professional staff, constructive dialogue
among the teachers and between the teachers and the principal, and a school
organization that brings teachers together in their daily work. Ahadi, Scott, and
Krug (1990) included the following dimensions among those used to explore
school climate, job satisfaction, strength of climate... recognition, power, and
affiliation (p.9). These definitions echo Likerts (Hanson, 1991) System 4
organizations and Argyriss (1986) Model II organizations. Hoy, Tarter, and
Kottkamp (1991) describe an open climate as follows.
The distinctive characteristics of the open climate are cooperation, respect,
and openness that exist within the faculty and between the faculty and the
24
principal. The principal is.. .receptive to teacher ideas... The faculty
supports open and professional behavior.. .among teachers... In brief, the
behavior of both the principal and teachers is genuine and open. (p. 39)
They go on to say that although no one method of leadership is always appropriate,
the principal is largely responsible for the development of the school climate and an
open climate as described above is a healthy climate, (p. 63), a climate that
includes engaged teachers and students.
Other authors use their own terms to describe an open climate. Sebring and
Bryk (2000) refer to principals in effective schools as having a facilitative
orientation (p. 440) and a clear vision. Bryk and Schneider (2003) provide the
following definition.
Principals establish both respect and personal regard when they.. .actively
listen to their [teachers] concerns... Effective principals couple these
behaviors with a compelling school vision and behavior that clearly seeks to
advance the vision, (p. 44)
Mendel, Watson, and MacGregor (2002) studied the relationship between
leadership styles of principals and positive school climate, based on teachers
perceptions of their principals and climate. Their results also support the idea of an
open leadership style. Based on the relationships that they saw in this study, the
researchers concluded, the most desirable leadership style to help contribute to
positive school climate would be collaborative(p. 7). Blase (1987) also reported on
research on teachers perceptions of effective school leadership. Effective school
25
principals appeared to contribute to school cultures . .. [which were] described as
cohesive: Interactions between principals and teachers and between teachers and
other were viewed as cooperative, empathetic, supportive, respectful, equitable, and
productive (p. 607).
Bryk, et al. (1999) reported the following findings from their study of the
professional climate in a large school district. They referred to a collegial
environment as professional community (p. 751).
The elements of professional community were also more prevalent when
principals were viewed as having more inclusive facilitative leadership
styles. These results suggest that principals regular involvement with
faculty members is important, but that involvement that goes beyond
regular contact, that encourages teachers to be involved, to innovate, and
take risks may be particularly supportive of professional community.
(p.768)
All of these definitions and reports have in common the point of view that
the principal is at least partially responsible for setting the tone for the school. This
tone or climate according to these authors needs to be open, genuine, and inclusive.
Like any leader of an organization, the principal is also responsible for leading
change and growth in the school.
Schools need change agents who are able to create a collaborative climate
that supports positive change (Fullan, 2001b). Carl Glickman (1998) posits that
challenge and trust are parts of the professional relationships that are central to
26
change. As change agents, principals need more than good ideas; they need to
understand the people and climate of their schools (Evans, 1996; Schlechty, 1990).
In a climate of change, new ideas and learnings are embraced. Disagreements
become opportunities to learn. Principals must expect and be prepared to deal with
conflict during the change process (Ackerman et. al., 1996; Evans, 1996).
Principals must be ready to listen to all sides of an issue. As Fullan (2001a)
suggests, We are more likely to learn.. .from people who disagree with us than we
are from people who agree, but.. .we prefer to avoid and underlisten to those who
dont (p.41).
School change is not a linear process. Principals of schools that succeed at
innovation and implementation of positive change need to understand that change
is a process, not an event (Fullan, 2001a, p.40). True change incorporates a
cultural change, a change of beliefs. The effective principal must communicate
his/her vision of the changes necessary in the school environment. At the same time
the principal must listen to the members of the organization to understand their
version of the vision (Ackerman et. al., 1996; Deal and Peterson, 1999; Evans,
1996; Fullan, 2001a; Institute of Educational Leadership 2000; NAESP, 2001;
Schlechty, 1990). The extraordinary leader is one who can maintain a strong,
supportive, creative climate that allows for change and growth, understand the
needs of the school as an organization, and communicate a clear, positive vision.
Communication is the way that the leader gives meaning to the school or any
organization, the way that the organization can obtain the information necessary to
27
continue toward its goals. A primary responsibility of the leader is to use these
skills to reinforce the values of the school (Brookover, et. al, 1982).
Lieberman (1995) presented six case studies of schools who worked to
change the climates and outcomes in their school communities. The importance of
an inclusive climate was illustrated in these examples. Although the principals
were important in developing and disseminating the visions for these schools, the
real power of the changed climates came from the commitment and participation of
the teachers. Principals in these schools created a climate that allowed for
continual dialogue among the teachers and between the teachers and the principals.
In the New Suncook School in Maine, the importance of the climate set by the
principal, Gary MacDonald, was obvious. Principal MacDonald encouraged
everyones participation in the leadership process, thus creating a sense of
community and belonging. As one of his faculty members stated, [Gary] seems to
view leadership as a commodity to be exercised by every conscientious citizen, he
expects teachers to lead... He leads by example (Goldsberry, et al., 1995, p. 153).
Charol Shakeshaft (1989) suggested that the attributes of an effective
principal able to lead a school toward a positive school climate are characteristics
that can be termed as female. She cited the following criteria for effective
principals]: Have clear informed visions.. .translate these visions into
goals.. .establish school climates that support progress toward these goals...
continuously monitor progress.. .and intervene in a supportive corrective manner
(p. 200). She compared these criteria to her findings concerning characteristics of
28
female principals. She said that female principals spend more time with the
teachers and in the classrooms of their schools than their male counterparts, are
more hands-on concerning monitoring classroom practice, and tend to use language
patterns that encourage a sense of community. That is, they are more polite and
listen more. Female principals she said tend to use more democratic decision
making strategies and in general communicate more with the teachers in their
buildings than comparable male principals do. She posited that these lists of
characteristics complement each other and indicate that the female type of
administration is more supportive of a positive school climate.
Andrews, Lee, and James (2002) suggest that the traditional scientific
management paradigm (p. 272) has given way to a paradigm of care (p. 272).
They go on to say that the day of the routine-driven manager of a school has been
replaced by the vision-driven, connected, involved educational leader. These
authors seem to agree with other authors who say that the old male model of
management is being replaced (or should be replaced) by a more appropriate
female model of leadership in the school setting, regardless of the gender of the
leader.
Three characteristics of a positive, effective school climate stand out from
this literature on principal communication and school climate. Teachers in schools
with positive school climates feel connected to the school and each other. Schools
with effective, positive climates have principals with visions that are clear and
29
shared with the teachers. Principals in schools with positive school climates
include teachers in the school decision-making process.
Summary
Communication is an important part of leading any organization, including
a school. As the leader of the school, the principal uses communication as a tool to
interact with and lead the teachers. The principals communication can affect the
climate of the school. An effective, open climate includes team identity, a clear
vision, and participatory decision-making. An effective school climate has been
linked to student achievement. The links between principal communication
behaviors and school climate, school effectiveness, and teacher satisfaction have
been shown to exist. What has not been demonstrated as clearly is how the
communication of the principal influences the schools climate and effectiveness.
This study investigated the relationship between principal communication
behaviors and school climate from the point of view of teachers and principals. The
study provided a unique opportunity to compare these two perspectives on this
important aspect of the school environment. The next chapter describes the research
goal, research questions, case selection, the sample, methods of data collection, and
methods of data analysis used in this study.
30
Chapter 3
METHOD
Goal and Research Questions
As the previous literature review describes, a principals communication with
his or her teachers has been linked to school climate. The goal of this study was to
explore that link from the point of view of teachers and principals. By understanding
more about this relationship, I hoped to learn more about school climate and how this
knowledge might be translated into the professional practice of principals and
teachers. In order to discover links between the principals communication patterns
and the climate factors that I would be investigating, I developed a set of research
questions.
A. How do principals perceive the link between principals communication with
teachers and school climate?
1. What are the major communication behaviors that principals report?
2. How do principals interpret the teachers responses to their communication
behaviors?
3. What part do principals perceive that their own communication behaviors
play in influencing the climate of the school?
B. How do teachers perceive the link between principals communication with
teachers and school climate?
1. What do teachers perceive as major communication behaviors on the part
of principals?
31
2. What part do teachers perceive that their principals communication
behaviors play in their professional practice?
3. What part do teachers perceive that their principals communication
behaviors play in influencing the climate of the school?
These research questions formed the basis for the specific questions on the
protocols (see Data Collection, this chapter), were designed to develop profiles of the
communication behavior patterns of the principal, as viewed by both the principals
and teachers in the school. These profiles could then be compared to the questions
about school climate that were developed from research questions A3 and B3. All of
the questions asked of the principals in this investigation were mirrored by similar
questions asked of teachers. In this way, I would be able to get a more complete
picture of the behavior patterns and the schools climate, by comparing and
contrasting the two perspectives. This information would then allow me to investigate
potential links between the communication behaviors of the principals and the climate
of the schools.
Definitions of Terms
The following definitions of key terms were selected in order to provide
operational terminology to guide the collection and analysis of data leading to answers
to the research questions. These definitions were based on the literature I reviewed.
32
School climate was defined for this study as the observable level of school
culture as measured by the teachers and principals perceptions of the following:
(a) The teachers sense of team identity at the school
(b) The teachers understanding and acceptance of the principals vision for the
school
(c) The teachers sense of being part of the school decision-making process.
Team identity is referred to in literature by many terms, shared
commitments (Sergiovanni, 2000, p. 23), collaboration (Crowe, et. al., 2002) and
affiliation (Ahadi, et. al, 1990, p. 9). All of these authors identify this factor as being
present in effective schools. Various authors have mentioned a strong, shared vision
on the part of the principal as an important feature present in schools with strong
climates (Bryk & Schneider, 2003; Marks & Printy 2003; Sebring & Bryk, 2000).
Participatory leadership models are mentioned frequently as being present in schools
that have open, positive climates (Goldsberry, et. al, 1995; Hoy, et. al., 1991; Mendel,
et. al., 2002). Teachers who work in a collaborative environment are more satisfied
with their jobs, which enhances the school climate (Pepper & Thomas, 2002).
Communication behaviors were defined as all verbal, non-verbal, and written
principal communication with teachers that could be observed by the participants
(Blase & Kirby, 1992; Sernak, 1998).
Effective communication was defined as communication from principals to
teachers that was heard and understood by the intended recipient(s) (Dowling &
Sayles, 1978). In other words, the teachers were asked if they understood what their
33
principal communicated to them and if they felt that in general the principals message
got through to them the way that the principal intended.
The teachers professional practice was defined as the daily decisions that
teachers made in their classrooms concerning curriculum, instruction, and assessment.
Teachers were asked to what extent their principals communication affected those
practices. Larsen (1987) referred to this influence as instructional leadership and
reported that teachers considered instructional leadership to be a most important (p.
35) aspect of the job of the school principal.
Case Selection
In order to study the link between principal communication and school climate,
I decided to use the case study method. I chose to use this method because the focus
of my inquiry was the perceptions of the participants about the communication of the
principals and the school climate. The case study approach was desirable here because
I was interested in the opinions of the interviewees; I was not searching for true or
accurate objective answers to questions (Merriam, 1988, p. 30). Merriam (1998) says
case study is particularly useful if you are interested in process[es], (p. 33)
occurring within a research site, rather than just the outcomes. The case study allows
the researcher to have a broader focus, thus learning more about the context of the
research site (Merriam, 1998). Understanding the context and opinions in place in
these schools was important to my sensing making about the communication-climate
link.
34
I chose to use a multiple site case study. Merriam (1998) suggests that the use
of multiple cases enhances the interpretation and the external validity or
generalizability (p. 40) of the data. Schofield (1990) points out, however that the
goal [of qualitative research] is not (emphasis in original) to produce a standardized
set of results... It is to produce a coherent and illuminating description of and
perspective on a situation (p. 203). Even with that caveat in mind, I deemed it
appropriate to choose a multiple case design to broaden my view of the phenomenon
of principal communication and school climate to potentially compare results across
sites. Trustworthiness will be discussed further in a later section of this chapter.
Cases were chosen based on a set of predetermined criteria (Merriam, 1988, p.
48). Potential schools were initially selected by proximity to my home. I had intended
to choose two schools that were as similar as possible in terms of grade level, number .
of pupils, type of community, and gender of the principal, in an attempt to match them
on key variables that were related to my topic. I felt that the size of the school, the
gender of the principal, the grade levels of the student, and the types of communities
in which the schools were located would have a potential effect on the school climate.
If these factors were more similar, I felt that I would be better able to compare the
results across the cases. I chose to work at two schools because I felt that this was a
manageable number of cases to study. To that end, I developed a spreadsheet on
which I grouped schools using the above parameters of location and similarity. All the
schools had full-time certified principals. Each group contained three schools.
35
I used these groupings to determine to whom I would make initial calls. I
began by contacting the three principals in the first group. I initially contacted them
by phone, sent a follow-up letter (see Appendix B), and requested meetings with the
principals to discuss my project further. These three principals seemed interested.
However, since I began in May 2003,1 had to wait for principals to talk to their
teachers over the summer or in the fall. By the fall of 2003 I still had only one
confirmed school. The other two original principals decided that they or their teachers
were not interested. As schools dropped out, I called other principals. I eventually
contacted eight principals, being forced to abandon my original spreadsheet groupings.
I met with six of these principals. I subsequently met with the faculties of four of the
schools to explain the study, present informational material (see Appendix B), answer
questions and concerns, and to hand out consent forms (see Appendix C) for them to
fill out and mail back to me in self addressed envelopes.
Of the original eight, two of the principals eventually decided they were not
interested or had other commitments; another principal was interested, but the
superintendent would not agree; and at a fourth school, only two teachers responded,
and the principal backed out. At a fifth school, the principal expressed interest, but
did not answer multiple phone messages after I sent out information regarding the
study, so I assumed that person was no long interested.
I had originally planned to interview approximately half of the professional
teaching staff (full or part time) and principals at each of two research sites. By
interviewing half of the teaching staff at the sites, I hoped to have a good picture of the
36
feelings of the staff members at that site. The total sample would then be between 20
and 30 participants, including the two principals. I felt that this was as large a number
of participants that I wished to work with, because each person would be interviewed
twice. My original design included choosing a representative sample of teachers from
the volunteers at each site, in order to minimize threats to trustworthiness of the data
from volunteer participants (see Trustworthiness, this chapter). I chose to interview
only teachers instead of including paraprofessional staff. I did this to eliminate the
differences in communication that might occur in some schools due to the varying
roles of paraprofessionals in different schools.
I found that soliciting teacher participation was much more difficult than I
expected. In order to obtain a large enough sample for my study, I had to contact each
school again after the initial faculty meeting presentations to encourage teachers to
respond. I enlisted the help of the principals by asking them to let their teachers know
that there was always room for more participants. Some teachers told me later that
they just needed to be reminded to send back their consent forms. Others just took
longer to make up their minds. The principals were sensitive to not appearing to
coerce their teachers to participate, but they were willing to remind teachers to send in
their forms if they were interested. I also sent additional forms to the schools in case
some teachers lost theirs and wanted to participate. Since the teacher response was
lower than expected, I eventually chose to use all three of the willing sites and
accepted all the teacher volunteers as participants. Twenty-two teachers and three
principals from three accredited Maine elementary schools made up the final sample.
37
Description of the Sample
Research was conducted at three elementary school sites in the state of Maine.
This sample met my original criteria in two respects. All the schools were elementary
schools and they were all a reasonable distance from my home. However, the
communities, size of schools and faculties, and even the gender of the principals were
not similar. Tables 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3 summarize the details of the sites, including
information about the schools, the school districts, the principals, and the teaching
staffs. Names of the sites and principals used in this study are fictitious.
Table 3.1 Description of Schools
Sites Grade Span Enrollment District
Type
Professional
Staff Size
Adams K-5 400+ Individual
Supervision
35
Beauport K-5 300+
Three schools:
SAD
6 towns
28
8 itinerant
teachers
K-2 40+ 4
K-3 100+ 8
3-5 170+ 8
Centerville K-8 150+ School Union
6 towns
24
Table 3.2 Profiles of Principals
Sites Gender Years of
teaching
experience
Total Years
Administrator
(Including
year of study)
This position
Adams Female 13 2 2
Beauport Female 8 9 5 in district
K-2 40+ 5
K-3 100+ 1
3-5 170+ 5
Centerville Male 20
6
2
38
Table 3.3 Teacher Participant Profiles by Sites
Adams Beauport Centerville
Total Teacher Participants 7 6 9
Percentage of total faculty 21% 21% 38%
Males 0 0 l a
Females 7 6 8
Teaching Experience,
including year of study
First Year teachers 1 1 1
Second or Third Year 0 0 0
4-10 years 2 1 4
11-15 years 2 2 1
16-20 years 0 0 2
20+ years 2 2 1
Mean Years of Experience 14 17 13
Mean Years at present school 6 11 8
aIn order to preserve anonymity, all teachers will be referred to in the female gender in the text
of this study.
Adams Elementary School is a K-5 school of 400 + students located in a rural
area outside a small city. The community serves largely as a bedroom community for
the nearby city. The town of Adams is not part of a larger school district. There were
35 professional staff members working full or part time at Adams Elementary at the
time of these interviews (see Tables 3.1 and 3.3). Adams is a large t-shaped, one-story
building, which creates two wings. The office is at the entrance to the school, close to
only a few classrooms. Seven teachers were interviewed at Adams Elementary.
The principal of Adams Elementary School was Ms. Allen (see Table 3.2). At
the time of the interviews, Ms. Allen was in her second year at Adams. Adams was her
first principalship. She had a background in early childhood education, elementary
education, and literacy. Before becoming a principal at Adams, she had served in a
leadership capacity, albeit unofficial, in a different school district.
39
Beauport is a town on the coast of Maine. It is a community that depends on
fishing, tourism, and recently developed businesses. It is part of a Maine School
Administrative District that encompasses six towns. I interviewed Ms. Boston, the
principal of three of Beauports elementary schools (see Table 3.2). She had been a
principal in the district for five years at the time of these interviews. This was her first
full year as principal of one of the three schools, having been principal of the other
two schools for the four previous years. Ms. Boston had taught in a variety of grades
in public and parochial schools in several states. Before she came to Beauport, she
had four years experience as a principal in a parochial school.
Ms. Bostons schools had a total of 300+ students in grades K-5. Of these
300+ students, 170+ attended the school where Ms. Boston had her office. There was
a head teacher in that school. One of the other two schools had a teaching principal,
whom Ms. Boston assisted and supervised. The third school had no in-house principal
but did have a head teacher. There were a total of 28 professional faculty members
working full or part time in one or more of the three schools. The schools were all
within a few miles of each other (see Tables 3.1 and 3.3).
The school where Ms. Bostons office was located was a large one-story
structure needing repair. Ms. Bostons office was near the entrance, next to the library
and the gym. One of the other schools was a very old, non-accessible, multi-level
school. The third school was a small two level school with three classrooms. During
the time that I conducted these interviews, the administration and staff of these three
schools were making plans to consolidate into one newly constructed building, with
40
Ms. Boston as the principal. I interviewed six teachers in Beauport, with each of the
three schools represented by at least one teacher.
Centerville is also on the coast. It is a middle class resort community. It is a
small town that is part of a School Union that consists of six towns. Centerville
Elementary is a K-8 school, with 24 professional full or part time staff members and
150+ students (see Tables 3.1 and 3.3). The student population had recently been
declining at the time of the interviews. Nine teachers were interviewed at Centerville.
The school is a newly renovated, very up to date two-story facility. Renovations
occurred during the summer preceding this study. Since the work was not completed
before school was to begin, students and teachers were relocated to a variety of sites
through the Centerville community. The teachers and students had only recently
returned to the newly completed building at the time of the first interviews at this site.
The principal, Mr. Cox, was in his second year at Centerville when he was
interviewed (See Table 3.2). This was his first principalship. He had a background in
secondary school science, physical education, and health. He had been a high school
science department chair and a high school assistant principal. A family illness
requiring Mr. Coxs attention kept Mr. Cox out of the building at least once a week
during tlie year in which these interviews were conducted.
The teacher participants years of experience ranged from first year teaching to
more than 30 years. Twelve of them had more than 10 years experience at the time of
the interviews, and three had less than four years. Adams teachers had on average the
fewest years (6) at their present school. Beauport teachers had the most average years
41
of teaching experience (17) and the most average years at their present school (11).
Centerville school had approximately 150 students, compared to Adams at 400 and
Beauport at 300 (see Table 3.2). Of the 22 teachers interviewed, 21 were female and
one was male (see Table 3.3). None of the principals had any teaching
responsibilities. None of the schools had assistant principals. Twelve of the 22
teachers were classroom teachers and ten were in other disciplines. Table 3.4, below,
provides a summary of the teaching disciplines of the teacher participants.
Table 3.4 Teacher Participants by Discipline
Discipline Number of
Participants
K-2 Classroom Teachers 3
3-4 Classroom Teachers 5
5-8 Classroom Teachers 4
Literacy 3
Special Education 2
Music 1
Guidance 1
Health 1
Library 1
Modem Language 1
Total 22
Data Collection
Interviews were conducted with all 25 participants between October 2003 and
April 2004 (see Appendix E). The initial structured interviews were conducted using
protocols (see Appendix A). Two separate protocols were used, one for the teachers
and one for the principals. In the initial interviews all 22 teachers were asked the same
questions and follow-up prompts from the teacher protocol. All three principals were
asked the same questions from the principal protocol. The only exceptions to this
42
were follow-up or clarifying questions that were inevitably more individual. I
prepared transcripts of the first interviews from the tapes and my notes. I developed
questions for the second round of interviews from the individual transcripts. The
second interviews, which were held with all participants, served to clarify or further
develop answers individuals gave me in the first interviews.
Interviewees were given the option of choosing the sites for their meetings
with me. I met with most of the participants at their school sites, but we also met at a
private residence, other schools, and at a restaurant. The interviews ranged from
approximately 30 minutes to 90 minutes in length. Most interviews were tape-
recorded. One participant asked not to be tape-recorded and there were a few times
when I had some technical difficulties that required me to paraphrase the interviews
from my notes.
Development of Protocols
The interview protocols used in this study were developed over a period of two
and one-half years. In the fall o f 2000,1 conducted a pilot study on principal-teacher
communication. The data for this pilot were collected through interviews with five
teachers using questions based on a review of literature about school communication.
The initial questions were asked only of teachers. The teachers were asked what they
considered to be effective communication on the part of principals they had worked
with. The questions were very open-ended and elicited lengthy narrative answers.
However, the answers seemed to be about the personalities of the principals involved
and how they affected the climate of the school.
43
I learned several things from this early attempt at interviewing. Clearly the
questions that I had fashioned were not specific enough and needed to be revised if I
was to learn about the specifics of principal communication behaviors. Secondly, the
teachers were telling me in their answers that there was more to this topic than how
well principals communicated. They were talking about school climate when I asked
them about communication. That led me to a study of the literature concerning
organizational communication and climate during the 2001-2002 academic year. That
study helped me form my definition of school climate to be used as a framework for
the climate questions asked in this study. Lastly, these early interviews served to help
me develop my skills as an interviewer. As I transcribed the first few interviews I
found myself hearing my voice more than those of the interviewees. I learned to listen
more and talk less as time went on.
After I had developed a new set of questions based on my study of the
communication and climate literature, I worked with my committee to refine them. I
also made use of some more teacher volunteers to help me with my protocols. This
time, I interviewed two teachers and then asked them to comment on the clarity of the
questions. Using their comments and the data that I received from the interviews, I
refined the questions with the help of my committee members. I then designed the
principal protocol to mirror the questions asked on the teacher protocol.
The principal protocol was divided into three major parts. The first section
contained an introduction to the study and asked for information about the principals
professional career, such as years teaching and years as an administrator. The next two
44
sections were designed to follow the format of the research questions. The second
section contained questions about the principals communication behaviors. The
principals were asked to talk about the major communication behaviors they used and
to describe themselves as communicators, including their strengths and weaknesses.
The third part of the protocol addressed the issue of school climate. Principals were
asked if they thought their teachers felt a part of a team at school and whether or not
the teachers understood the principals vision. They were asked to describe the
decision-making process at their schools. These data were needed in order to provide
information that could later be compared to the teachers responses to get a complete
picture of the communication behaviors of the principal, the school climates, and links
between the two.
The teachers protocol was divided into three similar sections: an introductory
section, a section on principal communication behaviors, and a section on school
climate. In the communication section, teachers were asked to describe the major
ways their principals communicated with them, their reactions to these forms of
communication, the common topics of the communication, and how they felt their
principals communication affected their professional practice. In the climate section
the teachers were asked to talk about their feelings of team identity, their
understanding of their principals vision and how it was communicated to them, and to
describe how decisions were made at their schools. At the end of each interview
session, teachers and principals were given the opportunity to add anything they
45
chose. This was an open-ended opportunity to expand on their answers or bring up
other topics.
Confidentiality
Every effort was made to conceal the identity of the schools, towns, school
districts, and individual participants in the study. Fictitious names of schools, towns,
and principals were used in the write-up of the data. Code numbers were used to refer
to the teachers and all teachers, regardless of gender were referred to as female in the
text of this study. The list of codes linking names to data was destroyed at the
completion of this study. Teachers were assured that the principals would not be told
the names or any other identifying information concerning the participants from each
of their schools. Statistics regarding experience and teaching responsibilities of the
teacher participants were aggregated to protect anonymity. Each teacher participant
was given the opportunity to give me an alternative contact number or email address
as an alternative to the school email. An application was made to the Institutional
Review Board (IRB) for the Protection of Human subjects in February 2003. This
study was approved by the IRB in April 2003 and approval was extended in April
2004. The application and approval process ensured that the procedures used for this
study were in compliance with University requirements. As part of these requirements,
all participants were provided with an informed consent form (see Appendix C) They
were asked to sign this form and return it to me. I provided them with a copy for their
own records. At the conclusion of this study the consent forms were destroyed.
46
Data Analysis
After the interviews were completed, transcripts of the tapes and notes were
prepared. I found the use of a transcription machine invaluable for this task. These
transcripts were then loaded into the QSR N6 NUD*IST (Non-numerical Unstructured
Data* Indexing Searching and Theorizing) qualitative data analysis computer
program. I chose this program after working with one other program and taking
recommendations from other researchers at the University of Maine. This QSR
program is one that is commonly used for this type of research at the University. After
receiving this recommendation, I read the descriptions provided by the manufacturer
concerning its products and determined that the N6 program was the most appropriate
one for my purposes. I used the student version because it was adequate for the size of
my project and was a great deal more economical. One disadvantage to using this
program was that because it was so easy to code and re-code the transcripts, it became
easy to get lost in a sea of discrete codes that did not really have much value.
Sometimes I needed to go back and consolidate some codes to make them more useful
to the analysis.
After the transcripts were loaded in the program, I began the actual process of
coding them. The final list of codes can be found in Appendix D. Codes were
developed using the participants words and my own terms. When I initially began, I
read the transcripts and looked for the answers to the protocol questions that I had
asked about principal communication behaviors and school climate. I also used the
labels that the interviewees used when these terms were consistent with each other and
47
could be used repeatedly. When participants used multiple terms for the same thing, I
created codes that could encompass a variety of words. For example, teachers and
principals used the terms, staff meetings, faculty meetings, and teachers
meetings all to mean the same thing. I coded these terms all as staff meetings for
the purposes of analysis. I also grouped responses and made my own codes for similar
answers. For instance I grouped a variety of terms under the code business of
school. I included in this code such things as scheduling, school policy, report cards,
fire drills, daily activities, meeting updates, budgeting, and paperwork issues.
The other types of codes I used were more subjective in nature. I developed
codes for teachers responses to the opinion question such as Is that form of
communication effective for you? I also coded the transcripts for the responses to the
school climate questions in the third sections of the protocols. For example, I coded
the transcripts for positive and negative responses to the principals communication
behaviors, for the responses that the teachers gave concerning the type of decision
making the principals used, or whether or not they felt part of a team. Since these
answers were not always specific, and not everyone used the same terms, I needed to
interpret the respondents answers and categorize their responses within the codes had
developed.
In order to categorize these responses, I developed a system of recording the
responses that allowed me to compare them. I rated each response to a given
subjective question as positive, negative, or mixed. The mixed category included
responses that had positive and negative elements in them, I like it, but... for
48
example. I then re-read each response to compare them to make sure that all the
positive responses were really more positive than the mixed ones and the mixed
ones were really more positive than the negative ones. When a participant had
multiple answers to a question, I used the answer that best characterized the majority
of his or her comments in response to a specific question.
After I had coded the transcripts for the responses, I began to group these
responses into trees (QSR, 2002, p. 11). These trees allowed me to arrange codes in
relationship to each other. For example, each code that I had used concerning a type
of principal communication behavior was grouped under a tree called P.
Communication Behaviors and all the topics of communication were grouped under
Topics of Communication. The program then allowed me to check for intersections
of data such as is presented in the tables in Chapter 4. These codes could also be used
to determine the number of times various responses were recorded. This allowed me to
get a profile of the responses from each site to each section of the protocol. For
example, the program allowed me to count how many teachers listed email as a
common type of communication from their principal. The program also allowed me
to determine the intersections of coding. For example, I was able to identify all the
teachers in a particular school who had a positive response to the principals
communication at staff meetings. In addition to coding the transcripts and organizing
the codes into logical groupings, I also had members of my doctoral committee review
samples of my coding to check for accuracy and consistency. They provided feedback,
which helped me make better use of the coding feature of the program.
49
I used the features of the computer program to help me look for common
themes in the responses. I was looking for indications that certain types of
communication behaviors or patterns would be linked to the climate factors I had
identified. I was interested in the topics of communication that teachers and principals
reported and how these reports agreed or disagreed with each other. I reviewed the
responses to the climate questions and looked for agreement and disagreement
between teachers and principals reports here also. I used not only the presence of the
positive climate factors previously identified but also the consistency across
respondents to analyze the climates of the school sites. Finally I looked for apparent
links between the principals communication behaviors and the climates of their
respective schools. Reports and observations of this analysis are presented in later
chapters of this study.
Trustworthiness
One major threat to trustworthiness of this study is the relatively small, self-
selected sample of teachers and principals in this study. Because I did not have
enough volunteers to select a representative sample, there was less assurance that the
participants views were representative of the rest of the staff of each school
(Maxwell, 1996). I also ran the risk of informers, participants who had an axe to
grind (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 258). I was aware of this potential problem and I
made note of responses that were substantially different from the rest of the responses
at a given site. I also made frequent note of the fact that these data are based on the
responses of only a sample of the teachers at each site.
50
I employed several other techniques to maximize the trustworthiness of data
collection and analysis. It was important that I recognized and accounted for my own
biases and beliefs regarding this topic. I acknowledged a belief that the success of
principals communication with their teachers rested only partly in their
communication skills. I felt that the overall school climate, including teachers
attitudes was the backdrop for communication and determined the receptivity of the
listeners. I also felt that how well a principal communicated his or her vision and what
that vision was could have a great impact on the climate of the school.
Knowing that I valued the importance of school climate and the principals
vision in the communication relationship, I needed to take precautions not to read this
value into the data I collected. In addition to being aware of my bias, I took four other
steps to ensure the trustworthiness of my analysis: review of my findings by my
dissertation committee (Maxwell, 1996), use of a computer program to code my data,
reading each response before including it in a count, and member checks (Lincoln &
Guba, 1985; Maxwell, 1996). As I began my data analysis, I provided members of my
dissertation committee with copies of some of the interview transcripts, so they could
have the opportunity to view the actual data I was working with. I used them as a
sounding board to review and comment on my conclusions, keeping in mind any
biases I might have. I used a computer program to assist me in systematically coding
my data and members of my committee reviewed samples of coded material for
accuracy and consistency. Although the coding can be somewhat subjective, using
other people to review my work made this process more objective.
51
I also made sure that I did not take the computation of the computer at face
value. Before counting a response in my data analysis, I always read the actual
response to make sure that it was coded properly and indeed was being counted
correctly. By using the program, I was less likely to miss responses because I had
coded them before I began to analyze them. I did not have to scan through the
transcripts to find certain responses; the computer program did that for me. To further
ensure accuracy, anytime a report or set of reports from a search did not include all the
teachers in a school, I manually scanned the transcripts to make sure that I had not
missed something in the initial coding.
In order to ensure that I was as accurate as possible in reporting the responses
from the sites, I employed member checks as another safeguard. Each participant who
was quoted in the text was provided with a copy of the quotes I proposed to use and
was given the opportunity to comment on my use of their quoted words. In addition I
randomly chose six teachers, at least one from each school site, to receive longer
passages of text to review. These passages included the individuals own quotes, my
introductory comments to their quotes, and in some cases additional quotes from other
participants on the same topic. Of course they could not identify the other participants
because all participants were referred to by their code numbers. Principals were sent
their quotes and some surrounding paragraphs that included my introductory
comments and transitional statements that gave them more of a sense of how their
words were being presented than just a series of quotations.
52
Another factor that I considered when analyzing the data was researcher
influence on the participants or reflexivity (Maxwell, 1996, p. 67). I used two
techniques to try to minimize this treat to trustworthiness. If I asked a participant to
expand on his or her answer, I tried to indicate that in the text of this study. I
endeavored to indicate which responses were initial responses and which ones were
prompted. In addition, because I interviewed multiple participants at each site, I was
careful to not indicate that I had heard a similar story before. I also did not ask about a
story that I heard from others when the participant did not mention it.
By using the above techniques and precautions, I hoped to ensure the
trustworthiness of the data presented in this study. In the next chapter data from the
questions on principal communication behavior are presented. Chapter 5 reports the
data from the climate section of the protocols.
53
Chapter 4
PRINCIPAL COMMUNICATION BEHAVIORS
The purpose of this study was to investigate the links between principal
communication behaviors and school climate. This investigation was based on the
following research questions: (1) How do principals perceive the link between
principals communication with teachers and school climate? (2) How do teachers
perceive the link between principals communication with teachers and school
climate?
Before perceptions about school climate could be investigated, it was
important to understand the communication patterns reported by teachers and
principals in the three school sites used for this study. In order to get a picture of the
communication setting at each site, participants were asked a series of question about
the principals communication patterns.
This chapter presents the data concerning principal communication behaviors
from the three research sites. Data from each site are presented separately with the
principals responses first followed by teacher responses and a site summary, which
includes a table quantifying the responses of the teachers and principals concerning
communication behaviors and topics. The chapter concludes with an overall summary
and a table with the data from all three sites.
After an initial introduction, the principals were asked to talk about the types
of communication they had with their teachers: What are your primary methods of
communicating with the teaching staff? The principals were also asked to talk about
54
how they thought their communication affected their relationships with their teaching
staffs and what they thought the teachers reactions were to their communication with
them.
The first question that the teachers were asked was What are the major ways
your principal communicates with you and the rest of the staff? After the initial
response, the interviewees were prompted for other answers: Are there any other
ways? Because all respondents were prompted in this way, almost every
respondents total response included the same elements. For that reason, the initial
responses were tallied and reported here. The teachers were also asked what the topics
of each form of communication tended to be whether or not they included these forms
of communication in their initial responses. Therefore all of the responses about the
topics of principal communication are tallied and reported here. In some cases,
teachers listed multiple potential topics for each form of communication.
Teachers were also asked to express their reactions to the various
communication behaviors their principals used. This included how they felt about
these forms of communication. When necessary, I clarified this question by asking
them if they felt this type of communication was effective and if it worked well for
them. Other questions included the clarity of the various types of communication used
by the principals, whether or not they thought the principal had the same level of
communication with everyone on the teaching staff, and how the principals
communication impacted their daily teaching.
55
Adams Elementary School
Ms. Allen describes her communication patterns.
Ms. Allen described herself as a communicator this way.
I think I'm a thorough communicator. I quickly picked up the use of
technology as a way of getting the word out to everybody at the same time, and
everybody's reading the same thing or hearing the same thing... My strengths
in the writing actually... I think I do a pretty good job of communicating, but I
make mistakes. I sometimes forget something along the way. (PA, interview
1)
She went on to say that another of her strengths was that she was clear about her
opinions and her values and acted on them, at the same time, presenting her rationale
for her actions to her staff.
I do have a strong belief system. Regarding things like discipline, learning,
assessment, and so forth. Im not afraid to share what my values are... They
[staff] can see A- Im working hard.. .and B- They dont always have to agree
with me, but I do set a standard that I expect them to follow. I just think I am
able to articulate well. I think that is strength; at least I hope it is. (PA,
interview 1)
She said her biggest challenge as a communicator was public speaking,
especially with large groups of parents and community members.
56
Not with staff or anyone in the school. It would be with the public, with
parents, or with a big group. I think it is a challenge communicating even
with students sometimes.. .Public speaking is something that I have worked v
very hard to overcome, and to a great degree I have... I would say it would be
the overall public speaking [that is a challenge]. With my staff, Im very
comfortable. (PA, interview 1)
Ms. Allen said that she made use of the available technology by sending emails
to the faculty. These email memos were sent out several times a week. She said that
her first year she did them every day, but that this became burdensome and she started
to cut back in her second year. She said that she promised teachers that if they did not
see one by 8:30 A.M. that it would not be coming that day. These emails included a
thought for the day and a list of items that this researcher has termed business of
school or school business. Included in this category are information about
scheduling, school policy, report cards, fire drills, daily activities, meeting updates,
budgeting, and paperwork issues. Ms. Allen said that the teachers responded positively
to the email memos that she sent out.
Ms. Allen said that she had staff meetings with her teachers almost every
week. She said that these meetings were relatively brief (less than 45 minutes). The
staff meetings might include any of a variety of topics. Ms. Allen said that most
recently the meetings had dealt with assessments and report cards. In addition, she
said she tried to include some philosophical background for why we do the things we
57
do. The very brief nature of the staff meetings precluded any kind of meaningful
staff development or lengthy discussions.
Time is an issue. Whether it is contractual or it is past practice,
nobody thinks you should go past 4:00 o'clock, and bear in mind we can't
start much before 3:30. That's not much of a staff meeting. The time of the
staff meeting dictates what we can do at a staff meeting. You really can't start
a workshop training professional development type of approach when you've
got 35 minutes tops. And then a few people will start leaving because of
childcare arrangements or so forth. So that very much dictates what we can do
at a staff meeting. But I think over all, I think people see staff meetings as a
necessary activity. I try very hard to make it meaningful. (PA, interview 1)
About once every two months, the meetings were opportunities to list what she
referred to as housekeeping details, scheduling and upcoming events, but she said
that she did not like to do that too often. She said that teacher response to staff
meetings was varied.
I think that most of them see them [staff meetings] as worthwhile, but it
depends on what each persons focus is... I have worked very hard in the last
year and this year it is my big focus, to create a team approach, a grade level
team.. .to make those connections between why 5th grade has to understand
what 3rd grade is doing.. .Its a little bit of an uphill battle. (PA., interview 1)
However, she indicated that the staff members took the staff meetings
seriously, and she appreciated it, This staff is very respectful of staff meetings... If
they're going to miss.. .they ask permission.. .they.. .ask somebody to take
notes.. .They are very respectful of the whole issue (PA, interview 1).
Ms. Allen reported that she maintained an open door policy at her office,
expecting and encouraging teachers to stop by when they wanted to talk or needed
information. She stated that she made sure that the person in her office with her was
her priority, not taking phone calls or doing other work while she was talking with a
staff member.
Ive had people say to me, I know youre busy. But I really Ive actually said
to people, youre the reason Im here, you should be in here [the office],. .The
person sitting in front of me is the important person at that time. (PA, interview
1)
Other face to face opportunities with teachers and the rest of the staff occurred
when she walked about the school. She said that she tried to keep track of people that
she saw in a given week and made an effort to see everyone every week or so. When
she made trips into classrooms, she always had a reason for going. To accomplish
this, she made notes about things that she needed to tell or ask a particular teacher, and
kept these notes on her desk. When she wanted to walk about the school, she would
collect these sticky notes and deliver messages as she visited classrooms. She said
she did this everyday. Part of the reason for these frequent trips around the school was
to maintain social contact with the teachers and other staff members. I do try to make
some personal contact, not with everybody every day, because there are too many, I
59
also want a valid reason for that contact, so I save up those reasons to go and see
people (PA, interview 1).
Ms. Allen was asked if she ever made social or personal contact with people
when she was walking around with the notes.
Yes, I do. Yeah, I don't always have to have a sticky in order to stop in on
people. I'm thinking just this morning for example, I went down I had
messages to deliver. After delivering those messages I ... just stopped and
asked her [a teacher] how she was doing.. .1 will stop in like that if I see
something of interest, or just see somebody sitting there. It's taken awhile with
a staff this size, but now I know pretty much their pets and their kids.. I might
ask a question related to something I know that way too... I would say I do,
not a lot. I don't necessarily seek people out just to be social. I'm very
conscious that everybody's busy when theyre here... I'm just conscious of
people's needs that way. (PA, interview 2)
Ms. Allen said that she felt that her consistent, open communication with her
staff had a positive effect on her relationships with her staff. I think its positive, the
open door, keeping them informed, just recognizing that I cant get to every person
every single day physically, but I can electronically (PA, interview 1).
She said the teachers wanted to see her walking around the school, but that so
many things can get in the way of that effort that it can be difficult to achieve.
I think everybody welcomes having me come and check and see how their day
is going and so forth, and I dont think I do it enough, but that's not always a
60
choice I have. I think people do appreciate it.. .and likely dont appreciate all
the barriers to doing it just as I wouldnt have understood when I was a
teacher (PA, interview 1).
She said that she felt that for the most part, people were comfortable coming to
her with problems, even extremely sensitive personnel issues.
I am always very discrete... I think that the idea that people have come to trust
me in a way that they do feel that they could say something about a colleague
is probably a good thing... It is my intent that everybody feels that they can
talk to me about anything, even if it is something that I might not want to hear.
Even if I ve done something wrong. Somebody thinks Ive been rude to them,
let them tell me, You were rude. (PA, interview 1)
Ms. Allen was clearly interested in maintaining open, consistent
communication with her teachers. She reported a variety of opportunities that she had
to interact with them. The seven teachers at Adams Elementary School were asked
similar questions about Ms. Allens communication behaviors. Their responses follow.
The Adams teachers describe Ms. Allens communication.
Teachers at Adams reported that email memos were received almost everyday
from Ms. Allen. In addition to school business, three teachers listed student concerns
as an additional topic of email communications.
Last year she gave us, sent us, an email every morning, and it was always there
when we came in... And this year she has told us that if there is no notable
there by her at a certain time, ... she doesn't have anything to tell us that day...
61
It's just that last year she said that it was very time consuming. (A2, interview
1)
Another teacher described the content of the email memos.
Those are usually things we need to know about for something that's
happening during the day, whether it be a fire drill, we've been having
some problems in our bathrooms, so those kinds of things have been coming
up. Information about report cards... She has a little quote that she adds
at the end. (A4, interview 1)
The teachers at Adams said that the emails were a good way to keep up with
what was happening in the school, and a good way for Ms. Allen to reach everyone at
once. They agreed that the emails were clear and easy to understand. Teacher A2 said,
Its just a quick way, an easy way to respond back and forth so that works out well
(A2, interview 1).
Teacher A5 also appreciated this form of communication. Oh, I love them
[emails]. Every morning I check them.. I feel that there is no excuse for me to forget a
meeting, because she [Ms. Allen] has given me plenty of opportunity to know about
it (A5, interview 1).
Teacher A7 had a negative comment to make about email
communication. She said that Ms. Allen was not always timely in her response to
emails. She went on to say that there have been emails to which she never received a
response. When asked what she did about it, she said that she talked to Ms. Allen.
The teacher found out that the emails had been received, but that Ms. Allen said that
62
she just had not had the opportunity to respond. I think I would appreciate at least a
response validating the e-mail was gotten and read (A7, interview 1).
All seven teachers responded that the principal communicated through staff
meetings. The teachers reported that staff meetings at Adams were held almost every
week and were led by the principal. The teachers were expected to hold grade-level
team meetings but Ms. Allen did not attend these team meetings. Four Adams teachers
listed areas related to the business of school as topics of the staff meetings. Additional
topics listed by Adams teachers were assessment (6 teachers), pedagogy (including
staff development and curriculum) (4), and student issues (1).
Comments about staff meetings at Adams were mixed. Three Adams teachers
had only positive comments to make about the meetings, one expressed a negative
opinion, one had positive and negative comments, and two had neutral responses.
Positive comments indicated that the staff meetings were an acceptable way to get out
information. Negative and mixed comments indicated that some of the meetings
included too many business items. We do have faculty meetings once a week, lots of
times those are bookkeeping kinds of things, and sometimes some of that information
could be on the [emails]...for people to read, but not always (A3, interview 1). Some
teachers felt that not all the faculty meetings were relevant to particular subgroups
within the teaching staff. Shell let us know the topics, so well know who needs to
be there... I dont feel they always address me personally (A6, interview 1).
All the teachers at Adams felt that Ms. Allen expressed herself clearly in these
meetings, whether or not they liked the staff meeting experience. I think that things
63
that need to be brought to the entire staff she does that good [sic]. Most often I find
them productive. I dont see them as a waste of time (A4, interview 1).
One teacher mentioned face to face contactindividual communication with
the principal in the classroom, in the principals office, or in the hallwayas an initial
response. She reported frequent individual contacts with the principal, in Ms. Allens
office and elsewhere.
She also in my opinion communicates just through her presence. At
dismissal she is in the hallway monitoring, making sure things are going
smoothly. In the morning, she's walking the hall making sure teachers are
at their doors greeting students and so on. (A6, interview 1)
When asked about face to face communication, the other six teachers reported
infrequent contact.
That doesn't happen very often, the majority is faculty meetings and [emails],..
It's not very often that we.. .that I have contact with her face to face. I mean
anytime I have gone to ask her a question, she's always been very good, she's
been very helpful, she's been understanding, but as far as
passing her in the hall, um, sometimes she won't even say anything. That
bothers me. (A4, interview 1)
All seven reported that Ms. Allen was very available when they went to her
office. She had a literal open door and encouraged people to drop in to talk to her.
One teacher called it popping in.
64
I'll pop in, her door is always open and so I don't feel as if she is not an
approachable person. If I need to pop in to see her, she's always, even though
she has stacks of papers in front of her, she'll stop what she's doing to talk.
She's very visible in that way and very accessible. (A5, interview 1)
School business was a primary reason for face to face meetings with the
principal. Three teachers from Adams listed this as a reason for face to face meetings.
Other topics listed by Adams teachers were student issues (3), pedagogy (2), personal
social contact (2), and teaming (1).
Most of the teachers had at least some positive comments to make about Ms.
Allens face to face communication with them. Four teachers had positive comments,
two had mixed comments, and one had only negative comments to make about this
topic. Teachers said that Ms. Allen listened to them when they went to her with
problems, that she was helpful and understanding, and open. [Ms. Allen] is
wonderful about having her door open... Shes such a good listener, she is such a good
problem solver... [she] always gives me a very insightful and very well thought out
answer (A6, interview 1). I walk away feeling like theres an openness of
communication and a positive attitude (A7, interview 1). Teachers also commented
that previous administrators had been much less open to teachers dropping in to the
office. One teacher reported that a previous administrator used a mechanical door
closer to make sure that the principals office door would close and stay closed. Ms.
Allen had removed that device and this was a powerful statement to some. They said
65
that they liked to have Ms. Allen drop into their classrooms. Dropping by.. .1 dont
mind at all, when anyone drops by its kind of nice (A2, interview 1).
Negative comments about face to face communication with Ms. Allen
concerned not feeling comfortable disagreeing with her, not feeling that confidentiality
has always been respected, and not feeling recognized by her. She is not one who
will even greet you in the morning sometimes. I have walked past her and she wont
even recognize that I have passed. So I dont know that I have warm good feelings
about the face to face (A4, interview 1).
All of the teachers interviewed at Adams found Ms. Allens communication to
be clear. I think her communication skills are good.. .If she communicates something
to me I understand what she wants and what need to be done. I think shes good at
that (A3, interview 1). [Ms. Allen] is a direct person. And shes also a highly verbal
person. She picks her words very, very carefully.. I mean you know when you leave a
staff meeting where she stands. Thats always clear (A5, interview 1).
When asked if Ms. Allen had the same level of communication, especially face
to face, with all her teaching staff, one teacher said that she felt there was no difference
in communication across the teaching staff. Four teachers said they did not really
know. Two of those four teachers went on to express other opinions about Ms. Allens
personal communication. One said that Ms. Allen had not really gotten to know her
very well.
I get the feeling sometimes that she is closer to some people than others, a little
friendlier with some people than others... At the end of the year last
66
year... [She] said that she really didnt know me very well... shed been here a
year. I dont know that she knows me any better today than she did then. (A4,
interview 1)
On the other hand, Teacher A5 said that she had a lot of communication with
Ms. Allen because she was involved in extra committees and other activities
throughout the school, and other teachers who were not as involved would not.
People make choices about how actively they are involved in things outside the
classroom, so they might not have as much interaction... I feel I interact with
her as much as any one else who is interested in things outside the classroom.
(A5, interview 1)
Two teachers said that they definitely felt that there was an inequality in Ms.
Allen communication with the teachers, but that there were reasons for this. Teacher
A3 said that Ms. Allen sometimes left some teachers out of the loop, but that this
was unintentional. Teacher A6 said that some teachers might need more
communication from Ms. Allen.
I think she is very consistent with everyone. Shes very polite with everyone.
Shes very to the point with everyone. But.. .1 think she does address people
differently based on their years of experience... I dont think its a negative
thing. I think she just knows what your needs are and tries to help you grow.
(A6, interview 1)
Teachers at Adams were split as to whether or not Ms. Allens communication
had an effect on what or how they were teaching. Four teachers said that although
67
communications in the form of emails or staff meetings would affect the day to day
running of the school and the schedule, that for the most part these things did not
affect their actual teaching. In general, staff meetings are housekeeping type things.
Thats the majority of it (A2, interview 2). Well I suppose with the businessy [sic]
type things, would effect my daily routine... I read professional journals and stuff and
that effects my teaching more (A7, interview 1).
Three teachers said that these communications did affect how they taught and
how they thought of themselves as professionals. I am very reflective in how I teach,
based on her comments, making sure that I really am doing a best practice method, or
really trying to get the best student outcome (A6, interview 1). Another teacher said
that she had many opportunities to talk with Ms. Allen. During these interactions, this
teacher said she learned things that directly translated into her classroom practice.
I think that Ms. Allen values me very much as a professional... Its a really
positive working relationship, and it directly translates itself here, because I
take a look at some of the assessments I have been doing lately and because of
her, her ability to look down the road, those kinds of changes are happening in
my room and other classrooms. (A5, interview 1)
She went on to say that because she herself expressed an interest in working on
assessments, she had spent more time talking with Ms. Allen than other teachers
might. She said that that was true of other teachers who were also interested in doing
things outside the regular classroom responsibilities.
68
Adams- Summary
Ms. Allen clearly felt that her communication with her staff was thorough
and predictable. Ms. Allen identified her strong value system as one of her strengths in
her communication. She said that she also had a strength in written expression. Her
biggest challenge she said was public speaking to groups other than her staff. The
teachers interviewed for this study reported that they found Ms. Allen to be a clear
communicator who spoke and wrote well, and made her feelings known.
Ms. Allen reported that teachers knew when to expect communications from
her, and what types of information the message would contain. Ms. Allens comments
about the emails accurately reflected the comments made by the teachers interviewed
for this study. They all agreed that the emails were helpful and consistent and an
efficient way for Ms. Allen to communicate with them. They said that she
communicated school business information through this medium (see Table 4.1).
Table 4.1 graphically represents the individual responses of the teachers
regarding their principals communication behaviors and the topics of those behaviors.
The numerals represent the number of teachers who reported a subject as a topic of a
specific behavior. Because teachers reported a variety of topics for some behaviors,
there are more responses than the number of teachers interviewed. The shaded areas
indicate the topics that Ms. Allen attributed to the communication behaviors that she
reported when describing her own communication. This table provides an opportunity
to compare the responses of the Adams teachers and Ms. Allen.
69
Table 4.1 Principal Communication Behaviors and Topics- Adams
Email Staff
meetings
Face
to
Face
Team
Meetings
Written Phone Totals
Business of
School
7 4 3 0 0 0 14
Assessment 0
..j.jjuninr u u i tn n i n ,
1 0 0 0 7
Student
Concerns
3 1 3 0 0 0 7
Pedagogy 0 4
BRH
0 0 0 6
Socializing 0 0 2 0 0 0 2
Principals
Vision
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Teaming 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Personal
topics
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Personnel
issues
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Note: Numbers represent individual teacher responses. Some teachers reported more
than one topic for an individual communication behavior. Therefore the total
responses for each behavior do not necessarily equal the number of teachers
interviewed. The shaded boxes represent Ms. Allens reports of her communication
behaviors and topics of those behaviors.
Ms. Allen expressed frustration with the lack of time for staff meetings, which
did not allow for much meaningful discussion. Even the teachers who commented
positively on the staff meetings did not give glowing reports on these meetings, but
70
did acknowledge their importance and relevance. Ms. Allen correctly identified the
fact that teachers might find some of the material in staff meetings not helpful to them.
It was very clear that Ms. Allen was concerned that her face to face meetings
in her office were productive and reflected the respect that she intended to show the
person to whom she was talking. Opinions about face to face encounters with Ms.
Allen outside the teachers classrooms clearly were dependent on the individuals
experiences. However, those teachers who did comment on meeting with Ms. Allen in
her office agreed that she was receptive and helpful and that when they did meet with
her there, they had her full attention.
Ms. Allen reported that she made an effort to visit all teachers in their
classrooms at least once in a while and she was deliberate in her attempts to do this on
a regular basis. The teachers who commented on classroom visits said they liked
having her come to visit. Comments varied on how often teachers saw Ms. Allen
outside her office. One teacher felt that Ms. Allen was very visible and available,
while the other six participants felt that they saw her very rarely. Many teachers and
the principal seemed to feel that the large, spread out school setting made personal
contact difficult, although it was still needed.
Although almost all of the Adams teachers interviewed either did not know
about the consistency of Ms. Allens communication, or felt it was unequal, most of
them felt that any differences were due to understandable or necessary circumstances.
The teachers interviewed here were split evenly as to the impact of Ms. Allens
communication on the day to day teaching that occurred in their classrooms. Four
71
teachers said that her communication primarily consisted of school business topics.
Three teachers on the other hand felt that Ms. Allens communication with them
definitely affected how and what they taught and inspired them as professionals.
Beauport School
Six teachers and Ms. Boston were interviewed at the Beauport site. These teachers
represented the three Beauport schools that were under Ms. Bostons supervision
during this study.
Ms. Boston describes her communication patterns.
Ms. Boston had this to say about herself as a communicator:
My actual skills as a communicator? They've improved. Because of the
nature of my job, I've refined them. Meaning that I have to be real clear about
thinking about what I am going to say before I say it. I think I do a good job
with that. Being honest, listening I think that's part of being a communicator is
also listening. Did I hear you right? This is what I'm hearing you say.
Answering the questions the best that I can with the information that I have.
(BP, interview 2)
Ms. Boston said that these improvements and changes in her communication
style were based on feedback that she had received from staff members.
When I first became principal.. .1 didnt listen as well to people.. .1 had some
staff people help me with that... [They told me], You werent really listening.
[It was] almost like a one-way conversation.. .Its not that I meant to do
that... Although thats what people were thinking, shes going to be a
72
dictator... I have to listen to all these different sides of an issue... So thats
what I did. (BP, interview 2)
She said her biggest challenge was having unpleasant conversations with staff
members, when they needed to be reprimanded.
My biggest challenge is its hard to sit across the table from someone who you
care about and tell them that the job performance isnt there... I know thats a
huge responsibility that I have to do as a principal. (BP, interview 1)
Ms. Boston said that she used weekly email memos to give teachers basic news
and information, nuts and bolts, including items that she didnt want to take time
with at team or faculty meetings. Since not all the support staff had access to email,
she said she made sure that the weekly memo was printed out and posted. Ms. Boston
said that she had asked teachers about the email messages she sent them and they had
responded positively.
They like the idea its kind of a nuts and bolts thing, and its not something
that we have to get bogged down with in team meetings that we like to do
every week. Sometimes I put stuff on there thats kind of thought
provoking.. .They read it. (BP, interview 1)
She said that she talked to teachers in schools other than her home school on
the phone and communicated with them by email. Ms. Boston said that she
encouraged teachers to give her a call if they really needed to get in touch with her.
Particularly this year, because this years such a unique year because of the
three schools merging and the building project, I'm not as on top of my email
as I want to be. So I always tell people, if it's something that you really need
an answer within a 24-hour period, call me. (BP, interview 1)
She attended team meetings in all the schools whenever possible. Each team
meeting included all professional staff members in the individual school where the
meeting was held. The principal was included as much as possible. Team meetings
addressed issues specific to the individual school and were teacher led.
When we have team meetings every week, we can put things on the agenda.
Because those team meetings are not my meetings. They want to do that as a
staff. They want me to be there if I can be there. There's always an agenda at
the three places. And if I need something on there, I put it on there. (BP,
interview 1)
She held staff meetings once a month, with teachers from all three schools
attending. During the year of this study, the bulk of the staff meeting time had been
devoted to preparing for the new school, including team-building activities.
Ms. Boston reported face to face communication with teachers as being very
frequent. Her goal in her home school was to visit every classroom everyday. She said
the real purpose of these informal classroom visits was to make sure the kids see
me. She did not necessarily use these times as opportunities to talk to teachers. At
her other Beauport schools, she visited in the classrooms on the several days a week
that she was in one of the schools, and less frequently in the third school. She said
that teachers liked the fact that she made an effort to visit the classrooms on a regular
basis.
74
I actually got a call from a teacher the other day and she said she really
appreciates that.. .When I first came here, I told my staff that its something I
believe in. Im not coming to check on you like youre bad.. .thats one way
for me to interact with the kids in a different way.. .Ive had good response.
Theyre used to it now. (BP, interview 1)
She said that she kept certain times of day open for drop-in visits in her office,
and that the teachers knew when these times were. These were times that teachers
would most likely be available to talk with her, such as before and after school, and
during lunch times. She tried to time her visits to the other schools to be there at what
she called peak times as well (before and after school and lunch time), so that
teachers would be available to talk with her if they needed to.
Ms. Boston was asked if the teachers used the designated times for dropping in
to her office, and how they responded to that system. She said that the teachers who
had been with her awhile knew that these were the best times to talk with her. She
found, however that teachers might want to talk to her at other times, during their
planning times for instance. During these times, she had to prioritize her time and
decide if she could accommodate them.
[If] its their planning time and they want to come in and talk with me and then
if I dont have anything scheduled Ill drop it and go with it. But its always
that balancing act of wanting to be available for them, but I do also have my
own responsibilities as a principal, and keep trying to balance that. It depends
on the situation. (BP, interview 1)
She said that although teachers seemed to understand that she could not always
be available for them they still wanted more of her time according to the feedback
she had received from them. She said that sometimes she got so involved in what she
had to do in her office that she could be short with people and that she needed to be
aware of that. I really have to realize that during the school hours I really have to be
here for the people that are doing the job... and try not to snap at the person who walks
in my door (BP, interview 1).
Ms. Boston talked about her attempts to maintain contact with the teachers at
one of her other schools.
And at [one of the Beauport schools] too, we have team meetings Wednesday
afternoons I'm there three or four times a week half days... I do the same thing
there that I do here. I visit when I get in there. I touch base with them, make
sure I'm open during those peak times. (BP, interview 1)
Ms. Boston said that her communication could have a positive or negative
effect on her relationships with her teachers.
I think it effects it by the way I communicate with them. If its a nice
conversation with them, it continues to build our relationship... However I
communicate with them, it either helps build our relationship or kills it...
Because for me as a principal what my number one piece is I really believe
strongly in building relationships with people and I work really hard at that.
(BP, interview 1)
76
Ms. Boston clearly felt that she was very available to her teachers. She said
that the relationship that she had with her teachers was tied to her communication.
What follows is a report of the responses that the Beauport teachers gave during their
interviews.
The Beauport teachers talk about Ms. Bostons communication.
At Beauport, all teachers reported email in their initial responses. They said
that Ms. Bostons email memos were received once a week. These emails were also
printed out by the school secretaries and posted. In addition to school business, one
teacher mentioned that the principal communicated her vision through her emails, and
one teacher listed students as a topic. More that one teacher expressed the need for Ms.
Boston to use email for communication because she had more than one place to be.
Teachers in Beauport said that they liked the emails that Ms. Boston sent each
week.
And I think in today's world, I think those memos [emails], as far as I'm
concerned for someone who has to be so many places, I think it's a highly
effective way to communicate with people in a staff this size, to make
sure that everybody gets all the information... And I like the fact that she
always has something very positive at the bottom, either uplifting or thought
provoking, might make you smile, might make you laugh. (B6, interview 1)
They found them informative, efficient, and to a certain extent necessary,
given the Ms. Bostons wide sphere of responsibility. I feel perfectly fine with the
email.. .that is the only way that she can deal with all of us.. .theres just too many
77
buildings for one person (Bl, interview 1). I guess I like in person [communication]
thats what I am comfortable with. But I know thats not realistic for every
person.. .But if I have a question specifically, Ill email her and thats great (B4,
interview 1).
Teacher B4 went on to say that Ms. Boston did not always respond to emails in
a timely manner. She also said the emails contained too much information that was
not relevant to her particular teaching responsibilities. She said that this led to her not
always reading the emails and using other forms of communication with Ms. Boston.
Five teachers included all-school team meetings in their initial responses.
Team meetings were held weekly in each school, were facilitated by the teachers, and
included all teachers in the individual school. Five teachers reported school business
as the subject of team meetings. In addition, teachers reported pedagogy (3), teaming
(2), and student concerns (2). Ms. Boston attended the team meetings whenever
possible. The teachers said that Ms. Boston used the team meetings as times to share
information with the teachers and also to answer questions. This was an opportunity
for her to touch base with individuals because she also knows that we will all be
there. So it is a place for her to catch most of us, where as any other time, it's catch as
you can (Bl, interview 1). The teachers explained the format of the team meetings in
each school.
We take turns being the facilitator. We take turns taking notes. She's part of
the team. And she often is disseminating information in those that she's
78
privileged to that needs to get disseminated.. .It's time for her to talk more
about something and she does use that. (Bl, interview 1)
Of the five teachers interviewed who regularly attended team meetings, three
had positive comments to make about Ms. Bostons participation, one had positive and
negative comments, and one had only negative comments. For the most part both the
positive and negative comments centered on Ms. Bostons acceptance of her role as
part of the team rather than acting as a leader or administrator. She doesn't try to
monopolize it or anything, and sometimes principals think they can (B5, interview 1).
Shes part of the team (Bl, interview 1).
I think for the most part... she's very direct and... I think it goes it well
[communication at the team meetings], but I do sense that not everybody feels
that way.. .1 think that there are personalities are very defensive around her and
don't like her telling them how things are going to be... Sometimes she [Ms.
Boston] would come into a meeting in that defensive mode if somebody said
something... And the tone at which [things] were said [to her].... But I think
that things are much better now. She doesnt come in with that defensive
baggage. (B2, interview 2)
Not all teachers agreed that Ms. Boston acted as just another member of the
team. One teacher commented that Ms. Boston did not seem to always remember the
way things were done. She said that there was a rotating facilitator and a rotating
recorder. Ms. Boston was aware of the structure, but according to this teacher has
taken over more than once. Some teachers mentioned that previous administrators had
79
not had such a hands-on approach to working with that particular school, and so Ms.
Bostons frequent participation in their meetings was a change for them.
Teachers also commented on the frequency of her attendance at the meetings.
Yes, we do have team meeting once a week, but she does not always attend... But
again, she's got three team meetings to attend (Bl, interview 1). We were having it
Wednesday morning. And for whatever reason, we changed it to Wednesday
afternoon, which doesn't work every week for [Ms. Boston], She comes when she
can... I see that as out of her control (B2, interview 1).
Four of the teachers interviewed included the staff meetings in their initial
responses. Staff meetings, which included teachers from all three schools, were held
monthly and were led by Ms. Boston. Beauport teachers reported the following topics
of staff meetings: school business (5), pedagogy (1), the principals vision (2), teaming
(2), and student issues (1).
Five of the Beauport teachers had comments on the staff meetings. One had
positive comments, one had negative comments, and three had mixed comments. The
positive comments centered on Ms. Bostons ability to organize and direct the
meetings and the fact that she allowed teachers input at the meetings.
I think she does a good job with it [communicating in staff meetings]... She
has an agenda and she follows it, and of course we are going to get off on a
tangent...she doesn't have a problem with that, she's not hung up on the
agenda. (B6, interview 1)
80
Some negative comments concerned the size of the meetings and lack of
substantive accomplishments.
I find them [faculty meetings] too big. I think that we've got huge issues that
we ought to be at our little clusters a little bit more... Because we are all
excited about going to this new school, but . .. I don't see us getting a whole
bunch done. (Bl, interview 1)
Teacher B2 also commented that there was a lack of time to socialize at the
meetings. I dont like staff meetings any way.. I think sometimes she could be a little
bit looser.. .there isnt any.. .warm-up time. But she did go on to say that Ms. Allen
did allow for teacher input. She often asks for input. I think that she wants people to
tell her how theyre feeling (B2, interview 1).
Five of the Beauport teachers mentioned face to face communication in their
initial responses. They reported that opportunities to speak individually with Ms.
Boston were complicated by the fact that she had multiple schools to supervise, so
most of these opportunities were in the teachers classrooms. Occasionally Ms.
Boston met with teachers in her office or in the teachers room at the one of the
schools, but these meetings were reported as rare. Four teachers listed school business
as a topic of face to face meetings with Ms. Boston; three teachers listed student
issues, often related to discipline; and three teachers listed teaming.
Comments regarding face to face communication with Ms. Boston were
varied. One teacher had only positive experiences to report, one had only negative
comments, and four had mixed opinions of face to face communication with Ms.
81
Boston. On the positive side, some teachers found Ms. Boston willing to talk and said
that she made them feel comfortable with her. Teacher Bl said that because Ms.
Boston had three buildings, it was often difficult to catch her. She said that Ms.
Boston would stop into her classroom occasionally, and that given the circumstances it
was as available as could be expected.
She's wearing too thin. I just think she's wearing too many hats, it's
not anything that's her fault.. .I'm really looking forward to being in one
building with her, so that it just feels like she's in the building... She's here
when she can be.. .she pops in certainly, if I'm here late or something and she's
here, she always greets me.. .1 feel very comfortable with [Ms. Boston],.. She
makes a really effort to get into peoples rooms to see what theyre doing. (Bl,
interview 1)
Although Ms. Boston had an open door in her office, the one teacher who
talked about meeting her in her office said that it was more effective to make an
appointment than to drop in. She said that Ms. Boston was not adhering to that open
policy and that teacher at least preferred to make appointments.
I think it's hard for her sometimes depending on what's been happening
someplace else... Sometimes I think she likes it better if you make an
appointment with her rather than just popping in... Sometimes... you get a
look like you've interrupted her.. .If you've got an open door then you should
expect that. If you literally have an open door then you should expect people
will pop in on you. (B6, interview 1)
82
She went on to say that when she did make an appointment with Ms. Boston,
things went well, I think it's excellent. I really do. I think she is a very caring
individual. She listens to you (B6, interview 1).
Not having the opportunity to meet with Ms. Boston at predictable times was
another issue that prompted a negative comment from one of the out-lying schools.
One teacher said that she found it difficult to find time to talk with Ms. Boston
personally. She said that the principal used to have a schedule of times to visit her
school and more recently she had not been able to rely on that happening. In addition,
more than one teacher reported that Ms. Boston had difficulty controlling her emotions
when things were bothering her. Another teacher said that she rarely had a personal
conversation with Ms. Boston, primarily because she found her difficult to talk with.
The teachers reports of the frequency of the classroom visits and hallway
conversations varied from twice a week to rarely. Teacher B2 (interview 1) said, She
quite often comes into the classroom, just touches base with me to see how things are
going, maybe twice a week she does that. But Teacher B5 (interview 1) said, About
once a year, [laughter] no, but not very often.
Four teachers from Beauport listed communication in the form of written
memos or notes. Two referred to notes that were about school business, one mentioned
student issues, and one reported that Ms. Boston had recently started to leave thank
you notes in peoples mailboxes. In addition, phone communication was reported by
two teachers in Beauport as a way to connect with Ms. Boston when she was at
another school and as a way to make appointments with her.
83
Three teachers shared comments regarding communication on paper and on the
telephone. Two teachers said that Ms. Boston was very good about getting back to
them when they left her a voice mail message. They said that this was more effective
sometimes than waiting for an email response to a question. One teacher said that she
was still unsure when it was appropriate to call Ms. Boston with a problem from
another school, and when Ms. Boston would feel things should be handled by the
school staff. One teacher said that occasionally Ms. Boston would leave a note in her
mailbox in answer to an email question, and that that worked well for that individual.
All six teachers found Ms. Bostons communication in writing and orally to be
clear. Two teachers added that her communication was very direct or black and
white. This was seen as positive as well as potentially negative. [Her verbal
communication] is very direct... I am probably as direct with her as she is with me. I
dont have the problem with that... But I dont think that everyone [feels that way]... I
dont think that she knows how to deal with different personality types on their level
(B2, interview 1).
She went on to say that Ms. Boston is more comfortable with people who are
straightforward with her, since that is her preferred style. This causes her to miss
some cues and be taken by surprise when peoples comments come back to her
another way. Teacher B5 said that Ms. Boston sometimes had a negative approach to
telling the staff something, Shes black and white. She usually has an opinion (B5,
interview 1). She said that Ms. Boston frequently expressed those opinions in a
negative tone, which made the teacher uncomfortable.
84
Of the six teachers interviewed in Beauport, two said they did not know if Ms.
Bostons communication was at the same level with everyone, three said it was not,
and one said it was. The teachers who felt that the communication was unequal had
differing opinions as to what caused that to happen. I think there are some teachers
who talk to her more, definitely... Or [maybe] it just happens that they hit it off with
her. I dont know what it is, but she definitely can have a conversation with them,
more than others (B5, interview 1). I think that some people are intimidated by her
appearing brusque or business like. That doesnt intimidate me at all.. .But other
people are really offended if she doesnt say hello in the hall (Bl, interview 1). I
asked this teacher if she felt that this reaction on the part of some teachers interfered
with the communication between them and Ms. Boston. Yeah, feeling comfortable.
They think that shes got some big agenda against them.. I know that is the case with
some folks (Bl, interview 1). On the other hand, Teacher B6 said she was
comfortable with Ms. Boston, and felt others were also, I would say shes pretty
open... I doesnt matter if youre an ed-tech or a teacher, and you need to talk to her,
shell find the time (B6, interview 1).
Of the six teachers who were interviewed in Beauport, two teachers felt that
what was discussed in the emails, staff meetings, or team meetings by Ms. Boston had
a direct affect on classroom teaching. [At] staff meetings, we could be talking about
curriculum or talking about scheduling.. .Individual meetings when were talking
about scheduling at the beginning of the school year... she works really hard [to help
me] (B6, interview 1). Teacher B5 said that at team meetings the teachers and Ms.
85
Boston talked about students who are having problems. The teachers also talked
with Ms. Boston about things like preparing for the writing prompt. She said that the
team meetings always ended on a positive note and those things really do make a
difference in the day to day classroom. Staff meetings, she said, did not focus on
those kinds of topics. This fall... We talked about our mission statement and our
goals.... We worked on that a lot... I thought we worked on that stuff a little too
much (B5, interview 1).
The other teachers said that most of the information was directed toward
housekeeping details and scheduling. They also added that this year, the three schools
were being prepared to merge and that any meaningful discussions that the faculty had
were centered around the mission of the new school and team building rather than
curriculum.
Beauport- Summary
Ms. Bostons description of herself as a communicator included the fact that
she had worked to improve her communication skills, that she was honest and direct in
her communication and that she made efforts to keep lines of communication open.
Teachers comments on their comfort level speaking with her were varied, with more
than one teacher feeling that sometimes she did not make them feel welcome. Ms.
Boston herself acknowledged that she could sometimes snap at people. Two
teachers expressed the feeling that Ms. Bostons communication could be too direct
and potentially negative. This very direct or even brusque manner also was cited as a
reason that some teachers felt uncomfortable with Ms. Boston, possibly accounting for
86
perceived different levels of communication between Ms. Boston and certain members
of the teaching staff. Other teachers expressed a comfort level with her that made
talking with her a positive experience.
Ms. Boston said that she tried to keep communication open by trying hard to
keep up. with email and phone messages, attending all-school team meetings in the
three schools, and by holding staff meetings monthly to get the three staffs together.
She emphasized that in addition to these contacts with staff she regularly saw staff
members in the three schools either in her office or in their classrooms. She reported
that she was very intentional about keeping her office and her schedule open at certain
key times during the day. She said that the teachers knew this and made use of these
times to seek her out. Ms. Boston felt that her biggest challenge in communication was
having conversations with staff members when she had to discipline them.
The Beauport teachers were in agreement with each other and Ms. Boston on
some key points, but their opinions varied widely on others. Table 4.2, on the
following page, reports the individual responses of the teachers regarding the topics of
the various forms of Ms. Bostons communication behaviors. Shaded areas indicate
Ms. Bostons responses, which can be compared with those of the teachers.
87
Table 4.2 Principal Communication Behaviors and Topics-Beauport
Email Staff
meetings
Face
to
Face
Team
Meetings
Business of
School
6 5 4 5 2 2 24
Student
Concerns
1 1 3 2 1 0 8
Teaming 0 2 3 2 0 0 7
Pedagogy 0 PMHMM 0 3 0 0 4
Principals
Vision
1 2 0 0 0 0 3
Personal
topics
0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Assessment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Personnel
issues
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
interviewed. The shaded boxes represent Ms. Bostons reports of her communication
All the teachers agreed that the weekly emails were a necessary way for Ms.
Boston to communicate with them because she had a wide sphere of responsibility and
because of the geography that separated the members of her whole staff. They agreed
that Ms. Boston attended team meetings whenever possible.
88
A wide range of opinions was apparent in the comments concerning Ms.
Bostons participation in the team meetings and her face to face availability. Some
teachers indicated that Ms. Boston participated in the team meetings in an appropriate
and helpful way, while another teacher was concerned that she occasionally took over
a leadership role that was not part of the team meeting concept.
In terms of face to face meetings, some teachers felt they saw her often and
regularly, while others found these opportunities to be rare. The physical distance that
separated the three staffs for whom Ms. Boston was responsible was cited as a
situation that made the task of being visible and available very difficult. Ms. Boston
said that the teachers appreciated her visits to their classrooms and made use of the
designated times to drop into her office. She also said that teachers seemed to want
more time to talk with her than her schedule allowed, although she tried to
accommodate them. Teachers comments certainly echoed the fact that they wished
they could see more of her, either in their classrooms or in other settings.
The teachers I interviewed had mixed comments on the monthly staff
meetings, some really feeling that they were productive and well run and others
finding them too big or too formal. Comments were made that indicated that the
bringing together of three different staffs was a difficult but necessary task that would
hopefully lead to a more cohesive staff in the following year.
89
Nine teachers and Mr. Cox were interviewed at Centerville. Mr. Coxs
comments are first, followed by those of the Centerville teachers.
Centerville Elementary School
Mr. Cox describes his communication patterns.
Mr. Cox had this to say about himself as a communicator:
I've been told anyway that I'm an excellent communicator. I like to I think I
have strengths and weaknesses with communication. I don't think I
communicate often enough... Often I get caught up in the hubbub of the day
and I might forget to tell somebody something... [I have been told] when I do
communicate that I do so effectively... So I find when I do communicate I use
a lot of analogies. I use a lot of personal stories and stuff to get a point across.
And I have been told by my staff that it's very effective. (CP, interview 1)
He said that his greatest challenge as a communicator was dealing with people
who were rude or unpleasant to him. I dont like rudeness, if someone came to me
and were angry with me... I have a tendency to get defensive (CP, interview 1).
Mr. Cox said that he felt he was successful as a communicator because he
came across to people as being genuine, that he had a certain quality about him that
was difficult to explain, but was very real.
If anyone doesnt feel that youre genuine about it you might be saying all the
right things, but if they feel its not genuine... I like to think that people think
that Im sincere. What makes them feel that? Its not the words.. .Im not sure I
truly understand what that formula is. And Im glad I seem to have [it]... And
90
I dont know what it is, because I genuinely like people... They have to trust
you. (CP, interview 2)
Mr. Cox reported that he made much use of email to communicate with the
teachers, in some cases more than once a day. These emails were not on a schedule,
but were sent whenever he had something to share with the faculty or individual
teachers. He pointed out that individual messages of a sensitive nature would be
handled in person. I would never email for example say to reprimand somebody. I
would never do that, that would be face to face (CP, interview 1). For the most part,
he used the emails as an opportunity to cover the nuts and bolts of the school. He
said that teachers liked the fact that the emails covered these details and that meant
that these types of items did not take up time in the faculty meetings.
He said that the monthly teachers meetings were another occasion for
everyone to communicate. Mr. Cox said that he enjoyed using stories to illustrate his
points, and often began the meetings with one of these. These meetings, although they
did sometimes have a limited amount of business items on the agenda, were occasions
for the staff to discuss more substantive topics, such as ungraded primary,
differentiated instruction, or simply a time to reflect on teaching issues.
It's just let's think about this thought for a moment and about kids and
about why we're here and why we're there to learn and why we're here to
teach. Because often we get so caught up with details that we forget
about why we're here and so I like to have a moment in which they just
91
reflect their own teaching and they reflect on their job as an educator. (CP,
interview 1)
He said that the teachers really liked the teachers meetings.
I havent heard any negative [comments]. Ive heard nothing but positive... .1
mean that, the comments have been, and Im not attributing it all to me, but
people say, Oh I cant make the meeting, but I hate that because I really enjoy
those meetings. That would be the type of the input I would get. (CP,
interview 1)
Middle school team meetings, which he said were twice a week, were another
opportunity for communication with the teachers. He said that he participated as a
part of the team. He also reported attending primary level team meetings, where such
things as an ungraded primary might be discussed.
We usually meet at the team level, primary team or middle school team,
because there are often two things going on, whatever.. .For example we meet
twice a week as a [middle school] team. (CP, interview 1)
He said that he felt that having the separate team or grade-cluster meetings was
not always the best choice.
I think there are certain conversations in the past that might have been held just
at the primary or the middle school level, but I think warrant whole discussion
with the whole faculty. Often I think what happens is we say... if it's a middle
school issue why tie up the primary teachers? But I think even though it might
be geared towards middle school, there are parts of it that weave through the
92
K-8, so I want to... do more of those types of things at faculty meetings or
whatever. (CP, interview 2)
His door, he said, was almost always open and he encouraged teachers to stop
by. When people dropped by he said he made a point of making them feel welcome.
He regretted that due to time constraints these visits were rarely social, although he
would encourage that also. When asked how the teachers responded to his open door
policy he replied as follows.
The feedback I get from evaluations, they feel that Im very approachable, and
that they feel that they can come to me whenever they want.. I dont think
theres anyone.. .thats [sic] intimidated by me. They feel they can talk
honestly with me.. I think it [my open communication] has created.. .a culture
in which we can be open.. .That just makes for such a healthy school for
everyone. (CP, interview 1)
He also reported walking around the school, informally stopping into
classrooms to visit students and teachers. He said that he liked to vary his methods of
communication, sometimes using email, and sometimes dropping in a classroom to
give an individual teacher some information. Dropping by the classrooms could also
be an occasion to simply maintain contact with people.
I wish there was more of that, Come on let's chat and you know what did
you do this weekend? and stuff but it doesn't happen that way. That's why
93
I often will try to get around and just walk around and say hi to people and
stuff like that. Because I know they're awfully busy just to come in and sit
down. (CP, interview 1)
He said that the teachers liked that fact that he dropped into their classrooms.
Mr. Cox was proud to say that a visitor noticed that when he [Mr. Cox] came into the
classroom, the students went right on with their work, indicating that they were used
to his visits. I had a parent that works with our science class... [say] I cant tell you
how much better this school feels... when you came in the classroom, nothing
changed...a seamless transition. And that was a compliment (CP, interview 1).
Mr. Cox said that he felt that the open upbeat communication and attitude that
he displayed had created a positive atmosphere in the school, especially during recent
school renovations.
We can either whine about things or we can accept the challenge and turn a
negative into a positive, and thats exactly what everybody did... What I hear
from hearsay in the past there was a lot of that [talking behind peoples backs]
going on... And now I think overall as a staff we communicate a lot better with
each other.. I think Im modeling for people all the time. The way I come
across to them is going to dictate how they come across to me. (CP, interview
1)
Mr. Cox described himself as an excellent and frequent communicator. The
teachers at Centerville described him in similar terms. Their comments follow.
94
The Centerville teachers talk about Mr. Coxs communication.
Eight of the nine teachers interviewed in Centerville listed email as an initial
answer. All eight listed the business of school as a topic of these emails. In addition,
four teachers included pedagogy, two teachers mentioned student concerns, and one
teacher included assessment. Responses concerning the frequency of Mr. Coxs emails
varied from almost everyday to four or five a day.
All the teachers who were interviewed in Centerville had positive comments
about the email messages that Mr. Cox sent them periodically. They found them to be
efficient, helpfUl, and appropriately brief. I think its [the email] very efficient...I can
say that in general one thing that he [Mr. Cox] is very good about is he gets back to
you (C2, interview 1). When you get one [email from Mr. Cox], you look at it and
you read it through. We had past administrators where we just got so many emails that
we just couldnt get through it (C7, interview 1). In addition to positive comments,
Teacher C4 felt that relying heavily on email meant that staff members saw less of
each other and Mr. Cox, because personal communication was not necessary.
Four of the Centerville teachers included staff meetings as an initial answer,
and one also included team meetings as a source of principal communication.
Centerville teachers reported that their staff meetings were held once a month and
were led by Mr. Cox.
Faculty meetings, they happen about every three or four weeks... pretty
much the staff builds the agenda. And he simply facilitates that. He'll say first
thing on the agenda, and let's talk about this. He offers a very open forum for
95
staff to communicate and to share their ideas... I think that's one of his
priorities, that we all have a voice, that we all speak here. (Cl, interview 1)
Eight teachers at Centerville listed the business of school as a topic of staff
meetings. Teachers also added that the following topics were discussed at staff
meetings: the principals vision (6), pedagogy (5), assessment (3), teaming (1), and
student issues (1). One teacher at Centerville said that staff meetings were also social
occasions. Six teachers specifically mentioned that Mr. Cox frequently used personal
stories, analogies, and/or motivational speeches to make points and express his
philosophy at staff meetings. He likes to tell stories, loves to be a storyteller... When
he tells us a story, it can be one that is very heartfelt, or it could be something with a
little bit of humor (C3, interview 1). Another teacher explained what these stories or
speeches meant to her, And I've never seen a principal that at the staff meetings, that
really.. .gave a talk or read a speech. It's almost like a kind of motivational kind of
speech and he really works to try to unify the staff (C6, interview 1).
Of the nine teachers interviewed in Centerville, six had positive comments
about staff meetings, two had mixed comments, and one teacher did not attend staff
meetings because of her schedule. Positive comments centered on the fact that Mr.
Cox was very skilled at facilitating the meetings and making them meaningful. A
unique feature of the staff meetings at Centerville was that the parent-teacher
organization provided extensive refreshments for the staff members. A parent told me
that this was their way of letting the teachers know how much they appreciated the
96
staff. The teachers I interviewed really appreciated that aspect and said it enhanced
the social aspect of the meetings.
Ive been to a lot of the staff meetings over a number of years, and these I
think are my favorites... There are few occasions where we see people from
[other grade levels],.. so when were all together in one room, we actually
look at each other and have conversations... And he [Mr. Cox] really listens.
(C3, interview 1)
Teacher C9 said that Mr. Cox stuck to the agenda, but allowed for staff input.
He liked to tell stories to illustrate his points. This teacher appreciated the efficient
way that Mr. Cox communicated important things at these meetings. If he needs to tell
you five things, he tells you five things (C9, interview 2).
Middle school team meetings were facilitated by the teachers and held twice a
week, with Mr. Cox attending once a week. Team meetings in the lower grades were
less frequent and may or may not have been attended by Mr. Cox. Six teachers at
Centerville reported the business of school as a topic for team meetings. In addition,
the following topics were listed: pedagogy (3), assessment (1), and student concerns
(1). Teacher Cl also said that the team meetings were an occasion for socializing.
Nine teachers commented on team meetings at Centerville. Three of them had
positive comments to make about Mr. Coxs participation in these meetings. Teachers
in the Middle School had more experience with team meetings because there were
held weekly. At the K-6 level team meetings were held sporadically and Mr. Cox did
97
not always attend. Teachers who felt positively said that Mr. Cox participated as a
part of the team, was willing to share ideas, and listen to the ideas of others.
Hes part of our team. So as a member of the team, he contributes things to the
agenda...And he contributes equally...He makes us feel like hes a
learner... not this imparter of knowledge or this God-like figure who knows
everything. (Cl, interview 2)
Another teacher put it this way. I think he helps to clarify and sort out things
for us... .1 think he also tries to be part of the group and help us to direct ourselves to
do a certain thing (C5, interview 2).
Negative comments included the fact that Mr. Cox had not provided leadership
that encouraged regular team meetings at the lower levels, and that in the middle
school meetings, Mr. Cox should provide more direction. Teacher C7 said that at her
grade level, teachers met informally, but without Mr. Cox. When asked if she would
prefer a more formalized meeting schedule with Mr. Cox in attendance, she replied, I
would, but I dont know how we would do it, because someone is always I dont
have time. That is one problem. Personally I d like to see it (C7, interview 1).
Seven of the nine Centerville teachers mentioned face to face communication
in their initial responses. Five of these teachers reported talking with Mr. Cox in his
office. Various topics were reported for the face to face meetings with Mr. Cox:
business of school (3), pedagogy (1), student concerns (1), and personnel issues (1).
Teachers comments about the frequency of these contacts varied widely. Five
teachers reported these interactions as being frequent, nearly everyday, or at least
98
several times a week. Two teachers reported that these occasions were rare. Five
teachers mentioned that Mr. Cox was often in the hallways and dropped into
classrooms to visit teachers and students, although one felt that these informal
classroom visits were not frequent enough. Well, I think he really enjoys coming into
the classroom, focussing on the activities the kids are doing. I don't think he does it
enough. He pops his head in every now and then to see what they're up to (C3,
interview 1).
One teacher felt that Mr. Cox was not very visible at all. She said that Mr. Cox
was probably the least visible principal that she could remember. She went on to say
that part of the reason for that was the relocation of the classes at the beginning of the
year and the need for Mr. Cox to be out of the building because of family emergencies
(C4, interview 1).
All nine teachers interviewed commented on various opportunities for face to
face communication with Mr. Cox. Five had only positive comments to make, three
had mixed comments, and one said that she needed more contact with Mr. Cox on a
one on one level. Teachers making positive comments consistently said that Mr. Cox
was very approachable, easy to talk to, and good communicator. I would say out of
all the principals I have met, he has the most comfortable demeanor in terms of
communicating (Cl, interview 1). He stops in every now and then... It isnt like
hes in the classroom everyday, but I think that he is visible... He has a good way with
the kids, so its not like its a stressful thing (C5, interview 1). On the negative side,
some added that he was not an excellent listener, that he was not as ready to listen in
99
a spontaneous meeting as a scheduled one, or that there was not as much opportunity
to talk with him as some teachers would like. Hes a better talker than he is a
listener... Sometimes hes not as good at the receptive side of it (C2, interview 1).
One teacher said that she did not see him often in the hallways, but that she did feel
she could make appointments to see him in his office. At these appointments she said
that he was very attentive. When she just dropped in however, she did not always feel
he was as ready to listen to her (C4, interview 2).
Written and phone communication were not frequently mentioned by
Centerville teachers. Although no one in Centerville referred to direct written
communications from Mr. Cox, when asked about the principals vision, one teacher
in Centerville mentioned that one of the ways that Mr. Cox communicated with the
community at large, including the staff, was by writing his philosophy in the student
handbook. One teacher at Centerville reported that Mr. Cox has called her at home
when there has been something to discuss after school hours. This teacher also
reported that Mr. Cox had called her at home when she was seriously ill and she knew
that Mr. Cox had called other teachers for similar reasons.
I think that if he needs to call them and talk to them he would about
an issue. He's a very warm caring person. I think if somebody were out
sick and it's more than just the flu or something. He wants to just check
and see if you're all right. I think that's kind of nice. There's always
a purpose to his call. He doesn't call just to chat. (C3, interview 1)
Of the nine teachers interviewed at Centerville, six said that Mr. Cox had the
100
same level of communication with everyone, one teacher said that the level of
communication varied by individual, and two said they did not know. I dont think
that Im any different than any other teacher. If he has a concern... he comes to me...
I would just assume he comes to other teachers (Cl, interview 1). I think that there
are some people that he meets with much more often. He does spend more time with
the middle school teachers.. .1 dont think its really even as far as communication
(C7, interview 1).
All the Centerville teachers I interviewed found Mr. Coxs communication to
be clear, although some felt it could be clearer at times and that there should be more
communication from him.
I think hes clear, I just think its not consistent enough... I feel like theres not
enough communication... There are some gaps in communication, where you
find out so much by the trickle down effect. You know like somebody being
hired, I read about it in the newspaper. (C 4, interview 1)
Of the nine teachers interviewed at Centerville, seven said that
communications from Mr. Cox affected their day to day work in their classrooms. Of
these seven, two said that meeting with Mr. Cox concerning individual students
affected how they worked with the students who were discussed. One teacher also said
that she had met individually with Mr. Cox as part of the evaluation process and they
discussed teaching practice at that time. Another teacher added that the staff received
information about conferences on a regular basis. One teacher said that the
information that was discussed at team meetings was often about teaching practice.
101
We spend a lot of time [in team meetings] talking about curriculum philosophy
and those types of things... Emails are more administrative.... When he [Mr.
Cox] talks about curriculum it is a one on one situation.... Talking about
programming, scheduling for the upcoming year, what our programming
would look like [at the team meetings]. (Cl, interview 1)
Five teachers said that communications frequently were about scheduling of
school activities or assessments, which would affect what went on in the classrooms.
Two teachers said that although the school schedule affected their classroom
schedules, this did not affect how or what they taught.
The scheduling would [impact my teaching]. When I can do things, when I
cant . . Or if weve got a meeting where were talking about what were going
to teach, those are big issues, but as far as curriculum stuff, I dont think so.
Assessments, big assessments.. .that would affect what we teach. (C3,
interview 1)
Overall, many of these teachers seemed to be saying that much of what Mr.
Cox discussed with them or told them affected their day to day schedules, if not their
professional practice. As with other topics, whether or not they were in a grade level
that met with him in team meetings affected how much of this professional dialogue
that they had with Mr. Cox.
Centerville- Summary
Mr. Coxs description of his communication patterns indicated that he had
received positive feedback about some of his communication behaviors. His genuine,
102
sincere manner, he said, helped him to gain the trust of others, and enhanced his
communication. He reported that teachers told him that he was an effective
communicator, and that they liked the analogies and stories he told to make his points.
He added that a weakness in his communication might be that he did not communicate
enough at times. Another challenge he said he faced was dealing with people who
were rude to him. For the most part teachers at Centerville agreed that Mr. Coxs
communication was clear. They also agreed that he should communicate more often
about some things. They said that his communication was more consistent for certain
members of the teaching staff. Because of the physical layout of the school and the
fact that the middle school teachers met with Mr. Cox more regularly, these
inconsistencies in communication seemed to a certain extent inevitable.
Mr. Cox said that he used email often to disseminate information to the whole
staff or individuals, that he held monthly staff meetings, and attended grade level team
meetings. Centerville teachers were in agreement that Mr. Cox used email and
meetings to communicate with the staff as a whole and as individuals. The nine
teachers interviewed at Centerville all seemed to agree with Mr. Cox about his emails.
He said that they liked them, and found them to be informative and appropriately
succinct. The teachers seemed to agree with that analysis.
Table 4.3 on the following page reports the responses of the Centerville
teachers regarding Mr. Coxs communication behaviors and the topics of these
behaviors. The shaded portions of the table reflect Mr. Coxs responses.
103
Table 4.3 Principal Communication Behaviors and Topics-Centerville
Email Staff
meetings
Face
to
Face
Team
Meetings
Business of
School
8 8 3 6 0 0 25
Pedagogy 4 5
1 MI11 1 0 14
Principals
Vision
0 6 0 0 1 0 7
Student
Concerns
2 1 1 1 0 1 6
Assessment 1 3 0 1 0 0 5
Teaming 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
Personal
topics
0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Personnel
issues
0 0 1 0 0 0 1
interviewed. The shaded boxes represent Mr. Coxs reports of his communication
The teachers said that the staff meetings included business as well as more
substantive topics (see Table 4.3). Some of them specifically added that Mr. Cox was
a storyteller, who made use of these stories to make points and unify the staff.
Teachers for the most part also seemed to agree with Mr. Coxs assertion that teachers
104
liked the staff meetings. They found them to be opportunities for socialization, for
getting and sharing information, and a forum for Mr. Cox to discuss his philosophy
and draw them together as a staff.
Team meetings drew a variety of responses. To a certain extent, these
depended on the grade level of the respondents. Middle School teachers expressed
appreciation for Mr. Coxs participation in these meetings. However, at least one
teacher thought that Mr. Cox should take more of a leadership role in these meetings.
Teachers who worked in grade levels that did not have regular team meetings with Mr.
Cox expressed a desire to have that happen.
Mr. Cox said he encouraged teachers to stop in and talk when needed,
maintaining an open door policy at his office and also tried to walk around the school
to visit classrooms and teachers on occasion. Opinions varied as to how often Mr. Cox
was seen in the hallways in classrooms and even those who felt these occasions were
fairly frequent wished they saw more of him. Teachers agreed that Mr. Cox had an
open door policy but did not agree among themselves about the effectiveness of just
dropping by to talk with him.
Mr. Cox said that teachers found him approachable and went to talk to him
whenever they had something to say. The teachers I interviewed had a variety of
responses to face to face communication with Mr. Cox. Some found him very
approachable and felt he was often around and available. Others felt that they saw
him very little and that meeting with him informally was not as effective as setting up
a meeting. The reason for this last comment was that he might be preoccupied during
105
an impromptu visit. Mr. Cox said that teachers liked him to drop into their classrooms
and that these visits went well. The teachers responses validated this opinion.
On the whole, the Centerville teachers commented that Mr. Coxs personal
situation meant that he was not in the school as much a principal normally would be.
For the most part these teachers felt that he was able to do a fairly good job of
maintaining open communication lines with him, given the unusual and stressful
circumstance. They seemed to look forward to the opportunity to see him be more
fully engaged in the future.
Summary of All Sites
What follows is a summary of the major points of the previous data concerning
the responses of the principals and teachers at the three sites. The summary begins
with a review of the principals and teachers reports of communication behaviors and
topics. This is followed by a review of the comments by teachers regarding the clarity
and consistency of their principals communication and its effect on their professional
practice. The summary concludes with an analysis of the agreement and discrepancies
between teachers and principals within and across sites.
Descriptions of the Principals Communication Behaviors.
All three principals reported using email, meetings, and personal contact to
communicate with their teaching staffs. The frequency of email contacts varied from
once a week to once a day to several times a day. The topics of the emails were
primarily school business according to all three principals. Meetings were used for a
variety of things: to impart information, to build team feelings, to work on mission
106
statements, to develop assessments, to discuss issues, and to plan for the future. All
three principals described themselves as having an open door policy of some sort.
Ms. Allen said her door was always open to teacher visitors, Ms. Boston maintained a
schedule of open times, and Mr. Cox said that his door was always open.
All three principals said they frequently walked around their schools to visit
classrooms. Ms. Allen did this to deliver messages and check in with the staff. Ms.
Boston tried to get to all three schools on a scheduled basis and visit every classroom
in her home school everyday. Mr. Cox said that he tried to get around the school and
be visible in the hallways to vary his communication methods.
Table 4.4 displays the totals for all the communication behaviors and topics
reported by the teachers at all three sites. It also includes subtotals of the frequency of
responses about topics from each site. The n at the top of each school column refers
to the number of teachers interviewed at that site.
107
R
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
e
d

w
i
t
h

p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t

o
w
n
e
r
.

F
u
r
t
h
e
r

r
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

p
r
o
h
i
b
i
t
e
d

w
i
t
h
o
u
t

p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
.
Table 4.4 Principal Communication Behaviors and Topics- All Sites
Email Staff
meetings
Face
to
Face
Team
Meetings
Adams Beauport Centerville All Sites
n=7 n=6 n=9 n=22
Business of
School
21 17 10 11 2 2 14 24 25 63
Pedagogy 4 10 3 6 0 0 6 4 14 23
Student
Concerns
6 3 7 3 1 1 7 8 6 21
Assessment 1 9 1 1 0 0 7 0 5 12
Principals
Vision
1 8 0 0 1 0 0 3 7 10
Teaming 0 3 3 2 0 0 0 7 1 8
Socializing 0 1 2 1 0 0 2 0 2 4
Personal
topics
0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 2
Personnel
issues
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Note: Numbers indicate individual teacher responses.
In their initial responses, all but one teacher included emails. According to
these teachers, all three principals emailed them if not daily, at least weekly.
According to the respondents, the email messages from the principals were primarily
related to school business. All 21 teachers who reported email communication in their
initial response included some business topics in their response to the question about
the topics of email communication. Of these, eight specifically mentioned scheduling
as a topic of email communication. Four other topics were coded as responses to the
question about the subjects of email: assessment, pedagogy, the principals vision, and
student concerns. All 22 participants expressed some positive opinions about the email
messages that constituted the primary method of communication for all three
principals. They said that the email messages were clear and achieved their purpose of
informing a large group of people about important issues.
The second most frequently mentioned form of principal communication was
meetings, including staff meetings and team meetings. Sixteen teachers included
meetings in their initial response. Fourteen included staff meetings and six included
team meetings. Weekly team meetings at Beauport included all teachers in a
particular school. Team meetings at Centerville were made up of two or more grade
clusters. Middle school team meetings were at least once a week. Primary team
meetings were sporadic. Since the principal did not attend team meetings at Adams,
no teachers in Adams included team meetings when discussing principal
communication.
109
The business of school was the most frequently mentioned topic of staff
meetings and team meetings. Of the 17 teachers who mentioned business topics for
staff meetings, seven specifically mentioned scheduling as being covered at those
meetings. Business was cited as a topic of team meetings by 11 teachers, seven of
whom specifically mentioned scheduling. Other topics of staff meetings, in order of
most to least frequently cited, included pedagogy, assessment, the principals vision,
teaming, and student concerns. Additional topics mentioned for team meetings were
pedagogy, teaming, student concerns, and assessment.
Reactions to staff and team meetings varied by school and by individuals. Of
the 20 teachers that expressed an opinion about the staff meetings, 12 of them had
positive comments, two had only negative comments, and six of them expressed
mixed or neutral opinions. The positive comments about staff meetings were centered
on the relevance of the topics discussed and the skill of the principal to facilitate a
meaningful and productive meeting. Teachers who had negative or mixed reactions to
staff meetings said that large meetings are not always helpful to all segments of the
professional staff and that some meetings are merely lists of information that could be
covered in another way.
The staff meetings at the three schools were very different from each other and
that context bears noting here. Staff meetings at Adams were frequent but short. Most
of the time needed to be spent on concrete topics such as scheduling, assessments, and
current problems. There was little time for socialization, team building, or meaningful
discussion. Beauport staff meetings were once a month, longer, but incorporated three
110
school staffs who were trying to learn to work together. The year of this study, these
meetings were frequently focused on plans for the following year, when they would be
consolidated in one building. The business topics for each school were covered at
team meetings. Centerville staff meetings were once a month, lasted at least an hour,
and included the staff from the one building only. There were more opportunities for
socialization and discussion because business topics were covered by this principal by
daily emails. The unique participation of the parents in these meetings also led to a
very positive attitude about these meetings at Centerville.
Team meetings were held regularly at the three schools in Beauport and in the
middle school at Centerville. Responses to these meetings were generally positive.
For the most part, these team meetings were organized and facilitated by the teachers
with the principals participating as part of the team. Teachers in general felt that these
meetings were useful and they were glad they had this opportunity to work with each
other and the principal.
Thirteen teachers mentioned face to face communication opportunities as an
initial response when asked to describe their principals communication behaviors.
The quality and frequency of these face to face communication opportunities varied
widely, whether the responses were initial or prompted. School business was the most
frequently mentioned topic of the face to face meetings with the principals. In
addition, teachers mentioned student concerns, pedagogy, teaming, assessment, and
personnel issues as topics of these meetings.
I l l
All 22 teachers expressed an opinion about face to face communication.
Eleven of these teachers had only positive comments, three only negative, and eight of
them shared both positive and negative face to face encounters with their principals.
Overall, teachers expressed a desire to have more frequent personal contact with the
principal, whether in the hallway, the office, or the classroom. Teachers cited various
reasons for the principal not being as visible and available as they would like. At
Adams, the spread out layout of the building was mentioned. At Beauport, the
physical separation of the three schools posed a problem. At Centerville, teachers
cited both the two-story nature of the building and the fact that Mr. Cox was out of the
building more than a typical principal would be.
Only three teachers, one from each site, commented on phone communications,
two of them finding this method of communication helpful and another way to connect
with the principal. Two teachers commented that paper communication was a positive
way for their principal to connect with them.
Clarity, Level of Principal Communication, and Impact on Practice
Regarding the clarity of the principals communication, 18 of the 22 teachers
interviewed simply said that their principal was clear or very clear. The other four
teachers said their principals were clear most of the time and two of these expressed
the opinion that the communication was clear, but not frequent enough.
Opinions about the level o f communication that principals had with their
teaching staffs was split almost equally between three options. Eight of the 22
teachers interviewed said that they felt that their principals had equal communication
112
with all teachers, as far as they could observe. Eight teachers said that they really did
not know because they did not have the opportunity to observe enough interactions
beyond their own. Six teachers said that their principals did not have equal
communication with all the staff members. Sometimes this inequality was explained
by the fact that some teachers had more need of communication with the principal or
more contact with the principal because of work requirements. Other teachers said
that this inequality was a as a result of principals leaving some people out of the
loop.
The majority of the 22 teachers interviewed for this study did not perceive that
communication from their principals affected their professional practice. Nine
teachers said that their principals communication definitely did not affect their daily
teaching. Five said that what the principal communicated to them in terms of
scheduling affected how they conducted their day, but not necessarily their actual
teaching. Six said that their principals communication to them affected how they
taught and how they felt about themselves as professionals and two said that they
talked to their principal about individual students and that affected how they worked
with those students.
Discrepancy Analysis
One method of comparing the profiles of the three schools sites is to look at
instances of agreement and discrepancy between the teachers and the principals at
each site and among the teachers at each site. In addition, the consistency of responses
among the three sites bears examination. The level of consistency between what the
113
principals said in their descriptions of their communication and what the teachers said
about them varied widely. There were several areas of general agreement at each site,
however major areas of disagreement existed between teachers interviewed here and
their principals.
The one area of agreement that was consistent through all sites was the use of
email. All the teachers and the three principals were in agreement that email was the
easiest way to disseminate basic information to a large group of people at the same
time. Although not everyone liked the fact that email was a part of everyday life, for
the most part they seemed to agree that it made sense and was efficient.
An area of moderately consistent agreement was the comments that teachers
and principals made about staff meetings. Ms. Allen said that not all the teachers found
the staff meetings meaningful for their particular area of teaching and the teachers
agreed. Mr. Cox said that his teachers really liked the monthly staff meetings at
Centerville and his teachers certainly agreed. However, Ms. Boston said that her
monthly three-school faculty meetings were an opportunity for team building. The
teachers did not agree, citing school business as the primary topic for these meetings,
which several of them found to be too big and unproductive.
Team meetings at Beauport and Centerville were not areas of agreement
between teachers and principals. At Beauport, the team meetings involved all the
teachers at each of the three schools. Teachers did not all agree that Ms. Boston
adhered to the teacher-run aspect of these meetings. At Centerville, agreement about
the principals attendance at grade-cluster (team) meetings depended on the grade
114
level of the respondent. The middle school teachers agreed with Mr. Coxs
assessment that he attended their team meetings on a regular basis, but the primary
school teachers did not agree that they spent much time meeting with Mr. Cox. Their
team meetings sometimes were more informal and just included teachers. Some said
they would like to see him more at some kind of primary level team meeting.
All three principals said that their doors were open to teachers. Teachers
interviewed in the three schools did not always agree with the principals assessments.
Ms. Allens teachers seemed to agree that indeed her door was open to them. They
found this to be a refreshing change from a previous situation. Ms. Bostons staff
agreed that her door was open and she was available at certain times. However, some
of them felt that when they took advantage of the opportunity to drop in, she
sometimes did not make them feel welcome. Mr. Coxs teachers for the most part
agreed that his door was open, but some found that dropping in on him did not ensure
that he would be able to take the time to listen to the visitor. For these teachers,
making an appointment was a better alternative.
There was one area of consistent disagreement between principals and teachers
across the three sites. The three principals all felt that they spent a great deal of time
in the classrooms and hallways their schools. Many teachers in each school
disagreed with this assessment. Most striking in this regard was the data from Adams.
Ms. Allen reported being frequently out of her office, in the hallways, and visiting
classrooms. Only one teacher out of the seven interviewed reported seeing her on a
regular basis. Many others said that the principals were indeed out in the school, but
115
they wanted to see more of their principals. The principals seemed to understand that
fact but found the demands of their job a frustrating bar to being in the classrooms
more. Ms. Boston especially found her situation difficult, in that she had to travel to
other buildings to see some of her staff and that was a challenging schedule to
maintain.
Responses concerning the typical topics of various forms of principal
communication indicated a lack of consistency between the perceptions of the
principals and teachers in some cases. Tables 4.1,4.2, and 4.3 show instances of
agreement and disagreement between principals and teachers concerning the topics of
principal communication behaviors at Adams, Beauport, and Centerville respectively.
The areas of disagreement between the principal and their teachers seemed to center
less on the types of communication behaviors reported by each group than the topics
of communication. Principals reported a wider variety of topics than the teachers
reported, especially at the Adams and Beauport sites. The most striking discrepancy of
this type was in the area of the principals vision. The Adams teachers did not report
the principals vision as a topic of Ms. Allens communication, whereas Mr. Cox and
the majority of his teachers reported this topic.
As Table 4.1 indicates, Ms. Allen reported that she discussed school business
in her email, staff meetings, and face to face. Teacher response indicated that the
teachers agreed with this perception. They also agreed with her report that she
discussed assessment at staff meetings and pedagogy (primarily curriculum) during
staff meetings and face to face. Major disagreements were indicated in the areas of
116
the principals vision and student concerns. Ms. Allen reported that she discussed her
vision in her email messages. None of the seven teachers interviewed at Adams listed
vision as a topic of any type of communication. Ms. Allen did not report student
concerns as a topic of any of her communications but teachers reported this topic
seven times.
Ms. Boston said that she discussed school business in her emails, face to face,
and on the phone. Teacher responses were in agreement with this, although they also
indicated that school business was part of all forms of her communication (see Table
4.2). She said she included pedagogy in her staff meetings, but only one teacher
reported this. She said that assessment was a topic of staff meetings, but no teachers
reported assessment as a topic of any of her communication.
At Centerville, there was more agreement between the teachers and Mr. Cox as
to topics of his communication (see Table 4.3). He reported school business as a topic
of emails, staff meetings, and face to face communication. Teachers agreed with this,
adding team meetings to the list. He said that pedagogy was a topic of staff and team
meetings, teachers agreed, adding email, face to face and written communication to
this list. Most striking was the fact that Mr. Cox said that he discussed his vision at
the staff meetings. Six of the nine teachers interviewed at Centerville listed this topic
also. Centerville teachers and their principal seemed to agree on the topics of his
communication behaviors. The teachers interviewed for this study seemed to have the
same perception of this principals communication as he did.
117
In general, the teachers and principal at Centerville had the most areas of
agreement. Both the teachers interviewed and Mr. Cox seemed to have a similar view
as to his strengths and weaknesses as a communicator. The teachers at Adams had
more areas of agreement with Ms. Allen than disagreement. She also seemed to have
a realistic view of her communication in most instances. At Beauport there was the
most discrepancy between what Ms. Boston reported and what the teachers reported
regarding her communication behaviors and topics.
The Beauport site showed evidence of much disagreement, both between Ms.
Boston and the teachers and among the teachers themselves. These discrepancies
between what Ms. Boston intended and what the teachers reported seemed to vary
according to personal impressions that individual teachers had of Ms. Boston. Many
found Ms. Bostons manner to be brusque, and those same teachers did not feel that
she was as attentive to them as other teachers in the same school did. It seemed that it
was not what she did, but how she did it that made the difference for these teachers.
Several teachers at Beauport reported problems between Ms. Boston and other
teachers, because of Ms. Bostons manner or attitude. These teachers indicated that
other people had problems with Ms. Boston that colored their ability to work with
her. This reinforces the concept that communication from the principal has an
influence on the climate of the school and climate (represented here by the teachers
attitudes) can influence communication.
Another example of communication influencing and being influenced by
climate can be seen in Centerville. Mr. Cox was perceived by teachers as being open,
118
a what you see is what you get kind of person. The teachers comments about Mr.
Coxs communication were not always positive but they usually agreed with his
analysis. They seemed to hear what he said and value communications they received
from him. For the most part, they regarded him as honest and forthright and without
hidden agendas and this seemed to enhance their understanding of his communication.
In the next chapter, more links between communication and climate will be
explored. After the teachers and principals were asked about the specifics of the
principals communication behaviors and the topics of these communication
interactions, both groups were asked about the three previously discussed climate
topics: team identity, teacher understanding of the principals vision, and teacher
inclusion in decision-making. Chapter 5 reports the responses concerning these
climate factors and includes a preliminary discussion of these findings. Chapter 6
follows with a more in-depth discussion of the findings and their implications.
119
Chapter 5
SCHOOL CLIMATE FACTORS
In this study I am exploring the links between principal communication
behaviors and school climate. In the previous chapter responses to questions
regarding principal communication behaviors were presented. In this chapter the
responses to questions regarding school climate are presented. For the purposes of
this study school climate has been defined as being represented by three dimensions:
the teachers sense of team identity, teachers understanding of the principals vision,
and teachers sense of being part of the decision-making process. This chapter is
organized by research sites, with the principals responses reported first in each case,
with teachers responses following. The chapter concludes with school summaries
and a discussion of major observations from the data presented in Chapters 4 and 5.
Teachers and principals were posed questions designed to give a picture of
the climate of each school and how the principals communication in that school
seemed to affect that climate. Principals were asked to talk about teamwork in the
school and how they felt about the importance of this aspect of school climate. The
next topic that was explored was the principals vision for the school and their
thoughts about their teachers understanding and support of this vision. Principals
then responded to questions concerning the decision-making process that they
typically used and how the teachers reacted to this approach.
Teachers were asked if they felt that they were part of a team at school, and if
their principal talked about the importance of working as a team. The teachers were
120
not given a definition of team, but were told to answer the question in any way
they chose. After their response, they were encouraged to comment on their school
as a team and their principals feelings about this. Next, the teachers responded to
questions concerning the principals vision for the school, and how this vision was
communicated to them. Teachers were not given a definition of the word vision.
When the teachers answered this question, sometimes they told me about actions the
principal had taken or priorities the principal seem to have. From these answers, I
prompted the teachers to try to state the principals vision. Sometimes they were
able to do this, but sometimes there were unsure and just left it at a more concrete
level.
Decision-making was the next topic that was explored. We talked about how
decisions were made at their schools and how their principals involved them in this
process. I explained that I was talking about decisions that affected things beyond the
day-to-day operation of their classrooms such as all school events, playground
discipline, and scheduling. The teachers as a group all seemed to be clear that there
were some decisions, for instance those regarding confidential personnel matters,
that they would not appropriately be involved in.
Responses to the questions posed to the principals and teachers varied widely
among the three research sites and within the schools as well. Teachers within the
same school in some cases had very different opinions as to the methods of decision
making that were used in the school, the clarity of the principals vision, their own
sense of being part of the school team, and the principals feelings about that topic.
121
There was considerable variability among the three schools as to the agreement
between the teachers responses and the principals comments. The data is organized
here by sites. Each of the three dimensions of school climate is discussed separately.
Adams
Ms. Allen talks about teacher team identity.
Ms. Allen said that having teachers work as a school team was part of her
vision for the school. She said that when she arrived everyone was working on their
own, not as a team. She had tried very hard to make sure that everyone knew that
working as a team was very important to her and the school.
This year I think everybody is very conscious of the word, they are very
conscious of what goes into being a team, people that would have been only
alone on their own last year, at least they have come a step ahead, they're a
grade level, and I've pushed grade level, really, really hard... I've set up every
possible scenario where they have to get together with their team...[for
instance] local assessment. The idea that they're having a team meeting, and
could I come to the next one because they want to talk about something else
or something further. (PA, interview 1)
Ms. Allen was asked if she felt that the teachers were becoming an all-school
team, and what she was doing to promote that. She talked about social opportunities
that teachers had to come together, including an all school breakfast before school
each month. She said that working as grade-level teams was helping staff members
work toward an all-school team concept.
122
Yes, I do think that we are a whole school team. What I'm doing in particular
is more related to the grade levels in particular. But I think that having the
grade level teams is affecting the whole school's team. Because I think people
are seeing in the grade level, where their fit is in the whole school. (PA,
interview 2)
She said that when she came to the school, teachers definitely were not
working as a team, even in their grade levels. Things had improved she felt.
Whereas my sense last year was that virtually everybody just did what they
[sic] wanted to... I guess I'll just keep plugging away at it. It's hard for me to
put myself in their shoes to see if they feel like a team. Grade-level-wise I
think most people would say that at this point that they do see some
connection. Whole school-wise, I certainly hope they do. (PA, interview 2)
It was clear that Ms. Allen felt that things were moving toward a sense of
school team identity. The teachers discussion of this issue follows.
The Adams teachers talk about team identity.
Teachers were asked if they felt that they were part of a team at school.
Some teachers interpreted this to mean a grade-level or grade-cluster team, and some
talked about the school as a team. All teachers were eventually asked if they felt that
the school as a whole worked as a team. Teachers were also asked if their principal
had let then know how she felt about them working as a team.
At Adams, three teachers said that they definitely felt that they were part of a
team and felt some sense of a school team. Three said that that they were somewhat
123
a part of a team and one said she definitely did not feel that she was a part of a team.
Four teachers said that the principal clearly promoted teachers working as a team and
three said that the principal did not do this.
The three teachers who said that they felt a strong sense of being part of a
team said that they were part of grade-level and grade-cluster teams. Ms. Allen
encouraged the teachers to meet as teams to work on curriculum and other issues.
As far as the school as a whole team, opinions varied. Teacher A2 said that Ms.
Allen was working on bringing the whole school together as a team. When asked
how Ms. Allen was working on this she said, I think there is a bigger picture of that,
but I don't know how (A2, interview 2). She went on to say that it was just a feeling
that Adams School should be working together. Another teacher felt that Ms. Allen
was very clear about her desire for teachers to communicate and work together,
especially within grade levels.
I think that I know other people are very clear that she wants teachers to
communicate more with others in their grade level about what they're doing.
If you're sending home a newsletter, then other teachers in your grade level
should be doing something similar. (A6, interview 1)
When asked if Ms. Allen promoted the concept of the school as a team,
Teacher A7 said that she felt that Ms. Allen was not particularly suited to getting the
school together as a team. I think shes open to it, but I dont know about her
skills... when you think of a team, you have a coach, a mentality of getting people
going and ... I dont think of that as her personality (A7, interview 1).
124
Three teachers said that although they felt they were part of a grade-level
team, the sense of school teamwork was not necessarily present for them. They felt
that there were things that Ms. Allen could do to promote this teamwork, but that she
had not made her feelings on this topic clear. I don't remember that she has [said
that she would like us to work as a team]. She and I have talked about it at the
beginning of this year (A3, interview 1). When asked how Ms. Allen felt about the
school as a team, Teacher A4 said she was not sure. I think that's what she wants. I
think any administrator would want the faculty to work together... I believe she's
expressed that to us as well, I think it's very difficult with the size staff that we have
(A4, interview 1).
One teacher said that she did not feel that she was part of a team and did not
feel a strong sense of the school working as a team either. She said that she did not
feel that Ms. Allen was doing anything in particular to foster this sense of teamwork
among the teachers in the school. I guess theres a feeling of being at least a loose,
maybe not a tightly knit group, but some sort of loose team throughout the school...
I dont really get the sense that she [Ms. Allen] fosters a big group team effort... I
dont think its a big priority (A8, interview 1).
Clearly there were a variety of opinions about team identity among the
teachers. Some teachers felt that Ms. Allen was not a strong team builder. These
opinions did not always agree with Ms. Allens assessment. Next, Ms. Allen and her
teachers were asked about the principals vision.
125
Ms. Allen talks about her vision.
Ms. Allen was asked if she thought that the teachers understood her vision for
the school. Ms. Allen said that she found the word vision a bit grand for her taste,
and she was not sure if she could articulate a vision for herself or for Adams School.
As far as them understanding my vision, I share my philosophical view, I
share my ethics, the bottom line is students and student achievement with
me, I guess if you want to call that a platform, they know exactly where
I stand on that. They know how I feel and what I stand for and all that
but as far as a vision, that word alone just brings up a grander scheme,
that I'm not sure I have clarified for myself. (PA, interview 1)
Ms. Allen was able to identify other components of her vision, which she
preferred to call her platform. She said that in emails, staff meetings, and in private
conversations she talked to teachers about being more professional and intentional in
setting goals for themselves. She said that through their behavior, the teachers were
indicating that they understood that this was part of her vision.
She also said that she would like to see the school as a team. To facilitate
that, she had encouraged them to work on a vision and a mission statement that could
be included in the student handbook. Im hoping that things like that will help bring
them together.. .Its just remarkable to me how incredibly slow, or how incredibly
long it takes.. .for me to really affect the climate or the motivation (PA, interview
1).
126
At our second meeting, Ms. Allen told me that she had spent considerable
time thinking about her vision since our previous meeting.
It isnt that I dont have a vision, its the fact right now I think.. .that a lot of
the things that Im asked to do have impacted on that vision... And I just
think that a lot of the things that were being asked to do.. .Teachers come
with wonderful ideas and projects that may lie outside the bounds of what we
need to be doing in order to get our jobs done. Because I think that my vision
is one of making a difference and have that social conscience and
responsibility. And I find myself saying no to the lady who wants to come in
and recycle all the time... I just feel like my vision is being trampled
somewhat. So I do have a vision. One thing that I do think I have been able
to hang on to is school as a place for everybody to learn. (PA, interview 2)
Ms. Allen said that her vision also included the fact that teachers are expected
to evaluate all their lesson plans in light of the Learning Results. Because of time
constraints during the school day, teachers needed to understand that there are
activities that do not fit into current priorities, holiday parties for example. She said
that she felt that she had made herself clear on that issue. She said that teachers
seemed to understand her vision and it was not always necessary to agree with
everything she said. She said that it was frustrating to see how difficult it could be to
make your vision a reality.
Related to my vision I guess it's just a humbling experience. I mean the idea
that a vision can be all well and good, but how do you enact it... And so
127
enacting it I think is where it's shady for me right now, not the fact that I don't
have a vision, but how do you enact it? (PA, interview 2)
Ms. Allen was struggling to express her vision at our first meeting, but
clearly had given this topic some considerable thought. The teachers also had some
ideas about her vision.
The Adams teachers talk about Ms. Allens vision.
Teachers were asked to describe the principals vision for the school and how
the principal had communicated that vision to them. Of the seven teachers
interviewed at Adams, four said they knew what Ms. Allens vision was and three
said they did not know or were not clear. Five of the seven teachers agreed that
whether or not they felt they knew Ms. Allens vision, it should be more clearly
stated and articulated more often.
The four teachers who said they understood Ms. Allens vision for the school
agreed on one basic component of that vision. These four teachers all mentioned
student achievement as measured by the Maine Educational Assessment (M.E. A.)
and local assessment scores. Two of these teachers said that literacy was a major area
of concern for Ms. Allen. Other topics mentioned by these four teachers included
equity among classroom sections of the same grade, student behavior, the importance
of treating students as you would treat your own children, being sensitive to the
needs of the community, collegiality among teachers, and teamwork. No teacher
included all these topics, and most topics were only mentioned by one of the
teachers.
128
Only two of these four teachers said that they knew when and how Ms. Allen
had discussed parts of her vision.
I think her vision is quite clear. She talks to us a lot; she educates us a lot
about things, like for example looking at M.E.As.. .Her vision for reading
accountability is very strong... Staff meetings thats primarily where she
would share that. (A5, interview 1)
Teacher A3 said that Ms. Allen had spoken about the concept of treating
students as you would treat your own children, and she had also included this in
emails. I think it is important.. .to treat all kids the way we would want our own
child to be treated, and she said that on the first day at our first workshop... I have
seen that in writing (A3, interview 1).
The other teachers who felt they were clear on Ms. Allens vision were
unsure as to how this vision had been communicated to them. I dont know if shes
actually come out and said it, or its more in her discussion.. I guess it would be nice
to know exactly how she feels. I mean to have something written down would be
nice to see (A4, interview 1). Maybe comments that I ve overheard in the hallway.
Maybe comments that Ive heard from other teachers. And then I do think that shes
probably just stated some of them [components of her vision] (A2, interview 2).
Two of the other three teachers had some ideas about Ms. Allens vision, but
were not confident that they really understood it, or knew why they felt that way.
Im probably not clear on that. But I do know that here are certain areas that are of
utmost importance to her, reading, and writing, and math...Really addressing
129
individual student needs (Teacher A6, interview 1). I cant honestly say that I
know exactly what her vision is for our school (A6, interview 2). Teacher A7 said
that some things that she felt were part of Ms. Allens vision could be observed in
Ms. Allens actions rather than her words. One aspect of vision that this teacher
identified was the importance of teachers communicating among themselves. She
said that Ms. Allen showed this by setting up the .. .reflective practice groups. She
knows theres a need for that and she kind of set the ball rolling (A7, interview 1).
The third teacher said that she had no idea what Ms. Allens vision was and said that,
I m never very good with those... I know shes told us, but its been over a year
(A8, interview 1).
Clearly there was a difference in perceptions about the principals vision
between the teachers and Ms. Allen. The teachers were somewhat unsure about Ms.
Allens vision and could not recall hearing it specifically. Next, Ms. Allen and the
Adams teachers talked about decision-making.
Ms. Allen talks about decision-making.
Ms. Allen described her decision-making style as democratic. I don't
usually carry democracy to the point of consensus, but I think then you sort of reach
the point of diminishing returns when you try to get every last person to agree (PA,
interview 1). As an example of the decision-making at her school, she talked about a
decision that the faculty had made that fall concerning an open house.
It had been tradition at Adams School to have a fall open house that involved
parents coming to school to visit their childs classroom, look around the school, and
130
meet the teachers. Ms. Allen proposed that instead of this type of open house, the
school have a series of curriculum nights that would allow the parents to receive
more in-depth information about the school curriculum from the teachers. It had been
past practice at Adams to have one open house night each year. Since the teachers
contract limited changing past practice, there could only be one event, either a
traditional open house or a curriculum night. After a discussion at a staff meeting,
Ms. Allen put this topic to a vote. The teachers voted to have the usual open house.
Some classrooms had already had curriculum night on their own, some had sent out
curriculum information to the parents of their students, and some felt that there was
not enough time to prepare for this more involved type of evening.
She said that she was very disappointed in the outcome of that decision. She
said that she felt that the decision might have gone differently if she had handled
things better.
It was my own fault, I didn't front load it enough, this staff, every staff, they
deserve lots of heads-up time to think, time to process things... I presented it
at the wrong time in the wrong way, I let them make the decision, for them to
vote on, and it was shot down. (PA, interview 1)
Ms. Allen went on to say that she felt that the next year, the teachers would
view the curriculum nights as their plan, because they really supported the idea.
But it has really turned out to be good because, every last one of the people
who voted it down have come to me individually with their reasons.. .they
didn't have enough information, knowledge about how to do the curriculum
131
night... And next year we will do it, but it won't be my decision, it has been
already their decision, but with a year's notice. (PA, interview 1)
She said that democratic decision-making only was successful if the group
making the decision had the appropriate information. But you have to be careful
with democracy that you have an informed group of people and I opened up the
democracy, but I didn't give them the information soon enough (PA, interview 1).
Ms. Allen said that she preferred having teachers participate in the decision
making in the school and that the teachers appreciated having this input. She said
that she felt that her role was to help teachers understand the importance and
consequences of decisions. The curriculum night-open house decision for example,
she felt, would have been different if the teachers had the appropriate notice and
information. Many teachers also talked about the open house issue.
The Adams teachers talk about decision-making.
Teachers were asked to describe the decision-making process that was used
by the principal in their school. All of the teachers interviewed at Adams cited
examples of directive as well as collaborative decision-making, although three felt
that Ms. Allen tended to be mostly collaborative and four felt that her decision
making was a mixture of collaborative and directive decisions. Several teachers
shared the example of the curriculum night decision. Each provided her own
interpretation o f its significance.
They said that clearly Ms. Allen had been very disappointed and made it
clear that the following year there would be a series of curriculum nights, scheduled
132
so that parents would be able to attend on different nights for different grades if they
had children in more than one grade. There were a variety of reactions to this
occurrence. Teacher A2 said that she was uncomfortable with the open vote that was
taken, because the topic was somewhat controversial and there was a certain amount
of pressure to vote against the curriculum night (A2, interview 1). In addition, Ms.
Allen was very disappointed with the outcome, and Teacher A2 felt that, I don't
know if we will get a free vote on something again. I don't know. I know Ms. Allen
was extremely disappointed (A2, interview 1).
Teacher A3 felt that the faculty was not given enough warning to develop a
curriculum night, and that in the future, things like this would not be put up for a
vote.
In the first year, I think there was more teacher input. The further we get from
that, the less teacher input in those decisions. It was made clear, that next
year there won't be a choice there will just be a curriculum [night]. So I see
as time goes on it becoming less of a team and more of these are the things
that are going to happen. (A3, interview 1)
Teacher A6 talked about the curriculum night vote also, but emphasized that
Ms. Allen definitely stuck by the majority vote to have the open house, despite her
disappointment. However, she said that Ms. Allen chose what things were voted on
and what things were her decisions.
133
Typically it's brought to a vote, and majority rules. And that's how it
stays for that time. The next time [the curriculum night] it won't come up to
a vote. It will just become part of [what we do here]. (A6, interview 1)
Teacher A3 talked about a decision that was made by Ms. Allen concerning
the kindergarten schedule at the beginning of the year. In the past, the kindergartners
had gone home at noontime for the first two weeks of school or so, to facilitate
kindergarten screening, which was done with a few children each afternoon until all
students were screened. A date was set ahead of time for the beginning of all day
kindergarten. Ms. Allen decided to change the schedule to have the all day
kindergarten begin sooner, because all students had been screened. Teacher A3 said
that this was done with no notice and no input from the teachers.
We didn't know, parents didn't know the day before it was to change,
the bus drivers didn't know that they didn't need to come and pick the
students up at noontime on that day... I didn't feel good about that on many
levels.. .We had been left out of the loop. How does it make us look to
parents? ... And the bus drivers as well. (A3, interview 1)
She went on to say that it was not so much the fact that Ms. Allen changed
the schedule that bothered her, but a sense of not being kept informed. I like feeling
that my opinion matters, that I'm part of the group... I'd be happier with a little bit
more information (A3, interview 2).
Teachers were asked if Ms. Allen had made it clear how she preferred
decisions to be made. Some teachers were unsure. They said that Ms. Allen had not
134
expressed a point of view. Other teachers, however, felt that they understood Ms.
Allens feelings about decision-making. Teacher A4 said, She has said, I value
your opinion. I think by implication or by actually saying it, she feels we should be
able to make those choices (A4, interview 1). Teacher A5 said that Ms. Allen had
not specifically expressed an opinion about decision-making, but that her actions
showed how she felt. She didn't step out and say these decisions are mine and these
are yours... it just happens. But things that are more related to the classroom like
playground, those types of things she leaves up to us (A5, interview 1).
This topic elicited a variety of opinions and interpretations of events. One
particular event (the open house) seemed to be a defining moment for many teachers.
Next the climate factor data from the Beauport site will be presented.
Beauport
Ms. Boston talks about teacher team identity.
When she was asked if her teachers felt they were part of a team, she said that
the team feelings in her schools were very strong.
Absolutely and we always talk about team... They're very close with each
other. They take care of each other... They know that team works for kids
and team works for having a great working environment too... They have
breakfasts or whatever fim stuff we do that's important and it just trickles
down to the kids. (BP, interview 1)
Ms. Boston was asked if there was a sense of professional collegiality in
addition to the social and personal sense of team that she referred to above. She said
135
that what she called my relationship thing (BP, interview 1) translated itself
beyond the personal level to the professional arena. She said that in her home base
building, the teachers were able to have grade-level teams, because there was more
than one teacher at a grade level. She anticipated that the following year, all grades
would be able to do this, which would help spread some of the workload.
She was asked how she let the teachers know that it was important to her that
they worked as teams.
This year, while we're building the new team, [for the next year in the new
school] at the beginning of the year, I asked them to think of ways that we
could do more teaming. And why do we want to do more teaming... You will
have more time to do professional discussions if you are teaming with
someone. And that's just going to make your life at school richer. If life at
school is richer for you, the kids are going to make out better. So maybe it
was because I mentioned that this year, but it's just teachers are talking about
it more and more. (BP, interview 1)
She went on to say that the teachers had spent a great deal of time working on
configuring the grade-level teams and grade-cluster teams for next year, trying to
work out the best situation for everyone including the special education teachers and
students.
The teachers at Beauport had a variety of responses to the question of team
identity, as the reader will discover in the next section.
136
The Beauport teachers talk about team identity.
Of the six teachers interviewed at Beauport, four said that they definitely felt
that they were part of a team. Teacher B1 said that the strength of the team in her
building was that there was variety, I feel part of the thing, I do. I think this is a
very wonderful building. We are very different, we are not all the same (Bl,
interview 1). Teacher B3 said that what made her feel part of team was the team
meetings, which the teachers had organized themselves. This practice, she said,
although imposing an extra burden on the teachers was worthwhile (B3, interview 1).
Teacher B5 said that the team at her school was so strong that it was the reason she
wanted to work at that school (B5, interview 1).
The two other teachers interviewed had different views of team feelings at
Beauport. Teacher B2 said she felt somewhat a part of a team. She said that there
were some negative attitudes expressed by members of the faculty at her school and
others did not speak up. Sometimes the negative comments were regarding Ms.
Boston. This teacher said that this had interfered with the team feeling at her school,
but that the situation had improved. I'm hoping that people are feeling that they
have more of a voice than they used to... when I first came here there were only like
two or three people who spoke at these meetings, so it wasn't a team (B2, interview
1). There used to be so much negative talk in the teachers' room, and that's not
happening as much... people are more aware that they are doing it (B2, interview
2). Teacher B4 said that she definitely did not feel part of a team, because she was
not a classroom teacher, but that Ms. Boston had worked to help her feel more a part
137
of things. She [Ms. Boston] ... wanted me to meet with my mentor on a weekly
basis... but it didn't really work out. But [Ms. Boston] really tries, it's just
circumstantial that I feel that way (B4, interview 1).
When asked if the principal had expressed her opinion of the importance of
teachers working as a team, teachers answers did not necessarily correspond to
whether or not they felt they were part of a team. Of the four teachers who said they
did feel part of the team, only two said that Ms. Boston had talked to them about
working as a team. In contrast the two teachers who said that they felt only
somewhat or not at all part of team said that Ms. Boston had talked about teamwork.
Some of them definitely felt they understood how Ms. Boston felt about this. When
asked how Ms. Boston let the teachers know how important being a team was,
Teacher B6 said, that most of the programs that Ms. Boston had started supported the
concept of team building. [She puts] in place those things that she believes in (B6,
interview 1). One teacher also mentioned that Ms. Boston was working on team
building as the faculty planned for the new school. The meetings once a month
when all three schools are meeting the whole school meets as one. We do a lot of
team building stuff. We also make a lot of decisions about the new school; what
programs do we want... (B4, interview 1).
Because of the unique organizational structure of the Beauport site, teachers
who worked in the smaller schools felt part of a school team, because these teams
only consisted of a few teachers and was more like a grade-cluster or grade-level
group in a larger school. When the teachers at these smaller schools met as a team,
138
they met as a whole school. However, one of the teachers in this circumstance did
not feel that there was a strong team connection for her. I feel that the staff is really
divided here. At [another school] I really felt that it was a team... we were all doing
the same thing for the same reasons (B2, interview 1).
For the most part, teachers did not feel a strong sense of identity for the larger
faculty group that was scheduled to move in together the next year, although they
knew that this was something that Ms. Boston needed and wanted to create.
It's been hard this year, because we are trying to bring three staffs
together, that's the hard part. With three distinct personalities, we're
trying to meld those in a year, that's a big undertaking and she's trying
to start it early enough so we can work out some of the kinks before we
get into our new building. (B6, interview 1)
Everyone who was interviewed at the Beauport site had an appreciation of
the unique situation in which they found themselves regarding this year of transition.
This seemed to be a factor in their attitudes toward team identity. Next, Ms. Boston
and the Beauport teachers talk about the principals vision.
Ms. Boston talks about her vision.
Ms. Boston said that the teachers definitely understood her vision for the
school(s). She said that her vision included consistent discipline and a well-run
environment that made children feel safe.
In order to really have a quality educational program you've got to have that
stuff [discipline] in it. So when I first came to the district, that's what I
139
worked on. You've got to have safety in our school.. .Then you can get to the
learning, then we can to that.... Part of my vision isonce I do that base
levelis meeting the needs of the kids and trying to do the best every day to
make it such a great place that kids really want to be here, part of it. They
really want to be at school. (BP, interview 1)
She said that she also worked to create an inclusive environment for the
special needs population and to create an alternative educational setting for some of
these children. She said that she that although most teachers understood and
supported her vision, I believe that they believe the same thing I do (BP, interview
1), some took more time than others did to understand her point of view.
Where I run into difficulty I have some veteran teachers who.. .they think... a
couple, that the special ed kids should be in self-contained classrooms all
day. That's one of my biggest challenges... Ive had to at times say firmly
and informally, we cant say who's going to walk through that door. And
whoever they are we have to educate them, and we just have to do the best
that we can.... You can make your schedule fit that child so that they feel like
they belong. (BP, interview 1)
She talked at length about the development of programs that provided a
variety of settings and services for special education students and other students who
were falling behind. She felt that this was a centerpiece of her vision along with the
concept of a safe, orderly school environment.
140
Ms. Boston had a clear sense of her vision and felt that the teachers
understood it. For the most part they did.
The Beauport teachers talk about Ms. Bostons vision.
Five of the six teachers interviewed at Beauport said that they understood Ms.
Bostons vision. Teacher Bl said that Ms. Bostons vision was very clear and was
expressed by her often.
I think she's very, very strong in her desire to have this be a school where
children are respected and act as role models, and are responsible. Practicing
the three Rs is something that she brings up in every memo, and she does talk
about aspirations a lot. I think those kinds of initiatives are a kind of base
that she would like the school to arise from. (Bl, interview 1)
She said that Ms. Boston made this clear in writing as well as in her actions,
such as promoting the Responsive Classroom program in the Beauport schools. I
can't imagine they [the teachers] wouldnt know that. It's in every memo.. I can't
imagine that anyone doesn't know that (Bl, interview 1).
Teacher B2 agreed that Ms. Bostons primary vision was to create a school
that was a safe, student-oriented one. She also agreed that Ms. Boston
communicated this by words and actions. All the other teachers interviewed, except
for teacher B3 agreed with this assessment of Ms. Bostons vision. They said that
she wanted a safe, orderly, welcoming, student-centered school, where everyone
worked together.
141
Some of the teachers talked about another program that Ms. Boston had
brought to the school. It consisted of rewarding students for being good citizens of
the school. Both teachers and students could nominate individuals for these awards,
which were presented at weekly all-school meetings. Ms. Boston was present at
these meetings, and some teachers said that this was another indication of her vision
of a student centered, orderly school.
Now she started these things.. .which has made a huge difference to the
children.. They get stars pulled out of a basket and read at the all-school
meeting. Whenever a child sees another child doing a respectful, or a role
modeling, or a responsible act, the child can say, I want to give a star to so
and so for helping me pick up my coat. It gets read, the child stands, and it
gets stuck on the wall. (Bl, interview 1)
Teacher B3, on the other hand said that she felt that Ms. Bostons only vision
was to develop the new school and be in charge of it. Teacher B3 did not have any
sense of what other things were important to Ms. Boston or what would comprise her
vision. This one teacher definitely had a different view of Ms. Boston and her vision
that the other teachers interviewed here did. The final questions that Ms. Boston and
the Beauport teachers responded to were about decision-making.
Ms. Boston talks about decision-making.
Ms. Boston was asked about the decision-making at her schools and if
decisions were made the same way in all the schools under her supervision. She said
that decisions were made always from the bottom up (BP, interview 1) and that
142
that was the philosophy of the district, consensus building, team building (BP,
interview 1). She said she did some of the initial decision making such as
scheduling, but that the teachers would have input at team meetings to make
changes.
I believe that the best way to add anything or make changes is from the
teachers. I dont feel uncomfortable bringing an idea to them.... Its the same
with the teachers; theyll bring an idea to the team or a staff meeting... The
only thing I can think of that I would do a top-down thing would be if it was
a safety thing. I cant really think of any top-down thing that I would have to
do. (BP, interview 1)
Ms. Boston talked about the implementation of the Responsive Classroom
program at her schools. She said that although it was initially her idea, the teachers
liked the idea and made it grow and succeed. In the end, she said, it was their idea to
continue the program. She also said that when ideas are not well-received by one of
her staffs, she tried to come to a compromise that would be acceptable to all parties,
and then get feedback from the teachers as to how things are going. She said that this
feedback can come from the team meetings. When we have team meetings every
week, we can put things on the agenda. Because those team meetings are not my
meetings (BP, interview 1).
Ms. Boston said that she had changed as a principal since she first started.
Her first administrative experience was in a parochial school and there she learned a
very top-down approach to decision-making and leadership. When I started as a
143
principal, I really thought that because I was the principal, I thought it was my way
or the highway. I ve come to learn thats not the way, not really that way (BP,
interview 1). She said the parochial system expected very directive leadership.
I think part of it I felt that the concept of leadership was being a real powerful
leader. And that you put an idea out and people had to come to that idea.
And if they didnt come to that idea, somehow you had to manage it so they
go there. (BP, interview 2)
Gradually, she said, she realized that she was more comfortable with a more
collaborative style of leadership, one that did not fit the parochial school model.
Consensus building really worked itself through as I realized I could be a
better principal, if Im more collaborative... A lot of the staffl represent have
a lot more years of experience in the classroom than I do. Theyre older and
they're wiser and they see just different perspectives. I need to listen to that.
(BP, interview 2)
She reflected on how she developed as a consensus builder by working with
an administrative team in a public school district.
I joined an administrative team... Sitting with all those folks... and listening
to how they deal with staff and how they make decisions... Sometimes the
decisions that we make arent going to please everybody, but as long as they
know theyve had a voice and theyve gone through a process that makes
sense...They trust in the end.. .youve got the bigger view... I feel really
comfortable with that. (BP, interview 2)
Ms. Boston said that she felt that her teachers understood that consensus
building and collaborative decision-making were the modes she liked to use. When
I came here five years ago... I just told them who I was and what was my
philosophy.. .That this is the way that I like to make decisions, not an autocratic
person (BP, interview 1). She said that she felt that most of the teachers were
comfortable with the decision-making process, although there were always some
who felt they did not get enough input and some who felt the consensus process took
too long. The teachers comments about decision-making follow.
The Beauport teachers talk about decision-making.
Teachers at the Beauport site were mixed in their assessment of Ms. Bostons
decision-making style. Of the six teachers interviewed, three said that Ms. Bostons
style tended to be mostly collaborative or mixed, two teachers said that she tended to
be very directive, and one said that she could not characterize the decision-making as
being a certain style.
The teachers who felt that she was mostly or partly collaborative cited
examples of group decision making among the staff. Teacher B6 said that on many
occasions when the whole staff was together, they had opportunities to make
decisions as a group and she (B6) felt very positive about that (B6, interview 1). The
Responsive Classroom program was an example of an issue that was brought
forward by Ms. Boston and discussed by the staff
She brought the program forward and I guess it was discussed at team
meetings and staff meetings and it was a school-wide decision to go ahead
145
and it was a commitment by classroom teachers. So that was, she always
seems to bring those kinds of things to staff meetings or team meetings
and everybody makes those decisions. (B6, interview 1)
Another teacher said that although Ms. Boston frequently made initial
decisions about things such as scheduling itinerant teachers and duties, she was
willing to take input from teachers and make modifications. She [Ms. Boston]
would set up the duties, but it has progressed over time where we'd worked it out so
that we had input into that, and we changed things, so I guess it's a combination of
the two, the principal and the staff (B2, interview 1).
When asked what type of decision-making Ms. Boston preferred, Teacher B2
said, I think that that's kind of her first approach, is top down, and then if she sees
that that's not working, she's able to step back, and say what do we do. I think that is
her first step, her first approach is to do that and then what do you think? (B2,
interview 1).
Other teachers felt that Ms. Boston tended to use a top down approach most
or all of the time. When asked if the teachers have a role in decision-making, one
teacher said, I think at some point we band together at times and take a vote on
something. This is the way we feel about it (B5, interview 1). Teacher B5 went on
to say that she felt that Ms. Boston considered making decisions as part of her job.
I get the impression that she feels she is in the position to make decisions.
And maybe she perceives, as that's easier. Easier for us, easier for her, but I
146
have the feeling that that's the way she perceives it. It's kind of her job, put it
on her shoulders. (B5, interview 1)
Teacher B3 said that teachers had told Ms. Boston that top-down decision
making did not work for them. They gave her this information as part of an
anonymous evaluation that she had asked for. This teacher said that teachers were
very candid about their opinions of Ms. Bostons decision-making style, but that she
did not feel that Ms. Boston had changed her approach as a result of receiving this
information (B3, interview 2).
Both the teachers who felt that Ms. Boston was basically collaborative and
those who felt the opposite used the same example to illustrate their point. During
the summer, before the beginning of the year at one of the smaller schools, Ms.
Boston had decided to reorganize the duty schedule. In the past teachers at that
school had worked out the schedule together during a workday in the late summer.
Ms. Boston and one teacher developed a duty schedule that Ms. Boston felt was
more equitable.
To some teachers this made sense, and they appreciated that later in the year
they had some input in making changes. And until we realized that this [the new
duty schedule] really isn't working for some people and so we just went to her and
said we need to make some changes and she was willing to do it (B 2, interview 1).
To other teachers, this was an example of Ms. Boston trying to take over a system
that they had been using themselves to work out the distribution of duties. These
teachers apparently felt that Ms. Boston did not respect the process they had already
147
put in place and did not seek their input enough. This year quite a bit of it
[decisions] came from the principal I thought, especially the duty schedule. We
never had that imposed upon us before. Although she did have one teacher try to
help her with that. We were all in shock when we saw it (B5, interview 1).
There were a wide variety of points of view expressed regarding decision
making at the Beauport schools. Ms. Boston and some of her teachers seemed to be
seeing things in a very different light. Next, the Centerville teachers and Mr. Cox
talk about the climate factors at their school.
Centerville
Mr. Cox talks about teacher team identity.
Mr. Cox was asked if the teachers in his school felt that they were part of a
school team. He said that teachers were encouraged to be part of a grade-level or
grade-cluster team, and that for the most part that was happening. He also said that
he hoped to have more continuity within the school. Centerville like many K-8
schools, he said, suffered from a lack of continuity because of the grade span. Also,
the two-story configuration of Centerville added to this lack of cohesiveness.
There's a lot of fragmentation there, just because theres isolation. And
everyone loves each other and they get along, but it's just physical isolation.
And I want to create a school in which we have that same continuum that we
all... feel like parents of those kids. And we all understand if you're a middle
school teacher you fully understand the experiences those kids have coming
into your class. And if you're a primary teacher, you fully understand the
148
experiences those kids will get when they leave. So there's that continuity and
more communication between middle school and primary, so it's more of one
big team. (CP, interview 1)
He said that teachers got along with each other and respected each other, but
he understood that feeling like a whole school team was difficult.
On the other hand, I think they feel valued, everyone feels valued, and they
all feel a member of our school, but I think they also would say that there's a
division. It's not a negative division; just there is a division between primary
and middle school. There's not enough communication going on between the
two of them [primary and middle school divisions], (CP, interview 1)
He said that he had talked to the teachers about this issue and they agreed
with him that the school needed to work more as a team.
They are in agreement with me; they feel it is missing as well. They seem
like separate entities. The question is again, middle school do you fully
understand the experiences in the primary? And they don't and vice versa and
they agree that's not healthy. (CP, interview 1)
He said that he encouraged communication among the classroom teachers in
the same and different grade levels. When he was asked how he was facilitating this
communication, he said that he had started to have teachers meet in larger grade
level groups when discussing a school issue.
I think there are certain conversations in the past that might have been held
just at the primary or the middle school level, but I think warrants whole
discussion with the whole faculty. I'll give you an example. We were talking
about maybe combining some early primary grades together. Initially it was
going to be a K-3 meeting and then all of a sudden with people's
suggestions... It started to be a K-6 meeting with an invitation to 7-8 people
if they have time in their schedule. And it was a great meeting.. .1 think more
of that needs to happen. (CP, interview 2)
Mr. Cox seemed to sense that the teachers were working together, but more
needed to be done to bring the whole school together and to provide for K-8
collaboration.
The Centerville teachers talk about team identity.
Of the nine teachers interviewed at Centerville, four said that they felt part of
a school team, four said they felt somewhat part of a school team, and one said she
did not. Teachers who said they did not feel part of a school team, said that for the
most part they felt part of their grade-level team, but did not see the other teachers in
the school often enough to feel part of a whole-school team. Teacher Cl expressed it
this way.
I would have to say I don't [feel part of a team],.. So many of the teachers in
the school... I seriously don't see... teachers [in other grade levels] all day,
not even once... The only time I might see them in a week is if they happen
to pass by maybe once in a week. That camaraderie perhaps some schools
feel, I don't really feel... As far as being part of the whole school, I mean I
150
work here, but I don't see them everyday, so I just naturally have to say no.
(Cl, interview 1)
Teacher C2 added, I think weve gotten a little too big to be one team (C2,
interview 1). She did say however, that the school had a sense of cohesiveness and
spirit that approached a sense of a team. People talk with each other and share what
theyre doing. People like each other.... Everyone is respected and accepted within
the staff group of the school (C2, interview 2).
Teachers who said they felt that they were part of a team were enthusiastic
about the team feeling within the school, despite the size and large grade range.
Teacher C6 said, Well, I feel part of the school, I do, yeah... I feel part of the
school, definitely I feel that way right after a staff meeting (C6, interview 2).
Teacher C8 said that the teachers were becoming more of a team this year, I think I
am part of more of [my grade level] team, but I have a lot of conversations with all
the teachers that are student driven. I do think that in terms of cohesiveness, I do
think that there's a lot more satisfaction this year (C8, interview 1). Teacher C9 said
she felt that she was part of a whole school team because she was kept well informed
and everyone including kids, parents, is part of the team (C9, interview 2).
Teachers said that Mr. Cox was very interested in the school working as a
team, and encouraged this feeling through the staff meetings and other opportunities
that he had to talk with the staff and the students. Teacher C8 said Mr. Cox was a
very strong supporter of the school as a team.
151
He supports envisioning the staff as a team. He makes quite a few
metaphors, he likes to tell stories that have little morals at the end, about
creating an environment that is strong, that can withstand stress, but is
supportive of each other, helpful, and healthy. (C8, interview 1)
Other teachers agreed with this assessment of Mr. Coxs interest and support
of the school and the community as a team. Teacher C7 said that Mr. Cox was using
the possibility of an extra staff member for the next year to create a position of
curriculum coordinator to increase the ability of the school to work as a team. I
know [Mr. Cox.] wants us to be a team. I think his vision is that we are more of a
team than we are. I know his goal is for us to be a team, a football team going in for
the game, but we're not there yet (C7, interview 1). In her second interview, teacher
C7 explained that Mr. Cox is anxious for this team feeling to grow. I think he wants
the school to be a team. He wants it already more than it is too. He just wants it to
be a team, positive team place (C7, interview 2).
Even teachers who did not say they felt part of a strong school team, agreed
that Mr. Cox clearly supported the idea of grade-level and school-wide teams.
Teacher C4 said that she felt that Mr. Cox was very enthusiastic about the idea of
grade-level and grade-cluster teams. When teachers at various grade levels had
asked to form their own teams or team teacher, he supported their efforts. (C4,
interview 1)
152
There seemed to be much agreement on the subject of team identity, but the
teachers did cite some potential areas of improvement. The responses concerning Mr.
Coxs vision follow.
Mr. Cox talks about his vision.
Mr. Cox was asked if the teachers understood his vision for the school. He
said that he talked about his vision.
I think they do, because we talk about it at faculty meetings a lot
when I talk about a thought for the day, which I'm thinking I often talk
[about] that vision in terms of everyone receiving a quality education.
Everyone is taught according to their [sic] needs. That everyone feels valued
and it's a safe nurturing place. Those are the types of things we talk about all
the time in staff meetings. As food for thought. (CP, interview 1)
He said that he felt that teachers understood and supported this vision
because of the positive feedback that he received about these ideas.
We don't disagree. I've never had someone come up and say you said such
and such and I have a different thought about that. My philosophy, how could
anyone disagree with the philosophy of a quality education and people and
kids being nurtured and supported and all that? How would anyone disagree
with that? (CP, interview 1)
Mr. Cox had a clear sense of his vision and was confident that his teachers
had heard his vision and understood it. The teachers interviewed at Centerville
seemed to agree with this assessment.
153
The Centerville teachers talk about Mr. Coxs vision.
All of the teachers interviewed said that they understood Mr. Coxs vision for
the school. Although teachers expressed their ideas in a variety of ways, they all
seemed to agree that Mr. Cox had a vision of Centerville as a unique, exemplary
school, where decisions were made with the best interests of the students and the
community in mind.
I think that [Mr. Cox] truly believes that this is one of the best elementary
schools in the state of Maine. And he's very positive about our MEA scores
and the new building, the facilities, and the new programs: gifted and
talented, the art program, the music, all of our strengths. (C6, interview 1)
One teacher put it this way, We offer a lot of after school opportunities for
5th -8th grades. So I think he has a vision, he wants to see us continue progressing
in the future. We do pretty well now (C8, interview 1).
Another teacher said that Mr. Cox was always looking ahead. His vision is
always positive and that we are going to improve.... He is always thinking that we
will become even more creative in how we teach children and in providing
opportunities for them (C7, interview 1).
Another part of Mr. Coxs vision teachers mentioned was his desire for the
school to be more cohesive, more of a team.
He asked a couple of weeks ago if anyone would be willing to be on the team
to go over that mission and take all that data and condense it down into this is
154
our core beliefs... This is how were going to try to teach K-8... So I think
that [he] is trying to gain for the school that cohesiveness. (Cl, interview 2)
Some teachers also mention that Mr. Cox had expressed a desire to have a
respectful environment. One teacher explained at length how she felt about this
aspect of Mr. Coxs vision and leadership style.
He clearly has a vision of wanting the kids to be respectful... I think the way
he talks to kids and his follow-through on discipline and the way he deals
with people kind of straight from the heart is really wonderful... he sees it
more about building character than about crime and punishment... I think
the kids and the faculty appreciate the fact that he takes opportunities to bring
some meaningful values to their attention. [Each student feels] Ive got a
principal who wants me to grow into someone who has character. (C2,
interview 1)
Five of the teachers interviewed also mentioned that it was important to Mr. Cox that
the school be a part of the community and encourage community involvement.
Although a few teachers said that they were guessing at their answers based
on Mr. Coxs actions, for the most part teachers said that these vision components
were expressed in staff meetings, community and school meetings, and in emails.
He says it. [his vision] Anything that's important.. .he lays it right out... He says,
Everything about me is on my sleeve. We get to see it all and hear it. Thank
goodness. I don't like guessing games (C3, interview 1). [He talks about his vision
at] the staff meetings, definitely. He always has a little blurb... I've been
155
thinking... It's not just at the staff meetings it's in public, before the music concert.
Always positive (C7, interview 1).
These teachers were clear about what Mr. Cox believed and agreed that he
spoke about and lived his vision. The final topic to be explored is decision-making.
Mr. Cox talks about decision-making.
Mr. Cox said that he used consensus building whenever possible to make
decisions that affected the school or a grade level. He said for the most part, he went
along with the decision of the teachers unless he strongly disagreed. He said that he
felt that including people in the decision-making process was very important.
What I think people like, is that they like to be heard, they like to have their
opinions valued, and I think they can live with whatever decision comes out
of that. As long as the process happens. What they dont like is just
unilaterally making decisions and they dont feel like theyre heard or theyre
valued. (CP, interview 1)
Mr. Cox acknowledged that sometimes there were decisions that he had to
make on his own. Whenever possible, he still sought the advice and input of his staff,
but made these decisions based on his own opinions. He said that student behavior
was an example of that. He felt that he had a strong sense of what was right in that
area, and would trust his own judgement, while still asking for teacher input. He
said that even then, teachers were more comfortable if they felt that at least they
were heard. I wouldnt make any major decisions without their input (CP,
interview 1).
156
Mr. Cox said that he had told the teachers during staff meetings that he
preferred to use their input to inform his decision-making.
I think one of the first meetings we ever had, kind of trying to explain
myself.... [I told them] I believe strongly that there is more than one leader in
the school. Were all leaders. We all have valuable input in that. (CP,
interview 1)
He said that consensus building is not always appropriate and can drag on too
long if you are not careful. I try to move on with things. I dont want to end up with
paralysis of analysis on something.. .1 try not to drag it out for a long time.. .1 just
dont think thats healthy for anyone (CP, interview 1). Mr. Cox said that he felt he
had developed a good sense of when to work to get consensus and when to move on.
He called it a balancing act.
So that balancing act is the key.. .Because I think we all want to think were
collaborative, but... sometimes youre just forced to make some decisions that
maybe should have been collaborative but werent. And other times we
might try to do something collaborative and it isnt the right move to go,
when it needs to be a quick decision made by somebody. (CP, interview 2)
He said that he felt that the teachers felt listened to, and that that balance had
for the most part been achieved. So over all I hope they would say they feel like
they have a voice and they feel like theyre being heard.... I think theres somewhat
of a balance (CP, interview 2).
157
Mr. Cox felt comfortable with the balance that he had achieved and
recognized that this was a continuing process, allowing for improvement. The
teachers impressions of this topic follow.
The Centerville teachers talk about decision-making.
All nine of the teachers interviewed at Centerville agreed that Mr. Coxs
decision-making style was basically collaborative. They also added that when
necessary, he was unafraid to make a decision on his own. Once in a while issues
that some teachers felt needed input did not get that input, but for the most part
teachers seemed to feel that they were listened to by Mr. Cox.
[Mr. Cox] is very democratic in decisions. He's not afraid to make the hard
decisions, but his primary goal is always to let the teachers have a
voice in making the decisions.. .he values the staff and looks to them when
making decisions, as far as getting their input. (Cl, interview 1)
Mr. Cox had a reputation for listening to the advice of staff members when
they had more experience with a particular curricular area or grade level.
We have a very strong and experienced staff here. And I would say that the
majority of the time.. .the opinions of staff members are listened to and
respected. I think there are other times that decisions are made that we feel
disappointed or left out, but in general people feel respected as professionals
within the building. (C2, interview 1)
158
As another teacher explained, not everyone always agrees with Mr. Coxs
decisions. They might not always come to a consensus, but they knew that the
teachers have had some input in the decisions that were made (C4, interview 1).
The teachers also added that they were clear that Mr. Cox encouraged and
expected teacher input on decisions because he had said that many times to them.
One teacher did give an example of a decision that seemed to be taking too long to
make. This teacher indicated that for the most part this was not a big problem in Mr.
Coxs decision-making process.
The example with the schedule for next year with the middle school, I think
he should step in at this point and steer it in one direction or the other. I feel
like we're .. .kind of spending] a lot of time just kind of debating things and
now it's time for him to step in... But maybe the team isnt ready for it (C6,
interview 1).
One example was given of a time when Mr. Cox made a decision over the
objections of the teachers. He wanted the school to serve breakfast to the students.
Mr. Cox had asked for input from the teachers regarding this idea. Teachers were
concerned that students would be getting to their classes late and expressed this
opinion to Mr. Cox. The teachers interviewed said that the teachers thought it was a
bad idea, but it happened anyway. He was really into serving breakfast for the
school, the teachers were against it, but it's working well. I like it... That was one of
those things he wanted, he wasn't going to give in on it (C3, interview 1).
159
Another teacher said that this was an example of an occasional shift in Mr.
Coxs usually inclusive decision-making process. She said that evidently he had
already made up his mind about breakfast, but asked the teachers anyway. This
teacher said that she did not feel that the staff opinions had mattered in this case, but
that this was not the way decisions were made the majority of the time (C4,
interview 1).
Most of the teachers interviewed agreed that Mr. Cox was decisive in his
decision-making when necessary, was able to determine when teacher input was
appropriate, and did not usually drag out the teacher input process. He's not afraid
to make the hard decisions, but his primary goal is always to let the teachers have a
voice in making the decisions (Cl, interview 1).
On the other hand, he doesn't always ask for input. And I'm grateful for that,
because on some of the smaller decisions, we don't have time to do input.
Because in the past it's been, let's do input.... We don't have time to give him
input on every decision that's made. But on the big decisions, I think our
input counts. I appreciate that about him. (C7, interview 1)
Once again, the Centerville teachers and Mr. Cox seemed to agree on an
important aspect of school climate. The teachers and Mr. Cox were of the same mind
concerning the strengths and weaknesses of the decision-making process at
Centerville School.
160
School Summaries
This section summarizes the previous data sections concerning the school
climate questions. This is followed by a section that compares the climate of the
three sites based on the criteria set out in the studys definition of school climate:
teacher team identity, teachers understanding of the principals vision, and teacher
inclusion in decision-making.
Adams
In all three topics of inquiry concerning school climate, Ms. Allen and the
teachers interviewed at the Adams site had many areas of disagreement. The areas
of disagreement were not only between Ms. Allen and the teachers, but at times were
among the teachers as well. There seemed to be little consistency among the teachers
as to whereor ifthey had heard or read Ms. Allens opinions on these topics.
In the area of team feelings, Ms. Allen felt that the feeling of being a team, at
least at the grade level was growing. This she said was an improvement over the
way that things were going when she arrived. She said that this was leading to a
school that would eventually have a feeling of being a team and that she did many
things to encourage this team building. The teachers interviewed here did not have
that attitude, being unsure as to what Ms. Allens feelings were on the subject. They
knew that they were expected to work as grade-level or grade-cluster teams but did
not necessarily see that as a stepping stone to an all-school team. It bears noting that
the all-school staff meetings were very short in length and did not give Ms. Allen
much opportunity to work with teachers on team-building activities. However, two
161
of the teachers did mention teamwork as a part of Ms. Allens vision when they were
asked questions about that topic.
Even Ms. Allen had difficulty at first talking about her vision. She seemed to
have two levels of vision. One level included her interest in student achievement,
professionalism, accountability, and teamwork. The other, perhaps deeper level,
which was discussed at the second interview, included making a difference in the
community and encouraging social action through the school. It was this second
level of vision that she found so hard to talk about, because she felt that the demands
of the modem public school, with increased assessment and accountability issues
precluded her focussing on these social issues. She reported feeling frustrated by her
inability to allow teachers to pursue some of their interests, because that might take
away from the schools ability to cover the curriculum as prescribed.
The teachers as a group were able to pinpoint the major components of Ms.
Allens vision, but none of the teachers interviewed reported all of the components
and most could not say where they had heard about these ideas. Although Ms. Allen
seemed to feel that the teachers had heard and understood her vision through written
and verbal communication, most teachers could not report why they knew her
thoughts. Some felt that they were relying on what she did and assuming the
components of her vision from her actions rather than her words.
The topic of decision-making represented the area of least convergence
between the teachers responses and Ms. Allens responses. Virtually everyone
reported the same incident regarding the open house/curriculum nights controversy.
162
The interpretation of this event varied widely between Ms. Allen and the teachers
and among the teachers as well. Ms. Allen and at least one of the teachers saw this
incident as an example of her use of democratic decision-making. Ms. Allen said
that she believed that given the appropriate information, her staff would make good
decisions that would probably agree with her own. She said that many teachers came
to her after this incident and said they would have supported her ideas if the situation
had been different. She said this indicated that they really wanted the curriculum
nights and that therefore the nights planned for the next year were their idea.
Teachers had a variety of interpretations of this incident. One teacher at least
said that this decision showed how Ms. Allen used the democratic process and
abided by what the teachers said. Other teachers interviewed were suspicious of the
outcome of the process and felt that in the future Ms. Allen would simply not allow a
vote on an issue on which she did not want to compromise. These teachers indicated
that this was an example of what they saw as erosion of their participation in school
decision-making.
On the other hand, some teachers also said that decisions that affected them
and their students directly were left entirely to them. The teachers, for example
determined playground and cafeteria rules and evidently Ms. Allen did not interfere
with this process. Teachers cited this as an example of Ms. Allens use of teacher
input and decision-making. Teachers also commented negatively about some
decisions, such as the kindergarten schedule were made by Ms. Allen, not because
she did not ask for teacher input, but because she did not keep them informed.
163
The climate reported by the teachers interviewed at Adams School was not
entirely the climate that Ms. Allen described. There was a disconnection between
what she thought she was communicating to them and what they were receiving. As
a result, three of these seven teachers felt that they lacked direction and a feeling of
school purpose. They did not feel that the school as a whole had been provided with
a clear direction. The teachers understood Ms. Allens concern about student
achievement, but they did not know how to move toward that goal. The interviews
at Adams presented a picture of a fragmented school climate.
Beauport
Responses from Ms. Boston and the Beauport teachers interviewed indicated
little agreement in the areas of team feelings and decision-making. The principals
vision was an area of agreement however. One teacher did not agree on the topic of
the principals vision, and had a completely different perspective from the other five.
In the area of team feelings, Ms. Boston reported that the teachers all felt that
they were part of their school or grade-level teams. She looked forward to the
following year when all teachers would have the benefit of working with a larger
grade-level or grade-cluster group. She reported that good relationships among
teachers were very important to her and she was sure that the teachers understood
this.
However, some of the teachers did not feel a part of their school teams.
Despite the small sizes of two of the Beauport schools, only four of the six teachers
interviewed felt that a good team atmosphere existed. Four teachers agreed that they
164
knew how Ms. Boston felt about the whole new school as a team, or how she
planned to accomplish the transformation. Some teachers considered this process of
bringing the three staffs together into one larger staff to be a major problem. With
only one large staff meeting a month, teachers did not feel that they felt a part of the
new school staff yet.
Ms. Bostons vision was the one area in the Beauport interviews that
generated relatively consistent responses. Five of the teachers and Ms. Boston
reported that her vision included school safety, consistent discipline, and working
together. Two of the teachers also added meeting the needs of all students to this
list, which echoed Ms. Bostons statements about special education students. Ms.
Boston emphasized and talked at length about her efforts to assist special education
students and said that including these students in the classroom was of special
concern to her. She also talked about her development of special alternative
programs for these students in her schools. Five of the teachers interviewed also
reported that Ms. Bostons vision was clearly expressed by her actions and by her
support of programs that supported that vision. They did not necessarily report that
Ms. Boston had spoken or written her vision for them, but they felt strongly that her
actions were clear representations of her thoughts. One teacher reported that Ms.
Boston did not have a vision beyond her desire to create the new school and run it as
she wished. This teacher did not report any behavior on Ms. Bostons part that would
indicate any other aspect of Ms. Bostons vision or desires for the new school or the
schools as they were presently configured.
165
When we talked about decision-making, Ms. Boston shared that she had
begun her administrative career in a parochial school setting, which influenced her
approach at the time. The type of decision-making that was encouraged in that
setting was very directive, and she said it took her awhile to realize that this was not
the best way for her to work with staff members. She said that she had grown and
changed over the years and used collaborative or consensus building models more
recently.
The teachers interviewed at Beauport did not all agree. Teachers reported
similar or identical incidents and interpreted them in a variety of ways. Two teachers
found her to be very directive, while others saw her as allowing for teacher input to
varying degrees. Two teachers mentioned that Ms. Boston seemed to feel most
comfortable with a directive decision-making style but they did not necessarily feel
that she was moving beyond that to a more inclusive style. Two teachers at one of
the schools seemed to find Ms. Bostons decision-making intrusive compared to the
more autonomous way they had done things in the past.
The climate at the Beauport site was unique in that it was really a series of
small climates that were being forced by circumstances to attempt to join into one.
The relative strength of the Beauport climate was the somewhat consistent, if
incomplete, understanding of the vision of the principal. Not all the teachers agreed
with the programs that Ms. Boston put in place, but they understood the reasoning
behind them. They knew they were based on what she believed. Teachers at this site
had dealt with a variety of supervision scenarios and several who were interviewed
166
had negative attitudes about administration in general. These pre-existing ideas
tainted every topic from the use of the Responsive Classroom methodology to the
matter of duty schedules. Even the teachers who felt fairly comfortable with Ms.
Boston felt that this disconnected climate was affecting them.
Centerville
Mr. Cox and the teachers interviewed at Centerville were in agreement on
virtually every aspect of the climate topics. The teachers and Mr. Cox had the same
picture in mind when they described their school and Mr. Coxs ideas. Even the
teachers who said that they did not always agree with Mr. Cox seemed to understand
his vision and his way of doing things. They seemed to find him predictable, which
coincided with his description of himself.
Many of the positive comments from Centerville teachers about these climate
topics seemed to center around an extremely positive attitude about Mr. Cox himself.
Teachers seemed eager to say things that indicated that any problems that they saw
in these areas were relatively minor. Given Mr. Coxs personal situation, they said,
he was doing very well. They seemed determined to give him the benefit of the
doubt in every area, because they had such a positive attitude about him personally.
In terms of team feelings, Mr. Cox and the teachers interviewed at
Centerville appeared to agree that the school as a team was a concept that was slow
in developing because of the physical plant and the grade span of the building. All
but one teacher reported feeling part of a grade-level or grade-cluster team. Mr. Cox
said that he strongly encouraged teachers to work together, either in team-teaching
167
situations or in other less formal arrangements. These teachers reported the same
information. Teachers reported that Mr. Cox wanted the school to be more of a
team, and that he frequently demonstrated that through his actions.
Mr. Coxs vision seemed to be very clearly understood by the teachers
interviewed. They reported all the same components that Mr. Cox did and for the
most part agreed with his assessment of himself, as reported by one of the teachers.
He [Mr. Cox] says, everything about me is on my sleeve (C3, interview 1). Mr.
Cox in fact used this same phrase in his own response. It would seem from these
interviews that everyone at Centerville was on the same page at least to the extent
that they understood the philosophy of their leader.
Decision-making was another area that generated mostly consistent
comments. The teachers interviewed and Mr. Cox all described the principal as
being a person who fairly consistently took input from the professionals around him
before making decisions. Teachers reported feeling valued for their opinions and
Mr. Cox reported that he often used their opinions when making decisions.
Both Mr. Cox and the teachers reported times when Mr. Cox made decisions
without teacher input or carried teacher input on too long, but all parties involved
indicated that these were atypical occurrences. Decision-making seemed to be
viewed as well balanced and fairly consistent by all. Both Mr. Cox and the teachers
agreed that sometimes he failed to inform them in a timely manner about decisions
that he or the district administration had made. Some teachers found this disturbing.
They said that this was a problem that needed to be addressed.
168
The climate reported by both the teachers and the principal at Centerville was
open and positive. The teachers did report some times when Mr. Cox made
decisions without their input. Mr. Cox acknowledged this and felt that he was
working to be more aware of this problem. Teachers interviewed there felt that they
understood their principal and were valued by him. Their understood his vision. The
one factor that seemed to contribute the most to this strength was the fact that Mr.
Cox was viewed as being honest and open. Their responses to these questions agreed
with his for the most part and this indicated that the communication lines appeared to
be open as well as the climate.
Comparison of the Climates of the School Sites
In this section the climates of the three sites are compared based on the
agreement and discrepancies between the principals and teachers responses. Table
5.1 on the following page compares the climate elements of the three sites. The total
number of teachers interviewed at each site is indicated at the top of each school
column to aid in the comparison of the data. Each value in the table represents the
total number of teachers in each category. For example, each teacher who reported
the vision as the principal did was recorded as Agree. Teachers who only partially
or tentatively reported the vision were reported as Somewhat Agree. The teachers
who reported a vision that was contrary to the principals vision or were unable to
report a vision were recorded as Disagree and Not Able to Report, respectively.
The n at the top of each school column refers to the number of teachers
interviewed at that site.
169
Table 5.1 Climate Factor Agreement
Adams Beauport Centerville
n=7 n=6 n=9
Teachers Sense of
Team identity
Agree 3 4 4
Somewhat Agree 3 1 4
Disagree 1 1 1
Teachers Understanding
of the principals vision
Agree 0 2 9
Disagree 0 1 0
Not Able to Report 1 0 0
Decision-Making
Agree 3 3 9
Disagree 0 3 0
Note: Number of teachers agreeing, somewhat agreeing, or disagreeing with the
principals assessment of each climate factor.
The definition of school climate that has been used in this study was based on
the concept of organizational climate (Schein, 1992) and descriptions of a positive
school climate found in literature. The components include team identity (Ahadi, et.
al, 1990; Crowe, et. al., 2002), a strong, shared vision (Bryk & Schneider, 2003;
Crowe, et. al.), and an inclusive environment that involves teachers in decision
making (Crowe, et. al.; Hoy, et. al., 1991; Mendel, et. al., 2002; Sebring & Bryk,
2000).
Based on these measures the climates of the three study sites varied
considerably, viewed from the point of view of the teachers. All of the principals
170
interviewed envisioned their communication as open, their decision-making as
collaborative, and their schools as places where teachers were at least developing a
team identity. The principals had a sense of their own visions to varying degrees.
Each principal reported a positive climate for his or her school. Any disagreement
that the teachers at each school had with this description indicates presence of a less
than positive climate in that school, based on the dimensions used in this study.
Based on the agreement of the teachers responses and the principals reports,
Centervilles climate was the most positive of the three (see Table 5.1). The teachers
there had a realistic view of their principal, or at least seemed to agree with his view
of himself. All of the teachers understood the principals vision and felt a part of the
decision-making process, two keys to a positive school climate. As Bryk and
Schneider (2003) stated, in an open, positive school climate principals listen to
teachers ideas and concerns. In addition, Effective principals couple these
behaviors with a compelling school vision and behavior that clearly seeks to advance
the vision (p. 44).
Mr. Cox used the medium of staff meetings (one per month) to advance his
vision. At Centerville, staff meetings were events; they were social and almost
spiritual occasions according to the accounts of some of the teachers interviewed at
that school. This important opportunity for principal-teacher communication seemed
to be relished by Mr. Cox as a chance to bring the staff together to discuss and share
important information. One teacher actually said she wished there were more of
171
them. This was one place where teachers had an opportunity to learn about Mr.
Coxs vision in specific terms.
In contrast, the climate at Adams appeared fractured. Table 5.1 shows that
there was disagreement with the principal on all three climate factors and
considerable disagreement among the teachers as well. Teachers at Adams did not
have a strong sense of identity to each other or the school, and did not feel that Ms.
Allen was leading them with a strong vision. Some found her decision-making
uneven and unpredictable. Some of these were experiencing what Blase and Blase
(2004) referred to as frustration, and a sense of futility (p. 130). Ms. Allens
communication patterns were not contributing to a positive school climate. In
contrast to Mr. Cox in Centerville, Ms. Allen was not making use of her
communication opportunities to share her vision and clarify her ideas to all of her
teachers. It bears noting that Ms. Allen appeared to be still developing her vision
that was more complex than Mr. Coxs and might have been more difficult for her to
express and share. Whatever the reason, the result was a fractured climate that was
not positive or consistent.
The Beauport site shows a more mixed picture when viewed through the
context of the climate measures. The climate was less consistent, understandably
perhaps given the physical layout. It was also less positive based on this studys
climate measures, at least according to the teachers interviewed. Table 5.1 indicates
that there was a split concerning participation on decision-making and vision and
some split on team identity. The principal however seemed to be getting parts of her
172
vision across to the majority of the teachers that I interviewed, as indicated on Table
5.1. However, even though she was able to communicate with her teachers enough
for them to understand parts of her vision, Ms. Boston was not able to make them all
feel positive about her or her ideas. This climate features a lack of understanding and
consistency which have the potential to continue to foster destructive attitudes and
mistrust that may prevent schools from making the most of their potential (Fullan,
2001a; Sarason, 1995).
Major Observations
The three school sites that have been investigated in this study are very
different in terms of context, climate, and even the gender of the principals.
However, the connections that can be made between the communication behaviors of
these three principals and the climates of their schools as measured by the three
dimensions I have highlighted in this study can be compared across the sites
The data in this study fall into three types: (1) teacher and principal reports of
principals communication behaviors, (2) teacher comments on the effectiveness,
clarity, and consistency of these behaviors, and (3) reports by teachers and principals
on the school climate.
In Chapter 4 the reports of teachers and principals concerning communication
behaviors were discussed. The communication behavior patterns of the three
principals had many similarities. All three principals communicated with their
teachers primarily through emails and staff meetings. Ms. Allen and Ms. Boston sent
email messages to their teachers at least once a week. Mr. Cox emailed his teachers
173
frequently, sometimes daily. Staff meetings at Adams were held once a week and
were about 35 minutes in length. Beauport meetings were monthly, lasting at least an
hour and included all teachers from three schools. At Centerville the staff meetings
were monthly, and lasted at least an hour. Team meetings were held in Beauport and
Centerville, but not at Adams. All principals reported being visible and available to
their teachers. Teachers in all schools acknowledged this attempt, but many wished
to see more of their principals. The major differences among the principals were
found in the topics discussed in emails and at meetings. The Centerville teachers
reported hearing more about the principals vision and academic topics than the
teachers at Adams and Beauport did.
By combining the data concerning communication and climate, I have
observed the following connections between the principals communication
behaviors and school climate.
1. Principals communication behaviors were linked to the teachers
understanding of the principals vision.
The teachers who most correctly reported understanding the principals
vision also reported that the principal talked about his or her vision or made his or
her vision clear through actions. Each of the principals thought that the teachers
understood his or her vision. Teachers who did not completely understand the
principals vision said that they had not heard the principal talk about a vision. One
teacher at Adams said she could not report a vision because she had no idea what it
might be. Teachers said that they thought that this was what the principal was
174
interested in or they assumed a vision from other things that were said or done. Mr.
Cox talked about his vision, Ms. Boston did not talk about her vision, but she
revealed it through promoting such programs as The Responsive Classroom. Ms.
Allen did not identify her vision to her teachers, but all but one of them could report
topics and ideas that seemed to be key to her principalship. As Table 5.1 illustrates,
the teachers in Centerville all correctly reported Mr. Cox vision. When asked to
report the topics of their principals communications, Centerville teachers reported
vision seven times out of 62 reports (11%). Beauport teachers reported vision three
times out of 47 reports (6%) and Adams teachers did not report vision as a topic at
all.
2. Principals communication behaviors were linked to the teachers feeling
of being part of the decision-making process.
The teachers who most consistently reported that they felt part of a
collaborative decision-making process were in Centerville (100%, see Table 5.1).
The teachers there said that Mr. Cox talked about wanting them to be part of this
process, and his actions supported this. The teachers said that Mr. Cox told them
that he needed their input, especially in the area of primary education. He told them
that he valued their input and the teachers reported that his decisions reflected the
fact that others had input. Teachers felt that they were a part of the decision-making
process, because their principal told them that their input was important and acted on
it. Several teachers expressed the need to be kept informed. In many cases, teachers
said that being kept informed was as important than being part of the actual decision-
175
making process. As reported in Chapter 5, this feeling of being in the loop
enhanced faculty members sense of team identity as well.
3. Principals communication behaviors did not seem to be linked to the
teachers sense of team identity.
Teachers who were in smaller schools seemed to feel a stronger team identity
than teachers who were in larger schools. That is, teachers in the smaller school
settings in Beauport indicated a team identity to a greater extent than did the teachers
at Centerville (see Table 5.1). These feelings seemed to be unrelated to principal
communication. Although four out of the six teachers interviewed at Beauport said
they felt part of a team, only two of them reported that Ms. Boston talked about this.
It would be interesting to see if the feeling of team identity played out when the
teachers in Beauport were merged into one school. In all schools, some teachers had
a sense of a grade-level or grade-cluster team identity. In the smaller schools these
grade clusters were in fact the whole school. One teacher-to-teacher communication
factor that seemed to lead to this was the existence of team meetings that were held
at the small schools. Everyone was involved in planning and discussing. They
seemed to feel a sense of ownership. At the other sites, the teachers sense of team
identity seemed to have more to do with their individual grade levels than with
anything the principal said or did. Overall the topic of teamwork was listed only
eight times as a topic of principals communication for all sites (see Table 4.1).
176
4. Principals communication behaviors did not seem to impact the
professional practice of the teachers.
The majority of the teachers (14 out of 22) interviewed for this study reported
that communication from their principals did not affect their professional practice.
In Chapter 4, some teachers in every school said that the principals communication
did not effect what they did in their classrooms, but was more related to the general
scheduling of their day. A large percentage of the responses (63 out of 144)
regarding topics of principal communication behaviors centered on non-academic
matters such as school business, as reported in Chapter 4 and summarized in Table
4.4. This would corroborate the teachers opinions about impact on professional
practice. Teachers did not feel that the principals communication was impacting
their professional practice because they did not perceive the principals
communication as containing information directly related to that practice.
5. The principals technical communication skills did not seem to be a
factor in shaping school climate.
In Chapter 4, teachers were asked about the clarity and effectiveness of their
principals communication. In most instances (18 out of 22), the teachers reported
that their principals were clear and competent in their communication, regardless of
other comments they made concerning their principals, the principals
communication, or any climate factors. The exception to this is the fact that Mr.
Coxs teachers did credit him with being a skilled storyteller, which enhanced the
staff meetings and their effectiveness (see climate comparison, this chapter).
177
Other Factors
Other factors have surfaced in this data collection that may or may not have
affected the climate of the schools investigated in this study. These factors include
the gender of the principals; the demographics of the schools, including the faculty
size, the student body sizes, the physical layout of the buildings; the history of the
principalships at the schools; and the demographics of the communities. Tables 3.1,
3.2, 3.3, and 3.4 provide detailed profiles of the school sites and the teacher and
principal participants. Some of these factors have been mentioned and discussed in
this study, but are not part of the major focus of this investigation, which is the
examination of the relationship between principal communication behaviors and
school climate.
In the next chapter, I will provide an overview of this study and discuss the
broader interpretations of some of these observations regarding the links between
principal communication behaviors and school climate. Finally I will discuss the
implications of these findings for professional practice and future research.
Chapter 6
DISCUSSION
This chapter will provide an overview of the study, including a brief review
of the research problem and the methods used for sample selection, data collection,
and analysis. The major findings of this study will be reviewed. These findings will
be discussed and related to relevant literature. Finally, the implications for
professional practice and future research will be explored.
Overview
School principals frequently are frustrated by what appear to be
communication lapses in their schools (Donaldson, 1991; Semak, 1998; Villani,
1999). Even their most important messages do not seem to be received by the
teachers as intended by the principals, causing confusion and a lack of understanding
about the principals vision. This confusion and lack of understanding can cause
frustration and anger toward the principal on the part of teachers (Blase & Blase,
2004), which can have negative effects on their relationships with their students
(Blase & Anderson, 1995).
Much of what principals do is dependent on being able to communicate with
their staffs. The ability to communicate effectively is a key to being successful in
the principalship (NAESP, 2001; NASSP, 2005). Not only is effective
communication from the leader of a school or any organization central to being a
successful leader, communication can also affect the climate of the organization, in
this case the school (Sergiovanni, 2000).
179
A positive school climate has been described in a variety of ways, but the
same basic concepts emerge repeatedly. These definitions of positive school climates
have three dimensions in common. They all include a sense of belonging or team
identity (Ahadi, et. al, 1990; Crowe, et. al., 2002), a strong, shared vision (Bryk &
Schneider, 2003; Crowe, et. al.), and an inclusive environment that involves teachers
in decision-making (Crowe, et. al.; Hoy, et. al., 1991; Mendel, et. al., 2002; Sebring
& Bryk, 2000). These three dimensions, along with the concept of organizational
climate based on the work of Schein (1992), formed the basis for the climate
definition used in this study. School climate was defined for this study as the extent
to which teachers feel a sense of team identity, understand and support the
principals vision, and feel a part of the decision-making process in the school.
Communication from the principal is important to the climate of the school.
The health of this communication link can be a major determinant of school climate.
How principals and teachers view this link is key to understanding how principals
influence school climate. It is important to understand what teachers have to say
about the methods, topics, and messages of their principals communications with
them. Also important are the teachers comments on how their understanding of
these communications affects their experience at the school. It is important to
understand how the principals view their own communication behaviors, how well
they feel their communication is understood by their teachers, and how they feel this
affects the climate of the school.
180
The problem to be explored then becomes: What are teachers and principals
perceptions of the elements of principals communication with teachers that
influence school climate? The research questions that were developed from this
initial problem were: (1) How do principals view the link between principals
communication and school climate? (2) How do teachers view the link between
principals communication and school climate?
Three Maine elementary schools were selected as sites for the investigation
of these research questions. After a total of eight schools were contacted, three
principals agreed to participate in this study. A presentation was made at a faculty
meeting at each school to explain the study and to solicit teacher volunteers. The
teachers were able to volunteer anonymously by returning a signed consent form. A
total of 22 teachers and three principals at three school sites comprised the final
sample. The sites are referred to as Adams, Beauport, and Centerville (all fictitious
names) in this study and had seven, six, and nine teacher participants respectively.
The principal participants at Adams and Beauport were female. The principal at
Centerville was male. Every effort was made to protect the confidentiality of these
participants. Principals were not informed as to the names or grade levels of teacher-
participants in their schools. Code numbers and fictitious names for places and
principals were used throughout the write-up of the data. Participants were contacted
by email or, if they preferred, at their homes to protect them from identification by
other school personnel.
181
The method of data collection for this study was individual interviews. Each
participant was interviewed twice at a location of their choice, usually their school.
The first interview with each participant was conducted using an interview protocol.
There was a separate interview protocol for principals and teachers. The protocols
were developed over a period of two and one-half years, beginning with a pilot study
conducted by interviewing teachers concerning principal communication behaviors.
Questions concerning principal communication behaviors were based on the data
from this pilot study. In addition, I reviewed literature on communication,
leadership, and climate to further my understanding of this topic.
Based on the literature on organizational and school climate that I reviewed, I
developed a definition of school climate that included three dimensions: (a) the
teachers sense of belonging to a team at the school, (b) the teachers understanding
and acceptance of the principals vision for the school, and (c) the teachers sense of
being part of the school decision-making process. This definition of school climate
formed the basis for questions concerning school climate that made up part of the
protocols that were finally developed.
The protocols for the principals and teachers were divided into three parts.
The first section introduced the study and asked for information on the participants
professional careers. The second section contained questions about the principals
communication behaviors. Principals were prompted to describe themselves as
communicators, talk about the major ways they communicated with their staffs, and
comment on how they thought their teachers felt about their communication with
182
them. In the second section of their protocol, teachers were asked to describe their
principals major communication behaviors. They were asked to comment on their
reactions to this communication and also whether or not the principals
communication had an effect on their professional practice in their classrooms.
The third section of the protocols was composed of questions about school
climate, based on the definition above. Principals were asked to comment on the
teachers sense of team identity. They were asked about their vision and if they
thought that the teachers understood and supported that vision. Finally, they were
asked to describe how decisions were made in their schools. Teachers were asked if
they felt part of a team at school. They were posed questions about the principals
vision and where they had heard it expressed. Finally they were asked to describe
how decisions were made at the school. At the end of each interview, participants
were given the opportunity to expand on anything they had said or comment on any
additional topic. Second interviews were held with each participant, usually about
one month after the first interview, but the interval varied. Questions for these
interviews were based on the initial interview responses and were intended to follow-
up on and clarify information as necessary.
Data analysis was done through the use of the QSR N6 NUD*IST [Non-
numerical Unstructured Data* Indexing Searching and Theorizing] qualitative data
analysis computer program. Transcripts of the interviews, most of which were tape-
recorded, were prepared and loaded into this program, which assisted me in the
183
organization and analysis of the data. The program allowed me to sort and compare
responses to the various questions both within each site and among sites.
The data from this study although plentiful and rich does have several
limitations. In order to view any conclusions from this study correctly it is important
to recognize these limitations. The sample for this study was small: 22 teachers and
three principals from three Maine elementary schools. At one site less than half
(38%) of the teachers were interviewed and at the other two sites the sample
consisted of considerably less than half of the teachers (21% of the faculty at each of
those sites). This did not provide me with a large enough sample from any site to feel
completely confident that what the participants said was reflective of the faculty as a
whole.
In each school, I relied on volunteer participants and all of the teachers who
volunteered were accepted. It was the original intent of the design of this study to
randomly choose participants from a pool of volunteers at each site. However it was
much more difficult to obtain teacher volunteers than I had originally expected.
Since all the participants were self-selected, I ran the risk of having volunteers who
in the words of Lincoln and Guba (1985) had an axe to grind (p. 258). I had no
way of knowing what their reasons for volunteering might be. Therefore, there was
no way to know if this sample in any way reflected the opinions of the faculties of
the schools as a whole or any other schools (Maxwell, 1996).
Another limitation of this study and of this type of data collection is the
factor of researcher influence on the respondents. I found that the participants had
184
thought about the questions I had asked in the first interviews and sometimes had
qualifications or corrections at the second interviews. This was very helpful and
made the participants feel that they had given me the most complete and accurate
answers possible. However, I had no way of knowing if something I had said at the
first interview made them re-think their answers or if they had talked to the principal
or other participants at their schools.
There was another type of potential researcher influence operating in this
study. Since I asked the same questions of multiple respondents at the same schools,
I ran the risk of appearing to recognize stories and opinions that I had heard before.
After a few interviews in each school, I heard the same stories repeated because, of
course, these were the major issues of that school. I never told a participant that I
had heard a story before and never commented on anything they told me in a way
that would indicate that I heard it before from someone else in another way. In this
instance I do feel that I was able to hear each persons story without it being
contaminated by other responses.
In order to ensure as much as possible the accuracy of data I collected and my
interpretation of it, I employed member checks and peer feedback. Member checks
included allowing each participant to review any quotations that I proposed to use in
the text of my study. I also asked some of the participants to review larger portions
of the text, which included comments by other respondents. In this way I gave them
the opportunity to make comments on the accuracy of my text. My doctoral
185
committee reviewed my data and my analysis and helped me keep my own personal
point of view in mind, so that it did not color my interpretation of the data.
Findings and Discussion
The genesis of this study several years ago was the desire to understand
principal-teacher communication. The goal was to explore the link between
principals communication with teachers and school climate. I was hoping that some
kind of profile would emerge that would pinpoint the ideal type of communication
behavior, the perfect memo, the quintessential staff meeting speech. What I learned
from this investigation goes beyond lessons in how to talk to your staff members.
The teachers and principals who so kindly gave their time to a stranger have taught
me a great deal about how this communication-climate connection seems to work.
The guiding definition of climate for this study included team identity, the
principals vision, and participatory decision-making. In Chapter 5 , 1 reported some
links between principal communication behaviors and these dimensions of climate
and the climate of the three schools sites as a whole. I made the following
observations about the data I have reported and analyzed in this study: (1)
Principals communication behaviors were linked to the teachers understanding of
the principals vision. (2) Principals communication behaviors were linked to the
teachers feeling of being part of the decision-making process. (3) Principals
communication behaviors did not seem to be linked to the teachers sense of team
identity. (4) Principals communication behaviors did not appear to impact the
teachers professional practice. (5) The principals communication skill did not seem
186
to be a factor in shaping the school climate. These observations form the basis for the
following presentation of the findings of this study.
The principals interviewed for this study all understood that their
communication in some way influenced their professional relationships with their
staffs and ultimately the climate of the schools. As Ms. Boston put it, However I
communicate with them, it either helps build our relationship or kills it (BP,
interview 1). The other principals had similar things to say. These principals were
right; their communication did effect what was happening in their schools. The data
reported here support that concept. However, the climates of these three schools
were very different. There were other factors at play that made the difference
among the climates of these schools. The following discussion of the findings will
explore how this researcher felt that happened and how these conclusions are
supported in the relevant literature.
1. The congruity between the principals and teachers understanding of the
key climate factor of participatory decision-making was an indicator of the presence
of a positive school climate.
One factor that stood out as a feature of a positive school climate was the
consistency between the understandings of the principals and teachers regarding the
key climate factor of decision-making. It was clear that all the principals regarded
themselves as collaborative decision-makers and not all the teachers had that
impression. However, where the understanding of the rules of the decision
making process seemed clear to all, the climate was more positive. The determining
187
factor here seemed to be the consistency of understanding rather that the amount of
participation that the teachers actually had. In addition, the trust that the teachers
evidenced in the statements of the principals about their inclusion in decision-making
seemed to also be related to the positive school environment. The teachers who were
able to confidently say that the principal meant what he said about including them
appeared to feel secure in their understanding of the process. These teachers
appeared to trust the principal and his consistent manner of dealing with them.
On the other hand, schools where teachers were unsure or suspicious of the
principals intentions showed less evidence of a positive school climate. In those
schools, teachers did not agree with each other about the principals intentions and
certainly did not all agree with the principals descriptions. In those schools, teachers
did not seem able to predict what the decision-making process would be and not all
of them were comfortable with it. Sarason (1995) reports that a suspiciousness
(p. 82) of authority is a factor that impedes the development of a positive school
climate. This uncertainty and discomfort with the decision-making environment
contributed to a less that positive climate in some of these schools.
2. The clarity of the vision of the principal can become the factor that creates
a bond among the faculty that leads to a strong sense of identity.
One dimension of school climate that was discussed in this study was team
identity, based on the concept that group identity is an important feature of a positive
climate (Crowe, et al. 2002; Sergiovanni, 2000). The findings regarding this
dimension of school climate as it was directly investigated were confusing and
188
inconclusive. However, for some teachers, their sense of identity seemed to be
linked to the understanding of the principals vision. This understanding went
beyond simply knowing what was important to the principal.
At one school, the vision of the principal was clear to the teachers. It was
simple and succinct and consistently understood by all. It became a vision for the
entire staff. This echoes Senge, et al. (2000) when they talk about a leader who can
articulate a vision and make it a collective one. This seemed to be what drew that
staff together. It was one of the factors that made that climate so positive. Although
these teachers did not report feeling a part of a school-wide team, in a sense they
were more of a team than the teachers at the other two schools were. They felt they
had a common goal based on the principals vision, his appreciation for them and
their professional abilities, and his sincere belief in the school. This principal truly
had a vision, not just a goal or an idea of what the school should accomplish, but a
vision that took into account what the school had to offer and what its future could
be. This puts emphasis on the importance of not only sharing a vision but of having
one to begin with.
An additional factor at play here was the fact the teachers in one school had a
better understanding of the principals vision than the teachers at the other schools.
Not only did these teachers say they understood his vision, they really did. Their
reports of the principals vision were almost identical to what the principal had
reported to me. In addition, each teacher reported the vision in virtually the same
way as other teachers had. Clearly they all had heard and understood the same
189
message. This principal (Mr. Cox) had a vision that was succinct and clear. In
contrast, Ms. Allens vision that was more complex, in transition, and somewhat in
conflict with what she felt the district and public education in general expected. This
made her vision perhaps more difficult to express and perhaps more difficult for
others to completely understand.
In Adams and Beauport teachers were either unclear about the principals
vision, reported only part of it, or actually reported a vision contrary to what the
principal had said. These confused, incomplete, and inaccurate visions complicated
the climate picture for those schools. Some teachers had confused ideas about what
the principal intended and some felt that they did not have a direction. This
confusion contributed to a less than positive school climate. Just as in the first
finding concerning decision-making, the congruity of the understanding of the vision
played a big part in its effectiveness.
3. The ability of the principal to speak and write clearly was not as
influential on school climate as what was being communicated or the manner in
which it was communicated.
All of the teachers in this study reported that their principals were clear,
competent communicators. The teachers believed that they understood what was
being said to them, and they probably did. But being a competent speaker and writer
did not ensure a positive school climate. When I asked the teachers if their principals
were clear communicators, I was probably asking the wrong question.
190
By his own description and that of his teachers one principal investigated
here had some kind of special ability to communicate feelings and to motivate
people. Mr. Cox put it this way. [I have been told] when I do communicate that I do
so effectively (CP, interview 1). I m not sure I truly understand what that formula
is. And Im glad I seem to have [it] (CP, interview 2). His teachers agree with this
assessment. And I've never seen a principal that at the staff meetings, that
really.. gave a talk or read a speech. It's almost like a kind of motivational kind of
speech and he really works to try to unify the staff (C6, interview 1).
I believe that part of this ability was based on the fact that he was intentional
about this sharing of himself and his ideas with the teachers. He showed evidence of
openness that teachers responded to positively, thus affecting the school climate.
Hoy, et al. (1991) described the characteristics of an open, positive climate as
cooperation, respect, and openness that exist... between the faculty and the
principal.. .The behavior of the both the principal and teachers is genuine and open
(p. 39). Those qualities were evident in the descriptions of this principal and in the
manner in which the principal presented himself to me.
In contrast, the other two principals appeared much more business-like in
their manner, at least from the point of view of the teachers. One principal was even
described by some teachers as too brusque, which bothered some people. A lack of
personal connection made other teachers uncomfortable. It seems that these teachers
felt that their principal was lacking what Mattie, the principal in Semaks (1998)
ethnography refers to as caring. Most people really want to be validated as
191
worthwhile human beings. To care about them, it does not take much. You cant be
superficial about it, but you just genuinely care (p.61). I believe that the other
principals certainly did care about their staff but from the point of view of the
teachers, they were not always showing it.
I believe that the school climate might also have been affected by the topics
of the principals communication with their teachers. The teachers in one school
consistently talked about how their principal shared stories about his life, not only
with the teachers but also with the students. He talked about philosophical ideas as
well as school business. Not only did this help him explain and further his vision, it
also made him a more interesting and complete speaker who commanded peoples
attention and made them think.
This seems to be a lesson from these data concerning the very act of
communicating. Where a positive school climate was evident, teachers also reported
a principal freely shared his ideas and thoughts and encouraged others to share their
thoughts as well. He praised the teachers in public and private. He acted almost like
a cheerleader, encouraging them by continually pointing out the positive things that
were happening in their school.
4. The communication behaviors of the principals in this study did not have
an effect on the professional practice of the teachers.
One of the questions asked of teachers in this study was: Does your
principals communication effect your professional practice? For the purposes of
this study I defined professional practice as the classroom practices that teachers
192
used and the decisions that are made daily about curriculum, instruction, and
assessment. The majority of the teachers interviewed for this study did not report
that their principals communication behaviors influenced their daily teaching
practice. The question becomes: Why did the multitude of communication
opportunities that the principals had with their teachers not result in the teachers
feeling that the principals were talking to them about academic matters?
I believe that the answer to this question lies in the answers to some of the
basic questions that were asked at the beginning of the teacher interviews. The
largest category of communication topics reported by teachers and principals was
school business: paperwork, scheduling, and announcements of meetings. This was
in contrast to many fewer reports of academic topics. It seems clear that the majority
of the teachers did not feel that the principals were affecting their professional
practice. This was because many of them did not perceive that their principals spent
as much time on instructional matters as on business matters. Frequently, this
communication was by email, rather than face to face or in meetings, further
emphasizing the impersonal, all business nature of the communication.
This phenomenon is supported by the literature. In Chapter 2 , 1 reported on a
survey conducted by Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. concerning the work of
principals. Researchers found that based on the perceptions of the teachers, parents,
and other stakeholders, principals spend much more of their time dealing with the
business of running the school and bureaucracy than with substantive issues of
teaching and learning. The principals responding to the same survey reported that
193
they were spending much more time motivating teachers than doing paperwork
(Reid, 2004). This lack of instructional leadership on the part of the principal is a
situation that can have negative effects on teachers and their teaching life. Blase and
Blase (2004) reported that teachers whose principals did not act as instructional
leaders described effects on motivation and self-esteem, as well as significant
increases in anger, psychic pain, and feelings of being unsupported (p. 119).
Like the principals in the Metropolitan survey, the principals who were
interviewed for this study also had a different perception of the topics of their
communication with their teachers than the teachers reported. They envisioned that
they were having a more professional dialogue with their teachers than they were.
The principals also reported that their time was limited and they were caught up in
the day to day running of the school, which even made such things as answering
emails difficult for them.
5. Other factors may also have an influence on school climate.
The principals in these schools were faced with a variety of factors that no
doubt affected the climate of their schools. Some of these factors are within the
control and many of them are not. Principals come into a school that already has a
history. Mattie Johnson (Semak, 1998) and Susan Villani (1999) both could attest to
that. These two principals entered schools that had negative atmospheres that they
had to overcome. Their stories are instructive to read and remind me that the
principal cannot be held responsible for every aspect of the school climate all by
himself or herself. Such factors as the teachers experience with previous
194
administrations, the teachers abilities as potential school leaders, the community
support or lack of it, and the physical layout or condition of the building are but a
few examples.
On the other hand, there are factors that principals can control. Principals
have the opportunity to affect the climate of their schools by making the
development of the climate a priority in their principalship. By paying attention to
the behaviors that can enhance a school climate, principals have an opportunity to
have a positive effect. One of these behaviors is being visible in the school and
available by walking around the school and truly having an open door. Principals can
use those opportunities to have more informal, face-to-face interactions with their
teachers. Many teachers in this study expressed a desire to see more of their
principals and to have the opportunity to develop more of a relationship with him or
her. Many of them also, although they understood the need for email communication,
clearly preferred a more informal and personal style.
Principals can have an effect on the school climate by communicating their
vision to their teachers. The developing and sharing of a clear vision was one
behavior that made a difference in the climates of the schools in this study. Teachers
in this study who felt that their principal clearly communicated a vision and acted on
it felt like they had a direction and a purpose, thus positively affecting the school
climate. This vision must include a clear and consistent understanding of how
teachers will be involved in the decision-making process in the school.
195
Principals have the opportunity to positive affect the climates of their schools
by developing systems of feedback that can aid them in understanding the needs and
points of view of their teachers. Some of the negative comments concerning
principal communication in this study concerned not being listened to or paid
attention to. Principals can gain valuable insight into how they are communicating
with their teachers by simply asking them.
Some teachers in this study expressed a lack of enthusiasm for staff meetings
that were boring, too large, unproductive, or generally a waste of their time. This is
an important communication opportunity available to most principals. The agenda
and design of these meetings is for the most part under the control of the principal.
These meetings can provide the principal with an opportunity to strengthen all three
dimensions of school climate that were the focus of this investigation. Group
meetings provide opportunities for teachers to bond together as a team, to learn about
and discuss the principals vision and develop one for the school, and to participate
in the decision-making process of the school.
Implications for Practice
The findings of this study have some implications for the professional
practice of both principals and teachers. Principals can influence the climate of a
school. A positive school climate has been linked to teacher job satisfaction (Blase &
Kirby, 1992; Pepper & Thomas, 2002) and student achievement (Brookover, 1982;
Fullan, 2001a; Sergiovanni, 2000), making the creation of a positive climate a
desirable goal for principals.
196
Many factors that can influence school climate are under the control of the
principal. Teachers in all three schools indicated that they wanted to see more of
their principals, whether in the classroom, the hallway, or in the principals office.
The principals all felt that they were visible but said that their ability to be out of
their office was limited. This is a communication behavior that is under the control
of the principal. Intentionally making time to be in the classrooms and hallways of
the school and realistically assessing how much this is happening is one way
principals can hope to influence school climate.
The data in this study indicate that when principals share their vision with the
teachers there is a positive effect on school climate. Principals need to take the time
to make sure that the teachers they work with understand their vision. This seems to
be a simple enough suggestion, but if the teachers and principals in this study are any
example of what happens elsewhere, apparently it is not always that easy. In my own
professional practice, I assumed that everyone knew what my vision was based on
my actions. That was not always the case and it was not always the case with these
principals and teachers either. Mr. Cox was the principal with the most positive
school climate. He made use of every opportunity to communicate his vision to the
teachers, the students, and the community. This was intentional behavior that told
everyone what the principal thought. In addition, Mr. Cox was able to express his
vision in a few simple sentences. Principals need to be aware that a clear, concise
vision is easier to share and easier to understand, thus making it more useful as a
guide and a bonding element.
197
Principals need to use their communication opportunities to share their vision
and allow teachers to have meaningful conversations. One way to accomplish this is
to take time in staff meetings to discuss substantive issues and not settle for a
business meeting that focuses on scheduling or procedural issues. In addition staff
meetings provide opportunities for discussions of instructional issues that seemed to
be lacking in the communications from the principals in this study.
Perhaps part of the professional preparation for principals needs to be an
opportunity to develop personal and professional goals for themselves. Principals
need to take the time to reflect and revise their goals. They need to take the time to
interact with other administrators and perhaps mentors who can help them define
what their priorities are and how these can be translated into goals and actions. These
goals could be translated later into visions for the schools they serve. These visions,
while certainly subject to change and growth, would provide them with a starting
point. When a principal makes a decision or gives a suggestion, he or she should link
that to the goals and vision of the school. We expect our teachers to link their
instructional decisions to national or state standards. Should we not expect our
principals and other administrators to not only do that, but also base their practice on
their philosophies and goals?
The findings of this study indicate that authentic teacher-inclusion in
decision-making is an important component of a positive school climate. Principals
need to keep teachers well informed and honestly seek their input. Too often
principals say they want to seek input from their teachers, but fail to do so, or fail to
198
use the input they received. It was clear in this study that teachers need to feel that
they are kept informed, whether or not they are directly involved in a decision. Even
teachers interviewed at Centerville School occasionally felt left out of the decision
making process and that bothered them despite their overall positive attitudes.
On the other hand, principals need to be aware that occasionally teachers will
resist participating in the decision-making process, feeling that this is the
responsibility of the principal. Principals should not settle for a lack of involvement
or a lack of teacher leadership. It is up to the principal to draw teachers into the arena
of collaborative decision-making when it is appropriate and encourage them to
develop their own leadership skills.
The findings of this study indicated that principals and teachers do not always
have the same views of the principals communication behaviors or the climate of
the school. Principals need to be aware of how they are perceived by their teachers
and should seek feedback regarding that input. Some of the questions that were
asked in this study could provide that feedback for principals. Principals should ask
their faculties to describe the vision of their leader and discuss it. Had I done that as
a principal, I would have quickly learned what I was not communicating to my
teachers. This would be an opportunity for the principal and the teachers to work on
discussing and developing visions for the school, thus creating an opportunity for
everyone to contribute to improvement of the school climate.
199
Implications for Future Research
When considering other research that might be an extension of this study, it
seemed appropriate to share some things I have learned about conducting this type of
research. Obtaining a sample for a multiple case study is a long process that requires
patience and persistence. Getting enough volunteers from the teaching staffs of the
school sites required multiple weeks in each case. Teachers who did not respond
within the first week did not respond until a reminder and additional consent forms
had been sent to the schools. In some cases, I began my interviews while still looking
for more volunteers at a site. Conducting this type of research takes a great deal
longer than one could imagine and qualitative educational researchers need to be
prepared for a lengthy, though rewarding, experience.
While this research study confirmed many of the concepts found in the
literature, it also highlighted an area that bears more exploration. This study
indicated that much of what the principal can contribute to the school climate is
potentially under the control of the principal. In addition, principals may be under
the impression that they are doing or saying things that the teachers are not
perceiving. The question in this researchers mind is how a principal would use the
data from a study such as this one to inform his or her own practice and potentially
improve the climate of the school. The following proposed study addresses that
question.
I would propose a multi-stage study that looked at the principals influence
on school climate over a longer period of time. This would actually be a follow-up to
200
the study I have just completed, or one very similar to it. After this dissertation is
completed, the participating schools will be receiving an abbreviated report of their
portion of the study, including the conclusions drawn from the larger study. I would
propose extending this study by going back to the same sites again after they have
received their reports. After six months or during the next school year, participants
would be asked similar questions and also encouraged to comment on how things
had changed and what conversations had developed as a result of the information
they had received. The principals who participated in this study already were
motivated to improve their climates, but it would be instructive to see how much
help they felt this type of information would be to them in their efforts.
Another study that I would propose would be designed to make use of my
original plan of selecting samples that were as similar as possible to eliminate some
of the other factors I referred to in Chapter 5 as having potential influence on the
school climate. Factors such as school size, community demographics, and the
history of the school have some influence on school climate (Corbett, 1991; Semak,
1998). Obviously, in this type of research we cannot control for all possible
variables, but it would be instructive to see if other insights would emerge from
studying similar schools where the principal alone becomes more of a differentiating
variable.
A third area of inquiry that these data suggest concerns the role of the teacher
in the principal-teacher communication relationship. Communication is always two-
way, involving a sender and a receiver. However, the teachers in this study did not
201
volunteer any acknowledgement of responsibility for improving their principals
communication with them. In addition, this study did not ask them to comment on
what factors might have made them perceive their principals communication in the
way that they did. Perhaps more exploration concerning the histories of the
relationships between the teachers and present and former administrators might have
helped to illuminate this topic. Observation of communication opportunities, such as
teachers meetings, would offer opportunities to compare researcher observations
with participant reports. These comparisons would be useful as cross-checks of the
comments made by both the teachers and principals. This would allow a more
complete picture of the communication setting at a given site and the teachers role
in it.
Concluding Remarks
This study has taught me that the importance of authentically sharing ones
vision and acting on it cannot be underestimated and the difficulties of doing so
should not be underestimated either. This, for me, was a simple but profound lesson.
This study has been a fascinating journey that has allowed me to meet some
extraordinary people who shared some of their deepest thoughts with a total stranger.
Beyond what I reported in this study, I learned that our profession is rich with caring,
serious, intelligent individuals who sincerely wish to promote the best for young
people. All of the participants in this study were cooperative and extremely flexible.
They allowed me to learn not only about principal communication behaviors and
school climate, but also how important each school is to the individuals who work
202
there. Perhaps the most important thing that I learned was that, whatever their point
of view, these people care about their schools, their principals, and their profession.
203
REFERENCES
Ackerman, R.H., Donaldson, G.A., Jr., & van de Bogert, R. (1996). Making sense
as a school leader: Persisting questions, creative opportunities. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ahadi, S.A., Scott, C.K., &Krug, S.E. (1990). Reliability, validity, scope, and
demographic correlates of teacher ratings of instructional leadership and
school climate. Urbana, IL: National Center of School Leadership.
Andrews, M., Lee, S. S., & James, D. (2002). The man in the principals office
(re)visited by a woman. In B. Perreault & F. C. Lunenbury. (Eds.). The
changing world of school administration, (pp. 267-281). Huntsville, TX:
National Council of Professors of Educational Administration. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. 476549).
Argyris, C. (1982). Reasoning, learning, and action. Washington, D.C.: Jossey-
Bass Publishers.
Barth, R. (1990). Improving schools from within: Teachers, parents, and
principals can make the difference. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Barnard, C. J. (1968). The functions of the executive. (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Blase, J. (1987). Dimensions of effective school leadership: The teachers
perspective. American Education Research Journal. 24 (4). 589-610.
Blase, J. & Anderson, G. (1995). The micropolitics of educational leadership:
From control to empowerment. New York: Teachers College Press.
204
Blase, J. & Blase, J. (2004). Handbook of instructional leadership: How successful
principals promote teaching and learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.
Blase, J. & Kirby, P.C. (1992). Bringing out the best in teachers: What effective
principals do. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.
Blumberg, A. & Greenfield, W. (1986). The effective principal. (2nd ed.). Newton,
MA: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.
Bolman, L.G. & Heller, R. (1995). Research on school leadership: The state of the
art. In S.B. Bacharach & B. Mundell. (Eds.). Images of schools: Structures
and roles in organizational behavior, (pp. 315-358). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.
Brookover, W. B., Beamer, L., Efthim, H., Hathaway, D., Lezotte, L., Miller, S.
Passalacqua, J., & Tormatsky, L. (1982). Creating effective schools: An in-
service program for enhancing school learning climate and achievement.
Holmes Beach, FL: Learning Publications.
Bryk, A.S., Cambum, E., & Louis, K.S. (1999). Professional community in
Chicago elementary schools: facilitation factors and organizational
consequences. Educational Administration Quarterly. 35 (Supplement).
751-781.
Bryk, A. S. & Schneider, B. (2003). Trust in schools: A core resource for school
reform. Educational Leadership. 60 (6). 40-45.
205
Burleson, B.R., & Kline, S.E. (1979). Habermass theory of communication: A
critical explication. Quarterly Journal of Speech. 65 (4). 412-428.
Bums, J.M. (2003). Transformational leadership. New York: Atlantic Monthly
Press.
Corbett, H. D. (1991). Community influence and school micropolitics: A case
example. In J. Blase (Ed.). The politics of life in schools: Power, conflict,
and cooperation, (pp. 73-95). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Crowe, G. M., Hausman, C.S., & Scribner, J. P. (2002). Reshaping the role of the
school principal. In J. Murphy (Ed.). The educational leadership challenge:
Redefining leadership for the 21st century. One hundred-first yearbook of
the National Society for the Study of Education, (pp. 65-83). Chicago:
National Society of the Study of Education.
Deal, T.E. (1995). Symbols and symbolic activity. In S.B. Bacharach & B.
Mundell. (Eds ). Images of schools: Structures and roles in organizational
behavior, (pp. 108-136). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Deal, T.E. & Peterson, K.D. (1999). Shaping school culture: The heart of
leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Donaldson, G.A., Jr. (1991). Learning to lead: The dynamics of the high school
principalship. New York: Greenwood Press.
Dowling, W.F. & Sayles, L. R. (1978). How managers motivate: The imperatives
of supervision. New York: McGraw-Hill.
206
Evans, R. (1996). The human side of school change: Reform, resistance, and the
real-life problems of innovations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Falcione, R. L., Sussman, L., & Herden, R. P. (1987). Communication climate in
organizations. In F. M Jablin, L. L. Putnam, K. H. Roberts, & L.W. Porter
(Eds.). Handbook of Organizational communication: An interdisciplinary
perspective, (pp. 195-227). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Fullan, M. (2001a). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Fullan, M. (2001b). The new meaning of educational change (3rd ed.). New York:
Teachers College Press.
Glickman, C D. (1998). Revolutionizing Americas schools. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Goldsberry, L., Holt, A., Johnson, K., MacDonald, G., Poliquin, R., & Potter, L.
(1995). Evolution of a restructuring school: The New Suncook Case. In A.
Lieberman (Ed.). The work of restructuring schools: Building from the ground up.
(pp. 136-156). New York: Teachers College Press.
Greenfield, T. B. (1994/1975). Theory about organization: A new perspective and
its implication for schools. In W. K. Hoy (Ed.). Educational administration:
The UCEA document base, (pp. 494-517). McGraw-Hill IncPrimis.
Hanson, M.E. (1991). Educational administration and organizational behavior. (3rd
ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Harris, P.R. & Moran, R. T. (1984). Managing cultural differences. Houston, TX:
Gulf.
Harris, T.E. (1993). Applied organizational communication: Perspectives.
principles, and pragmatics. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Publishers.
Harris, T.E. & Sherblom, J.C. (2002). Small group and team communication. (2nd
ed ). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Hersey, P. & Blanchard, K. H. (1988). Management of organizational behavior.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hoy, A. W. & Hoy, W. K. (2003). Instructional leadership: A learning-centered
guide. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Hoy, W.K. & Miskel, C.G. (1994/1975). The character of the work group. In W.
K. Hoy (Ed.). Educational administration: The UCEA document base (pp.
518-566). McGraw-Hill Inc. Primis.
Hoy, W. K., Tarter, C. J., & Kottkamp, R. B. (1991) Open schoolsHealthy
schools: Measuring organizational climate. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications.
Institute of Educational Leadership. (2000). Leadership for student learning:
Reinventing the principalship. School leadership for the 21st century: A
report of the task force on the principalship. Washington, DC: Author.
Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and Women of the Corporation. New York: Basic
Books, Inc.
208
Larsen, T. J. (1987, April). Identification of Instructional leadership behaviors and
the impact of their implementation on academic achievement. Synopsis of
Doctoral Dissertation, University of Colorado, Boulder. Paper presented at
the Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association,
Washington, D C. (ERIC Reproduction Service No. ED 281286).
Leithwood, K. & Jantzi, D. (1999, April). The effects of transformation leadership
on organizational conditions and student engagement with school. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Education Research
Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. (ERIC Reproduction Service No.
ED 432035).
Leithwood, K. & Jantzi, D. (2000). Principal and teacher leadership effects: a
replication. School Leadership & Management. 20 (4). 415-434.
(Academic Search Premier Database Accession No. 4032813).
Levine, S. L. (1989). Promoting adult growth in schools: The promise of
professional development. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Licata, J. W., Teddlie, C. B., & Greenfield, W. D. (1990). Principal vision, teacher
sense of autonomy, and environmental robustness. Journal of Education
Research. 84 (2). 93-99.
Lieberman, A. (1995). Restructuring schools: The dynamics of changing practice,
structure, and culture. In A. Lieberman (Ed.). The work of restructuring
schools: Building from the ground up. (pp. 1-17). New York: Teachers
College Press.
209
Likert, R. (1967). The human organization: Its management and value. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Lincoln, Y.S. & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications.
Mackenzie, S. V. (2000). Collective efficacy and collaborative climate in Maine
high schools. Dissertations Abstracts International A. 61/09. 3426. (UMI
No. 99865500).
Marks, H. M. & Printy, S. M. (2003). Principal leadership and school
performance: An integration of transformational and instructional
leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly. 39 (3). 370-397.
Maxwell, J. A. (1996). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
McDonald, D. H. & Keedy, J. L. (2002, April). Principals as teacher leaders in the
Kentucky educational reform act era: Laving the groundwork for high-
achieving. low income schools. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of
the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. (ERIC
Reproduction Service No. ED 466031).
Mendel, C. M., Watson, R. L., & MacGregor, C. J. (2002, October). A study of
leadership of elementary principals compared with school climate. Paper
presented at Southern Regional Council for Educational Administration,
Kansas City, MO. (ERIC Documentation Reproduction Service No. ED
471556).
Merriam, S. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San
Francisco: Jossey Bass Publishers.
Merriam, S. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education.
San Francisco: Jossey Bass Publishers.
Miller, K. (1999). Organizational communication: approaches and processes.
Albany, NY: Wadsworth Publishing.
Miller, M. D., Brownell, M.T., & Smith, S.W. (1999). Factors that predict teachers
staying in, leaving, or transferring from the special education classroom.
Exceptional Children. 65 (2). 201-218.
Missouri Professors of Education Administration. (2003). About ISLLC. Retrieved
3/18/05 from http://www.umsl.edu/~mpea/Pages/ AboutlSLLC/
AboutISLLC.html.
National Association of Elementary School Principals. (2001). Leading learning
communities: Standards for what principals should know and be able to do.
Alexandria, VA: Author.
National Association of Secondary School Principals. (2005). Skill competencies
for developing educational leaders. Retrieved 2/21/2005 from http://
www.principals.org/s_nassp/bin. asp?CID=39&DID=26778&DOC=
File.PDF.
Osterman, K. F. (1993, October). Communication skills: A kev to caring.
collaboration, and change. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
University Council for Educational Administration, Houston, TX.
211
Payne, R. L. (2000). Climate and culture: How close can they get? In N.M.
Ashkanasy, C.P.M. Wilderom, & M.F. Peterson (Eds.). Handbook of
organizational culture & climate (pp. 163-176). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pepper, K. & Thomas, L. H. (2002). Making a change: The effects of the
leadership role on school climate. Learning Environments Research. 5 (2).
155-166. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ664891).
Peterson, K.D. & Deal, T.E. (1998). How leaders influence the culture of schools.
Educational Leadership. 56 (1). 28-31.
QSR International Pty. Ltd. (2002). N6 student mini-manual. Doncaster Victoria,
Australia: Author.
Rait, E. (1995). Schools as learning organizations. Against the current:
Organizational learning in schools. In S.B. Bacharach & B.Mundell. (Eds.).
Images of schools: Structures and roles in organizational behavior, (pp. 71-
107). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Reid, K. S. (2004, February 11). Poll finds differing views of school leaders main
tasks. Education Week, p 6.
Rost, J.C. (1991). Leadership for the twentv-first century. Westport. CT: Praeger.
Saphier, J. & King, M. (1985). Good seeds grow in strong cultures. Educational
Leadership. 42 (6). 67-74.
Sarason, S.B. (1995). School change: The personal development of a point of
view. New York: Teachers College Press.
212
Schein, E.H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership. (2nd ed.). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schlechty, P.C. (1990). Schools for the twentv-first century: Leadership
imperatives for educational reform. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schofield, J.W. (1990). Increasing the generalizability of qualitative research. In
E.W. Eisner and A. Peshkin. (Eds.). Qualitative inquiry in education: The
continuing debate, (pp. 201-233). New York: Teachers College Press.
Sebring, P. B. & Bryk, A. S. (2000). School leadership and the bottom line in
Chicago. Phi Delta Kappan. 81 (6). 440-443.
Senge, P., Cambron-McCabe, N., Lucas T., Smith, B., Dutton, J., & Kleiner, A.
(2000). Schools that learn: A Fifth Discipline fieldbook for educators,
parents, and every one who cares about education. New York: Doubleday.
Sergiovanni, T.J. (2000). The lifeworld of leadership: Creating culture.
community, and personal meaning in our schools. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Sernak, K. (1998). School leadershipBalancing power with caring. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Shakeshaft, C. (1989). Women in educational administration. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage Publications.
Stacey, R. D. (1996). Complexity and creativity in organizations. San Francisco:
Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
213
Taylor, D. L. & Tashakkori, A. (1995). Decision participation and school climate
as predictors of job satisfaction and teachers sense of efficacy. Journal of
Experimental Education. 63 (3). 217-230.
Thayer, L. (1988). Leadership/communication: A Critical review and a modest
proposal. In G.M. Goldhaber & F A. Barnett (Eds.). Handbook of
organizational communication, (pp. 231-263). Norwood, NJ: Ablex
Publishing.
Villani, S. (1999). Are you sure youre the principal? Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.
Wiley, J.W. & Brooks, S.M. (2000). The high performance organizational climate:
How workers describe top-performing units. In N.M. Ashkanasy, C.P.M.
Wilderom, & M.F. Peterson (Eds.). Handbook of organizational culture &
climate, (pp. 177-192). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wolcott, H. F. (1973). The man in the principals office: An ethnography. Prospect
Heights, IL: Waveland Press, Inc.
Wynne, E.A. (1989). Managing effective schools: The moral elements. In M.
Holmes, K. A. Leithwood, & D.F. Musella. (Eds.). Educational policy for
effective schools, (pp. 28-144). Toronto, Canada: The Ontario Institute for
Studies in Education.
214
APPENDICES
215
APPENDIX A
INTERVIEW PROTOCOLS
216
Interview protocol for principals
A large part of your work as a principal involves communicating with
others about such things as curriculum, assessment, parent involvement, the school
vision, discipline, scheduling, etc. I would like to talk to you today about your
communication with your teaching staff. By talking to you and other principals and
teachers, I hope to learn more about principals communication with teachers and
how it affects the school.
As you know, I will also be interviewing members of your teaching staff.
Please be assured that this is a confidential interview. No specific comments you
make about any teachers or situations will be shared with anyone, including your
teachers. The only exception to this would be my dissertation advisor who will be
reviewing the tapes and transcripts of the interviews and my notes. When the report
of this study is written, no names will be used when discussing the contents of the
interviews.
First, I d like to get to know you a little.
Please tell me briefly about your career as an educator.
I. Now, Id like to ask you some questions about your communication style
and methods.
A. How would you describe yourself as a communicator? (Note: items in
italics are possible additional prompts).
Can you give me some examples?
B. What are your primary methods of communicating with the teaching
staff? (e.g. face-to-face, in meetings, memos, announcements, etc.)
Please give me some examples.
Do the methods vary based on the subject?
How do teachers respond to these methods?
n. Now that youve had a chance to describe your own communication
style, I would like you to think about how your communication with your
teaching staff affects their practice.
A. What do you see as your strengths as a communicator?
Please give some examples.
In what ways does the response o f the teachers indicate your
effectiveness?
B. What do you see as your biggest challenges as a communicator?
What circumstances or people are most challenging?
Why do you think that is so? Please give some examples.
In what ways do teachers respond to these challenging situations?
217
Please give me specific examples.
m. Now, Id like to talk with you about some other aspects of the school
environment.
A. Please describe how school-wide decisions are typically made here.
(Note: Interviewer will clarify that school-wide decisions are typically
ones other than individual instructional decisions. For example:
curriculum decisions, scheduling decisions, decisions about school-wide
activities, and decisions about shared responsibilities throughout the
school.)
What role do the teachers play in decision making?
What is your role?
What are your preferences as to decision-making?
How have you communicated your preferences to your teachers?
How do you feel about how decisions are made here?
How do you think the teachers feel about their role? How do you know
this?
Please be as specific as possible.
B. Do you think that your teachers feel that they are part of a team here at
school?
(Note: Interviewer will allow interviewee to interpret the term team as
he or she wishes, acknowledge and record that response, and probe for
principals impression of the teachers sense of connectedness with a
school-wide team.)
Please give me examples.
What about the teachers behavior leads you to believe this?
How do you feel about this? How do you feel about the school as a
team?
How have you communicated your feelings about this to your teachers?
How have they responded to this communication? Please be as specific
as possible.
C. Do you think your teachers understand your vision for the school?
How do you feel about this?
How have you communicated your vision to them?
D. Do you think your teachers accept and support your vision for the
school?
E. In what ways do you think your communication affects your teaching
staffs relationship with you as an administrator?
218
IV. Is there anything else that you would like to add on this topic
Thank you very much for your time.
219
Interview Protocol for Teachers
A large part of a principals work involves communicating with others about
such things as curriculum, assessment, parent involvement, the school vision,
discipline, scheduling, etc. I would like to talk with you today about your principals
communication with you and the rest of the teaching staff in your building. By
talking with you and other teachers and principals, I hope to learn more about
principals communication with teachers and how it affects the school.
As you know, your principal has approved these interviews and will also be
interviewed by me. Please be assured that this is a confidential interview. The
specifics of our interview will not be shared with anyone, including your principal.
The only exception to this would be my dissertation advisor who will be reviewing
my notes. When the report of this study is written, no names will be used when
discussing the content of the interviews.
First, Id like to get to know you a little.
Please tell me briefly about your teaching career at this and other schools.
I. Now, Id like to ask you some questions about your principal as a
communicator.
Please tell me about the major ways that your principal communicates with
you. (e.g. face-to-face, in meetings, memos, announcements, etc.) (Note:
items in italics are possible additional prompts).
Can you give me some specific examples?
(Note: Interviewer will make a chart of the methods
indicated. The participant and the interviewer will use the
chart as a reference for the rest of the questions in part I.)
220
Method Subject Response Others Message? Impact
What is the typical subject o f each o f these ways o f
communicating?
How do you fin d yourself responding to these ways o f
communicating?
Does he/she use the same ways o f communicating with
others? Please give examples
A. In each case above- Does the principal get his/her message
through to you by using this way of communicating?
B. In each case above- What impact does the principals
communication have on your teaching practice?
221
n. Now Id like to talk with you about some other aspects of your school
experience.
A. Please describe how school-wide decisions are typically made
here.
(Note: Interviewer will clarify that school-wide decisions are
typically ones other than individual instructional decisions. For
example: curriculum decisions, scheduling decisions, decisions
about school-wide activities, and decisions about shared
responsibilities throughout the school.)
What is the principals role?
What are the principals preferences as to decision making?
What is the role o f the teachers?
How comfortable are you with the way decisions are made?
How does the decision making process make you feel?
Are you comfortable with your role?
How has your principal communicated this role to you?
How effectively was this communicated to you?
How could it have been made clearer?
(Note: Interviewer will refer to specific behaviors as listed in part
I to clarify communication behaviors that apply here.)
B. What is your understanding of the principals vision for the
school?
How has his or her vision been communicated to you?
How effectively has his/her vision been communicated to you?
How could it have been clearer?
222
I to clarify communication behaviors that apply here)
C. Do you feel that you are part of a team here at school?
(Note: Interviewer will allow interviewee to interpret the term
team as he or she wishes, acknowledge and record that
response, and probe for a sense of connectedness with a school-
wide team.)
Please be specific and tell me why you feel that way.
How you feel about that?
In ways does your principals communication contribute to that
feeling?
How has your principal let you know how he/she feels about the
school as a team?
Has your principal made his/her feelings about this clear to you?
How could he or she have made it clearer?
I to clarify communication behaviors that apply here.)
I I I . Is there anything else that you would like to add on these topics?
Thank you very much for your time.
223
APPENDIX B
INFORMATIONAL LETTERS
224
Dear Principal,
This letter is a follow-up to our recent phone conversation. As I explained, I
am a doctoral candidate at the University of Maine and am doing research on
principals communication with teachers. Through this research I expect to learn
how principals communication with their teachers affects school climate.
If you agree to participate in this study I will ask you to do the following:
1. Hold an informational meeting with the teaching staff and myself. The
purpose of the meeting will be to explain the study to the staff, to ask for
their participation in interviews with me, and to answer any concerns they
might have.
2. Participate in two interviews with me. The interviews will last
approximately 45 minutes each. The second interview will be used to clarify
and expand on responses gathered from the first interview. I will conduct
the interviews at times and places convenient to you. The questions will
concern how you communicate with your teaching staff, and how you see
your communication with your teachers influencing your schools climate.
I will protect your confidentiality and that of your teachers by making every
effort to conceal the identity of your school, town, school district, and the individual
participants in the study. Names will not be used in any write-up of the data.
I believe that this study will be valuable to you, your school, and to the
broader educational community. This study will lend insight into the nature of
principals communication with teachers and the potential for both principals and
teachers to accept responsibility for its improvement.
I hope that you will consider participating in this study. I will be contacting
you again by phone shortly. I can be reached at
Sincerely,
Andrea E. Pomroy
225
(Teacher letter)
Dear Colleague,
Thank you for taking the time to consider participation in my research
project. Please read the informed consent letter carefully. If you have any questions
that the letter does not answer, please feel free to contact me at:
If you decide that you are interested in volunteering to participate,
please do the following:
1. Place a check mark on the indicated line on the second page of the form.
2. Sign the form, print your name and date it.
3. IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO BE CONTACTED AT SCHOOL,
PLEASE INCLUDE A PHONE NUMBER OR E-MAIL ADDRESS, SO
THAT I CAN CONTACT YOU CONCERNING YOUR
PARTICIPATION.
4. Send both pages of the form to me in the self-addressed envelope, by
5. If I receive more responses than I need, I will randomly select the
required number of participants from the pool of responses.
6. I will contact all volunteers as to their status no later than the first week
in March.
Please note: Volunteers will receive copies of their signed consent forms at their
first interviews. I anticipate interviewing participants in March and April.
If you decide that you are not interested in participating in this study,
you need to do nothing, and you have my thanks for giving me your time.
Sincerely,
Andrea E. Pomroy
226
APPENDIX C
CONSENT FORMS
227
Dear Principal,
Thank you for considering participation in my study on
principalscommunication with teachers. I am conducting this study as part of my
degree requirements for a doctorate in Educational Leadership at the University of
Maine. This letter is intended to answer any questions you might have concerning
your participation in this study and the confidentiality of the information I will be
gathering.
What will I be asked to do?
I will ask you to hold an informational meeting with the teaching staff and
myself. The purpose of the meeting will be to explain the study to the staff, to ask
for their participation, and to answer any concerns they might have. At that meeting
I will hand out Informed Consent forms similar to this one to the teachers.
I will ask you to participate in two interviews with me. The interviews will
last approximately 45 minutes each. The second interview will be used to clarify
and expand on responses gathered from the first interview. I will conduct the
interviews at times and places convenient to you. The questions will concern how
you communicate with your teaching staff, and how you see your communication
with your teachers influencing your schools climate.
Are there any potential risks to my participation?
You may become uncomfortable answering questions about your
effectiveness as a communicator. You may skip any questions that make you too
uncomfortable. Your patterns, styles, and effectiveness as a communicator are the
subjects of this study. Insofar as the studys data reveal these aspects of your
performance, you could experience the risk of being identified. The study does not,
however, inquire about any aspects of your work that are not commonly
experienced in the daily life of the school. In addition, no names will ever be used in
any write-ups of the data and all identities of teachers and principals will be
disguised.
Are there any benefits to my participation?
I expect that you will learn about your communication patterns and that we
will both deepen our understanding of principals communication with teachers and
its effect on school climate.
Will my confidentiality be protected?
Every effort will be made to conceal the identity of your school, town,
school district, and the individual participants in the study. Your name will not be
used in any write-up of the data. A code will be used to protect your identity and
those of your teachers. The list of codes linking names to data will be destroyed
after the data analysis is complete. The only person other than myself with direct
access to the data will be my dissertation advisor, Dr. Gordon Donaldson,
University of Maine. With your permission, I will use quotes from your interviews,
228
but your name will not be used. If you do not give me permission to use your exact
words, I will use paraphrasing only. Representative participants will view some of
the drafts of the work, and their comments on accuracy will be taken into
consideration before the final draft is complete.
Is participation voluntary?
Participation is voluntary. If you choose to take part in this study, you may
stop at any time. You may skip any questions you do not wish to answer.
How may I contact you?
If you wish more information, please feel free to contact me at , or e-
mail me at . If at any time you have concerns about this study, which you
choose not to address with me, you may call Dr. Gordon Donaldson at . If you
have any questions about your rights as a research participant, please contact Gayle
Anderson, Assistant to the University of Maines Protection of Human Subjects
Review board, at 581-1498 (or e-mail gayle.anderson@umit.maine.edu).
Please sign and date the form below and return it to me in the included
envelope. A copy of the signed form will be returned to you.
Thank you,
Andrea E. Pomroy
_________ I agree to participate in the above-mentioned study. I understand that
you will ask me to review all direct quotes attributed to me and that I may require
that you paraphrase them.
Participant signature name (Please print) date
Dear Teacher,
Thank you for considering participation in my study on principals
communication with teachers. I am conducting this study as part of my degree
requirements for a doctorate in Educational Leadership at the University of Maine.
This letter is intended to answer any questions you might have concerning your
participation in this study and the confidentiality of the information I will be
gathering.
You will be asked to participate in two interviews with me. The interviews
will last approximately 45 minutes each. The second interview will be used to
clarify and expand on responses gathered from the first interview. I will conduct the
interviews at times and places convenient to you. The questions will concern your
principals communication with you and the professional climate of your school.
Your principal will have access to the final copy of my dissertation. I will
disguise all identities of teachers and principals who participate in the study. Your
name will not be used in any write-up of the data. In addition, you may find some of
the questions about your principal uncomfortable to answer. You may skip any
questions that make you too uncomfortable.
I expect that you will learn about your principals communication patterns
and that we will both deepen our understanding of principals communication with
teachers and its effect on school climate.
those of your principal and the other teachers who participate. The list of codes
linking names to data will be destroyed after the data analysis is complete. The only
person other than myself with direct access to the data will be my dissertation
advisor, Dr. Gordon Donaldson, University of Maine. With your permission, I will
use quotes from your interviews, but your name will not be used. If you do not give
me permission to use your exact words, I will use paraphrasing only.
Representative participants will view some of the drafts of the work, and their
comments on accuracy will be taken into consideration before the final draft is
complete.
230
Dear Teacher,
Thank you for considering participation in my study on principals
communication with teachers. I am conducting this study as part of my degree
requirements for a doctorate in Educational Leadership at the University of Maine.
This letter is intended to answer any questions you might have concerning your
participation in this study and the confidentiality of the information I will be
gathering.
You will be asked to participate in two interviews with me. The interviews
will last approximately 45 minutes each. The second interview will be used to
clarify and expand on responses gathered from the first interview. I will conduct the
interviews at times and places convenient to you. The questions will concern your
principals communication with you and the professional climate of your school.
Your principal will have access to the final copy of my dissertation. I will
disguise all identities of teachers and principals who participate in the study. Your
name will not be used in any write-up of the data. In addition, you may find some of
the questions about your principal uncomfortable to answer. You may skip any
questions that make you too uncomfortable.
I expect that you will learn about your principals communication patterns
and that we will both deepen our understanding of principals communication with
teachers and its effect on school climate.
those of your principal and the other teachers who participate. The list of codes
linking names to data will be destroyed after the data analysis is complete. The only
person other than myself with direct access to the data will be my dissertation
advisor, Dr. Gordon Donaldson, University of Maine. With your permission, I will
use quotes from your interviews, but your name will not be used. If you do not give
me permission to use your exact words, I will use paraphrasing only.
Representative participants will view some of the drafts of the work, and their
comments on accuracy will be taken into consideration before the final draft is
complete.
231
APPENDIX D
LIST OF CODES
232
LIST OF CODES
/Communication Behaviors
/P. Communication Behaviors/face to face
/P. Communication Behaviors/: E-mail
/P. Communication Behaviors/meetings
/P. Communication Behaviors/meetings/team meetings
/P. Communication Behaviors/meetings/staff meetings
/P. Communication Behaviors/phone
/P. Communication Behaviors/on paper
/P. Communication Behaviors/to students
/Topics of Communication
/Topics of communication/business of school
/Topics of communication/scheduling
/Topics of communication/assessment
/Topics of communication/pedagogy
/Topics of communication/vision
/Topics of communication/teaming
/Topics of communication/social
/Topics of communication/personnel issues
/Topics of communication/students
/Topics of communication/students/discipline
/Impact on School Climate
/impact on school climate/teachers as team
/impact on school climate/principal's vision
/impact on school climate/decisions
/impact on school climate/decisions/directive
/impact on school climate/decisions/collaborative
/impact on school climate/team feelings
/impact on school climate/team feelings/part of a team
/impact on school climate/team feelings/not part of a team
/impact on school climate/team feelings/team feeling weak
/impact on school climate/Com. react.
/impact on school climate/Com. react./positive
/impact on school climate/Com. react./negative
/impact on school climate/Com. react./neutral
/impact on school climate/impact on teaching
/impact on school climate/level of communication
/impact on school climate/understanding vision
/impact on school climate/not understanding vision
/Clarity
233
/P. Self-analysis
/P. self-analysis/self-description
/P. self-analysis/strengths
/P. self-analysis/challenges
/P. self-analysis/staff relationship
/Principal
/Teacher
/Schools
/schools/School A
/schools/School B
/schools/School C
/schools/prinA
/schools/prinB
/schools/prinC
234
APPENDIX E
INTERVIEW DATES
235
Table E . l Interview Dates- Adams
Participant First Interview Second Interview
Teacher A2 October 28, 2003 November 21, 2003
Teacher A4 November 3, 2003 December 16, 2003
Teacher A7 December 4, 2003 January 12, 2004
Teacher A8 December 16, 2003 January 14, 2004
Principal PA October 23, 2003 November 25, 2003
Table E.2 Interview Dates- Beauport
Teacher B1 March 8, 2004 March 23, 2004
Teacher B2 March 1, 2004 April 5, 2004
Teacher B3 February 26, 2004 March 4, 2004
Teacher B6 April 1, 2004 April 29, 2004
Principal BP March 10, 2004 March 24, 2004
Table E.3 Interview Dates- Centerville
Teacher Cl March 19, 2004 April 15, 2004
Teacher C2 March 19, 2004 April 15, 2004
Teacher C5 March 12, 2004 March 19, 2004
Teacher C9 April 12, 2004 April 26, 2004
Principal CP March 12, 2004 March 25, 2004
BIOGRAPHY OF THE AUTHOR
Andrea Elizabeth (Rockhold) Pomroy was bom in Chicago, Illinois on
November 7, 1946. She was raised in Chicago, Illinois and Great Neck, New York
and graduated from Great Neck South Senior High School in 1964. She attended the
University of Denver and graduated in 1968 with a Bachelors degree in Elementary
Education and Special Education. In 1969 she received a Masters degree in Special
Education from Teachers College at Columbia University. Andrea worked as a
special education teacher until 1973.
In 1982 she moved to Maine with her husband and son. She worked as an
elementary school teacher until 1992, when she entered the Educational
Administration program at The University of Maine. She received her Masters
degree in 1993. In 1998 while working as a principal, Andrea entered the Doctoral
program in Educational Leadership at The University of Maine. She was elected to
the Phi Kappa Phi honor society in 1998.
Andrea is a candidate for the Doctor of Education degree in Educational
Leadership from The University of Maine in May, 2005.
237

Out

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Out

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NOTE TO USERS

This reproduction is the best copy available.

You might also like