• unlimited access with print and download
    $ 37 00
  • read full document, no print or download, expires after 72 hours
    $ 4 99
More info
Unlimited access including download and printing, plus availability for reading and annotating in your in your Udini library.
  • Access to this article in your Udini library for 72 hours from purchase.
  • The article will not be available for download or print.
  • Upgrade to the full version of this document at a reduced price.
  • Your trial access payment is credited when purchasing the full version.
Buy
Continue searching

A relational study of elementary principals' leadership traits, teacher morale, and school performance

ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 2011
Dissertation
Author: Carla Jean Raines Evers
Abstract:
The purpose of the study was to determine if a significant relationship existed between elementary principals. leadership traits and teacher morale. The study sought to identify the impact of the principal-teacher relationship on school achievement as it relates to student performance on state standards as outlined in the Mississippi state academic frameworks and as measured using the Quality of the Distribution Index (QDI) on the Mississippi state end-of-grade test, Mississippi Curriculum Test, Second Edition (MCT2). The end-of-year assessments, collectively known as MCT2: Reading-Language Arts and Mathematics, administered to students in grades 3 through 8 in the spring of each school year, provided additional quantitative data for the study. Further, the study identified whether a correlation existed between the way principals and teachers perceive the principals. primary leadership traits. A quantitative survey-design method was used to conduct the study. The Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI) -Self and -Observer were used to measure the principals. leadership traits that have been associated with organizational effectiveness. The Purdue Teacher Opinionaire (PTO) was used to measure teacher morale as defined by two selected factors, rapport with principal and job satisfaction. School performance was measured by the end-of-grade state assessment for Mississippi, MCT2, which measures what students know and are able to do in the areas of reading-language arts and mathematics. State statisticians use the collectives schools. and districts. scores to develop Quality of the Distribution Indexes for each participating entity. Findings indicated that classroom-based study participants perceived that each of the Leadership Practices Inventory's five subscales of leadership traits correlated to the variable Teacher Satisfaction, whereas their Rapport with the Principal correlated with three of five subscales. Study participants also perceived that neither principal's leadership traits nor teacher morale predicts school performance, which disputes current research. Further, analysis of the data indicated that classroom-based participants did not agree with their principals regarding the principals. primary modes of leadership by rating the principal lower on the LPI than their principals who rated themselves higher in each of the five factors.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................... ii DEDICATION ....................................................................................................... iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ....................................................................................... v LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................... viii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................. ix CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................ 1 Purpose of the Study Research Questions Hypotheses Definition of Terms Delimitations and Limitations Summary

II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ......................................... 13

Leadership and Leadership Theories Teacher Morale Teacher Morale and Student Achievement Summary

III. METHODOLOGY ......................................................................... 38

Introduction Methodology and Design Survey Instruments Population Analysis of Data Summary

IV. ANALYSIS OF DATA ................................................................... 51

Description of Study Participants Tests of Hypotheses

vii

Leadership and Teacher Morale Teacher and Principal Perceptions of Principal’s Leadership Traits Summary

V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................. 65

Introduction Summary of Procedures Summary of Major Findings Conclusions Discussion Recommendations

APPENDIXES ..................................................................................................... 79

REFERENCES ................................................................................................. 102

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Purdue Teacher Opinionaire Factors ....................................................... 42

2. Leadership Practices Inventory Factors ................................................... 44

3. District-Level Study Participants .............................................................. 46

4. Population Descriptives ........................................................................... 53

5. Descriptives: Leadership Practices Inventory-Self (Principal) N=46 ........ 56

6. Descriptives: Leadership Practices Inventory-Observer N=380 ............... 56

7. Descriptive Statistics for Purdue Teacher Opionionaire (Teacher) N=417 ................................................................................................................. 57

8. Pearson Correlation: Principal Leadership and Teacher Morale N=46 .... 59

9. Pearson Correlation: Principal-Teacher Perceptions of Leadership N=46 ….. ........................................................................................................... 61

10. Paired Samples t Test-LPI Self and Observer ....................................... 63

ix

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ASCD – Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development CSRD – Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration Ed(s) or ed – Editor(s) or edited ERIC – Education Resources Information Center GCEIC – Gulf Coast Education Initiative Consortium ISEA – Institute for Studies in Education LPI – Leadership Practices Inventory MAARS – Mississippi Assessment and Accountability Reporting System MCT2 – Mississippi Curriculum Test, 2 nd Edition MDE – Mississippi Department of Education MSIS – Mississippi Student Information System NASSP – National Association for Secondary School Principals NCLB – No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 NSW – New South Wales Chapter Newsletter PTO – Purdue Teacher Opinionaire QDI – Quality of the Distribution Index Rev. – Revised SEDL – Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (SEDL) USM – The University of Southern Mississippi

1

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Over the history of public education, according to Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, and Wahlstrom (2004), various reforms aimed at improving schools depended primarily on the quality of leadership and the leader’s ability to convey the vision and importance of proposed reform to his or her constituents and stakeholders. Since the launching of Sputnik in October of 1957, introduction of effective schools research during the 1970s, and following national reports such as A Nation at Risk, society catapulted the American educational system into a race to educate all of its citizenry to higher levels in subject areas such as math and science (Gorton, Alston, & Snowden, 2007). Such events, research, and reports heightened the sense of urgency educators felt regarding the effectiveness of education in the United States and led to legislation such as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and GOALS 2000; hence, teachers and administrators became charged with the task of preparing students to compete globally for the first time (Dyer, 1978). Although each reform has been different, their success relied heavily upon the talent of principals, instructional leaders, at the local level (Leithwood et al., 2004). In addition to the changing rigors of education due to the aforementioned events, educators who faced more accountability as outlined in legislation such as the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 also began to encounter greater quantities of students who needed more counseling due to poor or inadequate social environments (Jones & Egley, 2007). Hence, educators faced meeting the

2

challenging demands of educating the youth of the times in spite of overwhelming social obstacles. Along with the additional accountability and increasing social issues students face, teacher morale issues grew more prevalent in the classrooms of the new millennium (Jones & Egley, 2007). Black (2001) specified that when high teacher morale existed, teachers’ satisfaction with their work increased, as did student and school achievement. Although many contributing factors related to teacher morale, no one factor demonstrated more importance than the leadership of the instructional leader, the principal of the school (Black, 2001). Likewise Gorton, Alston, and Snowden (2007) noted that many researchers such as Edmonds, Lezotte, Korkmaz, and Monroe (2007) believed that the principal’s ability to lead presented itself as the most important factor that influenced teacher and school performance. Accordingly, Edmonds, et al.‘s (2007) research denoted that the principal’s leadership acted as the key to school culture and systemic change within the school organization. Hence, one would believe that it went undisputed that effective instructional leadership would be critical to improved student achievement. Yet, despite decades of research and reform, noted Leithwood et al. (2004), research continued to be unclear regarding how leadership and improved performance connected. Thus, researchers tended to rely on things other than facts. In a study conducted by Leithwood et al. (2004) at the University of Minnesota, the research team examined the impact of leadership on learning, which assisted with finding answers to critical questions related to the relationship of principals’ leadership and learning. According to the study, leadership played a close second only to

3

teaching among the factors related to impact on achievement; yet, instructional leadership demonstrated even more importance in schools with high-risk populations. Leithwood et al. (2004) indicated that to achieve a productive teacher-principal relationship, a principal must have developed three key components: (a) setting direction via shared goals, (b) developing the professional skill set of teachers, and (c) establishing a positive working environment. In modern times, leaders who valued others and who operated in a more collaborative method proved to be more successful than their counterparts who failed to connect to and empower others. Such leaders, noted Tschannen-Moran (2000), understood the importance the social capital and trust within the organization, which relates to the theory that if people connected in a trusting manner they more readily performed high quality job-related acts for each other. Hence, healthy social capital within an organization built upon the concept of trusting human networks in which the leader fostered interdependent interactions within the organization and functioned in the best interest of the whole versus the individual yielded a more productive staff (Kouzes & Posner, 2002; Sabo, Barnes, & Hoy, 1996). Monroe (1997) contended that to maintain a clear administrative perspective for school success, the principal actively engaged in the primary work of the school, educating students. Further, the administrator who lost touch with the primary goals inadvertently perpetuated poor working conditions for teachers through trivial and unfounded pursuits. The daily efforts of the school

4

leader to communicate verbally and through actions identified how he or she displayed support of the teachers as they worked to improve student achievement (Monroe, 1997). As far back as the early 1980s to the late 1990s, various studies documented teachers’ dissatisfaction with the field of education due to the lack of high quality leadership that utilized effective leadership styles or traits, which developed a positive work environment (Lumsden, 1998). This research, further supported by newer studies such as Mackenzie’s 2007 study of Australian educators, demonstrated, once again, the importance of leadership on the productive function of the school. As teachers’ roles expanded to include teaching at higher cognitive levels and acting as counselors for high-risk students with a vast array of social issues, it became more important to explore ways to help teachers and administrators handle issues of teacher morale, how a person feels about their job and place in an organization (Mackenzie, 2007). Lumsden (1998), citing William Miller (1981), reported that high teacher morale could have a positive effect on student attitudes and learning. Improved teacher morale not only made the education process more palatable to teachers; it made the process a richer and more effective learning experience for students. Moreover, high morale helped to create what educators called “an environment conducive to learning” (Lumsden, 1998, p. 2) in which teachers teach and students learn. Vail (2005) contended that by improving teachers’ professional skills through the use of inclusive leadership, principals increased morale and learning. This human resource or social capital investment allowed teachers to find

5

meaning in their work and to have a voice in the organization. The two aforementioned factors, meaning and voice, allowed teachers to feel a greater sense of commitment and dedication (Lumsden, 1998). Hence, researchers such as Vail (2005) warned that the principal must learn to identify leadership traits that will influence teacher morale in a positive manner and work from the understanding that teacher attitudes permeate to students through instruction and learning expectations. Notably, some related factors, such as self-esteem and pay rates, outside of the principal’s control, persistently existed throughout study after study; however, the principal held the key to improving those things that can be controlled (Vail, 2005). Consequently, given the talent, happy teachers more productively enhanced student achievement. Teachers who felt good about the work that they performed made greater efforts to provide students with high quality instruction and engaging activities, and they more persistently worked with at-risk struggling students (Ware & Kitsantas, 2007). Yet, little research regarding the relationship of principal leadership, teacher morale, and student achievement exists (Vail, 2005). Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between elementary principals’ leadership traits and teacher morale. The study further sought to identify the impact of the principal-teacher relationship on school achievement as it relates to student performance on state standards as outlined in the Mississippi state academic frameworks and as measured using the Quality of the Distribution Index (QDI) on the Mississippi state end-of-grade test,

6

Mississippi Curriculum Test, Second Edition (MCT2). The end of year assessments, MCT2: Reading-Language Arts and Mathematics, administered to students in grades 3 through 8 in the spring of each school year, provided additional quantitative data for the study. Further, the study identified the relationship of teacher and instructional leader perceptions related to the leadership traits and qualities of effective leadership. Typically, reported Leithwood et al. (2004), current research failed to give proper attention to the effects of effective leadership. However, in circumstances of greatest need schools that also service high numbers of at-risk students, the actions of the leader affected student performance more significantly than any other factor. Very few instances of documented positive school reform absent a quality leader existed in related literature (Leithwood et al., 2004; Morrissey, 2000). Results such as these evidenced the value of leadership in schools, specifically those in need of reform. “Total (direct and indirect) effects of leadership on student learning account[ed] for about a quarter of total school effects,” stated Leithwood et al. (2004, p. 5). Thus, benefits of the proposed study include: (a) the findings may provide insight about the effect leadership style has on teacher morale; (b) the findings may guide leaders in creating long- lasting systemic change through social capital; and (c) educators may use the project to identify leadership traits that promote improved school performance based on the research findings and implications of the project. Teacher behaviors influenced student behavior the most and greatly affected student achievement (Squires, Huitt, & Segars, 1983). However, the

7

principal’s interaction with teachers fostered an atmosphere that promoted high expectations and influenced student learning. A positive teacher-principal relationship allowed for the enhancement of teacher capacity with regard to instruction and management, thereby creating a positive work environment, which improved student success, related directly to the leadership capabilities of the principal (Squires et al., 1983). The principal held the greatest responsibility for setting the tone of the school via goals and expectations for teaching, learning, and behavior. According to Barker (2001), by inspecting the execution of the school’s organizational goals and objectives, principals communicated the level of importance held by each goal to the staff, students, and community stakeholders. Although the concept of effective leadership’s foundation lies in the business arena, the concepts of leadership easily transferred to educational settings. However, educators’ deeply rooted beliefs centered themselves around the concept that effective educational leadership, like their business counterparts, possessed the power to alter school-based organizational culture and employee performance (Barker, 2001). Therefore, the current project explored the strength of this relationship to ascertain the benefits to students and to better develop a more informed group of educational leaders. Research Questions Questions that were answered during the research included: 1. Is there a correlation between the elementary principals’ leadership traits as measured by the subscales of Leadership Practices Inventory-

8

Observer and teacher morale as measured by the selected subscales of the Purdue Teacher Opinionaire? 2. Is teacher morale as measured by the selected subscales of the Purdue Teacher Opinionaire related to school performance levels on the MCT2 Quality of the Distribution Index? 3. Do leadership traits of elementary principals as measured by the subscales of the Leadership Practices Inventory-Observer and teacher morale as rated by the selected subscales of the Purdue Teacher Opinionaire predict school performance on the MCT2 Quality of the Distribution Index? 4. Is there a significant correlation between teacher and principal perceptions of the principals’ primary leadership traits as rated by the subscales of Leadership Practices Inventory? Hypotheses As a result of the research questions noted above, the research project tested the following one-tailed null hypotheses: H0 1: There is no statistically significant correlation between elementary principals’ leadership traits as rated by the subscales of the Leadership Practices Inventory-Observer and teacher morale as rated by the selected subscales of the Purdue Teacher Opinionaire. H0 2 : There is no statistically significant relationship between teacher morale as

9

measured by the selected subscales of the Purdue Teacher Opinionaire and school performance levels on the MCT2 Quality of the Distribution Index scores. H0 3 : There is no statistically significant relationship between elementary principals’ leadership traits on the subscales of the Leadership Practices Inventory-Observer and teacher morale as rated by the selected subscales of the Purdue Teacher Opinionaire on school performance as measured by the MCT2 Quality of the Distribution Index scores. H0 4 : There is no statistically significant correlation between teacher and principal perceptions of the principal’s primary leadership traits as rated by the subscales of Leadership Practices Inventory. Definition of Terms Academic watch school – any combination of K-8 school scoring a QDI of 100-132 that demonstrated adequate or outstanding academic gain or a school with a QDI of 133-165 that demonstrated inadequate academic gain (Mississippi Department of Education [MDE], 2009). At-Risk of failing school – any combination of K-8 school scoring a QDI of 100-132 that demonstrated inadequate academic gain (MDE, 2009). Full academic year – students who attend a school or district 70% of the year, at least 6 of the previous 7 months when student data are extracted from the Mississippi Student Information System (MSIS) in March of each school year (MDE, 2009).

10

Failing school - any combination of K-8 school scoring a QDI of 0-99 that demonstrated inadequate academic gain (MDE, 2009). High performing school – any combination of K-8 school scoring a QDI of 166-199 that demonstrated adequate or outstanding academic gain or a school with a 200 plus QDI that demonstrated inadequate academic gain (MDE, 2009). Instructional leader – a principal who concerns himself or herself with the instructional well-being of the school versus solely focusing on the day-to-day management of said school. Leadership – “a subtle process of mutual influence fusing thought, feeling, and action to produce cooperative effort in the service of purposes and values embraced by both the leader and the led” (Bolman & Deal, 2003, p. 339). Leadership style – sets of quantifiable and comparable leadership characteristics, traits, or performances (Sun, 2004). Low performing school - any combination of K-8 school scoring a QDI of 0-99 that demonstrated adequate or outstanding academic gain (MDE, 2009). MCT2 – a three-part Mississippi criterion referenced assessment given to students in grades 3-8 during the spring of each school year. The test is formally known as the Mississippi Curriculum Test, Second Edition (MDE, 2009). Principal (instructional leader) – “1a: most important, consequential, or influential: Chief 2b: the chief executive officer of an educational institution” (Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, 1976, p. 915). Star school –any combination of K-8 school scoring a QDI of 200 or above that demonstrated adequate or outstanding academic gain, (MDE, 2009).

11

Successful school – any combination of K-8 school scoring a QDI of 133- 165 that demonstrated adequate or outstanding academic gain or a school with a QDI of 166-199 that demonstrated inadequate gain (MDE, 2009). Teacher morale – how a teacher feels about himself or herself as it relates to job performance and job satisfaction. “2a: the mental and emotional condition (as of enthusiasm, confidence, or loyalty) of an individual or group with regard to the function or tasks at hand b: a sense of common purpose with respect to a group: Esprit De Corps” (Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, 1976, p. 748). Delimitations and Limitations Delimiters that may alter or affect the results and responses included: x The research is limited to 20 school districts in the southern region of Mississippi, which yielded a small sample size of 74 administrators. x Principals may choose not to return their surveys despite returning teacher surveys. x Participants may respond in a manner they feel the researcher or their principals wants them to respond. x The collected data will be limited to the beginning of the school year. Projected limitations included: x Implications for workforce application or generalizable nature of the study may not reach beyond the elementary educational workplace in the state of Mississippi. x For the purposes of this study, the MCT2 Quality of the Distribution Index (QDI) will serve as the only measure of school performance.

12

Summary Various events as far back as the launching of Sputnik in 1957 led to the call for educational reform from the highest levels of government. This phenomenon, evidenced in documents such as A Nation At Risk and the reauthorized version of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, noted Gorton et al. (2007), led to higher expectations being placed on teachers and principals. Consequently, the relationship between teachers and principals moved from that of a managerial relationship to one more closely focused on instruction. The success of schools heavily relied upon the principal’s ability to lead in a manner that resulted in improved teacher morale and student performance (Leithwood et al., 2004). Researchers such as Vail (2005) and Lumsden (1998) continued to caution educators to focus on those leadership traits that influence teacher morale in a positive way. Despite these warnings, little research regarding the relationship of teacher morale and student achievement exists, according to Ware and Kitsantas (2007). Therefore, this study delved deeper into the relationship between elementary principals’ leadership styles or traits and teacher morale and further sought to determine if the relationship impacts school performance.

13

CHAPTER II RELATED LITERATURE REVIEW Over the years, researchers found it impossible to improve school performance absent a skilled and knowledgeable leader and noted that the principal played a critical role in a school’s success (Gorton et al., 2007; Leithwood, Jantzl, Silins, & Dart, 1992; Thomas, 1997; Wallace Foundation, 2004). In a 2004 report, Leadership for Learning: Making the Connections Among State, District and School Policies and Practices, conducted by the Wallace Foundation, researchers reported that among all school-based factors contributing to improved learning, the only thing that outweighed great leadership was great classroom instruction. Among the states that participated in teacher work conditions surveys, teachers ranked leadership as most important when determining their decision to remain in the field of education. The research further supported the teachers’ data by indicating “behind excellent teaching and excellent schools is excellent leadership” (Wallace Foundation, 2004, p. 3) Argyris (1964) found that considering the needs of employees in the workplace was found to be critical to the success of any organization. Other researchers followed suit when they further likened human needs to that of plants and the leadership position to that of a gardener when they indicated that, like the gardener who knows the need of the plants in his or her garden, so must the leader know the needs of his or her employees (Bolman & Deal, 2003). Hence, establishing good working conditions that addressed the needs of the employees allowed them to evolve and thrive in the work environment (Wallace Foundation,

14

2004). Human behaviors, according to Bolman and Deal (2003), functioned under two premises: nature and nurture. Under the nature premise, humans possessed certain innate physiological needs, whereas, under the nurture premise, the environment in which humans lived and worked along with the social experiences they encountered determined human behaviors and needs. The duo noted that the nurture premise of human behaviors failed to take into account the genetics or nature of the individual by ignoring the innate human needs. Although the two premises differed tremendously, many researchers (Bolman & Deal, 2003; Cunningham & Cresso, 1993; Glickman, Gordon, & Ross- Gordon, 1995) recognized the importance of fulfilling basic needs as outlined by Abraham Maslow’s (1954) body of research that yielded the Hierarchy of Needs: 1. Physiological (food, shelter, water, health, etc.); 2. Safety (free of danger and threat); 3. Belongingness and Love (positive relationships with others); 4. Esteem (feeling valued by others and self); and 5. Self-actualization (reaching one’s potential). Despite attempts to validate Maslow’s Hierarchy, researchers such as Lawler and Shuttle (1973) accepted the body of work and used it to influence research related to leadership behavior and decision making. According to Bolman and Deal (2003), human needs and wants, generally described as genetic preferences of one experience over another, guided the behavior of individuals. However, these genetic predispositions sometimes became altered after birth based on an individual’s exposure to various environments,

15

experiences, and learning. Thus, typical motivation evolved and developed from having the individual’s needs and/or wants met. The leaders or principals, in this context, charged with meeting the needs of their employees in the workplace influenced their constituents’ feelings about their work through their consideration of the employees’ needs (Lawler & Shuttle, 1973). The principal’s supportiveness through the mechanisms of the administrative function met lower levels of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, according to Glickman et al., (1995). In contradiction, the more interactive supervisory functions of the leader allowed leaders to meet the teachers’ high-level needs. When leaders met the workers’ needs in a nurturing collegial environment, they reported being more satisfied with the workplace environment and aspired to be productive and successful within their respective environments (Glickman et al., 1995). Leadership and Leadership Theories Finzel (1994) defined leadership as the ability to influence others in such a profound way that they are willing to travel pathways they would have never traveled. To measure the quality and effectiveness of leadership, DePree (1989) suggested that researchers consider the state of the followers and their success, level of esteem, commonality of vision, sense of empowerment, and thoughts about the leader. He continued that the mere concept of leadership increasingly became the topic of many inspirational and self-help books, articles, speeches, and research. However, the concept of leadership, not only confined to education, progressed to the extent that its impact extended to all facets of life: work, church, home, and school. The leader in any venue acted as the visionary

16

and steward of the relationships within the organization; hence, securing his or her important role in organizational improvement (DePree, 1989). With more emphasis being placed on the leader and following legislation such as GOALS 2000, No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, the role of the principal began to experience a paradigm shift. Research, such as Edmond’s Effective Schools study, helped to catapult providing a proper teaching and learning environment to the forefront of the educational arena and became the primary purpose of educational leadership. To accomplish this goal, researchers such as Leithwood et al. (2004) suggested that the principal, also known as the instructional leader, start by setting direction in such a manner that all constituents and stakeholders clearly understood the vision for the school. The research suggested that the principal develop the talent of the teaching staff through meaningful and ongoing professional development opportunities and performance evaluations with the purpose of capacity building. This critical step in the effective leadership process also helped to build motivation and morale via the positive and direct experiences teachers encountered with their principals in the workplace (Wahlstrom, 2004). Further, this relationship between principal and teacher developed into one of the major contributing factors that improved student learning (Leithwood et al., 2004). Finally, the conscientious and effective instructional leader, the principal, found ways to redesign the organization or school in a manner that supported performance at all levels. However, the principal also ensured that reform practices matched the instructional and

Full document contains 122 pages
Abstract: The purpose of the study was to determine if a significant relationship existed between elementary principals. leadership traits and teacher morale. The study sought to identify the impact of the principal-teacher relationship on school achievement as it relates to student performance on state standards as outlined in the Mississippi state academic frameworks and as measured using the Quality of the Distribution Index (QDI) on the Mississippi state end-of-grade test, Mississippi Curriculum Test, Second Edition (MCT2). The end-of-year assessments, collectively known as MCT2: Reading-Language Arts and Mathematics, administered to students in grades 3 through 8 in the spring of each school year, provided additional quantitative data for the study. Further, the study identified whether a correlation existed between the way principals and teachers perceive the principals. primary leadership traits. A quantitative survey-design method was used to conduct the study. The Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI) -Self and -Observer were used to measure the principals. leadership traits that have been associated with organizational effectiveness. The Purdue Teacher Opinionaire (PTO) was used to measure teacher morale as defined by two selected factors, rapport with principal and job satisfaction. School performance was measured by the end-of-grade state assessment for Mississippi, MCT2, which measures what students know and are able to do in the areas of reading-language arts and mathematics. State statisticians use the collectives schools. and districts. scores to develop Quality of the Distribution Indexes for each participating entity. Findings indicated that classroom-based study participants perceived that each of the Leadership Practices Inventory's five subscales of leadership traits correlated to the variable Teacher Satisfaction, whereas their Rapport with the Principal correlated with three of five subscales. Study participants also perceived that neither principal's leadership traits nor teacher morale predicts school performance, which disputes current research. Further, analysis of the data indicated that classroom-based participants did not agree with their principals regarding the principals. primary modes of leadership by rating the principal lower on the LPI than their principals who rated themselves higher in each of the five factors.