The Effects of Servant Leadership on Parent Involvement

THE EFFECTS OF SERVANT LEADERSHIP ON PARENT INVOLVEMENT by Liesl Allyn Milan A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education in Curriculum and Instruction Boise State University May 2018 © 2018 Liesl Allyn Milan ALL RIGHTS RESERVED BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY GRADUATE COLLEGE DEFENSE COMMITTEE AND FINAL READING APPROVALS of the dissertation submitted by Liesl Allyn Milan Dissertation Title: The Effects of Servant Leadership on Parent Involvement Date of Final Oral Examination: 07 March 2018 The following individuals read and discussed the dissertation submitted by student Liesl Allyn Milan, and they evaluated her presentation and response to questions during the final oral examination. They found that the student passed the final oral examination. Jennifer L. Snow, Ph.D. Chair, Supervisory Committee Kathleen Budge, Ed.D Member, Supervisory Committee Kelly Cross, Ed.D. Member, Supervisory Committee Philip P. Kelly, Ph.D. Member, Supervisory Committee The final reading approval of the dissertation was granted by Jennifer L. Snow, Ph.D., Chair of the Supervisory Committee. The dissertation was approved for the Graduate College. DEDICATION I dedicate this dissertation to the special people in my life. Those that reminded me of perseverance, patience, toughness, promise and hope. First and foremost, to my children. Esha and Elek, it was realizing that as your role model and ultimately responsible for the humans you will become, that giving up was never an option. I dedicate my life to showing you that ‘we don’t suck’, and never will. There will inevitably be times in your lives that you may feel lost, hopeless, and paralyzed with fear. Please know that when something is difficult, you have much to gain. “Nothing easy is EVER worth it”. No matter what accomplishments I have in my life, the two of you will be will be the most important. I love you with every piece of my heart and soul. I also dedicate this dissertation to my mother. If I learned anything about what it means to be a mother, I learned it from her. To love and support, to encourage when life seems impossible, and to never stop, no matter how slow progress may be. She made me believe that anything is possible. I grew up watching her raise three little girls on her own after my father passed and admire her sacrifice with each passing day. Not one day has ever gone by without her reminding me how much I am loved. Teaching strength only through words pales in comparison to teaching strength through life lessons and leading by example. Mom, you are and will always be my rock. And finally, in memory of my father, who I know was watching from above every single second and cheering me on! Thank you Daddy. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS After an extensive period of time, one that felt like it would never come to an end, is finally here. To write this note of thanks is the finishing touch to this dissertation that I am happy to complete. This journey has been an intense period of learning, both academically and personally. I would like to reflect on those people that provided support and encouragement along the way. I am grateful to all of my Dissertation committee members who provided continuous support and encouragement over the years. I would first like to thank my committee chair, Dr. Jennifer Snow. You supported me greatly and were continuously willing to help and reassure me during the process. You taught me a great deal about trusting myself and offered patient guidance in both research and life in general. I appreciate the continuous support from Dr. Kathleen Budge, for spending hours with me exploring ideas and offering suggestions surrounding my topic, research, and writing. And a special thank you to Dr. Kelly Cross and Dr. Phil Kelly for providing continuous support and feedback during every step of the way. I could not have done this without each of you. I would like to thank my friends and family for your patience, support, and understanding. Hopefully some of you still remember who I am. Without your hearts and thoughts being with me along the way, combined with putting up with my melt downs and moments of euphoria when I finally realized this day would come, I would have been v lost. This dissertation was without a doubt, the result of my friends, family, professors and mentors. Youell never know what it means to me. vi ABSTRACT This dissertation describes a research project that examined parent involvement in schools as influenced by servant leadership. Student achievement, as well as parent and family involvement, is largely influenced by leadership styles (Fullan, 1998, Thoonan, Sleegers, Oort, Pettsma, & Geijesel, 2011). Although various influences on parent involvement have been suggested in research, including student demographics and state and district policy and school structure, the undercurrent of organizational leadership continues to remain hidden (MacNeil, Prater, & Busch, 2009). Strategies to increase parent involvement in schools have fallen short and relationships between administrators, educators and parents requires investigation, and new approaches must be created to increase trust and respect between these parties (Choo & Shek, 2013; Epstein & Sheldon, 2016; Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012; Louis & Lee, 2016; Marschall & Shah, 2014; Daly, Moolenaar, Liou & Tuytens, 2015). “A servant-leader focuses primarily on the growth and well-being of people and the communities to which they belong. While traditional leadership generally involves the accumulation and exercise of power by one at the “top of the pyramid,” servant leadership is different. The servant-leader shares power, puts the needs of others first and helps people develop and perform as highly as possible” (Greenleaf, 1977). This research analyzed levels of servant leadership of administrators to ascertain the strength or weakness of these relationships and the potential relationship with levels of parent involvement. . vii TABLE OF CONTENTS DEDICATION ................................................................................................................... iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................v ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... vii LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. xi CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................1 Statement of the Problem .........................................................................................4 Purpose of the Study ................................................................................................6 Research Questions ..................................................................................................7 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................................8 Introduction ..............................................................................................................8 Servant Leadership...................................................................................................8 Presence of servant leadership ...................................................................10 Prominent Servant Leaders ........................................................................12 Principal Leadership ..................................................................................12 Parent Involvement ................................................................................................13 Building Trust ............................................................................................15 What is Missing?........................................................................................17 CHAPTER THREE: METHODS ......................................................................................19 Introduction ............................................................................................................19 viii Rationale ....................................................................................................19 Population and Participants........................................................................20 Instrumentation ..........................................................................................21 Servant Leadership Assessment Instrument ..............................................21 Parent Involvement Project ........................................................................23 Statistical Analysis .....................................................................................24 Data Collection ..........................................................................................24 Data Analysis Method................................................................................26 CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS ..........................................................................................27 Analysis......................................................................................................27 Summary of Findings .................................................................................28 Summary ....................................................................................................28 CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION ......................................................................................30 Introduction ............................................................................................................30 Interpretation of Findings ......................................................................................31 Context of Findings................................................................................................32 Implications of Findings ........................................................................................34 Limitations of the Study.........................................................................................35 Participants .................................................................................................35 Analysis......................................................................................................35 Future Research Directions ....................................................................................35 Conclusion .............................................................................................................37 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................38 ix APPENDIX A ....................................................................................................................51 APPENDIX B ....................................................................................................................55 APPENDIX C ....................................................................................................................57 APPENDIX D ....................................................................................................................61 APPENDIX E ....................................................................................................................64 APPENDIX F.....................................................................................................................66 APPENDIX G ....................................................................................................................68 APPENDIX H ....................................................................................................................70 APPENDIX I .....................................................................................................................72 x LIST OF TABLES Table 1 ...............................................................................................................................74 Table 2 ...............................................................................................................................74 Table 3 ...............................................................................................................................75 Table 4 ...............................................................................................................................75 Table 5 ...............................................................................................................................76 Table 6 ...............................................................................................................................76 Table 7-- Servant Leadership Survey Results 77 Table 8– Parent Involvement Survey Results ....................................................................77 xi 1 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION Leadership, whether effective or ineffective, is present in every situation that involves relationships. Strong leaders have been defined as those who ‘transform the needs, values, preferences and aspirations of followers from self-interests to collective interests’ (Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993). The importance of leadership in organizations has been well documented for decades. The European Foundation for Quality Management defines leadership at the strategic level as "how leaders develop and facilitate the achievement of the mission and vision, develop values required for longterm success and implement these via appropriate actions and behaviors, and are personally involved in ensuring that the organization’s management system is developed and implemented" (Bou-Llusar, Escrig-Tena, Roca-Puig, & Beltrán-Martín, 2009). Chien (2004) suggested that leadership is a key component for organizations to adapt and grow. Leadership is critical for building success in unstable environments through providing support to members and increasing participation (Politis, 2003; Moreno, Morales, & Montes, 2005; Senge, Roberts, Ross, Smith, & Kleiner, 1994). Although various types of leadership exist and have gained respect throughout many fields, servant leadership seems especially well suited for providing employees with necessary support and, consequently, increased job satisfaction (Gallop, Inc., 2015; Grisaffe et. al., 2016; Melchar & Bosco, 2010). Through the sharing of power and responsibility, servant leadership begins to develop a relational and authentic community (Parolini, 2005). Hollander (1992) points to the importance of servant leadership in any 2 organization based upon the influence that followers have on a leader's success or failure. When followers feel valued, empowered and respected, they will support their leader, and when they are recipients of servant leadership, a metamorphosis takes place and new servant leaders are developed (Laub, 1999). The impact of servant leadership has been a popular topic for business, market research, industry and government; however, its effect on parent involvement in schools has gained little attention (Bowman, 1997; Russell & Stone, 2002; Sendjaya & Sarros, 2002). Although recently being examined more in schools, Greenleaf (1977) suggested the importance of servant leadership more than 45 years ago. Taylor, Martin and Johnson (2003) suggested that without servant leadership, change and innovation in educational systems would be arduous. The characteristics of servant leadership have been recognized for the positive impact it has on relationships, empowering others, and creating collaborative and highly successful environments (Daly, 2009; Leavy, 2016; Leithwood, Mascall, Strauss, Sacks, Memon, & Yashkina, 2007, Melchar & Bosco, 2010; Tonissen, 2015; Vanmeter et al., 2016). For the purpose of this dissertation, schools are considered to be the organization and teachers are the employees. One definition found in the servant leadership literature defines servant leadership as “distancing oneself from using power, influence and position to serve self, and instead gravitating to a position where these instruments are used to empower, enable and encourage those who are within one’s circle of influence” (Rude, 2003 in Nwogu, 2004, p.2). Sarason (1982) supported the theory that without recognizing power structures within a school, educators will be more likely to resist change and the relationships between educators and parents will continue to be strained. In this dissertation, chapter 2 3 will provide an overview of the significant body of research related to servant leadership in addition to showing that servant leadership has been rarely examined for its impact on parent involvement. Multiple forms of leadership exist within schools and positive family-professional partnerships have shown to be effective in increasing student learning and achievement, as well as student behavior and decreasing achievement gaps between groups of students. (Bryan & Henry, 2012; Giovacco-Johnson, 2009; Goddard, Tschannen-Moran, & Hoy, 2001; Lawson, 2003; Tschannen-Moran, 2014). For the purpose of this dissertation, servant leadership will be the only form of leadership examined. While many forms of leadership exert a power over, servant leadership exerts power to those involved in these relationships (school staff, administration and parents). If we understand the characteristics of servant leadership, along with the potential impact it may have on parent involvement, we can then begin to develop the ‘how to’ for increasing this form of leadership within schools. Student achievement is among the highest of priorities identified in education policy and reform. Therefore, identifying and exploring the influences (ie. servant leadership and parent involvement) impacting student achievement is paramount. Furthermore, I will explore the possibility that with low levels of servant leadership, parent involvement may continue to be a challenge. In addition, attempts at increasing parent involvement in schools will continue to be met with resistance and the relationships between adults will continue to be isolated. Griffith (2000) found that parents coming from disadvantaged backgrounds can benefit most from building supportive social networks, developing positive relationships with school staff and understanding school norms. In addition, research has found that implicit school norms and practices can even discourage parents from participating (Miller, Valentine, 4 Fish, & Robinson, 2016). For many full-time working parents, time and schedule flexibility can oftentimes prevent them from being involved in the traditional sense, such as onsite volunteering (ie. classroom volunteering, PTA involvement) or helping with homework. Building partnerships between school staff and parents can have a positive effect on student achievement, regardless of onsite involvement of parents (Fox & Olsen, 2014, Jeynes, 2005, Kim, 2009, Russel, 2001). Positive leadership is a key component to building partnerships between school and home. Further examination will be included in chapter 2, consisting of a review of the literature related to servant leadership, in addition to exploring the potential impact that leadership has on parent involvement, both on and off site. Statement of the Problem Parent involvement, although a priority in the world of education policy, seems to have lost momentum due to the ongoing, but failed efforts at meeting the expectations set by both policy and district plans. “Parent involvement programs that are instituted in traditional bureaucratic and inflexible school environments are less likely to yield positive results than those that are part of a more collaborative organizational structure” (Comer & Haynes, 1991, p. 271). Having a collaborative environment may lead to involving parents in daily school activities, school planning and management, and establishing academic goals (Comer & Haynes, 1991). Attempts at increasing parent involvement have shown to be problematic for many reasons, one being that when new policy or programs are created, they are delivered with very little implementation materials or training for teachers and administrators (Epstein & Sheldon, 2016). Epstein and Sheldon (2016) also posed the issue that many parent involvement policies were 5 focused on the parents themselves, external to the school, and offered a new suggestion for gaining a better understanding of whether and how administrators and teachers could work with all student’s parents to ensure student success. Accountability for higher test scores has shifted from school level to an individual teacher level, which has placed an added pressure on teachers, essentially making the assumption that more effective teachers lead to a larger improvement on student exam scores (Saultz & Saultz, 2017). Hatcher (2005) suggested that if schools operate as a hierarchy and power is not distributed to all parties that it can result in alienating teachers and parents. Since the Reagan administration, there has been increased attention to technology, science, and math achievement, at the expense of engendering critical thinking, self-actualization, internal motivation, creativity, and creating democratic citizens through public education (Clark & Amiot, 1981, Gutmann & Porath, 2015, Heertum & Torres, 2017, Ravitch, 2010). With the increase of emphasis on STEM courses combined with prioritizing test scores, there remains little room for focusing on school structure and relationship building between administrators, teachers and parents (Bess & Doykos, 2014; Milner & Lomotey, 2014). This shift in focus has occurred slowly enough to gain acceptance, but just quickly enough to gather attention. The alienation that has grown between all parties (administrators, teachers and parents) has given collaboration a spotlight in research as well as in practice (Alameda-Lawson & Lawson, 2016; Hatcher, 2005; Miller, et. al, 2016). Research on school reform related to collaborative environments and leadership styles are now accepting servant leadership as a commendable ally based upon components such as trust, empowerment and appreciation of others (Dingman, 2007; 6 Hung, Tsai, & Wu, 2016; Irving, 2005; Louis & Lee, 2016). Examining the factors that contribute to building a positive school structure is necessary to shift schools away from continuing to apply the same ineffective techniques for involving parents (newsletters and monthly emails). Even when changes have been implemented in a school setting, many schools struggle to sustain them long enough to reach the level of involvement they seek (Thoonen, Sleegers, Oort, Peetsma, & Geijesel, 2011). One factor that continues to demonstrate long term change is having efficacious leaders who are able to connect with those around them in such a way that the motivation is easily transferred and impacts efforts for sustainable change (Daly, et al., 2015). With the increased focus on achievement and accountability for educators stemming from reports and policy such as Nation at Risk (1983) and NCLB (2001), combined with the respect and understanding of the positive impact of servant leadership, it befits researchers to examine the relationship between servant leadership and parent involvement. This research project explored the issues related to encouraging trusting and collaborative relationships within schools between leadership and parent involvement. When servant leadership is successfully distributed throughout a school, a set of practices "are enacted by people at all levels rather than a set of personal characteristics and attributes located in people at the top" (Fletcher and Kaufer, 2003, p. 22). The purpose of this dissertation is to examine the relationship between servant leadership and parent involvement and how the relationship may increase levels of parent involvement. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this research study was to develop an understanding of the relationships among servant leadership and parent involvement as determined by The 7 Servant Leadership Assessment Instrument (Dennis & Bocarnea, 2005) and the Parent Involvement Project survey (Hoover-Dempsey, et. al, 2005). The primary method of analysis was quantitative, with survey data being used to determine if any relationships exists between degrees of servant leadership and parent involvement. Research Questions The following research questions were examined during this study: How, if at all, does servant leadership relate to the level of parental involvement in school? a. What particular aspects of servant leadership, if any, positively influence the level of parental involvement in school? b. If high levels of Servant Leadership are found, do parents report feelings of empowerment? 8 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW Introduction The importance of school leadership and parent involvement has been researched for decades. Numerous forms of school leadership have been examined, applied at the school level, and most importantly, evolved in practice. The most prevalent leadership styles seen in education include Transactional, Emotional, Transformational, and Servant (Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. 2000). For this dissertation, the focus will remain on Servant Leadership to provide an analytical perspective of how parent involvement might be increased through high levels of servant leadership in schools. This literature review will provide an overview of servant leadership and parent involvement, the importance of the relationship between them, and the impact that U.S. education policy has had on parent involvement. Servant Leadership Leadership has been defined as a position where a leader establishes direction, serves as decision maker and is held responsible for those they are leading (Senge, 1995). Laub (1999) asserted that “servant leadership promotes the value of developing people, the building of community, the practice of authenticity, the providing of leadership for the good of those led and the sharing of power and status for the common good of each individual, the total organization, and those served by the organization” (p. 23). Although definitions of servant leadership have evolved since the term was first coined by Greenleaf (1977), many researchers have contributed their interpretation of the definition. 9 In writing The Servant as Leader, Greenleaf (1977) suggested that the difference between “servant-first” and “leader-first” was what sets servant leadership apart from all other forms. Greenleaf (1977) clarified that the “servant-first” leader seeks to ensure the needs of others are met, in contrast to the “leader-first” leader who strives for power and possessions. Spears (1998) identified ten characteristics that have been used to define servant leadership, which include: listening, empathy, healing, awareness, persuasion, conceptualization, foresight, stewardship, commitment to people’s growth, and the ability to build a community. Russel and Stone (2002) combined foresight and conceptualization to form what they termed vision. Although several descriptions of efficacious leadership include vision and the leaders’ ability to share and live that vision for their followers, it specifically relates to describing servant leadership (Al-Mahdy et al., 2016; Brown & Gioia, 2002; Grissafe et al., 2016; VanMeter et al., 2016). The constructs of servant leadership according to Patterson (2003) include: agapao love, acts with humility, is altruistic, a visionary for followers, trusting, serving, and empowers followers. The instrument used for this dissertation includes a compilation of Patterson’s (2003) definition, created by Dennis and Bocarnea (2005) and apply the following themes: 1. Agapao love - measures the degree to which a servant leader demonstrates meaning and purpose on the job where the employee has the ability to realize his or her full potential as a person and feels like he or she is associated with a good and/or ethical organization. The servant leader is forgiving, teachable, shows concern for others, is calm during times of chaos, strives to do what is right for the organization, and has integrity. 10 2. Empowerment - measures the degree to which a servant leader empowers information to others: positive emotional support, actual experience of task mastery, observing models of success, and words of encouragement. The servant leader allows for employee self-direction. Leaders encourage professional growth. The leader lets people do their jobs by enabling them to learn. 3. Vision - measures the degree to which a servant leader incorporates the participation of all involved players in creating a shared vision for the organization. The servant leader seeks others’ visions for the organization, demonstrates that he or she wants to include employees’ visions into the organization’s goals and objectives, seeks commitment concerning the shared vision of the organization, encourages participation in creating a shared vision, and has a written expression of the vision of the organization. 4. Humility - measures the degree to which a servant leader keeps his or her own accomplishments and talents in perspective, which includes self-acceptance, and further includes the idea of true humility as not being self-focused but rather focused on others. The servant leader does not overestimate his or her own merits, talks more about employees’ accomplishments rather than his or her own, is not interested in self-glorification, does not center attention on his or her accomplishments, is humble enough to consult others to gain further information and perspective, and has a humble demeanor. Presence of servant leadership Researchers have examined and demonstrated the effectiveness of servant leadership in the business world, within politics, among organizational leaders, in conflict 11 management, and in relationship building (Doraiswamy, 2013; Lopez, 1995; Senge, 1995; Sergiovanni, 1992; Spears, 1998 & 2004). Many of them concluded that servant leadership appears not to be a zero-sum game. The researchers found that principals “do not lose influence as others gain influence” (Seashore et al., 2010, p. 19). The implications of this are important for professional development for administrators and teachers, teacher preparatory programs, as well as for recruitment and retention of administrators and teachers. Many leaders struggle with sharing power based on the fear that their authority may be jeopardized (Renzl, 2008). Servant leadership has been studied across cultures and contexts and is being practiced in countries across the globe (Parris & Peachy, 2013). Another definition supported by Laub (1999) is, “An understanding and practice of leadership that places the good of those led over the self interest of the leader. Servant leadership promotes the valuing and development of people, the building of community, the practice of authenticity, the providing of leadership for the good of those led and the sharing of power and status for the common good of each individual, the total organization and those served by the organization.” Recent studies are exploring the reasons that servant leadership is gaining increased recognition. Research suggests a trend towards more caring leadership that employs a team approach, influencing learning environments that encourage personal growth and employee fulfillment (Chang et al., 2016; Flynn, Smither & Walker, 2016; Gallup, Inc., 2015). Although many studies have examined servant leadership in various settings and environments, very few have assessed the relationship between principal servant leadership and parent involvement. 12 Prominent Servant Leaders With decades of research, attention, and application in many areas, servant leadership has been seen in leadership styles history. From Queen Elizabeth’s coronation speech in 1953, as she is swearing her service to the people and country, to the leadership of President Abraham Lincoln in the way he empowered his constituents to seek something greater, “true leadership is not about power over others. It should be about change for the better regardless of the organization you are leading” (Brown, 2016; Martin, 2016). Some researchers have also identified Martin Luther King Jr as an example of a servant leader based on his words and actions: “a servant leader is one who offers an inclusive vision; listens carefully to others; persuades through reason; and heals divisions while building community” (Perry, 2010; McGuire, Hutchings, 2007). Servant leadership is distinguished and noted by the characteristics of empowerment, leading by example and ‘living the vision’. Although servant leadership has gained footing in the world of education, agreement of how to perform, identify and replicate servant leadership continues to be a challenge (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006). Principal Leadership Principals are responsible for budgets, staffing, programs, schedules, data, and student achievement. When the leadership and culture of a school becomes one of collaboration rather than compliance, the foundation of the school becomes more solid (Kutash et al., 2010). Principal leadership is the crux of school success as well as its influence on increasing parent involvement. Principals who strive to improve the quality of learning students experiences should consider changing how teachers and students work, 13 specifically through creating a positive learning environment. One of the biggest factors impacting improvement relates to the quality of leadership (Busher & Barker, 2003; Day, Gu, & Sammons, 2016). Effective leaders have a repertoire of styles they can cycle through depending on changing circumstances (Busher & Barker, 2003; Reddin, 1970). Al-Mahdy et al. (2016) and Day et al. (2016) found support for the importance of the relationship between high levels of servant leadership in principals and how it increases levels of job satisfaction of teachers, but also urge future researchers to examine the link between high levels of servant leadership in principals and its impact on parent involvement and student achievement. One study found that the more principals are open to spreading leadership to those around them, the better it is for student learning and achievement. Student math and reading scores were found to be associated with effective leadership from principals, teachers, and staff. Effective principals know they cannot go it alone. “They are not the lonely-at-the-top, hero-principal who has become a fixture of popular culture. Instead, they make good use of all the skills and knowledge on the faculty and among others, encouraging the many capable adults who make up a school community to step into leadership roles and responsibilities” (Seashore et al., 2010, p. 35). Working as a team with teachers and parents alike, principals have an opportunity to ensure high-quality education for students and improved parent involvement (NEA, 2008). Parent Involvement Parent involvement receives attention on federal, state, and local levels with a sense of urgency that calls for increasing parent involvement since A Nation at Risk (1983), No Child Left Behind (2001) and Goals 2000 (Nakagawa, 2000; Webster, 2004). 14 Although numerous definitions of parent involvement circulate through research and policy, no two researchers or policy makers define it the same way. Fielding (1996) suggests that many of these definitions include vague descriptions in order to attract maximum support and buy-in. For example, under NCLB (2001), parent involvement is defined as, “the participation of parents in regular, two-way, and meaningful communication involving student academic learning and other school activities” (USDOE, 2003, p. 3). Some theorists suggest that the vague policy descriptions and discourse of parent involvement are intended for a narrow audience of parent populations and are generally restricted to a few popular types of parent involvement, ie. volunteering, helping with homework, and parent-teacher conferences (Anderson, 1998; Gonzalez-DeHass & Willems, 2003). Research has shown consistent evidence suggesting that learner outcomes, beyond student achievement, (attendance, wellbeing, behavior, school retention) are all improved when there is parent involvement (Castro et al., 2015; Robinson et al., 2017). Parent involvement in schools has been dissected on every level possible: how it is impacted, how to improve or increase it, varying types of it, which populations require more or less of it, how to prepare teachers and administrators to involve parents more, and how it influences student achievement (Lee & Bowen, 2006; Robera, 2017; Vandergrift & Greene,1992; Vanderlinde & Braak, 2010). For the purpose of this dissertation, parent involvement will be defined as the amount and type of contact that occurs between parents and teachers, the parent's interest and comfort in talking with teachers, the parent's satisfaction with their children's school and the parent's degree of involvement in 15 the child’s education (e.g, reading to them, taking them to the library, volunteering at school, attending school events). One piece of parent involvement that has received little attention relates to the impact of the messy and ambiguous side of relationships between teachers, parents and administrators. Povey and colleagues (2016) explore specific examples of parent involvement and how these pieces of parent involvement influence many more outcomes than student achievement. Research has defined parent involvement as the behaviours, values, attitudes and activities of parents that promote their child’s academic development, ability to learn and educational outcomes (Castro et al., 2015; Perkins & Knight, 2014; Van Voorhis, Maier, Epstein, & Lloyd, 2013). It also points to the importance of the combination of being both involved with the student’s learning in the home and collaborating and being involved with the student’s school. The willing involvement of all parties requires knowledge and understanding of the cumulative effect of their interactions. Karakus & Savas (2012) found support for the chain reaction that occurs between parent and teacher trust and how, if present, results in teachers developing a more humanistic orientation toward students and parents. Without that trust, teachers tend to use a more dominating strategy with students rather than strategies that involve constructive conflict management, including integrating, compromising and collaboration (Karakus & Savas, 2012). Building Trust Trust is a complex construct, and according to Hoy and Tschannen-Moran (1999), has layers that match well with characteristics of servant leadership, such as, benevolence, openness, reliability, competency, and honesty. The research examining 16 building trust between parents, teachers and administrators continues to grow and produce meaningful results (Goddard et al., 2001; Povey et al., 2016; Santiago et al., 2016). Trust is built in many ways, and has been shown to increase feelings of respect, collaboration, and commitment (Karakus & Savas, 2012; Wahlstrom & Louis, 2008). There is a lack of research regarding parent involvement on the topic of inclusion of parents related to curriculum decisions, reciprocal respect, and honoring the importance of diversity of family and teacher backgrounds (Kutash, et al., 2010; Wahlstrom & Louis, 2008). Research has explored the relationships between teachers and administrators, and between teachers and parents, however, principal leadership and its impact on parent involvement remains insufficient. Barr and Saltmarsh (2014) found that school principals play a central role in facilitating parent involvement through their leadership style, attitudes, expectations and communication. In their study, parents specifically reported that the principal heavily influenced the school climate with their personal vision in such way it was ubiquitous not only throughout the school staff, but also was seen in parent involvement. Mleczko and Kington (2013) argued that when principals distribute leadership among teachers and parents, they will be more successful in accomplishing their goals. To take that theory one step further, high levels of principal servant leadership in schools might contribute to creating more servant leadership qualities in teachers, and therefore, creating an environment conducive to collaboration and empowering parents to be more highly involved with their child’s education and the school (Flynn, Smither, & Walker, 2016; Mleczko & Kington, 2013). 17 What is Missing? The complexities of the relationships between administrators, teachers, and parents are nested within a web of influences and factors so complex some researchers suggest the direct relationship between parent involvement and student achievement should be tread lightly upon, as to avoid supporting a potentially misinterpreted connection (Nakagawa, 2000). While there is research that suggests student achievement is impacted by parent involvement, and that parent involvement is influenced by the relationship parents have with the teacher, making the argument that parent involvement is impacted by principal leadership could potentially offer valuable information for researchers and policy makers interested in increasing parent involvement in schools. The disparity between policy rhetoric, which often times is more symbolic than actionable, and actual levels of equality, dialogue, and trust within partnerships requires further examination. For example, terms like “excellence” is an example of a widely used policy term that is rich in power, malleable, and ambiguous in meaning, argues Pak Tee (2008). How to take knowledge and understanding from the data and implement it into practice is gaining a new perspective in the world of education and offers potential solutions to begin the conversations for authentic and lasting change in the relationships and partnerships between parents and educators (LeMahieu, et. al, 2015). The partnerships that grow from the relationships rely heavily upon each person's ability to conduct selfexamination, demonstrate accountability for their role, and adhere to a common vision (Flynn, Smither, & Walker, 2016). Without these characteristics, the partnerships between administrators and parents may remain distant and disconnected. Proposed methods of increasing or improving parent involvement historically focus on factors that 18 are measurable: parenting, communicating, volunteering, learning at home, decisionmaking, and collaborating with the community (Epstein, et. al., 2002). Although this makes sense from a traditional research perspective, real change can only occur once the system from which the problem began, is explored (LeMahieu, et al, 2015). The characteristics of servant leadership lends itself to creating and sustaining collaboration, empowerment, and respect in relationships. It has also been shown to be an effective form of principal leadership (Black, 2008; Taylor, Martin, Hutchinson & Jinks, 2007) and parent involvement has been identified as improving student achievement (Fox & Olsen, 2014, Jeynes, 2005, Kim, 2009, Russel, 2001); therefore, examining these together should offer support for the argument that when high levels in servant leadership are found in elementary schools, high levels of parent involvement will also be present. 19 CHAPTER THREE: METHODS Introduction The purpose of this dissertation was to develop an understanding of the relationships between servant leadership and parent involvement as determined by The Servant Leadership Assessment Instrument (Dennis & Bocarnea, 2005) and the Parent Involvement Project survey (Hoover-Dempsey et al, 2005). Survey data was used to determine levels of servant leadership as reported by teachers and levels of parent involvement as reported by parents. The two surveys were investigated to determine whether or not any explanatory relationships were present. Research Questions How, if at all, does servant leadership relate to the level of parental involvement in school? a. What particular aspects of servant leadership, if any, positively influence the level of parental involvement in school? b. If high levels of Servant Leadership are found, do parents report feelings of empowerment? Rationale The importance of leadership in schools has been a focus for decades. Transformational, transactional, situational and servant leadership have all been applied in school environments. Which of these leadership styles is most effective has been debated and investigated by numerous researchers (Chen, 2004; McCleskey, 2014; Rossberger & Krause, 2015; Sergiovanni, 2006; Yukl, 2006). Servant leadership has 20 slowly gained more value as a form of school leadership based on the characteristics that set it apart from other forms of leadership, such as encouraging follower learning, growth, and autonomy, along with the empowerment and creation of new leaders (Greenleaf, 1977; Melchar & Bosco, 2010; Parris & Peachey, 2013; Thoonen, et al., 2011). Effective leadership becomes even more important when the relationships between the school and the home come into consideration for student success. Parent involvement in schools can have a profound impact on student success, which is why the relationship between administrators, teachers and parents is critical when examining the effectiveness of school leadership (Bryan & Henry, 2012; GiovaccoJohnson, 2009; Goddard et al., 2001; Lawson, 2003; Tschannen-Moran, 2014). Due to a lack of research specifically related to the impact of servant leadership on levels of parent involvement, there exists a need to examine these relationships. This study employed quantitative methods to explore how levels of servant leadership potentially impact levels of parent involvement. Population and Participants This study examined the relationships between degrees of servant leadership and parent involvement. Administrators, teachers and parents in this study were from elementary K-6 schools in Southwest Idaho. Two schools were selected on a district by district basis to participate in this study. Requests for participation were initiated at a district level and from there principals at each school were given the option to participate or not. Follow up with districts that failed to respond to invitations to participate included the Idaho State Department of Education contacting two districts that initially granted permission but generated no responses. Fifty-five teachers and seventy-eight parents 21 across two elementary schools responded to the surveys. The data was gathered in the fall of 2017 and aggregated and analyzed at the school level. Instrumentation Two surveys were used in this study to collect quantitative data. The Servant Leadership Assessment Instrument (Dennis & Bocarnea, 2005) was used to measure levels of servant leadership as perceived by teachers regarding the administration in their school from each of the participating school’s faculty. Parent involvement was measured by the Parent Involvement Project survey (Hoover-Dempsey et al, 2005). Surveys were distributed and collected electronically through Qualtrics and are included in Appendix A and Appendix C. Surveys were chosen based upon the topics they examined and the demonstration of validity and reliability. Servant Leadership Assessment Instrument Servant Leadership was measured using the Servant Leadership Assessment Instrument (Dennis & Bocarnea, 2005) and assessed by each school faculty’s perceptions of their school. Dennis and Bocarnea (2005) developed the Servant Leadership Assessment Instrument based on work completed by Patterson’s servant leadership theory (2003) and DeVellis’ (1991) “Guidelines in Scale Development” to develop an instrument for measuring servant leadership. The Servant Leadership Assessment Instrument items can be found in Appendix B where they are grouped by factors. The descriptive statistics can also be found in Appendix B. The Servant Leadership Assessment Instrument measures the perception of followers to allow leaders to measure their effectiveness as a servant leader through the following four constructs as defined by Dennis (2004). 22 Agapao Love. This construct measures the degree to which a servant leader demonstrates purpose and meaning in a manner that allows employees to realize their full potential as individuals and feel they are associated with an ethical organization. The servant leader exhibits calmness during chaos, is forgiving and teachable, shows concern for others and has integrity. This factor has a reported reliability coefficient (Chronbach’s alpha) of .94 (Dennis, 2004). Empowerment. This construct measures the degree of which a servant leader empowers others with information. More specifically, it provides positive emotional support, employs task mastery, offers words of encouragement, and applies thorough observation and application of models of success. The servant leader allows for employee self-direction and encourages professional growth. The leader lets people do their jobs by enabling them to learn. This factor has a reported reliability coefficient (Chronbach’s alpha) of .94 (Dennis, 2004). Vision. This construct measures the degree to which a servant leader incorporates the participation of all involved players in creating a shared vision for the organization. The servant leader seeks others’ visions for the organization, demonstrates that he or she wants to include employees’ visions into the organization’s goals and objectives, seeks commitment concerning the shared vision of the organization, encourages participation in creating a shared vision, and has a written expression of the vision of the organization. This factor has a reported reliability coefficient (Chronbach’s alpha) of .89 (Dennis, 2004). Humility. This construct measures the degree to which a servant leader keeps his or her own accomplishments and talents in perspective, which includes self-acceptance, 23 and further includes the idea of true humility as not being self-focused but rather focused on others. The servant leader does not overestimate his or her own merits, talks more about employees’ accomplishments rather than his or her own, is not interested in selfglorification, does not center attention on his or her accomplishments, is humble enough to consult others to gain further information and perspective, and has a humble demeanor. This factor has a reported reliability coefficient (Chronbach’s alpha) of .92 (Dennis, 2004). Parent Involvement Project Parent Involvement was measured using the Parent Involvement Project survey (Hoover-Dempsey et al, 2005) and assessed by each parent to reflect their involvement in their student’s school. A copy of the survey instrument and its items is in Appendix C of this dissertation. Parent Involvement descriptive statistics are located in Appendix D. The Parent Involvement Project Survey was developed by Hoover-Dempsey et al, (2005) model of the parental involvement process to develop an instrument for measuring parent involvement. The Parent-Teacher Involvement Questionnaire used in this dissertation is a 26-item measure developed to assess facets of parent and teacher involvement. The measure assessed the amount and type of contact that occurs between parents and teachers, the parent's interest and comfort in talking with teachers, the parent's satisfaction with their children's school and the parent's degree of involvement in the child’s education (e.g, reading to them, taking them to the library, volunteering at school, attending school events). The answers are coded on item-specific 5-point scales, where 0 represents no involvement and 4 represents high involvement. 24 Statistical Analysis For the purpose of this study, the following general procedures were followed: For all statistical tests, the level of significance was set at a probability level of α = .05. 1. An independent samples t-test was conducted to compare levels of servant leadership between schools. 2. An independent samples t-test was conducted to compare levels of parent involvement between schools. Data Collection Servant leadership of administrators as evaluated by their teachers and parent involvement data per the survey completed by parents were collected in the fall of 2017 from parents and faculty members in elementary schools in Idaho. Five school districts were invited to participate in this study, and two schools, from the same district agreed to complete surveys. All participants provided responses electronically. Out of the five districts initially contacted, three granted permission for surveys to be distributed to principals in those schools. The Idaho State Department of Education provided guidance regarding which districts would be more inclined to participate. District A granted permission to the researcher to directly contact elementary principals, distributed email links and provided follow up when more responses were needed. District B granted permission to gather data, although stated participation would be determined on a school level, principal emails were not provided. However, because principal emails are public, the researcher sent principals in that district emails detailing the study and requesting permission to distribute surveys to teachers and parents (Appendix F). There was a 0% 25 response rate from principals in that district. District C granted permission to distribute the surveys and provided the Qualtrics links to parents and teachers, but again, there was a 0% response rate. The remaining two districts denied permission to conduct research in their districts stating that their teachers were already required to complete extensive trainings and surveys, explaining that they simply would not have time. Based on the small response rate, generalizability is not recommended and will be further explored in the results and discussion chapters. Principals in the two schools that participated were asked to distribute the online survey link to teachers and parents in the school, along with the letter explaining the study and informed consent (Appendix F & G). By participating in this study, the principals of these schools were provided a profile chart and description of their school’s servant leadership and parent involvement. The principals sent all teachers an email asking for their participation as well as a link directing them to a website where the survey was housed. Using Qualtrics, teachers and parents were given a link that directed them to the informed consent and information related to the study as well as the surveys. Once participants gained access through the link provided, there was a short introduction to the study and instructions preceding the survey questions. One survey question requested the name of the school that participants either taught in or had a student in attendance, which allowed analysis to be completed at the school level and assigned a code to ensure anonymity. 26 Data Analysis Method Qualtrics, a software program, allowed immediate access to the collected data. Data was then transferred to an Excel spreadsheet for preliminary analysis. Schools were assigned a code to keep the data organized and compiled by school. Once all data was collected and organized in the Excel spreadsheet, the researcher transferred the data to SPSS in order to run analysis using independent samples t-tests to compare means of the level of servant leadership and parent involvement in schools. 27 CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS This chapter presents the quantitative survey results to address the research questions: How, if at all, does servant leadership relate to the level of parental involvement in school? a. What particular aspects of servant leadership, if any, positively influence the level of parental involvement in school? b. If high levels of Servant Leadership are found, do parents report feelings of empowerment? Effective leadership in schools requires involvement from administrators, teachers, parents, and even students. Although research has highlighted a multitude of leadership styles and parental involvement methods, there is a lack of support specific to servant leadership and how it influences parent involvement. This study collected and examined data on levels of servant leadership, levels of parent involvement and whether or not there is a relationship between the two constructs. Analysis This section presents the results of descriptive analyses: (a) percentages and frequencies for demographic information and participant qualities, and (b) descriptive statistics for the remaining independent variables (i.e.,Work Experience, and Institution Selectivity). The population of this study was elementary school teachers and parents of elementary students within two Pacific Northwest K-6 Elementary Schools. There were 48 teacher participants (4.17% male, 95.83% female). These results are presented in Table 1. Although the ages of teachers were widely distributed from early 20s through 28 50s, the distribution was skewed to teachers between ages 41-50 (52.08%). These results are presented in Table 2. There were 67 parent participants (13.43% male, 86.57% female). These results are presented in Table 3. The ages of parents were widely distributed from early 25 through 54; this distribution was skewed to parents between ages 25-44 (86.57%). These results are presented in Table 4. The number of years that teachers had been teaching as well as their highest degree attained can be found on Table 5 and 6. Using independent t-tests on servant leadership subscales, no significant differences were found in levels of between schools (see Table 7). However, following independent t-test on parent involvement subscales, there was a significant difference found for the Onsite subscale (see Table 8). Summary of Findings The findings of this study are organized by research questions. How, if at all, does servant leadership relate to the level of parental involvement in school? What particular aspects of servant leadership, if any, positively influence the level of parental involvement in school? Although statistical differences were found related to parent involvement between the two schools, there were no significant differences in servant leadership between the schools. The differences between the schools on parent involvement results were found in the Onsite subscales. The data indicated that parents identified themselves on either high or low levels of parent involvement characteristics, and a significant difference between the two schools were found. Summary Results of the independent t-tests indicated that the parents at school A were significantly more involved onsite, as found on the Onsite subcale in the Parent 29 Involvement survey, which measured onsite activities such as attending events, parentteacher conferences and attending PTA meetings (Table 8). No other statistical differences were found between the schools on servant leadership or parent involvement. Independent t-test results indicated no significant differences between servant leadership in terms of the identified variables (Table 7). Previous research that focused on making a connection between servant leadership and parent involvement was not supported by the present study. Research has shown that servant leadership is positively related to improving relationships in the way of communication, involvement and empowerment of all parties (parents, teachers, and administrators) (Daly, 2009; Leavy, 2016; Leithwood, Mascall, Strauss, Sacks, Memon, & Yashkina, 2007, Melchar & Bosco, 2010; Tonissen, 2015; Vanmeter et al., 2016); however, the present study did not find any relationship between administrator servant leadership and parent involvement (see Table 7 and Table 8). 30 CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION “As a field, education has largely failed to learn from experience” (Bryk, Gomez, Grunow, & LeMahieu, 2015). Despite the push from A Nation at Risk (1983) and NCLB (2001) to increase parent involvement, education reform policy has continued to focus on test scores and standards, failing to address the power and influence of relationships (Baker et al., 2010; Darling-Hammond, 2016; Popham, 1999). Research has repeatedly pointed to the importance of servant leadership, building relationships, and examining the problems the very system has created, as being mandatory considerations for school improvement (Bryk et al, 2015; Darling-Hammond, 2016; Doraiswamy, 2013; LeMahieu et al, 2015). As a system, education operates as a hierarchy complete with top down initiatives, policy, and reform. Servant leadership can be applied on every level without jeopardizing influence or restructuring of the system itself. Implications of the present study for leadership globally and for the leaders of the elementary schools in the current study are addressed in the following section. Introduction Current and future leaders face a multitude of challenges, including high-stakes testing, decreased fiscal and staffing support, and increased expectations for student achievement. Principals that have intimately created allies with those they lead will have increased success (Kerfoot, 2005). Servant leaders have the potential to bring a balanced alliance with parents and teachers. Bass (2000) found that “involving others in decision- 31 making, is strongly based in ethical and caring behavior, and enhances the growth of people in the learning organization” (p. 33). Interpretation of Findings At first glance, the insignificant results from a low number of participants could be interpreted as simply poor research design. However, another interpretation may suggest examining the reasons for low participation. The denial from two large school districts to conduct research was based on a claim that teachers had an already large amount of testing and assessment to complete, which contributes to existing research regarding the priorities of some school districts. Research that has examined situations with a shortage of participation and response rate, argue that it may be that districts have prioritized standardized testing over parent involvement and relationship building (Ravitch, 2010). The responses from two school districts included specific reference to teachers already having too many trainings and surveys, and therefore, would not have time. Other studies suggest that inaction (lack of participation, refusals for research) from a school district may infer a lack of trust between districts and schools, while alluding to the power differential between districts and administrators (Bacharach & Mundell, 1993). The history of ‘thou shalt implement’ demand from districts to schools dates back to the 1870s, where the hierarchy of power was held solely by the superintendent (Kowalski, 2013), and although the education system has evolved, the power struggles between districts and schools continues to exist (Brewster & Railsback, 2003; Ingersoll, 2009). The denials for permission to conduct this study all came from a district level, which could again support the idea of the hierarchy and who holds the decision making power for schools. 32 In addition, the measures used may not have been entirely appropriate. The distance between principals and parents, compared to the distance between principals and teachers, could be a confounding variable. Rather than examining how principal leadership impacts parent involvement, perhaps a more appropriate measure might demonstrate that with high levels of servant leadership, there will be higher levels of parent empowerment. Statistical differences found between levels of parent involvement between the schools was expected; however, the sample may be seen as a convenient, introducing an additional limitation based on the fact that parents that did complete the survey may already be those parents that are more highly involved than those that did not participate. The district that did participate was eager to be involved in the study in hopes of gaining valuable information about the administrators in those schools, and with the intention of using the data to inform future practice and professional development for teachers and administrators. Context of Findings Servant leadership has been shown to be an effective leadership style in many fields for more than three decades (Gallop, Inc., 2015; Greenleaf, 1977; Grisaffe et. al., 2016; Melchar & Bosco, 2010). Administrators and teachers have an opportunity to create not only a positive learning environment, but a culture more conducive to collaboration, learning, and efficiency than ever before (Daly, 2009; Kutash et al., 2010; Leavy, 2016; Leithwood, Mascall, Strauss, Sacks, Memon, & Yashkina, 2007, Melchar & Bosco, 2010; Tonissen, 2015; Vanmeter et al., 2016). The problem statement from Chapter 1 points to the alienation between administrators, teachers, and parents while 33 making a call for more collaboration through the lens of servant leadership. Examining the school structure and masked hierarchies could offer insight to building and fostering a positive school environment to meet public education goals in the 21st century (Harris, 2009). The context of findings can be seen through the hierarchy of the education system. At a national level, we have seen the top-down initiatives and reforms that fail to reach their intended practice in the schools and in the classrooms. Reforms that result in schools competing for students, ineffective teachers being fired, and unsuccessful schools being closed, resembles more of a business model—a business model that some argue, ignores parents, community and the culture (Ravitch, 2010). At a state level, the same top down accountability measures leave little room for creating and maintaining authentic collaborative environments between administrators and teachers. And while the local state department of education provided district information for the recruitment of this study, they also stated that some districts simply do not prioritize much outside of test scores. Lastly, at the local level, the refusal from three of largest districts based on the claim that ‘teachers do not have time to participate in research because they are too busy with trainings and testing’ could again, support the idea that priorities for testing and standards supersede that of collaboration and the importance of leadership and relationships. The challenges of this study, ranging from the low participation to the difficulty in gaining permission, offers a rather interesting perspective that is not popular in the research. Just because parent involvement is included in policy, mandates, and research, this study could trigger an argument regarding the authenticity and practice of parent involvement. Do educators truly want more parent involvement? Are there high 34 performing schools that have low levels of parent involvement? Once a mandate is created, what does the follow through look like? Implications of Findings The implications of this study include the potential impact on professional development for servant leadership, teacher and administrator training related to parent involvement, and principal preparatory programs. Despite the focus on parent involvement/engagement in school policy, the follow through of districts is minimal and left at a school level with very little administrator guidance, support, or teacher preparation. Research suggests that administrator involvement and support is imperative for successful parent involvement (Auerbach, 2009). Although education reform and policy include a parent involvement component, low levels of implementation are evidenced by the lack of educator preparation and training. One study reported that only 20% of education college deans considered their administrative graduates well prepared to work with families (Epstein and Sanders, 2006). There is long standing evidence about the lack of educators’ preparation to work with families dating back 35 years, and Epstein and Sanders (2006) argue that change in the past two decades in preparing educators to work with families has been slow. One study argues that parental involvement in schools is not one that can be easily legislated in an equitable manner based on mixed perceptions, ambiguous definitions of parental involvement, parents’ missing voices and cultural biases (Webster, 2004). The findings and challenges of this study reflect differentiating definitions of parent involvement (evidenced in the parent measure), mixed perceptions (evidenced by the priorities of school districts who declined 35 participation), and was unable to capture the missing voices of parents who did not participate (which contributes to low levels of parent involvement). Limitations of the Study Participants Although steps were taken during the recruitment phase to increase the number of participants, surveys were distributed by only two schools out of the more than one hundred invited. Based upon such a modest number of participants, this study is limited in generalizability, and presents a biased sample along with using item analysis that resulted in less power due to the small sample. The low number of respondents challenges external and internal validity. Analysis The findings of this study are limited based on the small number of schools that participated. Although schools and parents identified which school they were associated with, pairing teachers with parents would have allowed for a deeper analysis of the relationship between levels of servant leadership and parental involvement. With a larger sample of teachers and parents, the potential results could have made a stronger connection between the importance of high levels of servant leadership and its influence on parent involvement. The analysis was limited as a result of low participation, combined with using single item analysis in the parent involvement data, which lowered the reliability and validity of that analysis. Future Research Directions These findings and limitations provide a foundation for suggestions for future research. Future studies should explore constructs related to trust between teachers, 36 parents, and administrator and how it impacts levels of parent involvement. Constructs of trust should not be weighted with the intention of inferring that honesty is more important than benevolence, or that competence is any more instrumental than openness, but simply that a leader who is effective at building trust demonstrates openness, honesty, benevolence, and reliability (Forsyth et al., 2011). Examining the elements of trust between administrators, teachers, and parents could provide support for the link between servant leadership and improved relationships within schools. Second, future studies could more closely examine how the current education system perpetuates the lack of parity of power between administrators, teachers, and parents, with the intent to inform parent involvement practices as well as develop professional development for teachers that is grounded in servant leadership. These studies could identify predictive relations between power sharing, empowerment, and the advantage that servant leadership brings to relationships, job satisfaction, and collaboration (Flynn et al., 2016; Kutash et al., 2010; Ortiz, 2017). In addition, the results could produce evidence that veering away from policy and budgets that place priority on test results to assign success may shine a new light on methods aiming to improve education. Third, studies could incorporate different efforts to increase survey response rate. This may involve standardizing procedures for dissemination and incentives, specifically for those districts who denied permission to distribute the study. Increasing response rate offers increased validity, reliability, and power for future studies. Fourth, due to the complex nature of the relationship between principals and parents, future research could find a more appropriate measure for gaining insight into the inclusion of parents in schools. For example, measuring which relationship is more impactful on parent involvement, the administrator, 37 or the teacher. Fifth, future studies could examine aspects of administrator and teacher characteristics that score highly on a servant leadership measure, which may inform professional development and recruitment efforts. For example, are there other similarities between teachers and administrators that score highly on a servant leadership measure? This could offer significant contributions to creating and implementing leadership preparatory programs. Conclusion Although the current study was limited in its findings, it does not diminish the importance of studying servant leadership in K-6 elementary schools. Nor does it downplay the knowledge that could be gained and applied within the existing hierarchy of the education system. Understanding factors that improve the relationships between administrators, teachers, and parents is important in education. Whether it be to increase parent involvement, create more authentic collaboration between all parties, or finding ways to infuse servant leadership into the school culture. Servant leadership can be infused into the current education system without dismantling the existing structure. Further research on servant leadership and its potential impact on parent involvement in educational settings is recommended. 38 REFERENCES Alameda-Lawson, T., & Lawson, M.A. (2016). Ecologies of collective parent engagement education. Urban Education, 1-36. Al-Mahdy, Y. F., Al-Harthi, A. S., & Salah El-Din, N. S. (2016). Perceptions of School Principals’ Servant Leadership and Their Teachers’ Job Satisfaction in Oman. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 15(4), 543-566. Anderson, T. (1998). Transforming leadership: Equipping yourself and coaching others to build the leadership organization. CRC Press. Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. The leadership quarterly, 16(3), 315-338. Bacharach, S. B., & Mundell, B. L. (1993). Organizational politics in schools: Micro, macro, and logics of action. Educational Administration Quarterly, 29(4), 423452. Baker, E. L., Barton, P. E., Darling-Hammond, L., Haertel, E., Ladd, H. F., Linn, R. L., ... & Shepard, L. A. (2010). Problems with the Use of Student Test Scores to Evaluate Teachers. EPI Briefing Paper# 278. Economic Policy Institute. Barbuto Jr, J. E., & Wheeler, D. W. (2006). Scale development and construct clarification of servant leadership. Group & Organization Management, 31(3), 300-326. Barr, J., & Saltmarsh, S. (2014). It all comes down to the leadership: The role of the school principal in fostering parent-school engagement. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 42(4), 491–505. Bass, B. M. (2000). The future of leadership in learning organizations. Journal of Leadership Studies, 7(3), 18-40. 39 Bess, K. D., & Doykos, B. (2014). Tied together: Building relational well-being and reducing social isolation through place-based parent education. Journal of Community Psychology, 42, 269-294. Black, G. L. (2008). A correlational analysis of servant leadership and school climate. University of Phoenix.BOTA (Board on Testing and Assessment, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, National Academy of Sciences). 2009. “Letter Report to the U.S. Department of Education on the Race to the Top Fund.” October 5. http://books.nap.edu/ openbook.php?record_id=12780&page=1 (and ff). Bou-Llusar, J. C., Escrig-Tena, A. B., Roca-Puig, V., & Beltrán-Martín, I. (2009). An empirical assessment of the EFQM Excellence Model: Evaluation as a TQM framework relative to the MBNQA Model. Journal of Operations Management, 27(1), 1-22. Bowman, M. A. (1997). Popular approaches to leadership. Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Brewster, C., & Railsback, J. (2003). Building Trusting Relationships for School Improvement: Implications for Principals and Teachers. By Request Series. Brown, M. E., & Gioia, D. A. (2002). Making things click: Distributive leadership in an online division of an offline organization. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(4), 397419. Brown, C. (2016). The servant leadership of Abraham Lincoln. Servant Leadership: Theory & Practice, 2(1), 6. Bryan, J., & Henry, L. (2012). A model for building school-family-community partnerships: Principles and process. Journal of Counseling & Development, 90, 408-420. doi: 10.1002/j.1556-6676.2012.00052.x Bryk, A. S., Gomez, L. M., Grunow, A., & LeMahieu, P. G. (2015). Learning to Improve: How America’s Schools Can Get Better at Getting Better. Harvard Education Press. 8 Story Street First Floor, Cambridge, MA 02138. 40 Busher, H., & Barker, B. (2003). The crux of leadership: Shaping school culture by contesting the policy contexts and practices of teaching and learning. Educational Management & Administration, 31(1), 51-65. Castro, M., Expósito-Casas, E., López-Martín, E., Lizasoain, L., Navarro-Asencio, E., & Gaviria, J. L. (2015). Parental involvement on student academic achievement: A eta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 14, 33–46. Chang, C. P., Tsai, H. C., Zhang, D. D., & Chen, I. J. (2016). The Correlation between Elementary School Principals’ Servant Leadership and Teachers’ Creative Teaching Behavior. Creative Education, 7(09), 1253. Chen, L. Y. (2004). Examining the effect of organization culture and leadership behaviors on organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and job performance at small and middle-sized firms of Taiwan. Journal of American Academy of Business, 5(1/2), 432-438. Chien, M. H. (2004). A study to improve organizational performance: A view from SHRM. Journal of American Academy of Business, 4(1/2), 289-291. Choo, H., & Shek, D. (2013). Quality of parent–child relationship, family conflict, peer pressure, and drinking behaviors of adolescents in an Asian context: The case of Singapore. Social indicators research, 110(3), 1141-1157. Clark, D.L., & Amiot, M.A. (1981). The impact of the Reagan administration on federal education policy. The Phi Delta Kappan, 63(4), 258-262. Comer, J.P., & Haynes, N.M. (1991). Parent involvement in schools: An ecological approach. The Elementary School Journal, 91(2), 271-277. Daly, A. J. (2009). Rigid response in an age of accountability: The potential of leadership and trust. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45(2), 168-216. Darling-Hammond, L. (2016). Research on teaching and teacher education and its influences on policy and practice. Educational Researcher, 45(2), 83-91. 41 Daly, A. J., Moolenaar, N. M., Liou, Y. H., Tuytens, M., & Del Fresno, M. (2015). Why so difficult? Exploring negative relationships between educational leaders: The role of trust, climate, and efficacy. American Journal of Education, 122(1), 1-38. Day, C., Gu, Q., & Sammons, P. (2016). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: How successful school leaders use transformational and instructional strategies to make a difference. Educational Administration Quarterly, 52(2), 221-258. Dennis, R. S. (2004). Servant leadership theory: Development of the servant leadership theory assessment instrument. A Dissertation presented for the degree Doctor of philosophy. Dennis, R.S., & Bocarnea, M. (2005). Development of the servant leadership assessment instrument. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 26(8), 600-615. DeVellis, R. (1991), Scale Development: Theory and Applications, Sage Publications, London. Dingman, W. W., & Stone, A. G. (2006). Servant leadership's role in the succession planning process: A case study (Vol. 67, No. 11). Doraiswamy, I.R. (2013). Servant Leadership in Teaching. International Journal of Human Resource Studies, 3(1), 100-103. Epstein, J. L., & Sanders, M. G. (2006). Prospects for change: Preparing educators for school, family, and community partnerships. Peabody journal of Education, 81(2), 81-120. Epstein, J. L., & Sheldon, S. B. (2016). Necessary but Not Sufficient: The Role of Policy for Advancing Programs of School, Family, and Community Partnerships. RSF. Epstein, J. L., Sanders, M. G., Simon, B. S., Salinas, K. C., Jansorn, N. R., & Van Voorhis, F. L. (2002). School, family, and community partnerships: Your handbook for action. Corwin Press. Fielding, M. (1996) Empowerment: emancipation or enervation?, Journal of Education Policy, 11, pp. 399-417. 42 Fletcher, J. K., & Kaufer, K. (2003). Shared leadership. Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership, 21-47. Flynn, C. B., Smither, J. W., & Walker, A. G. (2016). Exploring the relationship between leaders’ core self-evaluations and subordinates’ perceptions of servant leadership: a field study. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 23(3), 260-271. Forsyth, P. B., Adams, C. M., & Hoy, W. K. (2011). Collective trust: Why schools can’t improve without it. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Fox, S. & Olsen, A. (2014). Education capital: Our evidence base. Defining parental engagement. Canberra: Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth. Fullan, M. (2007). Leading in a culture of change (Rev. ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, p. 9. Gallup, Inc. (2015). Retrieved from http://StateOfAmericanManager_0515_mh_LR.pdf. Giovacco-Johnson, T. (2009). Portraits of partnership: The Hopes and Dreams Project. Early Childhood Education Journal, 37, 127-135. doi: 10.1007/s10643-009-03321 Goddard, R. D., Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, W. K. (2001). A multilevel examination of the distribution and effects of teacher trust in students and parents in urban elementary schools. Elementary School Journal, 102(1), 3-17. Gonzalez-DeHass, A. R., & Willems, P. P. (2003). Examining the underutilization of parent involvement in the schools. School Community Journal, 13(1), 85. Greenleaf, R.K. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. Mahwah, N.J.: Paulist Press. Grisaffe, D. B., VanMeter, R., & Chonko, L. B. (2016). Serving first for the benefit of others: preliminary evidence for a hierarchical conceptualization of servant leadership. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 36(1), 40-58. Griffith, J. (2000). School climate as group evaluation and group consensus: Student and parent perceptions of the elementary school environment. The Elementary School Journal, 101(1), 35-61. 43 Gutmann, A., & Ben‐Porath, S. (2014). Democratic education. The encyclopedia of political thought. Hatcher, R. (2005). The distribution of leadership and power in schools. British journal of sociology of education, 26(2), 253-267. Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2012). Professional capital: Transforming teaching in every school. Teachers College Press. Harris, A. (2009). Distributed leadership: What we know. In Distributed leadership (pp. 11-21). Springer Netherlands. Heertum, R.V., & Torres, C.A. (2017). Educational reform in the U.S. over the past 25 years: Great expectations and the fading American dream. Academia.com. Hollander, E. P. (1992). Leadership, followership, self, and others. The Leadership Quarterly, 3(1), 43-54. Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Walker, J. M., Sandler, H. M., Whetsel, D., Green, C. L., Wilkins, A. S., & Closson, K. (2005). Why do parents become involved? Research findings and implications. The elementary school journal, 106(2), 105130. Hoy, W. K., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (1999). Five faces of trust: An empirical confirmation in urban elementary schools. Journal of school leadership, 9, 184208. Hung, W. S., Tsai, S. S., & Wu, H. T. (2016). Relationship among principal servant leadership, school organizational climate and teachers’ job involvement of elementary school.. European Journal of Research in Social Sciences Vol, 4(7). Ingersoll, R. M. (2009). Who controls teachers' work?: Power and accountability in America's schools. Harvard University Press. Irving, J. A. (2005). Servant leadership and the effectiveness of teams (Doctoral dissertation, Regent University). 44 Jeynes, W. H. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relation of parental involvement to urban elementary school student academic achievement. Urban education, 40(3), 237269. Karakus, M., & Savas, A. C. (2012). The effects of parental involvement, trust in parents, trust in tudents and pupil control ideology on conflict management strategies of early childhood teachers. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 12(4), 2977-2985. Kerfoot, K. (2005). The leader’s challenge: Meetings, spiritual energy, and speaker ratio. MEDSURG Nursing, 14(1), 80-81. Kim, Y. (2009). Minority parental involvement and school barriers: Moving the focus away from deficiencies of parents. Educational Research Review, 4(2), 80-102. Kowalski, T. (2013). The school superintendent (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Kutash, J., Nico, E., Gorin, E., Rahmatullah, S., & Tallant, K. (2010). The school turnaround field guide. FSG Social Impact Advisors. Laub, J. A. 1999. Assessing the servant organization; Development of the Organizational Leadership Assessment (OLA) model. Dissertation Abstracts International, 60 (02). Lawson, M. A. (2003). School-family relations in context: Parent and teacher perceptions of parent involvement. Urban Education, 38, 77-133. doi: 10.1177/0042085902238687 Leavy, B. (2016). Effective leadership today – character not just competence. Strategy &Leadership, 44 (1), 20-29. Lee, J. S., & Bowen, N. K. (2006). Parent involvement, cultural capital, and the achievement gap among elementary school children. American educational research journal, 43(2), 193-218. 45 Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2000). The effects of transformational leadership on organizational conditions and student engagement with school. Journal of Educational Administration, 38(2), 112-129. Leithwood, K, Mascall, B., Strauss, T., Sacks, R., Memon, N., & Yashkina, A. (2007). Distributing leadership to make schools smarter: Taking the ego out of the system. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 6(1), 37-67. LeMahieu, P. G., Edwards, A. R., & Gomez, L. M. (2015). At the nexus of improvement science and teaching: Introduction to a special section of the Journal of Teacher Education. Journal of Teacher Education, 66(5), 446-449. Lopez, I. O. (1995). Becoming a servant-leader: The personal development path. Reflections on leadership, 149-160. Louis, K.S., & Lee, M. (2016). Teachers’ capacity for organizational learning: the effects of school culture and context. An International Journal of Research, Policy, and Practice, 27(4), 534-556. Marschall, M.J., & Shah, P.R. (2016). Linking the process and outcomes of parent involvement policy to the parent involvement gap. Urban Education, 0042085916661386. Martin. (2016, June 27). Servant leadership guide: Definition, qualities, pros and cons, examples. Retrieved from https://www.cleverism.com/servant-leadership-guide/. MacNeil, A. J., Prater, D. L., & Busch, S. (2009). The effects of school culture and climate on student achievement. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 12(1), 73-84. McCleskey, J. A. (2014). Situational, transformational, and transactional leadership and leadership development. Journal of Business Studies Quarterly, 5(4), 117. McGuire, D., & Hutchings, K. (2007). Portrait of a transformational leader: the legacy of Dr Martin Luther King Jr. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 28(2), 154-166 46 Melchar, D. E., & Bosco, S. M. (2010). Achieving high organization performance through servant leadership. Miller, H., Valentine, J.L., Fish, R., & Robinson, M. (2016) Is the feeling mutual? Examining parent-teacher relationships in low-income, predominantly Latino schools. American Journalof Education, 123(1), 37-67. Milner, R., & Lomotey, K. (2014). Introduction. In R. Milner & K. Lomotey (Eds.), Handbook of urban education (pp. xv-xxii). New York, NY: Routledge. Mleczko, A., & Kington, A. (2013). The impact of school leadership on parental engagement: A study of inclusion and cohesion. International Research in Education, 1(1), 129–148. Moreno, A. R., Morales, V., & Montes, V. G. & F. (2005). Learning during the quality management process: Antecedents and effects in service firms. Industrial Management + Data Systems, 105(8): 1001-1021. Nakagawa, K. (2000). Unthreading the ties that bind: Questioning the discourse of parent involvement. Educational Policy, 14(4), 443-472. Nwogu, O. G. (2004, August). Servant leadership model: The role of follower selfesteem, emotional intelligence, and attributions on organizational effectiveness. In Proceedings of the Servant Leadership Research Roundtable. Ortiz, Y. (2017). The Impact of Learning Environments on Student Engagement. Pak Tee, N. (2008). Education policy rhetoric and reality gap: A reflection. International Journal of Educational Management, 22(6), 595-602. Parolini, J. L. (2005). Investigating the relationships among emotional intelligence, servant leadership behaviors and servant leadership culture. In Proceedings of the 2005 Servant Leadership Research Roundtable. Parris, D. L., & Peachey, J. W. (2013). A systematic literature review of servant leadership theory in organizational contexts. Journal of business ethics, 113(3), 377-393. 47 Patterson, K. A. (2003). Servant leadership: A theoretical model (Doctoral dissertation, Regent University). Perkins, K., & Knight, P. (2014). Queensland college of teachers research digest (No. 10). Retrieved from http://www.qct.edu.au/Publications/Periodical/ CTResearchDigest2014-10.pdf/ Perry, J. (2010, March 20). Martin Luther King, Jr: A true servant leader. Retrieved from https://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-perry/martin-luther-king-jr-at_b_427417.html Politis, J. D. (2003). QFD: The role of various leadership styles. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 24(4): 181-193. Popham, W.J. (1999). Why standardized tests don’t measure educational quality. Educational Leadership, 56(6), 8-15. Povey, J., Campbell, A. K., Willis, L. D., Haynes, M., Western, M., Bennett, S., ... & Pedde, C. (2016). Engaging parents in schools and building parent-school partnerships: The role of school and parent organisation leadership. International Journal of Educational Research, 79, 128-141. Ravitch, D. (2010). The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice are Undermining Education. Basic Books. Rebora, A. (2017). Perspectives/ Not your parents’ parent involvement. Educational Leadership,75(1), 7-7. Reddin, W.J. (1970) Managerial Effectiveness. Maidenhead: McGraw Hill. Renzl, B. (2008). Trust in management and knowledge sharing: The mediating effects of fear and knowledge documentation. Omega, 36(2), 206-220. Robinson, C., Lee, M. G. L., Dearing, E., & Rogers, T. (2017). Reducing Student Absenteeism in the Early Grades by Targeting Parental Beliefs. Rossberger, R. J., & Krause, D. E. (2015). Participative and team-oriented leadership styles, countries’ education level, and national innovation: the mediating role of 48 economic factors and national cultural practices. Cross-Cultural Research, 49(1), 20-56. Rude, W. (2003). Paradoxical leadership—The impact of servant-leadership on burnout of staff. http://www.regent.edu/acad/sls/publications/conference_proceedings/servant_lead ership_rou ndtable/2003pdf/rude_paradoxical_leadership.pdf Russell, R. F. (2001). The role of values in servant leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 22(2), 76-84. Russell, R.F. & Stone, A.G. (2002). A review of servant leadership attributes: Developing a practical model. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 23(3/4), 145-157. Santiago, R. T., Garbacz, S. A., Beattie, T., & Moore, C. L. (2016). Parent-teacher relationships in elementary school: An examination of parent-teacher trust. Psychology in the Schools, 53(10), 1003-1017. Sarason, S. (1982). The culture of the school and the problem of change. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Saultz, A., & Saultz, J. W. (2017). Measuring Outcomes: Lessons from the world of public education. The Annals of Family Medicine, 15(1), 71-76. Seashore, K., Leithwood, K., Wahlstrom, K., & Anderson, S. (2010). Investigating the links to improved student learning: Final report of research findings. Sendjaya, S. & Sarros, J.C. (2002). Servant leadership: Its origin, development, and application in organizations. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9, 57-64. Senge, P. M., Roberts C., Ross, R., Smith, B., & Kleiner, A. (1994). The fifth discipline fieldbook. New York, NY: Doubleday. Senge, P. (1995). On schools as learning organizations: A conversation with Peter Senge. Educational Leadership (April). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. 49 Sergiovanni, T. J. (1992). Moral leadership: Getting to the heart of school improvement. Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers, 350 Sansome Street, San Francisco, CA 94104 (US sales); Maxwell Macmillan International Publishing Group, 866 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022 (sales outside US). Sergiovanni, T.J. (2006). The principalship: A reflective practice perspective. New York: Pearson Education, Inc. Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization science, 4(4), 577-594. Spears, L. C. (1998). Creating caring leadership for the 21st century. The Non-for-Profit CEO, 5(9), 1–3. Taylor, T., Martin, B. N., Hutchinson, S., & Jinks, M. (2007). Examination of leadership practices of principals identified as servant leaders. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 10(4), 401-419. Taylor, T., Martin, B.N., & Johnson, J.A. (2003). Examination of leadership practices of principals identified as servant leaders. Paper presented at the 2003 annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. Thoonen, E.E., Sleegers, P.J.C., Oort, F.J., Peetsma, T.T.D., & Geijesel, F.P. (2011). How to improve teaching practices: The role of teacher motivation, organizational factors, and leadership practices. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47, 496536. Tonissen, J.D. (2015). The importance of trust: Why school culture matters. The Intersection: The Hunt Institute Blog. Retrieved from: www.huntinstitute.org/resources/2015/08/the-importance-of-trust-why-school-culturematters/. Tschannen-Moran, M. (2014). Trust matters: Leadership for successful schools (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. U.S. Department of Education (2003). No child left behind: A parents guide. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/parents/academic/involve/nclbguide/parentsguide.pdf 50 Vandegrift, J. A., & Greene, A. L. (1992). Rethinking Parent Involvement. Educational Leadership, 50(1), 57-59. Vanderlinde, R., & Braak, J. (2010). The gap between educational research and practice: views of teachers, school leaders, intermediaries and researchers. British Educational Research Journal, 36(2), 299-316. VanMeter, R., Chonko, L. B., Grisaffe, D. B., & Goad, E. A. (2016). In search of clarity on servant leadership: domain specification and reconceptualization. AMS review, 6(1-2), 59-78. Van Voorhis, F. L., Maier, M. F., Epstein, J. L., & Lloyd, C. M. (2013). The Impact of Family Involvement on the Education of Children Ages 3 to 8: A Focus on Literacy and Math Achievement Outcomes and Social-Emotional Skills. MDRC. Wahlstrom, K.L., & Louis, K.S. (2008). How teachers experience principal leadership: The roles of professional community, trust, efficacy, and shared responsibility. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(4), 458-495. Webster, K. (2004). No parent left behind: Evaluating programs and policies to increase parental involvement. Harvard Journal of African American Public Policy, 10, 117-127. Yukl, G. A. R. Y. (2004). Tridimensional leadership theory: A roadmap for flexible, adaptive leaders. Leading in turbulent times, 75-91. 51 APPENDIX A 52 Servant Leadership Assessment Instrument To what degree do these statements describe the conditions at your school? Rate each statement on the following scale: 0 = Low 3 = Moderate 6 = High 1. My principal sees serving as a mission of responsibility to others. 2. My principal is genuinely interested in me as a person. 3. My principal trusts me to keep a secret. 4. My principal models service to inspire others. 5. My principal has shown unselfish regard for my wellbeing. 6. My principal desires to develop my leadership potential. 7. My principal creates a culture that fosters high standards of ethics. 8. My principal talks more about employees’ accomplishments that his or her own. 9. My principal has endured hardships, e.g., political, “turf wars,” etc. to defend me. 10. My principal shows trustworthiness in me by being open to receive input from me. 11. My principal lets me make decisions with increasing responsibility 12. My principal does not overestimate her or his merits. 13. The level of trust my principal places in me increases my commitment to the organization. 14. My principal has sought my vision regarding the organization’s vision. 53 15. My principal understands that serving others is most important 16. My principal voluntarily gives of him or herself, expecting nothing in return. 17. My principal has shown his or her care for me by encouraging me. 18. My principal gives of his or her self with no ulterior motives. 19. My principal has shown compassion in his or her actions toward me. 20. My principal is not interested in self-glorification. 21. My principal makes me feel important. 22. My principal is humble enough to consult others in the organization when he or she may not have all the answers. 23. My principal has made personal sacrifice(s) for me. 24. My principal gives me the authority I need to do my job. 25. My principal turns over some control to me so that I may accept more responsibility. 26. My principal has made sacrifices in helping others. 27. My principal shows concern for me. 28. My principal empowers me with opportunities so that I develop my skills. 29. My principal understands that service is the core of leadership. 30. My principal communicates trust to me. 31. My principal seeks to instill trust rather than fear or insecurity. 32. My principal has encouraged me to participate in determining and developing a shared vision. 54 33. My principal entrusts me to make decisions. 34. My principal and I have written a clear and concise vision statement for our company. 35. My principal aspires not to be served but to serve others. 36. My principal has asked me what I think the future direction of our company should be. 37. My principal does not center attention on his or her own accomplishments. 38. My principal models service in his or her behaviors, attitudes, or values. 39. My principal’s demeanor is one of humility. 40. My principal has shown that he or she wants to include employees’ vision into the organization’s goals and objectives. 41. My principal knows I am above corruption. 42. My principal seeks my commitment concerning the shared vision of our organization. Developed by Robert Dennis © 2005. Use by written permission only. 55 APPENDIX B 56 Servant Leadership Assessment Instrument The Servant Leadership Assessment Instrument provides insight about the servant leadership characteristics of a leader. Each factor measures a unique aspect of the servant leadership of the leader. The factor definitions are underlined; the additional sentences provide more detail about the concepts associated with each factor. Agapao love (items 2, 7, 17, 19, 21, 27) measures the degree to which a servant leader demonstrates meaning and purpose on the job where the employee has the ability to realize his or her full potential as a person and feels like he or she is associated with a good and/or ethical organization. The servant leader is forgiving, teachable, shows concern for others, is calm during times of chaos, strives to do what is right for the organization, and has integrity. This factor has a reported reliability coefficient (Chronbach’s alpha) of .94 (Dennis, 2004). Empowerment (items 6, 11, 24, 25, 28, 33) measures the degree to which a servant leader empowers information to others: positive emotional support, actual experience of task mastery, observing models of success, and words of encouragement. The servant leader allows for employee self-direction. Leaders encourage professional growth. The leader lets people do their jobs by enabling them to learn. This factor has a reported reliability coefficient (Chronbach’s alpha) of .94 (Dennis, 2004). Vision (items 14, 32, 34, 36, 40, 42) measures the degree to which a servant leader incorporates the participation of all involved players in creating a shared vision for the organization. The servant leader seeks others’ visions for the organization, demonstrates that he or she wants to include employees’ visions into the organization’s goals and objectives, seeks commitment concerning the shared vision of the organization, encourages participation in creating a shared vision, and has a written expression of the vision of the organization. This factor has a reported reliability coefficient (Chronbach’s alpha) of .89 (Dennis, 2004). Humility (items 8, 12, 20, 22, 37, 39) measures the degree to which a servant leader keeps his or her own accomplishments and talents in perspective, which includes self-acceptance, and further includes the idea of true humility as not being self-focused but rather focused on others. The servant leader does not overestimate his or her own merits, talks more about employees’ accomplishments rather than his or her own, is not interested in self-glorification, does not center attention on his or her accomplishments, is humble enough to consult others to gain further information and perspective, and has a humble demeanor. This factor has a reported reliability coefficient (Chronbach’s alpha) of .92 (Dennis, 2004). The Servant Leadership Assessment Instrument was developed by Robert Dennis. 57 APPENDIX C 58 Parent and Teacher Involvement Questionnaire You are your child’s first and most important teacher. When your child goes to school, teachers become important to him/her. You and the teachers can work together to help your child do well in school. So, we would like some information about your relationship with your child’s school teacher and your involvement in your child’s school life. Please indicate the number that best completes each statement. 0 – Never 2 – Almost every month 1 – Once or twice a year 4 – More than once a week 3 – Almost every week 1. In the past year, you have called your child’s teacher. 2. In the past year, your child’s teacher has called you. 3. In the past year, you have written your child’s teacher. 4. In the past year, your child’s teacher has written you. 5. In the past year, you stopped by to talk to your child’s teacher. 6. In the past year, you have been invited to your child’s school for a special event (such as a book fair). 7. In the past year, you have visited your child’s school for a special event (such as a book fair). 59 8. In the past year, you have been invited to attend a parent-teacher conference. 9. In the past year, you have attended a parent-teacher conference. 10. In the past year, you have attended a PTA meeting. 0 – Not at all 2 – Some 1 – A little 4 – A great deal 3 – A lot 11. You feel welcome to visit your child’s school. 12. You enjoy talking with your child’s teacher. 13. You feel your child’s teacher cares about your child. 14. You think your child’s teacher is interested in getting to know you. 15. You feel comfortable talking with your child’s teacher about your child. 16. You feel your child’s teacher pays attention to your suggestions. 17. You ask your child’s teacher questions and make suggestions about your child. 18. You send things to class like story books and other things. 19. You read to your child. 60 20. You take your child to the library. 21. You play games at home with your child to teach him/her new things. 22. You volunteer at your child’s school. Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statements. 0 – Strongly disagree 2 – Not sure 1 – Disagree 4 – Strongly agree 3 – Agree 23. Your child’s school is a good place for your child to be. 24. The staff at your child’s school is doing good things for your child. 25. You have confidence in the people at your child’s school. 26. Your child’s school is doing a good job of preparing children for their futures. Source: Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group (CPPRG) 61 APPENDIX D 62 Parent-Teacher Involvement: Parent Grade 5/Year 6 Fast Track Project Technical Report Eban Walters & Laura Griner Hill December 2000 Table of Contents I. Scale Description II. Report Sample III. Scaling IV. Differences Between Groups V. Recommendations for Use VI. Item and Scale Means and SD's VII. Item and Scale Correlations Citations Instrument Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group (CPPRG). (1991). Parent–Teacher Involvement Questionnaire: Parent Version. Available from the Fast Track Project Web site, http://www.fasttrackproject.org Report Walters, E. & Hill, Laura Griner (2000). Parent-Teacher Involvement: Parent; Grade 5/Year 6 (Technical Report) [Online]. Available: http://www.fasttrackproject.org/. Data Sources Raw: p6f Scored: ptp6 I. Scale Description. The Parent-Teacher Involvement Questionnaire: Parent version is a 26-item measure developed for this project to assess facets of parent and teacher involvement. Fast Track also has a 21-item teacher version that includes most of the items on the teacher version (see separate report for more detailed information). The measure assesses the amount and type of contact that occurs between parents and teachers, the parent's interest and comfort in talking with teachers, the parent's satisfaction with their children's school and the parent's degree of involvement in the child’s education (e.g, reading to them, taking them to the library, volunteering at school, attending school events). The answers are coded on item-specific 5-point scales: where 0 represents no involvement and 4 represents high involvement. The Grade 4+ version of this measure also includes an “N/A” (Not Applicable) response option. II. Report Sample This report includes data collected on Cohort 1, Year 6 (5th grade) and includes both high-risk control (n = 141 including overlap) and normative samples (n = 337 including overlap) with a total N = 407. Of the original sample of normative and high-risk control (n = 463), 56 students (12%) were missing responses for the entire scale, including 50 normative students (13% of normative sample) and 14 highrisk control students (9% of high-risk control sample, including overlap). The nonrespondents included 7 students from Durham, 13 students from Nashville, 16 students from Pennsylvania, and 20 students from Seattle. In addition, 1 case was missing responses for individual scale items; this case was omitted from whole- scale analyses. III. Scaling A Technical Report dated 4/18/95 identified five factors within the measure and constructed corresponding subscales: Onsite Involvement (items 5-10, 22) Quality of the Relationship between Parent and Teacher (items 11-17), Parent’s Involvement and Volunteering at School (items 18-21), Parent’s Endorsement of Child’s School (items 2326), and Frequency of Parent-Teacher Contact (items 1-4). Patterns of item-total correlations were similar between the two groups, so further comments are limited to the combined sample unless noted otherwise. Cronbach’s alphas for the five subscales were as follows: Onsite Involvement .80 Quality of the Relationship between Parent and Teacher .91 Parent’s Involvement and Volunteering at School .80 Parent’s Endorsement of Child’s School .92 Frequency of Parent-Teacher Contact .79 IV. Differences Between Groups T-tests indicate that parents of high-risk students had significantly lower scores on the Involvement scale and significantly higher mean scores on the Frequency of Contact scale. There was also a marginally significant difference between groups on the Endorsement of Child’s School scale, with parents of control children having a slightly lower mean score than parents of normative children. V. Recommendations for Use It is recommended that analysts carefully consider the construct of interest for the specific analysis before casually using the 26-item scale. The subscales identified in the previous 63 report may be used, or other subscales conceptually or empirically identified. Also, analysts should be aware of possible distributional issues. 64 APPENDIX E 65 Survey of Servant Leadership/ Parent Involvement You are invited to participate in a research study being conducted by Liesl Milan, a Boise State University graduate student, completing a doctoral dissertation on the Effects of Servant Leadership on Parent Engagement under the guidance of Dr. Jennifer Snow. Findings of this survey will help school districts, administrators, teachers and parents review the awareness and benefits of servant leadership in schools. This survey should take less than 10 minutes of your time. Your decision to participate or decline participation in this study is completely voluntary, and you have the right to stop your participation at any time without penalty. You may skip any questions you do not wish to answer. If you do not wish to complete this survey just close your browser. Your participation in this survey will be completely confidential. Any data you provide will used for educational and informational purposes only. You will only be contacted as a follow-up, if you explicitly express a desire/wish to be contacted. There are no risks to individuals participating in this survey beyond those that exist in daily life. If you have questions about this project, please contact Liesl Milan ([email protected]) or Dr. Jennifer Snow ([email protected]). If you have additional questions about your rights as a research participant, you may contact the Boise State University Institutional Review Board (IRB), which is concerned with the protection of volunteers in research projects. You may reach the board office between 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM, Monday through Friday, by calling (208) 426-5401 or by writing: Institutional Review Board, Office of Research Compliance, Boise State University, 1910 University Dr., Boise, ID 83725-1138. Please print a copy of this consent form for your records, if you so desire. I have read and understand the above consent form, I certify that I am 18 years old or older and, by clicking the submit button to enter the survey, I indicate my willingness voluntarily take part in the study. 66 APPENDIX F 67 August 28, 2017 Dear Elementary School Parent, Under the direction of my advisor, Dr. Jennifer Snow, I am conducting a study of school leadership and parent involvement in Idaho’s elementary schools. Servant leadership is a relatively new perspective founded in the belief that principals must view themselves as leaders who work to serve the needs of their teachers so the teachers in turn can serve the needs of the students. We believe the findings from this state-wide study will be of value to elementary staff across the state and nation, and we will make the findings available to all participating schools. In any form of research such as this, the University requires that I share with you, information about how we will maintain privacy and confidentiality of respondents. Your participation is entirely voluntary. Responses, participation, or non-participation will not be used in any evaluative manner. A respondent may choose not to complete the survey for any reason and anyone who begins the survey may choose to stop at any time. While there are no sensitive items in this survey, a respondent may also choose to not answer any question. All responses will be confidential and once the responses are received electronically here at BSU, they will be made anonymous by separating the response from the email address. All data for this study will be analyzed in the aggregate ensuring that neither individual teachers, parents, nor schools will be identified in any written reports by the researcher. If you have any questions about the surveys or the process we are using to collect the information from elementary schools across the state, don't hesitate to email me at [email protected], or my advisor at [email protected] or contact me by phone at (208) 484-5934 or my advisor at (208) 426-1991 or contact the BSU Office of Research Compliance at (208) 426-5401. I realize that participating in this study will take a few minutes of your time. The opportunity to have a profile for you, your administrators, and teachers to study and the opportunity to contribute to the greater understanding of effective leadership and parent involvement are important to our profession. We hope you will carefully consider this request for your participation. Sincerely, Liesl Allyn Milan Research Assistant/Doctoral Student Boise State University (208) 486-1000 Email: [email protected] 68 APPENDIX G 69 August 28, 2017 Dear Elementary School Teacher, Under the direction of my advisor, Dr. Jennifer Snow, I am conducting a study of school leadership and parent involvement in Idaho’s elementary schools. Servant leadership is a relatively new perspective founded in the belief that principals must view themselves as leaders who work to serve the needs of their teachers so the teachers in turn can serve the needs of the students. We believe the findings from this state-wide study will be of value to elementary staff across the state and nation, and we will make the findings available to all participating schools. In any form of research such as this, the University requires that I share with you, information about how we will maintain privacy and confidentiality of respondents. Your participation is entirely voluntary. Responses, participation, or non-participation will not be used in any evaluative manner. A respondent may choose not to complete the survey for any reason and anyone who begins the survey may choose to stop at any time. While there are no sensitive items in this survey, a respondent may also choose to not answer any question. All responses will be confidential and once the responses are received electronically here at BSU, they will be made anonymous by separating the response from the email address. All data for this study will be analyzed in the aggregate ensuring that neither individual teachers, parents, nor schools will be identified in any written reports by the researcher. If you have any questions about the surveys or the process we are using to collect the information from elementary schools across the state, don't hesitate to email me at [email protected], or my advisor at [email protected] or contact me by phone at (208) 484-5934 or my advisor at (208) 426-1991 or contact the BSU Office of Research Compliance at (208) 426-5401. I realize that participating in this study will take a few minutes of your time. The opportunity to have a profile for you, your administrators, and parents to study and the opportunity to contribute to the greater understanding of effective leadership and parent involvement are important to our profession. We hope you will carefully consider this request for your participation. Sincerely, Liesl Allyn Milan Research Assistant/Doctoral Student Boise State University (208) 486-1000 Email: [email protected] 70 APPENDIX H 71 Permission to use instrument - Milan_Boise_2017 6 messages Rob Dennis <[email protected]> Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 10:18 AM To: "[email protected]" [email protected] Dear Liesl Milan, I received your message for using the SLAI instrument. You may use it for your research, and slightly modify it for your use (i.e., change organization & company to group) if needed.Send an abstract/synopsis of expected use of the instrument, in addition to the modified instrument you plan to use (if applicable).Please send me a copy of finished work (or article publication/draft).Enclosed are: Updated Instrument – SLAI; URL address, if applicable (most requests use paper forms), and factor breakdown for coding. I will send follow-up request every three months or so to check on progress. You may only see my name in the email address (“To:”), but in the “blind copy” will be about other researchers using the instrument. Blessings, Rob Dennis, Ph.D. Dr. Dennis, I am a Ed.D. student at Boise State University and I am planning to do my dissertation on the effects of servant leadership on parent involvement. I have been looking for a servant leadership assessment tool that would be helpful in determining the level of servant leadership at the individual level. I have reviewed the measure with my chair, Dr. Kathleen Budge and we felt it would be a great fit. I was wondering if you might be willing to assist me with the following: 1. Would you be willing to grant me permission to use your instrument for my study? 2. Would you be willing to email me a copy of the instrument along with the factors for further review with my chair? 3. Would you be willing to include the validity and reliability with the above information? I appreciate your time and any help you can offer to me. Please don't hesitate to contact me regarding any questions or suggestions you may have. Thank you. Best all, Liesl Milan M.Ed. 72 APPENDIX I 73 Liesl Milan <[email protected]> Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 11:59 AM To: [email protected] Dr. Hoover-Dempsey, I am a Ed.D. student at Boise State University and I am planning to do my dissertation on the effects of servant leadership on parent involvement. I have been looking for a parent involvement assessment tool that would be helpful in determining the level of parent involvement in schools. I would like to review the measure with my chair, Dr. Jennifer Snow in order to determine if it might be a good fit. I was wondering if you might be willing to assist me with the following: 1. Would you be willing to grant me permission to use your instrument for my study? 2. Would you be willing to email me a copy of the instrument along with the factors for further review with my chair? 3. Would you be willing to include the validity and reliability with the above information? I appreciate your time and any help you can offer to me. Please don't hesitate to contact me regarding any questions or suggestions you may have. Thank you. Best all, -- Liesl Milan M.Ed. Hoover-Dempsey, Kathleen V <[email protected]> Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 4:22 PM To: Liesl Milan <[email protected]> Dear Liesl, I offer my profound apologies for being so late in responding to your email. I retired from Vanderbilt University in August 2013 and have been engaged primarily with activities in the community and with family. To complicate things at this moment a little bit more, my husband and I are on vacation with our full family this month, and I won't have access to my research measures until we return home at the end of June. If by any chance it would still be helpful to you, I'd be very glad to send you the information you've requested below once we're home (June 30). I'm certainly happy to give you permission to use our instrument for your study, and will be equally happy to email you a copy of the instrument for further review with your Chair. And of course I'll be very happy to include information of the reliability and validity of each of the measures included in the instrument. I so very sorry to be so late in responding, but do let me know if it would be of any help at this point to receive the information you'd like on the measure at the end of this month and I will definitely send it on to you. Whatever your decision, I offer my many apologies for such a late response and wish you the very best in your Ed.D. research (and congratulate you for getting to this fine point!) and please do let me if you'd indeed like to receive the information you've outlined below in late June. All best to you, Kathleen V. Hoover-Dempsey, Ph.D. Professor Emerita Departments of Psychology & Human Development and Teaching & Learning Peabody College, Vanderbilt University Nashville, TN 37203 74 Table 1 Table 2 75 Table 3 Table 4 76 Table 5 Table 6 77 Table 7 – Servant Leadership Survey Results Table 8 – Parent Involvement Survey Results