Out

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BUILDING TEACHER LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND
CAMPUS CULTURE
A Dissertation
by
Dawn R. Harris
Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies

of Texas A&M University-Commerce
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
December 2016

ProQuest Number: 10243976

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.

ProQuest 10243976

Published by ProQuest LLC (2017 ). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.

All rights reserved.
This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.

ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BUILDING TEACHER LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND
CAMPUS CULTURE
A Dissertation
by
DAWN R. HARRIS
Approved by:
Advisor: Kriss Kemp-Graham
Committee: Melissa Arrambide

Joyce E. Miller
Head of Department: Art Borgemenke
Dean of the College: Timothy Letzring
Dean of Graduate Studies: Mary Beth Sampson

iii
Copyright © 2016
Dawn R. Harris
iv
ABSTRACT
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BUILDING LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND CAMPUS

CULTURE
Dawn R. Harris
Texas A&M University-Commerce, 2016
Advisor: Kriss Kemp-Graham, PhD
Building teacher leadership capacity can be accomplished through several means,
including structural, cultural, or relational approaches. A traditional shift in school organizations
must include building teachers’ leadership capacity. To support teacher leaders’ growth and
advancement as leaders, administrators must design, assign, and implement professional learning
that will allow teachers to reflect on their respective leadership qualities. Leaders play a role in
the culture of corporate and academic organizations, and culture is at the forefront of exemplary
performance of both entities. Therefore, administrator and teacher leaders must view culture as a
priority and understand that culture is a product of school leadership.
The purpose of this explanatory sequential mixed methods research study was to explore
the relationship between building teacher leadership capacity and campus culture in a suburban
East Texas school district. Developing teacher leaders by building leadership capacity depends
on administrators’ abilities to develop leaders from within the existing staff and to shape campus
culture. The design of this mixed methods study yielded findings that identified a statistically
significant relationship between teacher leadership capacity and campus culture.

v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I have always heard the dissertation journey can be a long, lonely one. I will admit it was
long, but fortunately, it was never lonely. First, I want to thank Miss Machen. She told me as a
freshman at the University of Central Arkansas that she expected me to obtain my doctorate
degree one day. Now 20 years later, she is one of my dearest friends. I never wanted to fall
short of her expectations. Dr. Janis Early has been a constant encourager from the first day I
stepped into the classroom as a teacher; she is an enduring inspiration. Jennifer Koppe taught me
how to notice indelible moments. Dr. Ehrikka Hodge has become one of my most treasured
friends. Even though she is an Aggie, she is my favorite Aggie. Dr. Sigrid Yates is more than a
colleague, she is a role model, a mentor, and friend. I am eternally grateful she is in my life.
Finally, G…my best friend, my head cheerleader, my anchor, and my Jeep co-pilot. She always
saw the light at the end of my dark tunnel and somehow convinced me to see it too.
I am also blessed to have the support of my family and friends in Arkansas. I love you
all. A heart felt thank you to my school family of teachers and staff. There are too many people
to name, but without their support, this accomplishment would still be a dream.
To my academic support team at Texas A&M University-Commerce, they are
phenomenal. I would like to thank Dr. Kriss Kemp-Graham, my dissertation chair, for her
encouragement, support, and always answering my hundreds of questions to ease my mind. Her
guidance was a blessing. Dr. Melissa Arrambide and Dr. Joyce Miller, my dissertation
committee, I thank for their vital input and positivity. Dr. Mei Jiang and Dr. Maximo Plata, I
thank for their infinite knowledge and wisdom. I would also like to thank Dr. Katy Denson for
her patience and guidance through the statistical portion of my dissertation. She always gave me
confidence, even from New Mexico.

vi
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my Mom and Dad who I lost far too early in my life.
Dad, you have seen two of my college graduations from heaven, this will be the final one and
Mom will be by your side for this milestone. Mom, you were and continue to be my rock. I
promised you that I would finish this journey, and I have kept my promise. Mom and Dad, I still
feel your unconditional love and support every day.

vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................ v
DEDICATION ........................................................................................................................... vi
CHAPTER
1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................... 3
Gap in Teacher Leadership Capacity Research .................................................. 4
Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................... 5
Research Questions and Hypotheses .................................................................. 5
Significance of the Study .................................................................................... 7
Method of Procedure ........................................................................................... 9
Selection of Sample ............................................................................... 10
Collection of Data .................................................................................. 12
Instrumentation ...................................................................................... 12
Treatment of Data .................................................................................. 14
Definitions of Terms .......................................................................................... 15
Limitations ......................................................................................................... 16
Delimitations ...................................................................................................... 17
Assumptions ....................................................................................................... 17
Organization of Dissertation Chapters ............................................................... 18
2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ........................................................................... 19
S.M.A.R.T. Goal Framework for Building Teacher Leadership Capacity .......... 20
viii
CHAPTER
Professional Learning Communities ...................................................... 24
School Culture ....................................................................................... 27
Building Teacher Leadership Capacity .................................................. 30
Transformational Leadership and Social Constructivism ...................... 33
Sustaining Teacher Leadership Capacity Building ................................ 40
Teacher Leaders ..................................................................................... 44
Developing Teacher Leaders ................................................................. 47
Summary ................................................................................................ 51
3. METHOD OF PROCEDURE ................................................................................... 55
Research Questions and Hypotheses ................................................................. 56
Design of the Study ............................................................................................ 57
Instrumentation .................................................................................................. 62
School Climate Assessment Instrument (SCAI) .................................... 62
Leadership Capacity School Survey (LCSS) ......................................... 65
Focus Group Protocol ............................................................................ 67
Sample Selection ................................................................................................ 67
Phase I Sample Selection ....................................................................... 69
Phase II Sample Selection ...................................................................... 70
Data Gathering ................................................................................................... 73
Phase I .................................................................................................... 73
Phase II ................................................................................................... 74
Incentives ............................................................................................... 76

ix
CHAPTER
Treatment of Data .............................................................................................. 76
Survey Data Analysis-Phase I ................................................................ 76
Bracketing .............................................................................................. 79
Focus Group Analysis-Phase II ............................................................. 80
Summary of Treatment of the Data ................................................................... 82
4. PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS ............................................................................ 83
Research Questions and Hypotheses ................................................................. 84
Quantitative Phase I ........................................................................................... 86
School Climate Assessment Instrument (SCAI) Results ....................... 86
Leadership Capacity School Survey (LCCS) Results ............................ 87
Qualitative Phase II Findings .............................................................................112
Findings from Research Question 2 .......................................................112
Findings from Research Question 3 .......................................................118
Summary ............................................................................................................128
5. SUMMARY OF THE STUDY AND THE FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS,
IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH ........129
Summary of the Findings ...................................................................................129
Research Questions and Hypotheses .................................................................131
Phase I Research Question 1a Findings .................................................133
Research Questions 1b-1d Findings .......................................................134
Phase II Research Question 2 Findings .................................................136
Phase II Research Question 3 Findings .................................................142

x
CHAPTER
Integration of Quantitative and Qualitative Results .............................. 142
Conclusions ....................................................................................................... 151
Phase I Research Question 1a Conclusions .......................................... 133
Phase I Research Question 1b-d Conclusions ........................................ 133
Phase II Research Question 2 Conclusions ........................................... 133
Phase II Research Question 3 Conclusions ........................................... 133
Implications ....................................................................................................... 155
Recommendations for Future Study ................................................................. 158
REFERENCES ..........................................................................................................................161
APPENDICES ...........................................................................................................................179
Appendix
A. Attendance Verification Letter-Back to School Convocation .........................180
B. Authors’ Permission to use SCAI and LCSS Survey .......................................182
C. SCAI Survey ....................................................................................................184
D. LCSS Survey ....................................................................................................190
E. Participant’s Informed Consent Form ..............................................................193
F. Focus Group Protocols .....................................................................................197
G. Letter to Superintendent to Request Permission to Conduct Research ............202
H. Theme and Subordinate Theme Matrix ...........................................................204
VITA ..........................................................................................................................................206
xi
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
1. SCAI Means and Standard Deviations: Teachers and Administrators ..................... 87
2. LCSS Means and Standard Deviations: Teachers and Administrators ..................... 88
3. Wilks’s Lambda Test of Significance for the Full Model (S = 3, M = 1, N = 46½) . 89
4. Squared Canonical Correlation for Each Function Separately ................................. 90
5. Dimension Reduction Analysis for Hierarchal Statistical Significance ................... 91
6. Canonical Solution for Building Leadership Capacity Predicting Campus Culture:

Function 1 ................................................................................................................. 93
7. Group 1 Wilks’s Lambda Multivariate Test of Significance (S = 3, M = 1, N = 10½) 95
8. Group 1 Canonical Correlations for Each Function Separately ................................ 96
9. Group 1 Dimension Reduction Analysis for Hierarchal Statistical Significance ..... 97
10. Canonical Solution for Building Leadership Capacity Predicting Campus Culture:
Group 1 ................................................................................................................... 99
11. Group 2 Wilks’s Lambda Multivariate Test of Significance

(S = 3, M = 1, N = 10½) ......................................................................................... 101
12. Group 2 Canonical Correlations for Each Function Separately ............................. 102
13. Group 2 Dimension Reduction Analysis for Hierarchal Statistical Significance .. 103
14. Canonical Solution for Building Leadership Capacity Predicting Campus

Culture: Group 2 ..................................................................................................... 104
15. Group 3 Wilks’s Lambda Multivariate Test of Significance

(S = 3, M = 1, N = 10½) ......................................................................................... 107
16. Group 3 Canonical Correlations for Each Function Separately .............................. 108
17. Group 3 Dimension Reduction Analysis for Hierarchal Statistical

Significance ............................................................................................................. 109
xii
18. Canonical Solution for Leadership Capacity Predicting Campus

Culture: Group 3 ..................................................................................................... 110
19. Significant Leadership Capacity and School Culture Variables for

Experience: Groups 1-3 .......................................................................................... 112
20. Research Question 2 Themes and Subordinate Themes ......................................... 113
21. Research Question 3 Themes and Subordinate Themes ......................................... 119

xiii
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE PAGE
1. S.M.A.R.T. goal framework ..................................................................................... 21
2. Flow chart depicting the explanatory sequential mixed methods research design ... 59
3. Canonical solution for building leadership capacity predicting campus culture ....... 94
4. Canonical solution for building leadership capacity predicting campus culture for
Group 1 = 1-5 years of teaching experience ............................................................. 100
5. The canonical solution for building leadership capacity predicting campus culture for
Group 2 = 6-16 years of teaching experience ........................................................... 106
6. The canonical solution for building leadership capacity predicting campus culture for
Group 3 = 17+ years of teaching experience ............................................................ 111
7. Flow chart depicting the explanatory sequential mixed methods research design .. 147
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Transforming good schools to great schools, just like transforming good corporate
organizations to great ones, requires strong, solid cultures that solicit the engagement of many
leaders rather than relying solely on one leader (Louis & Wahlstrom, 2011). School leadership
yields successful schools and rests in the hands of many, not merely on the shoulders of school
administrators. Therefore, building leadership capacity among teachers to share in the decision
making and leadership of the school not only results in increased school success, but also
increases the number of leaders who may influence the culture of the school (Turan & Bektas,
2013).
Indicators of school culture include teacher collaboration, school vision, and unified
effort of fulfilling short- and long-term goals; however, the most predictive element in
developing school culture is its leadership (Kelley, Thornton, & Daugherty, 2005; Leithwood,
Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2004; MacNeil, Prater, & Busch, 2009; Sahin, 2011). To create
collaborative decision-making cultures and build teachers’ leadership capacity, campus
administrators must be focused and intentional with decisions for specific action plans.
Otherwise, the leader may get lost in organizational distractions rather than flourish in systematic
change (Harris, 2011). To ensure effective systematic changes in a school organization, school
leaders should follow processes of best practice school improvement models. The S.M.A.R.T.
(S = specific, M = measurable, A = attainable, R = results-based, T = time bound) goal school
improvement model integrates research-based components to build teacher leadership capacity
through focus, reflection, and collaboration (Conzemius & Morganti-Fisher, 2012; O’Neill &
Conzemius, 2006; Schmoker, 2006).

2
According to Fullan (2011), building teachers’ leadership capacity is a precursor for
collective leadership responsibility, specifically during times of organizational change or reform.
The McKinsey (2010) report revealed three actions that organizations can adopt to improve over
time. One action pinpointed was the strategic building of future leaders within the system
(McKinsey, 2010). A shared vision between teachers and administrators should center on the
purpose of crafting positive change in the school system by building teacher leadership capacity
(Eyal & Roth, 2011). Thus, administrators must wholeheartedly encompass the factors included
in teacher leadership capacity systems by cultivating collaboration and shared decision making
between teachers. In addition, administrators’ realistic perceptions and commitments to the
shared leadership philosophy can produce more significant results than if the same goals or plans
are conducted in isolation (Wilhelm, 2013).
Administrator leadership style is crucial in endorsing teacher leadership capacity. Cossett
and Voigt (2014) identified two types of school leaders: those who cultivate supplementary
leaders among teachers not presently recognized as leaders and those who only acknowledge
existing teacher leaders. School leaders should adopt the first type of leadership to encourage
and develop teachers to become leaders (Duze, 2012). These newly recognized teachers can
assume leadership roles to support and advance the entire campus to accomplish collective goals.
The act of sharing leadership among administrators and teachers “requires altering long-held
assumptions, beliefs, expectations, and habits that represent the norm for the people in the
organization” to embrace the role of school leadership at all levels (DuFour & Fullan, 2013, p.
2).
For several decades, there has been little debate over the role leaders play in the culture
of successful organizations (Bolman & Deal, 1997; Fullan, 2011, 2014; Schein, 2010).
3
However, questions have arisen concerning whether leaders affect culture or whether they are
affected by culture. Regardless of the answer, the word culture is at the forefront of exemplary
performance and includes indicators of success (Bolman & Deal, 1997, 2008). Leaders influence
school culture, which can be the deciding factor in school performance (Aladjem et al., 2010;
Fullan, 2001, 2014; Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005; Roby, 2011).
Various researchers have cited the concept of teacher leadership capacity as a major
contributor to the school improvement process and to notable documented performance increases
within corporate organizations (Aladjem et al., 2010; Bassi & McMurrer, 2007; Lambert, 1998,
2003, 2006; Murphy, 2011; Senge, 1990). Even though evidence exists of factors leading to
organizational improvement, a gap remains in the relationship between teacher leadership
capacity and campus culture within a school organization.
A common, shared purpose between campus administrators and staff may contribute to
establishing a positive organizational culture that is built on collaborative decisions to improve
the school (Marzano et al., 2005). Cultural patterns shape and affect all aspects of a school
(Bolman & Deal, 2008); therefore, administrators and teacher leaders must view culture as a
priority in the school and understand it is a product of leadership (Schein, 2010). The purpose of
this explanatory sequential mixed methods research study was to explore the relationship
between building teacher leadership capacity and campus culture in a suburban East Texas
school district.
Statement of the Problem
Twenty-five percent of U.S. school administrators leave their schools each year (School
Leaders Network, 2014). The void left by departing principals often leaves incomplete school
improvement plans or cultural change efforts. Teacher leaders can fill the void in leadership
4
(Lambert, 1998, 2003, 2006). Gaps exist in the current literature as to how schools build teacher
leadership capacity in daily routines and how administrators create conditions to improve
cultural aspects related to teacher capacity building efforts (Bain, Walker, & Chan, 2011; Berry,
2014; Conzemius & Morganti-Fisher, 2012; Lambert, 1998, 2003, 2006). Further, a problem
exists in linking teacher leadership in schools and campus cultures that support building teacher
leadership capacity to maintain school improvement efforts.
Gap in Teacher Leadership Capacity Research
To support the growth and advancement of teacher leaders, it is central that campus and
district administrators design, assign, and implement professional learning that allows teachers to
demonstrate their respective leadership qualities (Conzemius & Morganti-Fisher, 2012; Lambert,
2006). Lambert (1998, 2003, 2006) noted that school improvement and student achievement
were the result of developing teachers’ leadership capacities; however, she did not examine the
relationship between building teacher leadership capacity and campus culture.
Aladjem et al. (2010) conducted an exploratory study on achievement practices that
caused dramatic school improvement. The researchers found that collective leadership
stimulated and implemented school improvement measures; however, they did not examine the
correlation between teacher leadership and campus culture. In a 6 year study of diverse
empirical evidence, Louis, Leithwood, Wahlstrom, and Anderson’s case study (2010) confirmed
that top-rated schools were successful because of leadership; however, again, the link between
teacher leadership and culture was not addressed. Marzano et al. (2005) conducted a meta-
analysis that pinpointed the influence of teacher leadership capacity on academic success;
however, the researchers did not examine the specific relationship between campus culture and
teacher leadership capacity. MacNeil et al. (2009) examined school culture among 29 Texas
5
schools and found a link between culture and academic success; however, they did not establish
a relationship between school culture and development of teacher leadership capacity.
Understanding the teachers’ and principals’ perceptions of school culture and leadership
capacity is necessary. Limited research has focused on the relationship of building teacher
leadership capacity and campus culture (Angelle & DeHart, 2011; Bain et al., 2011; Berry, 2014;
Blankstein, 2004; Collins, 2001; Fullan, 2005; Katzenmeyer & Moller, 2009; Marzano et al.,
2005; Muijs & Harris, 2007; Preskill & Torres, 1999; Schein, 2010; Short, Greer, & Melvin,
1997). However, researchers have noted that both teacher leadership and positive campus
culture are indicators of successful schools (Bolman & Deal, 2008; MacNeil et al., 2009;
Marzano et al., 2005; Turan & Bektas, 2013; Wilhelm, 2013). Therefore, information from
teachers and administrators on the relationship between building teacher leadership capacity and
campus culture is needed.
Purpose of the Study
East Texas school district. Developing teacher leaders by building leadership capacity depends
on administrators’ abilities to develop leaders from existing school-level staff (Bell, Thacker, &
Schargel, 2011) and to shape campus culture (Louis & Wahlstrom, 2011; Yost, Vogel, &
Rosenberg, 2009).
Research Questions and Hypotheses
The researcher addressed the following research questions and hypotheses:
1a. Does a statistically significant relationship exist between the dimensions of teacher
leadership capacity and the dimensions of campus culture?

6
Ho: A statistically significant relationship does not exist between the dimensions
of teacher leadership capacity and the dimensions of campus culture.
Ha: A statistically significant relationship exists between the dimensions of
teacher leadership capacity and the dimensions of campus culture.
1b. Does a statistically significant relationship exist between the dimensions of teacher
leadership capacity and the dimensions of campus culture for teachers and
administrators with 1-5 years of experience?
of teacher leadership capacity and the dimensions of campus culture for
teachers and administrators with 1-5 years of experience.
teacher leadership capacity and the dimensions of campus culture for teachers
and administrators with 1-5 years of experience.
1c. Does a statistically significant relationship exist between the dimensions of teacher

7
1d. Does a statistically significant relationship exist between the dimensions of teacher
administrators with 17+ years of experience?
teachers and administrators with 17+ years of experience.
and administrators with 17+ years of experience.
2. What are teachers’ and administrators’ perceptions of campus culture?
3. What are teachers’ and administrators’ perceptions of building teacher leadership
capacity?
Significance of the Study
Building teacher leadership capacity can be accomplished through several means,
including structural, cultural, or relational approaches. Current literature lacks details on how
school leaders build teacher leadership capacity and how they recognize the relationship of such
leadership on campus culture (Bain et al., 2011; Berry, 2014; Conzemius & Morganti-Fisher,
2012; Lambert 1998, 2003, 2006). This lack of knowledge may be an indication of why teacher
leadership opportunities are not prevalent in many school organizations (Berry, 2014) and why
campus culture is often misunderstood.
In spite of research addressing building teacher leadership capacity and culture as
separate entities, the relationship between these two variables is not prevalent. The findings of
this mixed methods study contribute to the theoretical frameworks of school culture and building
8
leadership capacity and expand upon the methodology in the present research base. The goal of
this study was to explore the relationship between building teacher leadership capacity and
campus culture. The findings offer school administrators at the campus and district levels with
examples to replicate and explore the current relationship between their teachers’ leadership
capacities and their campus or district cultures. Finally, the current findings, in conjunction with
future research, can begin to fill the gaps in this area and focus on the relationship between
teacher leadership capacity and campus culture.
Principals can embrace the notion of building teacher leadership capacity by providing
teachers who exhibit leadership potential with leadership opportunities (Senge, 2006).
Empowering teacher leaders enables principals to lead in a multi-dimensional fashion and
positively affect continuous school-wide improvement (Byrne-Jimenez & Orr, 2012). Further,
sharing leadership with teachers can result in school cultures that thrive as teachers are groomed
to be leaders, afforded opportunities to build their own capacities, and where principals foster
safe environments for teacher capacity building (DuFour & Fullan, 2013; Wilhelm, 2013). To
accomplish a school mission and meet school improvement goals, a teacher leadership culture
must include the joint efforts of teachers and administrators.
The researcher investigated a district with a mission of building teacher leadership
capacity and creating a positive culture. The district adopted and implemented the S.M.A.R.T.
goal school improvement model. The findings of this study are significant in that they will
benefit school administrators and teachers who share the common vision of building teacher
leadership capacity and influencing campus culture. Further, building and sustaining teacher
leaders can foster a culture of shared focus on the school improvement process. This process can
continue if the campus administrator leaves, as progress will not stall because teacher leadership
9
capacity exists to continue school improvement efforts. The results of this study can assist
district leaders who are searching for a school improvement model that builds teacher leadership
capacity and results in a positive culture.
Method of Procedure
The researcher conducted an explanatory sequential mixed methods design using two
data collection methods. This study was conducted in two phases to explore the relationship
between building teacher leadership capacity and campus culture. In Phase I, the researcher
collected quantitative data using two survey instruments, the Leadership Capacity School Survey
(LCSS) and the School Climate Assessment Instrument (SCAI). In Phase II, qualitative data
were collected through focus group interviews.
Phase I of this study aimed to address Research Question 1a-d using the LCSS and SCAI.
The LCSS was developed to evaluate the presence of leadership currently within a school and a
variety of leadership dispositions, knowledge, and skills necessary to build teacher leadership
capacity in school organizations (Lambert, 1998, 2003). The SCAI allows a school district to
assess the overall school climate and provide the school with a detailed understanding of its
function, health, and performance (Alliance for the Study of School Climate, 2011). The survey
instruments encompassed questions concerning building teacher leadership capacity and campus
culture. Quantitative data from the LCSS and SCAI provided a numeric depiction of the sample
population’s perceptions.
In Phase II, focus group questions were developed around the LCSS and SCAI survey
instruments, S.M.A.R.T. goal school improvement model, and the theoretical frameworks of
building teacher leadership capacity and campus culture. Qualitative data were collected from
two focus group interviews to gather participants’ perceptions of teacher leadership capacity,
10
campus culture, and the relationship between teacher leadership capacity and campus culture.
The qualitative data provided a greater depth of knowledge related to participants’ perceptions
and opinions of teacher leadership capacity and campus culture without being confined to
predetermined responses of quantitative surveys.
The two data sources allowed the researcher to gather rich information by using the
strengths of both qualitative and quantitative data collection (Creswell, 2014; Tashakkori &
Teddlie, 2003). The sequential design of the study provided structure for the researcher to
collect data in two phases and clarify the numerical findings in Phase I with the textual findings
in Phase II. The researcher expanded on the quantitative survey results that addressed Research
Questions 1a-d in Phase I of the study with the qualitative data from the focus groups in Phase II
that addressed Research Questions 2 and 3 (Creswell, 2014; Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007;
Krueger & Casey, 2015).
Selection of Sample
The researcher chose a suburban East Texas school district because the district Board of
Education had approved goals to develop teacher leadership capacity in the district. The school
mission was to foster teacher leadership capacity; to create a culture of trust, respect, and dignity
where the staff feel valued; and to retain current staff and attract experienced staff. Specifically,
this school district mission was driven by the S.M.A.R.T. (S = specific, M = measurable, A =
attainable, R = results-based, T = time bound) goal school improvement model.
The S.M.A.R.T. goal process requires all stakeholders to be active participants in school
improvement efforts. Further, the objective of the S.M.A.R.T. goal framework is to build
teacher leadership at all levels of the school organization. The S.M.A.R.T. goal school
improvement model fosters growth of the school organization that begins with implementing the
11
framework through institutionalization (Conzemius & Morganti-Fisher, 2012). The S.M.A.R.T.
goal school improvement model was designed to build leadership capacity through focus,
collaboration, and reflection (O’Neill & Conzemius, 2006). The school district has fostered a
systemic commitment to the S.M.A.R.T. goal school improvement model since 2008 by
providing various teacher leadership opportunities, professional learning resources, and central
office support to target student achievement and create a positive culture.
The selected school district employed approximately 200 certified teachers assigned to
the PK-6 elementary level, 7-12 secondary level, or both levels during the instructional day. The
district employed 12 certified administrators. The PK-6 elementary grade levels had seven
administrators and the secondary grade levels 7-12 had five administrators.
The researcher used convenience sampling to identify participants for the quantitative
phase of the study. Teachers and administrators employed in the selected district in 2014–2015
were identified as subjects for this study (see Appendix A). The sample in the quantitative data
collection phase included 98 teachers and six administrators for a total of 104 participants. The
researcher categorized participants into grade levels: elementary (33.33%; n = 35), secondary
(49.5%; n = 51), and a dual assignment for those assigned to both the elementary and secondary
levels (17.15%; n = 18).
The researcher used purposeful random sampling for the qualitative phase of the study.
The qualitative sample in the sequential data collection was generated from teacher and
administrator participants who completed the quantitative phase of the study and who indicated
their interest in participating in the focus group interviews (teacher or administrator). Seven of
nine administrators and 37 of 98 teachers indicated their willingness to participate in the focus
12
groups. The qualitative focus groups consisted of six teachers and five administrators who
participated in Phase II of this study.
Collection of Data
Data were collected in two phases. In Phase I, certified teachers and administrators who
were employed with the district in 2014–2015 (n = 104) completed the LCSS and SCAI surveys
to provide quantitative data. Phase I data were collected at the back-to-school convocation in
August 2015. Data from the LCSS and SCAI were scanned into the Remark© Optical Mark
Recognition Version 8 software and uploaded into the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
(SPSS Version 22). The researcher conducted a canonical correlation analysis (CCA) to
determine whether a statistically significant relationship existed between building teacher
leadership capacity and campus culture.
In Phase II, the researcher collected data from teacher and administrator focus group
interviews. Phase II data were collected approximately one week after Phase I data collection.
The researcher conducted the teacher and administrator interviews separately and followed a
focus group protocol for both interviews, which included 16 open-ended questions. The focus
group interviews were recorded and transcribed for the data analysis. The researcher used axial
coding to derive meaning and understanding from the transcripts and identify common themes
and subthemes related to building teacher leadership capacity and campus culture.
Instrumentation
In Phase I of the study, the researcher collected data using the SCAI (Shindler, Jones,
Williams, Taylor, & Cardenas, 2009) and the LCSS survey instruments (Lambert, 1998). The
researcher obtained permission to use these survey instruments prior to data collection (see
Appendix B). The LCSS is a self-assessment instrument of leadership dispositions, knowledge,

13
and skills necessary to build teacher leadership capacity in school organizations (Lambert, 1998).
The LCSS contains 30 questions clustered into six dimensions that are rated on a 5-point Likert
scale. The six dimensions included by Lambert (1998) are broad-based skillful participation in
the work of leadership; shared vision results in program coherence; inquiry-based use of
information to inform decisions and practice; roles and actions reflect broad involvement,
collaboration, and collective responsibility; reflective practice consistently leads to innovation;
and high or steadily improving student achievement and development. Lambert (1998) found
that these dimensions exist within schools that exhibit the highest levels of leadership capacity.
The reliability of the LCSS yielded a Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.97 (Pierce, 2007).
The SCAI was designed to measure school climate, including its health, function, and
performance (Shindler et al., 2009). The SCAI includes eight dimensions: appearance and
physical plant, faculty relations, student interactions, leadership/decision making, learning
environment, discipline environment, attitude and culture, and school-community relations. The
researcher chose to use only three dimensions because the questions for the faculty relations,
leadership/decision-making, and attitude and culture closely aligned with those of the LCSS.
The three chosen SCAI dimensions connect to the S.M.A.R.T. goal school framework
components that the selected district had adopted as its school improvement model. The
questions on the selected SCAI dimensions were rated on a 5-point Likert scale. The SCAI
reliability, as measured by the Cronbach’s Alpha, was 0.97 (Alliance for the Study of School
Climate, 2011).
The researcher developed 16 open-ended questions for Phase II of the study to elicit
teachers’ and administrators’ perceptions of teacher leadership capacity and campus culture. The
researcher developed these questions to expand on the data collected in the surveys (Creswell,
14
2014; Krueger & Casey, 2015). Interview questions were organized into the concepts of teacher
leadership capacity and campus culture to allow participants to draw on their personal
experiences and share their perceptions of the two phenomena. The questions were the same for
both the teacher participant group and the administrator participant group (see Appendix F).
Treatment of Data
The researcher scanned the LCSS and SCAI survey data into the Remark© Optical Mark
Recognition software Version 8, and then transferred the data into SPSS version 22 software for
analysis. Mean scores and standard deviations were calculated for each participant on the three
dimensions of the SCAI and the six dimensions of the LCSS. An SPSS Version 22 macro
module was used to compute the CCA because SPSS does not have a pull down menu for this
procedure. The IBM SPSS MANOVA and CANCORR macro syntax (Tabachnick & Fidell,
2013) was entered and run on SPSS. The goal of the CCA was to determine the relationship
between two data sets (Morgan, Leech, Gloeckner, & Barrett, 2008). The researcher organized
data into three groups and ran the CCA based on years of teaching experience: Group 1 (n = 32)
had 1-5 years of teaching experience, Group 2 (n = 40) had 6-16 years of teaching experience,
and Group 3 (n = 32) had 17+ years of teaching experience.
The researcher transcribed data from the two focus group interviews using axial coding.
The codes included teacher leadership capacity and campus culture. Codes were assigned to
chunks of data that included words, phrases, and sentences extracted from the transcripts. All
codes were relative to the theoretical frameworks of culture and teacher leadership capacity. The
researcher recorded data on a matrix that was constructed around the components of the
S.M.A.R.T. goal school improvement model framework, LCSS, and SCAI. Emergent and
subordinate themes were identified and supported by participants’ statements. The themes that
15
emerged from the teacher and administrator focus group interviews gave rich textual insight into
the findings from the quantitative analyses of the LCSS and SCAI data.
Definitions of Terms
Building leadership capacity. Building leadership capacity refers to broad-based
participation in the work of leadership as a way to understand sustainable school improvement
(Lambert, 1998, 2003, 2006).
Explanatory sequential mixed methods design. Explanatory sequential mixed methods
design refers to the two distinct phases in the study. In the first phase, quantitative data were
collected and analyzed followed by qualitative data being collected and analyzed to better
explain and understand the first phase (Creswell, 2014; Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007).
Leadership Capacity School Survey (LCSS). The LCSS is a school survey designed to
assess the leadership capacity of a school campus based on characteristics found in high-
performing schools (Lambert, 1998, 2003).
School climate. School climate refers to the norms, student academic expectations set by
teachers, formal and informal activities, and parental expectations that underwrite the spirit of
the school (Schoen & Teddlie, 2008).
School Climate Assessment Instrument. The SCAI is a climate survey designed to
measure the current state of a campus as a whole based on current school practices (Alliance for
the Study of School Climate, 2011).
School culture. School culture refers to the beliefs, attitudes, and unwritten rules that
influence the school organization (Schoen & Teddlie, 2008).
S.M.A.R.T. goal school improvement model. S.M.A.R.T goals (S = specific, M =
measurable, A = attainable, R = results-based, T = time bound) is a school improvement model

16
that builds leadership capacity through a framework that includes focus, reflection, and
collaboration for all stakeholders in the school system (O’Neill & Conzemius, 2006).
Suburban school district. A school in Texas is classified as a suburban district if its
enrollment exceeds the median district enrollment of 836 students for the state (Texas Education
Agency [TEA], 2015).
Teacher leader. A teacher leader is both a leader and a learner who influences school
culture, builds and maintains a successful team, assists colleagues in achieving their highest
professional potential, assists administrators in providing professional development, and builds a
sense of community within the school of shared responsibility for student achievement (Gabriel,
2005).
Limitations
This study had the following limitations:
1. The sample size was small and may not have been representative of all teachers and
administrators. This small sampling resulted in the researcher’s inability to generalize
to a larger population of teachers and administrators.
2. The participants in the sample population experienced varying degrees of professional
development directly related to the S.M.A.R.T. Goal school improvement model.
3. The researcher was not able to control the level of honesty among teachers and
administrators. Precautions were taken to preserve the anonymity of all respondents
to avoid in the risk of intentionally falsifying answers.
4. The researcher had extensive knowledge of the selected school district and had
personal opinions and beliefs regarding the purpose of this study, which may have
introduced bias.
17
5. The researcher provided the focus group participants a Subway® boxed lunch prior to
the interviews, which may have influenced participants to answer favorably.
Delimitations
This study had the following delimitations:
1. The researcher included only those teachers and administrators from a suburban
district in East Texas who taught grades Pre-Kindergarten through 12. Specifically,
the sample was limited to one suburban East Texas school district with four Title I
campuses that included building teacher leadership capacity as one of its board-
adopted goals.
2. Participation in the study was voluntary and participants who were not certified
teachers or administrators were not included in the sample.
3. The researcher purposefully chose to use three of the eight School Climate
Assessment Instrument dimensions for the purpose of this study. These dimensions
were aligned to the research questions.
Assumptions
The researcher made the following assumptions:
1. All teachers and administrators understood the district goal of building teacher
leadership capacity using the S.M.A.R.T goal school improvement model.
2. All participants understood the purpose of the study.
3. All respondents gave honest responses to questions on the data collection instruments
because the researcher ensured anonymity.

18
Organization of Dissertation Chapters
Chapter 1 includes information on building teacher leadership capacity and campus
culture. This chapter also lays the foundation for this study, including the purpose and
significance of the research. Specific research questions answered in the study were outlined in
this chapter. In addition, a brief outline of the participant selection, data gathering, and data
treatment processes are included.
Chapter 2 includes a review of literature on the S.M.A.R.T. goal school improvement
process, professional learning communities (PLCs), building teacher leadership capacity, culture,
and teacher leaders. Chapter 3 includes a discussion of the methods of procedure and data
analysis. Chapter 4 includes a presentation of the statistical results of the data analyses and the
findings of the study relative to the research questions. Chapter 5 includes a summary of the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations for further study.

19
Chapter 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Chapter 2 includes a discussion of the rationale for exploring the relationship between
building teacher leadership capacity and campus culture. Sharing leadership by developing
teacher leadership capacity should be embedded in the school community as an unabridged
process (Lambert, 2000). Collaborative administrative leadership that fosters teacher leadership
can improve the culture of the school in the academic and social realms (Epstein, Galindo, &
Sheldon, 2011). Researchers have studied the theoretical frameworks of teacher leadership
capacity and campus culture; however, an established link between the two is absent. This
researcher built upon empirical bases to explore the relationship between teacher leadership
capacity and culture of an East Texas suburban school district.
This chapter includes relevant literature associated with this study. Chapter 2 is divided
into the following sections: (a) S.M.A.R.T. Goal Framework for Building Teacher Leadership
Capacity, (b) Professional Learning Communities, (c) School Culture, (d) Building Teacher
Leadership Capacity, (e) Building Teacher Leadership Capacity via Transformational Leadership
and Social Constructivism, (f) Sustaining Teacher Leadership Capacity, (g) Teacher Leaders, and
(h) Developing Teacher Leaders.
Building leadership capacity among teachers depends on the principal (Louis et al., 2010;
Wilhelm, 2010). The campus administrator’s responsibility in building teacher leadership
capacity is much like that of an orchestra director who conducts an assembly of teacher leaders
rather than an assembly of musicians (Munger & Von Frank, 2010). Teacher leaders and
administrators should recognize that shared leadership is a valuable opportunity to redefine the
existing school culture (Roby, 2011). Once the performance stage is set to develop teacher
20
leaders, administrators and teachers can orchestrate a cultural shift aimed to accomplish the
desired mission (Munger & Von Frank, 2010; Roby, 2011).
School reform includes many variables; however, one of the most vital components in
reform efforts is school culture (Rhodes, Camic, Milburn, & Low, 2009). Capacity building
allows teacher leaders to assume ownership in changing and enriching a campus culture to
include continuous learning for all students and staff members (Roby, 2011). The individual role
of administrators and teacher leaders cannot undervalue their collective role in determining
campus culture (Roby, 2011).
Teachers and administrators who share in a common value system and purpose can
facilitate the evolution of a culture of excellence within the school organization (McKinney,
Labat, & Labat, 2015). A school improvement model, such as the S.M.A.R.T. (S = specific, M =
measurable, A = attainable, R = results-based, T = time bound) goal school framework, is a
valuable tool to develop and sustain teacher leaders and to promote a positive school culture
(Lambert, 2002; O’Neill & Conzemius, 2006).
S.M.A.R.T. Goal Framework for Building Teacher Leadership Capacity
To sustain teacher leadership capacity once it is established, the campus and district
should adopt a philosophy centered on a framework or model. The model guides not only the
administrative leaders, but also teachers who are in traditional or emerging leadership roles. The
S.M.A.R.T. goal framework (O’Neill & Conzemius, 2006) assists schools in protecting
established shared leadership. The concept of S.M.A.R.T. goals was first identified in the
management of business organizations (Doran, 1981) and was customized and refined to meet
the needs of school organizations. This school improvement model is a comprehensive and
21
practical educational model for continuous improvement to compel change within the school
system (Conzemius & Morganti-Fisher, 2012; O’Neill & Conzemius, 2006; Schmoker, 2006).
The S.M.A.R.T. goal framework plays a significant role in the shaping teacher leadership
capacity. The Quality Leadership by Design (QLD) school improvement model was adapted
from the S.M.A.R.T. goal business model and designed to change the culture of a school system
through teacher leadership capacity (O’Neill & Conzemius, 2006). The S.M.A.R.T goal
framework is illustrated in nature’s utmost unwavering shape, the triangle. This framework is
used to build teacher leadership capacity through focus, collaboration, and reflection (see Figure
1).
Figure 1. S.M.A.R.T. goal framework (adapted from O’Neill & Conzemius, 2006).
The three components of focus, collaboration, and reflection are integral in building the
capacity of teacher leaders. At the top of the triangle is a focus on a clear purpose and vision.
School leaders collectively establish clear, measurable, reasonable, results-based goals that are
22
tied to a timeframe for achievement. School personnel keep the purpose, vision, and core values
at the focus of all decisions.
The base of the triangle is formed by reflection and collaboration that serve as a stable
foundation for all school improvement activities. The reflection element gives teachers and
administrators permission to reflect on the past, present, and future of the school. Data are
integral in the reflection piece of this framework to provide quantitative and qualitative evidence
for improvement efforts and to allow teachers and administrators a mode of feedback and
evaluation. Collaboration is essential for teams of administrators and teachers to function. This
collaborative effort includes time built into teachers’ and administrators’ schedules to forge
partnerships with each other as well as with the community, parents, and students of the school
organization. Action plans are created collaboratively and job-embedded professional
development is at the forefront of school improvement efforts. For collaboration to be
successful, administrators and teachers must have a relationship comprised of trust and
togetherness (Conzemius & Morganti-Fisher, 2012; O’Neill & Conzemius, 2006).
With the components of the triangle intact, administrators and teachers can focus
collaboratively on the data, set and monitor goals, and reflect to overcome challenges. This
process results in the evolution and sustainment of teacher leadership capacity. Quality
Leadership by Design used Lambert’s (1998) definition of leadership capacity as broad-based,
skillful participation in the work of leadership to foster teacher leader capacity in the school
improvement process of the stakeholders involved in the school system. Everyone in the school
organization shares responsibility for its successes or failures. The S.M.A.R.T. goal framework
provides a school improvement structure that involves everyone in leadership roles. As

23
leadership capacity flourishes within a school, the culture of the school changes because of the
shared visions, missions, values, goals, and beliefs.
Few empirical studies have concentrated on the S.M.A.R.T. goal school improvement
model developed by QLD. As such, a gap exists in the literature on building teacher leadership
capacity and its relationship to school culture. Abplanalp (2007) conducted a case study of a
low-performing elementary school in Wisconsin to examine the effectiveness of its professional
development program and help teachers change the literacy program using S.M.A.R.T. goals.
The findings revealed that by implementing the S.MA.R.T. goal school improvement process,
staff collegiality and trust increased, and the leaders developed sustainable and positive change
in the school culture. Yates (2014) examined the experiences of classroom teachers with a focus
on how S.M.A.R.T. goal training affected their behaviors, student learning, collegial
relationships, and leadership capacity. The qualitative case study findings revealed that the
training enhanced teachers’ instructional focus and supported the development of collegial
relationships; however, no connection was made between student learning, culture, or teacher
leadership capacity.
Everyone in the school organization has leadership attributes (O’Neill & Conzemius,
2006). Teachers’ and administrators’ reflective practices and collaboration skills are forged into
a collective responsibility where everyone is focused on being a contributing leader in the school
improvement process (Conzemius & Morganti-Fisher, 2012; O’Neill & Conzemius, 2006).
School leadership is the platform where professional learning is supported and where a multitude
of skill sets—leading change, focusing interventions, managing resources, improving instruction,
and analyzing results—originates (Gray & Bishop, 2009).

24
Within the S.M.A.R.T. goal framework, teacher leaders emerge through their
participation in organized professional learning designs. Principals use the S.M.A.R.T. goal
framework to support and implement professional learning and shared decision making. Further,
teachers become leaders by actively participating in decision-making processes. Through
teacher empowerment, natural and nurtured leaders rise to the surface (Conzemius & Morganti-
Fisher, 2012; O’Neill & Conzemius, 2006). Teacher leadership capacity in the sense of the
S.M.A.R.T. goals framework focuses on skill development that empowers teachers to be
purposeful and operative during the school day. Roby (2011) noted that teachers who are leaders
become advocates of the school organization and, in turn, their own efficacy increases. A safe
environment dedicated to developing teacher leaders is part of the S.M.A.R.T. goal school
improvement process.
Proponents of the S.M.A.R.T. goal framework recognize that professional learning
communities (PLC) are an important constituent of the structure for building teacher leadership
capacity. Further, the S.M.A.R.T. goal framework is structured to foster the culture of PLCs that
embrace developing teacher leaders. Administrators who lead and organize deliberate
professional development through PLCs can stimulate a high degree of participation from
teacher leaders. This collaborative participation in leadership with an organized PLC can have a
constructive effect on school culture and overall effectiveness (Fullan, 2014; Lambert, 1998,
2003).
Professional Learning Communities
Professional learning communities are not new to the world of education. Dewey (1916-
1966) believed that educators should develop their own talents as members of the school
community and use those talents to benefit the entire school system (Garrison, 1999). Dewey’s
25
philosophy offers substantiated evidence to the importance of professional collaboration and
leadership development by establishing PLCs (Little, 2006; Senge, 2006). Guided by the
Standards for Professional Learning, schools can adopt PLCs, which provide principals and
teachers with strategies to facilitate effective PLCs (Learning Forward, 2011). The standards
emphasize that PLCs require continuous improvement, promote collective responsibility, and
support goal alignment throughout the school system (Learning Forward, 2011).
Little (2006) presented a description of a PLC in which she noted that best environment
for powerful professional learning occur is within a PLC. She also noted that a PLC serves as a
catalyst to build teacher leadership capacity. According to DuFour (2014), “The best
professional development builds staff capacity to function as members of a high-performing
PLC” (p. 35). The Texas commissioner’s rules, which are a part of the Texas Administrative
Code, concerning educator standards verify the value and importance of a PLC in a school
system with the purpose of building leadership capacity. Chapter 149 Standard 6: Professional
Practices and Responsibilities encourages teachers to pursue leadership opportunities, to lead
other educators within and beyond their classrooms, and to lead other adults on campus through
PLCs (TEA, 2014). Thus, the Texas Commissioner of Education expects teachers to develop
their leadership skills and roles in their schools.
In the existing system of teacher preparation, teachers are prepared to teach, but often
lack preparation in teacher leadership. According to Fichtman (2009), “Professional learning
communities serve to connect and network groups of professionals to do just what the PLC
acronym suggests–learn from practice” ( p. 21). Teachers engaged in PLCs should collaborate
and communicate while pursuing leadership opportunities and seeking out other adults to lead
(TEA, 2014). DuFour, DuFour, and Eaker (2008) used the term intentional learning
26
organizations to describe learning communities that value teachers. DuFour et al.’s term has
since developed into a synonym for PLCs observed in successful schools (Conzemius &
Morganti-Fisher, 2012; O’Neill & Conzemius, 2006; Schmoker, 2006). In these PLCs, teachers
are valued for their individualized and specialized knowledge and skills. Teachers also
contribute independently and collectively to the learning organization, and are recognized as
professionals who not only teach but also lead (Savage, 2009).
The role of PLCs to develop individuals as teacher leaders depends on the principal who
has the power to change the dynamics of teacher leadership capacity on campus (Marzano et al.,
2005). The principal initiates opportunities for teacher leadership within PLCs, and then serves
as a supporter of teacher leaders in those roles (Conzemius & O’Neill, 2006; Conzemius &
Morganti-Fisher, 2012). The principal must change the traditional practice of making decisions
in isolation to drive teacher leadership capacity. Collaborative decision making in supportive
PLCs empowers teacher leaders. Teachers and administrators who share the leadership role can
yield greater gains for their school organizations (Fullan, 2011); however, gains will be limited if
the principal does not support teacher leadership.
Factors of building teacher leadership capacity include principal leadership in a PLC and
teachers’ knowledge, skills, and outlooks (Fullan, 2011). The nonexistence of a quality principal
will “impede any attempt toward improving capacity” (Caskey & Carpenter, 2012, p. 61).
Administrators and teachers are fundamental members who influence the success or failure of
the PLC. Additionally, teachers and administrators contribute as active participants within the
collegial culture of a PLC. A PLC environment that does not share leadership and extend
teacher leadership opportunities will not yield or sustain school improvement (Barth, 2006).
Thus, administrators serve as promoters in developing teacher leaders through PLCs, and they
27
are responsible for the collective culture of the campus (Kelley et al., 2005; Leithwood et al.,
2004; MacNeil et al., 2009; Sahin, 2011). Teacher leaders who take on leadership roles and who
invest in the PLC can influence the culture of the entire school (Barth, 2006; DuFour, 2013,
2014; DuFour et al., 2008).
School Culture
School culture can be a roadblock or a catalyst in the evolution of building teacher
leadership capacity, which can influence the environment of the entire campus (Mullen & Jones,
2008). Organizational change agents have recognized that leaders influence culture, whether in a
business or school setting. In fact, Fullan (2001) identified a correlation between school leaders
and the culture of the schools they led.
The literature offers different definitions of school culture. Stoll’s (1998) definition is
one of the simplest—school culture is how things are done around a school—and is used by
many school administrators and school leaders. Killion and Roy (2009) expanded this simplistic
definition and noted that school culture is the custom routines, symbols, stories, expectations,
language, and artifacts that represent the school, including the routine actions of school
stakeholders.
Culture is the nucleus of the school for all staff members, students, and parents, and the
school leaders are responsible for the culture being positive or negative (Fullan, 2014). While
leaders play a role in shaping school culture, school culture also shapes the staff (DuFour et al.,
2008). Schools leaders, whether established or emerging, influence the culture of learning and
the commitment of ongoing professional growth (Giancola & Hutchinson, 2005; Harris, 2011).
Every school has a culture, and leaders must often drive cultural shifts. DuFour et al. (2008)
28
inferred that meaningful, productive, and sustainable change would only come to fruition if it
were fortified in the school culture.
Louis and Wahlstrom (2011) conducted a qualitative case study of 1,000 district staff
members, including teachers, district administrators, and parents, and 8,000 principals in 164
schools across nine states. The researchers identified three elements required for a school culture
to spark and motivate teachers to improve instruction. The first element was a culture that
fosters professional growth of teachers and administrators. The second element indicated that
principals and teachers have the same goals, and principals share leadership with staff, which
lays the foundation for cultural change. The third element was trust, which encourages teachers
to improve; trust must exist between administrators and teacher leaders. A high-trust culture that
is cultivated by the principal has the ability to make the impossible possible (Fullan, 2014).
Sahin (2011) examined instructional leadership and school culture with survey
instruments in a quantitative investigation of 157 urban elementary schools in Turkey to
determine whether instructional leadership represented school culture. He found a positive
relationship between leadership and school culture. Sahin noted, “School leadership is the most
productive dimension of school culture, identifying and delivering purpose, teacher
collaboration, and unity of vision” (p. 1924).
Fullan (2014) supported Sahin’s (2011) findings regarding the connection between
leadership and culture. He proposed that the instructional leader, precisely the principal, was
crucial, but the principal had to be a balanced leader. The principal must serve as the lead
change agent; however, even the most influential leaders cannot change the culture if they
embark on the adventure alone (Fullan, 2014). Therefore, the principal must share and include
29
others in leadership efforts to shift the culture. Sharing leadership and empowering teacher
leaders can be done by building teacher leadership capacity (Lambert, 1998, 2003; Fullan, 2014).
Teacher empowerment is also a factor of school culture. The innovativeness of school
culture can enable teachers to take risks and implement their own ideas without fear. The
principal is an advocate in providing teachers with confidence. Teachers demonstrate their self-
assurance through their opinions in decision-making opportunities that arise on campus. Balkar
(2015) conducted a phenomenological qualitative study of 43 secondary teachers and found that
school culture was linked directly to teachers’ overall job satisfaction. Specifically, job
satisfaction was connected to how much teachers felt empowered to make decisions and act as
teacher leaders. Further, these feelings were fostered by a collaborative culture between
administrators and teachers. Balkar (2015) also found through the perception of 43 teachers in a
phenomenological study that principals developed positive school cultures by encouraging their
professional growth, allocating specific school-related responsibilities, attending to teamwork
with colleagues and administrator, and including teachers in decision-making processes.
Creating cultures that embrace and commit to teachers’ leadership development serves as
a dominant stimulus to making progressive changes in leadership. A school improvement
process designed to share decision-making responsibilities may “awaken the sleeping giant” of
teacher leadership and have the vitality to sustain it (Conzemius & Morganti-Fisher, 2012;
Fullan, 2008, 2014; Hargreaves & Fullan, 2013; Katzenmeyer & Moller, 2009; Lambert, 1998,
2003; O’Neill & Conzemius, 2006). Eaker and Keating (2008) noted, “Engaging the faculty in a
collaborative process to articulate the school’s core values or collective mission is powerful, and
an often overlooked way to shape school culture” (p. 17). The efforts to create and sustain a
positive school culture can be achieved by building teacher leadership capacity.

30
Building Teacher Leadership Capacity
In the early 1990s, capacity building within the ranks of businesses was prominent
(Dinham & Crowther, 2011). For example, the United Nations Development Program (UNDP)
was founded to offer assistance to evolving nations. The support and training offered provided
leaders of other nations a platform to collaborate on solutions to problems that contributed to
their nations’ struggles. The act of building leaders among all nations aided in achieving global
communal goals.
Many successful companies include internal leadership development in their strategic
plans. Prosperous corporate enterprises such as IBM©, John Deere©, PepsiCo©, and the
consulting giant McKinsey© put leadership development at the forefront of their business
building priorities (Murphy, 2011). Leaders at Prudential© have noted that their focus on
identifying, developing, and inspiring employees to become leaders through the shared beliefs of
a cohesive capacity is one reason they have held a top three spot in FORTUNE® magazine’s
classification of the World’s Most Admired Companies®. Internal leadership development in the
business world not only guarantees that the individual prospers, but also that the entire company
flourishes (Drotter & Charan, 2001).
Deliberate leadership plans of thriving corporate businesses can serve as models for
school organizations to build teachers’ leadership capacities, and strengthen school
organizations. Building teacher leadership capacity can be implemented at the campus level to
accomplish the same goals of corporate organizations because the goals of school leaders are
often similar to those of corporations. Leaders search for solutions to existing problems, build
leaders from within who have the same philosophy, and sustain leadership capacity once it is
built. Corporate leaders’ examples of aiming to “cultivate and maintain a legacy of teaching and
31
learning throughout the organization” (Bleak, 2012, para. 8) can encourage administrators to
emulate this parallel approach with future teacher leaders on their campuses.
The act of building leadership capacity is not a new idea even though its implementation
in schools is only beginning to emerge (Dinham & Crowther, 2011). The benefits of building
teacher leadership capacity is noted in empirical research (Conzemius & O’Neill, 2006; Gray &
Bishop, 2009; Lambert, 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006; Mullen & Jones, 2008; Schein, 2010; Wilhelm,
2010). The thoughtful support and pre-determined training a principal offers teachers with
potential to become leaders strengthens the entire campus and leads to meaningful organizational
change. Recently, the campus principal has assumed the role of instructional leader; however, it
is recommended that the principal become a leadership developer to build teacher leadership
capacity (Kurtz, 2009).
Gray and Bishop (2009) defined teacher leadership capacity as an opportunity for
teachers to solve problems through observation and active participation. In the end, a teacher
who leads a team through a collaborative process of identification, implementation, and
evaluation of targeted school improvement measures builds capacity within the organization.
Little is known about effectively enhancing capacity building within a learning organization
because of established hierarchies, policies, habitual routines, rooted norms, status quo
guidelines, and compliance parameters (King & Bouchard, 2011); however, as school
organizations change, so must the manner in which they are led.
Principals lead their campuses by assuming many roles. Thus, investing in the
development of teacher leaders on a campus translates into principals’ relinquishment of some
control and trusting the skills and knowledge of their teachers. Principals can create systems that
build teacher leader capacity, and principals can make conscious efforts to ensure that
32
professional development is purposeful in building teacher leaders. As such, the principal’s role
in school leadership has evolved and changed to include building leaders. These new
responsibilities require principals to implement diverse methods to groom teacher leaders (Slater,
2008).
Classroom teachers typically are not trained to lead unless an intentional focus is placed
on building leadership capacity. Mullen and Jones (2008) confirmed in a qualitative case study
that building leadership capacity contributes to the growth of teachers as leaders and affords
them a sense of empowerment. Teachers cannot instinctively take on leadership roles without
the support and encouragement of their principals. Williams (2009) noted that both
administrators and teachers must commit to sustain meaningful change. Thus, a teacher’s
acceptance and the principal’s relinquishment of leadership responsibility is a transformation of
traditional school practice. The educational literature points to the importance of dedication and
commitment to the teacher leadership building process as a vital component of capacity building
(Lambert, 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006; Louis et al., 2010; Schein, 2010; Wilhelm, 2010).
In general, education is an enterprise that centers on human dimensions and the
expansion of human capacity, specifically leadership capacity. Teacher leadership is one facet
that principals should place as a priority. According to Hallinger and Murphy (2013), “It has
been increasingly clear that leadership at all levels of the system is the key lever for reform,
especially for a leader who focuses on capacity building and the developing of other leaders who
can carry on” (p. 16). A campus leader’s devotion to building teacher leadership capacity among
the staff is a means to achieve higher student performance and enable others to grow
professionally through teacher leadership roles (Mullen & Jones, 2008).

33
Leadership involves many things, but ultimately, leadership is about learning (Lambert
1998, 2003). Through carefully designed professional development, the principal can refine
teacher leaders’ skills and increase the knowledge base of emerging leaders. Leadership skills
demonstrated in PLCs, such as leading others, learning, and sharing alongside other
professionals are critical components of building and sustaining teacher leadership capacity
(Rezaei, Salehi, Shfiei, & Sabet, 2012).
During the continual growth and recursive learning offered through professional
development, principals and teacher leaders realize they share more similarities than differences
in the process of leading and learning. Leading requires learning and learning requires leading.
The shared concerns and goals of administrators and teacher leaders are brought to the forefront,
and both parties can find solutions through collaboration as opposed to isolated efforts of each
constituent. In this regard, Pitsoe and Maila (2012) noted, “Professional development is not a
static concept. It is a social construct and fluid in nature” (p. 319). To build teacher leadership
capacity that supports continual school improvement efforts, dynamic dialogue, and even
uncomfortable discourse among professional leaders is inevitable. The social workings of
professional development to build teacher leadership capacity must be done together, not in
isolation. Professional learning capitalizes on the social components of learning for teacher
leaders and the transformational leadership behaviors of principals, which amplify the
development of teacher leadership capacity.
Transformational Leadership and Social Constructivism
Building leadership capacity and transformational leadership go hand-in-hand when a
principal’s goal is to build teacher leadership capacity. According to Bass (1997),
transformational leaders’ characteristics include being charismatic, inspiring, attentive to the

34
emotional needs of their follows, and intellectual stimulating. The result of a principal’s
transformational leadership style may be a teacher who was once a follower becoming a leader
who is fully committed to the school goals and mission (Ross & Gray, 2006). This new role may
have been influence by their empowerment felt from the principal’s transformational leadership
characteristics (Bass, 1997). Transformational leadership theory dates back to a political nature
in Burns (1978) seminal work. Burns founded modern leadership theory in which the focus of
transformational leadership was dedicated to change. Researchers have cited transformational
leadership as a leadership style that produces greater results compared to former styles (Barnett,
McCormick, & Conners, 2001; Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978; Stephens, D’Intino, & Victor, 1995;
Stone, Russell, & Patterson, 2004).
Leithwood et al. (2004) applied Burns’ theory as a foundational model to develop a
transformational school leadership model. Leithwood et al. suggested that for school leaders to
acquire success in the 21st century, principals must model the desired behaviors they want their
teachers to exhibit. Sosik and Dionne (1997) supported this work and identified the Four I’s of
Transformational Leadership, which outlines four points in which school leaders can lay the
foundation for emerging teacher leaders to be successful. The Four I’s include individual
consideration, intellectual stimulation, inspirational motivation, and idealized influence.
Transformational leadership can be applied to developing teacher leadership capacity within the
school organization. For example, administrators can share the decision-making process
regarding the school vision, allocate leadership responsibilities to their followers, and enable
potential leadership aspirations held by teachers (Dambe & Moorad, 2008). Establishing trust
and reciprocal relationships formed between the transformational leader and prospective leaders
35
can result in improved school effectiveness and equally foster teachers’ professional goals (Van
Eden, Ciller, & van Deventer, 2008).
Researchers have suggested that transformational leadership in education is a conceptual
array of behaviors, practices, and habits that leaders take on collectively to emphasize
established relationships and connections with others in the school (Katzenmeyer & Moller,
2009). A leader’s actions regarding relationships built with others are focused on the mutual
establishment of goals to drive the school mission, including developing teacher leaders (Van
Eden et al., 2008). Transformational leaders work to mold current followers and guide future
leaders to accomplishing the school mission. The result may be that the school mission is
achieved more easily once staff are led not only by administrators but also by teacher leaders
working together toward a common goal. The communal effort and shared leadership results in
a changed environment (e.g., school culture), which leads to school improvement (Stewart,
2006).
Despite ample research supporting transformational leadership, some researchers have
argued that this leadership style is unfavorable to organizations (Bass 1997; Harrison, 1995;
Stephens et al., 1995). Bass (1997) opposed a transformational leadership shift from the popular
top-down (transactional) leadership model conventionally implemented in schools, as a
noticeable change in power takes place with the transformational leadership style. Specifically,
administrators in a school transfer from a power-based leadership model to an empowerment-
based model (spirit de corps), which is easily identifiable in schools that build teachers’
leadership capacity (Bass, 1985; Dambe & Moorad, 2008). The identifiable characteristics are
collaborative goal setting between the leader and the followers in the organization, teamwork,
36
and reflection (Dambe & Moorad, 2008). The leader’s power does not lessen due to the growth
or empowerment of shared-leadership.
Bass (1985, 1997) researched through the analysis of political and corporate leaders using
the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ). The inadequacies and limitations he believed
existed in Burns’ (1978) transformational leadership model. Specifically, Bass recognized that
transformational leaders had just as much power over followers as did transactional leaders
because of the relationships they purposefully created and nurtured, which could lead to abuse of
power. The relationships that transformational leaders established with their subordinates
created a power for the leader through motivation and inspiration. Northouse (2010) reiterated
Bass’ critique of the transformational leadership model. He identified the qualities of
transformational leaders as behaviors that can be learned if the current leadership is not
productive in the organization. The power over subordinates will not be lost. The leader’s
power remains; however, the power lies in the relationships with the followers. All leaders can
study to demonstrate the characteristics of a transformational leadership and these can be taught
to all leaders through leadership training. These transformational behaviors can be developed in
any leader who studies and adopts these skills; therefore, if the transactional, top-down model is
not conducive to the success of the organization, the leader can change and learn the leadership
style exemplified by the transformational leadership style. Transformational leadership skills,
though learned, can be productive in building teacher leadership capacity.
Administrators model behaviors for teachers in emerging leader roles and create
trustworthy professional relationships while developing them into teacher leaders.
Transformational leadership includes intentional acts of administrators to model and demonstrate
skills for teacher leaders. These leadership behaviors are learned rather than inherent personality
37
traits; therefore, it is a leader’s choice to exhibit transformational or transactional leadership
characteristics. The chosen leadership style poses opportunities for leaders to abuse power over
his or her colleagues. This abuse of power is a key criticism of the transformational leadership
model because each individual is treated differently based on the distinctive needs and the
leader’s relationship may be different with each subordinate (Northouse, 2010); therefore
inequality may exist among followers.
Despite the differences and challenges concerning the transformational leadership model
and the hierarchal top-down transactional leadership model, Stewart (2006) acknowledged that
although transformational and transactional leadership are at opposite ends of the spectrum, they
do complement each other. The harmonizing leadership style allows situational leadership to
occur so the leader chooses the best and appropriate leadership style for the current situation
Marzano, et al., 2005). For example, it is possible that school administrators can adopt both
transformational and transactional leadership traits and fulfill them appropriately when leading
and modeling to teacher leaders. The characteristics from both can be advantageous to building
teacher leadership capacity (Dambe & Moorad, 2008). In a quantitative study, Moolenaar, Daly,
and Sleegers (2010) surveyed 702 teachers and 51 principals in 51 elementary schools in the
Netherlands regarding principals’ social relationships with teachers and transformational
leadership skills as they related to the level of innovation shown among teachers. The findings
indicated that the principals’ professional relationships and transformational leadership practices
were positively associated with teachers’ willingness to take risks in learning and in instructional
changes in the classroom. The principals who exhibited more transformational leadership
skills/styles than transactional were sought out by teachers for advice, knowledge, and were
38
closer, more connected to the principal that led to instructional innovation and a more positive
working climate.
Transformational leadership style also affects teachers’ motivations to be teacher leaders.
Birky, Headley, and Shelton (2006) conducted a qualitative study to determine administrators’
influence on teacher leadership. The researchers conducted interviews and surveys with teachers
who were informal teacher leaders with no formal title such as department chair. The findings
revealed that administrators directly influenced the development and performance of informal
teacher leaders because of leadership style. Specifically, administrators’ transformational or
autocratic actions encouraged or discouraged teacher leadership within the school. The findings
also revealed that the involvement of both administrative leadership styles were valued when the
teachers’ efforts were acknowledged and appreciated. Lastly, when the administrator exhibited
mutual respect and high expectation, the development of teacher leaders was encouraged.
The Vygotskian premise supports the implementation aspect of transformational
leadership in a school organization as it portrays learning as a sociocultural activity for adult
learners known as social constructivism (Wink & Putney, 2002). Vygotsky presented learning as
a continual process that cannot be separated from its social context. Transformational leadership
requires the interaction between administrators and teacher leaders where both are learners in the
school improvement process. Vygotsky’s ideas have had a significant influence on modern
educational practices, such as collaboration with peers in PLCs and building teacher leadership
capacity (Jones & Brader-Araje, 2002; Lambert 2003, 2006; Vygotsky, 1978).
Lambert (2003) supported the constructivist view of teacher leadership capacity. She
suggested that campus administrators adopt the constructivist standpoint by questioning and
acknowledging teachers’ points of view while also challenging them to construct meaning
39
through dialogue, collaborative problem solving, and reflection. The administrator sets the tone
of the social environment to allow teachers to be not only teachers, but also learners in a
professional setting (e.g., PLC). Professional learning communities are venues for social
interaction and discourse to build teacher leadership capacity, and higher-order cognitive
processes such as analyzing, reflecting, and collaborating occur in the PLC setting. Interactions
among colleagues are stimulated by these social setting, including knowledge sharing (Grandin,
2006; Hutchings, 2009) where the administrator does not collect and disburse knowledge alone,
but rather these activities are done in the collective realm with everyone involved in the learning
arena to foster teacher leadership capacity.
Administrators and teachers learning together, teaching each other, collaborating, and
working with each other to uncover solutions to existing challenges has given rise to the
combination of transformational leadership and social constructivism. The social premise
involves interpersonal relationships in which learning is amplified through interactions with
others as it is embedded in professional practices (Grandin, 2006; Hutchings, 2009). The social
constructivist perspective, when adopted by administrators, affords them opportunities to forge a
constructivist teacher perspective with their personal theoretical leadership methods to build
teacher leaders (Billsberry, 2009). An administrator who leads in a transformational/social
constructivist manner versus in isolation will increase the capacity of teacher leaders within a
school organization.
Through the teacher leader capacity-building process of shared leadership, principals and
teachers experience professional development together in a social setting. The capacity-building
process results in personal gains for administrators, teacher leaders, and the school organization.
This constructivist approach to building teacher leaders could include reform drivers such as
40
school improvement models or capacity building efforts that target organizational change and
lead to increased success (Fullan & Knight, 2011).
The constructivist learning and leading experience of administrators and teacher leaders
will affect the entire school organization. Teacher leadership capacity is fueled by the
principal’s allegiance and strategic attention to designing professional development to focus
explicitly on the partnership between administrators and teachers. These collaborative actions
and common goals can be woven into existing school improvement frameworks, such as the
S.M.A.R.T. goal improvement model, to build and sustain teacher leadership capacity, regardless
of who the administrator is on campus.
Sustaining Teacher Leadership Capacity Building
A shared philosophy is the groundwork for ensuring that behaviors are consistent with
the goals, mission, and vision of a school organization. Shared beliefs among leaders and
developing a school mission often evolve with frequent changes that ensue in education from
year to year (Duze, 2012). Once established in a school, teacher leadership capacity must be
sustained, despite variations in new programs, federal or state mandates, or changes in school
administration. Lambert (2006) highlighted this notion in her definition of building leadership
capacity as a manner of understanding sustainable school improvement. Slater (2008) noted,
“School reform may be achieved and sustained more effectively when improvement is not
dependent on one person, but is a shared responsibility amongst staff, students, and parents” (p.
59). Thus, teacher leaders should embrace opportunities to lead within the school and beyond,
flourish in their opportunities to influence others, and serve as change agents alongside their
administrators (Danielson, 2006; Duze, 2012).

41
An administrator’s approach to sustain teacher leadership capacity depends on the
specific leadership opportunities granted to teachers, such as grade-level leader or department
chair, which are appointed roles in school districts. In addition, administrators must
acknowledge the contribution of teachers who create leadership opportunities and lead without
official titles to accompany their leadership acts (Lambert, 2000; Mullen & Jones, 2008).
Informal teacher leadership opportunities stray from the traditional top-down hierarchy of
leadership and build collective responsibility (Lambert, 2000). These informal teacher
leadership opportunities can also serve to build sustainable leadership capacity within the school.
Once systems and processes are in place, teacher leadership capacity becomes institutionalized in
the culture (Abplanalp, 2007).
The teacher leader building commitment should put the needs of the school, students, and
teachers at the forefront. School district leaders and campus principals should strategically
emphasize the leadership capacities of individuals within the established teams and develop
leadership skills during PLCs with teams of leaders. Gray and Bishop (2009) noted, “Teachers
in leadership teams can create opportunities to engage a broader constituency in the work of
improving a school” (p. 29). The multiparty efforts of administrators and teachers in the school
improvement process will enhance the cycle of building and sustaining teacher leadership
capacity.
Dinham and Crowther (2011) supported building teacher leadership capacity, and implied
that administrators and teachers must commit and participate in building, implementing, and
sustaining leadership capacity for meaningful change to occur. Developing teacher leadership
capacity benefits everyone in the school system and does not exclusively lay in the hands of the
principal to develop, implement, and sustain (Williams, 2009). Dinham and Crowther defined
42
the core business of developing teacher leadership capacity as relating to the teacher’s direct
teaching and learning that results not only in an investment to building leadership capacity, but
also in sustaining that capacity within the school.
Lambert (1998) noted the prominence of the breadth and depth of participation that
contributes to sustaining leadership capacity. The current accountability system set forth by
local, state, and federal governing bodies has put strain on leaders. To alleviate this pressure,
administrators can develop teacher leadership capacity by forming leadership partnerships with
teachers who hold formal and informal leadership positions. Further, administrators can
relinquish some decision making to developing leaders with expert knowledge and skills
(Lambert, 1998, 2003, 2006). Despite accountability challenges that rest solely on the shoulders
of campus leaders, principals must continue to reflect on their philosophies of developing leaders
around them to maximize everyone’s strengths. Maximizing teacher leaders will contribute to
the school improvement process (Lambert, 1998). The partnership between administrators and
teacher leaders can support a multi-perspective way of thinking between both parties. Teachers
no longer wait on the principal to dictate or identify a solution to a problem; rather, teacher
leaders take the initiative to form new ideas by owning the leadership role, while administrators
respect and trust their teachers’ expertise (Kilbane, 2009).
School leadership offers a platform where professional learning is supported and where a
multitude of skill sets (e.g., leading change, focusing interventions, managing resources,
improving instruction, and analyzing results) originate (Gray & Bishop, 2009). The S.M.A.R.T.
goal school improvement model outlines sustaining teacher leadership capacity and focusing on
the skill development to empower teachers to be purposeful and operative in their leading.
Teacher leaders focus on goals by participating in PLCs, supporting the school mission and
43
beliefs, collaborating by sharing ideas, and reflecting on the goals that have been set in a mutual
capacity. The communal vision held by all administrators and teacher leaders enhances the
sustainment of teacher leadership capacity.
Conzemius and Morganti-Fisher (2012) identified five critical attributes that have a
prevalent bearing on forming successful teams of teachers and administrators to first create and
then sustain teacher leadership capacity. First, team members must acknowledge that they share
accountability equally for the success or failures they may encounter. Next, members commit to
the agreed upon vision and hold that vision as the focus of all decision-making. Then, teachers
and administrators build trust in each other. Administrators must share leadership with teachers,
and teachers must accept leadership opportunities. Finally, professional learning must be a
priority, and administrators and teachers must commit to learn continually through the
S.M.A.R.T. goal process to build teacher leadership capacity.
Administrators support, encourage, foster, and empower teachers to be decision makers
and leaders to achieve school improvement. Ultimately, the concerted efforts of administrators
to develop teacher leadership capacity influences student learning and overall school
achievement (Conzemius & Morganti-Fisher, 2012; O’Neill & Conzemius, 2006). Conzemius
and Morganti-Fisher (2012) noted, “A cornerstone of effective schools is shared leadership.
When a school organization builds teacher leadership capacity, develops trust between
administrators and teachers, monitors progress, and finds common solutions, the result is shared
responsibility, commitment, and accountability for success” (p. 88). King and Bouchard (2011)
acknowledged the power of optimism when building teacher leadership capacity and offered the
hypothesis that “schools with stronger initial levels of capacity are more likely to use reform
44
efforts in a way that furthers capacity” (p. 659). The implied practice of system reform could be
put into place by the S.M.A.R.T. development of teacher leaders.
Teacher Leaders
Various definitions exist in the literature for the concept of teacher leadership and
researchers interpret this concept differently (Muijs, Chapman, & Armstrong, 2013); however,
the most common interpretation includes the formal and informal roles that teachers accept
within the school (Katzenmeyer & Moller, 2009). Historically, researchers have cited teacher
leaders having the ability to influence student learning, model excellence, participate in school
improvement measures, and empower others (Balfanz, MacIver, & Byrnes, 2006; Blank,
Smithson, Porter, Nunnaley, & Osthoff, 2006; Bogler & Somech, 2004; Childs-Bowen, Moller,
& Scrivner, 2000; Katzenmeyer & Moller, 2009; Pustejovsky, Spillane, Heaton, & Lewis, 2009;
Versiland & Jones; 1998). Teacher leaders also serve to necessitate specific actions and promote
schoolwide improvement and community buy-in. This level of commitment enhances within a
teacher leader from inside the classroom to the larger school community (Danielson, 2006;
Katzenmeyer, 2009).
Teacher leaders lead within the realm of their classrooms and contribute to their school
PLCs with the goal of continual school improvement at the forefront of their actions
(Katzenmeyer & Moller, 2009). Scholars through the extensive review of empirical research
have noted that teacher leadership enhances quality and teacher retention (Jackson, Burrus,
Bassett, & Roberts, 2010). Teacher leaders who feel as though their voices are heard and who
share in decision making will remain in the district. School improvement models, such as the
S.M.A.R.T. goal school improvement process, embrace teacher leadership as a vital mechanism
45
for effective schools (Conzemius & Morganti-Fisher, 2012; O’Neill & Conzemius, 2006; York-
Barr & Duke, 2004).
Neither the effects of teacher leadership capacity on campus culture nor the relationship
between the two is explicitly documented in empirical research. However, it is evident that many
returns exist in adopting the teacher leadership development mindset in school organizations
despite teachers’ experience levels (Jackson et al., 2010). For example, Harris and Muijs (2004)
noted that teacher leadership correlates with both overall school improvement and the total
effectiveness of teachers themselves. In their numerous empirical studies, teachers reported a
desire for opportunities to take on leadership roles, even if they were young in their careers and
especially when they were provided abundant support (Harris & Muijs, 2004).
Muijs et al. (2013) analyzed data from a mixed method research design that indicated
teachers early in their careers could be molded into teacher leaders by having the support at the
upper administration level and being given opportunities to lead informally. This ability to
develop teacher leaders could contribute to school improvement efforts, even though most
teachers do not enter the teaching profession with a priority of becoming leaders (Quinn,
Haggard, & Ford 2006). Teachers, regardless of experience level, may want to learn how to be
leaders just as they learned to be teachers. However, not all teachers desire to be teacher leaders,
but the opportunity should not be denied for those with minimal teaching experience.
Encouragement and support cannot occur for teacher leaders without a culture that allows all
interested teachers, regardless of experience, to assume the risk of learning to be leaders (Quinn
et al., 2006).
Roby (2011) conducted a quantitative study in PK-12 schools in rural, suburban, and
urban Ohio to assess 195 teachers working on their master’s degree in educational leadership
46
while teaching full time. The purpose of the study was to measure school culture and teachers’
perceptions of their influence on school culture. Teachers were administered the School Culture
Review. Years of teaching experience were 60% with 1-5 years of experience, 25% with 6-10
years of experience, 14% with 11-20 years of experience, and 1% with 20 or more years of
experience. The data revealed that teaching experience was not a factor in school culture.
Rather, a common vision among teachers and administrators toward the school vision, goals, and
beliefs contributed to school culture (Roby, 2011). These findings support the inclusion of all
teachers when fostering teacher leadership capacity. Further, administrator and district culture
may set the tone for new teachers to embark on the teacher leadership journey.
School culture may be a stimulus to developing teacher leaders or a roadblock for those
interested in pursuing this leadership role in the school system. Often, established boundaries are
difficult to overcome once the culture has been established. The culture of empowerment
created by school leaders should include priorities dedicated to developing leaders within the
organization (Dambe & Moorad, 2008). With the ever-changing dynamics of education and the
demands placed on leaders, everyone’s talents should be accentuated to maximize the skills on
the campus and to improve the school. The principal should use teacher leaders’ knowledge,
skills, and influence for the school improvement process to take hold with fidelity. Teacher
leaders can gain great support from colleagues using the relationships they have formed with
their peers (Danielson, 2006). Culture, whether positive or negative, may thrive because of the
relationships formed between all members of the school, and school improvement measures
could survive or die if the administrator leaves without securing teacher leaders to continue the
mission.
47
Within the school improvement process, leaders need to be cognizant of the influence
that initiatives, programs, and goals have on the school culture. Teacher leaders affect school
culture; therefore, they should be engaged in the cultural shifts of their schools, and their
contribution to the school culture should not be underestimated in comparison to the influence
they have on instruction and student achievement (Roby, 2011). The support of teacher leaders
and the culture to nurture their development continues to be a school improvement measure in
need of further attention.
Developing Teacher Leaders
Developing teacher leaders has emerged in the educational discussion as a possible
solution to support school improvement (Jackson et al., 2010). The National Commission on
Teaching and America’s Future (NCTAF) and the Council for State School Officials have
indirectly implied that teachers should be granted more leadership opportunities. Lillian Lowery,
NCTAF Commissioner and Maryland Superintendent of Schools, credited the efforts dedicated
to multi-level collaboration and the initiatives and opportunities devoted to stimulate capacity
building. The Kansas State Department of Education supported developing teacher leaders by
creating a licensure endorsement for teacher leaders that differs from the traditional track of
leadership associated with teachers becoming campus principals or district administrators
(Jackson et al., 2010). Sharing responsibility requires leaders to include multiple leaders on a
campus; however, teacher leaders must be supported and trained to lead and drive school
improvement.
Center for Teaching Quality President and CEO, Barnett Berry, endorsed teacher and
collective leadership. He noted, “It is time to blur the lines of distinction between those who
teach and those who lead” (Center for Teacher Quality, 2012, para. 1). In 2008, an assembly of
48
educators with the Center for Teacher Quality discussed strategies to recognize and promote
teacher leadership. This gathering of teachers, administrators, policy organizations, higher
education, and teacher unions evolved into the philosophy of the Teacher Leader Model
Standards. These standards are broad domains that centralize the overarching dimensions of
teacher leadership and describe the knowledge and skills that pinpoint teacher leaders. The
standards also offer suggestions and various approaches of implementation for school districts
(Learning Forward, 2011).
The Teacher Leader Model Standards include magnifying teachers’ roles, but not forcing
a decision between acting solely as a teacher or as a leader. The hybrid situation for teachers
allows them to serve in both capacities. Support systems that provide time for teacher leaders to
collaborate with administrators and problem solve with different stakeholders of the school
organization magnify the professional growth of all parties. Further, preparation is a key for
teacher leaders in new positions where new responsibilities rise to the surface; in these situations,
teacher leaders are made, not born. Recognizing and encouraging teacher leader development is
critical to establishing and sustaining teacher capacity building (Jochim & Murphy, 2013).
Researchers have identified numerous teacher leader skills and traits that culminate into
the following categories:
 Work ethic: Ability to persevere, create resources, be action-oriented, advocate
passionately about education, and commit to the school improvement journey in a
school system (York-Barr & Duke, 2004).
 Teamwork: Ability to build consensus among a multitude of school constituents and
form solid, trustworthy relationships (York-Barr & Duke, 2004).
 Leadership: Ability to communicate the school goals and mission (Danielson, 2006).
49
 Openness: Ability to explore all options to gain the correct information and applicable
resources to improve the school (York-Barr & Duke, 2004) and to do so with the
flexibility to adapt and adjust when necessary (Danielson, 2006).
 Vision: Ability to envision the big picture of the school improvement process and
take advantage of opportunities to foster problem solving and collaboration (York-
Barr & Duke, 2004).
 Positive affect: Ability to display optimism, confidence, and enthusiasm, and to
model those behaviors for others when solving problems or leading collaborative
efforts in the school improvement process (Danielson, 2006).
 Risk taking: Ability to accept challenges and try new initiatives, even at the risk of
failing while maintaining a hopeful outlook on the school improvement process
(Danielson, 2006).
 Teaching: Ability to teach others regarding the skills needed for the forward
movement of school improvement (Katzenmeyer & Moller, 2009).
The various development techniques for teacher leaders may be due to the ambiguity of
how to support teacher leaders in their growth (Berry, 2014). Markow, Macia, and Lee (2013)
surveyed 50 administrators from 30 different school districts that had been awarded grants to
foster teacher leadership in over 500 identified teacher leaders. Administrators indicated
uncertainty in using teacher leaders in nontraditional roles (e.g., team leader, department chair,
instructional coach). Few participating administrators understood how to sustain those
leadership roles after the grant funding ended. Further, administrators did not acknowledge how
teachers could lead other teachers in a way that did not take them out of their classroom. This
50
lack of knowledge may indicate why building leadership capacity is not done through the venue
of developing teacher leaders (Berry, 2014).
To support the growth and advancement of teacher leaders, it is essential that
administrators could design, assign, and implement professional learning to allow teacher leaders
to reflect on their respective leadership qualities (Conzemius & Morganti-Fisher, 2012). Desired
professional learning could exist in job-embedded professional development arenas. According
to Webster-Wright (2009), “To gain further insights to enhance support for professionals as they
learn, there is a need to understand more about how professionals continue to learn through their
working lives” (p. 75). Administrators and district officials can adopt the PLC philosophy and
mold it to support teacher leadership development.
The paradigm shift of administrators accepting responsibility for creating more teacher
leaders could conceivably evolve as much as other trends in education. This shift will be from
the customary administrator’s lack of action to capitalize on teachers’ strengths and teachers not
making decisions until given directives from the administrator (Kamarazuman, Kareem, Khuan,
Awang, & Yunus, 2011), to one in which the administrator supports a culture that values
teachers’ talents and recognizes the leadership potential in all teachers (Katzenmeyer & Moller,
2009, p. 3). The progressive mind shift and change of philosophy that administrators assume
will assist could perhaps assist in the partnership of accountability by leading alongside new
teacher leaders (Blanchard, 2008). This supportive philosophy to help teacher leaders evolve
will serve as a resource for change and school improvement (Conzemius & Morganti-Fisher,
2012; Markow, Macia, & Lee, 2013; O’Neill & Conzemius, 2006).
The Center for Teacher Leadership in the Virginia Commonwealth University School of
Education acknowledged teacher leader training as an indicator of successful teacher leader

51
development (National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future, 1996). Teachers from 37
states were surveyed, and 82% of respondents reported they lacked training for the new teacher
leadership roles that they were asked to assume (National Commission on Teaching & America’s
Future, 1996). Over 21 years ago, teacher leader development was recognized to have a great
effect on an entire organization and on the personal fulfillment of teachers regarding the personal
gains that could be obtained in professional growth (National Commission on Teaching &
America’s Future, 1996).
Refining teacher leadership development will allow teachers to commit to the never-
ending learning of leadership with the total school improvement process in mind (Fullan, 1994).
As a result, the convention of developing teacher leaders requires a deeper understanding of the
change process, greater responsibility of ownership of the decisions made, and confidence to
challenge colleagues to take part in the same professional transformation. Similarly, as teachers
evolve into leaders, they see a larger picture of the school improvement process and view
outcomes differently because of the collaborative decision making process (Katzenmeyer &
Moller, 2009).
Summary
The commitment to teacher leadership capacity is embedded in the culture of a school
district (Lambert, 2000). School improvement models provide a framework to develop and
sustain teacher leadership capacity. The S.M.A.R.T goal school improvement model is a
comprehensive and practical educational model designed to change the culture of a school
organization by building teacher leadership capacity (Conzemius & Morganti-Fisher, 2012;
O’Neill & Conzemius, 2006). Specifically, the S.M.A.R.T goal framework consists of
52
reflection, collaboration, and focus grounded in an environment of PLCs that foster teachers’
leadership skills beyond the classroom.
Collaboration, shared-decision making, and goal setting take place between
administrators and teachers during a time devoted to professional learning and teacher leadership
development. Leadership opportunities arise in the PLC to allow teacher leaders to contribute to
the school improvement process and to school culture. A PLC that shares leadership between
administrators and teacher leaders will demonstrate signs of school improvement through
cultural collegial gains and student achievement (DuFour, 2014).
School culture can serve to promote or hinder teacher leadership development (Mullen &
Jones, 2008). Specifically, administrators and teacher leaders affect school culture, which
includes the daily routines of collaboration and professional learning that are driven by leaders of
the school organization. Therefore, administrators and teacher leaders must take responsibility
for changes in cultural shifts such as a dedication to the development of teacher leadership
capacity as sustainable endeavors (DuFour et al., 2008).
Teacher leadership capacity can be modeled after developing strategic plans to maintain
the established legacy and tradition of excellence (Bleak, 2012). School organizations can also
build teacher leaders from the teaching staff so a pause in school improvement does not occur
because of an intermission or change in administrative leadership (Dinham & Crowther, 2011).
Building teacher leadership capacity cannot flourish without the allegiance and support of the
campus administration. The administrator must believe in the teacher leadership process, form
trusting relationships with teacher leaders, and relinquish total control of decision making on
campus (Slater, 2008).

53
Transformational leadership characteristics are found among administrators who build
teacher leadership capacity. Administrators who adopt the transformational leadership style of
school leadership share the decision making responsibilities with teachers, allow teachers to take
responsibility in school improvement efforts, and encourage teachers to lead (Dambe & Moorad,
2008). Teacher and administrator collaboration cannot be isolated efforts; rather, teachers and
administrators learn and lead together during the school improvement process and interchange
the leading and learning roles. The social environment set in PLCs also stimulates teacher
leaders and administrators to analyze and reflect on dialogue and discourse, which foster the
sustainability of teacher leadership capacity (Grandin, 2006; Hutchings, 2009; Lambert, 2003).
Once leaders are established, the capacity of teacher leadership must be sustained.
Shared beliefs regarding teacher leadership capacity will continue with fidelity and will
overshadow continual changes in mandated programmatic systems within the school
organization (Duze, 2012). Sustaining teacher leadership capacity is nested in teachers being
offered opportunities to exhibit leadership skills alongside their administrators.
Building teacher leadership capacity can be achieved by acknowledging formal and
informal leadership roles that teachers assume within a school district (Katzenmeyer & Moller,
2009). Teacher leaders promote schoolwide improvement regardless of a formal title or
experience (Jackson et al., 2009; Katzenmeyer & Moller, 2009; Muijs & Harris, 2007; Quinn &
Haggard, 2006). Additionally, teacher quality and retention increases when teachers take on
leadership roles in a school organization (Jackson et al., 2010); therefore, the hindrance of any
teacher who desires to be a teacher leader should be alleviated.
Total school improvement is positively affected by teacher leadership capacity and
school culture (Harris & Muijs, 2007; Roby, 2011) with the support of administrators who
54
implement school improvement model to guide the process (Conzemius & Morganti-Fisher,
2012; O’Neill & Conzemius, 2003). The relationship between building teacher leadership
capacity and campus culture continues to be a needed area of empirical research.

55
Chapter 3
METHOD OF PROCEDURE
East Texas school district. The selected school Board of Education had approved goals to
develop teacher leadership capacity among the staff and to create a culture of trust, respect, and
dignity. The school district was chosen because of its implementation of the S.M.A.R.T. (S =
specific, M = measurable, A = attainable, R = results-based, T = time bound) goal school
improvement model designed to build leadership capacity through focus, collaboration, and
reflection (O’Neill & Conzemius, 2006).
The collection and analysis of quantitative data followed by the collection and analysis of
qualitative data were central factors in the researcher’s choice of the explanatory sequential
mixed methods research design. The qualitative results aided in both the explanation and
interpretation of the quantitative findings. The strengths of the quantitative and qualitative
research designs were capitalized through the explanatory sequential mixed methods design.
The findings from the quantitative data allowed the researcher to construct generalizations
whereas the qualitative findings offered more in depth detail from the individual participants’
perceptions (Creswell, 2014). The researcher chose the explanatory sequential mixed methods
design because it provided a more inclusive overview of the relationship between building
teacher leadership capacity and campus culture compared to solely researching the identified
problem through a quantitative or qualitative research design. This chapter includes a
description of the study design, instrumentation, sample selection, data gathering, and treatment
56
of data. Each section is organized according to the phase of the explanatory sequential mixed
methods study.
The researcher addressed the following research questions and hypotheses:
leadership capacity and the dimensions of campus culture for teachers and administrators with 1-
5 years of experience?

57
capacity?
Design of the Study
The researcher conducted an explanatory sequential mixed methods design using two
data collection methods. Data collection and analysis were conducted sequentially to triangulate
findings from multiple numeric and textual data sources to answer the research questions. The
mixed methods design provided the descriptive richness from the focus group interviews and the
58
precision of statistical testing from the surveys (Castro, Kellison, Boyd, & Kopek, 2011). To test
the hypotheses, the researcher used a quantitative research method to include an unambiguous
measurement for teacher leadership capacity and campus culture. The strengths of the
qualitative design were applied to generate detailed accounts of participants’ experiences of
teacher leadership capacity and campus culture in a natural setting that might not have been
captured on fixed scales and that provided additional verification of the qualitative data.
The researcher conducted the study in two phases to explore the relationship between
building teacher leadership capacity and campus culture. In Phase I, the researcher collected
quantitative data using two survey instruments, the Leadership Capacity School Survey (LCSS)
and the School Climate Assessment Instrument (SCAI) to address Research Questions 1a-1d. In
Phase II, qualitative data were collected through focus group interviews to address Research
Questions 2 and 3.
In Phase II, qualitative data were collected by interviewing two focus groups to gain a
deeper understanding of participants’ perceptions of building teacher leadership capacity and
campus culture. The researcher created the focus group interview protocol based on the LCSS,
SCAI, S.M.A.R.T. goal school improvement model, and the literature cited in Chapter 2 on the
theoretical frameworks of building teacher leadership capacity and campus culture. These
resources encompassed multiple aspects directly linked to building teacher leadership capacity
and campus culture and provided a structure for the researcher to develop focus group questions
to better understand and explain the quantitative results of Phase I. The researcher developed 16
open-ended questions for the focus group interviews.
The quantitative and qualitative data complemented each other to offer a greater depth of
understanding of the relationship between building teacher leadership capacity and campus
59
culture. The researcher first gathered and analyzed quantitative data in Phase I to determine
whether a statistically significant relationship existed between teacher leadership capacity and
campus culture. One week later, the researcher then collected and analyzed qualitative data in
Phase II from focus group interviews to gain a better understanding of participants’ perceptions
of teacher leadership capacity and campus culture (Creswell, 2014; Shank, 2006). Figure 2
outlines the design of the study (Castro et al., 2011).
Figure 2. Flow chart depicting the explanatory sequential mixed methods research design
(adapted from Castro et al., 2011).
The two data-collection phases allowed the researcher to gather rich information using
the strengths of both the qualitative and quantitative research designs, rather than relying on one
source from which to collect data (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003). The rich data collected in this
study would not have been possible if quantitative or qualitative designs were used in isolation
(Creswell, 2014; Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003). Further, the
researcher used the explanatory sequential mixed methods design to triangulate data from the
LCSS, SCAI, and focus group interviews to offer substantive evidence from multiple data
60
sources. Triangulation for validity allowed the researcher to follow a systematic process to mix
data sources to explore the relationship between building teacher leadership capacity and campus
culture, and to answer the research questions.
The quantitative method used in Phase I provided the researcher with data to analyze to
either accept or reject the null hypotheses for Research Questions 1a-d. In Phase I, canonical
correlational analysis (CCA) was used to examine the relationship between two sets of variables:
building teacher leadership capacity and campus culture. The CCA is a quantitative analysis that
examines the relationship between two sets of data variables and determines the amount of
shared variance between the two. The CCA was chosen to determine whether a significant
statistical relationship existed between building teacher leadership capacity and campus culture.
Data for the CCA were obtained from the LCSS and SCAI surveys.
The CCA and descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation) prompted a closer
examination of teachers’ and administrators’ perceptions of building teacher leadership capacity
and campus culture. The mean scores and descriptive statistics for each dimension of the LCSS
and SCAI were analyzed in Phase I of the mixed methods design. The results of the statistical
analysis gave the researcher a broad understanding of the relationship between building teacher
leadership capacity and campus culture (Creswell, 2014; Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007).
The qualitative method in Phase II allowed the researcher to examine participants’
attitudes and feelings of building teacher leadership capacity and campus culture at a deeper
level to answer Research Questions 2 and 3 (Creswell, 2014; Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007).
The data obtained from the Phase II focus group interviews provided the researcher with insight
into participants’ motivations, opinions, and beliefs about teacher leadership capacity and
campus culture. These views were not captured in the quantitative data collection in Phase I.
61
The researcher chose the focus group setting because invited participants shared vital
commonalities even though age, experience, ethnicity, gender, or job responsibility may have
differed. The focus groups were comprised of participants who served in comparable positions;
therefore, administrators and teachers were not in the same group. The researcher opted for the
natural environment of focus group interviews over a one-on-one interview because of its
similarity to real life discussions in which people have the ability to influence or be influenced
by others (Krueger & Casey, 2015). The researcher developed 16 open-ended questions based
on the LCSS, SCAI, S.M.A.R.T. goal school improvement model, and the conceptual
frameworks discussed in Chapter 2. The order of the questions was arranged from general
questions about building teacher leadership capacity and campus culture to more specific
questions about these variables. Questions were presented in a logical, pre-determined sequence.
The researcher used axial coding to analyze the qualitative data obtained during the focus
group interviews. Specifically, interview data were analyzed to identify similarities, differences,
themes, and subordinate themes. The researcher color-coded the questions and responses
including common vocabulary, phrases, and ideas expressed about leadership capacity and
culture for both focus groups (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Axial coding was used to reduce the
quantity of qualitative data, and codes included teacher leadership capacity and campus culture.
Codes were assigned to chunks of data in the transcripts from both focus groups that included
words, phrases, and sentences. The researcher sorted the color-coded responses, quotes,
similarities, and differences and transferred them onto a matrix to identify emerging and
subordinate themes (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Rows and columns on the matrix provided the
researcher a framework for words, quotes, and reflections identified from the transcripts. The
62
S.M.A.R.T. goal framework and dimensions from the SCAI and LCSS gave rise to the structure
of the matrix bin labels (see Appendix H).
Instrumentation
The researcher used two surveys in Phase I of the quantitative data collection: SCAI with
31 questions and the LCSS with 30 questions (see Appendices C and D). In Phase II, the
researcher used a focus group protocol with two separate focus groups. The researcher
developed the focus group protocol with 16 open-ended questions related directly to the
theoretical frameworks of building teacher leadership capacity and culture and the results of the
SCAI and LCSS surveys. The interview questions were also designed to connect to the literature
cited in Chapter 2 and the S.M.A.R.T. goal school improvement model.
School Climate Assessment Instrument (SCAI)
The Alliance for the Study of School Climate carefully designed the questions and
statements on the SCAI to gather a broad range of indispensable qualities of the school campus
(Alliance for the Study of School Climate, 2011). The number of questions for each dimension
on the SCAI instrument is intended to provide enough information to indicate the quality of the
school climate and provide the school with a detailed understanding of the organizational
function, health, and performance. Each dimension on the SCAI is supported theoretically
through the definition of school climate as “the perceptions and practical realities of those within
a school as a result of everything that happens within that school” (Alliance for the Study of
School Climate, 2011, para. 1). The items in each dimension are based on Shindler et al.’s
(2009) constructs, which include (a) mastery-orientation versus helpless orientation related to
self-efficacy, (b) degree of sense of belonging and acceptance, and (c) internal versus external
locus of control.
63
The SCAI full survey includes eight dimensions with 79 questions that address
appearance and physical plant, faculty relations, student interactions, leadership and decision-
making, discipline environment, learning and assessment, attitude and culture, and school-
community relations. For this study, the researcher purposefully chose three dimensions from
eight dimensions of the SCAI: faculty relations (10 items), leadership/decisions (11 items), and
attitude/culture (10 items). These dimensions were selected because of their alignment with the
LCSS dimensions and the S.M.A.R.T. goal school improvement model components
(collaboration, reflection, and focus) that the chosen district had adopted.
The faculty relations dimension was designed to assess how staff members relate to each
other and how their relationships with each other affected school climate. The researcher chose
this dimension because it precisely targets staff collaboration, capacity of interaction, common
purpose on campus, and how staff responsibilities are created, delegated, and performed. The
leadership/decisions dimension examines how decision-making protocols on campus function,
how administrative leadership is established, and how campus culture is affected, if at all, by the
collective decisions made. This dimension also examines the common vision, quality of
leadership on campus, and its effects on campus culture. The attitude and culture dimension
examines existing attitudes and relationships on campus, including staff ownership and pride
related to campus culture.
The meaningful definition of school climate on the SCAI is congruent with the
researcher’s chosen definition of school culture. The purpose of the SCAI design is to provide a
mirror for school districts to assess the overall climate of the school closely by gathering data on
teachers’ and administrators’ perceptions. The SCAI allows a school organization to self-reflect
and assess the state of its culture to make informed decisions of future goals (Alliance for the
64
Study of School Climate, 2011). Permission to use the SCAI surveys was obtained from
Shindler (see Appendix A).
The researcher did not alter Schindler’s intent of the survey by including only these three
dimensions. The SCAI design allows the examination of each dimension independently because
the instrument is reliable and participants’ recognize similar conditions that exist on campus
within each dimension (Alliance for the Study of School Climate, 2014). The SCAI dimensions
are also interrelated to allow a closer examination of each dimension to identify connections
(Alliance for the Study of School Climate, 2014). All questions are structured using a Likert
scale based on choice of actions. Each dimension ranges from 1 = accidental actions, 3 = semi-
intentional actions, and 5 = intentional actions (see Appendix B).
The SCAI reliability, as measured by the Cronbach’s alpha, is 0.97 for the full survey
(Alliance for the Study of School Climate, 2011). In addition, each dimension of the SCAI is
reliable based on the following Cronbach’s alphas: faculty relations = 0.88, leadership/decisions
= 0.96; and attitude/culture = 0.88. Though the dimensions are separate, they are interrelated and
follow the definition of climate, which is outlined in the research as everything that happens
within a school (Shindler et al., 2009). Therefore, SCAI dimensions provide a valid measure of
school climate. Face validity of the SCAI includes an accurate analysis of what actually occurs
on a school campus and includes characteristics of an effective school. Each dimension of the
SCAI is based on the Psychology of Success (POS), a psychological construct, and can predict
school effectiveness; therefore, construct validity is grounded in the POS (Alliance for the Study
of School Climate, 2011).

65
Leadership Capacity School Survey (LCSS)
The LCSS evaluates a variety of leadership dispositions, knowledge, and skills necessary
to build teacher leadership capacity in school organizations as well as the presence of leadership
currently in a school (Lambert, 1998; 2003). The researcher chose the LCSS because of its
specificity of questions and statements concerning the variables of teacher leadership capacity
and its congruence to the selected SCAI dimensions and the S.M.A.R.T. goal school
improvement framework components (collaboration, reflection, and focus).
Lambert (2003) branded six qualities of a school that demonstrate the utmost level of
leadership capacity. Schools characterized by a high level of leadership had staff with high skills
and participation in the general functioning of the school. Schools that demonstrate a high level
of teacher leadership capacity had teachers who lead the school in its transformational school
improvement efforts (Lambert, 1998; Schlechty, 2001). Lambert designated these six qualities
of leadership capacity as the six LCSS dimensions containing 30 questions. Researchers in the
United States and other countries have used the LCSS as a self-assessment tool to assess the
presence of the leadership capacity phenomenon by gaining insight into school staff (Lambert,
1998, 2003).
The face validity of the LCSS was measured by the number of times the instrument has
been used as a self-assessment since its creation in 1998 and its revision in 2003. At the time of
Lambert’s (1998) initial research, empirical studies had not arrived at consensus on the definition
of leadership. Lambert suggested in her 1998 study, “leadership is about learning together,
constructing meaning and knowledge collectively and collaboratively” (p. 5) and capacity
building “includes the usefulness of building an infrastructure of support that is aligned with the
work of the school” (p.11).

66
Pierce (2007) modified the LCSS into a shorter form that rephrased statements in the
dimensions to make them more succinct. The LCSS with 30 items is divided into the six
dimensions with a reported Cronbach’s alpha of 0.97. The researcher used Pierce’s modified
form for this study. The 30 questions on the LCSS are clustered into six dimensions that exhibit
high leadership capacity (Lambert, 1998; see Appendix C). The six dimensions and the number
of questions for each dimension included were as follows:
1. Broad-based, skillful participation in the work of leadership (7 Questions)
2. Shared vision resulting in program coherence (4 Questions)
3. Inquiry-based use of information to inform decisions and practice (5 Questions)
4. Roles and responsibilities that reflect broad involvement, collaboration, and collective
responsibility (4 Questions)
5. Reflective practice/innovation as the norm (5 Questions)
6. High or steadily improving student achievement and development (5 Questions)
(Lambert, 2003)
Items are scored using a 5-point Likert scale in which mean scores are calculated for each
dimension for each participant. The five response choices on the LCSS include: 1 = We do not
do this at our school, 2 = We are starting to move in this direction, 3 = We are making good
progress here, 4 = We have this condition well established, 5 = We are refining our practice in
this area. The researcher chose the LCSS because of its specificity, succinctness, and clarity of
the questions, as well as the common vocabulary with the SCAI and the S.M.A.R.T. goal school
improvement model. Permission to use the survey was obtained from Lambert (see Appendix
A).
67
Focus Group Protocol
The researchers used a semi-structured interview design for the teacher and administrator
focus groups to pursue questions that transpired from the conversation between the researcher
and participants (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003). The researcher developed open-ended focus
group questions for teachers and administrators to elicit their perceptions of teacher leadership
capacity and campus culture based on the overarching concepts found on the LCSS and SCAI
survey dimensions, S.M.A.R.T. goal school improvement model, and the literature. Questions
were organized around the two theoretical frameworks of teacher leadership capacity and
campus culture (see Appendix F). The 16 focus group protocol questions were the same for both
the teacher and administrator groups. The researcher developed these questions so teachers and
administrators could answer from their professional experiences of district efforts to build
teacher leadership capacity and campus culture. Questions were aligned with the theoretical
framework approved by Texas A&M University-Commerce Internal Review Board.
Focus groups with teachers and administrators were conducted separately to understand,
compare, and contrast the perceptions of teachers and administrators. The characteristics of the
two focus groups were similar in job responsibilities (administrative or teaching) that aligned
with the variables of building teacher leadership capacity and campus culture. The teachers were
not included in the group with the administrators so they did not feel pressure to answer more
positively because of the evaluative role administrators have in the district. Likewise, the
administrators could freely express their opinions.
Sample Selection
The sample for the study was a suburban East Texas school district in which the Board of
Education had approved goals that included creating a culture of trust, respect, and dignity, and
68
developing teacher leadership capacity among the staff. This purposefully selected school
district implemented the S.M.A.R.T. (S = specific, M = measurable, A = attainable, R = results-
based, T = time bound) goal school improvement model designed to build capacity
systematically through focus, collaboration, and reflection (O’Neill & Conzemius, 2006). The
school district has fostered a systemic commitment to the S.M.A.R.T. goal school improvement
model since 2008 by providing various teacher leadership opportunities, professional learning
resources, and central office support to target student achievement and create a positive culture.
All stakeholders in the school system, including paraprofessionals, teachers, administrators, and
the Board of Education, used the S.M.A.R.T. goal framework; therefore, the systemic design
encouraged fidelity.
The selected district invested in continuous improvement by providing tools, support, and
resources to encourage leadership development (Conzemius & Morganti-Fisher, 2012; O’Neill &
Conzemius, 2006). All teachers and administrators of the selected district were trained in the
processes and framework of the S.M.A.R.T. goal school improvement model as part of their
employment, and they received continuous job-embedded professional development throughout
the school year as scheduled annually on the district professional development calendar.
The chosen school district was the largest of the seven school districts in the county and
generational poverty was apparent in the town as it contributed to the 66.6% of students
qualifying as low socioeconomic status (TEA, 2014). The school district composed of four Title
I campuses (elementary PK-4, intermediate 5-6, junior high 7-8, and high school 9-12) that
served approximately 2500 students. The student demographic make-up of the district was as
follows: 14% African American, 15.5% Hispanic, 64.6% White, .7% American Indian, .6%
69
Asian, and 3.8% two or more races (TEA, 2014). The selected school district employed
approximately 200 teachers and 12 campus administrators.
Phase I Sample Selection
The researcher used convenience sampling to identify certified teachers and
administrators employed in the district in 2014–2015 as potential subjects in the study. The
sample size in this quantitative data collection phase included 98 certified teachers and six
certified administrators for a total of 104 participants. The response rate for Phase I was 74%.
A total of 104 participants, including six administrators and 98 teachers with experience
ranging from 1 year to 17+ years in education completed the surveys for Phase I of the data
collection. Among the total sample, 75.24% (n = 78) were female and 24.76% (n = 26) were
male. Experience among teachers was as follows: 30.8% (n = 32) had 1-5 years of teaching
experience, 38.4% (n = 40) had 6-16 years of teaching experience, and 30.81% (n = 32) had 17+
years of teaching experience. Among administrators, 17% (n = 1) had 1-5 years of experience,
50% (n = 3) had 6-16 years of experience, and 33% (n = 2) had 17+ years of experience.
The teacher group represented the content areas of self-contained, math, English,
language arts, science, social studies, or electives. Many teachers (n = 18) within the suburban
East Texas school district had multiple teaching assignments; therefore, some participants
indicated more than one content area. Each content area was represented with the greatest
percentage (33.3%, n = 35) teaching Math. The content area with the lowest participation was
electives (18.10%, n = 19).
Two demographic questions gathered participants’ campus assignments and highest
degree earned in addition to gender and years of experience. Of the 104 participants, 100% had
earned bachelor degrees, 25.7% (n = 27) had master’s degrees, and 1% (n = 1) had a doctorate.
70
Participants indicated their campus assignments as elementary (PK-6; 33.33%, n = 35),
secondary (7-12; 49.5%, n = 51), or both campuses (17.15%, n = 18). All participants had the
option of indicating on their informed consent if they were willing to participate in the focus
groups for Phase II of the study.
Phase II Sample Selection
Teachers and administrators who voluntarily indicated their interest on the surveys in
participating in a focus group were included as possible participants for Phase II. Thirty-seven
teachers and seven administrators indicated willingness to participate in the focus groups. Each
consent form had a number assigned to it. The researcher collected the printed numbers from
participants who expressed interest in the focus group and entered them into an online random
number generator to create a list of possible teacher and administrator participants. This process
was repeated for the seven numbers from administrators’ consent forms. The random number
generator served as a purposeful random sampling method to add credibility based on the initial
sample collected in the quantitative data gathering. The first seven teachers and five
administrators were then contacted to participate in the focus group interviews. The researcher
followed Krueger and Casey’s (2015) recommendation for five to eight participants in the focus
groups. The selected teachers and administrators were contacted to confirm their participation in
the focus group interviews. All participants and the selected school district were given
pseudonyms to protect their identities.
A total of five administrators participated in the focus group interview. The years of
experience for administrators ranged from 1 to 15 years of experience. Three administrators
served at the elementary level and two served at the secondary level during 2014–2015. The
following section details participants’ demographics. Teachers’ experience ranged from 2-31
71
years. Seven teachers were randomly chosen from those who took the surveys and who agreed
to participate in the focus group interview; however, 30 minutes prior to beginning the teacher
focus group interview, one teacher had to withdraw due to an unforeseen event. Therefore, six
teachers comprised the focus group. Three of the six taught at the elementary level and three at
the secondary level during 2014–2015 at the chosen school district. To protect participants’
identities, the researcher assigned each participant the letter and a number: A to indicate
administrator and T to indicate teacher.
A1 was an elementary administrator during the 2014–2015 school year and had been
employed by the district for 3 years. A1 had administrative experience at both the elementary
and secondary levels, though the secondary experience was in another school district.
A2 was a secondary administrator during the 2014–2015 school year and had been with
the district for 11 years. A2 served as an elementary administrator for 1 of the 11 years in the
district. The other 10 years were in a teacher capacity at the secondary level in the same district.
Therefore, A2 had experience and perceptions of the district at both the teacher and administrator
levels.
A3 was an elementary administrator during 2014–2015 year and had served in that
capacity for 3 years. Prior to becoming an administrator, A3 was an elementary teacher in the
district for 10 years.
A4 was an elementary administrator during the 2014–2015 school year and had served in
that role for 4 years. Prior to becoming an elementary administrator, A4 was an elementary
teacher for 18 years, all of which had been in the district.

72
A5 was a secondary administrator during the 2014–2015 school year and had been with
the district for 9 years. Two of the 9 years were in the capacity of administrator at the secondary
level.
T1 was an elementary self-contained teacher who had been with the district for 5 years
and had a total of 8 years of teaching experience. T1 did not have an assigned or formal
leadership role, such as grade level leader, team leader, or grade level facilitator, during the
2014–2015 school year.
T2 was an elementary English language arts (ELA) teacher who had been with the district
for 2 years. T2 had the least amount of teaching experience. T2 did not have an assigned or
formal leadership role of grade level leader, team leader, or grade level facilitator on the
elementary campus during the 2014–2015 school year.
T3 was an elementary ELA teacher who had been with the district for 5 years. T3 had 31
years of teaching experience all at the elementary level. T3 held different roles at other school
districts. T3 did not have an assigned or formal leadership role of grade level leader, team
leader, or grade level facilitator on the elementary campus during the 2014–2015 school year.
T4 was a secondary ELA teacher who had been with the district for 16 years. T4 had 16
years of teaching experience all at the secondary level in the district. T4 held an assigned or
formal leadership role as a team leader or department head for a grade level on the secondary
campus during the 2014–2015 school year.
T5 was a secondary science teacher who had been with the district for 4 years. T5 had 4
years of teaching experience. T5’s first 2 years were at the elementary level in the district and
the last 2 years at the secondary level. T5 did not have an assigned or formal leadership role of
73
grade level leader, team leader, or grade level facilitator on the elementary campus during the
2014–2015 school year.
T6 was a secondary math teacher who had been with the district for 6 years. T6 had 6
years of teaching experience all at the secondary level in the district. T6 had an assigned or
formal leadership role as department head on the secondary campus during the 2014–2015
school year.
Data Gathering
Phase I
The LCSS and SCAI were used to collect quantitative data for Phase I regarding
participants’ perceptions of the conceptual frameworks of teacher leadership capacity and
campus culture. Prospective participants (n = 140) received the quantitative LCSS and SCAI
instruments at the conclusion of the district back-to-school convocation in August 2015. The
researcher was included on the convocation agenda to explain the purpose of the research to all
potential participants and to discuss the content of the informed consent form. The researcher
explained that a participant could choose to stop participation in the study at any time and his or
her anonymity would be protected to the fullest extent possible and would be kept confidential.
The researcher provided a room and refreshments in the same building for interested participants
to sign up and complete a hard copy of the SCAI and LCSS surveys after the researcher finished
the explanation of the study. Transition time was allowed to ensure that participants had the
opportunity to relocate to the designated room in the building or go to their campuses. The room
location allowed each teacher and administrator the opportunity to remain anonymous to others
who chose not to participate in the study.

74
Phase II
After the researcher collected the LCSS and SCAI surveys, she entered the numbers from
the consent forms of those who expressed interest in participating in the focus group interviews
into a computer-generated database that randomly created lists of all teachers and all
administrators. Krueger and Casey (2015) suggested a sample size of five to eight participants
for focus groups. This group size allowed each participant a fair opportunity to express his or
her opinion and was large enough to provide diversity in the conversation. The first seven
teacher participants and the first five administrator participants listed from the random number
generator were chosen to participate in the focus group interviews. The teacher pool of
interested participants was much larger than the administrator pool; therefore, the researcher
decided to have the administrator participant number at the low end of the recommended size for
focus groups and the teacher group at the high end.
The researcher explained the purpose of the focus group to those who chose to participate
in Phase I. The researcher explained what would be involved, the time commitment required, the
time and the location of the focus group interviews, and the purpose of the study as written on
the signed consent form. The administrator and teacher focus group interviews were held
approximately one week after the Phase I data collection. The two focus group interviews were
held on separate days. The teacher focus group interview lasted approximately one hour and ten
minutes and the administrator focus group lasted approximately one hour and twenty minutes;
focus groups were held outside of the school day at an office centrally located in the district.
No one was in the building at the time of the focus group interviews except the
participants and the researcher. The room in which focus group interviews were held had a
round conference table that allowed the participants and researcher to sit facing each other in a
75
non-threatening position and permitted participants to hear one another’s responses and join in
the discussion easily. Prior to both focus group sessions, participants were provided Subway®
boxed meals at the researcher’s expense because the interviews were held at the end of the
school day. All participants were given a list of the questions as they sat down at the conference
table as a way to create rapport and to ease their anxiety. Participants were reminded of their
right to choose not to answer any question or to withdraw from the study at any time.
Because participants knew each other and heard other’s comments in the focus group
interviews, the researcher explained the importance of maintaining confidentiality and
anonymity. Every effort was taken to ensure confidentiality and anonymity among participants.
Participants were given a pseudonym to ensure anonymity in the findings of the study and the
researcher reminded the participants to respect the confidentiality of everyone in the group. The
researcher confidentially held comments and experiences shared during data collection and
reporting. During the study, all data were secured at the researcher’s personal residence.
Following the defense, data will be secured in the dissertation chairs’ office for 3 years.
The researcher audiotaped the focus group interviews using an Olympus VN-7200 digital
voice recorder and transcribed each focus group interview verbatim. Within 2 weeks after
transcribing the interviews, participants were provided the script from their respective focus
group to review for accuracy of content. No changes were recommended by the teacher and
administrator focus groups after review. The researcher assigned pseudonyms to the
transcriptions and direct quotes used in the findings. Only the researcher knew to whom the
quotes belonged, which served to protect the anonymity of participants and the district (Glaser &
Strauss, 1967; Patton, 2002).

76
Incentives
According to Dillman (2000), the use of incentives improves response rates. A pencil
valued at 25 cents was included in the survey packet, and all participants were provided
refreshments, compliments of the researcher, as appreciation for their time and effort (Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2010; Jacob, Gueguen, & Boulbry, 2015; Krueger &
Casey, 2015; Singer, 2012). These incentives may have favorably influenced participants’
responses and could be a limitation to the study. Teachers and administrators who agreed to
participate in the surveys were also entered into a drawing to win one of five $25 gift cards
purchased by the researcher. The drawing for the gift cards was done at the end of the day after
surveys were collected. In addition, those who agreed to participate in the focus group
interviews were entered into a drawing to win one of three $50 gift cards purchased by the
researcher. The drawing for these gift cards was done the day after the administration of the
surveys.
Treatment of Data
Survey Data Analysis-Phase I
Canonical correlational analysis (CCA) is an appropriate analysis to examine the
relationship between two sets of variables (Sherry & Henson, 2005). The purpose of the CCA is
to yield the largest possible correlation between two synthetic variables. Thus, the researcher
created linear equations for each synthetic variable. Additionally, the CCA uses a Pearson r,
called the canonical correlation, and the analysis of the correlation of variables is called a
canonical function or variates. Therefore, the researcher conducted a CCA to determine whether
statistically significant relationships existed between the variables of building teacher leadership
capacity and campus culture.

77
The CCA provided the researcher the shared variance of building teacher leadership
capacity and campus culture for all participants (n = 104). The CCA was also the appropriate
analysis for the four subquestions within Research Question 1, as it calculated the shared
variance between building teacher leadership capacity and campus culture for four groups of
teachers with different ranges of experience. The following ranges of experience were identified
in the subquestions: Group 1 (n = 32) had 1-5 years of experience, Group 2 (n = 40) had 6-16
years of experience, and Group 3 (n = 32) had 17+ years of experience.
It was not necessary to identify one variable set as the predictor and the other as the
criterion (Weiss & Houser, 2007). Rather, the goal of CCA is to determine which variables in
the first set are more closely associated with which variables in the second set (Morgan et al.,
2008). Stevens (1992) recommended approximately 20 participants for each variable for
accurate interpretation of canonical statistics. If canonical statistics of a participant group cannot
be interpreted because of a small number, then the findings can only be reported.
To evaluate the concurrent relationship between two sets of variables “the observed
variables in each set must be combined together into one synthetic (also called unobserved or
latent) variable” (Sherry & Henson, 2005, p. 39). The analysis allowed the researcher to
compute as many canonical variables as were in the smallest variable set. According to Sherry
and Henson (2005), “The first variate creates the two synthetic variables so that they are as
strongly correlated as possible given the scores on the observed variables” (p. 39). The second
function yielded two additional variables using the residual variance left over after the first
function. This function is “perfectly uncorrelated with both the synthetic variables in the first
function” (Sherry & Henson, 2005, p. 40).

78
The first step of the CCA was to evaluate the full canonical model using Wilkes’ Lambda
(). If Wilkes’ Lambda was significant, the null hypothesis of no relationship between the
variable sets was rejected. Effect size was calculated as 1- or the square canonical correlation.
If Wilkes’-Lambda was significant, each function was evaluated individually. The second step
was to evaluate functions only that explained, “A reasonable amount of variance between the
variable sets or risks interpreting an effect that may not be noteworthy or replicable in future
studies” (Sherry & Henson, 2005, p. 42). Functions that explained less than 10% of the variance
were too weak to interpret (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013).
The third step was to examine the hierarchical statistics significance test. This significant
test assessed the full model and the cumulative effects models. In the fourth step, the researcher
examined the standardized weights and coefficients for significant functions. Structure
coefficients above .45 were included in the model (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013). A canonical
communality coefficient describing the “proportion of variance that is explained by the complete
canonical solution across all the canonical functions” (Sherry & Henson, 2005, p. 40) was
conducted. Those above .45 indicated the highest level of usefulness in the model. This step
was repeated for each significant function.
An SPSS macro module was used to compute the canonical correlation analysis because
there was no pull down menu for this procedure. The IBM SPSS MANOVA and CANCORR
macro syntax created by Tabachnick and Fidell (2013) was entered and run on SPSS Version 22.
A path analysis diagram was developed for each significant function for Research Questions 1a-
d.
79
Bracketing
The researcher bracketed professional knowledge and experiences to minimize the
researcher’s influence on the study and put aside one’s own beliefs, personal history, and
experiences of campus culture and building teacher leadership capacity in order to safeguard and
enrich the research process (Tufford & Newman, 2010). Bracketing ensured that the findings
were accurate and the conceptual framework and research questions remained the focus of the
study (Creswell, 2014; Husserl, 2010; Moustakas, 1994). The researcher repeatedly referenced
the literature, verified hand written comment memos on the transcripts from the two focus group
interviews, and referred back to the developed matrix that contained quotes, words, and
sentences from the interviews in order to both evaluate and reflect on the data (Tufford &
Newman, 2010; Moustakas, 1994).
The researcher’s expertise fostered the credibility of analyzing the qualitative data. In
2008–2011, the researcher was trained in the S.M.A.R.T. goal process by the developers of the
S.M.A.R.T. goal school improvement model, and she has received continuous training since.
Having served as an administrator for 13 years in the selected suburban East Texas school
district, the researcher made every attempt to remove personal bias from this study. She
understood that the position held in the district, though not evaluative of any participants, might
have influenced participation or participants’ responses.
The researcher made every effort to remove preconceived notions or particular
frameworks when conducting the study by keeping the emphasis of the study at the forefront and
bracketing personal and professional beliefs (Creswell, 2014; Husserl, 2010; Moustakas, 1994;
Tufford & Newman, 2010). The researcher strived to view the emerging data through many
lenses. All findings were based on the data collected on respondents’ perceptions and not on the
80
researchers’ perceptions due to the precautions taken through bracketing. While the researcher
had extensive knowledge of the selected school district and had opinions and beliefs regarding
the purpose of this study, these opinions and beliefs, whether supported or proven false, did not
influence the findings.
Focus Group Data Analysis-Phase II
The researcher recorded the teacher and administrator focus group interviews using an
Olympus VN-7200 digital voice recorder and transcribed the interviews verbatim by listening to
the interviews and typing the conversations into a word document. Participants were given an
opportunity to review the researcher’s transcriptions to clarify or modify content. This process
did not result in any changes to the transcripts. The researcher derived meaning and
understanding by identifying common themes, similarities, and differences from both the
teachers’ and administrators’ perceptions and experiences about the theoretical frameworks of
building teacher leadership capacity and campus culture.
The researcher maintained confidentiality using pseudonyms for the school site and
participants in the final transcriptions and quotes used in reporting the findings (Glaser &
Strauss, 1967; Patton, 2002). Teachers were assigned the letter T with a number (1-6) and
administrators were assigned the letter A with a number (1-5).
The insights obtained from the focus group interviews offered the researcher a more
astute portrait of teachers’ and administrators’ perceptions of teacher leadership capacity and
campus culture in the district. The researcher observed patterns, similarities, and differences in
participants’ responses and merged those into interrelated and subordinate themes (Glaser &
Strauss, 1967; Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2008; Shank, 2006; Yin, 2009). The researcher used the
81
framework of axial coding to break down, examine, contrast, and categorize participants’
responses from the transcribed interviews (Miles & Huberman, 1994).
The analysis of axial coding was chosen to allow the researcher to examine the
transcriptions thoroughly and to differentiate and combine the qualitative data beside the
researcher’s interpretation of the focus group interviews (Miles & Huberman, 1994). The focus
group interviews yielded a large quantity of qualitative data; therefore, a data reduction process
was used. The researcher developed codes that included teacher leadership capacity and campus
culture. These codes were assigned to chunks of data that included words, phrases, and
sentences extracted from the transcripts. All codes were relative to the theoretical frameworks of
culture and teacher leadership capacity and to Research Questions 2 and 3.
Data were recorded on a matrix developed by the researcher and constructed around the
components of the S.M.A.R.T. goal school improvement model framework, the LCSS, and SCAI
dimensions. The researcher identified emergent and subordinate themes based on participants’
statements. The themes that emerged from the analyses of the focus group interviews gave rich
textual insight into the findings from the quantitative analyses of the LCSS and SCAI data. The
researcher color-coded the questions and responses including common vocabulary, phrases, and
ideas expressed about leadership capacity and campus culture for both focus groups on a hard
copy of the transcriptions. The transcriptions were color-coded with the same identifying colors
each time the researcher read and re-read the focus group interviews.
The researcher sorted the color-coded responses, quotes, similarities, and differences and
recorded them onto a matrix. The developed clusters recorded on the researcher’s matrix
transpired into themes and subordinate themes. The researcher’s matrix design was created from
the S.M.A.R.T. goal framework components and the dimensions of the SCAI and LCSS. The
82
matrix bin labels for the rows and columns gave the researcher a visual to help understand the
data to answer Research Questions 2 and 3.
Summary of Treatment of the Data
Quantitative methodology was used to analyze data obtained from the SCAI and the
LCSS surveys. A CCA was used to answer Research Questions 1a-d. Qualitative methodology
was used to analyze the focus group interviews with teachers and administrators. The researcher
used the method of coding to develop matrixes from the transcripts to identify emerging and
subordinate themes to answer Research Questions 2 and 3. The explanatory sequential mixed
methods design allowed the researcher to use the strengths of both methods and triangulate data
to answer the qualitative and quantitative research questions.

83
Chapter 4
PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS
East Texas school district. This purpose was achieved by analyzing quantitative and qualitative
data obtained sequentially in two phases from certified teachers and administrators in a suburban
East Texas school district. The school district adopted the S.M.A.R.T. (S = specific, M =
measurable, A = attainable, R = results-based, T = time bound) goal school improvement model
to build teacher leadership capacity and to promote a positive culture. Four quantitative research
questions and hypotheses and two qualitative research questions guided the explanatory
sequential mixed methods.
Chapter 4 includes the findings of the explanatory sequential mixed methods research
study and is divided into three sections. The first section includes the quantitative Phase I
findings, which answered Research Questions 1a-d. The second section contains the qualitative
Phase II findings, and the third section concludes with a summary of the chapter.
This study was organized into two phases. Phase I yielded quantitative data and results.
These findings resulted from responses from 104 teachers and administrators from a suburban
East Texas school district to the School Climate Assessment Instrument (SCAI; Alliance for the
Study of School Climate, 2004) and the Leadership Capacity School Survey (LCSS; Lambert,
1998). The researcher tested four hypotheses to determine whether a statistical relationship
existed between the dimensions of teacher leadership capacity and campus culture. Three groups
were organized based on participants’ years of teaching experience. Group 1 (n = 32) had 1-5
84
years of teaching experience, Group 2 (n = 40) had 6-16 years of teaching experience, and Group
3 (n = 32) had 17+ years of teaching experience.
The researcher collected qualitative data in Phase II to provide further information to
explain participants’ survey answers. Phase II findings resulted from the analysis of data
collected in two focus group interviews: one focus group of teachers and one of administrators.
The researcher chose to use mixed methods design to capitalize on the strengths of each method
and to gain a better understanding of the research problem (Creswell, 2014; Tashakkori &
Teddlie, 2003).
The following central questions guided this study:
leadership capacity and the dimensions of campus culture for teachers and administrators with 1-
5 years of experience?

85
capacity?
86
Quantitative Phase I Findings
School Climate Assessment Instrument (SCAI) Results
Quantitative data included mean scores and standard deviations for each of the three
dimensions of the SCAI calculated for both teachers and administrators. The SCAI consisted of
10 questions on faculty relations, 11 questions on leadership/decisions, and 10 questions on
attitude and culture. All questions were answered using a Likert scale; anchors included 1 =
accidental actions; 3 = semi-intentional actions; 5 = intentional actions. Scores were tabulated
and discussed in the findings to highlight similarities and differences between teachers and
administrators.
The faculty relations dimension yielded the highest mean score of 4.07 (SD = .55) for
teachers and administrators combined and the highest mean score of 4.09 for teachers (SD =
0.54), but the lowest for administrators (M = 3.80; SD = 0.73). The highest mean score for
administrators was attitude/culture (M = 4.0; SD = 0.61); however, this dimension was the lowest
for teachers (M = 3.59; SD = .51). For teachers and administrators combined, the attitude/culture
dimensions had a mean score of 3.61 (SD = .53). The leadership/decisions dimension for
teachers was 3.98 (SD = .57), and the mean score for administrators was 3.97 (SD = .67). The
combined mean score for teachers and administrators in the leadership/decision dimension was
3.98 (SD = .57). No mean scores in any of the three dimensions fell below the Level 2 of the 5-
level response option (see Table 1).

87
Table 1
SCAI Means and Standard Deviations: Teachers and Administrators
Teachers (n = 98) Administrators (n = 6)

SCAI Dimension M SD M SD
Faculty Relations 4.09 .54 3.80 .73
Leadership/Decisions 3.98 .57 3.97 .67
Attitude/Culture 3.59 .51 4.00 .61
Leadership Capacity School Survey (LCCS) Results
The LCSS uses a Likert scale of 1 = We do not do this at our school; 2 = We are starting
to move this direction; 3 = We are making good progress here; 4 = We have this condition well
established; 5 = We are refining our practice in this area. The highest mean score for teachers
on the six LCSS dimensions was 3.83 (SD = .69) for the inquiry-based use of information to
inform decisions and practice dimension. The lowest mean score for teachers was 3.47 (SD =
.70) for reflective practices that consistently lead to innovation dimension. Teachers’ scores on
the LCSS reflected different perceptions from the administrators. Two different dimensions
received the highest and the lowest mean scores for administrators’ perceptions of building
leadership capacity. Specifically, the highest mean score for administrators was 3.91 (SD = .89)
for the broad based, which included skillful participation in the leadership dimension. The
lowest mean score for administrators was 3.54 (SD = .87) in the dimension of shared vision
resulting in program. Mean scores on all six dimensions of the LCSS for teachers and
administrators were above 3.47 (see Table 2).

88
Table 2
LCSS Means and Standard Deviations: Teachers and Administrators
Teachers (n = 98) Administrators (n = 6)

M SD M SD
Broad-based skillful participation in 3.58 .66 3.91 .89

the work of leadership
Shared vision resulting in program 3.60 .83 3.54 .87

coherence
Inquiry-based use of information to 3.83 .69 3.63 1.10

inform decisions and practice
Roles and actions that reflect broad 3.54 .77 3.71 1.08
involvement, collaboration, and
collective responsibility
Reflective practice that consistently 3.47 .70 3.77 .82

leads to innovation
High or steadily improving student 3.62 .67 3.63 .79

achievement and development
Research Question 1a was, “Does a statistically significant relationship exist between the
dimensions of teacher leadership capacity and the dimensions of campus culture?” The null
hypothesis, “A statistically significant relationship does not exist between the dimensions of
teacher leadership capacity and the dimensions of campus culture” was rejected. The
relationship between the dimensions of teacher leadership capacity and the dimensions of
campus culture was statistically significant.
The researcher conducted a canonical correlation analysis (CAA) using the six leadership
capacity variables as predictors of the three campus culture variables to evaluate the multivariate
shared relationship between the two variable sets (i.e., leadership capacity and campus culture).
89
The analysis yielded three functions with squared canonical correlations (R2c) of .522, .060, and
.022 for each successive function.
Step 1 of the CCA was to evaluate the full canonical model (Functions 1 to 3).
Collectively, the full model across all functions was statistically significant using the Wilks’s
lambda (λ) = .439 criterion, F(18, 269.2) = 5.05, p < .001. Wilks’s λ represents the variance
unexplained by the model; therefore, 1 - λ yields the full model effect size (Sherry & Henson,
2005). For the set of three canonical functions, the effect size was 1 - .439 = .561. This finding
can be interpreted as 56% of the variance is shared between the two variable sets across all
functions, which is a large effect size. Effect size conventions for R2 are small = .02, medium =
.15, and large = .35 (Cohen, 1988). Table 3 represents the four methods used to evaluate
statistical significance with multivariate tests for the full model. The researcher used these
methods to evaluate the shared variance between building teacher leadership capacity and
campus culture. The most common method to evaluate for statistical significance is Wilks’s
Lambda (λ) because it has the most general applicability.
Table 3
Wilks’s Lambda Test of Significance for the Full Model (S = 3, M = 1, N = 46½)
Approximate Hypothesis Significance

Test Name Value F DF Error DF of F
Pillais’ .60453 4.07988 18.00 291.80 .000
Hotelling’s 1.17999 6.14031 18.00 281.00 .000
Wilks’s .43905 5.05176 18.00 269.19 .000
Roy’s .52231
90
In Step 2, the first function of the canonical correlation was created to maximize the
Pearson r between the two synthetic variables (campus culture and leadership capacity). Each
canonical function was evaluated in Step 2. The researcher evaluated three canonical functions
because the variable set of campus culture had fewer variates (3), and the number of canonical
functions is determined by the smallest number of variates in a set. Using the remaining
variance, the researcher maximized another Pearson r (the second canonical correlation) between
the two synthetic variables under the condition that these new synthetic variables were perfectly
uncorrelated with all preceding variables. Then the final variance was used to maximize another
Pearson r (the third canonical correlation) between the two synthetic variables. Only those
functions that explained a reasonable amount of variance between the variable sets should be
interpreted. For this study, the first function could be interpreted, as it explained 52% of the
variance (R2c). The remaining functions did not explain enough variance to meet the rule of
thumb of 10% of the variance to warrant interpretation (Stevens, 2009; see Table 4).
Table 4
Squared Canonical Correlation for Each Function Separately
Root Canonical Squared

No. Eigenvalue % Cumulative % Correlation Correlation
1 1.093 92.662 92.662 .723 .522
2 .064 5.449 98.110 .246 .060
3 .022 1.890 100.000 .148 .022

91
Step 3 included the dimension reduction analysis. A dimension reduction analysis
provided the researcher with an improved model for inference via a hierarchal statistical
significance test. A researcher may conduct a hierarchal statistical significance test because the
last canonical function oftentimes is not interpretable and the final function is often
uninformative. The researcher conducted a hierarchal statistical significance test to ensure she
did not over interpret results that may have been statistically significant but not practically
significant to the study (Sherry & Henson, 2005).
The researcher tested Functions 2 to 3 in hierarchal order until the last function was
tested by itself. This was done after the full model was first tested in Step 1. The dimension
reduction analysis tested the hierarchal arrangement of functions for statistical significance
(Sherry & Henson, 2005). As previously described in Step 1, the full model (Functions 1 to 3)
was statistically significant using Wilks’s lambda (λ) = .439 criterion, F(18, 269.2) = 5.05, p <
.001. Functions 2 to 3, F(10, 192) = .827, p = .603, were not statistically significant. Function
3, which was the only function tested in isolation, did not explain a statistically significant
amount of shared variance between the variable sets, F(4, 97) = .541, p = .706 (see Table 5).
Table 5
Dimension Reduction Analysis for Hierarchal Statistical Significance
Hypothesis Significance
Roots Wilks λ F DF Error DF of F
1 to 3 .43905 5.05176 18.00 269.19 .000
2 to 3 .91910 .82723 10.00 192.00 .603
3 to 3 .97819 .54073 4.00 97.00 .706

92
In Step 4, the researcher standardized the canonical coefficients and structure coefficients
for all variables across both functions. She also standardized the squared structured coefficients,
which represented the percentage of squared variance entered into a table to help understand the
patterns among variables (see Table 6). The squared structure coefficients and the
communalities (h2) for each variable are reported. The squared structure coefficients (rs2)
represented the proportion of variance shared between the synthetic variables of teacher
leadership capacity and campus culture. The communality coefficient (h2) was the sum of the
structured coefficients, which measured how much variance of the original variable was
reproducible across functions interpreted by the canonical solution. The squared structure
coefficient and the communality coefficient were equivalent because the first function of the
canonical function was significant.
All structure coefficients met the rule of thumb of |.45| to be considered significant
(Stevens, 2009). However, following Stevens’s (2009) guidelines, the three variables of broad-
based, reflective, and high improving were considered redundant because they had the smallest
coefficients, which were considerably lower than the remaining variables of shared vision,
inquiry-based, and roles and actions; consequently, they did not render any new information.
The researcher interpreted only those functions with a reasonable amount of variance to avoid
the risk of interpreting one that could possibly not be replicable in future studies (Sherry &
Henson, 2005). Therefore, the researcher determined that the variables of shared vision, inquiry-
based, and roles and actions were the primary contributors to the leadership capacity predictor
synthetic variable. The squared structure coefficients (rs2) supported this finding. These
leadership capacity variables tended to have larger canonical function coefficients.

93
Table 6
Canonical Solution for Building Leadership Capacity Predicting Campus Culture: Function 1
Variable Coefficient rs rs2 (%) h2 (%)
Broad based -.052 -.818 66.91 66.91
Shared vision -.343 -.851 72.42 72.42
Inquiry based -.341 -.905 81.90 81.90
Roles and actions -.136 -.877 76.91 76.91
Reflective -.101 -.820 67.24 67.24
High improving -.187 -.829 68.72 68.72
R2c 56.10
Faculty relations -.445 -.889 79.03 79.03
Attitude and Culture .126 -.506 25.60 25.60
Leadership Decisions -.704 -.949 90.06 90.06

Note. Structure coefficients (rs) greater than |.45| are underlined. Communality coefficients (h2) greater that 45% are
underlined. Coefficient = standardized canonical correlation coefficient; rs = structure coefficient; rs2 = squared
structure coefficient; h2 = communality coefficient.
The researcher applied the same canonical correlation process to the campus culture
synthetic variable. All three structure coefficients met the rule of thumb of |.45| to be considered
significant (Stevens, 2009). However, the variables of attitude/culture and faculty relations were
considered redundant because they had the smallest coefficients. Therefore, leadership/decisions
was determined to be the primary contributor to the campus culture synthetic variable. The
squared structure coefficients supported this finding. The campus culture variable tended to have
a larger canonical function coefficient.

94
When developing a model of the relationship among the variables, Sherry and Henson
(2005) recommend showing only the functions that would be interpreted in a table. The current
data indicated 56% of the variance was shared between the two variable sets of building
leadership capacity and campus culture. Figure 3 illustrates the canonical solution for the
synthetic variables for Research Question 1a.
Figure 3. Canonical solution for building leadership capacity predicting campus culture.
Based on the data analysis, a significant relationship existed between the synthetic
variables of teacher leadership capacity and campus culture as 56% of variance was captured by
the first function of the CCA. Therefore, the null hypothesis for Research Question 1a was
rejected. The relationship between the dimensions of teacher leadership capacity and the
dimensions of campus culture was statistically significant.

95
Research Question 1b was, “Does a statistically significant relationship exist between the
dimensions of teacher leadership capacity and the dimensions of campus culture for teachers and
administrators with 1-5 years of experience?” The null hypothesis, “A statistically significant
relationship does not exist between the dimensions of teacher leadership capacity and the
dimensions of campus culture for teachers and administrators with 1-5 years of experience,” was
rejected based on the statistical analysis. The relationship between the dimensions of teacher
leadership capacity and the dimensions for campus culture for teachers with 1-5 years of
teaching experience was statistically significant.
The analysis for Group 1 (1-5 years of teaching experience) yielded three functions with
squared canonical correlations (R2c) of .488, .277, and .172 for each successive function. In Step
1 of the CCA, the researcher evaluated the full canonical model (see Table 7). These tests
evaluated the shared variance between building teacher leadership capacity and campus culture
for Group 1. The most common method to evaluate for a statistical significance is Wilks’s
lambda (λ) because it has the most general applicability.
Table 7
Group 1 Wilks’s Lambda Multivariate Test of Significance (S = 3, M = 1, N = 10½)
Error Significance
Test Name Value Approximate F Hypothesis DF DF of F
Pillais’ .93529 1.88744 18.00 75.00 .030
Hotelling’s 1.53884 1.85231 18.00 65.00 .037
Wilks’s .30740 1.88419 18.00 65.54 .033
Roy’s .48693
96
Collectively, the full model across all functions was statistically significant using the
Wilks’s lambda (λ) = .307, F(18, 65.54) = 1.88, p = .033. For the set of three canonical
functions, the effect size was 1 - .307 = .693. This finding can be interpreted as 69% of the
variance in the two variable sets was shared across all functions, and the effect size was large
(Cohen, 1988). In Step 2, the researcher evaluated each canonical function. Three canonical
functions were evaluated because the variable set of campus culture had the fewest variates (3;
see Table 8).
Table 8
Group 1 Canonical Correlations for Each Function Separately

1 .949 61.673 61.672 .698 .487
2 .383 24.862 86.536 .526 .277
3 .207 13.464 100.000 .414 .172
As previously described, the full model (Functions 1 to 3) was statistically significant. In
Step 3, after the full model was tested, the researcher tested the functions in a hierarchal fashion.
Functions 2 and 3 were tested until the last function was tested by itself. Step 3 included the
dimension reduction analysis. The dimension reduction analysis provided the researcher an
improved model for inference via a hierarchal statistical significant test. The researcher
conducted a hierarchal statistical significance test because the last canonical functions are
oftentimes are not interpretable and the final function is often uninformative. This hierarchal
97
statistical significance test ensured that the researcher did not over interpret results that may be
statistically significant, but may not be practically significant to the study (Sherry & Henson,
2005).
Table 9 represents the dimension reduction analysis for the hierarchal statistical
significance. The researcher conducted a dimension reduction analysis to test the hierarchal
arrangement of functions for statistical significance (Sherry & Henson, 2005). Functions 2 to 3,
F(10, 48) = 1.40, p = .209, was not statistically significant. Function 3, which was the only
function that tested in isolation, did not explain a statistically significant amount of shared
variance between the variable sets, F(4, 25) = 1.29, p = .299. For this analysis, the first function
could be interpreted, as it explained 69% of the variance (R2c). The remaining functions did not
explain enough variance to meet the rule of thumb that they should explain at least 10% of the
variance to warrant interpretation (Stevens, 2009).
Table 9
Group 1 Dimension Reduction Analysis for Hierarchal Statistical Significance
1 to 3 .30740 1.88419 18.00 65.54 .033
2 to 3 .59914 1.40123 10.00 48.00 .209
3 to 3 .82837 .1.20496 4.00 25.00 .299
In Step 4, the researcher created a table of the structure coefficients to help understand
the patterns among variables. Table 10 presents the standardized canonical function coefficients
98
and structure coefficients for Function 1 in Group 1. All structure coefficients met the rule of
thumb of |.45| to be considered significant (Stevens, 2009). The squared structure coefficients
(rs2) represented the proportion of variance shared between the synthetic variables of teacher
leadership capacity and campus culture. The communality coefficient (h2) is the sum of the
structured coefficients and measures how much variance of the original variable is reproducible
across functions interpreted by the canonical solution. The squared structure coefficient and the
communality coefficient were the same because the canonical function was significant on the
first function.
Following Stevens’s (2009) guidelines, five of the six variables were redundant because
they had the smallest coefficients. These coefficients were considerably lower than the
remaining variable of roles and actions; consequently, they did not render any new information.
The researcher interpreted only those functions with a reasonable amount of variance to avoid
the risk of interpreting one that could possibly not be replicable in future studies (Sherry &
Henson, 2005). Therefore, the roles and actions variable was a primary contributor to the
leadership capacity predictor synthetic variable. The squared structure coefficients (rs2)
supported the leadership capacity variable of roles and actions. This leadership capacity variable
had a larger canonical function coefficient.
Again, the same canonical correlation process was applied to the campus culture
synthetic variable. The faculty relations and leadership/decisions coefficients met Stevens’s
(2009) rule of thumb guidelines. The variables of attitude/culture and faculty relations were
considered redundant because they had the smallest coefficients. The squared structure
coefficients (rs2) supported this finding. The campus culture variable of leadership/decisions had
a larger canonical function coefficient. Therefore, leadership/decisions variable was a primary

99
contributor to the campus culture synthetic variable. Based on these findings, the researcher
determined that a relationship existed between the synthetic variables of leadership capacity and
campus culture, given the evidence of the statistical significance of 69%, which was captured by
the first function of the canonical correlation analysis (see Figure 4).
Table 10
Canonical Solution for Building Leadership Capacity Predicting Campus Culture: Group 1
Coefficient rs rs2 (%) h2 (%)
Broad based .057 -.493 23.30. 23.30
Shared vision -.252 -.573 32.83 32.83
Inquiry based -.542 -.782 61.15 61.15
Reflective .154 -.733 53.73 53.73
High improving -.153 -.704 49.56 49.56
R2c 69.3
Leadership/Decisions -.835 -.787 61.94 61.94
Attitude/Culture . 658 .186 3.46 3.46

Note. Structure coefficients (rs) greater than |.45| are underlined. Communality coefficients (h2) greater that 45%
are underlined. Coefficient = standardized canonical correlation coefficient; rs = structure coefficient; rs2 = squared
100
Figure 4. Canonical solution for building leadership capacity predicting campus culture for
Group 1 = 1-5 years of teaching experience.
Research Question 1c was, “Does a statistically significant relationship exist between the
administrators with 6-16 years of experience?” The null hypothesis, “A statistically significant
dimensions of campus culture for teachers and administrators with 6-16 years of experience,”
was rejected based on the statistical analysis. The relationship between the dimensions of
teacher leadership capacity and the dimensions of campus culture for teachers with 6-16 years of
teaching experience was statistically significant.
The analysis for Group 2 (6-16 years of teaching experience) yielded three functions with
squared canonical correlations (R2c) of .750, .268, and .065 for each successive function (see
Table 11). The researcher conducted these tests to evaluate the shared variance between building
teacher leadership capacity and campus culture for Group 2. The most common method to
evaluate for a statistical significance is Wilks’s lambda (λ) because it has the most general
applicability.
101
Table 11
Error Significance
Test Name Value Approximate F Hypothesis DF DF of F
Pillais’ 1.08273 3.10601 18.00 99.00 .000
Hotelling’s 3.43451 5.66058 18.00 89.00 .000
Wilks’s .17119 4.24384 18.00 88.17 .000
Roy’s .74995
Collectively, the full model was statistically significant across all functions using the
Wilks’s lambda (λ) = .171, F(18, 88.17) = 4.24, p < .001. For the set of three canonical
variance in the two variable sets was shared across all functions and yielded a large effect size
(Cohen, 1988).
In Step 2, the researcher evaluated three canonical functions because the variable set of
campus culture had the fewest variates (3). The number of canonical functions is determined by
the smallest number of variates in a set. The final variance was used to maximize Pearson r (the
third canonical correlation) between the two synthetic variables (see Table 12).
102
Table 12

1 2.999 87.327 87.327 .866 .750
2 .366 10.649 97.977 .518 .268
3 .069 2.023 100.000 .255 .065
In Step 3, the dimension reduction analysis tested the hierarchal arrangement of functions
for statistical significance (Sherry & Henson, 2005). As previously described, the full model
(Functions 1 to 3) was statistically significant. In Step 3, after the full model was tested first, the
functions were tested in a hierarchal fashion then Functions 2 to 3 were tested until the last
function was tested by itself. A dimension reduction analysis provided the researcher an
improved model for inference through the conduction of a hierarchal statistical significance test.
The hierarchal statistical significance test was conducted because the last canonical functions are
often times are not interpretable and the final function is often uninformative. This hierarchal
2005; see Table 13).
Function 2 to 3, F(10, 64) = 1.33, p = .232, was not statistically significant. Function 3,
which was the only function tested in isolation, did not explain a statistically significant amount
of shared variance between the variable sets, F(4, 33) = 0.57, p = .684. For this analysis, the
first function could be interpreted as explaining 83% of the variance (R2c). The remaining
103
functions did not explain enough variance to meet the rule of thumb that they should explain at
least 10% of the variance to warrant interpretation (Stevens, 2009).
Table 13
Significance of
Roots Wilks λ F Hypothesis DF Error DF F
1 to 3 .17119 4.24384 18.00 88.17 .000
2 to 3 .68462 1.33490 10.00 64.00 .232
3 to 3 .93502 .57332 4.00 33.00 .684
The researcher created a table of the structure coefficients in Step 4 to understand the
patterns among the variables for Group 2 (see Table 14). The squared structure coefficients and
communalities (h2) for each variable are included. All structure coefficients met the rule of
thumb of |.45| to be considered significant (Stevens, 2009). The squared structure coefficients
(rs2) represent the proportion of variance shared between the synthetic variables of teacher
leadership capacity and campus culture. The communality coefficient (h2) is the sum of the
structured coefficients and measures how much variance in the original variable is reproducible
across functions interpreted by the canonical solution. The squared structure coefficient and the
communality coefficient were the same because the first function of the canonical function was
significant.
Following Stevens’s (2009) guidelines, the five variables of broad base, reflective, high
improving, roles and actions, and inquiry based were considered redundant because they had the
104
smallest coefficients. Their coefficients were considerably lower than the remaining variable of
shared vision. The researcher interpreted only functions with a reasonable amount of variance to
avoid the risk of interpreting one that could possibly not be replicable in future studies (Sherry &
Henson, 2005). The squared structure coefficients (rs2) supported this finding. Therefore, shared
vision was the primary contributor to the leadership capacity predictor synthetic variable.
Table 14
Canonical Solution for Building Leadership Capacity Predicting Campus Culture: Group 2
Broad based -.354 -.789 62.3 62.3
Shared vision -.682 -.950 90.3 90.3
Inquiry based -.104 -.828 68.6 68.6
Roles and actions .358 -.646 41.7 41.7
Reflective -.024 -.616 37.5 37.5
High improving -.289 -.700 49.0 49.0
R2c 82.9
Attitude/Culture .126 -.625 39.1 39.1

Note. Structure coefficients (rs) greater than |.45| are underlined. Communality coefficients (h2) greater that 45%
are underlined. Coefficient = standardized canonical correlation coefficient; rs = structure coefficient; rs2 =
squared structure coefficient; h2 = communality coefficient.
105
The researcher applied the same canonical correlation process to the campus culture
synthetic variable. All three variables met the rule of thumb of |.45| to be considered significant
(Stevens, 2009). The squared structure coefficients (rs2) represented the proportion of variance
shared between the synthetic variables of teacher leadership capacity and campus culture. The
communality coefficient (h2) is the sum of the structured coefficients and measures how much
variance of the original variable is reproducible across the functions interpreted by the canonical
solution. The squared structure coefficient and the communality coefficient were the same
because the first function of the canonical function was significant.
Following Stevens’s (2009) guidelines, the variables of faculty relations and
attitude/culture gave no new information. Therefore, the leadership/decisions variable was the
primary contributor to the campus culture synthetic variable. The squared structure coefficients
(rs2) supported this finding. When developing a model of the relationship among the variables,
Sherry and Henson (2005) recommended showing only functions that would be interpreted in a
table. The researcher determined that a relationship existed between the synthetic variables of
leadership capacity and campus culture given the evidence of the statistical significance of 82%,
which was captured by the first function of the canonical correlation analysis (see Figure 5).
106
Figure 5. The canonical solution for building leadership capacity predicting campus culture for
Group 2 = 6-16 years of teaching experience.
Research Question 1d was, “Does a statistically significant relationship exist between the
administrators with 17+ years of experience?” The following null hypothesis was tested and
rejected based on the statistical findings for Research Question 1d: “A statistically significant
dimensions of campus culture for teachers and administrators with 17+ years of experience.”
The relationship between the dimensions of teacher leadership capacity and the dimensions of
campus culture for teachers with 17+ years of teaching experience was statistically significant.
The analysis for Group 3 (17+ years of teaching experience) yielded three functions with
squared canonical correlations (R2c) of .644, .076, and .032 for each successive function. Table
15 represents four methods to evaluate for a statistical significance with multivariate tests. The
researcher conducted these tests to evaluate the shared variance between building teacher
leadership capacity and campus culture for Group 3 in Step 1 of the CCA. The most common
method to evaluate statistical significance is a Wilks’s lambda (λ) because of its general
applicability (see Table 15).

107
Table 15
Approximate Hypothesis Significance

Test Name Value F DF Error DF of F
Pillais’ .75198 1.39378 18.00 75.00 .160
Hotelling’s 1.9298 2.32182 18.00 65.00 .007
Wilks’s .31805 1.81809 18.00 65.54 .042
Roy’s .64468
Collectively, the full model across all functions was statistically significant using the
Wilks’s lambda (λ) = .318, F(18, 65.54) = 1.49, p = .1.81. For the set of three canonical
variance in the two variable sets was shared across all functions and yielded a large effect size
(Cohen, 1988).
In Step 2, the researcher evaluated three canonical functions because the variable set of
campus culture had the fewest variates (3). The number of canonical functions is determined by
the smallest number of variates in a set. The researcher used the final variance to maximize
Pearson r (the third canonical correlation) between the two synthetic variables (see Table 16).
The full model (Functions 1 to 3) was statistically significant. Function 2 to 3, F(10, 48)
= 0.273, p = .984, was not statistically significant. Function 3, which is the only function tested
in isolation, did not explain a statistically significant amount of shared variance between the
variable sets, F(4, 25) = .205, p = .684. For this analysis, the first function could be interpreted,
as it explained 68% of the variance (R2c). The remaining functions did not explain enough
108
variance to meet the rule of thumb that they should explain at least 10% of the variance to
warrant interpretation (Stevens, 2009).
Table 16
Canonical Squared
Root No. Eigenvalue % Cumulative % Correlation Correlation
1 1.814 94.063 94.063 .803 .645
2 .0818 4.238 98.301 .275 .076
3 .0328 1.699 100.000 .178 .032
In Step 3, the researcher conducted a dimension reduction analysis. As previously
described, the full model (Functions 1 to 3) was statistically significant. After the full model was
tested, the researcher tested the functions in a hierarchal fashion then Functions 2 to 3 were
tested until the last function was tested by itself. A dimension reduction analysis provided the
researcher an improved model for inference via a hierarchal statistical significance test. The
researcher conducted a hierarchal statistical significance test because the last canonical functions
are oftentimes are not interpretable and the final function is often uninformative. This hierarchal
2005). Table 17 represents the dimension reduction analysis for the hierarchal statistical
significance.
109
Table 17

1 to 3 .31805 1.81809 18.00 65.54 .042
2 to 3 .89510 .27347 10.00 48.00 .984
3 to 3 .96828 .20478 4.00 25.00 .933
In Step 4, the researcher created a table of the structure coefficients to understand the
patterns among variables for Group 3 (see Table 18). All structure coefficients met the rule of
thumb of |.45| to be considered significant (Stevens, 2009). However, following Stevens’s
(2009) guidelines, the four variables of reflective, high improving, shared vision, and inquiry
based were considered redundant because they had the smallest coefficients. Their coefficients
are considerably lower than the two remaining variables of roles/actions and broad-based. The
researcher interpreted only those functions with a reasonable amount of variance to avoid the risk
of interpreting one that could possibly not be replicable in future studies (Sherry & Henson,
2005). Therefore, the variables of roles/actions and broad-based were the primary contributors
to the leadership capacity predictor synthetic variable. The squared structure coefficients (rs2)
supported this finding. These leadership capacity variables had a larger canonical function
coefficient.
The researcher applied the same canonical correlation process campus culture synthetic
variable. All three variables of leadership/decisions, faculty relations, and attitude and culture
met the rule of thumb of |.45| to be considered significant (Stevens, 2009). The squared structure
coefficients (rs2) represented the proportion of variance shared between the synthetic variables of
110
teacher leadership capacity and campus culture. The communality coefficient (h2) is the sum of
the structured coefficients and measures how much variance of the original variable is
reproducible across the functions interpreted by the canonical solution. The squared structure
coefficient and the communality coefficient were the same because the first function of the
canonical function was significant.
Table 18
Canonical Solution for Leadership Capacity Predicting Campus Culture: Group 3
Broad based -.216 -.922 85.0 85.0
Shared vision .016 -.765 58.5 58.5
Inquiry based -.295 -.887 78.7 78.7
Reflective .182 -.856 73.3 73.3
High improving -.085 -.796 63.4 63.4
R2c 68.1
Attitude/Culture .043 -.546 .015 .022

Note. Structure coefficients (rs) greater than |.45| are underlined. Communality coefficients (h2) greater that 45% are
underlined. Coefficient = standardized canonical correlation coefficient; rs = structure coefficient; rs2 = squared
111
The researcher determined that a relationship existed between the synthetic variables of
leadership capacity and campus culture for teachers and administrators with 17+ years of
experience given the evidence of the statistical significance of 68%, which was captured by the
first function of the CCA (see Figure 6).
Figure 6. The canonical solution for building leadership capacity predicting campus culture for
Group 3 = 17+ years of teaching experience.
Significant statistical relationships were found between the synthetic variables for
leadership capacity and campus culture for each experience group. Table 19 details the LCSS
and SCAI commonalities and differences in the squared structure coefficients (rs2) of the separate
experience groups based on the statistical analyses for Research Questions 1a-d.
112
Table 19
Significant Leadership Capacity and School Culture Variables for Experience: Groups 1-3
Instrument Group 1: 1-5 Years Group 2: 6-16 Years Group 3: 17+Years
LCSS Roles/Actions Shared Vision Roles/Actions

(rs2 = 59.8%) (rs2 = 90.3%) (rs2 = 93.7%)
Broad-based
(rs2 = 85.0%)
SCAI Leadership/Decisions Leadership/Decisions Leadership/Decisions

(rs2 = 61.9%) (rs2 = 90.6%) (rs2 = 88.7.6%)
Faculty Relations
(rs2 = 85.5%)
Note. rs2 = squared structure coefficient.
Qualitative Phase II Findings
Common and subordinate themes resonated in the teacher and administrator focus group
interviews that enriched and explained the quantitative data from the SCAI and LCSS surveys.
The researcher asked the teacher and administrator focus groups 16 open-ended questions to gain
additional information on specific areas of building teacher leadership capacity and campus
culture and to explore the relationship between leadership capacity and campus culture (see
Appendix F). The interview questions allowed participants to answer and discuss responses
formed around the theoretical frameworks of leadership capacity and campus culture. The
researcher used qualitative data on campus culture from teacher and administrator focus group
interviews to analyze and illuminate the results from the quantitative analyses.
Findings from Research Question 2
Research Question 2 was, “What are teachers’ and administrators’ perceptions of their
own campus culture?” The researcher synthesized data from the focus group interviews to
113
capture teachers’ and administrators’ perceptions as they related to their own campus culture.
This synthesis resulted in main and subordinate themes (see Table 20). Two themes and five
subordinate themes directly related to Research Question 2.
Table 20
Research Question 2 Themes and Subordinate Themes
Themes Subordinate Themes
Administrative Leadership Empowerment

Modeling
Time Collaboration
Shared Focus
Reflection
Administrative leadership. During the teacher and administrator focus group
interviews, participants referred to faculty and staff relationships regarding campus culture,
though perceptions differed from campus to campus depending on who the leader was on the
respective campuses. Data on teacher’s perceptions obtained from the SCAI revealed that
different leadership styles fostered positive campus cultures. The researcher asked, “How would
you define culture?” Participants’ responses included their administrators’ influences on campus
culture. For example, A3 stated:
The environment you walk into. You can feel the different cultures on campuses. It is
because of who the leader is in charge and how they set the culture and the tone for that
campus, but they all work and it is very interesting to see that.
114
A5 stated, “Each campus is different. You can feel the different cultures on each campus within
the district.” T3 referred to the leadership on a campus by commenting, “I think it trickles down
from the top, the top leader of the school, the administration, and however they set the
expectations, the atmosphere, or the tone of the campus.”
Administrative leadership emerged as a theme for both focus groups. All six teachers
insinuated that campus leadership contributed to campus culture. Each campus in the district has
formal teacher leadership roles such as grade level facilitator, grade level leader, team leader, or
department head appointed by the campus principal. According to T4, “Teacher leaders make a
huge impact on campus culture.” A1 commented, “I think by having teachers see other teachers
as leaders, it helps build a culture, a positive culture.”
Subordinate: Empowerment and modeling. The researcher identified empowerment and
modeling as subordinate themes to administrative leadership. The researcher asked, “Think back
over the past year that you have been employed by the district, how has the culture been
impacted by the empowerment of teacher leaders?” A4 referred to colleagues enabling new
teachers to lead and stated, “Other teachers empowered a teacher to be that leader.” A2 said,
“You have to provide that guidance and let them [teachers] grow and reflect with them on some
things to help them grow. Be a partner with them.” T3 mentioned the importance of modeling
by administrators in the district, which empowers teacher leaders to assume leadership capacity
roles on campus. According to these participants, the notion of empowerment affected the
campus culture positively. T3 stated:
Modeling, we all know in education, is the best way of teaching. Modeling our
expectations, modeling a lesson, modeling anything. Same thing with leadership…you
model leadership, how you want leadership to happen and if there is buy-in from
115
underneath, then there can be more leadership and you can see how that can be followed
up. Everyone has a chance to impact the culture of the school.
All teachers agreed that administrative leadership, modeling, and empowering teachers to
be leaders influenced the culture. A2 agreed with this perception and stated the philosophy of
empowerment from campus leadership to teachers by stating, “We are not worried about whose
job it is or are we getting paid. It is just part of our culture. It is just how we conduct business
here.”
Time. The theme of time and subordinate themes of collaboration, shared focus, and
reflection were evident in both the teachers’ and administrators’ focus group discussions. The
researcher asked, “How is collaboration used to make decisions?” Participants repeatedly
referenced time; specifically, the extra 55 minutes the district affords all teachers in every
content area, free from interruptions, to plan or have meetings with other staff members. Time
gave rise to both subordinate themes. Both teachers and administrators indicated that without
time, collaboration and focus would not have been as deliberate. Providing teachers and
administrators time during the school day added to the campus culture and provided a purposeful
opportunity to build teacher leaders. A3 said, “Our schedule gives us time.” A2 highlighted the
teachers’ and administrators’ intentionality and efficient use of time allotted by the district:
I would say that the most important thing, and I know I mentioned it earlier, is time. You
have to be very intentional about trying to build leaders and to build leadership capacity.
It is real easy in this business for your time to get swallowed up by so many things. You
have to focus on making time to work with people. I think that this district does a pretty
good job of providing time for people to collaborate, work together, and build that
capacity.
116
A5 reiterated, “Time has to be meaningful like A2 said earlier or otherwise it is going to be a
waste. You have to be intentional with it.”
Subordinate: Collaboration, focus, reflection. Teachers discussed the subordinate
themes of collaboration and focus, while administrators discussed collaboration, focus, and
reflection on a deeper level. The subordinate themes that emerged from the theme of time are
the pillars of the S.M.A.R.T. goal school improvement model (O’Neill & Conzemius, 2006).
The researcher asked, “How have you personally been developed and supported as a teacher
leader, if at all, and what are some examples of this?” T4 stated, “The collaboration with other
people who are doing the same type of job you are doing helps. You have time to collaborate,
and it really helps bouncing ideas off of each other.” T3 said, “I think having a shared focus all
the way around. We talk about our belief system. That common focus must be revisited and we
do that a lot.” T4 agreed and replied, “We have to know what it (the focus) is, and I think our
district communicates that a lot. We want everyone in our school to share the same philosophy.”
A4 mentioned the district master schedule: “The collaboration is also supported by our
schedule where we have that time devoted every day to meet with teacher or team leaders to
discuss what is happening.” The collaboration and conversations that occur build a culture that
values teachers’ thoughts and provides a protected time to dialogue with their colleagues. A3
noted the relationship between the S.M.A.R.T. goal school improvement framework and time:
I see the collaboration with our S.M.A.R.T. goals because in every coaching session we
revisit our norms and the S.M.A.R.T. goals framework. The triangle has the main
component of collaboration. We know that the collaboration is a priority because of the
scheduling we have for everyone.

117
During the administrator focus group interview, dedicating time for teachers was
mentioned as it related to the chosen district. Every teacher was given a 50-minute block of time
each day dedicated to collaboration and planning in addition to their conference period. The
researcher asked, “How is reflection encouraged?” A5 stated, “During our teaming time, we talk
about what’s going on and we listen to what the teachers say, you know, we use their input to
make decisions.” An administrator acknowledged that reflection and collaboration would
happen, but it would not be as intentional if it were not for the built-in time during the school
day.
Reflection was associated with the time the district designated for collaboration. The
researcher asked, “How is reflection encouraged?” A1 commented, “During our teaming time. I
think we do [reflect] because of all of our meetings we have are designated to reflect on
something.” Along the same lines, A2 talked about time and how teachers and administrators
used it:
I think during our teaming time our teachers know that time is where they can all problem
solve or talk about what went right. I think where our district does a really good job is
giving us time to stop, slow down, and reflect for us or for our self.
Reflection time for teachers promoted a culture supportive of their need to examine past mistakes
to avoid repeating them or to celebrate successes so that they may be repeated in the school
improvement process.
Participants referred to a shared focus between all campuses in the district in relation to
the S.M.A.R.T. goals school improvement model. The researcher asked, “How do you perceive
a shared vision being promoted?” A3 responded,

118
One campus isn’t doing one thing and another campus doing another. We all have our
district mission and beliefs there with our commitments. The shared vision is top-down
and bottom-up…everyone knows. Our custodians help, our cafeteria ladies help. We let
everyone know that we have one focus as a district. The same vocabulary or words come
up over and over: shared, common, focus. Instead of having four campuses going four
different directions and all the principals choosing a different direction, then most
teachers will then be making their own agenda too. We promote the shared vision that
we have.
A common focus was conducive to a positive culture and ensured everyone was committed to
the goals set forth by the district. Administrators and teacher leaders who collaborated to
develop the vision of both the campus and district took ownership and pride in the work required
to accomplish the established goals.
Findings from Research Question 3
Research Question 3 was, “What are teachers’ and administrators’ perceptions of
building teacher leadership capacity within their own district?” Main and subordinate themes
resonated in the teacher and administrator focus group interviews that enriched and illuminated
the quantitative data from the LCSS survey (see Table 21). The theme of leadership
opportunities led to more specificity in the subordinate themes, which pinpointed the differences
between formal and informal opportunities and the level of teacher experience regarding
leadership roles. The subthemes of trust and relationships evolved from the theme of voice.
119
Table 21
Research Question 3 Themes and Subordinate Themes
Themes Subordinate Themes
Leadership Opportunities Formal Leadership Opportunities

Informal Leadership Opportunities
Experience of Teacher
Voice Trust
Relationships
Leadership opportunities. Leadership opportunities included the subordinate themes of
formal leadership, informal leadership, and experience of teachers. Administrators and teachers
had differing perceptions that addressed the leadership opportunities provided to teachers in the
district. The researcher asked, “How do you feel about the leadership opportunities, if any, that
are provided by the district?” The teachers unanimously agreed that they did not feel the district
provided many opportunities for teachers to lead in formal roles. T1 stated, “Leadership isn’t
just in the GLF (Grade Level Facilitator) position. A lot of people feel like there are not
leadership opportunities on our campus because the GLF is the only leadership.”
T5 added her perceptions of the leadership opportunities offered in the district and
mentioned formal and informal leadership roles that existed, which sparked a dialogue that gave
rise to the subordinate themes of informal and formal opportunities to lead. T5 said,
I think it gets broken down into formal and informal. There are a lot of informal
opportunities for leadership. Formal leadership opportunities…I don’t think we have a
lot in our district. I think it is very defined and it is that one person and that one person
has the authority and that’s it.

120
Three teachers (T1, T3, and T4) verbally agreed with T5. They felt the district did not provide
many opportunities for teachers to assume formal leadership roles, but there were an abundance
of informal opportunities available. Participants identified formal roles as those roles with a
title; however, they pointed out that those in informal leadership roles assumed just as much
responsibility without the formal assignment. T5 said, “It requires you to step up, organize, get
people together, or manage something, even though it is not technically your title.” T6 offered
an example of an informal opportunity to be a teacher leader:
I think with the mentorship that we do here and our teaming that we have provides
support for the new teachers, but it also helps us as a teacher leader to grow and develop,
so as we are supporting them, they are actually supporting us even more than they realize.
T1 pointed out that taking on an informal leadership role may be difficult or challenging:
“Informal leaders…the other people (formal leaders) look at you as you are trying to one up
them or be better than them so I kind of think it as it’s dang if you do and dang if you don’t.” T3
also supported the theme of leadership opportunities and noted that everyone can be a leader:
Everyone has the capacity within them to be sort of a leader. So, when are you
(administrator) going to let them shine? When are you going to let them get that
confidence to feel like I can do this? Where are you going to give someone an
opportunity? The opportunity needs to be there in order to develop leadership capacity.
Teachers also discussed years of experience and the role of the administrator in
developing leadership. The dialogue supported that subordinate theme of experience. T3, the
most experienced teacher, expressed her perception of teacher leaders and how years of teaching
experience and teacher tenure influenced that role. The researcher asked, “What do you feel are
the benefits, if any, of being developed into a teacher leader? T3 noted,

121
One of the big benefits I see in developing newer teachers into teacher leaders is perhaps
in the sake of retention. Giving some responsibilities to people who are coming in, who
haven’t been here that long, to develop some leadership abilities so they will feel some
responsibility to the district and to the culture of the school. Giving that responsibility to
different people, not always the same person or the tenured individual.
T2, who had between 1-5 years of experience, felt that district size could influence leadership
development and building leadership capacity among the staff:
Being in a small school there is a lot of little politics that may not be seen from the
outside and they (administrators) don’t know you, they don’t pick you right away. You
know it is sometimes hard to break into leadership roles. I feel like being a newer
teacher, I can bring in some new ideas that they may not have considered.
T4 stated, “It would be neat if everyone, every new teacher or veteran teacher, had some
responsibility.” T1 replied, “It is the opportunity; that is just what it is. We all feel that we have
something to present…it’s getting admin to see that.” All teachers in the group had strong
opinions about available leadership opportunities. T3 expressed, “If given the opportunity for
everyone to lead, maybe there wouldn’t be a need for all the titles because we would all share the
responsibility and that capacity that we talk about would be there.” T1 summed up the
discussion of informal and formal leadership roles as follows: “I think that maybe new teachers
and old teachers…maybe I shouldn’t say old, how about veteran teachers, need to realize that
leadership is not just central office, principals, GLFs…and who has been on the hall the longest.”
Teachers perceived that years of teaching experience should not be a deciding factor for an
administrator when making decisions about leadership development and assigning a teacher as a
formal leader.
122
Administrators discussed the themes of leadership opportunities and the subordinate
themes of formal leadership opportunities, informal leadership opportunities, and the experience
level of the teacher. These administrators conveyed differing perceptions about leadership
opportunities compared to the teachers. All five administrators agreed that the district provided
teachers abundant opportunities to take on leadership roles, which was in sharp contrast to
teachers’ perceptions.
The researcher asked, “How do you feel about the leadership opportunities, if any,
provided by the district for teachers?” A5 stated, “I feel great about our district because we have
many opportunities for leadership or for our teachers to take the lead in something.” A4
followed up by saying, “The one thing is that we have had consistent leadership opportunities.”
When asked about those opportunities, administrators gave specific examples. A5 said, “They
(teachers) have many opportunities whether it is in content or whether it is S.M.A.R.T goals,
there is quite a bit out there.” A1 pointed out new district roles, such as instructional coaches,
that have been created and stated, “The whole idea, I guess kind of evolved from our teachers
who had leadership skills to move into those positions.” A2 made a point that leadership does
not have to be only in the area of instruction as many typically think. A2 noted,
You depend on people to take on leadership positions in your cafeteria, in your
transportation, in your maintenance, and in your other areas that are a part of your
operations. We tend to focus a lot on instruction, but there are those other areas as well.
All administrators agreed that teachers must be given opportunities, but they have to be
accompanied by other things. The researcher asked, “How do you develop and support a teacher
leader, and what are some examples of how you developed and supported that teacher leader?”
A2 commented, “You have to give them (teachers) room to make their own decisions.” A3
123
replied, “Encouragement after you have given them an opportunity.” Administrators
distinguished between formal and informal leadership roles, and four of the five administrators
mentioned these roles specifically.
The researcher asked, “How is leadership outside of an assigned leadership role
encouraged?” A2 referred to the title often given by the campus administrators within the
district:
We want everyone to use their strengths and feel that it is the shared responsibility of
everyone. Until the culture promotes that shared responsibility, those roles will stay with
only those teachers who have the title or who have been selected by the principal.
A4 acknowledged culture and how it related to defined and undefined roles by stating, “We have
to also let all teachers know that the roles that are not formally assigned play just as an
important, you know, crucial role in the overall function of the our campus.” A1 added, “That is
just the culture. If that culture does not support that then those roles won’t be filled or the
teachers won’t feel comfortable enough to step into one of those undefined roles.” A3 also
mentioned how leadership roles without a title still hold importance:
Sometimes the teacher who takes on the role outside of her normal responsibilities
understands that she is important and what she brings to the table does matter even if she
does not have an official title, like our team leaders or grade level leaders. We like to see
teachers take on leadership roles by themselves.
Only one administrator mentioned formal leadership in terms of teacher experience,
while years of experience was a focal point during the teacher focus group interview. Teachers
suspected that if teachers were on a term contract (3 years employed in the district or taught 5 of
the last 8 years in a public school) that it made a difference in whether one was chosen to be in a
124
leadership role, whereas administrators expressed that they did not exclude teachers with fewer
years of experience. Near the closing of the discussion, the researcher asked participants what
they thought was the most important thing discussed regarding building teacher leadership
capacity. A4 noted the varying amount of experience that existed on a campus during the 2014–
2015 school year:
The things on campus that varied were teachers’ experience…very new teachers to
experienced teachers. Sometimes the experienced teachers are the only ones who are
chosen to be leaders. We truly started building from the bottom up and we found some
teachers that were young, but they were strong, and they definitely made a huge impact
on our campus and truly helped change the culture of our campus. We put some faith and
support behind them, but also tried to balance that with the sage wisdom of our older
teachers.
Voice. The final theme was voice with subordinate themes of trust and relationships.
During the administrator focus group discussion, A2 brought up voice early in the conversation
when asked “Think back over the past year that you have been employed by the district, how has
culture been impacted by the empowerment of teacher leaders?” The theme of voice morphed
into the subordinate themes of trust and relationships for the remainder of the administrator focus
group interview. A2 stated,
I think that a lot of teachers appreciate having a voice rather than when you just have a
top-down mentality or set up. I think teachers like the fact that they are included and they
feel like they are a part of the decisions that are being made. Sometimes you see a little
trickle down effect because when they feel like they are being given the opportunity to
have a voice that trickles down to the classroom and they let the students have a voice.
125
Several administrators referenced the subordinate theme of relationships between teacher
leaders and administrators. The researcher asked, “How do you develop and support a teacher
leader, and what are some examples of how you developed and supported that teacher leader?
A2 said, “You have to encourage them and support them. Be a partner with them and just guide
them.” A5 replied, “That’s right. It is just like having an open door policy, so they know if they
need help they can come to you because you have communicated with them so they don’t feel
like they are by themselves.” A3 recalled a situation with a teacher leader and said, “When I
started building that relationship with her, and pointing out that she did a great job and let her
know, she grew from that.”
The relationship between the teacher leader and administrator cannot be empty, and
conversations must be full of trust. A2 stated, “Reflection has to be full of trust and that we use
it not to point fingers, but to make us better.” A5 referred to the importance of establishing a
positive relationship with teachers. Fostering a positive, supportive relationship may be a tool
administrators use to overcome the difficulty of building teacher leadership capacity. The
researcher asked, “What are the barriers you have encountered, if any, that have inhibited the
building leadership capacity of teachers?” A5 responded:
One barrier could be the teachers themselves because they may not think they are ready
to be a leader because you may see something in them that they do not see yet. You have
to want to establish that relationship with them so you can show them that yes, they are
leaders. (A5)
Similarly, the theme of voice was brought to light early in the teacher focus group
interview and it resonated throughout the focus group interview. The researcher asked, “What
do you feel are the benefits, if any, of being developed into a teacher leader?” T5 stated, “You
126
have to have more voice as a leader and you can sway things, positively or negatively.” Three of
the six teachers immediately agreed. T6 added, “That is the big thing,” and T1 echoed, “That is
very important.” T2 said, “It helps make a positive campus culture because everyone feels like
they are contributing and they have a voice.” The teachers felt that their voices were heard, and
T6 stressed:
I think you just said the big thing. If everybody feels like they have a voice, then
whatever teacher leader or administrator they are talking to, they believe they are really
listening to them. That in itself has created positivity.
T4 discussed the importance of teachers’ voices being heard during teaming time in terms of the
collaboration between teachers and administrators. The researcher asked, “How is collaboration
used to make decisions? T4 stated, “Our voice is heard, even if they don’t take what we say and
make a change or implement our suggestion…just to know you were listened to.”
Near the end of the teacher discussion, the researcher asked participants what they felt
was the most important thing discussed regarding building leadership teacher capacity. T5 and
T6 said teachers having their opinions heard and administrators acknowledging their voices.
Specifically, T5 stated,
I think the one thing that we have said over and over again is having a voice and being
heard. Teaching is a calling, not a job. We didn’t sign up for the money, but when you
start feeling like you don’t have a voice, you start griping. If you feel like you have a
voice and you are being heard, it is easier to be positive.
T6 agreed,
That is exactly what I was going to say. Having a voice, like you were saying earlier, is
like giving and sharing responsibility. It is not just one person doing it and taking control
127
or relinquishing control. It is everybody having a voice and everybody having an opinion
and equal responsibilities.
Administrators were also asked to self-reflect on their individual skills in building teacher
leaders. The researcher asked administrators about their individual strengths in promoting
teacher leaders. A1 instantly replied, “I am probably not good at it, so I would say that my
strengths would be limited.” The four other administrators appeared taken aback by A1’s
response. After a brief uncomfortable moment, mixed with silence and laughter, A5
reinvigorated the discussion by saying, “I am a good listener, and I am going to be there for
them.” The conversation quickly got back on track as A4 noted specific individual strengths and
the importance of those strengths to building teacher leaders. A2 acknowledged that
administrators get better at developing teacher leaders over time. A4 stated,
I guess I would say that I am a promoter. I try to find their little hidden jewel and find
something that they are good at. I try to give them a push in the positive direction to be a
leader. I hope that my strength is seeing something in them…their spark.
A2 commented,
I think we could all probably say that this is something that we get better with over time.
I mean, I look at people who I was a mentor to and I feel guilty because I could have
been so much better and I could have helped them so much more. I hear all the
characteristics that everyone has mentioned and you would like to think you have a little
of them all, but I think my strength is being a problem solver when developing a new
leader.
128
The discussion on individual strengths ended after A2 said, “You have to help them see where
problems might be and present it to them in such a way that you’re not telling them what to do.”
A1 replied, “Yes, so that is why I say I am limited. I just want to say let’s do it this way.”
Summary
Chapter 4 presented the findings of the quantitative and qualitative data the researcher
collected following the steps for a sequential design study (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007). The
descriptive results from the SCAI, the LCSS, and the CCA for Phase I of the study yielded a
statistical relationship between the dimensions of teacher leadership capacity and the dimensions
of campus culture, which answered Research Questions 1a and 1b-d, which were posed for the
different teacher experience groups. Qualitative data collected during Phase II aimed to answer
Research Questions 2 and 3 to gain a deeper understanding of participants’ perception of their
own campus culture and building teacher leadership capacity within their district to explain the
quantitative results from in Phase I. The mixed methods approach increased the confidence of
the researcher’s findings. In addition, mixing of data gathered from the teacher and
administrator focus group interviews aided the researcher’s exploration into the relationship
between building leadership capacity and campus culture at a greater level. Chapter 5 includes
the summary of the findings, conclusions, implications, and recommendations for future
research.
129
Chapter 5
SUMMARY OF THE STUDY AND THE FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS,
AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
East Texas school district. A gap existed in the connection of teacher leadership capacity and
campus culture (Bain et al., 2011; Berry, 2014; Conzemius & Morganti-Fisher, 2012; Lambert,
1998, 2003, 2006). In the preceding chapter, the researcher presented the findings from the data
analysis. Chapter 5 includes a summary of the research study, findings, conclusions,
implications, and recommendations for future research.
Summary of the Findings
One quarter of U.S. school administrators resign their campus leadership positions each
year. This temporary absence in leadership results in a hiatus of the school improvement process
and culture changing schemas propelled by the departing administrators (School Leaders
Network, 2014). This void could be eradicated by building teacher leadership capacity and
stimulating a positive school culture. The researcher followed an explanatory sequential mixed
methods design that included two phases.
The design of this sequential mixed method (Creswell, 2014) study yielded findings that
identified relationships between teachers’ and administrators’ perceptions of leadership capacity
and campus culture. While the results of this study yielded a statistically significant relationship
between all teacher and administrator groups, regardless of experience level, participants had
different perceptions of experience regarding the relationship between teacher leadership
capacity and campus culture. The qualitative analysis confirmed these findings. Specifically,
130
teachers and administrators who had the most and least amount of experience (1-5 years and 17+
years) indicated a desire for leadership to be shared between all teachers and administrators on
campus as well as a cycle of information to be communicated between all stakeholders to
support understanding and decision making. Additionally, leader titles were not needed for
teachers to perceive themselves as leaders on campus. Teachers and administrators also
celebrated successes and found solutions to problems side-by-side. This collective acceptance of
responsibility created cultures that valued all leadership and included everyone as a leader.
Teachers and administrators who had 6-16 years of experience focused on the
establishing of a shared vision to include shared decision making. These participants wanted
leadership roles, whether informal or formal, and they felt that modeling leadership skills was a
vital component of building teacher leadership capacity. Those in the 6-16 years of experience
group also wanted everyone’s voice to be heard, and strong relationships forged among all
administrators and teachers to promote positive campus cultures. Collectively, the school
organizational structure, specifically, the master teaching schedule, substantiated the importance
of building teacher leaders and contributed to the positive culture consisting of collaborative
actions among all teachers and administrators. The master schedule on each campus includes a
50 minute collaboration period for every teacher. In addition, the data revealed that teachers
valued opportunities to become leaders; however, teachers and administrators perceived the
number of opportunities provided by the district differently.
The primary focus of Research Questions 1a-d was to determine whether a statistical
relationship existed between the dimensions of teacher leadership capacity and the dimensions of
campus culture. The researcher collected Phase I quantitative data from the School Climate
Assessment Instrument (SCAI) and the Leadership Capacity School Survey (LCSS) using a
131
convenience sample of 104 participants from a suburban East Texas school district. To answer
Research Questions 1a-d, the researcher conducted a canonical correlation analysis (CCA) to
determine which variables of the SCAI were more closely associated with those of the LCSS.
The researcher collected Phase II qualitative data to answer Research Questions 2 and 3.
A purposeful random sample provided the researcher with participants to conduct two focus
group interview sessions. Six teachers and five administrators participated in the focus group
interviews that offered the researcher additional insight and understanding of participants’
perceptions of building teacher leadership capacity within their own district and the culture on
their own campus. These data also provided clarification of the numerical data collected in
Phase I. Data were coded and categorized into themes and subordinate themes.
The following central questions guided this study:
1a. Does a statistically significant relationship exist between the dimensions of campus
teacher leadership capacity and the dimensions of campus culture?

132
of teacher leadership capacity and the dimensions for campus culture for

133
2. What are teachers’ and administrators’ perceptions of campus culture on their own
campus?
capacity within their own district?
Phase I Research Question 1a Findings
dimensions of teacher leadership capacity and the dimensions of campus culture?” The primary
focus of this research question was to determine whether a statistical relationship existed
between the dimensions of the LCSS and SCAI using a CCA. The null hypothesis was rejected.
A statistically significant relationship existed between the two synthetic variables of campus
culture and teacher leadership capacity. The effect size (Rc2 = .561) indicated that 56.1% of the
variance in the two variable sets were shared across all functions. This finding suggests a
noteworthy relationship between the dimensions of the LCSS and SCAI.
The findings for Research Question 1a were consistent with evidence in the literature.
Teacher leaders can redefine existing school cultures if teacher leadership is embedded as an
unabridged school improvement process (Lambert, 2000; McKinney et al., 2015; Munger & Von
Frank, 2010; Roby, 2011). The LCSS dimension of roles and actions reflect broad involvement
and collective responsibility (h2 = 86.3%), which the data analysis supported as a primary
contributor to the leadership capacity predictor synthetic variable. Lambert (1998, 2003, 2006)
suggested that administrators design roles for teachers to demonstrate their respective leadership
134
qualities. The shared vision and collaborative decision making between administrators and
teacher leaders aligned with the S.M.A.R.T. (S = specific, M = measurable, A = attainable, R =
results-based, T = time bound) goal school improvement model. This school improvement
model provides a framework structured around collaboration, focus, and reflection to build
teacher leadership capacity (Conzemius & Morganti-Fisher, 2012; O’Neill & Conzemius, 2006).
The leadership/decisions (h2 = 61.9%) variable of the SCAI was the primary contributor
to the campus culture synthetic variable. This variable also aligned with the S.M.A.R.T. goal
framework that encourages teachers to be leaders and to take on shared roles in the decision-
making process. With collective leadership capacity, school culture can flourish (Conzemius &
Morganti-Fisher, 2012; O’Neill & Conzemius, 2006). Sahin (2011) found school leadership to
be a productive dimension of school culture because of the intentionality of teacher collaboration
in decision making and uniting stakeholders to accomplish the school mission.
Research Questions 1b-1d Findings
The primary focus of the Research Questions 1b-d were to determine whether
experiential variables changed the statistical relationship between the dimensions of the LCSS
and SCAI following a CCA for three experience groups. The three experience groups were as
follows: Group 1: 1-5 years of teaching experience, Group 2: 6-16 years of teaching experience,
and Group 3: 17+ years of teaching experience. The following quantitative research questions
guided Phase I of the study:

135
The findings from subquestions 1b and 1c were consistent with previous research. The
data indicates that teachers, despite their limited years of experience, desired to take on
leadership roles with their administrators’ support (Muijs & Harris, 2007). Teachers early in
their careers may be molded into leaders through intentional school improvement efforts (Muijs
et al., 2013). However, this support and encouragement cannot occur, regardless of a teacher’s
years of experience, without a culture that is conducive to the risk-taking element of becoming a
teacher leader (Quinn et al., 2006). Additionally, Deal and Peterson (2009) did not find teachers’
experience level of a teacher as a factor that contributed to school climate; however, teachers’
and administrators’ common vision and beliefs contributed to school climate.
A significant canonical correlation existed for Group 1 (1-5 years of teaching experience)
between the dimensions of teacher leadership capacity and the dimensions of campus culture.
The squared correlation coefficient was .693; therefore, 69.3% of the variance was shared. The
null hypothesis for this research question was rejected because a statistically significant
campus culture for teachers with 1-5 years of experience. For Group 1, the single variable
expressing leadership capacity was roles and actions that reflect broad involvement,
collaboration, and collective responsibility, with a communality coefficient (h2) of 59.8%. For
136
school culture, the leadership/decisions variable of the SCAI had a communality coefficient of
61.9%.
A significant canonical correlation existed for Group 2 (6-16 years of teaching
experience; R2 = .829), which indicated 82.9% shared variance. Therefore, the null hypothesis
for Research Question 1c was not accepted. A statistically significant relationship existed
between the dimensions of teacher leadership capacity and the dimensions of campus culture for
teachers and administrators. The substantial leadership capacity variable was the dimension of
shared vision that results in program coherence, which yielded a communality coefficient of
90.3%. The significant school culture variable was leadership/decisions with a communality
coefficient of 90.6%, which indicated 68.1% shared variance.
The null hypothesis for Research Question 1d was rejected. A statistically significant
campus culture for teachers and administrators. The substantial leadership capacity variables
were the dimensions of roles and actions and broad based, which yielded a communality
coefficient of 93.7% and 85.0%. The significant school culture variable was leadership decisions
with a communality coefficient of 88.7% and faculty relations with an 85.5% communality
coefficient.
Phase II Research Question 2 Findings
Research Question 2 was, “What are teachers’ and administrators’ perceptions of their
own campus culture?” This question was answered using qualitative data in Phase II of the
study, which allowed the researcher to examine participants’ perceptions of their own campus
culture in depth. Qualitative data were gathered during two focus group interviews (see
137
Appendix F). Administrative leadership and time emerged as themes, and empowerment,
modeling, collaboration, shared focus, and reflection emerged as subordinate themes.
Administrative leadership. During the teacher and administrator focus group
interviews, participants referred to faculty and staff relationships that exist on campus. Though
the perceptions differed from campus to campus, participants agreed that campus culture
depended on the leader of the respective campus. The researcher asked, “How would you define
culture?” Participants defined culture as a person. A3 said, “It is because of who the leader is in
charge and how they set the culture and the tone for that campus, but they all work and it is very
interesting to see that.” A5 stated, “Each campus is different. You can feel the different cultures
on each campus within the district.” T3 referred to the leadership on a campus by commenting,
“I think it trickles down from the top, the top leader of the school, the administration, and
however they set the expectations, the atmosphere, or the tone of the campus.” The information
shared revealed that administrative leadership influences school culture, which supports the
literature (Fullan, 2014; Harris, 2011; Sahin, 2011).
Two subordinate themes emerged from the administrative leadership theme:
empowerment and modeling. The researcher asked, “How do you develop and support a teacher
leader, and what are some examples of how you developed and supported that teacher leader?”
A2 said, “You have to provide that guidance and let them [teachers] grow and reflect with them
on some things to help them grow. Be a partner with them.” This finding solidified Balkar’s
(2015) findings that tied teacher empowerment to school culture. In addition, Mullen and Jones
(2008) linked teacher empowerment to the specific encouragement given by an administrator.
T3 cited the importance of modeling by administrators for teachers who are potential
leaders, which supported existing literature. Gray and Bishop (2009) included observation and
138
active participation in leadership roles as a collaborative process in a learning organization.
Using a strategy of tactical building for teacher leaders through professional growth
opportunities not only establishes a culture that advocates risk taking, but also instills confidence
in teachers (Katzenmeyer & Moller, 2009). For example, T3 said,
Modeling, we all know in education, is the best way of teaching. Modeling our
expectations, modeling a lesson, modeling anything. Same thing with leadership…you
model leadership, how you want leadership to happen and if there is buy-in from
underneath, then there can be more leadership and you can see how that can be followed
up. Everyone has a chance to impact the culture of the school.
Time. The theme of time was evident in both the teacher and administrator focus groups.
This theme correlates to literature that pinpoints the importance of collaboration through
professional learning communities (PLC), which cannot occur without the resource of time. The
Standards for Professional Learning (Learning Forward, 2011) along with descriptors of high
performing PLCs include intentional time for professionals to collaborate, foster continual school
improvement, and engage in collective responsibility actions such as teacher leadership (DuFour,
2014; DuFour et al., 2008; Little, 2006). Collaboration and teacher leadership participation in
job-embedded PLCs have a constructive effect on the school organization and its overall
effectiveness (Fullan, 2014; Lambert 1998, 2003).
During both focus groups, the repeated references to time included specific examples that
the district had put in place. The researcher asked, “How is collaboration used to make
decisions?” Examples from teachers and administrators were explicit in highlighting the extra
50 minutes the district affords all teachers in every content area, free from interruptions, to plan
or have meetings with other staff members. Time gave rise to both subordinate themes. Without
139
time, both teachers and administrators pointed out that collaboration and focus would not have
been as deliberate. A3 said, “Our schedule gives us time.” A2 highlighted teachers’ and
administrators’ intentionality and efficient use of time allotted by the district when asked, “What
is the most important thing we have discussed today regarding building teacher leadership
capacity and how you feel that it impacts campus culture?” A2 stated,
I would say that the most important thing, and I know I mentioned it earlier, is time. You
have to be very intentional about trying to build leaders and to build leadership capacity.
It is real easy in this business for your time to get swallowed up by so many things. You
have to focus on making time to work with people. I think that this district does a pretty
good job of providing time for people to collaborate, work together, and build that
capacity.
A5 reiterated, “That time has to be meaningful like A2 said earlier, or otherwise it is going to be
a waste. You have to be intentional with it.”
Teachers mentioned the subordinate themes of collaboration and focus, while
administrators discussed collaboration, focus, and reflection on a deeper level. The three
subordinate themes that emerged from the theme of time are the components of the S.M.A.R.T.
goals school improvement model (O’Neill & Conzemius, 2006) that the selected district had
implemented for 9 years. Ongoing training occurs with all teachers and administrators
throughout the year, and the level of commitment to the S.M.A.R.T. goal process is reinforced in
PLCs on each campus. The S.M.A.R.T. goal model to build teacher leadership capacity is
designed to change the culture of a school (O’Neill & Conzemius, 2006).
Information from the focus group interviews provided additional insight into the
subordinate theme of collaboration. The researcher asked, “How have you personally been
140
developed and supported as a teacher leader, if at all, and what are some examples of this?” T4
stated, “The collaboration with other people who are doing the same type of job you are doing
helps. You have time to collaborate and it really helps bouncing ideas off of each other.” T3
said, “I think having a shared focus all the way around. We talk about our belief system. That
common focus must be revisited and we do that a lot.” T4 agreed and replied, “We have to
know what it [the focus] is and I think our district communicates that a lot. We want everyone in
our school to share the same philosophy.” The collaboration component of S.M.A.R.T. goals
includes both teachers and administrators to forge partnerships in the school (Conzemius &
Morganti-Fisher, 2012; O’Neill & Conzemius, 2006). A3 noted the relationship between the
S.M.A.R.T. goal framework and collaboration when the researcher asked, “How is collaboration
used to make decisions?”
I see the collaboration with our S.M.A.R.T. goals because in every coaching session we
revisit our norms and the S.M.A.R.T. goals framework. The triangle has the main
component of collaboration. We know that the collaboration is a priority because of the
scheduling we have for everyone.
A2 remarked, “It [collaboration] would happen, but it wouldn’t be as intentional.”
Participants in the administrator group also referenced focus or shared vision in terms of
the S.M.A.R.T. goals school improvement model. Quotes were precise in support of the
subordinate theme of shared focus. The researcher posed the question, “How do you perceive a
shared vision being promoted?” A3 responded:
One campus isn’t doing one thing and another campus doing another. We all have our
district mission and beliefs there with our commitments. The shared vision is top-down
and bottom-up…everyone knows. Our custodians help, our cafeteria ladies help. We let
141
everyone know that we have one focus as a district. The same vocabulary or words come
up over and over: shared, common, focus. Instead of having four campuses going four
different directions and all the principals choosing a different direction, then most
teachers will then be making their own agenda too. We promote the shared vision that
we have.
Administrators acknowledged fostering a shared focus and vision, which supports the
literature on the S.M.A.R.T. goals framework. The framework is grounded in focused,
reflective, and collaborative cultures to build leadership capacity. Therefore, focus must be
devoted to accomplishing the school vision, purpose, and core value beliefs. Every decision
must be made with a calculated focus that is S.M.A.R.T. (Conzemius & Morganti-Fisher, 2012;
O’Neill & Conzemius, 2006).
Administrators also discussed the subordinate theme of reflection, which was connected
with the time the district designated for collaboration. The researcher asked, “How is reflection
encouraged?” A1 commented, “During our teaming time. I think we do (reflect) because of all
of our meetings we have that are designated to reflect on something.” In the same respect, A2
talked about time and how teachers and administrators used it:
I think during our teaming time our teachers know that time is where they can all problem
solve or talk about what went right. I think where our district does a really good job is
giving us time to stop, slow down, and reflect for us or for ourselves.
A school improvement process can structure continuous school improvement. The
identified subordinate theme of reflection is implanted within the S.M.A.R.T. goal framework.
The S.M.A.R.T goal framework provides administrators and teachers with tools to reflect on the
142
past, present, and future of the school organization (Conzemius & Morganti-Fisher, 2012;
O’Neill & Conzemius, 2006).
Phase II Research Question 3 Findings
Research Question 3 was, “What are the teachers’ and administrators’ perceptions of
building teacher leadership capacity within their own district?” Building leadership capacity
among teachers can shift the sole responsibility from the administrator’s shoulders to a
leadership system in which everyone has a shared responsibility (Lambert, 2006). The primary
focus of Research Question 3 was to understand teachers’ and administrators’ perceptions of
building teacher leadership capacity within their own district. The researcher obtained and
analyzed qualitative data from two focus group interviews to gain a deeper understanding of
participants’ perceptions of building leadership capacity. The themes of leadership opportunities
and voice emerged with the subordinate themes of formal leadership opportunities, informal
leadership opportunities, experience of the teacher, trust, and relationships.
Leadership opportunities. The theme of leadership opportunities emerged from both
focus group interviews with the subordinate themes of formal leadership roles, informal
leadership roles, and teaching experience. The researcher asked about participants’ perceptions
concerning the leadership opportunities offered in the district. The unanimous teacher
perception was that the district did not offer many leadership opportunities. However,
administrators’ perceptions were different in that they felt the district offered multiple
opportunities for teachers to be leaders.
One teacher expressed that there were fewer formal than informal leadership
opportunities. Another teacher pointed out the formal title of GLF (Grade Level Facilitator) on a
campus and said, “Leadership isn’t just in that GLF position.” Another elementary teacher
143
referenced the leadership role that accompanied the title GLF. An elementary teacher made the
point that leadership should not be encapsulated in a title or dependent on the number of years of
teaching experience. The teacher remarked, “The titles. If given the opportunity for everyone to
lead, maybe there wouldn’t be a need for all the titles because we would all share the
responsibility and that capacity that we talk about would be there.”
Administrators’ responses concerning building teacher leadership capacity validated their
beliefs of building leaders around them. All administrators concurred on one reason why
building leaders around them was important because teacher leaders would carry on their
mission once they were gone. The researcher asked, “How would you define leadership
capacity?” One administrator said, “It is building people around you, giving them
responsibilities to help them grow into positions.” This finding correlates with corporate
enterprises that aim to cultivate and maintain their legacies (Bleak, 2012). However, only one
administrator acknowledged the importance of informal leadership roles.
Administrators defined formal leadership roles in the district as team leader, grade level
leaders, department heads, and GLFs; however, they also included leadership roles on
committees. One administrator noted success of the district in growing leaders for formal roles.
Looking ahead, all five administrators admitted they realized that they would not be an
administrator on their campuses forever; therefore, teacher leaders should be groomed to step
into a bigger leadership role. The researcher asked, “How is leadership outside of an assigned
leadership role encouraged? A1 said, “Until the culture promotes that shared responsibility,
those roles will stay with only those teachers who have the title or who have been selected by the
principal.” A secondary teacher, who had been with the district for 16 years, voiced a similar
144
opinion that if all teachers were given a chance to shine, they might surprise those around them
with their leadership skills.
The findings related to arranging and appointing teacher leadership roles with titles
versus informal leadership roles. This finding validated the literature to include the acceptance
of both formal and informal roles within the school (Katzenmeyer & Moller, 2009). Berry
(2014) suggested that administrators might not fully understand how to develop teacher leaders
into nontraditional roles versus traditional roles such as team leader, department chair, or
instructional coach. Administrators are responsible for implementing professional learning that
will aid teachers in discovering their respective leadership qualities (Conzemius & Morganti-
Fisher, 2012).
Teachers’ experience level was a subordinate theme of leadership opportunity. Teachers’
comments indicated that years of teaching experience hindered a teacher from being appointed to
a leadership role within the district. The researcher asked how teachers contributed to being a
teacher leader on their campus. One elementary teacher reflected on a personal memory. The
teacher believed that the administrator did not assign a formal leadership role to a new teacher
even though that teacher might have been capable of being a teacher leader. Thus, teachers felt
that experience matters to administrators when assigning leadership roles.
One elementary teacher shared, “I have been in a lot of places, and experience and age
does something to develop some amount of leadership.” Muijs and Harris (2007) conducted a
study with inexperienced teachers who reported their aspirations to take on leadership roles,
despite their few years of classroom experience. One administrator’s opinion about experience
mirrored that of the teachers. The administrator admitted that often, experienced teachers were
the only ones appointed to be leaders and the choice was solely based on years of experience.
145
Voice. The final theme of voice and the subordinate themes of trust and relationships
resonated in both focus group interviews regarding participants’ perceptions of leadership
capacity. The time embedded into teachers’ and administrators’ days provided a venue for the
teachers’ voices to be heard by their colleagues and administration. One teacher expressed the
importance of everyone having a voice. The teacher alleged that if all teachers’ voices are not
heard, often one teacher takes control and limits the sharing of leadership among the other staff
members. All of the teachers echoed the importance of having his or her voice heard, and noted
their desire to be a part of the campus leadership team, regardless of whether they had a formal
title. These perceptions support the literature referencing the constructivist standpoint by
allowing teachers’ point of views to be heard through dialogue, collaboration, and discourse
(Lambert, 2003). Likewise, administrators must switch from dispersing knowledge and
information. Rather, administrators need to become learners and interact with teachers in the
social setting of a PLC (Grandin, 2006; Hutchings, 2009).
Trust and relationships surfaced when the researcher asked about the most important
aspect of building leadership capacity on their campuses. Participants noted that the
relationships forged between administrators and teachers were an important facet of teacher
leader development. The foundations of these relationships were built on a common philosophy
of leadership capacity that was engrained in the culture of the school. This relationship theme
was also coupled with the intentional use of time to cultivate trust between teachers and
administrators. An elementary administrator identified relationships as a prerequisite for
developing teacher leadership capacity, and noted that trust must exist for teachers to take risks.
Conzemius and Morganti-Fisher (2012) identified five critical attributes that have the most
146
prevalent bearing on the successful formation of teams of teachers and administrators, one of
which is trust in one another.
Integration of Quantitative and Qualitative Results
The researcher integrated both quantitative and qualitative data to accomplish the purpose
of the study. The research questions that guided the study were both quantitative and qualitative
to explore the relationship between building teacher leadership capacity and campus culture.
Phase I was the quantitative phase of the sequential data collection, which allowed the researcher
to determine teachers’ and administrators’ perceptions of teacher leadership and campus culture.
Phase II was the qualitative phase, which allowed the researcher to support and explain the
findings of the quantitative phase. The researcher also used the literature to strengthen the
findings that reflected empirical studies on the theoretical frameworks of building teacher
leadership capacity and culture of a campus as well as to substantiate the gap that existed in the
research on the relationship between the two. Convergence of the data analysis led to the
researcher’s interpretation of the final findings of the study. Figure 7 offers a visual model of the
researcher’s mixed methods sequential design.

147
Figure 7. Flow chart depicting the explanatory sequential mixed methods research design
(adapted from Castro et al., 2011)
The mean scores from the LCSS, SCAI, canonical correlation analysis (CCA) of the
synthetic variables, and the themes that emerged from the focus group interviews provided the
researcher an immense amount of data. The qualitative data enhanced the quantitative data and
indicated a statistically significant relationship between teacher building leadership capacity and
campus culture. The statistical findings related to Research Question 1a revealed a statistically
significant relationship between the dimensions of building teacher leadership capacity and the
dimensions of campus culture for all teachers and administrators. Data related to Research
Questions 1b-d indicated that years of experience changed the relationship; however, findings
supported a statistically significant relationship between the two variables. The relationship
between building teacher leadership capacity and campus culture were detailed by robust
responses from both teachers and administrators during the focus group interviews. During the
discussions, teachers and administrators elaborated on their perceptions about teacher leadership
148
capacity, campus culture, and how these two concepts were interconnected on their specific
campuses and within the district as a whole.
The canonical solution for Research Question 1 indicated a statistically significant
relationship between the dimension of roles and actions that reflect the collective responsibility
within the building leadership capacity variable in relation to the dimension of leadership and
decision-making processes within the campus culture variable. Responses from teachers and
administrators validated these variables. Building teacher leadership capacity yielded a
significant statistical relationship with campus culture within the selected suburban East Texas
school district. However, this relationship fluctuated when examined through the various
experience levels of teachers.
Teachers in the district who had the least amount of experience (Group 1: 1-5 Years) and
those with the most experience (Group 3: 17+ Years) indicated the importance of having a cycle
of information to support their decisions and reflecting and collaborating with others during a
time devoted to dialogue. These two groups also indicated their need for collective
responsibility, broad involvement of everyone, and plans that outlined the school vision. The
shared priorities of these two experience groups indicated that, despite their difference in years
of experience, they valued and desired to be a part of decision-making leadership teams. These
groups of teachers did not require or request official leadership titles, but rather would serve as
leaders alongside every teacher on the campus and accept responsibility together for successes or
failures. Implementation of the school improvement framework (S.M.A.R.T. goals) indicated
that teachers with the least and most teaching experience embraced the framework components
of collaboration, focus, and reflection. District capacity building efforts for teachers who were
149
new to the profession and those who are experienced offered evidence of the power of
establishing teacher leaders regardless of teaching experience.
Teachers in Group 2 (6-16 years of experience) focused on the shared vision of not only
the campus, but of the entire district. Establishing the campus vision, collective development of
goals, and aligning standards outweighed the other dimensions of leadership capacity. Group 2
accounted for the largest participation group (n = 40), and their responses regarding teacher
leadership capacity and campus culture were clearly expressed in both the surveys and the focus
group interviews. Four of the six teachers in the focus group interview had between 6-16 years
of teaching experience. The priorities of Group 2 were detail-oriented and required modeling
leadership from the top-down as well as empowering their own voices in decision making on the
campus and within the district.
The perceptions of Groups 1, 2, and 3 were similar regarding the leadership/decisions
dimension of campus culture. All three groups expressed their value of the campus leader,
specifically the principal. These groups, despite their range of experience, looked upon the
leader to model, empower, collaborate, and provide opportunities for growth of all teachers.
Campus leadership is an indicator of campus culture. This shared perception was grounded in
the capacity building efforts adopted by the district through its school improvement model.
Group 3 (17+ years of experience) indicated that faculty relations were important in
establishing and sustaining a positive campus culture. This experience group had years of
interactions with a sundry of diverse colleagues, teacher leaders, and administrators. Their
perceptions of school culture were also fueled by relationships between teachers, collaboration
between teachers and administrators, a high level of respect for each other and the profession,
and an appreciation of a collective problem-solving approach.

150
For example, the first statement on the SCAI survey highlighted collaboration among
faculty on a campus and the relationships they had with each other. Over half (51%) of all
participants (teachers and administrators) ranked this statement as high. This positive
acknowledgment of collaboration was also echoed in the subordinate theme of collaboration that
emerged during the focus groups. The administrators also elaborated on the collaboration topic.
One administrator pointed out that every campus had a schedule designed to support
collaboration during the school day. An elementary administrator specifically referred to the
collaboration component of the S.M.A.R.T. goal school improvement model. Time was also a
major theme that emerged in both focus group interviews. A secondary administrator pointed
out the intentionality of the use of time, while an elementary teacher stressed how time was
valuable for collaboration to occur with colleagues and administrators.
Differences on the LCSS survey were confirmed during the focus group interviews.
Teachers’ and administrators’ perceptions of leadership roles were vastly dissimilar as indicated
by their responses. The researcher asked, “How is leadership outside of an assigned leadership
role encouraged?” One elementary teacher, who had the least amount of teaching experience,
stated, “If given the opportunity for everyone to lead, maybe there wouldn’t be a need for all the
titles because we would all share the responsibility.” The teachers felt as though formal
leadership roles were limited in the district, but informal leadership roles provided more
opportunities for them to lead. A secondary teacher noted that when one person is assigned the
formal leadership role, others are then excluded from the opportunity to be teacher leaders.
Administrators’ perceptions did not align with the teachers regarding leadership opportunities
within the district. Several administrators gave examples of how teachers were afforded
opportunities to be teacher leaders within the district. One administrator said, “The one thing we
151
have had is consistent leadership opportunities.” Both focus groups drew attention to formal and
informal leadership roles, and both groups agreed that they contributed to building leadership
capacity on their campuses. These opposing perceptions and beliefs gave rise to the leadership
opportunity theme and the subordinate themes of formal and informal leadership opportunities.
Finally, focus group responses from both teachers and administrators included the same
vocabulary that is embedded in the SCAI and LCSS instruments. For example, focus,
collaboration, trust, modeling, time, and voice resonated in participants’ responses. In addition,
participants’ responses integrated the specific components of the school improvement model
adopted by the district. Both the S.M.A.R.T. goal framework and participants’ responses
included shared vocabulary such as focus, collaboration, and reflection. These actions are
specific to the goal of building teacher leadership capacity and improving the culture of the
school organization.
Conclusions
The problem that framed this study was linking the relationship between building teacher
leadership capacity and campus culture. Gaps existed in the literature on how day-to-day teacher
leadership building efforts related to campus culture. Campus administration is a key factor in
teacher leadership capacity building efforts (Louis et al., 2010; Wilhelm 2010; York-Barr &
Duke, 2009). Creation, buy-in, and ownership of change in campus culture must be in the hands
of administrators and teacher leaders (Roby, 2011). Opportunity-rich environments that allow
teachers to not only serve in the classroom, but also act as teacher leaders exist in flourishing
organizations (Drotter & Charan, 2001) and support continued school improvement measures
even if an administrator leaves (Lambert 1998, 2003, 2006).

152
Phase I Research Question 1a Conclusions
dimensions of teacher leadership capacity and the dimensions of campus culture?” The CCA of
the quantitative data for the six LCSS dimensions and the three SCAI dimensions represented a
shared variance of 56.1%. This shared variance indicates a statistically significant relationship
between the synthetic variables of leadership capacity and campus culture. In addition, the
shared variance for Group 1 (1-5 years of experience) was 69.3%, 82.9% for Group 2 (6-16 years
of experience), and 68.1% for Group 3 (17+ years of experience). These data indicated a
statistically significant relationship between the synthetic variables of leadership capacity and
campus culture. The researcher concludes that campus administrators are builders of teacher
teachers. In addition, the adminstrator’s leadership and the decisions made affect campus culture
and its positive evolution (O’Neill & Conzemius, 2006; Lambert, 1998, 2003, 2006; Louis,
Leithwood, Wahlstrom, & Anderson, 2010; Roby, 2011; Schein, 2010; York-Barr & Duke,
2009)
Phase I Research Question 1b-d Conclusions
Research Questions 1b-d were developed to determine if there was a statistically
significant relationship between the dimensions of teacher leadership capacity and campus
culture for teacher and administrator groups with different levels of experience. The teacher and
administrator groups were divided groups who had 1-5 years of experience, 6-16 years of
experience, and 17+ years of experience. The researcher concluded that teachers perceived that
years of experience effects the likelihood of being assigned a formal, defined leadership role
with a title. Louis and Wahlstrom (2011) suggested that principals and teachers have matching
153
goals and leadership responsibilities that are shared among the staff regardless of the experience
level as noted by Roby (2011).
Also, shared leadership among all staff regardless of the years of experience can lay the
foundation for a culture of change. A high-trust culture has the ability to make the impossible
possible (Fullan, 2014). Teachers’ and administrators’ perceptions of campus culture, based on
the data analysis of the SCAI results, indicated that everyone in the district shared the common
vision. Trust was also evident between teachers and campus leaders because of the high
responses within the leadership/decision dimension of the SCAI; however, teachers’ perceptions
of leadership roles being politically influenced shed a negative light on the same concept.
The researcher concludes that teachers and administrators must recognize leadership
opportunities as formal and informal opportunities to lead on the campus, with both being
important to the success of the campus. Also, encouragement and support for teacher leaders
cannot occur without a culture that allows all interested teachers, regardless of years of teaching
experience, to assume the risk of learning how to become a teacher leader (Quinn et al., 2006).
School atmosphere or existing culture may be a catalyst of roadblocks for emerging teacher
leaders (Harris & Muijs, 2004). All teacher leaders promote schoolwide improvement regardless
of the assignment of a formal leadership title (Jackson, et al., 2010; Muijs & Harris, 2007).
Phase II Research Question 2 Conclusions
Phase II Research Question 2 was, “What are teachers’ and administrators’ perceptions
of campus culture on their own campus?” Administrative leadership and time emerged as
themes from the focus group data.
The researcher concluded that teachers’ and administrators’ perceptions of collaboration,
dialogue, reflection, and intentional time during the school day were positive characteristics that
154
described and acknowledged district commitment to teachers as professional educators. High-
performing schools set aside time for teachers to engage in dynamic collaboration and district
leaders expect this to be done (Conzemius & Morganti-Fisher, 2012). Also, the researcher
concluded that opportunities were available within the district for teachers to become leaders;
however, teachers and administrators perceived the amount and importance of these
opportunities differently. Administrators noted multiple opportunities for teacher leadership,
while teachers voiced their perceptions of limited opportunities to assume formal leadership roles
in the district.
The S.M.A.R.T. goal school improvement model focuses on skill development that
empowers teachers to be purposeful and operative in their leading (Conzemius & Morganti-
Fisher, 2012). Response to statements embedded in the LCSS and SCAI surveys indicated that
both leadership capacity and campus culture were at or above the midpoint on both scales.
Participants’ perceptions were positive in the dimensions that included S.M.A.R.T. goal
vocabulary common in the district (focus, reflection, and collaboration) to foster leadership
capacity. This common vocabulary could have been a factor in responses on both the surveys
and the focus group interviews that led the researcher to identify focus, reflection, and
collaboration as subordinate themes of time.
Phase II Research Question 3 Conclusions
Research Question 3 was, “What are teachers’ and administrators’ perceptions of
building teacher leadership capacity within their own district?” Leadership opportunities and
voice emerged as themes from the focus group data.
The researcher concluded that administrators must be intentional in their efforts to build
teacher leadership capacity by focusing on the teachers’ strengths and providing all teachers the
155
chance to lead (Conzemius & Morganti-Fisher, 2012; Fullan, 2014; Lambert, 1998, 2003, 2006;
Sahin, 2011). Lambert (2000) suggested that leadership opportunities should stray away from
the historical top-down leadership model and build collective responsibility. The researcher also
concluded that teachers and administrators share values and a collective mission and that
translates into communication among all staff members. The significant positive responses on
the SCAI survey related to campus culture supported the dimension of leadership/decisions and
yielded a 90.6% communality coefficient for teachers and administrators.
Lastly, the researcher concludes that a school improvement model, such as the
S.M.A.R.T. goal school improvement model, can guide school administrators in crafting positive
change (Wilhelm, 2013). According to Conzemius and Morganti-Fisher (2012), “A cornerstone
of effective schools is shared leadership by developing trust, monitoring progress, and finding
common solutions, the result is shared responsibility, commitment, and accountability for
success” (p. 88).
Implications
This research study was designed to explore the relationship between building teacher
leadership capacity and campus culture. The results of this mixed methods study led to several
essential implications. School administrators, school board members, and teachers interested in
the relationship between teacher leadership capacity and campus culture will find foundational
information in this study. Data were collected in two phases guided by the research questions.
Evidence from this study suggests that teachers and administrators value the same
characteristics regarding leadership capacity and campus culture. Specifically, both stakeholders
link positive campus culture with campuses that value building teachers’ leadership capacity.
Developing teacher leaders and cultivating a positive school culture should be rooted in the
156
school community and stated in the district mission (Lambert, 2002). Quantitative and
qualitative data from this study indicated the existing relationship between teacher leadership
capacity and campus culture within the district. Likewise, teachers and administrators believed
that campus administrators who do not build the capacity of others or share responsibility will
result in perceived negative campus cultures. The results of this research support the idea that
administrators are the catalysts or obstacles to developing teacher leaders, and they are the key
factors to establishing the campus culture (Kelley et al., 2005; Leithwood et al., 2004; MacNeil
et al., 2009; Sahin, 2011).
An implication lies in sharing responsibility among all staff and administrators to
intentionally create a collaborative team mindset and to include all teachers without hierarchal
barriers to overcome. The redistribution of responsibility supports the literature that has noted
the required commitment of both administrators and teachers in the change process (Fullan,
2011). Further, the written vision of the district must match its practice. A school improvement
model, such as the S.M.A.R.T. goal framework, to build teacher leadership capacity must be met
with commitment, not compliance, of every stakeholder. As leadership multiplies, school culture
evolves and becomes more unified toward a shared vision (Conzemius & Morganti-Fisher, 2012;
O’Neill & Conzemius, 2006). This commitment demands the involvement of all teachers and
administrators to improve campus culture.
The findings of this study suggest that administrators should strive to understand the
different leadership desires of teachers according to years of teaching experience. When
building leadership capacity, administrators should be mindful of the leadership potential of all
teachers, despite their years of experience (Quinn, et al., 2006). This finding implies that
administrators should hear the voice of all teachers, regardless of years of experience, and
157
leadership roles should be based on teachers’ leadership qualities. Administrators can enhance
or stunt the professional growth of potential leaders by allocating leadership assignments based
only on tenure (Balkar, 2015). Administrators should also understand that teacher leadership
does not require a title; rather, administrators should recognize that leaders with titles are not the
only opinions that should be considered in the decision-making process (Jackson, et al., 2010;
Muijs & Harris, 2007).
In general, teachers’ professional growth may occur in PLCs structured to protect and
foster teacher learning. The PLC should be empowering and collaborative; therefore, the
transformational leadership style could be conducive to administrators in developing teacher
leaders (DuFour, 2014; Savage, 2009; Sosik & Dionne, 1997; Van Eden, et al., 2008). This
implication is nested in changing administrators’ mindsets from only experienced teachers
serving in leadership roles to all teachers, regardless of years of experience, becoming teacher
leaders, which will influence campus culture.
The results of this research support the idea that school culture is the nucleus of the
school for all staff members (Fullan, 2014). Taken together and in close connection to
intentional PLC learning environments, the current findings implicate the justification and
importance of a designated time for both teachers and administrators to collaborate, establish and
sustain a shared focus, and reflect on the past. This protected time can promote a positive
campus culture. Teacher empowerment that arises from new leadership opportunities can also
promote a positive culture of collective responsibility and accountability (Balkar, 2015; Fullan,
2014; Kelley et al., 2005; Louis & Wahlstrom, 2011; MacNeil et al., 2009; Sahin, 2011).
The findings of this study revealed that actions to build leadership capacity are
communicated through the adopted S.M.A.R.T. goal school improvement model. One
158
implication of this finding is the possibility that school districts that adopt a school improvement
model concentrated on shared responsibility and capacity building of teacher leaders can change
the campus culture. A district that is committed to implementing such a framework can create a
unified vision that is not only documented in policy, but also witnessed in teacher and
administrator practices. Business models that emphasize building capacity can be adapted to fit
the school organization to build teacher leadership capacity (O’Neill & Conzemius, 2006). The
world’s most admired companies that build leaders from within ensure both the individual
growth of the employee and the collective growth of the company (Dinham & Crowther, 2011;
Murphy, 2011). Thus, such models can be transferred into the success of teachers and school
organizations.
Recommendations for Future Study
Based on the findings from this research, the first recommendation for practical
applications is for researchers to reexamine the scope and purpose of existing leadership roles on
campuses within a district. Data from the current study indicated that teachers’ and
administrators’ perceptions of existing leadership roles differed. Teachers perceived present
leadership roles as falling into either a formal or informal leadership role with formal leadership
roles having more importance on campus. Reflection and review of all informal and formal roles
should be discussed in relationship to the commitment and belief in the process of building
teacher leaders.
The researcher included a suburban East Texas school district that emphasized building
teacher leadership capacity. The district pledge was acknowledged through its adoption of the
S.M.A.R.T. goal school improvement model. Further research is needed to clarify the
relationship between teacher leadership capacity and campus culture of schools that have
159
adopted this school improvement model. For example, this study could be replicated in urban or
rural school districts that employ the S.M.A.R.T. goal school improvement model to encompass
a larger sample with various demographics. This researcher also recommends that future studies
extend into higher education to include both community colleges and 4-year universities to
evaluate leadership capacity among instructors and campus cultures of higher education.
An additional area for future research could be the coupling of teachers’ and
administrators’ perceptions of building leadership capacity after a full year of the new teacher
evaluation instrument, Texas Teacher Evaluation Support System (T-TESS). T-TESS is a
growth model evaluation instrument designed to provide ongoing feedback to teachers to ensure
continuous professional growth. Building teacher leadership capacity requires a partnership
between teachers and principals. This growth model aims to cultivate teacher leadership
capacity (Texas Education Agency, 2011). Further, principals have to shape opportunities for
teachers to act as teacher leaders within and outside of their schools. As such, teachers have to
embrace leadership opportunities to be rated at the highest distinguished evaluative indicator on
the T-TESS instrument. This format will be a new norm for both principals and teachers to share
the goal of building teacher leadership, regardless of years of experience or current leadership
role. Additionally, this teacher leadership indicator requires a mutual understanding of teacher
leadership as defined in the T-TESS rubric. This level of teacher and administrator
understanding could be assessed by replicating this study to gain a better understanding of the
changed relationships between teacher leadership capacity and campus culture after T-TESS
implementation. Another recommendation would be to assess teachers’ perceptions of campus
culture before and one year after the T-TESS is implemented to explore the relationship between
building teacher leadership and campus culture. These data could serve as the foundation for a
160
collection of longitudinal data regarding the teacher leadership requirement of the T-TESS and
its relationship to campus culture.
The researcher also recommends discussing the findings with the superintendent of the
chosen district. This discussion would include the different perceptions that exist between
teachers and administrators regarding the availability of leadership opportunities within the
district for teachers. Data from the study indicates a distinction between formal and informal
leadership roles. Once administrators are aware of teachers’ perceptions, they can collaborate
with the superintendent and revisit the defined leadership roles of individuals within each
campus. Those roles could be reassessed to examine whether they continue to meet the
objectives of the S.M.A.R.T. goal school improvement model that aims to build teacher
leadership capacity.
Finally, the literature is abundant with research on building leadership capacity and
campus culture. However, a need exists for researchers to corroborate the relationship between
the two and highlight the capacity building of teacher leaders. Such a study would be a
foundational body of research for future work to build on and investigate the relationship
between building teacher leadership and campus culture.

161
REFERENCES
Abplanalp, S. L. (2007). Breaking the low-achieving mindset: A S.M.A.R.T. journey of
purposeful change. Madison, WI: QLD.
Aladjem, D. K., Birman, B. F., Orland, M., Harr-Robins, J., Heredia, A., Parrish, T. B., &
Ruffini, S. J. (2010). Achieving dramatic school improvement: An explanatory study.
Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/other /dramatic-school-
improvement/exploratory -study.pdf
Alliance for the Study of School Climate. (2011). Retrieved from http://web.calstatela.edu
/centers/schoolclimate
Angelle, P. S., & DeHart, C. A. (2011). Teacher perceptions of teacher leadership: Examining
differences by experience, degree, and position. NASSP Bulletin, 95(141), 141-160.
doi:10.1177/01926365114155397
Bain, A., Walker, A., & Chan, A. (2011). Self-organization and capacity building: Sustaining the
change. Journal of Educational Administration, 49, 701-719. doi:10.1108
/09578231111174839
Balfanz, R., MacIver, D. J., & Byrnes, V. (2006). The implementation and impact of evidence-
based mathematics reforms in high poverty middle schools: A multi-year study. Journal
for Research in Mathematics Education, 37, 33-64. doi:10.2307 /30035051
Balkar, B. (2015). Defining an empowering school culture (ESC): Teacher perceptions. Issues in
Educational Research, 25, 205-225.
Barnett, K., McCormick, J., & Conners, R. (2001). Transformational leadership: Panacea,
placebo, or problem? Journal of Educational Administration, 39, 24-46. doi:10.1108
/09578230110366892
162
Barth, R. S. (2006). Improving relationships inside the schoolhouse. Educational Leadership,
63(6), 8-13. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York, NY: Free
Press.
Bass, B. M. (1997). Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend
organizational and national boundaries? American Psychologist, 52(2), 130-139.
Retrieved from http://www.home.ubalt.edu/tmitch/642/Articles%20syllabus
/Bass%20%trans%2Oldr%20am%20psy%201997.pdf
Bassi, L., & McMurrer, D. (2007, March). Maximizing your return on people. Harvard Business
Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2007/03/maximizing-your-return-on-people
Bell, J. S., Thacker, T., & Schargel, F. P. (2011). Schools where teachers lead. Eye on Education.
Retrieved from http://www.routledge.com/eyeoneducation
Berry, B. (2014, October 22). Clearing the way for teacher leadership. Education Week, 34(9),
20-21. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/10/22/09Berry.h34.html
Billsberry, J. (2009, Fall). The social construction of leadership education. Journal of Leadership
Education, 8(2), 1-9. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30035226
Birky, G., Headley, S., & Shelton, M. (2006). An administrator’s challenge: Encouraging
teachers to be leaders. Digital Commons @George Fox University. Retrieved from
http://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/soe_faculty
Blanchard, K. (2008). Situational leadership: Adapt your style to their developmental level.
Leadership Excellence, 25(5). Retrieved from http://www.hr.com/en/magazines
/leadership_excellence_essentials/
163
Blank, P. K., Smithson, J., Porter, A., Nunnaley, D., & Osthoff, E. (2006). Improving instruction
through school-wide professional development: Effects of the data-on-enacted-
curriculum model. ERS Spectrum Journal of Research and Information, 24(3). Retrieved
from http://programs.ccsso.org/content/pdfs/ERS%20Spring%20Spectrum%20DEC
%20Model.pdf
Blankstein, A. (2004). Failure is not an option: Six principles that guide student achievement in
high performing schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Bleak, J. (2012, June 13). Developing leaders who know, do and believe. Retrieved from
http://www.TrainingIndustry.com
Bogler, R., & Somech, A. (2004). Influence of teacher empowerment on teachers’ organizational
commitment, professional commitment and organizational citizenship behavior. Teacher
and Teacher Education, 20, 277-289. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2004.02.003f
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1997). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership
(2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership
(4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper and Row.
Byrne-Jimenez, M., & Orr, M. T. (2012, July). Thinking in three dimensions: Leadership for
capacity building, sustainability, and succession. Journal of Cases in Educational
Leadership, 15, 33-46. doi:10.1177/1555458912447842
Caskey, M. M., & Carpenter, J. M. (2012). Organizational models for teacher learning. Middle
School Journal, 43(5), 52-62.

164
Castro, F. G., Kellison, J. G., Boyd, S. J., & Kopek, A. (2011). A methodology for conducting
Integrative mixed methods research and data analyses. Journal of Mixed Methods
Research, 4, 342-360. doi:10.1177/1558689810382916
Center for Teacher Quality. (2012). The vision. Retrieved from http://www
.teacherleaderstandards.org/the_vision
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2010, July). Using incentives to boost response
rates. Evaluation Briefs, 22, 1-2. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/HealthyYouth
/evaluation/pdf/brief22.pdf
Childs-Bowen, D., Moller, G., & Scrivner, J. (2000). Principals: Leaders of leaders. National
Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP) Bulletin, 84(616), 27-34.
Cohen, I. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
Associates.
Collins, J. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap...and others don’t. New
York, NY: Harper Collins.
Conzemius, A. E., & Morganti-Fisher, T. (2012). More than a SMART goal: Staying focused on
student learning. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
Cossett, R., & Voigt, M. M. (2014, February 1). Growing leaders from within: School forms a
tight-knit learning community to tackle literacy. Journal of Staff Development, 35(1), 32-
36. Retrieved from http://www.learningforward.org
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J.W. (2014). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
165
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods
research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dambe, M., & Moorad, F. (2008). From power to empowerment: A paradigm shift in leadership.
South African Journal of Higher Education, 22, 575-587.
Danielson, C. (2006). Teacher leadership that strengthens professional practice. Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Deal, T. F., & Peterson, K. D. (2009). Shaping school culture: Pitfalls, paradoxes, and promises.
San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass.
Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method. New York, NY:
John Wiley & Sons.
Dinham, S., & Crowther, F. (2011). Sustainable school capacity building-one step back, two
steps forward. Journal of Educational Administration, 49, 616-623. doi:10.1108
/09578231111186926
Doran, G. T. (1981, November). There’s a S.M.A.R.T. way to write management goals and
objectives. Management Review, 70(11), 35-36.
Drotter, S. J., & Charan, R. (2001, May/June). Building leaders at every level: A leadership
pipeline. Ivey Business Journal. Retrieved from http://www.iveybusinessjournal.com
DuFour, R. (2014, May). Harnessing the power of PLCs. Educational Leadership, 71(8), 30-35.
DuFour, R., & Fullan, M. (2013). Cultures build to last. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
DuFour, R., DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (2008). Revisiting professional learning communities at
work: New insights for improving schools. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
166
Duze, C. O. (2012, February). The changing role of school leadership and teacher capacity
building in teaching and learning. Journal of Emerging Trends in Educational Research
and Policy, 3, 111-117.
Eaker, R., & Keating, J. (2008). A shift in school culture: Collective commitments focus on
change that benefits student learning. Journal of Staff Development, 29(3), 14-17.
Retrieved from http://learningforward.org/
Epstein, J., Galindo, C., & Sheldon, S. (2011). Levels of leadership: Effects of district and school
leaders on the quality of school programs of family and community involvement.
Education Administration Quarterly, 47, 462-495. doi:10.1177/0013161X10396929
Eyal, O., & Roth, G. (2011). Principals’ leadership and teachers’ motivation. Journal of
Educational Administration, 49, 256-275. doi:10.1108/09578231111129055
Fichtman, D. N. (2009). Leading with passion and knowledge: The principal as action
researcher. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Fullan, M. (1994). Teacher leadership: A failure to conceptualize. In D. R. Walling (Ed.),
Teachers as leaders: Perspectives on the professional development of teachers (pp. 241-
253). Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa.
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass.
Fullan, M. (2005). Leadership and sustainability: System thinkers in action. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin.
Fullan, M. (2008, April 9). School leadership’s unfinished agenda. Education Week. Retrieved
from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2008/04/09/32fullan.h27.html
Fullan, M. (2011, May). Choosing the wrong drivers for whole system reform. Paper presented at
the Seminar Series 204. Abstract retrieved from http://www.cse.edu.au

167
Fullan, M. (2014). The principal: Three keys to maximizing impact. San Francisco, CA: Josey-
Bass.
Fullan, M., & Knight, J. (2011, October). Coaches as system leaders. Educational Leadership,
69(2), 50-53. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org
Gabriel, J. G. (2005). How to thrive as a teacher leader. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Garrison, J. (1999). John Dewey. Retrieved from http://eepat.net/doku.php?id=dewey_john
Giancola, J. M., & Hutchinson, J. K. (2005). Transforming culture of school leadership:
Humanizing our practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative
research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Grandin, R. G. (2006). Following Vygotsky to a learner centered school. Teneriffe, QLD: Post
Pressed.
Gray, C., & Bishop, Q. (2009). Leadership development: Schools and districts seeking high
performance need strong leaders. National Staff Development Council, 30(1), 28-32.
Retrieved from http://learningforward.com
Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. F. (2013, January). Running on empty? Find the time and capacity
to lead learning. National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 95, 6-21.
doi:10.1177/0192636512469288
Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2013). The power of professional capital: With an investment in
collaboration, teachers become nation builders. Journal of Staff Development, 34(3), 36-
39.
168
Harris, A. (2011). System improvement through collective capacity building. Journal of
Educational Administration, 49, 624-636. doi:10.1108/09578231111174785
Harris, A., & Muijs, D. (2004). Improving schools through teacher leadership. New York, NY:
Open University.
Harrison, R. (1995). The collected papers of Roger Harrison (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Husserl, E. (2010). The idea of phenomenology. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishing
Hutchings, N. (2009). Online communities in secondary school environments: The social
constructivist perspective. Retrieved from http://academia.edu/835662
Jackson, T., Burrus, J., Bassett, K., & Roberts, R. D. (2010). Teacher leadership: An assessment
framework for an emerging area of professional practice. Educational Testing Service, 2,
i-41. doi:1002/j.2333-8504.2010.tb02234.x
Jacob, C., Gueguen, N., & Boulbry, G. (2015, January). Effect of an unexpected small favor in
compliance with a survey request. Journal of Business Research, 68(1), 56-59.
doi:10.1016/j.busres.2014.05.008
Jochim, A., & Murphy, P. (2013). The capacity challenge: What it takes for state education
agencies to support school improvement. Retrieved from http://crpe.org
/publications/capacity-challenge-what-it-takes-state-education-agencies-support-school-
improvement
Jones, M. G., & Brader-Araje, L. (2002, Spring). The impact of constructivism on education.
American Communication Journal, 15(3), 1-10. Retrieved from http://www.ac-
journal.org/journal/vol5/iss3/special/jones.pdf#page1
169
Kamarazuman, J., Kareem, O. A., Khuan, W. B., Awang, M., & Yunus, N. J. (2011, Winter).
Teacher capacity building in teaching and learning: The changing role of school
leadership. Academic Leadership Journal, 9(1). Retrieved from http://contentcat.fhsu.edu
/cdm/compoundobject/collection/p15732coll4/id/729/rec/1
Katzenmeyer, M., & Moller, G. V. (2009). Awakening the sleeping giant: Helping teachers
develop as leaders (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Kelley, R., Thornton, B., & Daugherty, B. (2005). Relationships between measures of leadership
and school climate. Education, 126, 17-25. Retrieved from ERIC database. (EJ725153)
Kilbane, J. F. (2009). Factors in sustaining professional learning communities. NASSP Bulletin,
93, 184-205. doi:10.1177/01926365509358923
Killion, J., & Roy, P. (2009). Becoming a learning school. Oxford, OH: National Staff
Development Council.
King, M. B., & Bouchard, K. (2011). The capacity to build organizational capacity in schools.
Journal of Educational Administration, 49, 653-669. doi:10.1108/09578231111174802
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2015). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research
(5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kurtz, S. (2009, September/October). Teacher leadership. Leadership, 39, 12-14, 38. Retrieved
from http://www.psycholosphere.com/Teacher%20Leadership%20by%20Kurtz.pdf
Lambert, L. (1998). Building leadership capacity in schools. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Lambert, L. (2000). Building leadership capacity in schools. Australian Council for Educational
Research, 1-12. Retrieved from http://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article =
1000&context = apc_monographs
170
Lambert, L. (2002, May). A framework for shared leadership. Beyond Instructional Leadership,
59(8), 37-40. Retrieved from http://ascd.org/publications
Lambert, L. (2003). Building leadership capacity for lasting school improvement. Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Lambert, L. (2006, Spring). Lasting leadership: A study of high leadership capacity in schools.
Educational Forum, 70(3), 1-14. doi:10.1080/00131720608984900
Learning Forward. (2011). The standards for professional learning. Retrieved from
http://learningforward.org/docs/august-2011/referenceguide324.pdf?sfvrsn=2
Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2008). Qualitative data analysis: A compendium of
techniques for school psychology research and beyond. School Research Quarterly, 23,
587-604. doi:10.1037/1045-3830.23.4.587
Leithwood, K., Louis, K., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership influences
student learning. New York, NY: Wallace Foundation.
Little, J. W. (2006, December). Professional community and professional development in the
learning-centered school. Retrieved from http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/HE/mf
_pdreport.pdf
Louis, K. S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2011, February). Principals as cultural leaders. Phi Delta
Kappan, 92(5), 52-56.
Louis, K. S., Leithwood, K., Wahlstrom, K., & Anderson, S. (2010). Investigating the links to
improved student learning. Retrieved from http://www.wallacefoundation.org
MacNeil, A. J., Prater, D. L., & Busch, S. (2009). The effects of school culture and climate on
student achievement. Journal of Leadership in Education, 12, 73-84. doi:10.1080
/13603120701576241
171
Markow, D., Macia, L., & Lee, H. (2013, February). The MetLife survey: The American teacher.
Retrieved from https://www.metlife.com/assets/cao/foundation/MetLife-Teacher-Survey-
2012.pdf
Marzano, R., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. (2005). School leadership that works: From research to
results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
McKinney, C. L., Labat, M. B., & Labat, C. (2015). Traits possessed by principals who
transform school culture in national blue ribbon schools. Educational Leadership
Journal, 19, 152-166.
McKinsey. (2010). How the world’s most improved school systems keep getting better. Retrieved
from http://mckinseyonsociety.com/
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Moolenaar, N. M., Daly, A. J., & Sleegers, P. (2010). Occupying the principal position:
Examining relationships between transformational leadership, social network position,
and schools’ innovative climate. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46, 623-670.
doi:10.1177/0013161X10378689
Morgan, G. A., Leech, N. L., Gloeckner, G. W., & Barrett, K. C. (2008). IBM SPSS for
Introductory Statistics: Use and Interpretation. New York, NY: Routledge.
Moustakas, C., (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Muijs, D., Chapman, C., & Armstrong, D. (2013). Can early career teachers be teacher leaders?
A case study of second-year trainees in the Teach First Alternative Certification Program.
Educational Management Administration Leadership, 41, 767-781. doi:10.1177
/1741143213494188
172
Muijs, P., & Harris, A. (2007). Teacher leadership in action: Three case studies of contrasting
schools. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 35, 111-134. doi:10
.1177/1741143207071387
Mullen, C., & Jones, R. J. (2008, November). Teacher leadership capacity-building: Developing
democratically accountable leaders in schools. Teacher Development, 12, 329-340.
doi:10.1080/1364530802579892
Munger, L., & Von Frank, V. (2010). Change, lead, succeed: Building capacity with school
leadership teams. Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council.
Murphy, R. M. (2011, November 3). How do great companies groom talent. Retrieved from
http://www.fortune.com
National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future. (1996, September). What matters most:
Teaching for America’s Future. Retrieved from http://nctaf.org/wp-content/uploads
/WhatMattersMost.pdf
Northouse, P. G. (2010). Leadership theory and practice. New York, NY: Sage.
O’Neill, J., & Conzemius, A. (2006). The power of SMART goals. Bloomington, IN: Solution
Tree.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Pierce, M. K. (2007). A determination of the reliability and construct validity of the leadership
capacity school survey (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations
and Theses database. (UMI No. 304841090)
Pitsoe, J. T., & Maila, W. M. (2012). Towards constructivist teacher professional development.
Journal of Social Sciences, 8, 318-324. doi:10.3844/jssp.2012.318.324

173
Preskill, H., & Torres, R. T. (1999). Evaluative inquiry for learning organizations. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pustejovsky, J. E., Spillane, J. P., Heaton, R. M., & Lewis, J. W. (2009). Understanding teacher
leadership in middle school mathematics: A collaborative research effort. The Journal of
Mathematics and Science: Collaborative Explorations, 11, 19-40. Retrieved from
http://hub.mspnet.org/media/data/2_Pustejovsky_Spillane_Heaton_Lewis.pdf?media_000
000006430.pdf
Quinn, C. L., Haggard, C. S., & Ford, B. A. (2006). Preparing new teachers for leadership roles:
A model in four phases. School Leadership and Management, 26, 55-68. Retrieved from
doi:10.1080/13634230500492954
Rezaei, M., Salehi, S., Shfiei, M., & Sabet, S. (2012). Servant leadership and organizational
trust: The mediating effect of leader trust and organizational communication. Emerging
Markets Journal, 2, 70-72. doi:10.5195/emaj.2012.21
Rhodes, J. E., Camic, P. M., Milburn, M., & Low, R. S. (2009). Improving middle school
climate through teacher centered change. Journal of Community Psychology, 37, 711-
724. doi:10.1002/jcop.20326
Roby, D. E. (2011, June). Teacher leaders impacting school culture. Education, 131(4), 782-789.
Ross, J. A., & Gray, P. (2006). Transformational leadership and teacher commitment to
organizational values: The mediating effect of collective efficacy. School Effectiveness
and School Improvement, 17, 179-199. doi:10.1080/09243450600565795
Sahin, S. (2011). The relationship between instructional leadership style and school culture
(Izmir case). Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 11, 1920-1927. Retrieved from
ERIC database. (EJ962681)

174
Savage, L. (2009). Who is the “professional” in a professional learning community. Canadian
Journal of Education, 32, 149-171. Retrieved from ERIC database. (EJ843992)
Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Schlechty, P. (2002). Working on the work. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Schmoker, M. (2006). Results now. Alexandria, VA: ASCD
Schoen, C. T., & Teddlie, C. (2008). A new model of school culture: A response to a call for
conceptual clarity. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 19, 129-153. doi:10
.1080/090243450802095278
School Leaders Network. (2014). CHURN: The high cost of principal turnover. Retrieved from
http://www.connectleadsucceed.org/sites/default/files/principal_turnover_cost.pdf
Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New
York, NY: Doubleday.
Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline (Revised ed.). New York, NY: Random House.
Shank, G. D. (2006). Qualitative research approach (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Sherry, A., & Henson, R. K. (2005). Conducting and interpreting canonical correlation analysis
in personality research: A user-friendly primer. Journal of Personality Assessment, 84,
37-48. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa8401_09
Shindler, J., Jones, A., Williams, A. D., Taylor, C., & Cardenas, H. (2009). Exploring the school
climate-student achievement connection: And making sense why the first precedes the
second. Retrieved from http://web.calstatela.edu/centers/schoolclimate/research/School
_Climate_Achievement_Connection_v4.pdf
175
Short, P., Greer, J., & Melvin, W. M. (1997). Leadership in empowered schools: Themes from
innovative efforts. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Singer, E. (2012). The use and effects of incentives in surveys. Retrieved from
https://iriss.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/singer_slides.pdf
Slater, L. (2008). Pathways to building leadership capacity. Educational Management,
Administration, and Leadership, 36(55), 45-48. doi:10.11711741432070884060
Sosik, J. J., & Dionne, S. D. (1997). Leadership styles and Deming’s behavioral factors. Journal
of Business and Psychology, 11, 447-462. doi:10.1007/BF02195891
Stephens, C. U., D’Intino, R. S., & Victor, B. (1995). The moral quandary of transformational
leadership: Change for whom. Research in Organizational Change and Development, 8,
123-143.
Stevens, J. (1992). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Stevens, J. (2009). Multivariate statistics for the social sciences (5th ed.). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Stewart, J. (2006). Transformational leadership: An evolving concept examined through the
work of Burns, Bass, Aviolio, and Leithwood. Canadian Journal of Educational
Administration and Policy, 54, 1-29. doi:10.13187/er.2015.93.270
Stoll, L. (1998). School culture. (Reprinted from School Improvement Network Bulletin, 9).
Retrieved from http://strongersmarter.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/stoll_article
_set3_2000_pdf1.pdf
176
Stone, A., Russell, R. F., & Patterson, K. (2004). Transformational versus servant leadership: A
difference in leader focus. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 25, 349-
361. doi:10/1108/01437730410538671
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral
research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Texas Education Agency. (2014). Chapter 149. Commissioner’s rules concerning educator
standards. Subchapter AA. Teacher standards. Retrieved from http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us
/rules/tac/chapter149/ch149aa.html
Texas Education Agency. (2015). District type data search [Database]. Retrieved from
http://tea.texas.gov/acctres/analyze/years.html
Tufford, L., & Newman, P. (2010). Bracketing in qualitative research. Qualitative Social Work,
11, 80-96. doi:10.1177/1473325010368316
Turan, S., & Bektas, F. (2013, Summer). The relationship between school culture and leadership
practices. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 13(52), 155-168.
Van Eden, R., Ciller, F., & van Deventer, V. (2008). Leadership styles and associated personality
traits: Support for the conceptualization of transactional and transformational leadership.
South African Journal of Psychology, 38, 253-267. doi:10.1177/008124630803800201
Versiland, E. M., & Jones, M. G. (1998). Gardens or graveyards: Science education reform and
school culture. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 757-775,
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

177
Webster-Wright, A. (2009). Reframing professional development through understanding
authentic professional learning. Review of Educational Research, 79, 702-739.
doi:10.3102/0034654308330970
Weiss, S. D., & Houser, M. L. (2007, July 11). Student communication motives and
interpersonal attraction toward instructor. Communication Research Reports, 24, 215-
224. doi:10.1080/08824090701439091
Wilhelm, T. (2010). Fostering shared leadership. Retrieved from http://www.allthingsplc.info
/files/uploads/Wilhelm.pdf
Wilhelm, T. (2013, October). How principals cultivate shared leadership. Educational
Leadership, 71(2), 62-66. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org
Williams, H. S. (2009). Leadership capacity—A key to sustaining lasting improvement.
Education, 130, 30-41. Retrieved from ERIC database. (EJ871632)
Wink, J., & Putney, L (2002). A vision of Vygotsky. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Yates, S. S. (2014). The SMART goal framework: Teacher perceptions of professional learning
and teacher practice (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and
Theses database. (UMI No. 6177582)
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
York-Barr, J., & Duke, K. (2004). What do we know about teacher leadership? Findings from
two decades of scholarship. Educational Research, 74, 255-316. doi:10.3102
/00346543074003255
178
Yost, D. S., Vogel, R., & Rosenberg, M. D. (2009, January). Transitioning from teacher to
instructional leader. Middle School Journal, 40(3), 20-27. doi:10.1080/00940771
.2009.11495583
APPENDICES
180
APPENDIX A
ATTENDANCE VERIFICATION LETTER- BACK TO SCHOOL CONVOCATION

181
ATTENDANCE VERIFICATION LETTER- BACK TO SCHOOL CONVOCATION
From: Assistant Superintendent of Curriculum and Instruction

Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 1:41 PM
To: Dawn Harris
Subject: RE: Back to School Convocation Attendance
At convocation, 310 employees were in attendance. The total number of teachers and
administrators in attendance (not including paraprofessionals, clerical, or auxiliary personnel)
who were with the district in 2014-15 was 140.
From: Dawn Harris

Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 11:04 AM
To: Assistant Superintendent of Curriculum and Instruction
Subject: Back to School Convocation Attendance
Could you please supply me with the following attendance information from the 2015 Back to
School Convocation?
 Total number of attendees present at the Back to School Convocation.
 Total number of teachers and administrators in attendance at the Back to School
 Convocation who were employed with the district in the 2014-2015 school year.
This information is needed in order for me to calculate the participation rate for the quantitative
phase of my research study.
Thank you,
Dawn Harris
182
APPENDIX B
AUTHORS’ PERMISSION TO USE SCAI AND LCSS SURVEY

183
AUTHORS’ PERMISSION TO USE SCAI AND LCSS SURVEY
Email communication with John Shindler

12/3/14
Permission to use SCAI survey
To: Dawn Harris
Sure Dawn. I can send you a version that is easier to work with and print if you would like. Yes,
just agree to reference us in your study and do consider using the instruments when you are in a
position to do so.
And I can also send you links to our upcoming book that outlines a conceptual framework that is
used in the logic of the instruments and our consulting. Not encouraging it as much as making it
available. I am sure that you and your committee have a framework that you like.
Best,
John Shindler
Professor, CSULA
Director, ASSC
johnshindler@gmail.com
Email communication with Linda Lambert

To: Dawn Harris
Cc: Linda Lambert
Subject: Re: Leadership Capacity Staff Survey
Hi Dawn,
Your work is very exciting and of course you have permission to use the surveys. Do you have a
copy of Molly’s edited survey? If so, I’m sure that she would be pleased to have you use it.
Unfortunately, I’ve had a computer crash since then and cannot find her material.
I am interested in your design and your findings, so please keep me informed.
Thanks, Linda
Linda Lambert, Ed.D.

Santa Rosa, CA
707-328-4645
www.lindaLambert.com
184
APPENDIX C
SCAI SURVEY
185
SCAI SURVEY
School Climate Assessment Instrument (SCAI)

Directions: Rate each item below. For each item there are three descriptions. Select
the rating that best describes the current state at your campus as a whole: Level 3 (high), 2
(middle) or 1 (low). If you feel that the practices at your school rate between two of the
descriptions provided, select the middle level option. Each item should receive only one
rating/mark.
1. Faculty Relations
Level – 3 (high) Level – 2 (middle) Level –1 (low)
High high-middle middle middle-low
low
1.a------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o -------------
---------- o --------------------
Faculty members commonly Most faculty members are Typically faculty members
collaborate on matters of congenial to one another, and view one another
teaching. occasionally collaborate. competitively.
1.b------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o -------------
---------- o --------------------
Faculty members approach Faculty members attend to Faculty members expect
problems as a problems as related to their own someone else to solve
team/collective. interests. problems.
1.c------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o -------------
---------- o --------------------
Faculty members use their Faculty members use time Faculty members look
planning time constructively efficiently but feel the need to forward to time away from
and refrain from denigrating consistently vent displaced students so they can share
students in teacher areas. aggression toward students. their “real feelings” about
them.
1.d------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o -------------
---------- o --------------------
Faculty members are Faculty members wait for safe Faculty members commonly
typically constructive when opportunities to share use unflattering names for
speaking of each other complaints about other teachers other faculty and/or
and/or administrators. and/or administrators. administration in private.
1.e------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o -------------
---------- o --------------------
Faculty members feel a Faculty members give sincere Faculty members are content
collective sense of “lip service” to the idea of with the status quo and often
dissatisfaction with status making things better. resentful toward change-
quo, and find ways to take minded staff.
action to improve.
1.f ------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o ------------
----------- o --------------------
Faculty members exhibit Faculty members exhibit respect Faculty members exhibit
186
high level of respect for one for a few of their prominent little respect for self or
another. members. others.
1.g------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o -------------
---------- o --------------------
Faculty meetings are Faculty meetings are an Faculty meetings are seen as
attended by most all, and obligation that most attend, but a waste of time and avoided
address relevant content. are usually seen as a formality. when possible.
1.h------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o -------------
---------- o --------------------
Staff and all-school events There are few regular attendees Faculty and staff do a
are well attended by faculty. at school events. minimum of investing in
school-related matters.
1.i ------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o -------------
---------- o --------------------
Leadership roles are most Leadership roles are accepted Leadership is avoided, and
likely performed by faculty grudgingly by faculty. the motives of those who do
members with other faculty take leadership roles are
expressing appreciation. questioned.
1.j------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o -------------
---------- o --------------------
Faculty members have the Faculty members congregate in Faculty members typically
time and interest to small cordial groups, yet see no need to relate outside
commune with one another, commonly feel a sense that the walls of their class.
and feel very little isolation. teaching is an isolating
profession.
2. Leadership/Decisions
Level - 3 Level - 2 Level – 1
low
2.a------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o ---------------
-------- o --------------------
School has a sense of vision School has a set of policies, a School has policies that are
and a mission that is shared written mission, but no used inconsistently.
by all staff. cohesive vision.
2.b------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o --------------
--------- o --------------------
Vision comes from the Vision comes from leadership. Vision is absent.
collective will of the school
community.
2.c------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o ---------------
-------- o --------------------
School’s decisions are Policies and mission exist but Mission may exist but is
conspicuously grounded in are not meaningful toward staff essentially ignored.
187
the mission. action.

2.d------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o --------------
--------- o --------------------
Vast majority of staff Selected staff members feel Administration is seen as
members feel valued and occasionally recognized. playing favorites.
listened to.
2.e------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o ---------------
-------- o --------------------
A sense of “shared values” is Most share a common value to Guiding school values are
purposefully cultivated. do what is best for their absent or in constant conflict.
students.
2.f ------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o --------------
--------- o --------------------
Staff understands and uses a There is a SDM committee but Decisions are made
clear system for selecting most real power is in a “loop” autocratically or accidentally.
priority needs, and has a of insiders/decision-makers.
highly functioning team for
“shared decision-making.”
2.g------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o --------------
--------- o --------------------
Most of the faculty and staff Some faculty and staff Most faculty and staff
have a high level of trust and members have respect for members feel at odds with the
respect for leadership. leadership. leadership.
2.h------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o --------------
--------- o --------------------
Teacher leadership is Some teachers take leadership Leadership is seen as solely
systematic and integral to the roles when they feel a great the domain of the
school’s leadership strategy. enough sense of responsibility. administration.
2.i ------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o --------------
--------- o --------------------
Leadership demonstrates a Leadership is highly political Leadership seems
high level of accountability, about how resources are disconnected to outcomes and
and finds ways to “make it allocated and often deflects find countless reasons why “it
happen.” responsibility. can’t happen.”
2.j ------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o --------------
--------- o --------------------
Leadership is in tune with Leadership has selected Leadership is isolated from the
students and community. sources of info about the students and community.
community and students.
2.k------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o --------------
--------- o --------------------
Leadership is in tune with Leadership makes pro forma Leadership does not see
others’ experience of the statements about wanting good school climate as a necessary
quality of school climate. school climate. interest.
3. Attitude and Culture
Level – 3 Level – 2 Level – 1
188

low
3.a------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o ---------------
-------- o --------------------
Students feel as though they Students feel as though they Students feel as though they
are part of a community. are part of a society. are visitors in a building.
3.b------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o --------------
--------- o --------------------
Students voluntarily correct Students seek adult assistance Students accept verbal abuse
peers who use destructive to stop blatant verbal abuse. as a normal part of their day.
and/or abusive language.
3.c------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o ---------------
-------- o --------------------
Students feel as though they Students feel as though they Students feel as though they
are working toward collective are working toward are competing with other
goals. independent goals. students for scarce resources.
3.d------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o --------------
--------- o --------------------
Students speak about the Students speak of the school in Students denigrate the school
school in proud, positive neutral or mixed terms. when they refer to it.
terms.
3.e------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o ---------------
-------- o --------------------
Most students feel listened to, Most students see some Most students feel they have
represented, and that they evidence that some students very little voice when at
have a voice. have a voice. school.
3.f ------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o --------------
--------- o --------------------
Most students feel a sense of Most students feel a sense of Most students feel a sense of
belonging to something belonging to something larger. belonging to something larger.
larger.
3.g------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o --------------
--------- o --------------------
Teachers share commonly Teachers share commonly high Teachers share commonly
high expectations for all expectations for all students. high expectations for all
students. students.
3.h------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o --------------
--------- o --------------------
Most students feel as though Most students feel as though Most students feel as though
they owe their school a debt they owe their school a debt of they owe their school a debt of
of gratitude upon graduation. gratitude upon graduation. gratitude upon graduation.
3.i------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o ---------------
-------- o --------------------
Students feel welcome and Students feel welcome and Students feel welcome and
comfortable in talking to comfortable in talking to adults comfortable in talking to
adults and/or designated peer and/or designated peer adults and/or designated peer
189
counselors. counselors. counselors.

3.j------------o------------------------- o -------------------------- o ------------------------- o ---------------
-------- o --------------------
School maintains traditions School maintains traditions School maintains traditions
that promote school pride and that promote school pride and a that promote school pride and
a sense of historical sense of historical continuity. a sense of historical
continuity. continuity.
190
APPENDIX D
LCSS SURVEY
191
LCSS SURVEY
Leadership Capacity School Survey
This school survey is designed to assess the leadership capacity of your school campus. The
items are clustered according to the characteristics found in high performing schools identified
by Linda Lambert.
Choose a number for each item based on the scale 1-5 that represent the following:
1 = We do not do this at our school.

2 = We are starting to move in this direction.
3 = We are making good progress here.
4 = We have this condition well established.
5 = We are refining our practice in this area.
A. Broad-based, skillful participation in the work of leadership.

In our school, we:
1. have established representative governance groups.
2. perform collaborative work in large and small teams.
3. model leadership skills.
4. organize for maximum interaction among adults and children
5. share authority and resources.
6. express our leadership by attending to the learning of the entire school community.
7. engage each other in opportunities to lead.
B. Shared vision results in program coherence.

In our school, we:
1. develop our school vision jointly.
2. ask each other questions that keep us on track with our vision.
3. think together about how to align our standards, instruction, assessment, and programs with
our vision.
4. keep our vision alive by reviewing it regularly.
C. Inquiry-based use of information to inform decisions and practice.

In our school, we:
1. use a learning cycle that involves reflection, dialogue, inquiry, and action.
2. make time available for this learning to occur (e.g., faculty meeting, ad hoc groups, teams).
3. focus on student learning.
4. use data/evidence to inform or decisions and teaching practices.
5. have designed a comprehensive information system that keeps everyone informed and
involved.
192
D. Roles and actions reflect broad involvement, collaboration, and collective

responsibility.
In our school, we:
1. have designed our roles to include attention to our classrooms, school, community, and
profession.
2. seek to perform outside traditional roles.
3. have developed new ways to work together.
4. have developed a plan for sharing responsibilities in the implementation
of our decisions and agreements.
E. Reflective practice consistently leads to innovation.

In our school, we:
1. make time for ongoing reflection (e.g., journaling, peer coaching, collaborative planning.
2. encourage individual and group initiative by providing access to resources, personnel, and
time.
3. have joined with networks of other schools and programs, both inside and outside the district,
to secure feedback on our work.
4. practice and support new ways of doing things.
5. develop our own criteria for accountability regarding individual and shared work.
F. High or steadily improving student achievement and development.

In our school, we:
1. work with members of the school community to establish and implement expectations and
standards.
2. teach and assess so that all children learn.
3. provide feedback to children and families about student progress.
4. talk with families about student performance and school programs.
5. have redesigned roles and structures to develop resiliency in children (e.g., teacher as
coach/advisor/mentor, school-wide guidance programs, community service)
193
APPENDIX E
PARTICIPANT’S INFORMED CONSENT FORM

194
PARTICIPANT’S INFORMED CONSENT FORM
Information about Being in a Research Study

Texas A&M University-Commerce
The Relationship Between Building Teacher Leadership Capacity and Campus Culture
Dawn Harris is inviting you to take part in a research study. Dawn Harris is a doctoral student at
Texas A&M University-Commerce in the Department of Educational Leadership. Dawn Harris
is running this study with the help of Dr. Kriss Kemp-Graham, who is an Assistant Professor in
the Department of Educational Leadership. The purpose of this research is to explore the
relationship between building teacher leadership capacity and campus culture.
Your school district and personnel have been identified as possible participants due to the
adoption of the Board of Education’s goals which include creating a culture of trust, respect, and
dignity where staff feels valued, retaining current staff, attracting experienced staff, and
developing leadership capacity within the staff. In addition, your district engages in the SMART
goal school improvement model that is designed to build capacity. You will be asked to
complete two surveys that ask about your beliefs about building leadership capacity and school
culture that will take an estimated 25 minutes. Next, if you agree, you may be chosen to
participate in one of two focus group interviews. One focus group will be comprised of teachers
while the other one will be made up of administrators. Each focus group interview duration will
be approximately one and a half hours to two hours.
Risks and Discomforts

There are no minimal risks to participants, no more than expected in daily life. The researcher
will keep the participant’s comfort at the forefront. The participant can decline to answer
questions or withdraw from the study at any time. The decision to participate in the study is
completely voluntary.
Possible Benefits
There are not any direct benefits from taking part in this study; however, this research may help
teachers and administrators to understand the relationship between building teacher leadership
capacity and campus culture. Also, you have the opportunity to be a part of empirical research
that will help teachers and administrators alike when making decisions about building leadership
capacity and the relationship it has with the respective campus.
Incentives
If you choose to participate, you will be given a pencil and be provided refreshments in
appreciation for your time and effort compliments of the researcher. You will also be entered
into a drawing for one of five twenty-five dollar gift cards provided by the researcher that will be
given away at the end of the survey collection. In addition, if you choose to be included in the
participants that may be chosen for the focus group interview, you will be entered into another
drawing for one of three fifty-dollar gift cards and be provided a meal by the researcher prior to
the focus group session.
195
Protection of Privacy and Confidentiality

The researcher will do everything to protect your privacy and confidentiality. Any information
obtained in the connection with this study and that can identify you will remain confidential.
Confidentiality will be maintained by means of using pseudonyms for the school site and
participants. All data will be secured in a locked cabinet in Dr. Kemp-Graham’s office for three
years.
The researcher may be required to share the information that is collected from you with the
Texas A&M University-Commerce Office of Sponsored Programs and the federal Office for
Human Research Protections. If this happens, the information would only be used to find out if
this study was conducted properly and protected your rights in the study.
Choosing to Be in the Study

You do not have to be in this study. Participation is completely voluntary. You may choose not
to take part and you may choose to stop taking part at any time without penalty. You will not be
punished in any way or lose benefits to which you are otherwise entitled if you decide not to be
in the study or to stop taking part in the study.
You may choose to stop taking part in this study at anytime without penalty or loss of benefits, to
which you are otherwise entitles. If you do, there will not be any more information collected
from you. However, we would keep and use the information we had already collected from you.
Contact Information
If you have any questions or concerns about this study or if any problems arise, please contact
the researcher at
Dawn Harris
Department of Educational Leadership
(903) 952-9735
dHarris@leomail.tamuc.edu
or the advisor at
Dr. Kriss Kemp-Graham

Department of Educational Leadership
(903) 886-5181
kriss.kemp-graham@tamuc.edu
If you have any questions or concerns about your rights in this research study, please contact the
IRB Chair at
Dr. Tara Tietjen-Smith

Chair, Institutional Review Board (IRB)
Department of Health & Human Performance
196

Commerce, TX 75429-3011
(903) - 886 - 5545
IRB@tamuc.edu
Consent
The signature below affirms that the undersigned is at least 18 years old, has received a
copy of this consent form, has understood the above information, and agrees to voluntarily
participate in this research.
Participant’s signature: ____________________________________ Date: _________________
Are you interested in participating in a focus group interview (one for teachers and one for
administrators)?
Please check your response:
_____ Yes, I am interested in participating in the appropriate focus group :

_____ Teacher _____Administrator
_____No, I am not interested in participating in the appropriate focus group.
A copy of this form will be given to you to retain for your records.
197
APPENDIX F
FOCUS GROUP PROTOCOLS

198
FOCUS GROUP PROTOCOLS
Administrator Focus Group Protocol
Date: ______________________
Location: ___________________
Time: ______________________
Interviewees: _________________
Introductory Comments:
Welcome and thank you for accepting the invitation to participate in this focus group. I am
conducting research on how building leadership capacity impacts campus culture. You may or
may not be familiar with focus groups. A focus group is simply a group discussion about your
opinions. There are no right or wrong answers and there is no need to agree with each other or
reach consensus on any of the questions. If a member of the group says something and you have
a question or would like to make a comment, please do so. Do not feel as though you have to
wait for me to ask a question. I encourage everyone to participate in the discussion because each
of your perceptions are important.
This session’s audio will be recorded and this recording will be my note taking system so that I
am accurate in reporting your perceptions; therefore please speak clearly and I ask that you only
speak one at a time. We will only use first names. No report will link what you say to your
name, as each participant will be assigned a pseudonym as will your district. In this way, your
identity and comments will remain confidential. In addition, please respect the confidentiality of
everyone here and do not repeat the discussion held today.
If everyone is ready, I will turn on the recorder and we will start. Please begin by
introducing yourself, what campus you serve as an administrator, and how long you have been
employed by the district.
Questions:
1. How would you define leadership capacity?
2. How would you define culture?
3. How do you feel about the leadership opportunities, if any, that are provided by the district
for teachers?
4. Think back over the past year(s) you have been employed by the district. How has the culture
been impacted by the empowerment of teacher leaders?
5. How do you develop and support a teacher leader? What are some examples of how you have
developed or supported a teacher leader?
199
6. What do you feel are the benefits, if any, of developing a teacher leader?
7. What are the barriers you have encountered, if any, which have inhibited the building
leadership capacity of teachers?
8. How does leadership capacity impact the culture of your campus, if at all?
9. What do you think are the characteristics of a positive campus culture?
10. How would you describe your own strengths as an administrator when promoting a teacher
leader?
11. How is collaboration used to make decisions?
12. How is leadership outside of an assigned role encouraged?
13. How do you perceive a shared vision being promoted?
14. How is reflection encouraged in the district?
15. Of all the things we discussed today, what to you is most important regarding building
teacher leadership capacity and how do you feel it impacts campus culture, if at all?
16. Is there anything else you would like to share today?

200
Teacher Focus Group Protocol
Date: _______________________
Location: ____________________
Time: _______________________
Interviewees: _________________
Introductory Comments:
Welcome and thank you for accepting the invitation to participate in this focus group. I am
conducting research on how building leadership capacity impacts campus culture. You may or
may not be familiar with focus groups. A focus group is simply a group discussion about your
opinions. There are no right or wrong answers and there is no need to agree with each other or
reach consensus on any of the questions. If a member of the group says something and you have
a question or would like to make a comment, please do so. Do not feel as though you have to
wait for me to ask a question. I encourage everyone to participate in the discussion because each
of your perceptions are important.
This session’s audio will be recorded and this recording will be my note taking system so that I
am accurate in reporting your perceptions; therefore please speak clearly and I ask that you only
speak one at a time. We will only use first names. No report will link what you say to your
name, as each participant will be assigned a pseudonym as will your district. In this way, your
identity and comments will remain confidential. In addition, please respect the confidentiality of
everyone here and do not repeat the discussion held today.
If everyone is ready, I will turn on the recorder and we will start. Please begin by
introducing yourself, the campus in which you teach, and how long you have been employed by
the district.
Questions:
1. How would you define leadership capacity?
2. How would you define culture?
3. How do you feel about the leadership opportunities, if any, that are provided by the district?
4. Think back over the past year(s) you have been employed by the district. How has the culture
been impacted by the empowerment of teacher leaders?
5. How have you personally been developed and supported as a teacher leader if at all? What
are some examples of this?
6. What do you feel are the benefits, if any, of being developed into a teacher leader? Can you
describe or give examples of the actions of a teacher leader?
201
7. What are the barriers you have encountered, if any, which have inhibited you from becoming
a teacher leader through the leadership capacity efforts?
8. How does leadership capacity impact the culture of your campus, if at all?
9. What do you think are the characteristics of a positive campus culture?
10. How would you describe your own strengths, if any, that could contribute to becoming a
teacher leader on your campus?
11. How is collaboration used to make decisions?
12. How is leadership outside of an assigned role encouraged?
13. How do you perceive a shared vision being promoted?
14. How is reflection encouraged in the district?
15. Of all the things we discussed today, what to you is most important regarding building
teacher leadership capacity and how do you feel it impacts campus culture, if at all?
16. Is there anything else you would like to share today?

202
APPENDIX G
LETTER TO SUPERINTENDENT TO REQUEST PERMISSION TO CONDUCT RESEARCH

203
LETTER TO SUPERINTENDENT TO REQUEST PERMISSION TO CONDUCT RESEARCH
To: Superintendent
From: Dawn Harris, Texas A&M Commerce Doctoral Student
Re: Request to Conduct Research
Date: April 29, 2015
I am writing to request permission to do research for my doctoral study titled, The Relationship
Between Building Teacher Leadership Capacity and Campus Culture.
The purpose of this mixed methods study will be to explore the relationship between building
teacher leadership capacity and campus culture. The researcher’s understanding will be
collected through teachers’ and administrators’ perceptions of their current campus culture and
of their own campus’ leadership capacity. Two surveys will be used to collect data followed by
two focus group interviews. One focus group will be made up of administrators and the other
one comprised of teachers. The first survey is the School Climate Assessment Instrument
focusing on the dimensions of faculty relations, leadership decisions, and attitude and culture.
The second survey is the Leadership Capacity School Survey. This survey centers around the
constructs of broad-based, skillful participation in the work of leadership, shared vision resulting
in program coherence, inquiry-based use of information to inform decisions and practice, roles
and responsibilities that reflect broad involvement, collaboration, collective responsibility, and
reflective practice/ innovation as the norm. The results of this research will be made available in
summative form at the conclusion of the study.
All certified teachers and administrators who worked on the elementary, intermediate, junior
high, and high school campus in the 2014-2015 school year will be invited to participate in the
study. A letter outlining the purpose of the study, risks and benefits, and the time frame
commitment to the study will be given to all qualified participants. All participants will
complete the appropriate consent forms and will be assured anonymity with regard to the
information assembled from their participation in the study. There are no risks for teachers who
choose to participate and there is no risk to the district.
Lastly, I will need a brief letter of approval in order to proceed. If you have any questions,
please feel free to contact my dissertation chair, Dr. Kriss Kemp-Graham at 903-886-5181 or
myself at 903-952-9735.
204
APPENDIX H
THEME AND SUBORDINATE THEME MATRIX

205
Teachers Administrators
Faculty Relations
Leadership/Decisions
Attitude/Culture
Broad-based skillful
participation in the work of
leadership
Shared Vision resulting in
program coherence
Inquiry-based use of
information to inform
decisions and practice
Reflective practice that
consistently leads to
innovation
High or steadily improving
student achievement or
development
Focus
Collaboration
Reflection
206
VITA
Dawn R. Harris was born in Harrisburg, Arkansas. Dawn graduated from the University
of Central Arkansas with a Bachelor of Science in Education in 1995 and a Master of Education
from Texas A&M in Texarkana in 2002. She earned her superintendent’s certificate in 2006 and
her Doctorate of Education from Texas A&M University-Commerce in 2016.
Dawn began her teaching and coaching career in Texas in 1995, and in 2002, she
accepted her first administrative position as an assistant principal. In 2006, she developed a
tiered mentorship program for new teachers, and she continues to serve as coordinator of that
program. Dawn was promoted to campus principal in 2008 and in 2015 was named Director of
Teacher Support and Parent Engagement in Gilmer ISD.
Permanent address:
500 South Trinity Street Gilmer, TX 75644
harrisdr98@yahoo.com

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

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BUILDING TEACHER LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND

Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies

Advisor: Kriss Kemp-Graham

Committee: Melissa Arrambide

Head of Department: Art Borgemenke

Dean of the College: Timothy Letzring

Dean of Graduate Studies: Mary Beth Sampson

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BUILDING LEADERSHIP CAPACITY AND CAMPUS

Texas A&M University-Commerce, 2016

Advisor: Kriss Kemp-Graham, PhD

Building teacher leadership capacity can be accomplished through several means,

including structural, cultural, or relational approaches. A traditional shift in school organizations

priority and understand that culture is a product of school leadership.

significant relationship between teacher leadership capacity and campus culture.

To my academic support team at Texas A&M University-Commerce, they are

confidence, even from New Mexico.

feel your unconditional love and support every day.

Statement of the Problem .................................................................................... 3

Gap in Teacher Leadership Capacity Research .................................................. 4

Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................... 5

Research Questions and Hypotheses .................................................................. 5

Significance of the Study .................................................................................... 7

Method of Procedure ........................................................................................... 9

Selection of Sample ............................................................................... 10

Collection of Data .................................................................................. 12

Instrumentation ...................................................................................... 12

Treatment of Data .................................................................................. 14

Definitions of Terms .......................................................................................... 15

Limitations ......................................................................................................... 16

Delimitations ...................................................................................................... 17

Assumptions ....................................................................................................... 17

Organization of Dissertation Chapters ............................................................... 18

2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ........................................................................... 19

Professional Learning Communities ...................................................... 24

School Culture ....................................................................................... 27

Building Teacher Leadership Capacity .................................................. 30

Transformational Leadership and Social Constructivism ...................... 33

Sustaining Teacher Leadership Capacity Building ................................ 40

Teacher Leaders ..................................................................................... 44

Developing Teacher Leaders ................................................................. 47

Summary ................................................................................................ 51

3. METHOD OF PROCEDURE ................................................................................... 55

Research Questions and Hypotheses ................................................................. 56

Design of the Study ............................................................................................ 57

Instrumentation .................................................................................................. 62

School Climate Assessment Instrument (SCAI) .................................... 62

Leadership Capacity School Survey (LCSS) ......................................... 65

Focus Group Protocol ............................................................................ 67

Sample Selection ................................................................................................ 67

Phase I Sample Selection ....................................................................... 69

Phase II Sample Selection ...................................................................... 70

Data Gathering ................................................................................................... 73

Phase I .................................................................................................... 73

Phase II ................................................................................................... 74

Incentives ............................................................................................... 76

Treatment of Data .............................................................................................. 76

Survey Data Analysis-Phase I ................................................................ 76

Focus Group Analysis-Phase II ............................................................. 80

Summary of Treatment of the Data ................................................................... 82

4. PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS ............................................................................ 83

Research Questions and Hypotheses ................................................................. 84

Quantitative Phase I ........................................................................................... 86

School Climate Assessment Instrument (SCAI) Results ....................... 86