CLASSROOM TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF

LEADERSHIP IN THE CLASSROOM,

SCHOOL, AND EDUCATIONAL

COMMUNITY

By

TERRI LYN EDWARDS

Bachelor of Science in Elementary Education Langston University Langston, Oklahoma

1989

Master of Science in Teaching Northeastern State University

Tahlequah, Oklahoma 1997

Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate College of the

Oklahoma State University in partial fulfillment of

the requirements for the Degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY July, 2007

ii

CLASSROOM TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF

LEADERSHIP IN THE CLASSROOM,

SCHOOL, AND EDUCATIONAL

COMMUNITY

Dissertation Approved:

Dr. Diane Montgomery

Dr. Kay Bull

Dr. Steven Harrist

Dr. Heidi Anne Mesmer

Dr. A. Gordon Emslie

iii

AKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my sincere heartfelt appreciate for my chair, Dr. Diane

Montgomery. She has been a teacher, friend, counselor, and mentor. I will always

remember all she has done to help and support me; her knowledge and experiences were

invaluable. I would like the thank Dr. Kay Bull, Dr. Steve Harrist, and Dr. Heidi Mesmer

who served on my committee at Oklahoma State University and lent me their insights and

gave me their time.

I could not have accomplished my goals if it had not been for the love and support

of my husband, Eddie Edwards. He endured many late hours and made many sacrifices to

allow me to pursue my dreams. Along the way, our four children made their share of

compromises to encourage me to continue with their support and love. My parents started

me on my educational journey and to them I cannot say enough to show my appreciation

and love. Thank you so much, Joanne and Sparky Wilmoth, you helped me to reach

further and achieve my goals.

I would like to acknowledge Delta Kappa Gamma Society International. They

have helped to support my professionalism and personal growth through meetings with

the members of the Epsilon Chapter in Muskogee, Oklahoma. I have received monetary

assistance from the state society, Gamma State, and from the International Society by

being honored with the M. Margaret Stroh Scholarship. I will remain committed to Delta

Kappa Gamma and continue to pursue excellence in education.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page I. INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………..1

Significance of Study ……………………………………………………………..3 Statement of the Research Problem...................................................................... 4 Theoretical Framework........................................................................................ 5 Purpose of Study ................................................................................................. 6 Research Questions ............................................................................................. 7 Need for the Study............................................................................................... 7 Definition and Terms........................................................................................... 9 Delimitations and Limitations............................................................................ 11 Summary........................................................................................................... 13 II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE……………………………………………………..15 History and Theory Involving Teacher Leadership……………………………....15 Educational Leadership………………………………………………………...21 Definitions of Teacher Leadership……………………………………………. 23 Teacher as Leader ……………………………………………………………..25 Formative Teacher Leadership........................................................................... 29 Factors that Inhibit and Equip Teacher Leaders.................................................. 32 Value of Teacher Leadership……………………………………………………..35 Q-Methodology ................................................................................................. 37 Summary........................................................................................................... 40 III. METHOD ………………………………………………………………………..41 Q-Methodology ................................................................................................. 42 Concourse Development.................................................................................... 43 Research Instruments......................................................................................... 44 P-Set or Participants ……………………………………………………………..50 Procedure .......................................................................................................... 51 Data Analysis …………………………………………………………………….53 Summary …………………………………………………………………………55

v

Chapter Page IV. DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION ................................................ 56 Description of the Participants ........................................................................... 57 Data Analysis .................................................................................................... 58 Response to Research Questions .................................................................. 63 Summary........................................................................................................... 76 V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS........................ 77 Summary of the Study ....................................................................................... 77 Conclusions ....................................................................................................... 78 Implications....................................................................................................... 82 Implications for Practice .............................................................................. 83 Implications for Theory………………………………………………………85 Areas for Future Research ................................................................................. 88 REFERENCES........................................................................................................ 92 APPENDICES ...................................................................................................... 105 Appendix A: Solicitation………………………………………………………..105

Appendix B: Researcher’s Script: Directions for Sorting Q Statements………..107 Appendix C: Informed Consent…………………………………………………110

Appendix D: Demographic Information………………………………………...114 Appendix E: Record Sheet………………………………………………………116 Appendix F: Factor One- Classroom Oriented Teachers………………………..119 Appendix G: Factor Two- Collaborative Teachers……………………………...124 Appendix H: Factor Three- Collegial Teachers ………….……………………..128

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page I. Q Sorting Board Arrangement………………………………………………..49

II. Factor Matrix…………………………………………………………………59

III. Correlations between Factor Scores………………………………………… 62

IV. Actual Loads to Ideal Loads………………………………………………….72

V. Summary of Changes from Actual to Ideal Sort………………………………73

VI. Summary of Q Sort Positions Consistent in Actual and Ideal…………………74

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page 1. Q Sort Statements…………………………………………………………………46 2. Sorting Array……………………………………………………………………..49

3. Demographic Information………………………………………………………..57

1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

There was a time in American education when teacher leadership was imperative

and not optional (Merideth, 2007). That time involved teachers writing and assessing

policies, seeking out their own professional development, and teaching each individual

student regardless of grade level or aptitude. The setting was the one-room school house

and the time pre-dates multi-building school systems containing the massive

administrative hierarchies of the twenty-first century. The present system relies on

outside sources such as elected officials, for-profit companies, and a handful of

administrators in a main office to dictate the policies for teachers to follow. Often these

people or others in state or federal offices mandate the content for teachers to teach. This

bureaucratic system and hierarchical school structure keeps teachers, who are on the front

line and who have the knowledge, skills and dispositions required to improve student

learning, from being leaders in their classrooms, the schools, and their educational

communities (Ash & Persall, 2000; Harris, 2003).

This study was designed to investigate the perceptions of those at the center of

teacher leadership, the teachers. The study provides information to those in the teaching

and learning profession. The information includes a variety of view points concerning

leadership based on perceptions held by classroom teachers who are teaching in the

2

public schools. Understanding these perceptions will assist in decisions that lead to

change within the current educational leadership structure.

Research on educators’ perceptions of leadership is limited and most focuses on

principal leadership, involves large numbers of teachers, and uses survey instruments.

Jantzi and Leithwood (1996) used a survey to collect variations in teachers’ leader

perceptions concerning their principals using 423 classroom teachers. Chrispeels and Yep

(2004) compared principal and teacher perspectives toward shared leadership using case

study techniques in a single elementary school district in California. Lee, Smith and Cioci

(1993) surveyed 9000 teachers exploring their perspectives pertaining to their power at

various levels of their organizations. Another survey of 53,000 teachers examined

teachers’ views on control over school policy and practices (US Department of

Education, 1993).

This study identified the subjective opinions that teachers have about leadership

in their classroom, in the school, and in the educational community. It also identifies their

ideal perceptions of leadership in the classroom, in the school, and in the educational

community. The study describes relationships between how teachers perceive leadership

and specific demographic information. The demographic information includes their

gender, age, ethnicity, years of experience, grade level, subject area, degrees held and

certifications.

The results help guide decision makers regarding teachers as leaders and help to

create dialogue concerning how teachers feel about leadership. This study adds to the

information educational stakeholders need to make appropriate decisions pertaining to

advancing and utilizing teacher leadership within their schools. It will be useful when

3

designing and implementing future research in teacher leadership, professionalism, and

teachers’ perceptions of their leadership. “Studies are needed that go beyond purely

descriptive accounts of teacher leadership…” (Harris, 2005 b, p. 214). This study allowed

the participants to share their perspectives of leadership, while avoiding the prescribed

descriptions and interpretations with parameters that the researcher might make.

School leadership must respond to the needs of our ever changing, information

filled society by embracing new forms of leadership, especially teacher leadership (Frost

& Durrant, 2003). Formative leadership spreads the responsibility of leading to multiple

individual educators in an anti-hierarchical or horizontal manner. Gonzales (2004)

suggests democratizing education by redefining teacher leadership as shared leadership

for all teachers. “Teacher leaders can transform schools into communities that prepare

students for citizenship and work in a complex, technological, and democratic society”

(Lieberman & Miller, 2004, p.12). Silins and Mulford’s (2002) research illustrates the

strong relationship between higher student outcomes and leadership distributed

throughout the school community involving teacher empowerment in areas teachers

considered as their strengths.

Significance of Study

Confident teacher leaders who have the support of their colleagues are central to

learning achievement and necessary school reform. Teacher leaders can insist schools

abandon their old structural systems and lead them into beneficial organizational

improvement (Ackerman & Mackenzie, 2006). In a recent review of accomplished school

reform, Glickman, Gordon, and Ross-Gordon (2001) noted characteristics of schools that

4

were improving through documented student learning over time. First on the list was the

characteristic of shared or distributed leadership.

Teachers must participate in leadership in order to advance the progress of school

change (Ash & Persall, 2000; Lieberman, 1992; McCay, et al., 2001). Recent data

highlight teachers choosing to remain in schools that offer teachers collaboration and

leadership opportunities (Harris & Muijs, 2005). This research suggested shared

leadership opportunities as a way to recruit and retain teachers. Kilcher (1992) noted that

when teachers felt valued as participants in a cohesive community and were empowered

as true decision makers, they passed this empowerment on to their students by giving

them a voice in decision making and by including them when planning and designing

student instruction.

Statement of the Research Problem

What K-12 teachers believe about leadership will influence the direction of

teacher leadership change in our schools and eventually lead to increased teacher

satisfaction and improved student learning. Teachers report that they do not believe they

are being utilized as leaders within the existing structure of pre-kindergarten through

twelfth grade public schools in America (US Department of Education, 1993).

Underutilization leads to dissatisfaction and teachers are leaving the profession in

alarming numbers after a few short years in the classroom (Gonzales, 2004).

Understanding the teachers’ perceptions concerning leadership will assist all educators in

creating leadership change to improve teacher satisfaction and ultimately student

5

learning. Identifying demographic similarities among teachers’ varying perceptions of

leadership will provide additional information and expose possible patterns related to the

demographic areas and emerging factors.

Theoretical Framework

Formative Leadership Theory was developed by Ash and Persall of Samford

University in 2000 to redefine and characterize leadership within schools. Formative

leadership, also known as emerging leadership, is founded on the belief that there are

multiple leaders within a school. Teachers are leaders and principals are leaders of

teacher leaders. The premise is to create a culture and structure to encourage everyone to

participate as a leader to establish an environment that is leader-full. Teacher leadership

is a collaborative movement that requires a new perspective of school leadership and its

structure (Ash & Persall, 2000; Cooper, 1993; Harris & Muijs, 2002).

Formative leadership theory refers to the principal as the Chief Learning Officer

or CLO. The CLO is given the task of facilitating learning and encouraging risk taking

among the faculty and staff. The center of attention is not the teaching or teachers’ work;

it is the students’ learning and academic work (Ash & Persall, 2000). This is not to say

that teachers do not need any supervision regarding their practice, instead the idea is for

teachers to work collaboratively to learn the necessary skills required to lead students to

higher levels of achievement.

Conversation and listening to one another are keys to formative leadership.

Collaboration and group interactions are necessary to assist the teachers in bringing out

their strengths and talents. Constant communication among all involved is required to

6

lead to improved pedagogical practice and increased student learning. The faculty and

staff unite to help make the school run more efficiently using data driven information to

achieve student and teacher satisfaction.

Formative leadership theory contrasts with the old notion that considered

leadership as something that only took place outside of the classroom. It contends that

teaching in and of itself is in fact leading (Ash & Persall, 2000). Traditional teacher

leadership roles such as mentoring others are still of use but there are new leadership

skills that must be accepted in order to achieve a new paradigm. Formative leadership

encourages teaching roles such as, “…interdisciplinary teaching, curriculum

development, student assessment, counseling, peer review, and parental involvement”

(p. 3) - all of which must be collaborative and collegial in nature. Teacher leadership

structured within this model is designed to improve teaching and increase student

learning in schools.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to identify the subjective perceptions teachers have

of leadership in the classroom, school and educational community and their ideal

perceptions of leadership in the classroom, school and educational community. The study

identified patterns of beliefs teachers hold about leadership by using Q-methodology, a

research method crafted by William Stephenson (1953) and further developed by Steven

Brown (1980). Q-methodology gives the researcher an organized technique to uncover

qualitative data within the participants’ opinions, as well as, a way to quantify this data

using factor analysis procedures. Q-sort statements aligned with the leadership model

7

developed by Ash and Persall (2000), known as formative leadership theory, were

utilized to identify the teachers’ perceptions. The study described relationships between

how teachers perceive leadership and their gender, age, ethnicity, years of experience,

grade level, subject area, degrees held, certifications and opportunities for leadership.

The demographic page also asked about specific leadership roles.

Research Questions

Research questions to be investigated for the present study are:

1. What perceptions do teachers have about their own leadership in the

classroom, in the school, and in the educational community?

2. In what way do these perceptions relate to their ideal leadership self?

3. What demographic patterns might assist in understanding teacher’s varying

perceptions of leadership?

Need for the Study

Our schools have become so diverse and complex, that no one administrator could

possibly manage a school by him or herself (Keedy & Finch, 1994). This has led to the

concept of school within schools. New leadership definitions involving teachers are

required for schools to improve using shared decision making (Kilcher, 1992). Harris

(2003) states, “…it is clear that the head as the solitary dynamic leader is inadequate for

the new directions in education…” (p. 318). Administrators and other educational

stakeholders should rely on the knowledge, skills, and dispositions teachers possess to

effectively contribute to the leadership of the educational settings. Roles requiring

8

teachers to be leaders are expanding; formal and informal roles are creating new ways of

leading, and each aspect is contributing to the growing collaborative cultures (Lieberman,

1992). As teachers are expected to take on more responsibility in their ever-expanding

roles, they should gain similar increases in the degree of respect afforded them by parents

and students.

We live in a time where teachers are not given the proper respect and authority

they were once granted within our society. Parents and students can be equally

disrespectful of a teacher’s opinions and efforts. This lack of respect hinders leadership in

the classroom and demands more leadership from teachers within the school and the

educational community. Within the dimension of teacher leadership, teachers feel like

they are making a difference and helping to make changes in school improvement; they

have a sense of ownership (Day & Harris, 2002). Only teachers, in the role of leader, can

successfully regain the respect and status they as a group have lost.

Understanding teachers’ perceptions of their leadership will eventually lead to

higher teacher satisfaction and higher retention rates. Teacher leadership must be looked

at in-depth and must involve teacher leaders in the process (Faye, 1992). The purpose of

this study is to reveal teachers’ perceptions of leadership within their classroom, school

and the education community and their ideal perceptions. Identifying teachers’

perceptions of leadership will uncover challenges that need to be addressed as well as

areas of success. “Where teachers believe they are empowered in areas of importance to

them, they are very positive about their school and the way it is organized and run”

(Silins & Mulford, 2002, p. 604).

9

Teachers’ perceptions of leadership will assist educational stakeholders as they

strive to abide by No Child Left Behind guidelines and work toward improving school

culture for higher student achievement. “To effectively change the culture of a school,

leadership must exist at both the administrative level and the teacher level” (Katzenmeyer

& Moller, 1996, p. 31). Harris (2003) clearly states that ignoring teacher leadership is

knowingly investing in leadership that makes little or no difference in student

achievement.

Teacher leadership will not be the answer to all of our schools’ problems. It is,

however; an essential ingredient in the recipe for renewed professionalism and ultimately

for the advancement of educational practices that directly affect student learning and

development (Kilcher, 1992; Center for Teaching Quality, 2006; McCay, et al., 2001;

Pearson & Hall, 1993). Getting teachers more involved and supporting what they do with

high regard will impact the quality of teaching and learning for students in the classroom

(Fullan & Hargreaves, 1991; Harris & Muijs, 2002).

Definition of Terms

Views and perceptions – thoughts, personal point of view, understanding, knowledge or

values that influence behaviors.

CLO – chief learning officer (Ash & Persall, 2000).

Concourse – potential Q items compiled during a literature review, interviews, or other

credible sources; a set of related statements whose focus is on meanings not facts

(Brown, 1993).

10

Condition of instruction – guidelines for sorting Q-items involving a continuum such as

most like, most unlike, or no opinion coupled with a guiding question.

Factor analysis – statistical way of grouping individuals through the method involving Q-

sorting.

Form board – construction paper or board used by the researcher to allow participants to

organize Q-sort items according to the condition of instruction.

Leadership – facilitative ability in team inquiry and learning and collaborative problem

solving, for example: imagining future possibilities; examining shared beliefs; asking

questions; collecting, analyzing, and interpreting data; and engaging in meaningful

conversation about teaching and learning (Ash & Persall, 2000).

National Board for Professional Teaching Standards – The National Board for

Professional Teaching Standards, or NBPTS, was established in 1987. It is a nonprofit

organization with high standards for teachers’ knowledge, skills and performance. The

board issues certification within a voluntary system to identify teachers who meet these

standards.

No Child Left Behind – The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 or Public Law 107-110, is

known as NCLB. It is a United States federal law designed to enhance several federal

programs that were created to improve the performance of America’s elementary and

secondary schools. The law allows parents more choices when selecting schools their

children will attend. It also promotes reading and re-authorized the 1965 Elementary and

Secondary Education Act.

Non-significant loading –sort that does not reach significant level in order to define the

factor.

11

P-set or P-sample – group of people participating in a Q methodology study.

Q-item – a viewpoint or feeling on a given topic, derived from the concourse.

Q-methodology – a research method that allows participants to speak for themselves

expressing opinions, beliefs, and perspectives instead of using prespecified measures

(Stephenson, 1953).

Q-sample – consists of written statements or any phenomenon which one can attach

meaning (art, music, pictures, etc.); subset of statements drawn from the concourse.

Q-sort – the displayed arrangement of Q-items for each individual in a Q methodology

study after they have followed the condition of instructions; a participant’s rank ordering

of the statements (Brown, 1993).

Significant loading – factor loading not explainable by random assignment.

Teacher leaders - teachers with sense of empowerment to make decisions and lead within

the classroom, the school, and the community. Teachers who influence others and

encourage them to improved performance and development. Ongoing development of

this concept is continuing to unfold (Lieberman & Miller, 2004).

Delimitations and Limitations

The classroom teachers who participate in this study do not represent the teachers

in all schools. The participants in this study were K-12 teachers currently teaching in

northeastern Oklahoma schools. Working within the parameters of Q methodology, the

participants did, however; represent teachers and what some teachers in today’s society

may likely report.

12

I can not make generalizations to other professions or to teachers who are not

included in this study. Teachers are people who have chosen to successfully pursue a four

year college degree, enter today’s classrooms, and teach to the best of their abilities

within their subject area. This is not a random selection from the population at large. It is

somewhat purposive in that they have acquired the certification and licensure required of

teachers in our schools today.

External reliability is limited in the degree of generalizability to other

communities with different situations and various relevant conditions (Lecompte &

Goetz, 1982). This study is not measuring the how or why concerning teacher leadership.

It is fully immersed within the perceptions of the teachers involved. Teachers speak for

themselves and there is no cause for research misinterpretation. This is not meant to

suggest that only teachers’ perceptions are of the highest importance when addressing

teacher leadership. By examining teachers’ subjective points of view, researchers expose

insights that may lead to solutions involving issues that intimately affect teachers and

their students.

The most important issue concerning reliability for Q methodology is the idea that

the same condition of instruction will lead to factors that are schematically reliable and

represent closely related view points on the topic involving similarly structured Q

samples, involving different people (Van Exel, 2005). A study must be reliable, referring

to the accuracy and repeatability of the research findings. If a Q sample is reliable, then

the Q sample could be used on the same person in the future and obtain similar results or

consistency within the data collected.

13

Validity refers to the study’s relevance, correctness, and significance in its basic

hypothesis, method, and interpretation of data. Therefore, a study is valid if it measures

what it claims to measure. In Q methodology, validity is instilled by including only

relevant statements in the Q sample. After this condition is met, validity is not an issue

since the participants are giving their own opinions and it is they who are doing the

measuring (Brown, 1993). Q methodology generalizes among people who share certain

views or opinions. These generalizations are valid for those who share the same ideals

about a defined factor (McKeown & Thomas, 1988). A valid research method does not

always produce significant results. It may confirm a null hypothesis, but if conducted

properly, a study using such a method should produce valid, reliable results.

Summary

Teachers are not being utilized as leaders within the existing structure of pre-

kindergarten through twelfth grade public schools in America (Ash & Persall, 2000;

Lieberman, Saxl, & Miles, 1988; McCay, et al., 2001). Our school children are

increasingly more and more diverse adding additional demands to an already stressed,

outdated administrative system. Formative leadership throughout the school will enable

those in the closest contact with students, the classroom teacher, to make necessary

decisions that ultimately lead to increased student learning. Understanding teachers’

perceptions of leadership will eventually lead to higher teacher satisfaction through the

direct use of such information within the school environment. Teacher leadership must be

looked at in-depth and must involve teachers in the process (Faye, 1992). Chapter Two is

a review of the literature involving teacher leadership and Chapter Three is an

14

explanation of Q methodology. Chapter Four is and analysis and interpretation of the

data and Chapter Five is a summary with conclusions and recommendations.

15

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

This literature focuses on teacher leadership in American schools. It includes a

brief review of the history and theory involving teacher leadership within K-12 public

schools and the growing need for teacher leadership. Educational leadership structures

are discussed along with various definitions of teacher leadership the definition used in

this study. Barriers and factors that equip teacher leaders are addressed and questions are

presented. Formative Leadership Theory is explained and the value of teacher leadership

is discussed. The chapter concludes with the ways that Q-methodology was used to

describe teacher perceptions of leadership.

History and Theory Involving Teacher Leadership

Over the last 100 years, numerous features of the American educational system

have remained the same. You can ask any citizen in our country to describe a school

classroom and most likely the descriptions will be dramatically similar and may even be

close to what they looked like over a century ago. During the same 100 years, many

dramatic changes have also been integrated. These changes followed critical reports that

challenged the effectiveness of our educational system and called for higher standards

and accountability. These challenges are calling for improved school leadership and

organizational structure.

16

There are differing ideas about teacher leadership and effectiveness that have

been debated in recent years; this has led to the development of “differentiated models”

of teacher leadership (Campbell, Kyriakides, Mujis, & Robinsonet, 2004, p. 3). To

understand the changes that have taken place in teacher leadership, one must first look at

teacher leadership through history. It is important to note that while evaluating teacher

leadership is important, some researchers suggest the literature and research available on

teacher leadership and effectiveness is somewhat incoherent, poorly documented, and

tends to be correlational (Campbell, et al., 2004; Merideth, 2007; Rogus, 1988).

Teachers are agents of change in any society, yet they are often overlooked as

non-professionals in ours. When researching literature on educational leadership, there

are overwhelming volumes pertaining to school administrators and other who are not

teachers. Teacher leadership is a relatively new concept with a large number of possible

participants.

At the start of the nineteenth century, most schoolmasters were men though

married women were commonly hired in New England settlements as early as the 1700’s

(Altenbaugh, 1992). This eventually changed to the hiring of adolescent females because

they did not have the demands of a family as the married man or woman did and they

typically were more educated than the previous. Women were deemed inferior to men for

centuries and were not respected equally when they entered the classroom. This is a small

explanation of one of the many reasons that teachers have not been able to dominate the

leadership established within our schools.

The inferiority of women led to male teachers being given higher pay and more

optimal teaching schedules (Preston, 1982). The nineteenth –century labor needs brought

17

more women into the profession. They were in demand to educate the growing

population and meet the requests for common school reform. Most professions at the time

excluded woman so teaching became a likely position for many young ladies. So many

young women joined the profession, that salaries remained low due to the large supply of

available teachers (1982). As the salaries remained low, the large supply of female

teachers allowed the men in the profession to rise into the hierarchical administrative

structure of the educational environment.

In the isolated one room school houses, these young women awaited marriage in

our family dominated society (Altenbaugh, 1992). Their youth and physical size made it

difficult to handle young male adolescent students in an appropriate disciplinary manner.

These obstacles and many others helped to maintain the male superiority within the

educational system. Through the years, men left to fight wars and work in better paying

urban settings. This left the educational field dominated by female employees. They

appear to have taken over the teaching profession, but not the administration of the

institution (1992).

The definition of teacher leadership and effectiveness has not changed

significantly since the colonial period; though it is now being debated. Most ideas explain

teacher leadership as a combination of activities that result in classroom management and

improved student learning (Campbell, et al., 2004). Historically, teacher leadership was

viewed much like any trade or craft; it required principles that guided a trained leader to

effect positive changes in students using lecture, group interactions and intuitive thinking

(Campbell, et al., 2004; Likert, 1961). Many feel that in the colonial era, teaching was

viewed as intuitive, whereas now teaching and teacher leadership has become more

18

scientific and analytical in nature, with teachers adopting multiple models or paradigms

of instruction for advancing student achievement and school improvement (Campbell, et

al., 2004; Field, Holden, & Lawlor, 2000).

Early teaching focused on theory and the belief that children had an innate

ability to learn when teaching was focused on a pupil-teacher model that included lecture

and practice-based training (Atikinson & Shiffrin, 1968; Maslow, 1976). It wasn’t until

the late 19th century that models of education began to develop, where freer child

centered attitudes toward teaching began to develop. These suggested teacher leadership

was personal and part of one’s pedagogy focused on child development and not subject-

centered structures (Campbell, et al., 2004).

More elaborate models of teacher leadership and what constitutes effective

teaching began to surface during the early twentieth century and beyond. Teachers and

researchers began to examine the use of previous models and practices. Their hope was

that more positive results and achievements might be seen in the classroom, for students

and teachers, using curriculum aimed toward more subject-focused themes (Field, et al.,

2000). Improvements within the teaching profession were slow and demands grew for

education reform on a nationwide basis.

Teacher quality was a focus in a federal report released in 1983 titled A Nation at

Risk. The report sparked one of these periods of change and it had a long-lasting effect on

the educational system. The main objective of this document was the need for

improvements within the educational structure. In addition, it drew attention to the

quality of teachers working in our schools. According to the report, there were a large

number of outstanding educators in the United States; however, many were not remaining

19

in the classroom. Furthermore, the professional educators who remained in the system

were not being fully utilized or recognized for their accomplishments within the teaching

profession.

The authors went on to point out that the professional life of a teacher in our

country was unacceptable. This led to the ongoing debate of whether or not teaching

should be considered a profession. Seven recommendations were suggested as a way of

bringing teaching into the fully excepted arena of professionalism. The recommendations

pertaining to teacher professionalism have been developing since the publication.

Ingersoll (1997) described professional characteristics and described authority as a

characteristic that helps distinguish a profession from a non-profession. Authority

enhances ones ability to become a leader.

Another organization helped subject oriented teacher leadership emerge from the

National Standards for Subject Leaders (TTA, 1998; Field, et al., 2000). The group

suggested that students required clear knowledge of a subject in order to fulfill their role

in the classroom and also to ensure students developed mastery of a subject outside of the

classroom. Previous to this, during the period to the early 1980s, teachers were

considered middle managers with respect to their leadership role, with one individual

designated as the head teacher and others considered subordinated to this “master of

subject” (2000, p. 13).

The Carnegie Task Force on Teaching as a Profession released another influential

report A Nation Prepared: Teachers for the Twenty-first Century (1986). The authors

suggested that teachers become leaders in curriculum, pedagogy, school restructuring,

20

and their own collective professional development. The core idea was teachers being

enabled to take control of their profession.

The genesis of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS)

was a report authored by the Carnegie Task Force. From this report, a nonpartisan,

independent, not-for-profit board was established one year after its publication. The

mission of NBPTS encompassed high and rigorous standards to guide teachers in the

knowledge they should possess and in the skills they should master. The board sought to

establish a voluntary structure to evaluate and certify educators to see if they were

meeting these standards. The main mission of the board was to improve student learning

in our nation’s schools and identified teachers as the most important element influencing

achievement.

In 1989, the National Board released its policy What Teachers Should Know and

Be Able to Do, which became the board’s philosophical platform. The policy drove the

development of the standards that guide the assessment process for accomplished

teaching in each certification area. The policy contained five core propositions that

supported the structure communicated in the standards.

A prerequisite for the success of these standards was that teachers had to be

committed to students and their learning processes. Second, teachers had to be well-

educated in the subject areas they taught and had to attain the teaching skills necessary to

relate the curriculum to their students. Third, teachers had to be responsible for managing

and monitoring student learning. Fourth, teachers had to think systematically about their

practice and learn from educational and classroom experiences. Finally, teachers were

required to be members of learning communities (NBPTS, 1989). These core

21

propositions all equate to teachers being leaders in the classroom, the school, and the

educational community. They have helped to make teacher leadership and teacher

professionalism synonymous (McCay, et al., 2001). Currently, fewer than 2% of all U.S.

teachers have earned National Board certification (NBPTS, 2007).

Educational Leadership

Throughout the last century, school leadership has existed within a top down

hierarchical structure (Murphy, 2005). Principals and administrators have authority and

power and teachers are those who need to be led. Teachers are not viewed as leaders as

other groups within the system are, such as principals (Hatfield, Blackman, & Claypool,

1986). This structure is not equipped to acknowledge teachers as leaders and therefore

keeps them in their traditional role.

Teacher leaders are now encouraged to remove notions of a hierarchical approach

to learning and leading in favor of a more horizontal or collaborative approach to leading.

They are encouraged to focuses on objectives for student performance rather than subject

matter alone. Some have referred to this change in leadership or educational style as

bottom-up learning, suggesting the idea that teacher leaders are as much leaders in the

classroom and school as anyone else in the environment, capable of providing innovation

and motivation for themselves and their students.

In a recent teacher survey titled The American Teacher – An Examination of

School Leadership, 54% of teachers reported that the principal in their school worked

collaboratively, while 89% of principals reported that they worked collaboratively. Only

58% of the teachers reported that their principal was mutually respectful and just 60%

22

were reported as supportive. Teachers are more likely to describe the teacher-principal

relationship as inflexible, uncomfortable, and hierarchical than are principals. This lack

of support, respect and collegiality contributes to teacher dissatisfaction and gives an

overall picture of the challenges teachers face in becoming teacher leaders in their

schools.

There are several examples of how some districts are participating in furthering

teacher leadership within their schools. Many of them exist within small private schools

and charter schools within the public school systems. Several states, including California

and Minnesota, have established teacher-run charter schools. The Minnesota New

Country School in Henderson, Minnesota is led by a teacher cooperative known as

EdVisions. The school was given a $4.5 million grant in 2000 from the Bill and Melinda

Gates Foundation. The grant was established to duplicate this model in 15 other schools

over a five year period (McGhan, 2002).

Our schools have become so diverse and complex, that no one administrator could

possibly manage a school by themselves (Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 1995;

Keedy & Finch, 1994). Principals are overburdened with the role of instructional leader,

administrator, manager, and disciplinarian. This suggests that no one person can perform

all of these tasks and more without the assistance of the teaching staff (Donaldson, 2001).

Studying teacher leaders has led to findings describing the skills and abilities that lend

themselves to becoming a more effective leader. These skills and abilities can be labeled,

effectively taught and learned (Leiberman, et al., 2000). Administrators and other

educational stakeholders need to rely on the knowledge, skills, and dispositions that

teachers possess to effectively contribute to the leadership of the educational settings.

23

As for current school reform, teacher leadership is different from other strategies.

It is an embedded concept unlike charter schools or school-based management (Murphy,

2005). Teacher leadership is more of a “defining strand in a larger reform effort rather

than as a distinct strategy” (p. 4). Teacher leadership is not a fad or current trend. It is a

paradigm that will assist in the movement toward school reform and increase student

learning. Along the way as it does so, there are obstacles that must be addressed.

Definitions of Teacher Leadership

We currently lack a comprehensive, agreed upon idea of what teacher leadership

is, how it can work, and whether it can be utilized for reform within in the educational

system, particularly from the teachers point of view (Harris, 2003; Lord & Miller, 2000).

“We can be sure that if we are ambivalent about the need for and definition of leadership

with our field, those on the outside looking in at us are even more confused” (Gonzales,

2004, p. 2). We are far from an agreed upon definition or a common understanding.

“Misunderstandings about the definitions… are plentiful” (Katzenmeyer & Moller, 2001,

p. 4). Harris (2003) claims, “The literature on school leadership contains a bewildering

array of definitions, theories and models” (p. 318).

We do know who is at the core of the concept and we have very large number of

viable prospects. Palmer (1998) wrote, “In our rush to reform education, we have

forgotten a simple truth: reform will never be achieved by renewing appropriations,

rewriting curricula, and revising texts if we continue to demean and dishearten the human

resource called the teacher, on whom so much depends” (p. 3).

24

In the structure of teacher leadership, power is spread out and authority is shared

among the teaching community (Day & Harris, 2002). This most recent form of teacher

leadership is antihierarchical and places high esteem upon collegiality and

professionalism (Katzenmeyer & Moller, 1996; Lieberman, et al., 2000; Silva, et al.,

2000; Ash & Persall, 2000). Teachers view leadership differently than others do, not as a

top down organizational structure (Fay, 1992). Believing that only a few chosen people

can help schools and districts realize the difficult standards and demands placed upon

them is not realistic (Lieberman & Miller, 2004).

There are varying ways to view teacher leadership. One is the traditional view

where some teachers are leaders. Teachers are no different than others who are leaders

within countries, organization, and communities. Not everyone leads and there are a few

with this exceptional ability. Another way to view teacher leadership is the democratic

way where all teachers are leaders ( Lieberman et al., 2000; Rost, 1981). According to

Bolman and Deal (1994), “good leaders, like good teachers, are as good at listening and

sensing as they are at persuading and teaching” (p. 79). Here everyone has a role in the

leadership process. Fullan and Hargreaves (1991) say that all teachers have leadership

abilities to contribute which reach outside of their classroom and that these should not be

taken lightly or go unused. Students and parents look to teachers for guidance and

whether the teacher chooses to or not, they are leading and facilitating.

Teacher leaders have been described as teachers who

contribute to school reform or student learning in and beyond the classroom, influence

others to improve professional practices, or contribute to the community of leaders

(Katzenmeyer & Moller, 1996). These teachers are willing to initiate and participate in

25

collegial support groups to encourage one another and reflect on their practice. They have

a voice when deciding on professional development activities and improved curriculum

programs and forms of school wide assessment. They choose to carry out action research

to improve their pedagogy and share the findings with their colleges. They are aware of

the school’s mission and vision and it is evident in their curriculum and conversations

“leadership...enables people to collaborate in the service of shared visions, values, and

missions” (Bolman & Deal, 1994, p. 79). Harris (2003) states that teacher leaders are

those teachers who simply exercise leadership.

For the purpose of this study, leadership will be defined using the Formative

Leadership Theory. The definition of leadership will be referred to as the abilities to

facilitate in team inquiry, learning, and collaborative problem solving in all areas of the

educational environment. Examples of these abilities are thinking of future possibilities;

analyzing and reflecting on shared beliefs; continually asking questions; collecting,

analyzing, and interpreting data; sharing data with others; participating in meaningful

conversation concerning teaching and student and faculty learning, and reflecting on

these conversations (Ash & Persall, 2000).

Teacher as Leader

Teachers are often used as examples when discussing leadership and leaders.

“Teaching and leading are indistinguishable occupations, but every great leader is

teaching and every great teacher is leading” (Gardner, 1990, p. 18). Teaching and leading

are often viewed as synonymous, though some would argue that not all teachers are

leaders. Leaders motivate followers and teachers motivate students.

26

There has been extensive research in the area of teacher leadership in recent years,

yet there is no consensus of a clear definition of teacher leader (Merideth, 2007). The

idea of teacher leadership is relatively new and it is increasingly gaining attention in this

time of school reform and educational improvement. Leadership theories in other areas of

our culture do not readily apply to the classroom teacher’s perspective of leadership or

their vision of success: student learning. Our present educational leadership establishment

was based on organizational, bureaucratic and management theory (Doyle, 2004). This

establishment is being blamed for the inadequacies in our students’ achievements.

Teachers are being asked to get more involved and take responsibility for identifying and

utilizing their leadership abilities.

Different educational organizations have different ideas of what teacher

leadership is. Within these organizations, there are varying views of the concept among

the constituents. Another issue is the reasoning for undertaking teacher leadership

(Murphy, 2005). Teacher leadership may be viewed differently when it underlies school

restructuring as opposed to when it is implemented to enhance teacher professionalism.

Teacher leadership is underdeveloped conceptually and in practice (Murphy,

2005). This is due to the fact that the term has many vague distinctions. The reason for

this may be due to the fact that teacher leadership is a fairly recent concept. The concept

is so new we have not gone past many of the obstacles. Teacher leaders are challenged

with a lack of time and stamina to reach out to colleagues in order to develop teacher

leadership as a formulated standard (Donaldson, 2006).

These teachers are willing to initiate and participate in collegial support groups to

encourage one another and reflect on their practice. They have a voice when deciding on

27

professional development activities and improved curriculum programs and forms of

school wide assessment. They choose to carry out action research to improve their

pedagogy and share the findings with their colleges.

Teacher leaders strive for control over their professional lives, not power

(Gonzales, 2004). Teachers realize that teacher leadership is a collective, organizational

endeavor. Teacher leaders encourage others to lead. We live in a time where teachers are

not given the proper respect and authority they were once granted within our society.

Teaching, once considered a vocation, is being viewed by some as a profession

(Lieberman & Miller, 2004). One of the characteristics of professions is the autonomy

afforded to the individual, which often leads to job satisfaction and empowerment.

Teacher autonomy is linked “… with the need for teachers to have control over their

work environment and to have personal on-the job decision making authority…”

(Pearson & Moomaw, 2005, p. 47). Teachers who lead are more empowered and more

autonomous:

Advocates of increases in faculty influence and increases in teacher autonomy

argue that teachers will not only make better informed decisions about

educational issues….but that top-down decision making often fails because it

lacks the support of those who are responsible for implementation and success of

the decisions. (Ingersoll, 1997, p. 7)

Teachers leave the profession for many reasons, but some of the top reasons are a lack of

professionalism, recognition, and autonomy (Pearson & Hall, 1993).

Teacher leaders want to share leadership with others. The vision is to take up their

roles as leaders and continue to develop values that encourage and expect other teachers

28

to lead from within their ranks (Lieberman & Miller, 1999). As they take on these

leadership roles, they must not forget their original role of teacher and must not allow a

management view to invade their student oriented view or disrupt their collegiality with

other teachers (Donaldson, 2006; Ash & Persall, 2000; Harris & Muijs, 2002). Teachers

spend much of their time taking care of their students needs, yet they get little help in

understanding their own needs. These include gaining recognition, encouragement,

support, and ongoing professional development (Lieberman, et al., 1988). This may lead

to poor retention of teachers in our schools. Only thirty percent of novice teachers stay in

the profession for five years (Darling-Hammond & Sykes, 2003; Gonzales, 2004).

According to a report No Dream Denied: A Pledge to America’s Children, teacher

retention is a problem that has led to a shortage of teachers in America (1983). They go

on to report that the hardest hit areas are the urban, rural, and minority districts, where

under qualified and under experienced teachers come and go on a regular basis. One-third

of our novice teachers leave the profession by year three and about half leave before their

fifth year (Lieberman & Miller, 2004). These numbers will improve by allowing teachers

to lead within the schools creating a horizontal model of leadership.

Teacher leadership may be viewed differently when it is reported by novice and

veteran teachers. Novice teachers are generally just out of college and may not view

leadership in the same way a veteran teacher would. Veteran teachers have a variety of

experiences and years of professional development to rely on that the novice has not

experienced. In a study of perceptions concerning a mentoring program, novice teachers

and veteran teachers had vastly different perceptions of the process (Frazier, 2006).

Another study looking at teachers’ perceptions of their professional identity had drastic

29

differences between those of veteran and novice teachers (Beijaard, Verloop, & Vermunt,

1999). According to Johnson and Birkland (2003), novice teachers are provided little

support, get the least desirable placements and the most difficult to handle students. This

may have an impact on their leadership perceptions.

Another aspect that may affect teachers’ perceptions of leadership is certifications

they hold. A teacher certified in secondary Social Studies may perceive leadership

differently than a teacher certified in Early Childhood or a Nationally Board Certified

teacher. A study identifying teachers’ wants and needs, found that National Board

Certified teachers’ needs were more in line with aspects of leadership than those of non-

certified teachers’ needs and that certified teachers wanted to serve in leadership roles

more often than non-certified teachers (Petty, O’Conner & Dagenhart, 2002).

Formative Teacher Leadership

Formative Leadership Theory, developed by Ash and Persall (2000), was founded

on the belief that there are multiple leaders within a school. Teachers are leaders and

principals are leaders of teacher leaders. The premise is to create a culture and structure

to encourage everyone to participate in being a leader which would establish an

environment that is leader-full.

Formative teacher leadership spreads the responsibility of leading to multiple

individual educators in an anti-hierarchical manner (Ash & Persall, 2000). Gonzales

(2004) suggests democratizing education by redefining teacher leadership as shared

leadership for all teachers. In a report on teachers’ concepts of career, most teachers

reported that they prefer a horizontal expansion of teaching roles as to a vertical ladder

30

leading to higher pay and administrative duties (McLaughlin & Yee, 1988). Teachers

prefer professional growth and efficacy to movement up the ladder (Gonzales, 2004).

Harris (2003) states the following, “Whatever specific definition of teacher leadership

one chooses to adopt, it is clear that its emphasis upon collective action, empowerment

and shared agency is reflected …” (p. 317).

Schools today are not equipped to embrace the formative leadership structure due

to current hierarchical structures, our values, and our professional development training.

In order to establish and encourage formative leadership, Ash and Persall (2000) have

developed ten principles to guide this new educational paradigm:

1. Team learning, productive thinking, and collaborative problem solving should

replace control mechanisms, top-down decision making, and enforcement of

conformity.

2. Teachers should be viewed as leaders and school principals as leaders of

leaders. Leaders must be seen as asking the right kinds of questions rather than

knowing all the answers.

3. Trust should drive our working relationships. Leaders should not assume that

faculty, staff, and students will try their best to do their worst.

4. Leaders should move from demanding conformity and compliance to

encouraging and supporting innovation and creativity. One of the leader’s primary

responsibilities is to drive out fear.

5. Leaders should focus on people and processes, rather than on paperwork and

administrative minutiae. Time should be spent on value added activities.

31

6. Leaders should be customer-focused and servant-based. Faculty and staff

members are the direct customers of the principal, and the most important

function of the principal is to serve his or her customers.

7. Leaders should create networks that foster two way communication rather than

channels that direct the flow of information in only one direction.

8. Formative leadership requires proximity, visibility, and being close to the

customer. Leaders should move about the school and the surrounding community,

listening and learning, asking questions, building relationships, and identifying

possibilities.

9. Formative leadership should empower the people within the school to do the

work and protect them from unwarranted outside interference.

10. Formative leadership requires the ability to operate in an environment of

uncertainty, constantly learning how to exploit system wide change, rather than

maintaining the status quo.

For some time, teachers have been seen as employees who need to be managed

and told what to do. They have had little say in curriculum development, school reform

issues, or staff development structuring and planning. This has led to teacher- proof

curriculum packages and staff development programs that have little to do with what the

teachers need to improve their practice and ultimately student learning (Gonzales, 2004).

Yet many believe the burden of school reform and improvement lies most heavily with

the teachers (Fullan & Hargreaves, 1991). Formative teacher leadership guides teachers

toward improvement through the Ten guiding principles and assists them with obstacles

that inhibit their leadership.

32

Factors That Inhibit and Equip Teacher Leaders

Teachers are often short on time and overwhelmed with responsibilities. Seventy-

five percent of our teachers are women and they carry most of the responsibility of caring

for their families (Barth, 2005). Men in the profession often take on coaching positions or

second jobs in order to make financial ends meet. Once they get to school, they are

restricted within time schedules and asked to do more and more for the students and the

school community.

Teachers are not entrusted as resources for professional staff development. They

are not viewed as experts in their specialty areas. They are the most underutilized asset in

our current school structure. “Long-standing practices of school governance and teaching

have both emerged from and been reinforced by structures that do not easily give way to

support newer conceptions emphasizing shared leadership and collaboration among

teachers” (York-Barr & Duke, 2004, p. 14). Donaldson (2006) noted that principals are

thought to make organizational action; teachers typically are not.

Teachers are conditioned to be followers (Katzenmeyer & Moller, 1996). They

follow the guidance offered by professors in their undergraduate work, they student teach

under a more experienced teachers, they complete entry year programs with a committee

in charge, and then they abide by the hierarchical system involving one school leader.

They have been expected to look to others for answers and ways of improving their

practice. Lawmakers legislate policy for teachers to abide by, often without their input.

There has been a common agreed upon assumption inside and outside of

education that teachers should teach and administrators and managers should lead schools

33

(Lynch & Strodl, 1991). Teacher leaders do not always want to move into administration;

they want to teach and stay close to students. They do not want their colleagues to refer to

them as an administrator; they want to remain a teacher. They have more than enough to

do yet they choose to go above and beyond the call of duty in order to help their

colleagues and their students. They want to make a difference.

Teachers have been isolated and controlled, unable to add valuable input

regarding aspects that affect the learning in their classrooms and schools (Ash & Persall,

2000; Ashton & Webb, 1986; Fullan & Hargreaves, 1991; Lieberman & Miller, 2004;

Lortie, 1975). The hierarchical frame of school leadership must shift to a more

democratic, participative structure. This will create a support structure that focuses on

teacher collaboration, rather than teacher isolation. This enhances teacher

communication, a vital characteristic that will better mirror the increasingly complex

society for which they are preparing students (Lieberman, et al., 1988). Donaldson (2006)

contrasts teacher leaders and principals by pointing out those teacher leaders’ values,

norms, and allegiances are aligned with the people they are leading and not segregated by

allegiances among the administration. Children are being overwhelmed with the demands

of our complex society. In order to more effectively meet the learning needs and

expectations of today’s children, teachers must utilize their individual, collective and

collaborative resources in a manner that reinforces what teachers are doing in the other

classrooms throughout the school. Teacher leaders can play a prominent role in the area

of supporting their colleagues’ collaborative efforts as well as organizing collective

resources.

34

Teacher conservatism and isolation within their classrooms inhibits leadership

(Lortie, 1975). Teacher isolation has been an ongoing problem within our schools for

some time (Ashton & Webb, 1986; Fullan & Hargreaves, 1991; Lieberman & Miller,

2004; Lortie, 1975). The benefits of isolation that teachers may enjoy do not outweigh the

negative consequences. Because teachers often have little idea what is going on in the

other classrooms of their own school, the environment is not conducive to sharing ideas,

time and resources with their colleagues (Katzenmeyer & Moller, 1996). “The leap from

a productive individual contributor, working essentially behind a closed classroom door,

to a new identity of “teacher as leader” constitutes one of the most engaging transition in

teachers’ professional lives” (Bowman, 2004, p. 187).

Teacher leadership can be threatening to colleagues and to administration.

“Ironically, when classroom teachers do embrace leadership challenges in his or her

schools or school district, fellow teachers often chastise him or her...” (Bowman, 2004, p.

187). As reported by McLaughlin and Yee (1998), most teachers prefer a horizontal

expansion of teachers’ roles instead of a vertical ladder leading to higher pay and

administrative duties. “Teachers prefer professional growth and efficacy to movement up

the ladder (Gonzales, 2004).

Time has always been in short supply for any classroom teacher. Teachers barely

have time in their busy days to take a lunch break let alone add to their lists of

responsibilities and roles the position of leader. Using precious time to perform as a

teacher leader takes teachers away from their reasons for being in the classroom, their

students.

35

Teachers are decision makers. They are constantly deciding what actions to take

or not take in the classroom on a minute by minute basis. They are educated in designing,

planning, developing, observing, evaluating, analyzing, and reflecting. These skills and

more are necessary for anyone in a leadership position to possess. Teachers want to

mentor their colleagues, assist in school and district level decision making, and choose to

belong to professional organizations where their input is highly valued.

Value of Teacher Leadership

Research involving teachers has value in many areas of the educational

community. Colleges and universities vested in teacher education, national education

associations like the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, education

unions, administrators, and individual teachers will all benefit from the information

gathered about teachers’ perceptions of leadership. Research specifically focused on

teachers’ perceptions of their leadership has been limited in the realm of teachers as

leaders within the structure of school leadership (Smylie, 1995).

Colleges and universities are recognizing the need for preparing teacher leaders.

They are actively joining in by offering higher education degrees in teacher leadership.

A good example of this is the University of California at Berkley along with California

Statue University, San Francisco State, and San Jose State. These schools offer a joint

doctorate in Urban Educational Leadership. Their mission statement states, “Our central

role is to ignite the leadership capacity needed to create vital, democratic and caring

places for powerful teaching and learning.” They offer courses pertaining to what

teachers need to know in order to lead, to comprehend and act on school change issues, to

36

deepen understanding of school culture, to effectively handle conflict and to help

establish educational communities.

Input from multiple perspectives is important if a structure based on multiple

leaders is desired and expected to thrive (LeBlanc, 1997). The present structure involving

a principal as sole leader cannot effectively address the diverse needs of today’s students

or teachers (Fullan & Hargreaves, 1991). Formative or emerging leadership suggests that

leadership be distributed throughout the school in order to enable those in the closest

contact with students to make necessary decisions that ultimately lead to increased

student learning and enhanced teacher satisfaction (Ash & Persall, 2000). This most

recent form of teacher leadership is antihierarchical and places high esteem upon

collegiality and professionalism (Harris, 2003; Silva, Gimbert, & Nolan, 2000). With a

few adjustments to the structural frame, schools can become democratic entities that rely

on the expertise of all involved to help students achieve and maximize learning.

For the purpose of this research, the definition of teacher leadership used falls

within the framework of formative teacher leadership and is stated by Pellicer and

Anerson (1995), “Teacher leadership is concerned with teachers helping teachers so that

teachers can, in turn, better help students. Teacher leadership is helping teachers work

together to establish and achieve the goals and objectives of the school” (p. 22). Another,

closely related definition comes from Moller and Katzenmeyer (1996), “Our definition of

teacher leadership proposes that teachers are leaders when they are contributing to school

reform or student learning (within or beyond the classroom), influencing others to

improve their professional practice, or identifying with and contributing to a community

of leaders” (p. l6).

37

When speaking of teacher leaders, Donaldson (2006) writes that their opinions

greatly affect their ability to act for the good of the students and the school. The

identification of these perceptions will assist educational professionals on a variety of

levels within our schools in expanding the teachers’ role as leaders. Although many are

promoting teacher leadership as a necessary resource for school reform, there is little

written from the perspectives of the teachers themselves (Silva, et al., 2000). Silins and

Mulford (2002) write of a trickle down effect, “…how teachers say they are treated,

especially by the school administration, is reflected in how students say they are treated

by teachers” (p. 601). This trickle down effect makes it extremely necessary for us to

redefine our schema of school leadership.

Q-Methodology

Q methodology was created in the mid-1930s by British physicist/psychologist

William Stephenson (Brown, 1996). The idea had been previously used, but Stephenson

brought it to wider attention by explaining its underlying premise. This method holds

values, opinions, perceptions and other behaviors as measurable entities. Q methodology

relays subjective responses from personal perspectives and gives a picturesque view of

these perspectives when organized in unique factors. It allows one to examine individual

and sub-population characteristics and opinions often ignored in traditional R

methodology. It was designed to be used with small numbers of participants and large

numbers of statements.

Q methodology is beneficial because it allows the individual to qualify an answer

according to how it relates to previous questions as well as yet to be answered questions

38

(Addams & Proops, 2001). Q methodology allows answers to be complexly interwoven,

yet discernable. This type of methodology has been utilized to “reveal the subjectivity

involved in any situation – e.g., in aesthetic judgments, poetic interpretation, perceptions

of organizational role, political attitudes, appraisals of health care, experiences of

bereavement, perspectives on life and the cosmos…” (Brown, 1996, p. 563). It gives the

researcher organized techniques to uncover qualitative data within the participants’

opinions, as well as, a way to quantify this data using factor analysis procedures. In

contrast to traditional quantitative methodologies, Q methodology attempts to combine

the best elements of quantitative assessments and qualitative traditions (including

narrative forms) as a means of producing a more rounded outcome (Sell & Brown, 1984;

Brown, 1996).

Q methodology allows factor studies on one or a few individuals where people are

correlated, not tests (Stephenson, 1953). Burt and Stephenson disagreed on what was

being measured and the way it was being measured (Brown, 2000). “…there are no

operations in R-methodology by which the various statements are compared relative to

one another. This is basic, instead, to Q-technique” (Stephenson, 1953, p. 302).

Q methodology has been used by multiple researchers to uncover the values and

perceptions teachers hold concerning a variety of topics. Hull (1996) utilized Q

methodology to study teachers’ views about arts integration in the curriculum in

Oklahoma. In another study, special education and classroom teachers’ attitudes toward

inclusion were examined using Q methodology (Elhoweris & Alsueikh, 2006). Q

methodology was used to look into music teachers’ attitudes towards the significance of

individual differences for teaching and learning in music (Hewitt, 2006). Ernest (2001)

39

chose to stray from traditional research techniques when he used Q methodology to study

teachers’ ideas about developmentally appropriate practices.

Q methodology was chosen in this study for several reasons. First and foremost,

Q methodology is the research technique best suited to expose a participant’s subjective

point of view. People usually have viewpoints on issues and are capable of voicing these

opinions themselves (Brown, 2000). In Q methodology, the subject reasons and

subjectively acts on the relevance of the statement in question. It allows the participants

to be more than just data points and it gives them a true voice in an often silent structure

through open ended questions and subjective choices.

Q methodology nurtures the researcher’s desire to use a method of impression as

opposed to one of expression as found in an R-methodology and correlation studies.

Methods of expression do not hear the participants’ voice deliberately. These methods are

concerned with data and how they add up, not the participants’ frame of reference

pertaining to the issue involved. Q methodology is quite the contrary. “With methods of

impression…the personal, intraindividual significance of ‘test stimuli’ is of primary

importance” (McKeown & Thomas, 1988, p. 23). Q methodology allows the participants

to rank or assign value to issues by referring them to their own personal thoughts and

individual situations. The quantitative nature and characteristics of Q methodology

elevate this research tool to a uniquely useful qualitative research method (Watts &

Stenner, 2003a).

The researcher can also appreciate Q methodology for its usefulness pertaining to

a small number of participants while allowing for a large number of statements

representing opinions, traits or other measurable entities. “As few as twelve participants

40

can generate statistically meaningful results” (Barry & Proops, 2000, p. 104). This

supports giving the participants’ traits and opinions merit which is not possible with

larger numbers. Another small yet important issue is being able to select participants

without having to randomize the pool of subjects.

Summary

This chapter discussed current and historical literature in the area of teacher

leadership. Scholarly journals, books on leadership within schools, dissertations and

reports were used to review current literature. Information involving the demands on

school leadership was explained along with the attributes teachers can contribute by

actively participating in a leadership role. It also examined the background of teacher

leadership and presented issues that are inhibiting further growth in the field. Chapter

Three is an explanation of the Q methodology and the theory and tools that support the

method.

41

CHAPTER III

METHOD

The purpose of this study was to identify the subjective perceptions teachers have

of leadership in the classroom, school and educational community. The study identifies

patterns of opinions teachers hold about their leadership, their perceptions of ideal

leadership and demographic similarities and differences among teachers’ varying

perceptions of leadership. The data exposes patterns related to the demographic areas and

emerging factors following Q methodology analysis. Q methodology was utilized to

examine the perceptions of teachers who participated in this study. The research

questions that guided the study were:

1. What perceptions do teachers have about their own leadership in the

classroom, in the school, and in the educational community?

2. In what way do these perceptions relate to their ideal leadership self?

3. What demographic patterns might assist in understanding teachers’ varying

perceptions of leadership?

To comply with federal guidelines and the policy in place at Oklahoma State

University, this study was submitted to the Institutional Review Board (IRB) for

approval. This ensured compliance concerning the rights of human subjects involved in

the study. This chapter includes an overview and an explanation of Q methodology

including the concourse, Q samples, P samples, procedures and data analysis.

42

Q Methodology

Q methodology was chosen in this study for several reasons. First and foremost,

Q methodology is the research technique best used to expose a participant’s subjective

point of view. People usually have viewpoints on issues and are capable of voicing these

opinions themselves (Brown, 2000). In Q methodology, the subject reasons and

subjectively acts on the relevance of the statement in question. It allows the participants

to be more than just data points and it gives them a true voice in an often silent structure

through open ended questions and subjective choices.

Teachers’ opinions and perspectives are the core of this study and cannot be

predetermined in any manner. “Only subjective opinions are at issue in Q, and although

they are typically improvable, they can nevertheless be shown to have structure and form,

and it is the task of Q-technique to make this form manifest for purposes of observation

and study” (Brown, 1996, p. 58). In a presentation at the 9th Annual Meeting of the

International Society for the Scientific Study of Subjectivity, Thomas and Bass (1993)

noted, that subjectivity is self-referent in nature; therefore, processes used to measure

subjectivity should maintain the person’s point of view and not ignore it.

Q methodology allowed teachers to rank or assign value to issues by referring

them to their own personal thoughts and individual situations. The researcher can also

appreciate Q methodology for its usefulness pertaining to a small number of teachers

while allowing for a large number of statements representing values, traits or other

measurable entities. Q methodology is also known for its validity and reliability.

43

Q methodology requires participants to rank the Q statements in order according

to their own views and opinions. This diminishes the involvement of researcher bias. The

researcher decides which statements to include and what questions to ask within the

framework of the theory, but the participant expresses their own subjective ideals

pertaining to the topic in question. This supports the reasoning for identifying Q

methodology as a qualiquantological tool (Stenner & Stainton, 2004).

Concourse Development

Q methodology begins with the development of a concourse or the statements to

be used. According to Brown (1993), the concourse is the flow of communication

encompassing a topic in everyday conversation, commentary, or discourse of daily life.

He refers to the concourse as, “the flow of communicability surrounding any topic” (p.

94). It represents the dialog people might use when discussing or debating a particular

topic. The researcher may create the concourse from speaking with people, from a

theoretical perspective, a literature review or from a combination of a variety of

communication formats (McKeown & Thomas, 1988). Possible sources for deriving a Q

concourse are existing research in the field of study, interviews conducted with a group

of individuals representative of the subject population, observations and field notes,

current trends in society, commonly held ideas, etc. (Van Exel, 2005). Care is taken to

omit statements that are repetitive or force participants to choose between opposing ideas

(McKeown & Thomas, 1988). They represent the communicative structure used within

the topic of study. Therefore, the statements in the concourse are grounded and exist as a

part of the entire study.

44

The concourse is not limited to verbal communications, but may include abstracts,

pictures, symbols, video clips, selections of music, etc. From this collection of

communicated ideas or statements, the researcher selectively filters out the Q-set or Q

sample best fitted to the research question involved. The sample usually consists of 40 to

50 statements, but may have more or less depending on the question, the theory, and the

researcher. The statements are subjective in that they are opinions and not facts. The

statements are recorded on a card and numbered randomly to make up a deck or stack of

Q cards. The Q-sample is administered by the researcher to the P set or P-sample.

The concourse for this study consisted of over 300 statements representative of

declarations made by teachers concerning the concept of teacher leadership. These

sample items came from a recent Q methodology study on teaching practices , transcribed

interviews with teachers, a recent teacher leadership blog from the Association for

Supervision and Curriculum Development, and an in-depth review of teacher leadership

literature from the early 1900’s through the current year. Additional information was

gathered concerning teachers’ perceptions and attitudes in other aspects of the profession

within the K-12 school system. Scholarly journals, books, websites, dissertations, and

interviews were used to compile the selected concourse. The concourse is constructed for

the purpose of structuring the Q sort items or sampling the statements used in the

research instrument.

Research Instruments

A concourse typically has too many statements or items in it to be used in a

research study. There is no set agreed upon number of statements that make up a

45

concourse. Because of this, a subset of statements is extracted from the pool of those

collected and a reasonable number is meaningfully chosen. A theoretical framework is

used to structure the subset of statements in the selection process. Stephenson (1953)

cautioned against viewing the sample subset as ‘standardized’ as is often observed in R-

techniques. Q statements do not fit neatly into certain categories and may be interpreted

in a realm other than that initially intended on (Brown, 1993). Categories or cells develop

within the structure using the theoretical framework. The statements within cells are

homogenous due to their similarities and at the same time heterogeneous due to their

differences (Brown, 1980). Statements are grouped into categories and then reduced to

provide optimal diversity and eliminate redundancy.

The concourse used in this study consisted of more than 300 statements and was

reduced in order to give participants a reasonable number of declarations to reason with.

The statements were selected and eliminated according to the theoretical framework of

formative leadership and the categories of classroom, school, and educational

community. A small group of experts in the area of teacher professionalism assisted in

the selection process to help ensure the statements reflected the theory and were

represented within the 10 guiding principles and the categories previously stated.

The 10 guiding principles were organized into statements and then appropriated

into classroom, school, and educational community. Though several statements overlap

and take place in more than one area, they were segregated according to their

predominant occurrence in a particular setting. The concourse statements were then

categorized and grouped together according to the statements from the10 guiding

principles. With each statement in one of the three categories, the reduction of redundant

46

statements took place. Statements were then chosen to create a rich, diverse collection

within each of the three settings.

Figure 1.

Q Sort Statements________________________________________________________

Classroom

1. I set individual performance expectations for students in my classes

2. I use problem solving strategies to help students figure out what happened when

things go wrong

3. I ask students to evaluate me during the year to help improve my practice

4. I often reflect on the lessons I teach and formulate ways to improve them

5. I am well informed in ‘No Child Left Behind’ regulations and content

6. I assess my teaching in terms of my students’ achievement

7. Openness and communication is highly valued within my classroom.

8. I have updated my technological skills and encourage my students in this area

9. I encourage my students to celebrate each others accomplishments on a daily

basis

10. I determine the amount of homework my students receive

11. I choose the teaching techniques and materials used in my classroom

12. I adapt instructions to fit the preferred learning styles and desires of my students

13. I always assume students will try their best.

14. I encourage innovative thinking and sharing among students.

15. My main concerns pertain to students and their learning.

47

School

16. I often arbitrate disagreements between colleges

17. I am a mentor to another teacher in my school

18. I can easily motivate others to become actively involved

19. Our principal comes and goes often and freely, there is quite a bit of contact with

the teachers and the students.

20. Teachers in my school are shielded from unwarranted outside influences that

might interfere with teaching and learning.

21. I have a voice concerning hiring new teachers and/or administrators

22. I invite others into my classroom to observe and learn from methods I use

23. I observe in other teachers’ classrooms to learn from their methods and pedagogy

24. The faculty and staff within my school use collaborative problem solving to work

through difficult issues.

25. Teachers are viewed as leaders in our school.

26. My principal is a leader who guides us in a democratic manner.

27. There is a great deal of trust among the teachers and the administration in our

school.

28. I enjoy participating in team building activities and working closely with others

29. We spend a lot of time talking about teaching and learning in our meetings and in

our spare time.

30. Our principal is available and always ready to serve according to the needs of the

teachers.

48

Community

31. I believe I can make a difference in the educational community by communicating

my ideas to others

32. I understand how to work with policymakers for effective improvement

33. I hold an office in an educational organization

34. I observe other teachers in their classrooms and invite them to observe in mine

35. I work with a higher education institution to bring new teachers into the system

36. After attending a workshop, I share the information with my colleagues through a

workshop or professional development meeting

37. I am good at communicating the needs of the teachers in my school to others

38. Parents and other people in the local community are vital to a healthy school

39. I conduct action research and share my results with educators, parents and

administrators

40. I am learning how to encourage system wide change.

41. I am encouraged to be part of several networks to enhance my knowledge and

effectively communicate with other educators.

42. Getting out into the community is vital to building relationships and learning from

one another.

43. I have presented at a state or national convention in the last three years

44. We are not isolated, we are encouraged to visit other schools and attend

conferences and seminars.

45. Listening and learning from educators outside of my district is extremely

important to me.

49

Figure 2. Sorting Array

Array___________________________________________________________________

-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5

A demographic information survey was developed for use in this specific study.

The demographic information includes gender, age, ethnicity, years of experience, grade

level, subject area, degrees held, certifications and opportunities for leadership. Both

instruments are intended to identify the perceptions teachers have pertaining to leadership

within the classroom, the school, and the educational community and expose possible

patterns related to the demographic areas and emerging factors.

Figure 2. is an illustration of the grid used to make up the form boards. Table I is

a description of the statements in each column, the sorting number of each statement, and

number used for analysis or the array position.

Table I.

50

Q Sort Board Arrangement

Statement Frequency 2 2 4 5 6 7 6 5 4 2 2

Column Number for Sorting 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Array Position/Statistical Values -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5__

The following items were developed for use in this study:

1. Script of solicitation (Appendix A)

2. Researcher’s script, condition of instruction (see Appendix B )

3. Informed Consent Form (see Appendix C)

P-set or Participants

The P-set is the group of people, relevant to the question under investigation, who

participated in sorting Q-statements. It is not a random selection of participants but a

chosen group who have a viable connection to the question being asked. The participants

have personal experience with the concourse or an opinion pertaining to it (Brown,

1980). The number of people in the P set is most often smaller than the Q-set (Brouwer,

1999).

The P-set for this study consisted of 36 public school teachers. They ranged in

grade level and subject area from kindergarten to twelfth grade and had varying

educational backgrounds. These teachers were from urban, rural, and suburban school

districts in the northeastern area of the state of Oklahoma. They were solicited during

small in-service meetings in the Muskogee, Oklahoma, school district area. Teachers

were asked to participate in the study and encouraged to share the information with their

colleagues if they would be interested in participating. Various ages, ethnic backgrounds,

51

years of experience and certification areas were accounted for on the demographic

information sheet (Appendix D) used in the study. These variations assisted in ensuring

the participants have different perceptions concerning leadership. This information was

gathered through the demographic information survey. As common strands emerge, the

demographic information becomes useful to assist in identifying patterns among teachers’

perceptions (Stephens, 1985).

Procedure

Each participant was given an Informed Consent Form, a manila envelope

containing the Q set and a Demographic questionnaire. The large manila envelope

contained the set of Q statements, a form board, two sort record sheets and a

demographics sheet. They were asked to locate each of these items.

The teachers were assigned a number for identification only. To protect the

participant’s privacy, only the principle researcher had access to the identification

numbers. The identification numbers were used to identify participants who ask for future

contact or information.

Informed consent was obtained prior to Q sorting by requesting that participants

sign the consent form (Appendix C). Participants were given a personal copy to keep.

This form contained the purpose of the research, the procedures, and the risk of

participation, confidentiality statement, contact information, and the participant’s rights.

It was clearly explained that participation is voluntary and withdrawal at any time will

receive no penalty. Participants were given the opportunity to receive a summary of the

research conclusions and will be given details of how to obtain these. They were asked to

52

lay the form board out and to count out the number of statements they have to ensure that

they are all accounted for. The teachers then sorted the statements according to the

conditions of instruction (Brown, 2000). Essential to the Q methodology is the use of a

quantitative element that is described as a Q sort technique. Participants were asked to

carefully read through each card in order to gain an idea of the broad spectrum of the

statements involved (Appendix E).

The teachers sorted the statements using two conditions of instruction (Brown,

1996). One condition of instruction revolved around the teacher’s actual self when

considering leadership and the second condition was focused on the ideal self when

thinking of teacher leadership. The belief is that behavioral realizations depend on the

harmony between one's actual self and one's ideal conceptions of self (Stephenson,

1980). The first condition of instruction used the question, “What perceptions do you

have about your leadership in the classroom, in the school, and in the educational

community?” The teachers then read each card again and sorted the statements into three

stacks. With the Form Board in front of them, they sorted into a stack to the right that

represented those statements most like him or her. The second stack was to the left of the

board and represented those statements most unlike him or her. A stack in between the

right and left piles and was the neutral stack. The ranking of these statements according

to a specific or explicit rule, also known as the condition of instruction, is central to the

assessment of the scores and the design of this methodology (Brown, 2000).

The participants were left with three piles of cards. They were instructed to start

with the pile to their right and select the two cards from this pile that are the most like

him or her and place them in the two spaces at the far right of the Form Board in front of

53

them in column 11. The order of the cards within the column (the vertical positioning of

the cards) does not matter. Then, they chose from the pile on the left the two cards that

was most unlike him or her and placed them in the two spaces at the far left of the Form

Board in front of them in column 1. They went back to the most like pile on the right and

selected the two cards from those remaining that were most like him or her and pile them

into the two open spaces in column 10. They returned to the most unlike pile on the left

and selected the two cards from those remaining and placed them into the two open

spaces in column 2. They worked back and forth, continuing to place cards onto the Form

Board until all of the cards were placed into all of the spaces. Once they placed all the

cards on the Form Board, they rearranged the cards until the arrangement best

represented their opinions. They then recorded the number of the statements on the Form

Board on the record sheet (Appendix E).

The Form Boards were cleared and the cards gathered in a stack for the second

condition of instruction. Under the second condition, the teachers were asked to sort the

cards using the following question, “What are your ideal perceptions of leadership in the

classroom, in the school, and in the educational community?” They sorted the cards into

three piles and followed the directions used from the first condition of instruction and

recorded the responses on another record sheet.

The participants then filled out a demographic questionnaire (Appendix D). The

questionnaire includes gender, age, ethnicity, years taught, subject area, highest degree

held and certifications. It asked about the percentage of their job involved in leadership

and what non-educational leadership roles they participate in.

Data Analysis

54

In Q methodology, the participants are the center of attention, not the data the

researcher is collecting. Factors evolve from the participants’ individual subjectivities

(Brown, 1993). There are usually two to four factors in a set. Individuals will cluster

together as factors according to their agreement with certain values or opinions (Smith,

2001). The researcher would ideally like to have four or five people represent each point

of view or define a factor, though the number of people is not important (Van Exel,

2005).

Q methodology examines participants’ relationships to one another by looking at

how they sort their statements. Factor analysis groups individuals who sort their

statements in a similar manner instead of grouping the items themselves (Senn, 1993).

Due to uncertain or vague meaning involving statements close to zero on the grid, the

focus of interpretation is narrowed to the extremes of each Q sort (±3, 4, and 5). From the

patterns of clustering, factors or opinions emerge. These factors are orthogonal and

represent the participants’ or exemplars’ perceptions. Participants who share perspectives

were grouped together using a particular factor. Two or more orthogonal factors represent

different perspectives pertaining to the Q-sample statements. Loading on a particular

factor, shows alignment between the participants’ Q-sort and the components of the

factor. Positive loadings represent shared subjectivity, while negative loadings

demonstrate opposition to the factor’s representative perspective. The goal is to analyze

relationships between those who participate in the study by uncovering aggregates of

similar participants (Bennett & Bowers, 1976).

55

For the purpose of this study, the use of a Q sample consisted of 45 statements,

derived using the 10 guiding principles of formative leadership theory. A demographic

instrument was included to gather information and illustrate patterns that immerge

concerning gender, age, ethnicity, and years of teaching, subject area, grade level, highest

degree held, major, and National Certification. It also asked two open ended questions.

The participants were asked to fill out the demographic survey after they had finished

sorting the Q statements.

Summary

This chapter explained how the teacher leadership theory from Ash and Persall

(2000) helped to create the concourse of statements used in this study using the ten

guiding principles. Q methodology was explained as the method of choice for this study

of teachers’ perceptions of their actual and ideal forms of leadership. The research

instrument, participants, the conditions of instruction and the data analysis method used

were examined and discussed. Chapter IV will discuss each of these areas pertaining to

the data collected in this study.

56

CHAPTER IV

DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

The purpose of this study was to identify the subjective opinions that teachers

have about leadership in the classroom, in the school, and in the educational community.

The relationships between their perceptions of leadership and their ideal perceptions of

leadership in each area were of particular interest. Further attention was given to the

relationships between how teachers perceive leadership and their specific demographic

information. The specific research questions for this study were:

1. What perceptions do teachers have about their own leadership in the

classroom, in the school, and in the educational community?

2. In what way do these perceptions relate to their ideal leadership self?

3. What demographic patterns might assist in understanding teachers varying

perceptions of leadership?

Forty-five Q-sort statements were drawn from the leadership model developed by

Ash and Persall known as formative leadership theory (Ash & Persall, 2000). Thirty-six

K-12 classroom teachers sorted these 45 statements twice (under two conditions of

instruction) yielding 72 Q-sorts in order to reveal their perceptions of leadership. The two

conditions for the sorting were: What are your thoughts about leadership? and What is

your ideal leadership self? The process accumulated 72 Q-sorts to be used for analysis.

Two sorts were not included in the data analysis because one teacher refused to follow

57

through and sort for the second condition of instruction saying she felt her perceptions of

leadership and her ideal perceptions were identical, both of her sorts were left out of

analysis leaving a total of 70 sorts.

Description of Participants

The participants in this study were asked to fill out a demographic information

sheet containing choices for gender, ethnicity, the number of years they have taught, the

subject area and grade they currently teach in, their highest degree held, their National

Board for Professional Teaching Standards standing, and the percentage of time they

spend in leadership activities while at work. Figure 3 depicts the ethnographic

information of age, ethnicity, years teaching, certifications, degrees, National Board

standing, and percentage of time leading.

Figure 3. Demographic Information

Information_____________________________________________________________

Female 30 Male 5 Caucasian 27 Native American 7 African American 1 Asian American 0 Hispanic 1 Other 0 Average number of years teaching 12 Early Childhood 6 Elementary 9 Special Education 4 Spanish 1 Physical Education 1 Secondary 6 Alternative Certification 1 Bachelor Degree 26 Masters Degree 9 Never Attempted National Board Certification 19 National Board Candidate 8 Reattempting National Board 1

58

National Board Certified Teacher 7 Average % of job involved in school leadership 33%

Data Analysis

The data were entered into PQ Method 2.11, a program by Schmolk (2002),

which was originally known as Mainframe-Program Q Method created by John Atkinson

(1992). This program gives the analysis a mathematically pure solution. The objective is

to have the maximum number of sorts load on only one or more of the extracted factors.

It must be noted, “Q sorts really measure nothing if they are correctly applied, and their

meaning-conferring and intentionality only emerges by way of factor analysis of several

Q-sorts” (Stephenson, 1988, p. 211). The analysis started with correlating each sort to

every other sort, followed by principle components factor analysis of the sorts’

correlation matrix. This execution resulted in an unrotated factor matrix. Varimax

rotation was carried out on the extracted factors to identify those with the greatest number

of sorts defining each factor. Four characteristics of each factor were examined: variance,

number of significant sorts, number of confounded sorts, and number of non significant

sorts.

Varimax rotation uses the unrotated matrix file and allows you to choose from

multiple factor solutions. Varimax rotation was performed on 2, 3, 4, and 5 factor

solutions for this study. Factor loading significance was calculated using zero-ordered

correlation coefficients or SE = 1/(sqrt[N]), SE is the standard error and N is the number

of Q statement. In this study, there were 45 statements, the standard error is 0.149

59

(SE = 1/sqrt[45] = 1/6.708 = 0.149). Correlations are statistically significant at 0.01 when

they are within ±2.58 standard errors or 2.58(0.149) = 0.3844 or .38 (McKeown &

Thomas, 1988). Factor loadings at .38 or above were then hand flagged as significant (X

marks a defining sort in Table III). For optimal interpretation and meaning for the factor

and to substantiate a stable viewpoint, at least four sorts must be significant to retain a

factor (Brown, 1980).The fourth and fifth factor solutions were highly correlated and

contained numerous sorts that loaded significantly on more than one factor. Additionally,

the views could be explained using factors 1, 2, and 3; therefore, a three factor solution

was chosen in order to interpret the most stable solution for the relationship of these sorts.

After the three-factor solution was retained, z-scores were calculated for each statement

for each of the three factors. Z-scores are the normalized weighted average of the

participants statement scores for a particular defining factor or a measure of the strength

of the statement. They are the deviation of the score from the mean score. If a z- score is

1.8 then it is 1.8 standard deviations from the mean (McKeown & Thomas, 1988). Large

z- scores define a factor in a magnified way and are most likely, not due to chance. The

statements are arranged in descending order by z-scores to yield a factor array, or the

theoretical result of the sorts that defined that factor. The factor arrays and various

comparisons of statements assist in interpretation of factors.

In Q Methodology, interpretations are based on the factor loading matrix and the

highly valued factor arrays. The items distributed at the extremes are of utmost

importance during interpretation because they are the most significant (Robbins, 2005).

These statements must be carefully analyzed and understood to assist in defining and

characterizing each factor. Factor arrays, or factor exemplars, are values given to the

60

statements for each of the factors used in the analysis (-5 to 5). Factors are displayed on

form boards ordering the statements in the array to assist with interpretation. Consensus

statements were also used in this interpretation along with the demographic information

and comments written in response to the open-ended questions about leadership.

To assist in reading the factor loading matrix in Table II, a series of numbers and

letters were used to identify each sort (see Table II). First there is the number of the sort,

one through 70, followed by an M or F for gender, next the number of years the person

has been a teacher is listed. The last letters represent the teacher’s National Board

standing with NA representing Never Attempted, NC Nationally Certified, CA currently

attempting, and BS Banked scores and reattempting. The odd numbered sorts have a

lower case ‘a’ at the end representing the actual condition of instruction and the even

sorts just have a number and the word Ideal to represent the ideal condition of instruction.

Sort number one would be 01F14NCactual for Actual Condition and 01Ideal for Ideal

Condition.

The three factor solution used in this study, accounted for 51% of the total

variance. Table II displays 17 defining sorts for Factor 1 (18% of variance), 13 defining

sorts for Factor Two (11% of variance), and 14 defining sorts for Factor 3 (12% of

variance). Collective characteristics were used to identify and name each factor. Factor

One identified the Classroom Oriented Teachers, Factor Two identified the Collaborative

Teachers, and Factor Three identified the Collegial Teachers. Seventeen of the seventy

sorts were confounded, meaning they achieved significance on more than one factor.

Nine sorts were insignificant because they did not load on any one factor in the three

factor solution.

61

Table II.

Factor Matrix – X Indicates Defining Sort______________________________________

QSORT Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 1 01F14NCactual -0.0181 0.7142X -0.2941 2 01Ideal 0.0415 0.6581X 0.2087 3 02F26NAactual 0.1258 -0.1581 0.2937 (not significant) 4 02Ideal 0.1205 -0.2455 0.4323X 5 03F14NAactual 0.0798 -0.1291 0.5285X 6 03Ideal 0.4941 0.0878 0.4896 (confounded) 7 04F20NAactual 0.7052X 0.0039 0.2202 8 04Ideal 0.3606 0.2980 0.4649X 9 05M15NAactual 0.5873 -0.0167 0.3906 (confounded) 10 05Ideal 0.6317X -0.0408 0.3346 11 06F7NAactual 0.4588 0.0818 0.4953 (confounded) 12 06Ideal 0.5335 0.0686 0.4218 (confounded) 13 07F10NAactual 0.7019X -0.1499 0.2466 14 07Ideal 0.7080X 0.0590 0.0753 15 08M1NAactual 0.5763X 0.2130 0.0228 16 08Ideal 0.3515 0.0923 0.1311 (not significant) 17 09F29NAactual -0.0163 0.4241X -0.0311 18 09Ideal 0.0928 0.4615X -0.0131 19 10F3NAactual 0.3424 -0.1407 0.7886X 20 10Ideal 0.3647 -0.0861 0.7543X 21 11F21NAactual 0.1601 0.5885X 0.1798 22 11Ideal 0.1601 0.5885X 0.1798 23 12F3NAactual 0.4892 0.4717 -0.0040 (confounded) 24 12Ideal 0.4608 0.4152 0.0518 (confounded) 25 13F18NAactual 0.0864 0.2650 0.3247 (not significant) 26 13Ideal -0.0575 0.0235 0.4325X 27 14M1NAactual 0.5126X -0.0768 -0.1786 28 14Ideal 0.2901 0.2479 0.1472 (not significant) 29 15F3NAactual 0.5345X 0.1764 0.1734 30 15Ideal 0.2389 0.4432X 0.2493 31 16F5NAactual 0.5533X 0.1755 0.1780 32 16Ideal -0.2202 0.0581 -0.2008 (not significant) 33 17M1NAactual 0.4951X 0.1535 0.1584 34 17Ideal 0.2650 0.5321X 0.1416 35 18F2NAactual 0.6006X 0.1044 0.0848 36 18Ideal 0.3492 0.0077 0.4275X 37 19F5CAactual 0.8052 0.4034 0.0692 (confounded) 38 19Ideal 0.7896 0.4357 0.1225 (confounded) 39 20F5NAactual 0.0874 0.3215 0.5948X 40 20Ideal 0.0140 0.2945 0.6274X 41 21M2NAactual 0.4424 0.1502 0.3760 (confounded) 42 21Ideal 0.4571 0.4226 0.2165 (confounded) 43 22F8CAactual 0.4013 -0.0521 0.5979 (confounded) 44 22Ideal -0.2457 0.2991 0.4895X

62

45 23F28NAactual 0.2629 0.2010 0.2482 (not significant) 46 23Ideal 0.1274 -0.1749 0.5784X 47 24F9NCactual 0.3693 0.5336X 0.0806 48 24Ideal 0.1586 0.5321X 0.0555 49 25F35NCactual 0.5217X 0.2223 0.1434 50 25Ideal 0.6362X 0.0810 0.0192 51 26F10CAactual 0.3785X 0.1745 0.2096 52 26Ideal 0.2170 0.3132 0.4234X 53 27F8CAactual 0.6302X 0.0078 -0.0583 54 27Ideal 0.0145 0.0973 0.6057X 55 28F10CAactual 0.4261 0.5057 0.2151 (confounded) 56 28Ideal 0.4056 0.2673 0.6250 (confounded) 57 29F8BSactual -0.1717 0.6956X 0.1481 58 29Ideal -0.4645 0.3122 0.5001 (confounded) 59 30F11NCactual 0.1437 0.1748 -0.1994 (not significant) 60 30Ideal 0.0125 0.1841 -0.0649 (not significant) 61 31F14CAactual 0.7646X 0.1226 0.0027 62 31Ideal 0.6137X 0.0947 0.3147 63 32F4CAactual 0.5864 0.4877 0.0624 (confounded) 64 32Ideal 0.4243 0.1781 0.4066 (confounded) 65 33F8NCactual 0.3679 0.3654 0.2410 (not significant) 66 33Ideal 0.4787 0.4849 0.0719 (confounded) 67 34F29NCactual 0.2435 0.5892X -0.2256 68 34Ideal -0.0257 0.6080X -0.1438 69 35F26NCactual 0.2126 0.1940 0.5445X 70 35Ideal 0.5372X 0.3379 0.2726 Number Sorts 17 13 14 % expl.Var. 18 11 12

(X = Significant Loading at p>.05 and more than half of common variance explained.)

Table III demonstrates the factor correlations ranging from .15 to .45. Due to the

high correlation between Factor One and Factor Three, it is assumed that the participants

loading on these factors had similarity in the sorting patterns; yet, factor three was

retained because of some striking differences in views of leadership.

Table III.

Correlations between Factor Scores__________________________________ 1 2 3 1 1.0000

63

2 0.2779 1.0000 3 0.4537 0.1501 1.0000

Response to Research Questions

The factors were interpreted using the Q-sort items with their highest and lowest

ranking according to the z scores. Interpretation involved the items that associated with

one factor over another, consensus statements, and demographic information. Consensus

statements are items that ranked similarly across all three factors. A post sort question

was at the bottom of the demographic page. Many teachers left it blank but a few

responded concerning the difficulty they had in switching from actual to ideal. The

interpretation of the factors and analyses of the factor loading matrix were used to

respond to the research questions.

Research Question One: What perceptions do teachers have about their own

leadership in the classroom, in the school, and in the educational community?

Actual and ideal sorts were analyzed together to answer this question. How

teachers actually view their own leadership and how they view their ideal leadership were

combined to reveal the perceptions these teachers have. Three distinct views were

extrapolated along with consensus statements.

A large number of consensus statements mirror the correlation between factors.

Consensus statements are statements that display no significant differences among the

participants’ rankings within the organization of the grid. Although the three factors have

their own distinctions, there was little polarization on the following statements:

Consensus Statements ‘Most Like’ Participants with Array Positions

64

__________________________________________________________________________ Item No. Statement/Sort Array Positions* 7. Openness and communication are evident each day within 5 5 4

my classroom.

28. I participate in team building activities and working 2 3 2 closely with other.

15. Students are innovative thinkers because of my 3 2 2

curriculum. Consensus Statements ‘Most Not Like’ Participants with Array Positions _______________________________________________________________________ Item No. Statement/Sort Array Positions* 3. I ask students to evaluate me formally throughout the -2 -1 -3

year to help improve my practices. 24. I initiate collaborative problem solving to work -1 -3 -2

through difficult issues at work.

5. I am well informed in `No Child Left Behind' and other -1 -2 0 federal regulations.

• Array positions for Factor One, Two, and Three, respectfully.

Item 7 should be recognized by its overtly shared importance. It states, “Openness

and communication are evident each day within my classroom.” Teachers loading on

Factors One and Two placed this statement in the category of most like them (+5) and

Factor Three teachers placed only two statements in higher regard (+4) when considering

this statement. An interesting concept appears when examining the teachers’ agreement

with statement 15 stating that students are innovative thinkers and their disagreement

with statement 3. This says that they help their students to think innovatively but they

establish their limits when asking their students to evaluate their practices. Other items

shared close rankings but fell into the statistical void of the middle ground demonstrating

65

that similarities exit among the teachers in the study. Items that fall into the middle of the

grid have little value to those sorting them. It is more apparent, however, that the three

factors contain individual meaning and varying views of teacher leadership. It was this

uniqueness that assisted in interpreting the data and defining the factors.

Factor One Classroom Oriented Teacher Leaders

Most Like Statements

Z-scores Arrays

1. Individual performance expectations for students dominate my work in my classes.

1.554

4 2 1

14. My leadership style in the classroom requires student initiative and control.

1.472

4 -1 -1

15. Students are innovative thinkers because of my curriculum. 1.416

3 2 2

11. I determine the amount of homework my students can accomplish.

1.331

3 -2 0

6. Valued added activities and assessments are used in my class.

1.274

3 1 -1

Most Not Like Statements

Z-scores Arrays

36. After attending a workshop, I share the information with my colleagues through a workshop or professional development meeting.

1.003

-3 3 3

20. I am influential in shielding teachers from unwarranted outside influences that might interfere with teaching and learning.

1.082 -3 -4 1

21. I have a voice concerning hiring new teachers and/or administrators.

1.191

-3 -5 0

39. I conduct action research and share my results with educators, parents and administrators.

1.320 -3 -1 -2

35. I work with a higher education institution to improve the teacher preparation system.

1.453 -4 4 -5

66

Factor One teachers were different from the other teachers in that they

demonstrated most of their leadership within the classroom which assisted in labeling

them Classroom Oriented Teachers. Most of these teachers were not connected with

National Board Certification, nationwide only 2% of teachers have achieved this

certification (NBPTS, 2007). The average percentage of time involving leadership for

everyone in Factor One was 28%. Of the twelve teachers, only one held a Masters

Degree. One of these teachers is Nationally Certified and three are attempting to be come

certified. This equates to less than one third of these teachers seeking National

Certification which is well above the national average.

Of the sorts that defined Classroom Oriented Teachers, twelve were within the

actual condition of instruction and five were within the ideal condition. For the twelve

teachers in the actual condition, eight teachers marked Caucasian for race and four Native

American. Of these teachers, nine were female and three were male. Four females were

Native American and the rest were Caucasian. For the ideal self, four were female and

one was male with one female teacher of Native American ancestry.

This factor was interpreted to represent a view called, Classroom Oriented

Teachers. These teachers individualize instruction in their classes and have control over

the work they assign to students. They lead with their students and encourage them to

think for themselves. They prefer value added activities and assessments and appear to

focus most of their leadership activities on their students and their curriculum. Teachers

whose sorts loaded on Factor One do not belong to professional organizations and choose

not to work with higher education institutions or conduct action research. They don’t

67

seem to spend much time mixing with other educators outside of their classroom or

improving their practice.

When examining the top 13 statements that were ‘most like’ Classroom

Oriented Teachers, nine of the 13 statements were within the orientation of classroom as

referred to by Ash and Persall (2000). It is evident that these teachers focus their energy

and time within the walls of their classroom and have little time to become part of the

educational community within their school beyond what is required of them. One teacher

wrote, “I know I’m not a leader by nature. I have no leadership desires.” Another teacher

stated, “My leadership is skewed as it is based upon current employer and definitely does

not exhibit leadership qualities.” These teachers are apparently focused on their students

and their curriculum. This seems to reveal that these teachers are truly oriented in their

classrooms and may not venture much further to advance their skills and knowledge base

or lend much of their time to leadership roles. They are leaders within their own

classroom environment.

Factor Two Community-Minded Teacher Leaders

Most Like Statements Z-scores Arrays

38. I invite parents and other people in the local community to be a vital part to a healthy school.

1.785 1 -5 1

35. I work with a higher education institution to improve the teacher preparation system.

1.672 -4 -4 5

9. My students celebrate each others' accomplishments on a daily basis.

1.509 2 3 1

41. I am part of several networks to enhance my knowledge and effectively communicate with other educators.

1.137 1 -3 2

68

29. We spend a lot of time talking about teaching and learning in our meetings and in our spare time.

0.741 1 2 -1

Most Not Like Statements Z-scores Arrays

27. There is a great deal of trust among the teachers and the administration in our school.

1.049 0 3 5

20. I am influential in shielding teachers from unwarranted outside influences that might interfere with teaching and learning.

1.523 -3 -4 -1

12. I am in charge of my classroom and choose the teaching techniques used regardless of outside input.

1.748 2 -4 0

16. I often arbitrate disagreements between colleagues. 1.848 -2 -5 -3

21. I have a voice concerning hiring new teachers and/or administrators.

1.933 -3 -5 0

Of the teachers who loaded on this factor, seven were female and 1 was male. Six

of the teachers marked Caucasian for race, one Native American, and one

Caucasian/Hispanic. Three of the teachers were Nationally Certified, one of them was

currently attempting certification, and 4 had never participated in the process. The

average percentage of time involving leadership for everyone in factor was 34%. Q sorts

from six teachers identified with Collaborative Teachers for the first condition of

instruction involving their actual self. Of the six teachers, all were female teachers. One

was Native American, one Caucasian/Hispanic, and the rest were Caucasian. For the

ideal self, six were female and one was male with one female teacher of Native American

ancestry and one Caucasian/Hispanic.

The factor was named Collaborative Teachers due to analysis of the statements

that were uniquely most like them and most unlike them. Collaborative Teachers agreed

with Classroom Teachers that openness and communication are evident each day within

69

their classrooms. This is one of the two statements most like them. The other statement

most like them helps to define the label Collaborative Teachers because it states that they

choose to invite parents and other people in the local community to be a vital part of their

school. Unlike Classroom Oriented and Collegial Teachers, they work with higher

education institutions and communicate with other educators to improve communication

concerning teaching and learning. They value sharing information and connecting with

others to achieve positive results for everyone.

Collaborative Teachers stand apart from those teachers who are Classroom

Oriented and Collegial in that they do not feel they have a voice in hiring and do not

choose to arbitrate disagreements between colleagues. They do not feel influential in

shielding teachers from outside influences and do not claim to be in charge of choosing

the teaching techniques that they use in the classroom. Both of these statements could be

explained within this community mindedness by wanting others to come and be part of

the decision making process and having the community influence what goes on in the

school. For Collaborative Teachers, four of the eight ‘most like’ those statements fell

into the category of the educational community, as referred to by Ash and Persall (2000).

It appears as though they do not have a voice in many school decisions that affect them

and their students because they want to bring others into the school and to help them to

be part of the educational environment and decision making.

Factor Three Administration Friendly Teacher Leaders

Most Like Statements Z-scores Arrays

27. There is a great deal of trust among the teachers and the administration in our school.

1.972 0 -3 5

70

10. I am aware of the vision and mission of our school and it is apparent in my classroom and my teaching.

1.462 1 -1 5

19. Our principal comes and goes often and freely in the school, there is quite a bit of contact with the teachers and the students.

1.409 0 0 4

30. I work with the principal to serve according to the needs of all teachers.

1.320 -1 1 3

26. My principal is a leader who guides us in a democratic manner.

1.156 0 -1 3

Most Not Like Statements

Z-scores Arrays

45. Listening and learning from educators outside of my district is extremely important to me.

0.880 3 0 -2

41. I am part of several networks to enhance my knowledge and effectively communicate with other educators.

0.998 1 3 -2

3. I ask students to evaluate me formally throughout the year to help improve my practice.

1.119 -2 -1 -3

16. I often arbitrate disagreements between colleagues.

1.133 -2 -5 -3

35. I work with a higher education institution to improve the teacher preparation system

2.268 -4 4 -5

Of the teachers who loaded on the factor known as Collegial Teachers, all twelve

were female. Nine of the teachers checked Caucasian as their race, two were Native

American, and one was African/American. The majority of these teachers are not

involved with National Board Certification. The average percentage of time involving

leadership for everyone in this factor was 43%, much higher than those of Classroom

Teachers or Collaborative Teachers. Q sorts from four teachers identified with this factor

for the first condition of instruction involving their actual self. All four teachers were

71

Caucasian and two of the four also loaded on this factor for their ideal self. For the ideal

self, ten teachers loaded on Factor Three. Of the ten, seven were Caucasian, two were of

Native American ancestry and one was African/American.

This factor was named Collegial Teachers due to analysis of the statements that

were uniquely most like them and most unlike them. Teachers who loaded on Collegial

Teachers claimed there is a great deal of trust among the teachers and the administration

in their school which is dramatically different from the other teachers loading on other

factors. Collegial Teachers were also aware of the vision and mission of their school and

made it apparent in their classroom and their teaching unlike Classroom Teachers and

Collaborative Teachers who placed this statement in array 1 and -1. These teachers feel

comfortable with their principal and accepting of administration coming and going within

the school. Teachers loading on both of the other two factors rated this statement in the

array position zero, meaning it is of little importance to them. Collegial Teachers believe

they can make a difference and they share information with others. One teacher wrote,

“There are many things that we need to improve.” They feel their principal is a leader

who guides them and they work with administration to help meet the needs of all of the

teachers. This reflects the concept of the principal being a leader of leaders or as the

Chief Learning Officer or CLO according to Ash and Persall (2000).

Collegial Teachers do not work with higher education institutions or hold an

office in an educational organization. This may be due to the fact that they are working

on improvements within their school and do not have time for issues concerning those

outside of it which is similar to the Classroom Oriented Teachers who concentrate on the

classroom. Collegial Teachers also align with Collaborative Teachers by using problem

72

solving strategies to help students and by promoting change within their systems. Of the

thirteen statements that were ‘most like’ Collegial Teachers, nine of them concerned the

arena of the school.

Research Question Two: In what way do these perceptions relate their ideal leadership

self?

The question requires an examination of the comparison of each teacher’s actual

Q sort loadings to their own ideal Q sort loadings. Table IV illustrates each teachers’

actual and ideal identification (Classroom Oriented, Collaborative, and Collegial), or as

labeled Not significant or Confounded. Those teachers who remained within the same

factor when sorting for their actual and then ideal leadership are marked with an asterisk.

Table IV.

Actual Loads to Ideal Loads ______________________________________________________________________ Subject # Actual Loads Ideal Loads______________ 1* Collaborative Collaborative 2 Not significant Collegial 3 Collegial Confounded 4 Classroom Oriented Collegial 5 Confounded Classroom Oriented 6* Confounded Confounded 7* Classroom Oriented Classroom Oriented 8 Classroom Oriented Not significant 9* Collaborative Collaborative 10* Collegial Collegial 11* Collaborative Collaborative 12* Confounded Confounded 13 Not significant Collegial 14 Classroom Oriented Not significant 15 Classroom Oriented Collaborative 16 Classroom Oriented Not significant 17 Classroom Oriented Collaborative 18 Classroom Oriented Collegial 19* Confounded Confounded 20* Collegial Collegial

73

21* Confounded Confounded 22 Confounded Collegial 23 Not significant Collegial 24* Collaborative Collaborative 25* Classroom Oriented Collaborative 26 Classroom Oriented Collegial 27 Classroom Oriented Collegial 28* Confounded Confounded 29 Collaborative Confounded 30* Not significant Not significant 31* Collaborative Collaborative 32* Confounded Confounded 33 Not significant Confounded 34* Collaborative Collaborative 35 Collegial Classroom Oriented (* indicates actual and ideal sorts as the same) More than half of the teachers, eighteen in all have different views for their actual

leadership and their ideal leadership. This is likely to cause disequilibrium within in ones’

comfort level within the teaching profession. One teacher who was confounded on both

sorts stated, “I wouldn’t say my needs are fulfilled.” The cause may be a lack of

administrative support or a lack of incentive, either intrinsic or extrinsic, to achieve ones’

ideal leadership self. Table V shows the amount of changes from actual to ideal within

the factors, including confounded and not significant.

Table V.

Summary of Contrast from Actual to Ideal Sort Condition of Instruction Condition of Instruction Number of Teachers_ Sort 1 Actual Sort 2 Ideal__________________________ Not significant Collegial 3 Classroom Oriented Collegial 4 Confounded Collegial 1

74

Classroom Oriented Collaborative 2 Collegial Classroom Oriented 1 Confounded Classroom Oriented 1 The only apparent pattern in the teachers who changed positions from the actual

sort to the ideal sort was those who changed to the Collegial Teachers’ leadership ideal.

Three Not significant loadings were changed to resemble Collegial Teachers, four

Classroom Oriented Teachers and one Confounded sort changed during the second

condition to load on Factor Three. The other changes are a mixture of small changes

involving only one teacher and there is no obvious pattern to the changes. Table VI

shows the teachers who remained consistent from the actual sort to the ideal sort

concerning teacher leadership. Five of the Collaborative Teachers identified their ideal

leadership in the same way they viewed their actual leadership. Three Classroom

Oriented Teachers and two Collegial Teachers also remained consistent. This

demonstrates their convictions concerning how they perceive the ideal teacher leadership

concept and their follow through with this concept in their practice.

Table VI. Summary of Q Sort Positions Consistent in Actual and Ideal (Teachers Who Were Consistent) Factor Number of Teachers______ Factor One – Classroom Oriented 3 Factor Two – Collaborative 5 Factor Three – Collegial 2 Confounded 6 Not Significant 1 Total Consistent Sorts 17

75

Research Question Three: What demographic patterns might assist in understanding

teacher’s varying perceptions of leadership?

Of the thirty-five teachers involved in the study, thirty were women and five were

men. The men in the study have never been involved with National Board Certification

and none of them had their Masters degree at the time of the study. This may be due to

the fact that three of the five men in the study have taught for less than five years. The

largest population of women and men identified with the ‘actual’ sort for Factor 1 (8

females and three males). The largest population of women in the ‘ideal’ condition, ten

women and no men, were within Factor Three.

Forty-six percent of the participants were part of the National Board Process in

some stage of the process which is much higher than the national statistics. Only 2% of

America’s teachers have achieved this certification (NBPTS, 2007). Twenty-six percent

of the teachers in the study have a Masters degree and several others were in the process

of achieving their Masters.

Seven Native American teachers took part in this study. Four of them identified

Classroom Oriented Teachers, for their actual practice and one of them for their ideal

practice. Three Native American teachers associated with Collegial Teachers, for their

ideal practice and one of them for their actual practice. Only one of these teachers was a

Collaborative Teacher, and it was the actual opportunities for leadership. The only

teacher of Hispanic dissent aligned with the Collaborative Teachers for both views of

leadership.

Participants were asked “What educational leadership opportunities are you

participating in that fulfill your need for professionalism?” Twenty-three of the thirty-five

76

teachers wrote down one or more roles they play in their school involving leadership.

Eight did not write anything or the word ‘none’. One teacher wrote “I wouldn’t say my

needs are met”. There was no connection between teachers in the three leadership groups

and the comments they made.

Another question stated “What else would you like to say about your completed Q

sorts?” Twenty-four teachers wrote nothing in this section. Four said it was very difficult

to place the Ideal statements. One wrote “I felt that the ideal was difficult because so

many items would be important in a ‘perfect’ world.” One wrote “There are too many

things we need to do.” Three reported that if they did the same study on another day that

they would make different choices. An older teacher commented that the research was

probably more interesting to younger teachers. Another teacher wrote “Professional

Organizations are important, but being active in the school at each and every grade level

is important.” There were no connections between the comments or the three factors of

teacher leadership.

Summary

This chapter presented the results of the data after it was entered into PQ Method

2.11. The analysis revealed a three factor solution. Using the statements loadings on each

factor, the factors were named: Classroom Oriented Teachers, Collaborative Teachers,

and Collegial Teachers. The participants aligning with each factor were described and

each of the three research questions was addressed using the three factor solution.

Chapter V explains the limitation and assumptions pertaining to this research,

implications, and areas for future research.

77

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The purpose of this study was to identify the subjective perceptions teachers have

of their leadership in the classroom, the school, and the educational community and their

ideal perceptions of leadership in the classroom, school, and the educational community

using the ten guiding principles from Ash and Persall’s (2000) teacher leadership theory.

Demographic patterns were also examined to uncover any relationships that might exist.

This chapter is a summary of the results and a discussion of future implications

concerning the theory, practice, and future research.

Summary of the Study

Thirty-five teachers from K-12 schools in Eastern Oklahoma participated in the

study. The teachers represented a range of years of experience in teaching, subject areas,

certifications, and ethnic make up. Q-methodology gave the researcher an organized

technique for uncovering qualitative data within the participants’ opinions and helped to

quantify this data using factor analysis procedures. Q-sort statements aligned with the

leadership model developed by Ash and Persall (2000), known as formative leadership

theory. The theory guided the reduction of the original concourse for this study from over

300 statements to 45 statements representing ideas from teachers concerning teacher

leadership. The teachers agreed to sort the statements under two conditions of instruction

78

and fill out a demographic survey. Teachers are one of the most important stakeholders

involved in the teacher leadership issue and the processes involved in this study helped to

give them a voice concerning this topic. The study identified three patterns of ideas this

group of teachers hold about leadership using Q-methodology and cannot be replicated

using other forms of data collection such as surveys or other empirical tools. The research

questions for this study were:

1. What perceptions do teachers have about their own leadership in the

classroom, in the school, and in the educational community?

2. In what way do these perceptions relate to their ideal leadership self?

3. What demographic patterns might assist in understanding teachers varying

perceptions of leadership?

This study reveals that different teachers appear to have three general concepts

concerning teacher leadership activities and they fall distinctly into the categories of the

classroom, the school, and the educational community. Teachers indicated a strong

preference to one of three concepts of leadership and did not seem to be aversive to the

concept of teacher leadership, but in fact supportive of it. The three ways that teachers

identified their actual life and ideal opportunity for leadership were as Classroom

Oriented Teachers, Collaborative Teachers, and Collegial Teachers.

Conclusions

Teachers engage in teacher leadership in different ways and their structured ideas

could affect their future actions in the area of leadership. These actions will affect society

far beyond the environments of the classroom, school, and educational community. These

79

teachers are on the front lines with our children on a daily basis and their actions and

perceptions directly impact children’s development emotionally and cognitively. The

findings of this study will assist teachers and others in the educational community in

understanding the perceptions and ideas teachers have concerning their actual leadership

and their ideal concepts of teacher leadership. Each teacher was a leader in a certain area.

• The largest number of teachers identified with leading within their

classroom

• Classroom Oriented Teachers participated in the smallest amount

leadership activities

• Collaborative Teachers welcome the community into their school

• Collegial Teachers Leadership is viewed as an ideal leadership

• Two-thirds of the teachers do not want to change their actual leadership

Research on concepts and perceptions has consistently shown that behaviors and

attitudes can be changed with communication and education (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975).

The statement “Openness and communication are evident each day within my classroom”

was the most positively marked, agreed upon statement from the teachers in all three

factors. This commitment to openness and communication should entice teachers into

conversations with other teachers and with other stakeholders involved in educational

advancement. Conversations concerning teacher leadership are necessary in order for

teaching professionals to continue to develop and evolve eventually leading to greater

teacher satisfaction and improved student learning. These teachers welcome

“...opportunities that enable the faculty and staff to become leaders capable of

anticipating and leading productive change” (Ash & Persall, 2000, p. 2).

80

Classroom Oriented Teachers were different from the other teachers in that they

demonstrated most of their leadership within the classroom and were not collaborative or

collegial within their schools or the educational community. Their statements revolved

around the students and their classroom environment. They spent the least amount of time

in leadership roles and most of them did not choose to seek National Board Certification

or a Masters Degree. Twelve of the teachers in the study identified Classroom Teachers

as their actual leadership while only five teachers thought this perception of teacher

leadership was their ideal concept of leadership. This perception was the least accepted

when considering the ideal teacher leadership.

Of the teachers who identified with Collaborative Teachers, six teachers

identified with the first condition of instruction involving their actual self and seven saw

this idea of teacher leadership as their ideal leadership. These teachers stood apart from

the others by choosing to invite parents and other people in the local community to be

part of their school. They also work with higher education institutions and other

educators to improve communication concerning teaching and learning. They like sharing

information and connecting with others teachers. They appear to want others to come be

part of the decision making process and influence what goes on in the school even if that

means that they give up a portion of their voice in the process.

Considering the Collegial Teachers, there were four teachers who identified with

the first condition of instruction involving their actual self and ten teachers loaded on it

involving their idea of their ideal leadership. This was the smallest group considering

actual practice and the largest number pertaining to the ideal concept of leadership. They

spent more time in leadership activities than the teachers in the two other groups. These

81

teachers have a great deal of trust concerning the administration in their school which is

extremely different from the teachers in the other two groups. Collegial Teachers know

the visions and missions of their schools and are comfortable with their principal moving

in and out of their classrooms. They feel their principal is a leader who guides them and

they work with administration to help meet the needs of all of the teachers. This reflects

the concept of the principal being a leader of leaders or the Chief Learning Officer or

CLO according to Ash and Persall (2000). They seem to be working on improvements

within their school and do not have time for issues concerning those outside of it; this

aligns with the Classroom Oriented Teachers’ perceptions who concentrate on the

classroom.

Teachers may not be fully conscious of their perceptions or that their perceptions

affect their professionalism. Donaldson (2006) writes that teachers’ opinions greatly

affect their ability to act for the good of the students and the school. The identification of

these perceptions will assist in expanding the teachers’ role as leaders. Although many

are promoting teacher leadership as a necessary resource for school reform, there is little

information pertaining to the perspectives of the teachers themselves (Silva, et al.,

2000).Q methodology is the research tool that made their ideas operant. Of course, there

are limitations regarding Q Methodology, as there are with any research method. The

teachers were not randomly chosen but were from various school sites within the

northeastern section of the state of Oklahoma. These teachers’ perceptions regarding

leadership do not speak for all teachers, though they do represent the teachers involved in

the study. The results found that there are three types of teacher leaders among this group

Classroom, Collaborative, and Collegial. Most do not see the Classroom Oriented

82

Teacher as their ideal leadership, though more teachers identify with it in actual practice.

The smallest group actually aligns with the Collegial Teacher and it had the largest group

seeing it as the ideal leadership.

Implications

Understanding teachers’ perceptions of their leadership will eventually lead to

higher teacher satisfaction and higher retention rates. The need for teachers to step up and

take the leadership roles necessary to make improvements within the teaching profession

to enhance teacher satisfaction and improve student learning is evident. Ash and Persall

(2000) see the need for teachers to be leaders and for principals to be leaders of leaders.

The teachers identifying with Collegial Teachers aligned with their recommendations of

teachers leading and allowing principals to assist them in leading. Several teachers

aligned with the other two factors saw Collegial Teachers as the ideal form of teacher

leadership. Working more collaboratively and communicating effectively appear to be

the avenues to achieve the desired goals of teacher leadership.

Teachers must participate in leadership in order to advance the progress of school

change (Ash & Persall, 2000; Lieberman, et al., 2000; McCay, et al., 2001).

Understanding their perceptions is critical to increasing their leadership roles. Teachers

remain in schools that offer collaboration and leadership opportunities (Harris & Muijs,

2005a). This suggests that shared leadership opportunities are a way to recruit and retain

teachers. Kilcher (1992) states that when teachers feel valued and are empowered as

decision makers, they pass this empowerment on to their students by including them

when planning and designing student instruction.

83

By passing on this empowerment, teachers will be respected as authority figures

and their opinions and efforts will be valued. This respect will perpetuate their abilities to

lead in the classroom and enable them to become stronger leaders within the school and

the educational community. This will give teachers the ownership they need in order to

make a difference (Day & Harris, 2002). Only teachers, in the role of leader, can

successfully regain the respect and status they as a group have lost.

This analysis helps all involved to have a better understanding of what teachers

believe about their leadership and about their ideal perceptions of leadership. They want

to work with administration in an open and engaging manner. They want administrators

to come and go freely and assist them with decisions making. These beliefs should drive

the necessary changes needed to improve teacher leadership in our schools. Though there

are limitations to this study, the data suggests that more information is needed to help

make significant improvements to the current state of teacher leadership. Continued

discussions with teachers are necessary to further uncover teachers’ perception of

leadership and to move forward with improvements within the profession. Further

research is necessary to uncover teachers’ perceptions of barriers that keep them from

participating in leadership roles within the classroom, school, and the educational

community.

Implications for Practice

The data analyzed will help guide decision makers regarding teachers as leaders

and help to create dialogue concerning how teachers feel about leadership and working

with administration. This study adds the teachers’ perceptions to the information

84

educational stakeholders need to make appropriate decisions pertaining to advancing and

utilizing teacher leadership within their schools and restructuring the administrative

hierarchy. It will be useful when designing and implementing future research in teacher

leadership, educational professionalism, administrative structuring, and staff development

opportunities. The teachers in this study fell into three distinct categories that aligned

with the three environments where teacher leadership is necessary and typically played

out: the classroom, school, and educational community.

Teachers have been conditioned to be followers (Katzenmeyer & Moller, 1996).

The majority of the teachers identified with Classroom Oriented. They are comfortable

leading in the classroom but their leadership does not advance beyond their immediate

environment and their students. Teacher isolation within their classrooms inhibits

leadership (Lortie, 1975). Teacher isolation has always been an ongoing problem (Ashton

& Webb, 1986; Fullan & Hargreaves, 1991; Lieberman & Miller, 2004; Lortie, 1975).

The benefit of isolation that teachers enjoy does not outweigh the negative aspects and

should be addressed. Because teachers often have little knowledge of what is going on in

the classroom next door, the environment is not conducive to sharing ideas, time and

resources with their colleagues (Katzenmeyer & Moller, 1996). This was apparent for the

teachers in this study.

Teachers may be spread so thin that they are only able to demonstrate leadership

abilities in one of these areas and no more. One teacher wrote that there are too many

things that they need to do in this area, they may be overwhelmed by this. If this is the

case, we should not expect them to branch off into various areas of leadership. Instead the

educational community should assist them in focusing on the area of leadership they are

85

most comfortable with and helping them to nurture this leadership to benefit them

personally and their students in the long run.

Teachers must participate in leadership in order to advance the progress of school

change (Ash & Persall, 2000; Lieberman & Miller, 1992; McCay, et al., 2001). Teachers

want to stay in schools that offer them collaboration and leadership opportunities (Harris

& Muijs, 2002). The teachers in this study are participating in leadership in their

classrooms, schools, and educational community. As they grow more comfortable with

their roles of leadership they will become more accepting of the Formative Teacher

Leadership principles especially those involving a leaderful school. This will assist in

guiding more of them toward their ideal leadership involving a friendly relationship with

administration and/or a more open leadership approach involving the community.

Understanding how they identify with these leadership roles will help to identify areas in

need of improvement and eventually lead to improved teacher efficacy in all three areas.

Teachers should be comfortable and practicing leadership within their ideal concept of

leadership.

Implications for Theory

Formative leadership theory is a relatively new concept in educational leadership

though shared or distributed leadership has taken place in many areas of society for some

time. Formative Leadership Theory is centered on the concept of multiple leaders and

plenty of leadership opportunities. Leadership is not meant for those at the top of the

hierarchical structure, but exists for all to participate in without specified roles for

anyone. “...the job of the school leader is to fashion learning opportunities for the faculty

86

and staff in order that they might develop into productive leaders” (Ash & Persall, 2000,

p. 5). Teachers are leaders and principals are leaders of leaders or Chief Learning

Officers.

This research does not include measurements of student outcomes, though the

literature included connects teacher leadership with improved student achievement (Silins

& Mulford, 2002). Harris and Muijs (2005) agree “There is evidence to suggest that if

teachers are empowered and their disciplinary knowledge is valued, experimentation and

new modes of teaching are more likely to develop and teaching effectiveness is likely to

increase” (p. 75). They claim that many researchers are viewing teacher effectiveness

and teacher leadership as constituents to each other. Collaborative teacher leadership

activities enhance greater student outcomes and it appears that a lack of such activities

would equate to lower student achievement. “Student learning must now become the

focus of our educational efforts, and school leaders must have the ability to create

systemic change and pursue ever-higher levels of student achievement. To be effective

instructional leaders, school administrators and faculty must think in new patterns and act

within new models” (Ash & Persall, 2000, p. 4). The majority of the teachers in this study

are not collaborating or seeking new ideas from others around them. They are not

choosing to commit to another ideal of leadership other than the one they are actually

involved in.

Formative leadership theory promotes leadership as non role-specific, in other

words it is not just for administration. The teachers in this study do not seem to feel the

same way. “Instinctively, teachers fear taking leadership roles...” (Bowman, 2004, p.

187). The Formative Leadership also encourages learning for all within the school, adults

87

as well as students. This is also not apparent in the majority of those in the study. In an

era of data-driven decision making, these teachers are not participating in action research

or attending organizational meetings to assist them in making necessary improvements.

Understanding teachers’ perceptions will assist in decisions that lead to change

within the current educational leadership structure. Teacher leadership will not be the

answer to all of our schools’ problems though further research and development

involving teachers, students, administrators, and parents will help to advance

improvements regarding teacher satisfaction and improvements in student achievement.

“The formative leader must possess a high level of facilitation skills because team inquiry

and learning and collaborative problem solving are essential ingredients of this leadership

approach” (Ash & Persall, 2000, p. 4). Teachers may be missing these ‘essential

ingredients’ causing them to remain complacent in their leadership abilities. All of the

teachers ranked openness and communication as a leader trait that was most like them,

this is encouraging considering it is the key to this theory. Teacher leadership leads to

calls for renewed professionalism and ultimately for the advancement of educational

practices that directly affect student learning and development (Center for Teaching

Quality, 2006; Kilcher, 1992; McCay, et al., 2001; Pearson & Hall, 1993). Further

research involving student achievement and the dynamics of leadership in the

environment are paramount.

Shared leadership and distributed leadership appear to be synonymous with

formative leadership theory, which embraces a leaderful organization (Ash & Persall,

2000). Getting teachers more involved and purposefully supporting what they do will

impact the quality of teaching and learning for students in the classroom (Fullan &

88

Hargreaves, 1991; Harris & Muijs, 2002). Only teachers, in the role of leader, can

successfully regain the respect and status they as a group may have lost and make

essential decisions that will lead to greater satisfaction and student learning.

Direction for Future Research

The attitudes these teachers hold concerning teacher leadership could be very

useful in continuing the discussion of teacher leadership in the classroom, the school, and

the educational community at large. Many are advocating teacher leadership, but teachers

perceptions of leadership are missing from the literature. Teacher leaders will insist

schools create innovative leadership structures and participate in leading them through

organizational improvement. In a recent review of accomplished school reform,

Glickman, Gordon, and Ross-Gordon (2001) shared characteristics of schools that were

advancing in the area of long term student learning included shared or distributed

leadership which is aligned with the Formative Leadership Theory of Ash and Persall

(2000). Recent research suggests that student success is based on the attitudes of those

involved with managing the school (Rogus, 1988). Teachers must work and communicate

with parents, administrators, and other teachers to create communities of learners and

leaders. Barth claims this is the only way to effectively utilize the strengths and expertise

of everyone involved (1988). The teachers in this study do not want to change their

leadership and that will not assist them in collaborating with others who can collectively

help them make the necessary improvements that will lead to improvements.

More research is needed to identify problems and issues that inhibit teacher

leadership, such as internal politics, and how these might be addressed. In the review of

89

literature, very little information was found addressing the history of teacher leadership.

Most authors spoke of it using a paragraph or two and very little more than that. This

represents the lack of information and research in this area. Q methodology has proven

itself as a valuable tool in this area of educational leadership research. It could be used in

future studies involving more in depth analysis of teacher leaders or for studies

identifying perceptions of administrators that might be inhibiting teacher leadership

development. Input from various perspectives is necessary if a framework involving

multiple leaders is desired and expected to succeed (LeBlanc, 1997).

Overcoming the obstacles within the current hierarchical system must also be

examined. The small number of leaders at the top of school organizations must be willing

to share their perceptions and make adjustments to the system in order to assist teachers

in their leadership roles. Bowman (2004) claims “...for the teacher as leader, shrinking

from these difficult challenges is ignoring one’s responsibility as an effective educator”

(p. 187). Research specifically focused on teachers’ perceptions of their leadership has

been limited involving teachers as leaders within the idea of school leadership (Smylie,

1995). More research involving Formative Leadership Theory and other distributive and

collaborative theories are necessary to bring about the improvements that are not being

addressed by traditional education leadership theories. Treating the teachers like

customers and meeting their needs as well as the needs of their students may be a new

concept, but they have yet to be expanded on. Teachers may in fact be their own worst

enemy; the results here say they do not want to change what they are doing. This may

mean that they are not open to change or advancing toward improved professional in the

area of leadership.

90

Without added information, Formative Leadership Theory will fall by the way

side as many valuable educational concepts do when they are not examined and put to

use. Teachers and administrators must be willing to be scrutinized and possibly criticized

in order to identify and make the necessary changes take place in this structural

rearrangement.

Harris (2003) claims that ignoring teacher leadership is knowingly investing in

leadership that makes little or no difference in student achievement. As we reevaluate the

No Child Left Behind (2001) guidelines and work to advance student literacy and

achievement, we must utilize our best resource and largest, educated population.

Accomplished school reform and documented student learning, according to Glickman,

Gordon, and Ross-Gordon (2001), is greatly characterized through shared or distributed

leadership within schools. The teachers in this study are leading, but not all of them are

demonstrating their ideal teacher leadership.

This study documented the perceptions of the teachers who sorted the statements

concerning Formative Teacher Leadership Theory. They shared their ideas and

opportunities concerning leadership in their schools. There is an apparent need for more

communication between all of those involved. Evidence presented here suggests that

some teachers want to make changes to improve their actual practices in leadership.

Some chose their ideal leadership through a friendlier administrative concept and others

chose the idea of bringing the community into the schools and letting them help with

decisions. Without knowledge of the teachers’ perceptions, it is unlikely that positive

change will occur to make either or both ideals possible. Hart regrets “ ...teacher

leadership will contribute and succeed or will fail or be quietly reformed into a new label

91

for old work patterns” (1995. p. 25). We must do more to hear what teachers are saying

and thinking.

Replication of these results is necessary before more broad generalizations are

assumed. Interesting findings may be uncovered by branching out into other areas of the

country or even abroad. The objective was to understand these teachers’ perceptions not

to generalize. Another objective was to use Q Methodology to help uncover deeper

hidden phenomena about teacher leadership. Q sets are never finite or complete; there is

always something to add to the richness of the topic (Watts & Stenner, 2005). In this

study, the teachers’ perceptions were confined by the Q sample which reflected the

researcher’s ideas of structure and content. The statements that made up the concourse

were derived from the literature on teacher leadership, specifically the Formative

Leadership Theory by Ash and Persall (2000). Future research in this area may reflect a

need to create a concourse from a more natural setting such as more in-depth interviews

with teachers concerning teacher leadership.

92

REFERENCES

Ackerman, R., & McKenzie, S. V. (2006). Uncovering Teacher Leadership. Educational

Leadership, 63, 24-99.

Addams, H., & Proops, J. (2001). Social discourse and environmental policy an

application of Q methodology. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Pub.

Altenbaugh, R. J. (1992). The teacher’s voice: Colonial history of teaching in twentieth

century America. Bristol, PA: The Falmer Press

Ash, R. C., & Persall, J. M. (2000). The principal as chief learning officer: Developing

teacher leaders. NASSP Bulletin, 84, 15-22.

Ashton, P. T., & Webb, R. B. (1986), Teachers’ Sense of efficacy, classroom behavior,

and student achievement. In P. T. Ashton & R. B. Webb (Eds.), Teachers’ sense

of Efficacy and Student Achievement (pp. 125-144). New York: Longman.

Atkinson, R.C. & Shiffrin, R.M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its

control processes. In K. Spence, & J. Spence, (Eds), Advances in the Psychology

of Learning and Motivation, 2(1). New York: Academic Press.

Atkinson, P. (1992). Mainframe-Program Q Method. Kent, Ohio.

93

Barry, J., & Proops, J. (2000). Citizenship, sustainability and environmental research: Q

methodology and local exchange trading systems. Cheltenham, UK: Edward

Elgar.

Barth, R. (2005). The teacher leader. Edutopia online. Retrieved fall, 2006, from

http/:www.glef.org

Barth, R. S. (1988). School as a community of leaders. In A. Lieberman (Ed.), Building a

professional culture in schools. New York: Teachers College Press.

Beijaar, D., Verloop, N., & Vermunt, J. D. (1999). Teachers' perceptions of professional

identity: An exploratory study from a personal knowledge perspective. Teaching

and Teacher Education, 16, 749-764.

Bennett, S. & Bowers, D. (1976). An Introduction to Multivariate Techniques. London,

UK: MacMillan Press.

Bittel, L. R. (1989). The McGraw-Hill 36-hour management course. New York:

McGraw-Hill.

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1994). Looking for leadership: another search party’s

report", Educational Administration Quarterly, 30 (1), 77-96.

Bowman, R. F. (2004). Teachers as leaders. The Clearinghouse, 77 (5), 187-190.

Brouwer, M. (1999). Q is accounting for taste. Journal for Advertising Research, 39, 35-

39.

Brown, S. (1996). Q-methodology and qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research,

6, 561-567.

94

Brown, S. R., & Sell, D. K. (1984). Q methodology as a bridge between qualitative and

quantitative research: Application to the analysis of attitude change in foreign

study program participants. Qualitative Research in Education, 79-87.

Brown, S. R. (2000). The history and principles of Q methodology in Psychology and the

Social Sciences.

Brown, S. R. (1980). Political subjectivity applications of Q methodology in political

science. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Brown, S. R. (1993). A primer on Q methodology. Operant Subjectivity, 16, 91-138.

Campbell, J., Kyriakides, L., Mujis, D., & Robinson, W. (2004). Assessing teacher

effectiveness: Developing a differentiated model. New York: Routledge Falmer.

Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy. (1986). A nation prepared: Teachers for

the 21st century (Rep.). New York: Carnegie Forum on Education and the

Economy.

Center for teaching quality. (2006). Where teachers are central to improving schools.

Retrieved Fall, 2006, from http/:www.teachingquality.org/twc/main.htm

Chrispeels, J., & Yep, M. (2004). Principals and teachers reflect on sharing leadership.

AERA Presentation. San Diego. Retrieved November 6, 2006 from:

http://education.ucsb.edu/news/facultyresearch/sharedleadership.html

Cooper, B. S. (1993). When teachers run schools. In T. Austuto (Comp.), When teachers

lead. University Park, PA: UCEA Monograph.

Crowther, F., Kaagan, S., Feruson, M., & Hann, L. (2002). Developing teacher leaders:

How teacher leadership enhances school success. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin

Press.

95

Cuban, L. (1990). Reforming again, again, & again. Educational Researcher, 19, 3-13.

Darling-Hammond, L. & McLaughlin, M. W. (1995, April). Policies that support

professional development in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 76 (8), 597-604.

Darling-Hammond, L., & Sykes, G. (2003). Wanted: A national teacher supply policy for

education. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 11, 33.

Day, C., & Harris, A. (2002). Teacher leadership, reflective practice, and school

improvement. In P. Hallinger & K. Leithwood (Eds.), Second International

Handbook of Educational Leadership and Administration (pp. 957-977). Boston:

Kluwer Academic.

Donaldson, G. A. (2006). Cultivating leadership in schools connecting people, purpose,

& practice. New York: Teachers College Press.

Doyle, L. H. (2004). Leadership for community building: Changing how we think and

act. The Clearing House, 77 (5), 196-199.

Elhoweris, H., & Alsueikh, N. (2006). Teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion. International

Journal of Special Education, 21, 115-118.

Ernest, J. M. (2001). An alternative approach to studying beliefs about developmentally

appropriate practices. Contemporary Issue in Early Childhood, 2, 337-353.

Faye, C. (1992). Empowerment through leadership: In the teachers' voice. In C.

Livingston (Ed.), Teachers as leaders evolving roles (pp. 57-90). Washington,

D.C: NEA Professional Library, National Education Association.

Field, K., Holden, P., & Lawlor, H. (2000). Effective subject leadership. London:

96

Routledge.

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Beliefs, attitudes, intention, and behavior: an

introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley series in Psychology.

Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

Frazier, M. (2006). An evaluation of perceptions of a mentoring program of beginning

teachers in a rural East Tennessee secondary school (Doctoral dissertation, East

Tennessee University, 2006). Dissertation Abstracts International.

Frost, D., & Durrant, J. (2003). Teacher-Led Development Work. London: David Fulton.

Fullan, M., & Hargreaves, A. (1991). What's Worth Fighting for? Working together for

your school (Rep. No. ED342128). Ontario, Canada: Regional laboratory for

Educational Improvement.

Gardner, J. W. (1990). On leadership. New York: Free Press

Gillman, D., & Lanman-Givens, B. (2001). Where have all the principals gone?

Educational Leadership, 58, 72-74.

Glickman, C., Gordon, S., & Ross-Gordon, J. (2001). Supervision and Instructional

Leadership: A Developmental Approach. Boston, MA: Ally & Bacon.

Gonzales, L. D. (2004). Sustaining teacher leadership: Beyond the boundaries of an

enabling school culture. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Greenhalgh, T. (1997). How to read a paper: Papers that summarize other papers. British

Medical Journal. Retrieved May 30, 2006, from

http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/315/7101/180.

Gronn, P. (2003). The new work of educational leaders: changing leadership practice in

an era of school reform. London, UK: Paul Chapman.

97

Harris, A. (2003). Teacher leadership as distributed leadership: Heresy, fantasy or

possibility? School Leadership and Management, 23, 313-324.

Harris, A. (2005a). Leading from the chalk-face: An overview of school leadership.

Leadership, 1, 73-87.

Harris, A. (2005b). Teacher leadership: more than just a feel-good factor? Leadership

and Policy in Schools, 4, 201-219.

Harris, A., & Muijs, D. (2002). Teacher leadership: A review of research. Nottingham,

UK: National College for School Leadership.

Harris, A., & Muijs, D. (2005). Improving schools through teacher leadership. UK: MPG

Books, Bodmin, Cornwall

Hart, A. W. (1995). Reconceiving school leadership: Emergent views. The Elementary

School Journal, 96(1), 9-28.

Hatfield, R., Blackman, C., & Claypool, C. (1986). Exploring leadership roles performed

by teaching faculty in K-12 schools. Paper presented at the annual conference of

the American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education. Chicago, IL.

Hewitt, A. (2006). A Q study of music teachers’ attitudes towards the significance of

individual differences for teaching and learning in music. Psychology of Music,

34, 63-80.

Hoffman, K., & Kunze, R. (1971). Linear Algebra. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall,

Hull, D. F. (2003). A Q methodological study describing the beliefs of teachers about arts

integrated in the curriculum in Oklahoma K- 12 schools. Unpublished doctoral

dissertation, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma.

98

Ingersoll, R. M. (1997). Teacher professionalization and teacher commitment: A

multilevel analysis (Rep. No. NCES 97-069). Washington, DC: US Department of

Education.

Jantzi, D., & Leithwood, K. (1996). Toward an explanation of variation in teachers'

perceptions of transformational school leadership. Educational Administration

Quarterly, 32, 512-538.

Johnson, M., & Birkland, S. (2003). The schools that teachers choose. Educational

Leadership, 160, 20-24.

Katzenmeyer, M., & Moller, G. (2001). Awakening the sleeping giant: Leadership

development for teachers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Keedy, T., & Finch, A. (1994). Examining teacher principal empowerment: An analysis

of power. The Journal of Research and Development in Education, 27, 162-173.

Kilcher, A. (1992). Becoming a change facilitator: The first-year experience of five

teacher leaders. In C. Livingston (Ed.), Teachers as leaders evolving roles (pp.

91-114). Washington, D.C: NEA Professional Library, National Education

Association.

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1987). The leadership challenge how to get

extraordinary things done in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

LeBlanc, P. R., & Shelton, M. M. (1997). Teacher leadership: The needs of teachers.

Action in Teacher Education, 19, 32-48.

Lecompte, M. D., & Goetz, J. P. (1982). Problems of reliability and validity in

ethnographic research. Review of Educational Research, 52, 31-60.

99

Lee, J. A. (1982). The gold and the garbage in management theories and prescriptions.

Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press.

Lee, V. E., Smith, J. B., & Cioci, M. (1993). Teachers and principals: Gender-related

perceptions of leadership and power in secondary schools. Educational

Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15, 153-180.

Lewis-Beck, M. S., & Berry, W. D. (1986). New tools for social scientists advances and

applications in research methods. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (1999). Teachers - transforming their world and their work.

New York: Teachers College Press.

Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (2004). Teacher Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lieberman, A., Saxel, E. R., & Miles, M. B. (1988). Teacher leadership: Ideology and

practice. New York: Teachers College Press.

Lieberman, A., Saxel, E. R., & Miles, M. B. (2000). Teacher Leadership: Ideology and

Practice. In The Jossey-Bass reader on educational leadership (pp. 348-365). San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lord, B., & Miller, B. (2000). Teacher leadership: An appealing and inescapable force

in school reform? (Rep.). US Dept of Educations' National Committee on

Mathematics & Science Teaching for 21 Century.

Lortie, D. (1975). School-teacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press.

Loughran, J., & Wallace, J. (2003). Leadership and professional development in science

education: New possibilities for enhancing teacher learning. London: Routledge

Farmer.

100

Luthans, F. (1998). Organizational behavior. Boston, Mass: Irwin/McGraw-Hill.

Lynch, M., & Strodl, P. (1991, February). Teacher leadership: Preliminary development

of a questionnaire. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Eastern

Educational Research Association, Boston. MA.

Maslow, A.H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. In V.Vroom, & E. Deci, (1970),

Management and motivation. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

McCay, L., Flora, J., Hamilton, A., & Riley, J. F. (2001). Reforming schools through

teacher leadership: A program for classroom teachers as agents of change.

Educational Horizons, 79 (3), 135-142.

McGhan, B. (2002). A fundamental education reform: Teacher-led schools. Phi Delta

Kappa, 83, 538-40.

McKeown, B., & Thomas, D. (1988). Q methodology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

McLaughlin, M. W., & Yee, S. M. (1988). School as a place to have a career. In Building

a professional culture in schools (pp. 23-44). New York: Teachers College Press.

Merideth, E. M. (2007). Leadership strategies for teachers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin

Press.

Moller, G., & Katzenmeyer, M. (1996). Every teacher as a leader: Realizing the

potential of teacher leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Murphy, J. (2005). Connecting teacher leadership and school improvement. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. (1989). What Teachers Should

Know And Be Able To Do. Cambridge, MA: Wolfard Hall, For Education Policy

and Reform.

101

National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, (2007). 55,000 Reasons to Believe:

The Impact of National Board Certification on Teacher Quality in America.

Published by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards.

Washington, D.C.

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A Nation at Risk. Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Education.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Public Law 107-110.

Palmer, P. J. (1998). The courage to teach exploring the inner landscape of a teachers’

life. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Pearson, L. C., & Hall, B. C. (1993). Initial construct validation of the teaching autonomy

scale. Journal of Educational Research, 86, 172-177.

Pearson, L. C., & Moomaw, W. (2005). The relationship between teacher autonomy and

stress, work satisfaction, empowerment, and professionalism. Educational

Research Quarterly, 29, 37-53.

Pellicer, L. O., & Anderson, L. W. (1995). A handbook for teacher leaders. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Petty, T. M., O'Conner, K., & Dagenhart, D. (2002). Identifying the wants and needs of

North Carolina high school mathematics teachers for job success and

satisfaction. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.

Preston, J. A. (1982). Feminization of an occupation: Teaching becomes women’s work

in nineteenth-century New England. Dissertation Abstracts International. 43,

2115A. University Microfilms No. 8220108.

102

Robbins, P. (2005). Q methodology. In K. Kempf-Leonard (Ed), Encyclopedia of social

measurement (Vol. 3, pp. 209-215). San Diego, CA: Elsevier.

Rogus, J. F. (1988). Teacher Leader Programming: Theoretical Underpinnings. Journal

of Teacher Education, 39 (1), 46-52.

Rost, J. C. (1991). Leadership for the twenty-first century. New York: Knopf.

Schmolk, P. (2002). PQ Method, 2.10. Retrieved from:

http://www.Rz.unibwmuenchen.de/-p41bsmk/qmethod

Se.., D.K. & Brown, S. R. (1984). Q methodology as a bridge between qualitative and

quantitative research: Application to the analysis of attitude change in foreign

study program participants. In J. L. Vacca & H. A. Johnson (Eds.), Qualitative

research in education (pp. 79-87). Kent, OH: Bureau of Educational Research and

Services, Kent State University

Senn, C. Y. (1993). Women’s multiple perspective and experiences with pornography.

Psychology of Women Quarterly, 17, 319-341.

Silins, H., & Mulford, B. (2002). Leadership and school results. In K. A. Leithwood, & P.

Hallinger (Eds.), Second international handbook of educational leadership and

administration (pp. 561-612). Boston: Kluwer Academic.

Silva, D. Y., Gimbert, G., & Nolan, J. (2000). Sliding the Doors: Locking and Unlocking

Possibilities for Teacher Leadership. Teachers College Record, 102, 779-805.

Smith, J. A., Harrâe, R., & Langenhove, L. V. (1995). Rethinking methods in psychology.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Smith, N. W. (2001). Current systems in psychology: history, theory, research, and

applications. Wadsworth.

103

Smylie, M. A. (1995). New perspectives on teacher leadership. The Elementary School

Journal, 96 (1), 3-7.

Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2001). Toward a theory of leadership

practice: A distributed perspective. Unpublished manuscript, Northwestern

University, Institute for policy research.

Spoehr, L. (2004). Where do principals come from? Journal of Education, 184, 57-69.

Stenner, P., & Stainton-Rogers, R. (2004). Q methodology and qualiquantology: The

example of discriminating between emotions. In Z. Tod, B. Nerlich, B.

McKeown, & D. Clark (Eds.), Mixing Methods in Psychology. London, UK:

Routledge.

Stephens, D. (1985). W-methodology in communication science: An introduction.

Communication Quarterly, 33, 198-208.

Stephenson, W. (1953). The study of behavior: Q-technique and its methodology.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Stephenson, W. (1988). William James, Niels Bohr, and complimentary: Phenomenology

of subjectivity. The Psychological Record, 28, 203-219.

Stricklin, M., & Almeida, R. (2002). PCQ: Analysis software for Q-technique, Academic

version 1.41. Portland, Oregon. PCQ Software.

Teaching for America's Future: Quality Teaching in High-Priority Schools. (2006,

June/July 9). Retrieved fall 2006, from

http://www.nctaf.org/article?c=5&sc=41&ssc=0&a=398

Thomas, D., & Bass, L. R. (1993). Read the romance, building the best seller: A Q-

methodology study of reader responses to Robber James Waller's The Bridges of

104

Madison County. Manuscript submitted for publication, Presentation 9th Annual,

International Society for the Scientific Study of Subjectivity.

Toft, B. (1996). A theoretical model for implementation of total quality leadership in

Education. Total Quality Management, 6, 469-86.

TTA. (1988) National Standards for Subject Leaders. London: TTA

US Department of Education's National Center for Education Statistics. (1993). Who's in

charge? Teachers' views on control over school policy and classroom practices.

(Office of Research Rep. No. 0491). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing

Office.

US Census Bureau. 2000. http://www.census.gov/Press- Retrieved May 14, 2007.

Release/www/releases/archives/facts_for_features_special_editions/001737.html

Van Exel, N. J. (2005). Q Methodology A Sneak Preview. Retrieved June 5, 2006, from

http://home.planet.nl/~exel0001/publications/qmeth/vanexel_degraaf_qsp.pdf

Waters, D. (1979). Management and headship in the primary school. London: Ward

Lock.

Watts, S., & Stenner, P. (2003). Q Methodology, quantum theory and psychology.

Operant Subjectivity 26, 182-89.

Watts, S., & Stenner, P. (2005). Doing Q methodology: Theory, method, and

interpretation. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 2, 67-91.

York-Barr, J., & Duke, K. (2004). What do we know about teacher leadership? Findings

from two decades of scholarship. Review of Educational Research, 74, 1-45.

105

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

SOLICITATION

106

Dear Teachers,

My name is Terri Edwards and I am conducting a research study on how teachers perceive leadership in the classroom, school and educational community. This study is designed to investigate the perceptions of those at the center of teacher leadership, the teachers. The study will provide information to anyone involved in the teaching and learning profession with a variety of view points and beliefs concerning leadership held by teachers currently in the field. Understanding these perceptions will assist in decisions that lead to change within the current educational leadership structure.

The study will also look for relationships between how teachers perceive leadership and specific demographic information. This information will include your gender, age, ethnicity, years of experience, grade level, subject area, degrees held and certifications.

I’m asking for your help in two ways. I hope that you consider being a participant in the study and I hope that you can help find other teachers you know to participant. I am particularly interested in teachers in various stages of their career and with a variety of certifications. The study involves about 40 minutes of your time. You will be asked to sort 45 different statements about leadership in the classroom, school and educational community under two different conditions of instruction. Directions on finding fast ways to sort so many items will help us complete this quickly and you will be asked to complete a short survey on characteristics that describe you. No names will be used on any information collected and all materials are confidential. If you can help with this study, please call to schedule a time. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Terri Edwards

107

APPENDIX B

RESEARCHER’S SCRIPT: DIRECTIONS FOR SORTING Q STATEMENTS

108

Thank you for agreeing to participate in this study. Please make sure you have the materials in front of you. You should have a Form Board and an envelope containing 45 cards, each with a statement printed on it pertaining to teacher leadership. You will need a pencil later. Step 1: Please account for the following materials: a large manila envelope that contains a set of the Q statements, a Form Board, a Record Sheet with two figures printed that look like the Form Board in miniature, and a Demographic Information Sheet on the back of the Record Sheet. Step 2: As you read through each card carefully, please put them into three (3) piles according to this idea:

What are your thoughts about your leadership?

The pile on your right are those statements that are most like your perceptions of leadership and the pile on your left are those statements that are most unlike your perceptions of leadership. Put any cards that you do not have strong feelings about in a middle pile. This will be the ‘neutral’ pile. Step 3: Now that you have three piles of cards, start with the pile to your right, the “most like” pile and select the two (2) cards from this pile that are most like your response to the question and place them in the two (2) spaces at the far right of the Form Board in front of you in column 11. The order of the cards within the column (the vertical positioning of the cards) does not matter. Step 4: Next, from the pile to your left, the “most unlike” pile, select the two (2) cards that are most unlike your response to the topic and place them in the two (2) spaces at the far left of the Form Board in front of you in column 1. Step 5: Now, go back to the “most like” pile on your right and select the two more (2) cards from those remaining that are in your most like pile place them into the two (2) open spaces in column 10. Step 6: Next, return to the “most unlike” pile on your left and select the two (2) cards from those remaining in your most unlike pile and place them into the two (2) open spaces in column 2.Work back and forth until all cards have been placed in a space. Step 7: After you have placed all of the cards that are “most like” and “most unlike” on the board, place the cards from the middle pile into appropriate places on the board.

109

Step 8: Once you have placed all the cards on the Form Board, feel free to rearrange the cards until the arrangement best represents your opinions. Step 9: Record the number of the statements on the top part of the Record Sheet. Repeat Steps 2 through 9 of the previous steps, sorting according to this question:

What is your IDEAL situation for leadership? Finally, please fill in the demographic survey on the back of the Form Board and add any comments that might help us understand your ideas and feelings about leadership. Thank you!

110

APPENDIX C

INFORMED CONSENT

111

Project Title: Classroom teacher perceptions of leadership in the classroom, school and educational community

Investigator: Terri Edwards, M.Ed., Instructor, Northeastern State University, Tahlequah, Oklahoma.

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to examine the perceptions teacher

have about leadership in the classroom, school and educational

community.

Procedures: You will be asked to complete a Q-sort which involves reading a number of statements and sorting them into categories based on the extent to which the statements reflect those you believe are most like or most unlike your perceptions. In addition, you will be asked to complete a short demographic survey and respond to an open ended questions regarding teaching. The process will take 40 minutes.

Risks of Participation:

There are no known risks associated with this project which are

greater than those ordinarily encountered in daily life.

Benefits: There is no expected benefit from participation.

Confidentiality: Your responses to both the Q-sort and the demographic survey are confidential. No names or other identifying information will be attached to your packet and only aggregate data will be reported. This consent form will be collected separately from any research information you provide. The researcher may use information from the open-ended questions to support findings from the analysis of the Q-sort data. The data will be permanently stored in a locked file cabinet in the researcher’s office until destroyed one year after data collection. Only the

112

researcher and her faculty advisor will access the data. The aggregate data may be used in reports or publications. The OSU IRB has the authority to inspect consent records and data files to assure compliance with approved procedures.

The records of this study will be kept private. Any written results will discuss group findings and will not include information that will identify you. Research records will be stored securely and only researchers and individuals responsible for research oversight will have access to the records. It is possible that the consent process and data collection will be observed by research oversight staff responsible for safeguarding the rights and wellbeing of people who participate in research.

Researchers are not prevented from voluntarily disclosing certain

information about research participants, such as evidence of child

abuse or a participant’s threatened violence to self or others.

However, if a researcher intends to make such disclosures, it

should be clearly indicated in the consent form.

Compensation:

There is no compensation for participation in this study..

Contacts: Please feel free to contact the researcher and/or her faculty advisor if you have questions or concerns about this research project.

Terri Edwards, M.Ed., Northeastern State University, 3100 E New Orleans

St, Broken Arrow, Oklahoma, 918-449-6596, edward22@nsuok.edu

Faculty advisor: Dr. Diane Montgomery, Applied Health a& Educational Psychology, Oklahoma State University, 424 Willard, Stillwater, Oklahoma, 405-744-9441, montgom@okstate.edu

For information on subjects’ rights, contact Dr. Sue Jacobs, Oklahoma

State University, IRB Chair, 415 Whitehurst Hall, 405-744-1676

Participant Rights: Participation in the current research activity is entirely voluntary. You

are free to decline to participate and may stop or withdraw from the activity at any time. There is no penalty for withdrawing your participation.

113

Signatures:

I have read and fully understand the consent form. I sign it freely and voluntarily. A copy of this form has been given to me.

________________________ _______________

Signature of Participant Date

I certify that I have personally explained this document before

requesting that the participant sign it.

________________________ _______________

Signature of Researcher Date

114

APPENDIX D

DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

115

Gender: ___ Female ___ Male Age: ___ years Ethnicity (check one): ___ Caucasian ___ Native American ___ African American ___ Asian American

___ Hispanic ___ Other Number of years you have taught school, include this year: _____ Number of years you have taught at your current school: _____ Subject area & grade you currently teach: ________________________ Subject area in which you have spent the most time: ___________________ Highest degree held: ___________________________________ Degree Major: _______________________ National Board Certification (check one): ___ Nationally Certified ___ currently attempting for the first time ___ banked scores, reattempting ___ applying for scholarship this year ___ never attempted About what percentage of your job involves school leadership activities? (0 to 100%) _______ What educational leadership opportunities are you participating in that fulfills your need for professionalism? What else would you like to say about your completed Q sorts?

116

APPENDIX E

RECORD SHEET

117

SORT 1: What are your thoughts about your leadership?

Most Unlike Me

Most Like Me

1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

SORT 2: What is your IDEAL situation for leadership?

Most Unlike

Me

Most Like Me

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

119

APPENDIX F

FACTOR ONE-CLASSROOM ORIENTED TEACHERS

120

Normalized Factor Scores -- For Factor 1_ Classroom Oriented Teachers No. Statement _____________________ Z-SCORES 7 Openness and communication are evident each day within my… 1.709 4 I am driven to reflect on the lessons I teach and formulate… 1.602 1 Individual performance expectations for students dominate… 1.554 14 My leadership style in the classroom requires student initiative… 1.472 15 Students are innovative thinkers because of my curriculum… 1.416 11 I determine the amount of homework my students can accomp… 1.331 6 Valued added activities and assessments are used in my class… 1.274 45 Listening and learning from educators outside of my district… 0.957 9 My students celebrate each others' accomplishments on a daily… 0.835 8 My technological skills are well developed and I encourage… 0.827 2 I don't rescue, rather problem solving strategies are used … 0.824 12 I am in charge of my classroom and choose the teaching techni… 0.818 28 I participate in team building activities and working closely… 0.753 13 My classroom has permeable boundaries for students, learning… 0.683 10 I am aware of the vision and mission of our school and it is… 0.557 38 I invite parents and other people in the local community… 0.529 29 We spend a lot of time talking about teaching and learning… 0.347 18 I can easily motivate others to become actively involved… 0.152 41 I am part of several networks to enhance my knowledge and… 0.097 19 Our principal comes and goes often and freely in the school… 0.064 42 I get out into the community to build relationships and to… -0.057 23 I observe in other teachers' classrooms to learn from the... -0.083

121

27 There is a great deal of trust among the teachers and the... -0.095 40 I encourage system wide change. -0.098 26 My principal is a leader who guides us in a democratic manner... -0.120 37 I am good at communicating the needs of the teachers in my... -0.136 30 I work with the principal to serve according to the needs... -0.155 17 I am a mentor to another teacher in my school. -0.299 31 I believe I can make a difference in the educational community... -0.300 24 I initiate collaborative problem solving to work through... -0.320 5 I am well informed in `No Child Left Behind' and other federal... -0.363 22 I invite others into my classroom to observe and learn from... -0.386 3 I ask students to evaluate me formally throughout the year... -0.521 25 I am known as a leader in our school. -0.540 44 I model to others how to visit other schools and attend confer... -0.608 16 I often arbitrate disagreements between colleagues. -0.660 32 I understand how to work with policymakers for effective... -0.909 36 After attending a workshop, I share the information with... -1.003 20 I am influential in shielding teachers from unwarranted outside... -1.082 21 I have a voice concerning hiring new teachers and/or administrators... -1.191 39 I conduct action research and share my results with educators... -1.320 35 I work with a higher education institution to improve the... -1.453 34 I belong to 3 or more educational organizations. -1.511 33 I hold an office in an educational organization. -2.259 43 I presented at a state or national convention in the last... -2.331

122

Factor One – Classroom Oriented Teachers

42 24 37 18

Most Unlike

Me 44 17 23 41 28

Most Like Me

32 22 19 29 8 45 3 5 26 38 12 11

43 34 16 31 40 13 2 15 1 7 33 35 25 30 27 10 9 6 14 4 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Distinguishing Statements Array Position Factor 1 Classroom Oriented Teachers Leader__________________________________________________

(P < .05 ; Asterisk (*) Indicates Significance at P < .01) Both the Factor Q-Sort Value and the Normalized Score are Shown.

No. Statement_______________________________________Factor_1__ 2___ 3___

1 Individual performance expectations for students dominate 4 2 1 14 My leadership style in the classroom requires student initiative 4 -1 -1 15 Students are innovative thinkers because of my curriculum 3 2 2 11 I determine the amount of homework my students can accomp 3 -2 0 6 Valued added activities and assessments are used in my class 3 1 -1 45 Listening and learning from educators outside of my district 3 0 -2 9 My students celebrate each others' accomplishments on a daily 2 3 1 2 I don't rescue, rather problem solving strategies are used 2 -3 -3 12 I am in charge of my classroom and choose the teaching techni 2 -4 0

123

13 My classroom has permeable boundaries for students, learn 1 0 0 10 I am aware of the vision and mission of our school and it 1 -1 5 38 I invite parents and other people in the local community 1 5 -1 29 We spend a lot of time talking about teaching and learning 1 2 -1 41 I am part of several networks to enhance my knowledge and 1 3 -2 27 There is a great deal of trust among the teachers and the 0 -3 5 40 I encourage system wide change. 0 -3 -3 26 My principal is a leader who guides us in a democratic manner 0 -1 3 30 I work with the principal to serve according to the needs -1 1 3 31 I believe I can make a difference in the educational comm. -1 1 3 5 I am well informed in `No Child Left Behind' and other federal -1 -2 0 22 I invite others into my classroom to observe and learn from -1 2 2 25 I am known as a leader in our school. -2 2 2 16 I often arbitrate disagreements between colleagues . -2 -5 -3 36 After attending a workshop, I share the information with -3 3 3 20 I am influential in shielding teachers from unwarranted o -3 -4 -1 21 I have a voice concerning hiring new teachers and/or admini -3 -5 0 39 I conduct action research and share my results with education -3 -1 -2 35 I work with a higher education institution to improve the -4 4 -5

124

APPENDIX G

FACTOR TWO- COLLABORATIVE TEACHERS

125

Normalized Factor Scores -- For Factor 2_ Collaborative Teachers____ No. Statement _____________________ Z-SCORES 38 I invite parents and other people in the local community... 1.785 7 Openness and communication are evident each day within my .... 1.709 35 I work with a higher education institution to improve the... 1.672 4 I am driven to reflect on the lessons I teach and formulate... 1.634 9 My students celebrate each others' accomplishments on a daily... 1.509 36 After attending a workshop, I share the information with... 1.148 41 I am part of several networks to enhance my knowledge and... 1.137 28 I participate in team building activities and working closely... 1.010 25 I am known as a leader in our school. 0.965 22 I invite others into my classroom to observe and learn from... 0.896 15 Students are innovative thinkers because of my curriculum... 0.772 29 We spend a lot of time talking about teaching and learning... 0.741 1 Individual performance expectations for students dominate... 0.738 44 I model to others how to visit other schools and attend con... 0.577 31 I believe I can make a difference in the educational community.... 0.555 30 I work with the principal to serve according to the needs... 0.517 6 Valued added activities and assessments are used in my class ... 0.513 43 I presented at a state or national convention in the last... 0.392 18 I can easily motivate others to become actively involved... 0.335 45 Listening and learning from educators outside of my district... 0.141

126

42 I get out into the community to build relationships and to learn... 0.137 23 I observe in other teachers' classrooms to learn from the... -0.027 8 My technological skills are well developed and I encourage... -0.046 13 My classroom has permeable boundaries for students, learn... -0.085 19 Our principal comes and goes often and freely in the school... -0.120 17 I am a mentor to another teacher in my school. -0.425 10 I am aware of the vision and mission of our school and it... -0.460 37 I am good at communicating the needs of the teachers in m -0.475 3 I ask students to evaluate me formally throughout the year... -0.484 39 I conduct action research and share my results with education... -0.552 14 My leadership style in the classroom requires student initiative... -0.632 26 My principal is a leader who guides us in a democratic manner... -0.643 34 I belong to 3 or more educational organizations. -0.660 5 I am well informed in `No Child Left Behind' and other federal... -0.757 33 I hold an office in an educational organization. -0.783 32 I understand how to work with policymakers for effective... -0.812 11 I determine the amount of homework my students can accomplish.... -0.820 2 I don't rescue, rather problem solving strategies are used... -0.833 24 I initiate collaborative problem solving to work through.... -1.041 27 There is a great deal of trust among the teachers and the... -1.049 40 I encourage system wide change. -1.127 20 I am influential in shielding teachers from unwarranted outside... -1.523 12 I am in charge of my classroom and choose the teaching technique... -1.748

127

16 I often arbitrate disagreements between colleagues. -1.848 21 I have a voice concerning hiring new teachers and/or administr.... -1.933 Factor Two- Community Minded Teacher Leader

42 39 23 18

Most Unlike Me

32 3 19 43 25

Most Like Me

40 11 37 17 6 22 28 2 33 26 13 30 15 36

21 12 27 5 14 8 31 1 41 4 7 16 20 24 34 10 45 44 29 9 35 38 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Distinguishing Statements Array Position Factor 2 Collaborative Teachers __________________________________________________ (P < .05 ; Asterisk (*) Indicates Significance at P < .01) Both the Factor Q-Sort Value and the Normalized Score are shown. No. Statement_______________________________________Factor__1__ 2___3___ 38 I invite parents and other people in the local community 1 5 -1 35 I work with a higher education institution to improve the -4 4 -5 9 My students celebrate each others' accomplishments on a daily 2 3 1 41 I am part of several networks to enhance my knowledge and 1 3 -2 29 We spend a lot of time talking about teaching and learning 1 2 -1 1 Individual performance expectations for students dominate 4 2 1 44 I model to others how to visit other schools and attend con -2 1 -2 31 I believe I can make a difference in the educational comm -1 1 3 30 I work with the principal to serve according to the needs -1 1 3

128

6 Valued added activities and assessments are used in my class 3 1 -1 43 I presented at a state or national convention in the last -5 1 -5 45 Listening and learning from educators outside of my district 3 0 -2 8 My technological skills are well developed and I encourage 2 0 1 10 I am aware of the vision and mission of our school and it 1 -1 5 14 My leadership style in the classroom requires student initiate 4 -1 -1 26 My principal is a leader who guides us in a democratic manner 0 -1 3 34 I belong to 3 or more educational organizations. -4 -2 -4 5 I am well informed in `No Child Left Behind' and other federal -1 -2 0 33 I hold an office in an educational organization -5 -2 -4 11 I determine the amount of homework my students can accomp 3 -2 0 24 I initiate collaborative problem solving to work through -1 -3 -2 27 There is a great deal of trust among the teachers and the 0 -3 5 20 I am influential in shielding teachers from unwarranted o -3 -4 -1 12 I am in charge of my classroom and choose the teaching tech 2 -4 0 16 I often arbitrate disagreements between colleagues . -2 -5 -3 21 I have a voice concerning hiring new teachers and/or admin -3 -5 0

129

APPENDIX H

FACTOR THREE COLLEGIAL TEACHERS

130

Normalized Factor Scores -- For Factor 3_ Collegial Teachers No. Statement _____________________ Z-SCORES 27 There is a great deal of trust among the teachers and the.... 1.972 10 I am aware of the vision and mission of our school and it... 1.462 19 Our principal comes and goes often and freely in the school... 1.409 7 Openness and communication are evident each day within my... 1.408 30 I work with the principal to serve according to the needs... 1.320 36 After attending a workshop, I share the information with ... 1.158 26 My principal is a leader who guides us in a democratic manner... 1.156 31 I believe I can make a difference in the educational community. 1.024 28 I participate in team building activities and working closely... 0.956 22 I invite others into my classroom to observe and learn from... 0.811 23 I observe in other teachers' classrooms to learn from their... 0.692 25 I am known as a leader in our school. 0.656 15 Students are innovative thinkers because of my curriculum... 0.519 8 My technological skills are well developed and I encourage... 0.487 37 I am good at communicating the needs of the teachers in my... 0.475 4 I am driven to reflect on the lessons I teach and formulate... 0.445 18 I can easily motivate others to become actively involved... 0.432 1 Individual performance expectations for students dominate... 0.274 9 My students celebrate each others 'accomplishments on a daily 0.217 32 I understand how to work with policymakers for effective... 0.118

131

21 I have a voice concerning hiring new teachers and/or administr... 0.098 13 My classroom has permeable boundaries for students, learn... 0.064 12 I am in charge of my classroom and choose the teaching techni... 0.052 11 I determine the amount of homework my students can accomp... 0.036 5 I am well informed in `No Child Left Behind' and other federal... 0.022 17 I am a mentor to another teacher in my school. 0.015 14 My leadership style in the classroom requires student initiative... -0.042 29 We spend a lot of time talking about teaching and learning... -0.053 38 I invite parents and other people in the local community... -0.166 6 Valued added activities and assessments are used in my class... -0.337 42 I get out into the community to build relationships and to learn.... -0.361 20 I am influential in shielding teachers from unwarranted other... -0.385 39 I conduct action research and share my results with educators... -0.440 24 I initiate collaborative problem solving to work through... -0.457 44 I model to others how to visit other schools and attend confer... -0.632 45 Listening and learning from educators outside of my district... -0.880 41 I am part of several networks to enhance my knowledge and... -0.998 2 I don't rescue, rather problem solving strategies are used... -0.998 40 I encourage system wide change. -1.008 3 I ask students to evaluate me formally throughout the year... -1.119 16 I often arbitrate disagreements between colleagues . -1.133 34 I belong to 3 or more educational organizations. -1.788 33 I hold an office in an educational organization. -2.006 43 I presented at a state or national convention in the last... -2.209

132

35 I work with a higher education institution to improve the.... -2.268

Factor 3 – Administration Friendly Teacher Leader

17 42 13 18

Most Unlike Me

24 20 5 8 28

Most Like Me

40 39 6 11 9 25 36 2 44 38 12 1 15 31

43 33 16 41 29 21 4 22 26 7 10 35 34 3 45 14 32 37 23 30 19 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Distinguishing Statements Array Position Factor 3 Administration Trusting Teacher Leader___________________________________ (P < .05 ; Asterisk (*) Indicates Significance at P < .01) Both the Factor Q-Sort Value and the Normalized Score are Shown. No. Statement_______________________________________Factor_1 2 3___ 27 There is a great deal of trust among the teachers and the 0 -3 5 10 I am aware of the vision and mission of our school and it 1 -1 5 19 1 Our principal comes and goes often and freely in the school 0 0 4 30 I work with the principal to serve according to the needs -1 1 3 26 My principal is a leader who guides us in a democratic manner 0 -1 3 31 I believe I can make a difference in the educational community -1 1 3 23 I observe in other teachers' classrooms to learn from their 0 0 2 37 I am good at communicating the needs of the teachers in my 0 -1 1 4 I am driven to reflect on the lessons I teach and formulate 5 4 1 1 Individual performance expectations for students dominate 4 2 1 9 My students celebrate each others' accomplishments on a daily 2 3 1

133

32 I understand how to work with policymakers for effective -2 -2 0 21 I have a voice concerning hiring new teachers and/or admini -3 -5 0 12 I am in charge of my classroom and choose the teaching techni 2 -4 0 11 I determine the amount of homework my students can accomp 3 -2 0 5 I am well informed in `No Child Left Behind' and other federal -1 -2 0 14 My leadership style in the classroom requires student initiative 4 -1 -1 29 We spend a lot of time talking about teaching and learning 1 2 -1 38 I invite parents and other people in the local community 1 5 -1 6 Valued added activities and assessments are used in my class 3 1 -1 20 I am influential in shielding teachers from unwarranted outside -3 -4 -1 45 Listening and learning from educators outside of my district 3 0 -2 41 I am part of several networks to enhance my knowledge and 1 3 -2 3 .I ask students to evaluate me formally throughout the year -2 -1 -3 16 I often arbitrate disagreements between colleagues . -2 -5 -3 35 I work with a higher education institution to improve the -4 4 -5 Factor Q-Sort Values for Statements sorted by Consensus vs. Disagreement___________ (Variance across normalized Factor Scores) No. Statement Factor 1 2 3 28 I participate in team building activities and working closely... 2 3 2 18 I can easily motivate others to become actively involved... 1 1 1 7 Openness and communication are evident each day within my... 5 5 4 17 I am a mentor to another teacher in my school. -1 0 0 42 I get out into the community to build relationships and to... 0 0 -1

134

3 I ask students to evaluate me formally throughout the year... -2 -1 -3 24 I initiate collaborative problem solving to work through... -1 -3 -2 5 I am well informed in `No Child Left Behind' and other federal... -1 -2 0 29 We spend a lot of time talking about teaching and learning... 1 2 -1 13 My classroom has permeable boundaries for students, learning... 1 0 0 23 I observe in other teachers' classrooms to learn from the... 0 0 2 8 My technological skills are well developed and I encourage... 2 0 1 15 Students are innovative thinkers because of my curriculum... 3 2 2 39 I conduct action research and share my results with educators... -3 -1 -2 37 I am good at communicating the needs of the teachers in my... 0 -1 1 40 I encourage system wide change. 0 -3 -3 32 I understand how to work with policymakers for effective... -2 -2 0 20 I am influential in shielding teachers from unwarranted outside... -3 -4 -1 34 I belong to 3 or more educational organizations. -4 -2 -4 16 I often arbitrate disagreements between colleagues . -2 -5 -3 9 My students celebrate each others' accomplishments on a daily... 2 3 1 1 Individual performance expectations for students dominate... 4 2 1 31 I believe I can make a difference in the educational community... -1 1 3 4 I am driven to reflect on the lessons I teach and formulate... 5 4 1 44 I model to others how to visit other schools and attend conf... -2 1 -2 22 I invite others into my classroom to observe and learn from.... -1 2 2 30 I work with the principal to serve according to the needs... -1 1 3 33 I hold an office in an educational organization... -5 -2 -4

135

25 I am known as a leader in our school. -2 2 2 6 Valued added activities and assessments are used in my class... 3 1 -1 19 Our principal comes and goes often and freely in the school... 0 0 4 45 Listening and learning from educators outside of my district... 3 0 -2 26 My principal is a leader who guides us in a democratic manner... 0 -1 3 10 I am aware of the vision and mission of our school and it... 1 -1 5 38 I invite parents and other people in the local community... 1 5 -1 2 I don't rescue, rather problem solving strategies are used... 2 -3 -3 21 I have a voice concerning hiring new teachers and/or administrators... -3 -5 0 41 I am part of several networks to enhance my knowledge and... 1 3 -2 11 I determine the amount of homework my students can accomplish... 3 -2 0 14 My leadership style in the classroom requires student initiate... 4 -1 -1 36 After attending a workshop, I share the information with... -3 3 3 12 I am in charge of my classroom and choose the teaching techniques... 2 -4 0 43 I presented at a state or national convention in the last... -5 1 -5 27 There is a great deal of trust among the teachers and the... 0 -3 5 35 I work with a higher education institution to improve the... -4 4 -5 Note: Consensus and disagreement based on variance across normalized factors scores; organized from greatest consensus at top of table to greatest disagreement at bottom.

VITA

Terri Lyn Edwards

Candidate for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Dissertation: CLASSROOM TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF LEADERSHIP IN THE CLASSROOM, SCHOOL, AND EDUCATIONAL COMMUNITY

Major Field: School Psychology

Bibliographical:

Education: Received Associates of Arts in Arts and Sciences from Roger’s State College, Claremore, OK, in 1987 and Bachelor of Science degree in Elementary Education from Langston University, Langston, OK, in 1989. Received Master of Science degree in Teaching from Northeastern State University, Tahlequah, OK, in 1997. Completed the Requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy in Educational Psychology at Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, in July 2007.

Experience: 1989-2000: Fifth/Sixth Grade Teacher, Coweta Public Schools, Self-

contained, Science, Social Studies, Reading; 1999: Instructor, Conner’s State College, Muskogee, OK, General Physical Science; 1999-present: Assistant Professor, University of Phoenix, Tulsa, general education courses, psychology; 2000-2002: Methodology Instructor, Great Expectations, Elementary Classroom Instruction during Summer Institute in Tahlequah, OK; 2000-2002: Methodology Instructor, Great Expectations, Elementary Classroom Instruction during Summer Institute in Tahlequah, OK; 2000-2004: Assistant Professor and Elementary Education Coordinator, Bacone College, Muskogee, OK, Professional Education, Elementary Education; 2004-Present: Instructor, Curriculum and Instruction and Professional Studies, Northeastern State University (NSU), Broken Arrow, OK

Professional memberships: Association of Professional Oklahoma Educators, Phi Delta Kappa, International Society for the Scientific Study of Subjectivity, Northeastern Oklahoma Math and Science Educators, Delta Kappa Gamma International, American Association of University Professors, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Association of Childhood Education International, 2002-2005, National Association for Gifted Children, 2001-2003, National Science Teacher’s Association, 1990-1993, National Education Association, 1988-1989.

Name: Terri Lyn Edwards Date of Degree: July, 2007 Institution: Oklahoma State University Location: Stillwater, Oklahoma Title of Study: CLASSROOM TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF LEADERSHIP IN THE

CLASSROOM, SCHOOL, AND EDUCATIONAL COMMUNITY

Pages in Study: 135 Candidate for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Major Field: Educational Psychology

Scope and Method of Study: The purpose of this study was to describe the opinions that

35 elementary and secondary teachers have about their leadership in the classroom, in the school, and in the educational community. Q methodology was used to create an instrument for participants to utilize in expressing their opinions framed using the Formative Leadership Theory. The teachers sorted a sample of statements representing the theory in the three contexts of classroom, school, and educational community twice; once using opinions of their actual leadership and once considering their ideal teacher leadership potential. Each participant then completed a demographic survey.

Findings and Conclusions: The results indicate three types of opinions expressed by the

teachers named Classroom Oriented Teachers, Collaborative Teachers, and Collegial Teachers. The largest number of teachers identified with working with students and leading within their classroom as Classroom Oriented Teachers. They spent the least amount of effort and time in other leadership activities. Collaborative teachers welcomed colleagues and the community into their schools to assist with decision making. Collegial teachers interacted well with administration and welcomed them into their classrooms. Two thirds of the teachers involved in the study viewed their ideal leadership as their current situation. The others viewed Collegial leadership as their ideal leadership. How teachers engage in teacher leadership will affect their future actions for improved student learning and necessary school change.

Advisor’s Approval: Dr. Diane Montgomery