text:
|UFDC Home | Search all Groups | UF Institutional Repository | UF Institutional Repository | UF Theses & Dissertations
|| Help
Material Information
Record Information
This item is only available as the following downloads:
|Full Text
Copyright 2003
Emilia Mahmud Hodge
This dissertation is dedicated to the memory and honor of my mother, who was known to
those who loved her as Ms. Candy. Her strength and love, her courage in the face of
adversity, and her unwavering devotion to family and friends are qualities for which she
will always be remembered. Many times the thought that she was watching over me, the
memory of her staunch endurance through hard times, and the desire to continue to make
her proud, inspired me toward completion of this study. Although passed from this earth,
she lives in my heart forever.
It is with much gratitude that I express heartfelt thanks to members of my
dissertation committee. I owe Dr. David Honeyman much gratitude for the guidance,
support, and "room to grow" that he provided as my committee chair. He was a true and
constant beacon of hope during this challenging exercise. My deep appreciation goes to
Dr. James Doud for the detailed feedback and encouraging words that he provided. All
his suggestions proved helpful in guiding my writing. My sincerest thanks also go to Dr.
Phillip Clark for the valuable suggestions that kept the dissertation on track. His
questions did much to sharpen my focus on what was truly important. I am grateful to Dr.
Anne Seraphine, an excellent teacher and model, whose statistical expertise clarified and
helped develop my skills as I faced the challenges of writing. I thank her also for the
timely advice and support she provided, as well as for her faith in me.
Special gratitude is expressed to the Minority Education Scholarship program at the
University of Florida for the moral and financial support throughout the years of graduate
study, particularly during the time of data collection and writing of the dissertation. My
deep appreciation goes to Drs. Bolman and Deal for permission to use their survey
instrument to collect data. I particularly thank Dr. Bolman for his patience and prompt
responses to my questions. My thanks go to Dr. Anne Donnelly at the Particle
Engineering Research Center for her kind advice, emotional support, and encouragement
during this entire scholarly exercise. I also thank my friends and colleagues at the
University of North Florida, particularly Drs. Lehman and Marianne Barnes whose
kindness and understanding I value highly. I especially want to express heartfelt gratitude
to Dr. Betty Flinchum, Dr. Santos Mahung, Dr. Kathe Kasten, and Dr. Pritchy Smith for
the contributions they made to my development and the development of education in
Many thanks go to the Chief Education Officer in Belize, and the General
Managers of Catholic and Government primary schools, whose endorsement of this study
did much to facilitate the data collection process. I thank all my friends in the districts
(especially the District Education Officers, Ministry of Education personnel, and Local
Managers of Catholic primary schools) for advice and assistance during the time of data
collection. Special gratitude goes to my family in Belize for their warm, unwavering
hospitality, love, and support. I especially thank my niece Tarah for her continued
willingness to assist in the data collection process. I sincerely thank all Belizean school
principals whose participation in this study was a demonstration of their commitment to
excellence in education.
My heartfelt thanks and appreciation go to Warren, my husband, for his enduring
support and encouragement throughout the entire process. His knowledge and
understanding of the demands of the research process (and especially his deep and
abiding love) inspired me throughout this scholarly exercise. Last, but by no means least,
thanks go to my amazing daughter Miriam, for her loving concern and invariable words
of encouragement; and to my extraordinary son, David, whose constant concern and
loving home many times served as a refuge from the stresses of the dissertation process.
Finally, I thank Almighty God for the blessing of the many wonderful people in my life,
especially as I return to Him the fruit of the gifts He has given me.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.................................................... ......................... iv
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................. ........................ix
A B STR A C T .............................................................................. ........................... xi
Country Background................................... .... ...........................3
Church-State Partnership in Education........................ ..........................4
Statement of the Problem....................................................5
Purpose of the Study ....................................... ........................6
Definition of Term s........................... ................................. ..........................7
Assum ptions..................................... ..........................................................8
Delimitations and Limitations..................................................8
D elim stations ................................................ ........ .......... ........... 8
Lim stations ................................................................ ...........................9
Significance of the Study ................................................9
Sum m ary ................................. ............................. ................. ......... 10
The Setting of the Study........................................................... 12
Belize's Cultural Diversity ................................................................. 12
The Economy.............................................................. 16
Migration and Immigration...................................... .......................... 18
Belize in Central America and the Caribbean Region........................................... 18
Politics ........................................................... ......... ..... ....................... 19
The Education System ..................................................... ......... ....................20
Education development .....................................................................21
Access to primary and secondary education........................... ........... 24
Quality of educational service........................... ...................... 26
Internal efficiency of the school system ................................................... 28
Institutional arrangements for school management............................ 31
The Four Fram es ............................................................... ........................... 33
Fram es Research ........................................................... .......................... 36
Frame Use among School Administrators ...................................................38
Leadership, Management, and the School Principal ..............................................44
Leadership and Management ................................... ........................44
The School Principal.......................... ...............................46
The Context of School Leadership............................ ........................... 54
Sum m ary........................................................................... ...........................57
Research Questions.................................. .....................................................60
Study Population............................................ ............................................... 60
Instrum entation ................................................................... ........................... 61
Reliability of the Leadership Orientations (Self) Survey...................................63
Validity of the Leadership Orientations (Self) Survey.......................................64
Scoring the Leadership Orientations (Self) Survey.................................... ..65
D ata C collection ........................................... .................................................. 65
D ata Analysis ............................................. ..................................................67
Sum m ary .............................................................................. ...............................69
D descriptive D ata................................................ ............................................72
D em graphics .......................................... ................................................ 72
Participants' Use of Cognitive Frames ....................... .............................75
M multiple Regression................................... ................................................... 80
A analysis and Results............................ .................................... .......................81
Analysis of Qualitative Data...........................................................86
School Management................................................................87
Rural and urban government primary schools......................................87
Rural Catholic primary schools................................. ..............................89
Urban Catholic primary schools.......................... ...............................90
High schools ........................ .....................................91
School Size and School Location ................................. .......................92
School size....................................... .................. ......... ...............92
The urban setting .................................................. ......................... ... .... 93
The rural setting......................... .......... ...........................93
Sum m ary ............................................................................. ...............................95
D discussion ........................................................................ ...........................99
Dem ographics................................................................. .........................99
Frame Use among School Leaders in Belize .................................................. 102
Factors Associated with Frame Use...................... .................... ... 109
C onclusions............................................................................................................. 112
Im plications of the Findings ........................................... .................................. 114
Recommendations for Further Study ......................... .......................... 115
Table page
1 Frequency of frames used by school administrators in schools in the
U united States........................................... ............................................................... 43
2 Number of hours spent on principals' activities ........................................................52
3 The study population........................................ ................................................61
4 Description of dimensions of leadership of the Leadership Orientations
(Self) Surve ...................... .......... ............... ........................... 62
5 Reliability of the Leadership Orientations (Self) Survey.................................. ...63
6 Age, gender, and years of experience of principals of government
primary schools, Catholic primary schools, and high schools in urban
and rural Belize........................................... ........ ............ .......................... 73
7 Ethnicity and highest level of academic qualification of principals of
government primary schools, Catholic primary schools, and high schools
in B elize ........................................ .......................... ............................................75
8 Descriptive statistics of frames used by principals of government
primary schools, Catholic primary schools, and high schools
in B elize ........................................ .........................................................................76
9 Mean scores for frames used by male and female principals and
principals of urban and rural schools in Belize.........................................................78
10 Number of cognitive frames used by male and female principals of
government primary schools, Catholic primary schools, and high
schools in urban and rural Belize......................... .........................................79
11 Summary of multiple regression analyses for variables related to the
principals use of the Structural, Human Resource, Political, and Symbolic
fram es............................................................................ ....... ...................................82
12 Summary of multiple regression coefficients for variables related
to Belizean principals' use of the Structural frame..........................................83
13 Summary of multiple regression coefficients for variables related
to Belizean principals' use of the Human Resource frame........................................84
14 Summary of multiple regression coefficients for variables related
to Belizean principals' use of the Political frame .......................... ................85
15 Summary of multiple regression coefficients for variables related
to Belizean principals' use of the Symbolic frame ...................................................86
16 Focus group participants..................................................... ........................... 87
17 Mean scores on Section I of the Leadership Orientations (Self) Survey
and pattern of frames used by school principals in Belize and the
U united States.......................... ..... ................................................................ 104
Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
Emilia Mahmud Hodge
August 2003
Chair: David S. Honeyman
Major Department: Educational Leadership, Policy, and Foundations
This study investigated the cognitive frames of school leaders in Belize. The
theoretical framework used to guide the study was defined and developed by Bolman and
Deal's (1997) four-frame typology. These four leadership perspectives were the
Structural, Human Resource, Political, and Symbolic frames. The study also investigated
the influence of contextual factors (school location, school management, and school
size); and leader characteristics (age, gender, ethnicity, years of experience as principal,
and academic qualification) on principals' cognitive frame use. The study addressed two
overarching questions: What are the leadership perspectives (cognitive frames) of
Belizean school administrators? What influence do contextual and leader characteristics
exert on their cognitive frames?
Of the 192 Leadership Orientations (Self) Survey distributed to the population of
principals of government primary schools, Catholic primary schools, and high schools,
74% (143) were returned. Principals of government primary schools completed 29% of
the returned instruments, 53% were returned by principals of Catholic primary schools,
and 18% by high school principals. In addition, 14 principals participated in focus group
discussions, the data from which were used to complement the quantitative findings in a
mixed method design.
Demographics regarding school location, school size, and ethnicity were
reflections of demographics in the larger population in Belize. Despite school level, type,
and location, the pattern of frame use (Human Resource, Structural, Symbolic, and
Political, in that order) was the same for the study participants. Over 50% of the
principals used three or more frames frequently. Frame use implied that Belizean
principals were effective school managers. Regression analysis results suggested that
factors other than those investigated in this study may account for principals' cognitive
frame use.
The findings have implications for professional development of school leaders,
particularly with regard to use of the Political frame. Results also underscored the need
for further studies on the influence of school size on school leaders' performance, the
management-school leader relationship, and the disparities in educational attainment in
urban and rural settings. All these factors have implications for developing and
implementing functional education policies that reflect the multicultural nature of Belize.
Considering the daunting task of schools, it is important for these organizations to
have effective leadership. Barth (1990), in summarizing findings from studies on the
school principal, noted that the principal, as the key to a good school, determined the
quality of the educational program, promoted teacher growth, and set the school climate.
He further emphasized that good schools were reflections of good leadership. Others who
examined the nature of the principalship and its influence on school success also stressed
the importance of the school leader (Blumberg & Greenfield, 1986; Fullan &
Stiegelbauer, 1991; Hodgkinson, 2000; Sergiovanni, 2001; Slaughter, 1989). It is
imperative, therefore, for education systems to be continually focused on understanding
indicators of successful school leadership and increasing the leadership capacity of
school administrators who are key contributors to the education enterprise.
The need to direct attention to school leadership has been critical for small, newly
independent developing countries, which, while dealing with issues that linger from a
colonial past, also face the challenges of globalization that have resulted in greater
competition in the world market (Newton, 1996a; Girvan, 1997). Small nations like
Belize, the country setting for this study, must pay heed to the implications arising from
the technological revolution, knowledge explosion, and other forces of integration that
have resulted from living in an increasingly smaller world (Sutherland, 1998). As Louisy
(2001) observed, small Caribbean countries "face very stiff challenges of economic and
social development and significant threats of greater marginalization from the
mainstream of global economic activity" (p. 429). In 1994, Prime Minister Manuel
Esquivel reminded Belizeans of the pressures of globalization and cautioned that those
who did not adjust would be adjusted by world events (Barry & Vernon, 1995). Indeed,
economic investment in education should be of utmost importance for small nation states
where the need for excellence in school leadership must be addressed, especially since
expectations of a quality education were increasingly being defined globally rather than
locally (Hallinger & Leithwood, 1998a). Braun (1993) and Hallak (2000) argued that the
level of education and skills of its people were major determinants of where a country
would fit in the global economy. Considering the lack of "critical mass of talent and
resources" (Marshall, 1998, p. 123) in developing countries, it has been imperative to
develop available human resources and maximize their potential (Leo-Rhynie, 2001;
Stephens, 1991).
This study investigated the leadership orientation frames, also called cognitive
frames, from which school leaders in Belize operated; and also investigated factors that
influenced frame use. Frames refer to four perspectives of organizations (Structural,
Human Resource, Political, and Symbolic) that reflect the way leaders think and act as
they respond to everyday issues and problems (Bolman & Deal, 1995). The Structural
frame focuses on a rational view of the organization with an emphasis on goals, roles,
policies, procedures, use of rational analysis, formalized organizational structure, and
planning for effectiveness and efficiency. The Human Resource frame holds that
organizations exist to serve human needs and not vice versa (Bolman & Deal, 1997).
Therefore, in aligning organizational needs and human needs, the focus is on developing
skills and relationships leading to empowerment. The Political frame views organizations
as arenas or jungles. As such, interest groups compete for power and resources; conflict is
commonplace; and bargaining, negotiation, and compromise are part of everyday life.
Finally, the Symbolic frame holds that symbols, myths, rituals, ceremonies, and stories
are some of the ways by which meaning is brought to the complexity and ambiguity
within organizations. The concept of rationality is not as pervasive in this frame as it is in
the other three leadership perspectives.
This study also sought to identify the influence of contextual factors (school
location, school management and school size); and leader characteristics (age, gender,
ethnicity, years of experience as principal, and academic qualification) on school
principals' frame use. This study addressed two overarching questions: What are the
leadership perspectives (cognitive frames) of Belizean school administrators as defined
by the Bolman and Deal (1997) frame typology? What influence do principals' personal
and professional characteristics and school and community contextual factors, exert on
their cognitive frames? Since the setting for this study is the Caribbean country of Belize,
some basic information on the country's background and its system of education is
provided here in Chapter 1. A more in-depth treatment of the country and its education
system are presented in Chapter 2.
Country Background
Belize is situated on the Caribbean coast of Central America, bordered on the
north by Mexico, and on the west and south by Guatemala (Appendix A). A number of
small islets (cayes) that extend almost the length of the country are sheltered in the inner
coastal waters by the Belize barrier reef, the longest in this hemisphere (Belize
Government, 1997). The country's low coastal plain, much of which is covered with
mangrove swamp, gradually rises toward the interior (Geography of Belize, 1997). The
backbone of the southern part of the country consists of the Maya Mountains (the origin
for many of Belize's rivers) and the Cockscomb Range, with the highest point about 1124
meters above sea level. In the west, the Mountain Pine Ridge rises to about 914 meters
above sea level. The northern districts consist of much tableland comprising the region
where most of the country's sugar cane is grown. The mainland is divided into six
districts-Corozal, Orange Walk, Cayo, Belize, Stann Creek, and Toledo. The combined
area of mainland and cayes is 8,867 sq mi (22,700 sq km). The greatest length of the
country is 174 miles and the greatest width is 68 miles (Geography of Belize, 1997).
According to Barry and Vernon (1995), Belize is about the size of New Hampshire; and
twice the size of Jamaica. The climate is subtropical with a wet season usually from June
to November resulting from tropical waves, storms, and hurricanes (Geography of Belize,
1997). The dry season occurs during the rest of the year. After the devastation of Belize
City (the former capital) by Hurricane Hattie in 1961, the new capital of the country
moved to the interior location of Belmopan (Peedle, 1999).
Church-State Partnership in Education
The education system in Belize was founded on a church-state partnership, which
began when a "free school" was established in 1816 (Bennet, 1973a). In 1962 the New
Education Ordinance retained the traditional State/Church partnership but allowed
government greater control over the system (Bennet, 1973b). The denominational system
with state support gave way to more of a state system with church involvement (Miller,
1999). In this church-state partnership, the government (through the Ministry of
Education) is responsible for policy making, establishing objectives for education, paying
teachers' salaries, funding half the cost of facilities and maintenance, developing
curricular and administrative standards, training teachers, and administering national
examinations (Planning Unit, 1999). The church, on the other hand, is responsible for
overseeing the general administration and management of the denominational schools,
addressing personnel matters, funding half the cost of facility and school maintenance,
and supplementing salaries for general and local managers of elementary and secondary
schools. This partnership, established over a century ago, continues to play a significant
role in the way education is funded and managed in Belize.
Statement of the Problem
School principals in any setting face the challenges inherent in the role of the
principalship and "the problematic nature of leadership" itself (Kowalski & Reitzug,
1993, p. 200). However, principals in Belize (like those in other developing countries) are
"expected to do more with less" (Newton, 1996b, p. 39) in a situation where the
challenges of leadership are compounded by conditions characteristic of small developing
countries. Newton (1996b) observed that such conditions included a "lack of financial
resources; inadequate technical and technological resources, knowledge, and skills,...
[and] inadequate and inappropriately trained and qualified teaching and administrative
staff' (p. 31). In addition, school administrators must contend with the reality of poor
transportation services (especially in the rural areas), and cultural and linguistic
differences within their school communities. Furthermore, the education management
system was described in the 1994-1998 Education Sector Review as "highly centralized,.
.. [and] with central control of resources and decision-making, [an] unreliable mode of
communication, and limited opportunities for interventions by community stakeholders"
(Ministry of Education and Sports, 2000b, p. ii). School leaders must also address
implementation issues under the new Education Rules set out in the Handbook of Policies
and Procedures for School Services (Ministry of Education, 2000), which provides the
legal framework for educational policy development and implementation.
Principals of primary and secondary schools operate within this complex
environment as they face daily challenges that make demands on their abilities as leaders.
This study investigated the cognitive frames used by these principals in response to
demands placed on them by a multiethnic, multicultural society and by policymakers and
special interests representing the church-state partnership.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to investigate the applicability of Bolman and
Deal's (1997) leadership frame typology as a means of explaining the way school
principals exercised leadership in primary and secondary schools in Belize. This study
also examined the influence of contextual factors (school location, school management,
and school size) and principals' individual characteristics (age, gender, ethnicity, years of
experience as principal, and academic qualification) on their frame use. Contextual
factors and leader characteristics were the explanatory (independent) variables; and the
four frames, Structural, Human Resource, Political, and Symbolic were the outcome
(dependent) variables. The effect of contextual factors on principals' leadership
perspectives was examined because the settings of education in developing and
developed countries are different (Hallak, 2000; Yin Cheong, 2000). Four research
questions helped frame and structure this study:
* Is there a relationship between the explanatory variables, and the outcome variable,
Structural frame, among principals of government primary schools, Catholic primary
schools, and secondary schools in Belize?
Is there a relationship between the explanatory variables, and the outcome variable,
Human Resource frame, among principals of government primary schools, Catholic
primary schools, and secondary schools in Belize?
Is there a relationship between the explanatory variables, and the outcome variable,
Political frame, among principals of government primary schools, Catholic primary
schools, and secondary schools in Belize?
* Is there a relationship between the explanatory variables, and the outcome variable,
Symbolic frame, among principals of government primary schools, Catholic primary
schools, and secondary schools in Belize?
Definition of Terms
* Primary schools: Schools in Belize that provide primary education from Infant 1
(Grade 1) through Standard 6 (Grade 8).
* Secondary schools: Schools in Belize that provide secondary education from First
through Fourth Form (Grades 9 through 12).
* School administrator, school leader, and school principal: The individual
responsible for the operation of the school.
* Catholic managed primary school, or Catholic school: Schools in Belize that are
owned and managed by the Catholic denomination; and where the local manager of
the school is an individual (usually a priest or lay minister) affiliated with that
Ministry of Education Schools: Schools in Belize that are owned by the
Government and are fully funded through the Ministry of Education, and that have a
local manager of the school who is an employee (the District Education Officer) of
the Ministry of Education.
Manager, Board of Management: A person or committee appointed to oversee the
operations of the school, including the performance of the school principal.
Management: The entity that owns the school (such as the Catholic management
which owns and oversees Catholic schools).
Local Manager: The person who oversees the operations of a specified number of
primary schools in that management.
Frame: A set of beliefs, attitudes, predispositions, and perceptions (mental models)
used as both windows and lenses that help determine how experiences are perceived
and ordered, thus informing the individual's actions (Bolman & Deal, 1997).
Structural Frame: The perception of organizations as hierarchical entities with
established lines of authority, roles, responsibilities, procedures, and policies.
Human Resource Frame: The perception of organizations as entities that focus on
aligning human and organizational needs.
Political Frame: The perception of organizations as political arenas where coalitions
use power to control decisions about scarce resources.
* Symbolic Frame: The perception of organizations as cultural systems with shared
meanings and beliefs.
Three assumptions were made in conceptualizing and conducting this study.
First it was assumed that principals in government-managed primary schools, Catholic-
managed primary schools, and high schools would participate in this study.
Second, it was assumed that the validation process would identify terminology
and items that needed revision. Given that Belize's official language is English (no back
translation needed) and because the same framework has been used to investigate
principals' leadership frames in the US and other countries, it was assumed that
functional equivalence was sufficient for using Bolman and Deal's frame theory in Belize
(Peng et al., 1991).
Third, it was assumed that these principals possessed sufficient self-understanding
to identify their cognitive frames; and therefore to provide an accurate assessment of
these constructs as measured by the Leadership Orientations (Self) Survey (Bolman &
Deal, 1990).
Delimitations and Limitations
This section addresses the delimitations and limitations under which this study
was conducted. Delimitations are boundaries imposed on the investigation by the
researcher. Limitations are existing restrictions and constraints on this study beyond the
control of the researcher.
This study was delimited to the total population of 192 principals of government-
managed primary schools, Catholic managed primary schools, and secondary schools, in
Belize. Another delimitation was that contextual variables included only school size,
school location, and school management. This study was also delimited to only those
leader characteristics (age, gender, ethnicity, years of experience as principal, and
academic qualification) considered relevant to the inquiry. In addition, this study was
delimited to the quantitative data collected though use of the Leadership Orientation
(Self) Survey (Bolman & Deal, 1990) and the qualitative data collected through focus-
group interviews.
While the focus of this study was the population of high school principals and
principals of Catholic and government managed primary schools, the number of
participants was further limited to those school administrators who participated in this
study by providing quantitative or qualitative data. Although Belize is a multicultural
nation, cultural diversity was limited to the ethnicity of principals who participated in this
study. Ethnic-group information was limited to those groups with sufficient numbers of
respondents who subscribed to a particular ethnicity.
Since this study was site specific, and limited to the population of high school
principals and principals of Catholic- and government-managed primary schools in
Belize, it was not possible to generalize quantitative findings to principals of other
denominational schools in the country or to those in other countries. Focus group results
were generalizable to those who participated in the discussions. The results, then, were
applicable only to the population of study within the setting of the country studied.
Significance of the Study
This study was the first to investigate the usefulness of Bolman and Deal's (1997)
leadership frame typology as a means of explaining the way school principals exercised
leadership in primary and secondary schools in Belize. This study also examined the
influence of contextual factors (school management, location, and size) and principals'
individual characteristics (age, gender, ethnicity, academic qualification, and years of
experience) on their frame use. Findings from this study will help build a knowledge base
and serve as a possible point of departure for future studies on school leadership in
Belize. In addition, examining principals' use of frames should provide valuable
information for policy development and implementation, especially as they relate to
professional development. This was important since the continual building of
management capability and capacity were identified as necessary for improving
efficiency and effectiveness within the Belizean education system (Wessex Trust for
International Education, 1999). Findings with regard to the reliability of the Leadership
Orientations (Self) Survey for use in a developing country; and the influence of the rural
and urban context, and school management under the church-state partnership, on school
leaders' cognitive orientations will add to the literature on frame theory because the
setting in Belize, a small Caribbean nation state, is much different from the context of
school leadership in developed nations.
Chapter 1 provided information on Belize, identified the purpose and significance
of this study, and set the parameters and boundaries that delimited and limited the
investigation. Belize, a small developing nation continues to face many economic,
political, and social challenges in its struggle to keep up with the rapid pace of change in
a shrinking world.
Education has provided the greatest opportunities for preparing the workforce
with skills and abilities necessary to compete on a regional and global level. The church-
state partnership has ensured the continuation of education provision and governance.
Chapter 2 provides further information on Belize and the education system; and reviews
related literature regarding the use of leadership orientation frames, the nature of school
leadership and management, and the school context. Chapter 3 explains the methods and
procedures used in conducting this study. Chapter 4 presents the data analysis procedures
and results of this study. Finally, Chapter 5 discusses results, presents conclusions and
implications of the findings, and proffers suggestions for future research.
This study investigated the cognitive frame orientations of school leaders in
Belize; and the contextual and demographic factors that influenced their leadership
perspectives. The first section here in Chapter 2 establishes the background of this study
by presenting a synopsis of information on Belize and its education system. The second
section examines the development of the leadership orientation frames as the framework
used in this investigation; and examines relevant frame studies. This is followed by an
examination of related literature on management; leadership; the school principal; and
finally, the importance of the context of school leadership. In addition to the related
studies conducted in Belize, pertinent literature from developed countries is also
The Setting of the Study
Unlike its Latin American neighbors, and similar to other countries in the
Commonwealth Caribbean, Belize was colonized by the British. Formerly known as
British Honduras, this country peacefully gained its independence from Great Britain in
1981 (Belize Government, 1997). Partly as a result of colonialism in the region, Belize
became a nation of people from many parts of the world. Barry and Vernon (1995)
described this multiethnic, multilingual society, as a potpourri of cultures.
Belize's Cultural Diversity
The Census 2000 (Central Statistical Office, 2000) data on ethnicity, language,
and religion revealed information on the diversity that continues to exist in this culturally
pluralistic society. Census figures showed that the largest ethnic group was the Mestizo,
who comprised approximately 49% of the total population and were mainly concentrated
in the northern and western areas of the country. The Mestizo population included
descendants of those who fled the Caste War in Yucatan in the mid 1800s. The more
recent influx of refugees from Central American countries like Guatemala, Honduras, and
El Salvador accounted for the increase in the Mestizo population (Barry & Vernon,
The second largest ethnic group, the Creoles, comprise approximately 25% of the
population, with most living in the eastern part of the country. The Creoles descended
from the intermingling of early British settlers and African slaves (Barry & Vernon,
1995). The Creole language, spoken by most of the population, is "a derivative of English
with some African words and grammar" (Peedle, 1999, p. 64).
The Maya (Yucatec, Mopan, and Kekchi) who inhabited southern Mexico,
Guatemala, northern Honduras, and El Salvador are also the indigenous people of Belize
and represent approximately 11% of the population. The Yucatec Maya of the North have
assimilated more into the Belizean way of life than have the Kekchi and Mopan Maya,
many of whom have continued to live in isolated villages in southern Belize (Peedle,
1999). The Garinagu, mainly living along the southeastern coast of Belize, comprised
approximately 6% of the population. Most of the Garinagu, a mixture of African slaves,
Carib Indians, and some Europeans, came from Honduras to Belize in 1932 (Barry &
Vernon, 1995). Every November, the Garinagu re-enact their first arrival to Belize as a
time of celebration and affirmation of their cultural identity (Peedle, 1999). Even though
most of the members of an ethnic group may have settled in a particular region of the
country, representatives from these groups were found in all six districts. In the 1990s
many Taiwanese and Chinese settled in Belize under its economic citizenship program
(Barry & Vernon, 1995). These groups as well as East Indians, Lebanese, Mennonites,
Whites, and others comprised the rest of the population. The National Population Census
2000 reported the total enumerated population of the country as 240,204 (Central
Statistical Office, 2000).
Although urbanization has been a pattern in many developing countries
(Schwartzman, 2001), in Belize the population shift has been toward the rural areas.
Population census figures showed that 52% of the population live in rural locations; and
the other 48% live in urban areas (Central Statistical Office, 2000). The Mestizos
(50.2%), Mennonites (5.8%), and the Mayas (18.7%) comprised approximately 75% of
the rural population. Immigrants from Guatemala, El Salvador, and Mexico who settled
mainly in Belize rural areas accounted for this increase in its rural population. Creoles
(44%), Mestizos (36%), and Garinagus (11%) comprised most of the urban population.
Most immigrants from the USA, China and Taiwan also settled in urban areas (Central
Statistical Office, 2000).
Despite its cultural diversity, since its independence, Belize-like former
colonies-has sought to establish its national identity (Education Task Force, 1987).
Belizean history was added to the school curriculum, the regional Caribbean
Examinations Council (CXC) examinations were adopted, and national symbols (such as
a national bird, prayer, anthem, and flag) helped define the national character (Rutheiser,
1990). The idea was that a "collective programming of the mind" (Hofstede, 2001, p. 13)
in the form of a national culture would eliminate prejudice among the different ethnic
groups in the country (Education Task Force, 1987; Krohn, 1991). According to Miller
(1984), a Caribbean writer, after independence, national identity in Caribbean countries
became associated with the Creole culture. Although this may be true in many Caribbean
countries, because of its ethnic diversity, it has still been difficult to identify a uniquely
Belizean culture. In one study of identity and ethnic nationalism in Belize, Reinhart
(1996) concluded that no overarching national identity has yet developed. Belize a
multicultural, multiethnic, and multilingual nation, may best be understood and regarded
as a country that has continued to be truly pluralistic in every sense of the word. lyo
(2000) has argued that intermarriages among the different cultural groups have brought
about a change in the character of the separate ethnic groups in Belize. He suggested that
the concept of a "mixed race" might capture, to a certain extent, the different forms of
multiculturalism that has been "created and recreated" within Belize (p.196). In sum,
issues regarding ethnicity, language, and identity have been systemic in communities and
schools, and continue to pose challenges for Belizean school leaders.
Although located in Central America, Belize has always identified with the
English-speaking Caribbean rather than Spanish-speaking Central America (Phillips,
1998). Even though the official language in Belize is English, Census 2000 data revealed
that only 54% of the population spoke this language very well, and 20% did not speak
English at all (Central Statistical Office, 2000). Those who spoke Spanish well
comprised 52% of the population. This was not surprising since Mestizos comprised the
largest segment of the population.
The Census data did not report on the other languages, such as the Maya
languages, German, Chinese, Garifuna, and Creole English (Bolland, 1987). With regard
to religion, 49.6% of the population subscribed to Roman Catholicism. Other members of
the population followed other denominations including Pentecostal (7.4%), Anglican
(5.3%), Mennonite (4.1%), and Methodist (3.5%) (Central Statistical Office, 2000). Not
surprisingly, the Roman Catholic Church has established and continue to administer the
majority of primary schools in the country.
The Economy
Iyo (1998) described the Belizean economy as small, open, and reliant upon
agricultural production. In fact, bananas, sugar, and citrus accounted for 13% of the
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and 68% of exports in 2000 (The World Bank Group,
2002). Other exports included marine products and garments. Tourism has also become
an important contributor to the economy. Belize has been portrayed by The Belize
Tourism Board (2002) as the land of many adventures and many faces, inviting visitors to
enjoy Belize's rainforests, longest barrier reef in the hemisphere, numerous Maya ruins,
and other natural attractions. Indeed, between 2000 and 2001, the tourist industry grew
by 8%. However, after the September 1 Ith tragedy in the U.S., the rate declined to 2.2%
(Musa, 2002a). Devastation in different parts of the country by hurricanes Keith and Iris,
and tropical storm Chantal also contributed to a drop in the economy.
Estimates from the 1999 Labor Force Survey (Central Statistical Office, 1999)
indicated an unemployment rate of 12.8%, which was comparable to several other
Caribbean countries (Girvan, 1997). Agriculture has been the major industry in the rural
areas as compared to wholesale and retail trade and employment in government services
in urban areas (Central Statistical Office, 2000).
Of the employed population, 25% engaged in agriculture and forestry activities.
Sixteen percent of the population worked in wholesale and retail trades, 13% were
employed by government offices, 9% in construction, and 9% in tourism (Central
Statistical Office, 2000). The growth in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2001 was
4.6% with a Gross National Income (GNI) per capital of U.S. $3,110. in the same year
(Musa, 2002b). Exports of goods and services in 2000 were 49.8% of GDP, whereas
import of goods and services in the same year was 67.7% (The World Bank Group,
2002). Obviously this high dependence on importation of goods has increased the
vulnerability of the Belize economy to outside forces (Brown-Johnson et al., 2001; Iyo,
1998). Nevertheless the exchange rate of the Belize dollar to the US dollar (BZ $2 for
U.S. $1) has held the same position since 1976 (Brown-Johnson et al., 2001). However,
an increase of the external public debt (37% of GDP in 1997 to 67.5% in 2000) has
threatened the stability of the exchange rate between the US dollar and Belize dollar (The
World Bank Group, 2002).
A disparity continues to exist between the wage earnings of those who work in
rural areas and those who work in urban areas. Although the size of the household was
larger in rural than in urban areas, 6% of the rural population earned less than $1,440
($720 U.S.) while only 1% of those in urban areas were in the same income bracket
(Central Statistical Office, 2000).
Of special interest was the fact that, of the rural population between ages 14 and
19, only 33.7% attended school and 29% were employed. On the other hand, of the
57.9% urban population between ages 14 and 19 who attended school, only 18% were
employed. More young people in rural areas were employed and fewer continued their
education than their urban counterparts.
Poor access to education, employment, water and sanitation, transportation, and
communication were some reasons why the level of poverty in rural areas was higher
than that of urban areas. In addition, although pockets of poverty exist throughout the
country, the Toledo and Stann Creek districts of the south continue to be more
marginalized than the other districts (Brown-Johnson et al., 2001).
Migration and Immigration
The migration of Belizeans to other countries (particularly the USA) as well as
the influx of immigrants into Belize has adversely affected the economic sector. The total
number of emigrants for the year 2000 was over 2000. Population Census figures
(Central Statistical Office, 2000) showed that up to the year the census was taken, the
greatest numbers of emigrants were females (55%), with the emigration rate higher in
urban than in rural areas.
Most of the emigrant population held at least a high school diploma. However,
many others who left the country had already acquired a tertiary level education-an
indication of the continuing brain drain on the country. Nevertheless, Rutheiser (1990) in
a study of culture, schooling and neo-colonialism in Belize, found that education was the
major reason why most Belizeans intended to move to another country. On the other
hand, the influx of new immigrants from Central America has placed additional stresses
on the social services sector, especially with regard to education and health (Salazar,
2000; Shoman, 1994).
Belize in Central America and the Caribbean Region
In addition to the social, economic, and cultural challenges confronting Belize, the
country must contend with the ever-present threat of the Guatemalan claim. Even though
Belize has been a sovereign and independent nation since 1981; the Guatemalan claim to
Belize continues to be an issue of dispute. Guatemala claimed that it inherited Belize
from Spain when it gained its independence from that country (Shoman, 1992). Proposals
for the settlement of this controversy were discussed throughout Belize and at the United
Nations in preparation for a referendum to settle the issue (Musa, 2002a). However, the
referendum, set to take place in November 2002 simultaneously in Guatemala and Belize
did not happen; and a final resolution to the controversy has not yet been reached
As a member of the Commonwealth Caribbean, Belize established a number of
partnerships in the region and with other governmental and international agencies. These
included the Caribbean Development Bank, European Economic Community, the Inter-
American Development Bank, and the Canadian, Taiwanese, Mexican, and Cuban
governments (Government of Belize, 1999). Belize also has membership in the United
Nations, the Nonaligned Movement, the Organization of American States, and the
Caribbean Community (CARICOM) (Government of Belize, 1999).
Watson (1982) has argued that post-colonial countries (such as Belize) are still
dominated by the richer world and depend on external agencies to fund major projects
Even though they do not directly occupy the developing country; advanced nations still
exert subtle control over small nation states through the inequalities of wealth and power.
This situation exists because of the poor economic state in which many developing
countries remained after independence. In fact, the World Bank's assistance strategy for
Belize until the year 2005 includes a focus on poverty reduction; improvement of access
to, and the quality of basic services; and improving the environment to promote economic
diversification and growth among members of the private sector (The World Bank
Group, 2002).
Politically, Belize operates under a two-party system. The parties are the People's
United Party (PUP) and the United Democratic Party (UDP). Since 1998, the PUP has
been the ruling party and the UDP the opposition party. National elections are held every
five years. The recent general elections on March 5, 2003 resulted in the present PUP
government remaining in power for the next five years (http://www.belize-
elections.org/elections2003/). The next elections will be in the year 2008. The Prime
Minister is the leader of the country and head of a cabinet of ministers responsible to the
legislature (The Economist Intelligence Unit, 1999). The legal system continues to reflect
the British judicial system with the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the United
Kingdom as the final court of appeals. The judges of the Privy Council, because they
reside in England, on the one hand, are free from Commonwealth Caribbean political
pressure and interference; however, on the other hand, they are removed from the social
and economic conditions in the Caribbean region. Consequently, there has been the move
to create a Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) to serve as a final court of appeals for the
member states of the Caribbean community (CARICOM). Nonetheless, there would still
be recourse for appeal to the Privy Council in England (CARICOM, 2000).
The Education System
Primary education (Grades 1 through 8) is compulsory for children between the
ages of 5 and 14 (Ministry of Education, 2000). Those fortunate enough to have sufficient
sponsorship and academic qualifications may afterward enter high school because
education at this level is not compulsory nor fully government sponsored. Post secondary
education in Belize is accessible through a number of Junior Colleges or Sixth Forms and
the University of Belize (Planning Unit, 1999). In August 2000, the amalgamation of five
pre-existing tertiary level institutions formed the University of Belize ("Education
Minister," 2000).
The overall management of the education system continues to be the
responsibility of the Ministry of Education (MOE), headed by the Minister of Education.
The Chief Executive Officer for this Ministry, among other duties, serves as advisor to
the Minister of Education. The Chief Education Officer, in collaboration with other
Education Officers and school managers has responsibility for co-coordinating and
supervising the education system (Ministry of Education and Sports, 2000a). The general
function of the Ministry of Education in Belize is to
work in partnership and in consultation with the churches, communities, voluntary
organizations, private organizations and such other organizations and bodies
which the Ministry may identify and recognize as education partners for the
sufficient and efficient provision of education in Belize. (Ministry of Education,
2000, p. 5)
Partners of the MOE include organizations such as the Social Investment Fund
(SIF), Raleigh International, Basic Needs Trust Fund, and Managing Authorities
(Elrington & Morter-Lewis, 2001). Other partners comprise various educational
institutions in Cuba and Mexico. These two countries provided technical assistance in the
establishment of Centers for Employment Training (CETs) in Belize, which were funded
through a loan from the Caribbean Development Bank (Elrington & Morter-Lewis,
2001). Belize has also received assistance from Peace Corp and British volunteers who,
among other projects, helped provide training in information technology for teachers.
Education development
The ruling political party, according to its political agenda, is the major
determinant of the direction and development of the education system in Belize. In 1989,
the PUP government negotiated with the World Bank and the UK government for
funding (BZE $25 million) of the Belize Primary Education Development (BPED)
project; the implementation of which began in 1992 (Thompson, 1999). The three major
components of this project included teacher education; development of education-
particularly in the areas of curriculum assessment and evaluation; and planning and
management, including improvement of school facilities (Thompson, 1999). As a
component of the BPED project, primary principals participated in professional
development training. Additionally, the government initiated the establishment of District
Education Centers and District Education Councils.
In 1993, the United Democratic Party (UDP) won the national elections. The
campaign promise of free education was translated to mean free tuition for secondary
students and students in the second year of Sixth forms and Junior colleges (Thompson,
1999). The UDP government continued the implementation of the BPED during its term
of office, which ended in 1998 when the PUP prevailed in the national elections. In 1999
the BPED project came to an end and with it the funding that had supported the education
initiatives. During this time the development of the Handbook of Policies and Procedures
for School Services was completed and signed into law in August 2000 ("Education
Rules," 2000). Since that time, the Education Rules has provided the legal framework for
the policies and procedures for the system of schooling, including responsibilities of
educators and new licensing requirements for teachers.
The current education administration under the PUP government expressed two
major concerns in its education charter-"universalisation of access, and quality
education" (Ministry of Education and Sports, 2000b, p. 12). To address these concerns, a
"comprehensive Education Sector Transformation" program (Ministry of Education and
Sports, 2000b, p. 26) was developed to address policy in the areas of: (a) access and
equity-at both primary and secondary levels, (b) curriculum-including development of
computer skills, (c) finance, (d) management and governance-including decentralization
of decision making to regional centers, (e) efficiency-maximizing use of educational
resources, (f) teacher development, and (g) student achievement (Wessex Trust for
International Education, 1999). The intent of this Belize Education Sector Improvement
Project (BESIP) is to continue reform of the education sector. The scope of the BESIP
would be much broader than the BPED project, which had mainly addressed reform at
the primary level. However, to date, reform under the BESIP has been minimal because
the government has not yet secured funding for its implementation.
The Belize government has been hoping to secure financing for the nine-year
BESIP from the World Bank (WB) and UK's Department for International Development
(DFID) by means of a phased Adaptable Program Loan (APL) (Ministry of Education
and Sports, 2000b). Small countries, by necessity, must depend on external funding
agencies, with the reality that such dependency affords the funding agency a certain
degree of control over the country's development (Louisy, 2001). Evidently, the
conditions set by any lending agency must be met before any loan may take effect
(London, 1993). Requested funds from the World Bank for the BESIP would amount to
$U.S. 12.4 million, with additional requests from the United Kingdom of 3 million. The
Government of Belize would provide an additional BZE $4.5 million. In anticipation of
funding, an upper primary curriculum has been developed as well as a manual for the
inspection of schools. In an effort to keep up with technological advances, the MOE has
established computer labs in the six district education centers and has facilitated the
provision of computer training for teachers (Elrington & Morter-Lewis, 2001). In
addition, computers have been supplied to those primary schools with the infrastructure
to support their installation.
The preceding section provided an overview of the system and the movement
towards education improvement in Belize. This study focused on the principals of
primary and secondary schools. Therefore, the next section will provide a review of
education at these two levels. The description of the primary and secondary schools is
organized using one element of the policy analysis framework suggested by Haddad and
Demsky (1994) in their work on developing countries. Information is organized under
four headings: (a) access to primary and secondary education, (b) quality of educational
services for primary and secondary students, (c) internal efficiency of the education
system, and (d) institutional arrangements for the management of primary and secondary
education. In providing an organized account, this description treats access, equity, and
efficiency separately, however, as cautioned by The World Bank Group (2002) one must
remain aware of the overlap in these areas.
Access to primary and secondary education
Education in Belize has been compulsory for children between the ages of 5 and
14 years (Ministry of Education, 2000). This policy challenges the system to deliver basic
education (primary level education); especially since Population Census figures reported
that 41% of the population was below the age of 15 (Central Statistical Office, 2000).
School age children comprised 26.6% (approximately 61,742) of Belize's population. Of
this number, 56,767 students were enrolled in the 233 primary schools in the 2000-2001
school year (Planning Unit, 2001). This figure represented approximately 92% of the
population between 5 and 14 years of age (Planning, Projects, and Performance
Management Service Area, 2002). The remaining 8% were either students enrolled in
secondary schools, or students who may have dropped out of school. As Cayetano (1992)
observed, the rate of enrollment was bound to be higher than attendance rates.
Nevertheless, in his assessment of primary education in the Caribbean, Miller (1989)
argued that basic education standards and enrollment patterns in Commonwealth
Caribbean countries, including Belize, overlapped with those in industrialized countries.
This was evident in the fact that, despite the weaknesses in the system, level of teacher
and principal training, and school accommodations; the region had reached universal
basic education with the percentage of enrollment in primary education over 90%.
The rural/urban distribution of primary schools has always posed a great
challenge to the education system and has been the cause of grave disparities in access to
education. Of the 233 primary schools, 173 (74%) were located in rural areas, with the
remaining 60 (26%) in urban areas (Planning Unit, 2001). Given that most primary
schools are located in rural areas; distance and a poor transportation system limit
students' access to schools. In many cases, teachers and principals experienced a difficult
time reaching these rural schools every day, especially in communities without teacher
housing and where the teaching staff, and sometimes the principal, commuted daily
(Chulin, 1990).
According to the Abstract of Education Statistics (Planning Unit, 2001), there
were 35 secondary schools during the 2000/2001 school year with a total enrollment of
13,143 students. The government managed 37% of these schools, while the other 63%
were denominational, private or community managed schools. The limited spaces
available in secondary schools is a factor that has prevented automatic entry into high
schools. The 1994-98 Education Sector Review described the capacity of secondary
schools as grossly inadequate, allowing access to only 60% of those who graduated from
primary schools (Ministry of Education and Sports, 2000b). However, Elrington and
Morter-Lewis (2001) in their report on the state of education, noted that the establishment
of two new government secondary schools and the introduction of a shift system had
increased access to high schools. Additionally, the new Centers for Employment Training
(CET) in the six districts have increased access to technical and vocational education
(Elrington & Morter-Lewis, 2001).
Regardless of increased spaces at the secondary level, parents of secondary
students must still find a substantial amount of money for secondary education (despite
the free education policy that was implemented in 1993). Parents fund the costs of school
uniforms, textbooks, and all other fees charged by the school. The fact that many parents
have been unable to meet these expenses has denied access to secondary education for
many children (Brown-Johnson et al., 2001). Under the proposed BESIP, universal
access to education would be realized for all children between the ages of 3 andl6
(Ministry of Education and Sports, 2000b). Although there will be an increase in the
numbers of schools, there will still be the need to take into account those elements such
as geographic location and social factors that may still limit access to education.
Quality of educational service
Inequities have existed in the quality of education at the primary level in urban
and rural areas because schools in rural areas were those with fewer trained teachers, less
support for resources from the MOE, and a poor infrastructure (Ministry of Education
and Sports, 2000b). As Cayetano (1992) observed, it was general knowledge that "urban
schools were favored over rural ones in terms of the necessary inputs, including quality
teachers, school facilities, equipment, and teaching/learning materials" (p. 2). Although
this observation was made in 1992, and there have been improvements in basic education
brought about through the BPED project, the disparities between these schools have
continued to exist. In fact, Cayetano's observations about rural education were echoed by
a 1994-1998 appraisal of the education sector. The report found the education system in
Belize to be "highly inequitable" with unequal distribution of resources that favored the
"advantaged" (Ministry of Education and Sports, 2000b, p. 7). Many of the advantaged
were those in urban areas.
Many teachers and principals have not been formally trained for the position-
especially those who work in rural primary schools. For the 2001-2002 school year,
55.6% of the teaching force at primary level was trained (Planning, Projects, and
Performance Management Service Area, 2002). With regard to secondary teacher
qualifications, the same Diges reported 19.9% of secondary teachers had received
teacher training as well as held undergraduate or graduate degrees in a particular content
area, 35.7% were undergraduates with degrees in their subject areas, 8.9% held teacher-
training certificates, and the other 35.5% were teachers with Associate Degrees. In
addition, the 1994-98 Education Sector Review (Ministry of Education and Sports,
2000b) indicated that many high school principals were not trained in education
leadership and management. This however, has been addressed to a certain extent since a
number of principals have received Master's degrees in Educational Leadership through a
joint program between the University of Belize and the University of North Florida
("Address of Hon. Cordel Hyde," 2002).
Under the BPED project's textbook loan scheme, textbooks were supplied to
those schools that needed them (Moguel, 1998). However, the BPED project ended in
1999 and the development of a new national curriculum for primary schools brought
about the need for new materials and the use of different teaching strategies. The
National Comprehensive Primary School Curriculum was founded on the four pillars of
learning-learning to live together, learning to be, learning to know, and learning to do-
proposed by the UNESCO International Commission on Education for the Twenty-first
Century (Ministry of Education, 2000). The curriculum was developed with the intent to
prepare students to become "innovative, literate, numerate, and critical thinkers"
(Elrington & Morter-Lewis, 2001, p. 61). However, effective delivery in the classroom
continues to depend on many factors; including the necessary textbooks, materials,
facilities, and adequately trained teachers and principals.
At the secondary level, the curriculum has been driven by the Caribbean
Examinations Council (CXC) and Caribbean Secondary Examinations Council (CSEC)
regional examinations, which most students take in the senior year of high school. The
1994-98 Education Sector Review (Ministry of Education and Sports, 2000b) reported
that overall, Belizean students who took the CXC examinations did not do very well,
especially in English, Mathematics and Science.
Internal efficiency of the school system
According to a Ministry of Education official, efficiency meant that funds were
expended properly and that human resources were used to the maximum capacity (E.
Raymond, personal communication, August, 2000). Two other indicators of internal
efficiency are student flow through school and the student/teacher ratios. A description of
the relevance of these factors to primary and secondary education in Belize follows.
Funding for education in school year 1999/2000 was a little more than $74
million, which constituted 22.5% of the government's annual recurrent budget (Elrington
& Morter-Lewis, 2001). However, MOE officials acknowledged that "budgetary
constraints" still limited the effective delivery of education services" (Elrington &
Morter-Lewis, 2001, p. 81). School supplies and materials for government-managed
schools were not adequately provided, and managing authorities were not reimbursed the
70% cost for new buildings, extensions, and repairs as promised.
The budget allocation of $43.3 million for primary education was more than the
$20.2 million for secondary schools. Even though much more was spent on primary than
secondary education, recurrent expenditure per primary student for 2001-02 averaged
$829 (U.S. $414.50) whereas the spending per secondary student was a little more than
twice that amount (BZE $1,752 = U.S. $876) (Planning, Projects, and Performance
Management Service Area, 2002). Of the budget allocation for primary education, 95.7%
was used to cover salaries; and at the secondary level, 78.2% of the budget was used for
salaries. However, government high schools are fully funded by the government. The
government also pays tuition fees for all secondary students in the country. More money
was spent per student at secondary level than at the primary level. However, for many
students, primary schooling becomes the highest level of formal education attained.
With regard to student flow through school, the 1994-98 Education Sector Review
reported high grade level retention (in Belize referred to as grade repetition) rates at
secondary and primary level and a high dropout rate at secondary level (Ministry of
Education and Sports, 2000b). The average primary school grade level retention rate for
2000-01 was 8.3% with the rate for males (8.9%) being higher than the rate for females
(7.7%). The average secondary school grade level retention rate for 2000-01 was 8.4%
with the rate for males (9.5%) being higher than the rate for females (7.3%). The overall
primary school completion rate for 2000-01 was 32.7%. This was the percentage of
students who completed primary school in eight years. The remaining 67.3% were either
retained in some grade or dropped out of school.
The average dropout rate of 0.7% at the primary level for school year 2000-01
was relatively low. However, this figure may not have been accurate since the distinction
between actual student dropout and transfers to other schools was unclear (Planning,
Projects, and Performance Management Service Area, 2002). The average dropout rate
for secondary school students was higher than for students at the primary level. The
average secondary school dropout rate for 2000-01 was 9.7%, with the dropout rate for
males (11.5%) higher than the dropout rate for females (8.1%). Dropout and grade level
retention rates, especially for boys at the secondary level were issues that led to
inefficiency within the education system.
Although the rate of transition (87.4%) from primary to secondary schools
decreased in Toledo district (a highly rural area) during 2000-01, it increased in the urban
areas of Belize, Cayo, and Corozal districts (Planning, Projects, and Performance
Management Service Area, 2002). Population census figures showed that in the year
2000, 17.4% of those in urban areas were enrolled in secondary schools and only 7.4% of
the rural population had reached the secondary level. As reported by Elrington and
Morter-Lewis (2001), the results of the Primary School Examination (PSE) for rural
schools were lower, and secondary education was less accessible than for those who
graduated from schools in urban areas. High schools did not have to contend with
urban/rural disparities as much as primary schools since only 10 (28%) high schools were
located in rural Belize and the other 25 (72%) were located in urban areas of the country
(Planning Unit, 2001).
The Education Statistical Digest (Planning, Projects, and Performance
Management Service Area, 2002) indicated that the overall student-teacher ratio for
primary schools was 25:1. The 1994-98 Education Sector Review reported that this was a
generous student/teacher ratio, which, when coupled with relatively high salary levels
compared to other Latin American and Caribbean countries, caused inefficiency in the
education system (Ministry of Education and Sports, 2000b). However, in large high
schools and primary schools there were still many classes with more than 25 students. In
rural primary schools, where classes were sometimes combined, one teacher was
frequently assigned to more than 25 students (Brown-Johnson et al., 2001).
Institutional arrangements for school management
The General School Services (GSS) division of the Ministry of Education is
responsible for overseeing school support services-including transportation,
instructional materials, and disbursement of funds for primary and secondary schools
(Elrington & Morter-Lewis, 2001). Government schools at both primary and secondary
levels are fully funded by the Ministry of Education and managed by Ministry of
Education personnel Since the review of the Education Sector for 1994-1998, which
described the organization, governance, and administration of education as ineffective,
the Ministry of Education has continued to establish the institutional mechanisms to
support decentralization of the management of education (Ministry of Education and
Sports, 2000b). In preparation for this, the MOE constructed District Education Centers
in each district in Belize, increased personnel in each Center, and established Regional
Councils in each district (Elrington & Morter-Lewis, 2001).
In a study of decentralization in Venezuela, Tracy (1997) cited Rondinelli and
Cheema's distinction between two types of decentralization. In deconcentration, a limited
amount of decision-making and authority was given to officials at the local level, whereas
in devolution, officials were allowed extensive decision-making authority.
Deconcentration, according to McGinn (1992), occurred when officials were moved from
central to local offices, whereas, in devolution, responsibilities at the local level included
responsibility for budgetary decisions. In Belize, although more decision-making has
occurred at the local level through the District Education Centers and the Regional
Councils, "the system [was] still pretty much centralized" since Central Education
Administration continued to make major decisions with regard to education funding
(District Education Officer, personal communication, October, 27, 2002). Although
deconcentration of authority has taken place, it remains to be seen to what stage
decentralization of the education system will evolve.
Either the MOE or the Catholic Church managed the primary schools in this
study. The Roman Catholic Church managed 49% of all primary schools, the government
managed 18%, and 33% were managed by smaller religious denominations (Methodist,
Anglican, Nazarene, Assemblies of God, Pentecostal, and Seventh Day Adventists).
According to the Handbook of Policies and Procedures for School Services (Ministry of
Education, 2000), primary school management has been responsible for maintaining the
school building as well as ensuring that schools were equipped with the necessary
furniture, materials, equipment and other support necessary for provision of education. In
addition, school managers were responsible for establishing and carrying out procedures
for personnel management. School management continues to be the "main conduit for
communication between the Ministry of Education and schools" (Ministry of Education,
2000, p. 57). School management, through the local managers for primary schools, was
also responsible for ensuring appropriate disbursement of school funds; and reporting
results of annual school inspections to the Regional Education Councils.
For Catholic- and government-managed primary schools, there is a General
Manager in a central office in Belize City. However, local managers in the districts are
assigned the oversight of specific schools. Catholic priests or Catholic lay ministers are
usually the local managers for Catholic schools. The District Education Officers,
employees of the Ministry of Education, are the local managers for government schools.
High schools are managed by committees referred to as boards of management.
The "rules of procedure" for these boards are detailed in the Handbook of Policies and
Procedures for School Services (Ministry of Education, 2000, pp. 202-206). In general,
the purpose of the board of management was to "oversee the effective management and
operation of the school," and must distinguish "its responsibility for the mission and
management of the school from the responsibility of the school administration" (Ministry
of Education, 2000, p. 202). The day-to-day affairs of the school must be left to the
school principal.
This section provided a review of Belize's education system, with emphasis on
primary and secondary education and the rural and urban school setting. Of particular
interest was the duality of responsibility for educational governance and policymaking
shared by the church and government. Both entities have contributed and continue to
contribute to the development of education in Belize.
The Four Frames
To arrive at their cognitive frames typology, Bolman and Deal (1995)
consolidated the major schools of organizational thought into four perspectives, which
they called frames or vantage points. These frames, or perspectives of organizations,
helped leaders filter information and perceptions, assisting them in ordering the world
and deciding what action to take.
Frames are similar to what Senge (1990, p.175) referred to as "mental models"
that consist of the "images, assumptions, and stories" in the heads of leaders, determining
how they made sense of the world and what action they took as a result of their mental
models. The "head" of leadership, which has to do with the "theories of practice" that
leaders have developed and which inform reflection in different situations, are also
similar to frames and mental models (Sergiovanni, 1999, p, 21). Weick and Bougan's
(2001) cognitive maps described as concepts and relations used to understand
organizational situations, are also analogous to frames.
Bolman and Deal (1997) theorized that leaders who understood what frame they
used, especially those who were not limited to only one perspective, were better able to
understand and manage the day-to-day complexities and ambiguities within
organizations. Morgan (1997), in agreement, described the organization as complex,
multifaceted, and paradoxical; and contended that leaders needed the ability to use
different perspectives or metaphors in order to meet the challenges posed by
organizations and the demands of leadership. In fact, chaos theory suggested that
organizations mirrored natural organisms and systems; and were chaotic places where the
environment was constantly changing (Snyder et al., 2000). In conditions like these,
especially in a newly independent developing country like Belize where school leaders
are expected to be active in preparing students to function in a technologically advanced
and global economy; principals must be versatile and flexible in responding to the
environment. They need to have conceptual maps or mental models that help them
understand problems and issues from multiple perspectives. This study examined whether
the Bolman and Deal (1997) typology was among the frames or vantage points that
Belizean principals used to understand and solve problems in their schools.
The Structural frame emphasized roles and relationships where players operate
within a formal structure created to fit the environment of that organization.
Responsibilities were assigned to employees, rules and policies were created, and
management hierarchies coordinated the activities of subordinates in the organization
(Bolman & Deal, 1995). Restructuring of the organization was perceived as the means by
which problems were remedied. The view of organizations from a structural perspective
was that of factory or machine where functions, tasks, and processes were highly ordered
and routinized (Bolman & Deal, 1997). The Structural frame was supported by the work
of theorists such as Blake and Mouton (1964), Fayol (1919/1949), Gulick (1937), Taylor
(1911), and Weber (1947).
The Human Resource frame viewed organizations as inhabited by individuals
with needs, emotions, prejudices, skills, and limitations. This frame was built on the
assumption that organizations existed to serve human needs because people and
organizations were intricately linked- in a sort of symbiotic relationship- to fulfill the
other's needs (Bolman & Deal, 1995). In such a relationship, when the fit between the
individual and the organization was a match, both benefited. However, the opposite was
true when a mismatch occurred (Bolman & Deal, 1997). The Human Resource
perspective viewed organizations as families. This frame was based on the work of
human resource theorists like Alderfer (1972), Argyris (1957), Maslow (1954),
McClelland (1985), and McGregor (1960).
The Political frame viewed the organization as a jungle or arena where there were
scarce resources and where power and influence continually determined how resources
were allocated among individuals and groups (Bolman & Deal, 1995). Conflict was part
of the daily routines within the organization, and power was the most important resource.
Coalitions formed as issues were addressed; and decisions were made through
bargaining, negotiating, and jockeying for positions (Bolman & Deal, 1997). Political
skill and acumen were useful in devising solutions, much like what Machiavelli
(1513/1994) proposed over four centuries ago. Bolman and Deal (1997) used the work of
theorists such as Etzioni (1961), Kotter (1985), and Pfeffer (1992) to develop this
The Symbolic frame regarded the organization as a theatre or a carnival held
together more so by shared values and culture than by policies and goals. Because of
ambiguity and uncertainty; symbols, rituals, ceremonies, stories, heroes, and myths
provided meaning, direction, and purpose for the players in the organization's dramatic
production (Bolman & Deal, 1995). Life was perceived as more fluid than linear and
things were complex and always changing in the organization. Problems arose when
symbols lost their meaning, and ceremonies and rituals were not potent any more. The
solutions to these problems came in reviving symbols, myths, and metaphors. In
developing this frame, Bolman and Deal (1997) relied on the work of theorists such as
Cohen and March (1974), Fulghum (1995), and Schein (1992).
Frames Research
Bolman and Deal (1995) contended that it was only when leaders and managers
viewed organizations from these four perspectives that they were better able to appreciate
and deal with the complexity that existed in organizational life. While developing their
theory, the authors conducted studies where they collected both qualitative and
quantitative data. Two general assumptions undergirded their studies. First, the ability to
reframe in an increasingly complex and ambiguous world led to clearer judgment and
effective actions. Second, because leadership was contextual, different situations required
different patterns of thinking. The studies sought to discover what frames leaders used
and also validated the different forms of the Leadership Orientations Survey (Bolman &
Deal, 1990) instruments.
In one article, Bolman and Deal (1991a) reported the results from qualitative and
quantitative studies they conducted to discover what frames leaders used and to verify the
usefulness of the Leadership Orientations Survey. Qualitative data were collected from
leaders' (145 U.S. higher education administrators, 48 U.S. school principals, 15 U.S.
school superintendents, and 220 Singaporean school administrators) written descriptions
of a critical incident regarding leadership in a particular situation. After coding the data,
the narratives showed that leaders rarely used two frames and almost none used four. The
greatest difference was that American administrators wrote more about politics when
compared to administrators in Singapore. Quantitative data were also collected from 90
senior managers in multinational corporations in the U.S., Europe, Africa, Asia,
Australia, and Latin America; 145 U.S. higher education administrators, 140 U.S. school
administrators, and 229 school administrators and Ministry of Education personnel in
Contextual differences in frame patterns were evident in that the Americans
scored higher on the Structural and Human Resource frames than on the Political and
Symbolic frames, whereas Singaporean administrators scored higher on the Symbolic
frame. For both Singaporean and U.S. administrators, results of regression analysis
showed that the Symbolic and Political frames were reliable predictors of leadership
effectiveness, whereas the Human Resource and Structural frames predicted managerial
effectiveness. Context referred to country setting and included the general differences
that existed in language and culture between the U.S. and Singapore. With regard to
gender, there were no significant differences in frame use among male and female
administrators. That study was also significant because the Cronbach's alpha reliability
for the Leadership Orientations (Self) Survey was found to be between .91 and .93.
In another study, Bolman and Deal (1992) collected quantitative data from 50
principals in Broward County, 90 principals and central office administrators from
Beaverton, Oregon, and 274 principals from the Republic of Singapore using the
Leadership Orientations (Self) Survey instrument. In addition, different groups rated each
leader using the Leadership Orientations (Other) Survey. Results of factor analysis
demonstrated that clusters of responses were consistent with the frames. Using regression
analysis, they demonstrated that for both samples the Structural frame was a better
predictor of managerial effectiveness, while the Symbolic frame was the best predictor of
leadership effectiveness.
The different contexts referred to in these studies were the country settings of
Singapore and the U.S. The dominant frame for Singaporean principals was the Structural
frame, whereas the Human Resource frame was dominant for Americans. The Symbolic
frame was the best predictor of leadership effectiveness and was most frequently used by
leaders in Singapore, whereas those in America used the Political frame. With regard to
gender, in Singapore the Human Resource and Political frames were related to
effectiveness in women but not in men. In the U.S. these same two frames were better
predictors of success for men than women. Results from both quantitative and qualitative
studies suggested that the ability to use multiple frames was critical for effectiveness as
manager and leader.
The fact that the Leadership Orientations (Self) Survey was useful in a context
different from the U.S. was encouraging since this questionnaire was the instrument used
to collect quantitative data for this dissertation. This researcher also collected qualitative
data through focus group interviews. However, unlike Bolman and Deal (1991a) who
used the qualitative data as a major part of their study to identify the frames used by
participants, this study used the qualitative data to provide a more detailed picture of
participants' perceptions of the contextual setting of leadership in Belize.
Frame Use among School Administrators
Some of the frame studies conducted have investigated the leadership orientation
of U.S. college and university presidents (Bensimmon, 1989; Borden, 2000; Echols Tobe,
1999), students in a management program in Sydney (Dunford & Palmer, 1995), chief
executives of non-profit organizations in America (Heimovics et al., 1993), and school
superintendents in the U.S. (Flak, 1998; Harlow, 1994; Strickland, 1991). However, this
section will examine five studies that were directly related to school administrators since
that is the population of study for this dissertation.
Cote (1999) investigated the leadership orientation frames of a stratified random
sample of 382 elementary principals in Florida using the Leadership Orientations (Self)
Survey. Principals (N= 214) responded that the Human Resource frame was used most
frequently, followed by the Symbolic, Structural, and Political frames, respectively.
Statistical operations of ANOVA, Chi-square, and Linear regression were used to analyze
the data. With regard to frame use, the findings showed that the Symbolic and Structural
frames were significantly related to effectiveness as a leader, whereas effectiveness as a
manager was significantly related to use of the Structural, and Political frames.
Approximately 28% of the participants reported use of three or more frames. Use of three
or more frames was an indication of multi-frame use. Female principals were more likely
to use the Structural, Human Resource, and Symbolic frames and males seemed to rely
more on the Human Resource frame.
Johnson (1995) surveyed a random sample of 100 principals and 60 teachers in
public and Catholic schools in Los Angeles, California. Sixty-two principals responded to
the Leadership Orientations (Self) Survey. With regard to management behavior, the
majority of principals used the Human Resource frame. Sixty-nine percent of the
principals reported use of more than three frames. Sixty-three percent used the Human
Resource frame as their first choice, followed by the Symbolic, the Structural, and the
Political frames, respectively. With regard to leadership behavior, 40% of the principals
used more than two frames. The Human Resource frame was the first choice, followed by
the Structural, and then the Symbolic frames. The least used was the Political frame.
In another study, Rivers (1996) identified leadership orientation frames of 123
elementary, middle, and high school principals in Orange County, Florida and related
factors that influenced frame use. The response rate on the Leadership Orientations (Self)
Survey was 91.8%. Fifty-three percent of the principals used multiple frames. The most
dominant frame used was the Human Resource frame. This was followed by the
Structural, Symbolic, and Political frames, respectively. Fifty-eight percent rated
themselves as top leaders, and 43.4% rated themselves as top managers.
In 1994 Suzuki investigated the leadership frames used by 124 Asian American
K-12 principals in California. The largest percentage of principals used the Human
Resource frame, followed by the Structural, Symbolic, and Political frames, in order of
preference. Forty-eight percent of the principals used three or more frames. Females used
the Human Resource frame more than males. The predictor variables of age and number
of Asian students in schools had no significant effect on leadership orientation.
In another study, Durocher (1995) examined the leadership orientations of 70
public school administrators identified in the February 1993 issue of The Executive
Educator to determine common cognitive orientations that may have accounted for their
success as leaders. Participants completed the Leadership Orientations (Self) Survey.
Leaders showed greatest use of the Human Resource frame, followed by the Political,
Symbolic, and Structural frames, in order of preference. That study found that 45.7% of
the administrators used three or more frames most of the time. Seventy-six percent rated
themselves as top managers and 93% rated themselves as top leaders. Females used the
Structural and Human Resource frames to a significant extent more than males and
showed greater use of multiple frames than males. Male and female administrators used
the Human Resource frame most of the time. There was no relationship between years of
experience and use of frames. When compared with those administrators in seven other
studies, the 70 successful administrators showed highest use of the Political and
Symbolic frames, and lowest use of the Structural frame. Male administrators showed
least use of the Structural Frame.
These five studies (Cote, 1999; Durocher, 1995; Johnson, 1995; Rivers, 1996;
Suzuki, 1994) were conducted in the United States, which was a different context from a
developing country like Belize. It was especially interesting to note that all principals in
these five studies made the greatest use of the Human Resource frame and in four of the
studies the Political frame was least used.
Of great interest was the finding from Durocher's (1995) study that showed
school administrators using the Political frame much more frequently than those in the
four other studies. Of particular note was the fact that Durocher's sample was comprised
of those public school administrators who were already identified in The Executive
Educator as successful leaders. Bolman and Deal's finding (1991a, 1992) that the Human
Resource and Political frames were predictors of success for managers and leaders were
confirmed in Durocher's study of effective administrators.
In scoring the Leadership Orientations (Self) Survey, four studies (Durocher,
1995; Johnson, 1995; Rivers, 1996; Suzuki, 1994) reported means of the four subscales in
Section I of the instrument as the score for frame use. Among these, five was the highest
score possible. Durocher (1995) used the mean score of 4.0 or greater to indicate
consistent use of that frame. In Cote's (1999) study the score was calculated using ratings
from items in Sections I and II. Her study showed the least number of principals using
three or four frames even though her study was the largest sample of the five studies. The
difference may have been due to the alternative method of scoring used in that study
when compared to the others.
Three of these studies (Cote, 1999; Durocher, 1995; Rivers, 1996) found that
some principals did not use any particular frames. Apparently these were principals who
scored less than the cut off score used to indicate frame use. Nevertheless, in view of the
fact that these participants were administrators in their schools, there must have been
some leadership perspective that these principals used in carrying out their role as leaders
(Table 1). This finding underscored a limitation of using the Bolman and Deal (1997)
typology to study leadership perspectives-the confinement of leader orientations to four
Although limited to four perspectives, the use of frame theory as the organizing
framework that undergirded this study was sufficiently broad, yet discriminating enough
to provide insight into the cognitive perspectives of Belizean school administrators,
especially since this study was exploratory, considering it was the first study of its kind
conducted in Belize.
These five studies also examined contextual and personal variables in relation to
school administrators' frame orientation. In these studies, gender seemed to be the factor
that was the greatest determinant of frame preference. Both Johnson (1995) and Suzuki
(1994) found that male and female principals preferred the Human Resource frame,
however, more females used this frame than did males. Similarly, Rivers (1996) found
that male and female principals showed greater use of the Human Resource frame, but
females used the Symbolic frame to a greater extent than males, and males used the
Political frame more than females. Durocher's (1995) study also showed that female
administrators made greater use of the Structural and Human Resource frames than did
male administrators.
Table 1
Frequency of Frames Used by School Administrators in Schools in the United States
Studies Structural Human Resource Political Symbolic
Cote (1999) N= 214
Elementary Principals (FL)
Johnson (1995) N= 62
Elementary Principals (CA)
Rivers (1996) N= 113 Elem.,
Mid. & H.S. Principals (FL)
Suzuki (1994) N= 124 Elem.,
Mid. & H.S. Principals (CA)
Durocher (1995) N= 70 Public
School administrators (U.S.)
SFrame use was ranked from 1 =
3 1 4 2
(27.5% used 3 or more frames; 6.5% used four)
(2.85% used no frames)
3 1 4 2
(45 % used 3 or more frames; 8.3% used four)
(All used frames)
2 1 4 3
(49.4% used 3 or more frames; 21% used four)
(8% used no frames)
2 1 4 3
(48% used 3 or more frames; 11% used four)
(All used frames)
4 1 2 3
(45.7% used 3 or more frames; 24.3% used four)
(12.9% used no frames)
frame most used, to 4 = frame least used.
With regard to contextual factors, Cote (1999) found that although school
enrollment did, school socioeconomic status did not significantly influence principals'
frame use; however, those principals with lower levels of education relied mostly on the
Structural frame. In Durocher's (1995) study there was no relationship between
administrators' age and frame use.
Additionally, Johnson (1995) found no significant difference in frame use
between public school and Catholic school principals. However, Catholic school
principals made greater use of the Symbolic frame with no significant relationships noted
between specific contextual factors and frame use.
This study examined the influence of socioeconomic and political factors in the
Belizean context on principals' leadership orientation. Some of the contextual variables
were similar to and others were different from those identified in these five studies (Cote,
1999; Durocher, 1995; Johnson, 1995; Rivers, 1996; Suzuki, 1994) because the contexts
of education for these five studies were different from that in Belize. One objective of
this study was to investigate the influence of urban and rural settings, school
management, and school size on principals' cognitive frame use.
Leadership, Management, and the School Principal
Leadership and Management
Many authors have distinguished between the processes of leadership and
management. Bennis and Nanus (1985) observed that leaders focused on vision and
operated using spiritual and emotional resources, such as value commitment, to influence
others. The manager, however, operated using the physical resources of the organization,
which included the capital, human skills, raw materials and technology.
Bennis (1994) proposed that managers were administrators and leaders were
innovators; the managers were copies and the leaders originals; the managers maintained
while leaders developed; managers relied on control, had a short range view, and asked
how and when; while leaders relied on trust, had a long-range perspective, and asked
what and why. The managers had their eyes on the bottom line while the leaders had
their eyes on the horizon; and the managers did things right, while leaders did the right
In describing the difference between leadership and management, Kotter (1995)
suggested that management was about coping with complexity, whereas leadership was
about coping with change. To deal with complexity, managers planned, budgeted and set
future targets, whereas a leader addressed complexity by setting direction. Managers, to
achieve their plan, organized and selected staff; whereas leaders worked to bring about
the alignment of people. Managers implemented plans through control and problem
solving, while leaders achieved vision by motivating and inspiring others. Hersey,
Blanchard, and Johnson (2001) contended that the concept of leadership was broader than
the concept of management. Managers specifically focused on achieving goals of the
organization, whereas leaders' influence on others did not have to occur in an
organizational setting.
In reporting results from studies on college presidents, senior administrators, and
central office and school district administrators, Bolman and Deal (1991a) found that the
Structural frame-which emphasized adherence to rules, procedures, and policies-was
the best predictor of managerial effectiveness but the worse predicator of leadership
effectiveness. The Symbolic frame, where the focus was on establishing shared values,
culture, and meaning through use of rituals, ceremonies, myths, and stories was the best
predictor of leadership effectiveness, but the worse predictor of effectiveness as a
manager. These results seemed to support the differences between managers and leaders
as indicated above.
Gardner (1990) argued that there was overlap in the roles of leader and manager
and that it was not wise to contrast managers and leaders too sharply. The effective
leader/manager was different from the "general run of managers" (p. 4) in that such
leaders thought long-term and looked beyond their unit to the larger world, reaching out
and influencing constituents beyond their immediate jurisdiction. Leaders emphasized
both vision and renewal and had the political skills to cope with challenging questions of
multiple constituencies. Hersey, Blanchard, and Johnson (2001), although suggesting that
activities of leadership and management may be different; noticed an overlap in these
processes because everyone was a manager in certain situations and a leader in others. In
fact they argued that "achievement of organizational objectives through leadership"
constituted management (Hersey, Blanchard, and Johnson, 2001, p. 9).
Newton (1996a) contended that schools needed management to establish and
maintain daily routines to carry out the basic purpose for their existence; however,
leadership that went beyond management was needed to infuse the school with
excitement, innovation, and freshness. Lunenburg and Omstein (2000) further argued that
the organization needed good management to survive, for good management ensured that
day-to-day activities and routines kept the organization together. Leaders, they observed,
created a broader vision. Consistent with this line of thinking, Greenfield (1995)
proposed that leadership, more so than management, was particularly important for
effective school administration because of the school's environment that placed demands
on the principal.
The School Principal
This study investigated the usefulness of Bolman and Deal's (1997) leadership
frame typology as a means of explaining the way school principals exercised leadership
in primary and secondary schools in Belize. This study also examined the influence of
contextual factors and principals' individual characteristics on their frame use.
Greenfield (1995) described the work of the school principal as action-oriented,
reactive, and involving much face-to-face communication. The principal faced many
unpredictable situations in an environment where the work occurred at a rapid pace with
frequent interruptions. All this was compounded by constant pressure to maintain a
school that ran smoothly in an atmosphere of complexity and uncertainty. This
observation was demonstrated by a number of studies, both quantitative and qualitative,
that provided a deeper understanding of the role of the school administrator.
One such seminal study was Wolcott's (1973) ethnography on the job of the
principal, which showed, among other things, that Ed Bell, the elementary principal of
study, spent the greatest part of the time at school on a series of seemingly endless
encounters. Greenfield (1995) observed that Bell did not systematically differentiate and
prioritize problems, but saw every problem as having the same degree of importance and
responded in whatever way he perceived to be the most appropriate. Similarly,
Mintzberg's (1973) study of five managers showed that they did a substantial amount of
work that was taxing and occurred at an unrelenting pace. Most of the activities in which
they engaged were brief in duration and managers did not spend much time on planning.
Martin and Willower (1981) later used Mintzberg's technique to examine the work
activities of five high school principals in a northeastern state over a period of one week.
A year later, Kmetz and Willower (1982), conducted a similar study of the behavior of
five elementary principals (four males and one female) in two northeastern states in the
U. S. and compared the behavior of both groups of principal. Results from these two
studies are relevant to this dissertation because they revealed details of the work behavior
of elementary and high school principals.
Observations of elementary (Kmetz & Willower, 1982) and high school principals
(Martin & Willower, 1981) yielded information about the percentage of time spent in
various activities including desk work, phone calls, unscheduled meetings, and scheduled
meetings. High school principals and elementary principals worked approximately 50
hours per week, and spent the greatest percentage of their time on unscheduled meetings
(27.5 % for high school principals and 32.5% for elementary principals). These sessions
were very short, spontaneous, arranged in haste, and most of the time involved internal
school personnel. Elementary principals spent a greater percentage of time (18.6%) on
deskwork when compared to high school principals (16.0%). In general, principals'
activities were often interrupted and these interruptions led to their engagement in more
than one activity at the same time because of the hectic work pace. The picture that
emerged from these studies showed that the principal performed a high volume of tasks
that were for the most part varied, fragmented, and brief (lasting approximately 4
minutes). Their work was interrupted over 50% of the time. However, these studies
showed that the activities and interruptions were fewer for elementary than high school
principals. The work pace of the elementary principal was observed to be less hectic than
the work pace of the high school principal, and elementary principals had more contact
with parents and superiors than did high school principals.
It seemed that the principals' behavior was controlled by external events rather
their deliberate decision on where to allocate and spend their time. In their review of
studies on the principalship, Fullan and Stiegelbauer (1991) supported this observation
when they concluded that overload and fragmentation were typical of the school
principal's work.
Other studies on the principalship examined the influence of personal and
contextual factors on principal behavior. In a study of 619 school principals selected by
purposive sampling from schools in seven states in the U.S., Salley et al. (1979)
examined the principal's occupation through analysis of their responses on the Job
Functions Inventory. Multivariate Analysis of Variance was used to compare the groups
of principals at the 0.01 level of significance. The type and size of school accounted for
the greatest number of differences in the way the principals described their jobs. There
were no significant differences with regard to principals' age and years in present
position. Hence, contextual factors were more significantly related to the principals' job
than personal characteristics.
In another study, Smith et al., (1992) examined the effects of personal and
contextual factors on the administrative behavior of 160 school principals (74 elementary,
36 middle/junior high, and 50 senior high). The data were collected using the
Instructional Leadership Inventory (ILI), which indicated the frequency with which
principals performed 48 tasks in five categories. Three subscales elicited administrators'
perceptions of different aspects of the work environment. A second instrument, the
School Administrator Assessment Survey (SAAS) used four scales to measure the values
administrators considered important to their work life. Regression analysis procedures
were used to analyze the data. Principals' personal characteristics, including age, gender
and experience, accounted for 14% of the variance in administrative behaviors. Older
principals spent more time establishing an instructional climate than those principals who
had been on the job fewer years.
With regard to contextual variables, school, district, and community
characteristics accounted for 15% of the variance in principals' administrative behavior.
Results showed that neither school environment, nor community involvement influenced
principals' behavior as much as staff involvement and interaction. Leadership behaviors
(establishing school mission and promoting instructional climate) were more influenced
by personal characteristics than by school context, community, or district forces. Those
principals with greater years of experience focused more on management than leadership
activities. This study provided an indication of the relationship of personal and contextual
factors on principals' behaviors.
According to Lockheed and Verspoor (1991), the job of primary school principals
in developing countries was similar to that in other countries in that it was multifaceted
and complex. The principal was expected to "maintain relationships among the schools,
community, and parents; supervise teachers, oversee maintenance of facilities and
equipment, manage a range of reporting and record keeping duties, and in small schools,
teach as well" (Lockheed and Verspoor, 1991, p. 125). However, in developing countries,
all these tasks were carried out in conditions where there was a chronic shortage of
clerical support, operating funds, and resources for staff development. In developing
countries such as Belize, principals were selected from among teachers and formal
training before appointment did not exist, however, as assistant principal, the principal
would have been informally trained for the job of school administrator. In developed
countries, the situation was far different in that principals engaged in formal training
before taking up the principalship.
In Belize, training for primary principals was one of the components of the
BPED project. However, this project came to an end in 1999 and so did the formal
training for primary principals. The school effectiveness studies (Ministry of Education
and Sports, 1999a; 1999b) that were conducted to develop a monitoring instrument for
primary and secondary schools in Belize provided some insight into the principalship at
these levels.
The results of these studies have been interpreted with caution, since reliability
figures for the subscales were not provided for the instrument. In addition, the results for
the primary principals were based on 40 respondents selected through convenience
sampling. This dissertation will help to fill the gap in the literature on school leadership
and provide a deeper understanding of the principalship in Belize.
The school effectiveness studies conducted by the Belize Ministry of Education
and Sports (1999a, 1999b) surveyed the total population of 29 high school principals in
the country, and 40 (16% ofN= 247) primary school principals. The survey instrument
gathered data on context indicators (school location, management, size, home language of
students, parents' educational level and socioeconomic status), input indicators
(quantity/quality of resources-including financial, material and human), process
indicators (school operations/procedures, educational leadership and curriculum), and
output indicator (student achievement). Data were also collected on the quantity of time
principals spent on activities as shown in Table 2.
Educational leadership activities included issues related to the instructional
program (curriculum, timetabling, textbooks, educational technology, performance
review), record keeping, and teacher professional development. Although these activities
were described as leadership activities, they were mostly concerned with maintaining the
operations of the school.
The high school principals were more involved with student affairs,
administrative duties, and educational leadership activities than were primary principals.
It was obvious, however, that primary principals spent more time than high school
principals on teaching activities. Most high school principals did not teach and had
secretaries and assistant principals. However, this was not the case in most primary
Similar to principals in studies by Martin and Willower (1981) and Kmetz and
Willower (1982), the principals in Belize also worked more than 40 hours per week.
However, the primary school principals in this study, particularly those in small schools,
spent over 50% of their time teaching.
Table 2
Number of Hours Spent on Principals' Activities
Activity High school principal Primary principal
Educational leadership 13 4
Administrative/organizational duties 16 4
Student affairs 9 3
Contact with parents 4 4
Professional development 4 4
Other 4 1
Teaching/Supervising 6 24
TOTAL number of Hours 56 44
With regard to primary schools, the Handbook of Policies and Procedures for
School Services (Ministry of Education, 2000) provided guidelines on whether principals
were expected to teach as well as administer. If the school's enrolment was 210 or below,
principals were to administer and teach. In small multigrade schools, mostly found in
rural areas, principals were responsible for performing both roles. They administered and
managed the day-to-day affairs of the school and taught one, two, or perhaps even three
grade levels. Schools with enrollment between 210 and 330 students were administered
by one principal who was not required to teach. Schools with more than 330 students had
a non-teaching principal and one, two, or three assistant principals depending on the size.
There has been no budgeted position of secretary for these schools. Primary schools with
secretaries were those that raised funds to hire someone for this position. Note, however,
that most high schools have had secretaries and non-teaching principals. Cathers (1998)
described the harried nature and multiplicity of roles that belonged to the primary school
principal in Belize. In his visit to schools, he observed the principal being
a nurse for scrapes, bruises, headaches.....social workers and counselors for
abused and neglected children...fund raisers and bookkeepers...contractors and
maintenance persons...vendors. They have to attend numerous meetings and
workshops... supposed to be teacher trainers and teacher evaluators. They have
considerable paper work. When teachers are absent, principals are substitute
teachers. They must do all the above without a secretary/receptionist. In small
[rural] schools, principals must [also] travel, and teach full time. (p. 25)
This description seemed congruent with Harber and Davies' (1997, p. 65)
observation that the role of principals in developing countries was "messy, fragmented,
untidy, and event-driven." They illustrated the "general dogsbody" aspect of the head
teachers' job with an example of the principal in Botswana who fixed the leaking roof
and water pipe.
The Handbook of Policies and Procedures for School Services (Ministry of
Education, 2000) provided a detailed description of the formal roles and responsibilities
of the principals of schools in Belize. Principals were responsible for "implementation of
management decisions and policies, ... [and] day-to day school administration;
provision of educational leadership; and leading development in the school" (p. 60). For
this to happen, principals were expected to engage in activities that included, among
other things, the overseeing of student placement and progression through school;
enforcing school codes; maintaining a safe environment; managing, assessing, and
directing staff; maintaining school records; monitoring facilities; and preparing reports.
Furthermore, principals were required to provide educational leadership with
regard to pedagogy, curriculum, and assessment. To do this, they were expected to direct
the formulation and implementation of the curriculum; conduct clinical supervision of
teachers; and liaison with the school management, the MOE, and other external agencies.
They were also required to coordinate staff development activities. The role of the
principal seemed to be more consistent with that of a manager, than with that of a leader.
This observation was in keeping with Stephens' (1991) description of the head
teacher in developing countries as one who managed rules and procedures and was so
caught up in doing this that there remained little time for innovation and improvement.
The details of duties were clearly prescriptive with the emphasis on ensuring that things
were done right (Bennis, 1989).
The Context of School Leadership
Although the principal has been deemed important for the success of the school,
Sergiovanni (2001) has argued that the mere presence of the principal did not ensure that
the required leadership was being provided since the circumstances in which they found
themselves may have prevented them from being the leaders they wanted to be. Other
theorists and researchers (Bolman and Heller, 1995; Dimmock & Walker, 2000; Scott,
1992) have argued that school leadership should not to be studied in a vacuum for it was
not disconnected from physical, cultural, and social factors in the environment. The fact
that leadership did not occur in isolation from followership has been well documented
(Boylan, 1995; Hersey, Blanchard, & Johnson, 2001). This study concentrated on
variables in the school and community that were relevant to the setting in Belize.
In a secondary analysis of data from 98 elementary principals in Tennessee,
Hallinger and others (1990) used the Far West Lab model of principal leadership, which
located the leader within the context of the school and broader community to investigate
what factors influenced leadership behavior. Both parental involvement and student
socioeconomic status (SES) were shown to have a positive impact on principal
leadership. The researchers concluded that school leadership was complex and context-
dependent and that examination of exogenous variables was critical to the understanding
of principal leadership.
Pfeffer and Salancik's (1978) theory of resource dependency has contributed to
the understanding of the context-dependent nature of the principalship. These researchers
postulated that organizations could not escape from their contextual settings for they
needed to engage in relationships and transactions with others in the environment to
acquire needed resources. In fact, Harber and Davies (1997) went so far as to suggest that
schools in developing countries were ineffective because of their "context-specific
fragility" (p. vii). They contended that this situation existed because schools in
developing countries were "essentially contextually driven" since they were shaped by
"colonial history, global economic relationships, local cultural interaction, and post-
independence political needs" (Harber and Davies, 1997, p. 2).
The school leader, in addition to dealing with the internal environment of the
school, must also pay attention to the external environment. The view of the school as an
open system has been the perspective taken in this dissertation. This perspective was
appropriate because of the obvious dependency on partnerships that have been important
for education development in Belize.
The two school effectiveness studies (Ministry of Education and Sports, 1999a;
1999b) that were conducted to develop a monitoring instrument for primary and
secondary schools in Belize provided some perspectives into the context of the
principalship at these levels. These studies surveyed the total population of 29 high
school principals, and 16 % (40) of primary school principals. The data on context
indicators presented a glimpse into the setting in which principals in Belize operate.
Both studies found that the dominant language spoken at home was Creole, then
Spanish. Nevertheless, Phillips (1998) found that the use of Creole in the classroom was
discouraged. The argument for teaching Creole in schools has been advanced by several
influential Belizeans, including Sir Colville Young, the Governor General of Belize.
However, English has remained the official language of instruction in schools although
many of the students in Belize have started primary school with a different home
language from that used in the school (Ministry of Education and Sports, 2000a).
With regard to school resources, results from these studies showed that high
schools were much better off than primary schools. For example, libraries with updated
materials were found in 85% of the high schools and in only 20% of the primary schools.
Whereas 64% of high school teachers had adequate teaching materials, this was true for
only 35% of the primary schools. All high schools had a principal's office, whereas a
principal's office was found in only 35% of the primary schools. While 82% of the high
schools had a staff room, only 15% of the primary schools had a staff room.
Overall, although only 16% of the primary schools were surveyed, the results
showed a greater lack of resources in primary than in high schools. While the government
has provided the significant proportion of the funding for operating expenses at primary
and secondary levels, schools are still compelled to raise much of their operating budget.
According to the two studies, the government provided about 77% of the funding for
primary schools, the schools raised about 12% of the funding, 2% came from school
management, and the remaining 9% from other sources.
For high schools, those study results showed that the government funded 86% for
salaries and tuition leaving the schools to find the means to fund the balance. Schools'
success with fund raising depended mostly on the affluence of their communities and the
fundraising abilities of the principal and teachers. Bennis (1994, p. 44) argued that
leaders were those who "mastered" the context, whereas managers "surrendered" to the
Furthermore, Gardner (1990) observed that different settings provided different
degrees of support for the leader. Obviously then, the leader would be more likely to look
best in a supportive context. In Belize the more supportive context, with regard to
availability of resources, would most likely mean the urban setting.
Researchers such as Heck (1998) and Hallinger and Leithwood (1998b) have
surmised that leadership studies in different cultural settings have not paid adequate
attention to their environmental context. This study investigated the usefulness of Bolman
and Deal's (1997) leadership frame typology as a means of explaining the way school
principals exercised leadership in primary and secondary schools in Belize and focused
particularly on the influence of school location, school size, and type of school
management on school principals' frame use. However, more in-depth information on
school leaders' perceptions of their environment with respect to these contextual
variables was elicited from principals in focus groups, the results of which are presented
and discussed in later chapters of this dissertation.
Chapter 2 provided an overview of the setting within which school principals
functioned in Belize. Belize has managed to provide access to primary education for over
90% of its school-age children. Partnerships with other agencies have been one way that
resources have been maximized in Belize. Chapter 2 here also presents a description of
the development of the frames and the usefulness of this framework to inform this study,
as well as a review of relevant frame studies on the principalship. These studies
demonstrated that Bolman and Deal's (1997) four-frame typology was a useful
framework for investigating the way school principals exercised leadership. The third
section of Chapter 2 examined the relationship between leadership and management as it
related to the school principal. The last section established the importance of the
environment in which the school leader worked, with particular reference to resource
dependency theory as important for understanding school leadership in developing
countries. This review of related literature provided a foundation for this inquiry into the
leadership perspectives of principals in the Belizean setting. Chapter 3 presents the
methodology used in conducting this study.
This study investigated the applicability of Bolman and Deal's (1997) leadership
frame typology as a means of explaining the way school principals exercised leadership
in primary and secondary schools in Belize. This study also examined the influence of
contextual factors and principals' individual characteristics on their frame use. This study
was conducted using a mixed method design since both quantitative and qualitative data
were collected and analyzed (Cresswell & Shope, 2002). However, priority was given to
quantitative methods while the qualitative strategy of focus-group interviews was used to
collect supplemental information with which to provide a "more complete picture" of the
principal within the Belizean context (Morse, 2003, p. 189). In the absence of leadership
studies in Belize, the intent of the focus-group discussions was to collect and analyze
qualitative information about the context of education in Belize from the principal's
perspective. Use of more than one type of data provided a better and more realistic
picture of the principals' cognitive frame use as well as the factors influencing their
leadership orientation. In other words, multiple data sources yielded information that was
richer, and more revealing than a single data source (Morse, 2003; Gay & Airasian,
2000). Quantitative data were gathered using the Leadership Orientations (Self) Survey.
Although questionnaire data were based on self-reports and had drawbacks, it
nevertheless provided participants with a "structured opportunity to reflect on their
practice" (McEwen & Salters, 1997, p. 70).
Research Questions
This study investigated the applicability of Bolman and Deal's (1997) leadership
frame typology as a means of explaining the way school principals exercised leadership
in primary and secondary schools in Belize. This study also examined the influence of
contextual factors (school location, school management, and school size) and principals'
individual characteristics (age, gender, ethnicity, years of experience as principal,
academic qualification) on their frame use. Contextual factors and leader characteristics
were the explanatory (independent) variables; and the four cognitive frames were the
outcome (dependent) variables. This study focused on answering four questions:
* Is there a relationship between the explanatory variables, and the outcome variable,
Structural frame, among principals of government primary schools, Catholic primary
schools, and secondary schools in Belize?
* Is there a relationship between the explanatory variables, and the outcome variable,
Human Resource frame, among principals of government primary schools, Catholic
primary schools, and secondary schools in Belize?
* Is there a relationship between the explanatory variables, and the outcome variable,
Political frame, among principals of government primary schools, Catholic primary
schools, and secondary schools in Belize?
* Is there a relationship between the explanatory variables, and the outcome variable,
Symbolic frame, among principals of government primary schools, Catholic primary
schools, and secondary schools in Belize?
Study Population
In this study, the entire population of 192 principals of Government primary
schools, Catholic primary schools, and high schools was sampled. The population
included 115 principals of Catholic primary schools, 42 principals of Government
primary schools, and 35 high school principals. Principals' age ranged from 20 to 62
years, and the four major ethnic groups (Creole, Garinagu, Mayan, and Mestizo) were
represented in the population. Of this population (Table 3), most (76%) were principals
of rural schools, and the majority were males (65%). Most primary school administrators
(86%) were principals of rural schools. However, most high school administrators (72%)
were principals of urban schools.
Table 3
The Study Population
Principal School School Location Gender of Principals
Management Urban Rural Female Male
Primary Catholic 17 98 43 72
Primary Ministry of 5 37 14 28
High school Board of 25 10 11 24
Totals 47 145 68 124
(24%0) (76%) (35%) (65%)
The focus-group discussions were carefully planned and designed to elicit
participants' perceptions on a particular topic of interest in a permissive, non-threatening,
and comfortable environment (Kreuger, 1994). Given that focus groups are best
conducted with participants from similar backgrounds and experiences, attention was
paid to the type of school management, location, level; and principal's gender, as criteria
for selecting participants. Principals with similar characteristics created homogeneous
groups with comparable experiences conducive to positive group dynamics, thereby
increasing participation in the discussions (Greenbaum, 2000).
The Leadership Orientations (Self) Survey (Bolman & Deal, 1990) instrument,
which corresponded with the four frames, was used to identify principal's cognitive
perspectives. The instrument included subscales to represent each frame. The instrument
included 40 items divided into three sections. Section I presented 32 questions to be rated
on a Likert type scale of I (Never) to 5 (Always) depending on "how often" each of the
items applied to the participant. Eight items were included to test each of the four frames.
There were two subscales in each of the four frame orientations on eight dimensions of
leadership as shown in Table 4 (Bolman & Deal, 1991b).
Table 4
Description of Dimensions of Leadership of the Leadership Orientation (Self) Survey
Structural (8 items)
1. Analytic
(items 1, 9, 17, 25)
2. Organized
(items 5, 13, 21, 29)
Human Resource (8 items)
3. Supportive
(items 2, 10, 18, 26)
4. Participative
(items 6, 14, 22, 30)
Political (8 items)
5. Powerful
(items 3, 11, 19, 27)
6. Adroit
(items 7, 15, 23, 31)
Symbolic (8 items)
7. Inspirational
(items 4, 12, 20, 28)
8. Charismatic
(items 8, 16, 24, 32)
Thinks clearly and logically; approaches problems
with facts and attends to detail.
Develops clear goals and policies; holds people
accountable for results.
Concerned about the feelings of others; supportive
and responsive.
Fosters participation and involvement; listens and
is open to new ideas.
Persuasive, high level of ability to mobilize people
and resources; effective at building alliances and
Politically sensitive and skillful; a skillful negotiator
in face of conflict and opposition.
Inspires others to loyalty and enthusiasm;
communicates a strong sense of vision.
Imaginative, emphasizes culture and values; is
highly charismatic.
Section II consisted of six forced-choice items, which, according to Bolman and
Deal (1992), produced a sharper differentiation among the frames because participants
could not rate themselves high on everything. There were four subscales in this section
with six statements to test each frame. In Section III participants were asked to rate their
overall effectiveness as a manager or leader on a scale of 1 (Bottom 20%) to 5 (Top
20%). The final section of the questionnaire collected participants' demographic
information. In the current study, participants responded to all three sections. However, in
the analysis, only responses to the eight-item measures in Section I were used to identify
frame use because the developers of the instrument noted that the forced-choice items in
Section II were better suited for measuring variance within people than between them (L.
Bolman, personal communication, October, 2002).
Reliability of the Leadership Orientations (Self) Survey
Bolman and Deal (2001) reported internal consistency reliability statistics,
specifically coefficient alpha ranging from .79 to .93 for the eight-item frame measures in
Section I and the six-item frame measures Section II of the Leadership Orientations (Self)
Survey (Table 5). The reliabilities were computed for the Leadership Orientations (Self)
Survey based on ratings by 1,309 managers in business and education. The alpha
coefficients for items in Section 1 were all higher than the reliability coefficients for
Section II items. The alpha coefficients for the Political frame were lower when
compared to the reliability coefficients of the other subscales.
Table 5
Reliability of the Leadership Orientations (Self) Survey
Frame Coefficient alphaa Coefficient alphab
(Section I) (Section II) (Section I) (Section II)
Structural .92 .84 .77 .63
Human Resource .93 .84 .77 .73
Political .91 .79 .73 .52
Symbolic .93 .84 .79 .54
aReliability figures for Bolman and Deal (2001); reliability figures for this Belize study.
The coefficient alpha reliabilities of the subscales in Sections I and II were also
computed based on the ratings from the 143 participants in the current study. The alpha
coefficients for the subscales in Section I ranged from 0.73 to 0.79. Coefficient alpha for
Section II subscales were much lower than those for Section I. Only the responses from
Section I items were used to compute the scores used in the data analysis in this study.
The reliability coefficients for the subscales (Bolman and Deal, 2001) indicated that the
instrument was adequate for use in this study because the values exceeded 0.70 (Nunnally
& Bernstein, 1994).
Validity of the Leadership Orientations (Self) Survey
The content validity of an instrument may be assessed by those considered to be
experts in the field (Dooley, 2001). Three Belizeans judged the content validity of the
questionnaire for use in Belize. These included a primary school principal, a director of
the University of Belize's teacher education program, and a Ministry of Education
official. All three reported that the content of the questionnaire was applicable to
principals in Belize and that the instructions would not be difficult to follow.
Factor analysis, an important tool in determining construct validity (Aiken, 1997)
was used by Bolman and Deal (1991b) to investigate the construct validity of the
Leadership Orientations (Self) Survey. Responses to items in Section 1 of their
questionnaire (N= 681 raters in higher education) were examined using principal
components analysis, followed by a varimax rotation of all factors with an eigenvalue
greater than 1.
Results revealed four factors that represented the frame typology. Six items with
factor loadings ranging from .64 to .85 explained 21% of the variance on the Human
Resource frame. Eight items on the Structural frame had factor loadings ranging from .65
to .79 and this frame explained 17% of the variance. Six items on the Political frame
explained 17% of the variance. These items had factor loadings ranging from .59 to .78.
Five items with factor loadings ranging from .54 to .68 explained 13% of the variance on
the Symbolic frame. Seven of the 32 items on the questionnaire had factor loadings lower
that 0.5. Information was not found on what was done with these items; however, the
original form of the instrument with the 32 questions has continued to be successfully
used in other studies (Cote, 1999; Durocher, 1995; Johnson, 1995; Rivers,1996;
Scoring the Leadership Orientations (Self) Survey
The principal leadership orientation studies that have used only the questions in
Sections I and Section III to investigate leaders' cognitive frames have used the mean of
the eight items on each of the four subscales in Section 1 to identify frame use (Durocher,
1995; Johnson, 1995; Rivers, 1996; Suzuki, 1994). In these studies, the highest possible
mean was five, with the lowest being zero. In this study, the scores for each of the four
frames were computed by finding the average rating of each of the subscales (eight items
per subscale) in Section I. A mean score of 4.0 or greater was used to indicate use of that
frame often or always (Durocher; 1995). Frames with scores lower than 4.0 were used
less frequently.
Data Collection
Data were collected in the last part of the summer of 2002 and during November
of that same year. In conducting studies of school effectiveness at the primary and
secondary level, researchers in Belize found that the time to complete questionnaires was
a major problem for participants during the school year because they were involved in
school related affairs (Ministry of Education and Sports, 1999a; 1999b). In an effort to
ensure participation in this dissertation, data collection began in the summer even though
schools were not in session. However, principals could be reached at locations where
they were participating in summer professional development activities.
Bolman and Deal granted permission to use the Leadership Orientations (Self)
Survey and indicated that they wanted a summary of the results (Appendix B). Dr.
Bolman expressed the possibility that the raw data may be requested. This study was also
endorsed by the Chief Education Officer of the Belizean Ministry of Education
(Appendix C), as a way of gaining entry to conduct this study.
Prepared packets included an informed consent letter (Appendix D), a copy of the
Leadership Orientations (Self) Survey (Appendix E), and a stamped self-addressed
envelope. Tokens of instructional material and one dollar bill were also enclosed in each
of the 192 envelopes with the hope that this would provide an incentive for principals to
complete the packets (Fink & Kosecoff, 1978). The researcher traveled to Belize in July
and hand delivered the envelopes to different school management locations in the six
districts to ensure that the packets were placed in the principal's mailboxes so they would
receive them at the end of July when they came to the management office for their
salaries and checked their mailboxes. Follow up letters extending the deadline to
September 15 were sent to principals who had not responded by the end of August.
Follow-up telephone calls were made to those principals who had not responded by that
deadline. In a final effort to increase the response rate, another packet was mailed to
nonrespondents at the end of October. All returned surveys were assigned a code to
identify the district, type of school, type of management, and school location of each
Twenty principals were invited to participate in focus-groups discussions. Five of
the six focus groups turned out to be mini focus groups, since there were either three or
four participants involved. The group discussions were conducted in four of the six
districts in Belize. In one instance, only one principal showed up and agreed to participate
in an individual interview. Before the beginning of each interview, participants were
required to read and sign a consent letter indicating their agreement to participate in the
discussion (Appendix F). The researcher provided refreshments for participants during
the interviews, tokens of appreciation at the end, and in some cases, reimbursed travel
expenses for those principals who traveled from rural areas. Each focus-group interview
lasted for approximately 35 minutes, was tape recorded, and subsequently transcribed to
yield 49 pages of typed protocols. The researcher asked participants about their roles as
principals, their challenges, and their successes, and probed to discern what they
perceived to be major contextual factors that influenced their activities as principals and
the cognitive perspectives used as they performed their principalship roles. A copy of the
discussion guideline may be seen in Appendix G. At the end of each focus-group the
researcher provided an oral summary of the critical points on which participants were
invited to provide immediate feedback in the form of corrections and additional
information (Kreuger, 1994).
Data Analysis
The quantitative data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social
Sciences (SPSS), Version 10.0. Descriptive statistics and correlation coefficients were
computed and operations of regression analysis were conducted. According to Cohen
and Cohen (1983) multiple regression/correlation analysis, as a general and flexible
system of data analysis, may be used in instances when a quantitative variable was to be
studied in relationship to other factors of interest. Because the inquiry of this dissertation
focused on discovering what personal and contextual factors were related to school
principals' frame use (quantitative variable), multiple regression analyses were used as
the major data analysis procedure in this study. For the regression analysis, the outcome
variables were the four frames: Structural, Human Resource, Political, and Symbolic as
measured by the subscales of Section I of the Leadership Orientations (Self) Survey.
There were eight explanatory variables, which provided either categorical or continuous
data. These were identified as: Xi Age; X2 -type ofschool (1 = government primary
school, 2 = Catholic primary school, and 3 = high school); X3 school location (0 =
urban, 1 = rural); X4 school size; X5 Gender (0 = male, 1 = female); X6 Ethnicity (1
= Mestizo, 2 = Creole, 3 = Mayan, 4 = Garinagu, and 5 = other); X7 years of experience
as principal; and X8 highest academic qualification (1 = high school and trained
teachers, 2 = associate's and bachelor's degree, 3 = master's degree and other).
Using dummy coding of ones (Is) and zeros (Os), dummy variables were created
for the five categorical explanatory variables. For X2, two dummy variables were created.
The dummy variables were coded as 100 for government primary schools and 010 for
Catholic primary schools (high school, the reference group, was represented as 000). For
X3, the dummy variable for rural schools was coded as 10, urban school location was 00.
For X5s the dummy variable for females was coded as 10 and males was 00. Four dummy
variables were created for X6. The dummy variable for Mestizo was identified as 10000,
Creole = 01000, Mayan = 00100, Garinagu= 00010 and the reference group, other =
00000. Two dummy variables were created for X8 The dummy variable for high school
and trained teachers = 100, associates and bachelors degree = 010, and the reference
group, master's degree and other = 000.
The creation of dummy variables for the multiple regression analysis increased
the total number of explanatory variables for the full regression model to 13. For the first
regression model, the Structural frame was the outcome variable. This model may be
depicted as follows: = a + biX1 + b2dl + b3d2 + b4ZI + b5X4 + b6Z2+ b7dl + bsd2 +
b9d3 + b10d4 + b lX7 + b12dI + b13d2. In this model, "X" represents the continuous
explanatory variables, "d" represents the dummy variables created from a factor with
more than two categories, and "Z" represents the dummy variable created from a factor
with only two categories. The other three models were the same, except that in the second
model the outcome variable was the Human Resource frame, the Political frame for the
third model, and the Symbolic frame for the fourth model. Descriptive statistics,
correlations coefficients, and multiple regression operations were used to identify frame
use among principals and what factors were most significantly associated with frames
used by the principals. The four models were estimated to address the four research
questions. For each question, model fit was judged on the basis of the magnitude of the
model R2 and the statistical significance of the associated F value. For statistically
significant models, using regression coefficients and its statistical test assessed the
strength of the relationship between the outcome variable and the individual explanatory
variables. All statistical tests were conducted at a = 0.05.
The qualitative data were collected to shed light on the quantitative findings and
was a supplementary method used in this study. Participants' perceptions regarding the
contextual variables of school size, school location, and school management were the
focus of data analysis. Responses with regard to these three categories were coded, then
displayed under their respective headings, and analyzed for themes and patterns. The
analysis procedures were informed by guidelines published by Kreuger (1994) and Miles
and Huberman (1994).
Chapter 3 described the method used to investigate the cognitive frames used by
school leaders within the Belizean context. The major method of data collection was
through use of the Leadership Orientations (Self) Survey. However, qualitative data were
also collected through focus-group discussions. Chapter 3 here also presented the
population demographics, data collection techniques, and data analysis procedures. In
Chapter 4, results from the survey instrument and focus group interviews are analyzed
and interpreted in the light of the research questions. Chapter 5 presents conclusions,
implications of this study, and suggestions for further research.
The purpose of this study was to investigate the way school principals exercised
leadership in primary and secondary schools in Belize. Bolman and Deal's (1997)
leadership typology framed and guided this study, which addressed two overarching
questions: What are the leadership perspectives (cognitive frames) of Belizean school
administrators as defined by the Bolman and Deal (1997) frame typology? What
influence do principals' characteristics and contextual factors exert on their cognitive
frames? The contextual factors included school location, school management, and school
size. Leader characteristics were age, gender, ethnicity, years of experience as principal,
and academic qualification. Four research questions framed and structured this study:
* Is there a relationship between the explanatory variables, and the outcome variable,
Structural frame, among principals of government primary schools, Catholic primary
schools, and secondary schools in Belize?
* Is there a relationship between the explanatory variables, and the outcome variable,
Human Resource frame, among principals of government primary schools, Catholic
primary schools, and secondary schools in Belize?
* Is there a relationship between the explanatory variables, and the outcome variable,
Political frame, among principals of government primary schools, Catholic primary
schools, and secondary schools in Belize?
* Is there a relationship between the explanatory variables, and the outcome variable,
Symbolic frame, among principals of government primary schools, Catholic primary
schools, and secondary schools in Belize?
Chapter 4 presents the results of the analysis of the quantitative and qualitative
data. The results are presented in the light of the research questions. First, descriptive
data are presented. These include the demographic information as well as descriptive
statistics on participants' espoused cognitive frames. Next, analyses and results of the
multiple regression procedures are presented; and the analysis and results of the focus-
group interviews are explained.
A total of 192 Leadership Orientations (Self) Survey instruments were distributed
to the entire population of principals of government primary schools (42), Catholic
primary schools (115), and high schools (35) in Belize. One hundred forty-three
completed (143) questionnaires were returned. The return rate was 74 %. Of the returned
questionnaires, 41 (29%) were completed by principals of government primary schools,
76 (53%) by principals of Catholic primary schools, and 26 (18 %) by high school
principals. For the group of government school principals, the participation rate was 98%;
66% participated from the group of Catholic primary school principals; and 74% of the
group of high school principals completed questionnaires.
Descriptive Data
Participants' demographic data are presented in this section. Information on age,
gender, and experience in rural and urban settings is presented in Table 6. Table 7
presents information on participants' ethnicity and highest level of academic
The demographic data in Table 6 show the numbers and percentages of principals
for each demographic category by school type and then the totals for all schools. As
shown in Table 6, 78% (112) of the schools were located in the rural areas. Most school
principals were males (62%). The greater proportion (81%) of principals were below the
age of 50 years, with 75 % having 10 or fewer years of experience as principal. Most
principals of government primary schools (90%), and Catholic primary schools (86%)
worked in rural settings, however, most high schools (62%) were located in urban areas.
Table 6
Age, Gender, and Years of Experience of Principals of Government Primary Schools,
Catholic Primary Schools, and High Schools in Urban and Rural Belize
Primary Govt. Primary Catholic High School All Schools
(%) (%) (%) (%)
School Location
Urban 4(10) 11(14) 16(62) 31(21)
Rural 37(90) 65 (86) 10 (38) 112(78)
Total 41 76 26 143
Female 16 (39) 26 (34) 12(46) 54 (38)
Male 25 (61) 50 (66) 14 (54) 89 (62)
Total 41 76 26 143
>50 6(15) 11(18) 10(38) 27(19)
Total 40 73 26 139
Years of experience
< 10 years 29(71) 56(76) 16(62) 101(75)
> 10 years 12(29) 11(24) 10(38) 33(25)
Total 41 67 26 134
School Sizea
<210 31(76) 41(55) 7(27) 79(56)
>210 10(24) 34(45) 19(73) 63(44)
Total 41 75 26 142
Note: aRange in school size for primary government schools was 25 to 950; 25 to 1,195
for Catholic primary; and 100 to 1,000 for high schools.
At the primary school level, the greater numbers of principals of government
primary (61%) and Catholic primary schools (66%) were males. However, there were
almost equal numbers of male (54%) and female (46%) high school principals. With
regard to age, the greater percentage of principals of government primary schools (85%)
were between the ages of 26 to 50 years; 82% of the respondents from Catholic primary
schools were between the ages of 20 to 50 years; and 62% of high school principals were
between the ages of 31 to 50 years. Most principals from all schools had fewer than 10
years of experience. For principals of government primary schools, this figure was 71%
(29); 76% (56) for Catholic primary principals; and 62% (16) for high school principals.
The greater numbers of principals of government primary schools (76%) and Catholic
primary schools (55%) were responsible for schools with student enrollments of less than
210. For high schools, most principals (73%) were administrators in large urban schools
with enrollments above 210. Most principals of government primary schools (78%) and
Catholic primary schools (71%) were teaching principals. However, only a small number
(38%) of high school principals taught as well as administered.
As shown in Table 7, principals who were Mestizos comprised the highest
percentage (41%) of school leaders, followed by the number of principals who were
Creoles (18%), which is a realistic reflection of the country's demographic composition
(Central Statistical Office, 2000). The remaining participants were relatively evenly
distributed across Mayan (13%), Garinagu (15%), and other (13%). Most participants that
were categorized as "other" were of East Indian descent.
Most principals of government primary schools (42%) and Catholic primary
schools (47%) were Mestizos. Most high school principals (46%) were of Creole descent.
The greater numbers of participants (54%) were trained teachers followed by those who
held bachelor's degrees (22%). Sixteen (11%) of the participants held master's degrees
and one was qualified at the doctoral level (other = 1%).
The greater numbers of principals of government primary schools (59%), and
Catholic primary schools (70%) had completed teacher training in Belize. In addition,
25% of the principals of government primary schools, and 17% of those principals of
Catholic primary schools had attained bachelor's degrees. More than half (58%) the
number of high school principals was qualified at the master's level, while 34% of the
others had attained bachelor's degrees.
Table 7
Ethnicity and Highest Level of Academic Qualification of Principals of Government
Primary Schools, Catholic Primary Schools, and High Schools in Belize
Primary Govt.a Primary Catholic b High Schoolc All
(%) (%) (%) (%)
Mestizo 17(42) 37 (49) 5 (19) 59(41)
Creole 7(17) 7(9) 12(46) 26(18)
Mayan 3(7) 16(21) 0 19(13)
Garinagu 6(15) 12(16) 3 (12) 21(15)
Other 8(19) 4(5) 6(23) 18(13)
Highest academic qualification
High school 1(2) 3 (4) 0 4 (3)
Trained Teacher 24 (59) 53 (70) 0 77 (54)
Associates Degree 5(12) 7 (9) 1(4) 13 (9)
Bachelors Degree 10 (25) 13(17) 9(34) 32 (22)
Masters Degree 1(2) 0 15(58) 16(11)
Other 0 0 1(4) 1 (1)
Note: All participants (dN= 143) responded to these two categories. an = 41; n = 76; n
Participants' Use of Cognitive Frames
Table 8 shows descriptive data of the four frames used by the three groups of
principals. Participants' scores could range from 1.00 to 5.00 on Section I of the
Leadership Orientations (Self) Survey. A score of 4.00 or above indicates that
participants use that frame often or always (Durocher, 1995).
Scores below 4.00 mean that participants use those frames less frequently than
those frames on which the scores are 4.00 or higher. The average score (4.32) on the
Human Resource Frame was the highest for all participants. The lowest mean score
(3.75) was reported on the Political Frame.
Table 8
Descriptive Statistics of Frames Used by Principals of Government Primary Schools,
Catholic Primary Schools, and High Schools in Belize
Frames M SD Maximum Minimum
Principals of Government Schools
Structural 4.14 .437 5.00 3.25
Human Resource 4.32 .425 5.00 3.13
Political 3.75 .416 4.75 3.00
Symbolic 4.03 .464 4.88 3.13
Principals of Catholic Schools b
Structural 4.09 .497 4.88 2.63
Human Resource 4.36 .466 5.00 2.50
Political 3.71 .538 4.75 2.13
Symbolic 3.96 .537 5.00 2.63
Principals of High Schools C
Structural 4.16 .598 5.00 2.88
Human Resource 4.32 .552 5.00 2.88
Political 3.84 .566 4.75 2.50
Symbolic 4.09 .539 4.88 3.13
All Participants d
Structural 4.12 .499 5.00 2.63
Human Resource 4.34 .469 5.00 2.50
Political 3.74 .511 4.75 2.13
Symbolic 4.00 .517 5.00 2.63
Note: The maximum Mean (M) score possible = 5. A score of 4.0 or higher indicates
frequency of frame use as often or always. an = 41; bn = 76; Cn = 26; dN= 143.
For all three groups, the second highest mean score (4.14) was reported on the
Structural frame. The mean score (4.03) reported for the Symbolic frame was higher than
the score for the Political frame, but lower than the score for the Structural frame. The SD
of the scores for all participants was similar on the Structural (.499) and Human Resource
(.469) frames. There was little difference between the SD for the Political (.511) and
Symbolic (.517) frames. For principals of government primary schools, the average mean
scores ranged from a low of 3.75 on the Political frame to a high of 4.32 on the Human
Resource frame. In fact, as a group these principals used the Human Resource (M=
4.32), Structural (M= 4.14), and Symbolic (M= 4.03) frames more frequently (often or
always) than they did the Political (M= 3.75) frame. For principals of government
schools, there was relatively little difference in the SD figures, the smallest being .416 on
the Political frame and the largest being .464 on the Symbolic frame.
With regard to principals of Catholic primary schools, the average mean scores
ranged from a low of 3.71 on the Political frame to a high of 4.36 on the Human
Resource frame. As a group these principals used the Human Resource (M= 4.36) and
Structural (M= 4.09) frames more frequently (often or always) than they did the
Symbolic (M= 3.96) and Political (M= 3.71) frames. The range of the SD figures for the
frames used by Catholic principals, .466 on the Human Resource frame and .538 on the
Political Frame and was higher than the range of SD figures for government principals
(.416 on the Political frame and .464 on the Symbolic frame). The range in maximum and
minimum scores for all four frames (2.13 to 5.00) used by Catholic primary principals is
wider than the range for principals of government schools (3.00 to 5.00).
The data for high school principals show that average mean scores ranged from
3.84 on the Political frame to 4.32 on the Human Resource frame. As a group these
principals used the Human Resource (M= 4.32), Structural (M= 4.16), and Symbolic (M
= 4.09) frames more frequently (often or always) than they did the Political (M = 3.84)
frame. All SD figures were above .539 (Symbolic Frame) and relatively similar, with the
highest SD (.598) on the Structural frame. The range in the maximum and minimum
scores (2.50 to 5.00) for high school principals was larger than the range for principals of
government schools (3.00 to 5.00) and smaller than the range for Catholic primary
principals (2.13 to 5.00). As a group, all participants showed greatest preference for the
Human Resource frame, and the least use of the Political frame. The Structural frame was
their second choice and the Symbolic frame the third choice. Even when the data were
examined for the three groups separately, the pattern in frame use was the same.
Examination of the data showed that there was very little difference in the scores
of the four frames among male and female principals and principals of rural and urban
schools (Table 9). The frame with the highest frequency of use was the Human Resource,
followed by the Structural, Symbolic, and Political. Males used the Structural and Human
Resource frames more frequently than they did the other two frames.
Females used the Structural, Human Resource, and Symbolic frames more than
they did the Political frame. Females showed greater use of the Symbolic frame than
males. Those principals in who were Females, those in rural schools, and those in urban
schools, used the Symbolic frame more than males.
Table 9
Mean Scores for Frames Used by Male and Female Principals and Principals of Urban
and Rural Schools in Belize
School Principal Structural Human Resource Political Symbolic
Males (n= 89) 4.13 4.30 3.77 3.99
Females (n = 54) 4.10 4.41 3.69 4.03
Urban Schools (n= 31) 4.13 4.33 3.71 4.02
Rural Schools (n= 112) 4.11 4.35 3.75 4.00
Note: Maximum score = 5. A score of 4.0 or higher indicated frame use often or always.
Table 10 shows the number of frames used by the principals when grouped by
gender (male/female), school location (urban/rural), school management (primary
government, primary Catholic, and high school), and for the combined sample. There was
very little difference in the percentage of male (52.8%) and female (49.5%) principals
who used three or four frames often or always (score of 4.0 or higher).
However, more females (22.2%) than males (7.9%) used one frame and a greater
number of males (13.5%) than females (5.6%) scored less than 4.0 on all four frames.
Table 10
Number of Cognitive Frames Used by Male and Female Principals of Government
Primary Schools, Catholic Primary Schools, and High Schools in Urban and Rural Belize
Number of Frames used
Principals Four Three Two One None
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
Male (n = 89) 26 21 23 7 12
(29.2) (23.6) (25.8) (7.9) (13.5)
Female (n= 54) 14 13 12 12 3
(25.9) (23.6) (22.2) (22.2) (5.6)
Urban (n= 31) 7 10 7 3 4
(22.6) (32.2) (22.6) (9.7) (12.9)
Rural (n= 112) 33 24 27 18 10
(29.5) (21.4) (24.1) (16.1) (8.9)
Primary Govt. (n 41) 10 11 8 10 2
(24.4) (26.8) (19.5) (24.4) (4.9)
Primary Catholic (n = 76) 23 14 22 9 8
(30.3) (18.4) (29.0) (11.8) (10.5)
High School (n = 26) 8 7 6 2 3
(30.8) (26.9) (23.1) (7.7) (11.5)
Total (N = 143) 41 32 36 21 13
(28.7) (22.4) (25.2) (14.7) (9.1)
Note: aFrame use was indicated by a mean score of 4.0 or higher. TFor this category,
participants scored less than 4.0 on all four frames.
A similar number of principals of rural schools (50.9%) and principals of urban
schools (54.8%) used three or four frames often or always. However, a greater number of
principals of urban schools (32.2%) used three frames when compared to those principals
in rural areas (21.4%). A greater percentage of principals in rural schools (16.1%) used
one frame when compared to those in urban areas (9.7%), and fewer principals in rural
areas (8.9%) scored lower than 4.0 on all frames when compared to principals in urban
schools (12.9%).
A little over half (51.2%) of the principals of government schools used three or
more frames often or always, but 4.9% reported scores lower than 4.0 on all four frames.
A little less than one half (48.7%) of the principals of Catholic schools used three or more
frames often or always, but 10.5% scored less than 4.0 on all four frames. Most high
school principals (57.7%) used three or more frames often or always. However, of this
group, 11.5% reported scores lower than 4.0 on all four frames.
For the total sample, approximately half (51%) of the principals used either three
or four frames. A little more than one-fourth (28.7%) of the principals used four frames.
However, approximately 9% scored lower than 4.0 on all frames, which meant that those
participants did not show frequent use of any frame.
Multiple Regression
Multiple regression procedures were conducted to examine the relationship
between the explanatory variables (school location, school management, school size, age,
gender, ethnicity, experience as principal, and highest academic qualification) and the
outcome variables (Structural, Human Resource, Political, and Symbolic frames) at the
0.05 level of significance. Four regression models were tested to investigate the influence
of the 13 explanatory variables on each of the outcome variables.
The Structural Frame was the outcome variable for the first model, which may be
depicted as Y = a + blXi + b2d+ b3 d b b4Z1 + b5X + bZ2+ b7d + bsd2 + b9d3 +
bo0d4 + bl X7+ bl2di+ bd3d2 In this model, Xi represents participants' age; di and d2 are
dummy variables for school type; Zl represents the dummy variable for school location;
X4 represents school size; Z2 refers to the dummy variable for gender; di, d2, d3, and d4
represents the four dummy variables created from the five categories of Ethnicity; X7
refers to principals' years of experience; and the last two dummy variables are created
from the three categories of academic qualification. The other three models are the same,
except that in the second model the outcome variable is the Human Resource frame, the
Political frame for the third model, and the Symbolic frame for the fourth model.
For all continuous explanatory variables and each of the outcome variables,
inspection of plots of studentized residuals against predicted values and normal P-P plots
provided evidence that assumptions of linearity, homogeneity of variance, and normality
were not violated. In all analyses, a maximum Cook's distance of 0.163 or less, as well as
a maximum studentized residual of 2.124 or less indicated the absence of extreme
outlying values. For all four regression models, the highest VIF (Variance Inflation
Index) value was 7.36, showing that collinearity for these models was not severe.
Analysis and Results
The first regression model, consisting of the 13 explanatory variables and the
outcome variable, Structural Frame, was tested to answer the first research question: Is
there a relationship between the explanatory variables, and the outcome variable,
Structural frame, among principals of government primary schools, Catholic primary
schools, and secondary schools in Belize? Results showed that the R2 of.085 was not
statistically significant, F (13, 124) = .881, p = .574 (Table 11). This model indicated that
together, contextual factors and leader characteristics accounted for only 8.5% of the
variance in the scores on the Structural frame reported by the school leaders. Table 12
shows the regression coefficients of each of the 13 variables included in this model,
including the squared semi-partial correlation (sr2) for each.
The second regression model, consisting of 13 explanatory variables and the
outcome variable, Human Resource frame, was tested to answer the second research
question: Is there a relationship between the explanatory variables, and the outcome
variable, Human Resource frame, among principals of government primary schools,
Catholic primary schools, and secondary schools in Belize? Results showed that the R2 of
.067 was not statistically significant, F(13, 124) = .681,p = .779 (Table 11). This model
indicated that together, contextual factors and leader characteristics accounted for only
6.7% of the variance in the scores on the Human Resource frame reported by the school
leaders. Table 13 shows the regression coefficients of each of the 13 variables included in
this model, including the squared semi-partial correlation (sr2) for each.
Table 11
Summary of Multiple Regression Analyses for Variables Related to the Principals' Use
of the Structural, Human Resource, Political, and Symbolic Frames
Model SS df MS F p
Structural Frame
Regression 2.809 13 .216 .881 .574
Residual 30.398 124 .245
Total 33.207 137
Human Resource Frame
Regression 2.049 13 .158 .681 .779
Residual 28.711 124 .232
Total 30.760 137
Political Frame
Regression 2.446 13 .188 .735 .726
Residual 31.744 124 .256
Total 34.191 137
Symbolic Frame
Regression 3.181 13 .245 .916 .539
Residual 33.131 124 .267
Total 36.312 137
The third regression model, consisting of 13 explanatory variables and the
outcome variable, Political Frame, was tested to answer the third research question: Is
there a relationship between the explanatory variables, and the outcome variable, Political
frame, among principals of government primary schools, Catholic primary schools, and
secondary schools in Belize? Results showed that the R2 of .072 was not statistically
significant, F(13, 124) = .735, p = .726 (see Table 11). This model indicated that
together, contextual factors and leader characteristics accounted for only 7.2% of the
variance in the scores on the Political frame reported by the school leaders. Table 14
shows the regression coefficients of each of the 13 variables included in this model,
including the squared semi-partial correlation (sr2) for each.
Table 12
Summary of Multiple Regression Coefficients for Variables Related to Belizean School
Principals' Use of the Structural Frame
Variables B SE B f t p sr
Constant 4.383 .317 13.843
Age (Xi) .005 .006 -.028 -.233 .816 .000
PrimGov (di) .082 .207 -.076 -.395 .694 .001
PrimCath (di) -.122 .213 -.125 -.574 .566 .002
Urban/Rur (Zi) .109 .154 .092 .708 .480 .004
SchSize (X4) .000 .000 .114 .932 .353 .006
Male/Fem (Z2) .077 .124 -.076 -.619 .537 .003
Hsch/TrTr (di) .003 .231 .003 .013 .990 .000
Assc/Bach (d2) .092 .202 .088 .460 .647 .002
Yrs./Exp (X7) .009 .008 -.118 -1.014 .312 .008
Mestizo (di) .027 .159 -.272 -1.698 .092 .021
Creole (d2) .215 .166 -.166 -1.291 .199 .012
Maya (d3) .324 .202 -.217 -1.601 .112 .019
Garinagu (d4) .005 .177 .003 .026 .980 .000
The fourth regression model, consisting of 13 explanatory variables and the
outcome variable, Symbolic Frame, was tested to answer the fourth research question: Is
there a relationship between the explanatory variables, and the outcome variable,
Symbolic frame, among principals of government primary schools, Catholic primary
schools, and secondary schools in Belize?
Table 13
Summary of Multiple Regression Coefficients for Variables Related to Belizean School
Principals' Use of the Human Resource Frame
Variables B SE B / t p sr2
Constant 3.909 .308 12.704 .000
Age (X,) .002 .006 .039 .319 .750 .001
PrimGov (di) -.050 .201 -.048 -.250 .803 .001
PrimCath (di) -.022 .207 -.023 -.106 .916 .000
Urban/Rur(Zi) .250 .149 .218 1.673 .097 .021
SchSize (X4) .001 .000 .245 1.194 .048 .030
Male/Fem (Z2) .089 .121 .091 .738 .462 .004
Hsch/TrTr (di) .052 .224 .055 .234 .816 .000
Assc/Bach (d2) .107 .196 .105 .543 .588 .002
Yrs./Exp (X7) -.002 .008 -.028 -.236 .814 .000
Mestizo (di) -.033 .154 -.035 -.214 .831 .000
Creole(d2) .002 .162 .001 .010 .992 .000
Maya (d3) .078 .197 -.055 -.398 .691 .001
Garinagu (d4) .035 .172 .027 .205 .838 .000
Results indicated that the R2 of.088 was not statistically significant, F (13, 124)
= .916, p = .539 (see Table 11). For this model, contextual factors and leader
characteristics accounted for only 8.8% of the variance in the scores on the Symbolic
frame reported by the school leaders. Table 15 shows the regression coefficients of each
of the 13 variables included in this model, including the squared semi-partial correlation
(sr2) for each.
Results of the regression analyses suggest that the models did not fit the data,
indicating that none of the explanatory variables have a statistically significant
relationship to the outcome variables. The multiple regression results suggest that factors
other than those included in the model may account for school principals' use Structural
frame, Human Resource, Political and Symbolic frames.
Table 14
Summary of Multiple Regression Coefficients for Variables Related to Belizean School
Principals' Use of the Political Frame
Variables B SE B /l t p sr
Constant 4.138 .324 12.788 .000
Age (Xi) -.007 .007 -.125 -1.031 .304 .008
PrimGov (dj) -.254 .211 -.232 -1.203 .231 .010
PrimCath(d1) -.323 .217 -.324 -1.485 140 .016
Urban/Rur(Zi) .118 .157 .098 .751 .454 .004
SchSize (X4) .000 .000 .083 .673 .502 003
Male/Fem (Z2) -.059 .127 -.058 -.469 .640 .002
Hsch/TrTr (di) .112 .236 .112 .475 .636 .002
Assc/Bach (d2) .188 .206 .175 .913 .363 .006
Yrs./Exp (X7) -.004 .009 -.059 -.507 .613 .002
Mestizo (di) -.107 162 -.106 -.659 .511 .003
Creole(d2) -.078 .170 -.059 -.460 .647 .002
Maya (d3) -.189 .207 -.125 -.914 .362 .006
Garinagu (d4) .045 .180 .033 .251 .802 .000
Table 15
Summary of Multiple Regression Coefficients for Variables Related to Belizean School
Principals' Use of the Symbolic Frame
Variables B SE B f t p sr
Constant 4.469 .331 13.519 .000
Age (Xi) .006 .007 -.112 -.937 .351 .006
PrimGov (di) .059 .216 -.052 -.274 .785 .001
PrimCath (di) -.115 .222 -.112 -.516 .604 .002
Urban/Rur(Zi) .011 .161 .009 .067 .947 .000
SchSize (X4) .000 .000 -.046 -382 .703 .001
Male/Fem (Z2) .000 .130 .000 -.002 .999 .000
Hsch/TrTr (di) -.020 .241 -.019 -.082 .935 .000
Assc/Bach(d2) .044 .211 .040 .210 .834 .000
Yrs./Exp (X7) .004 .009 -.054 -.469 .640 .002
Mestizo (dt) -.167 .166 -.161 -1.005 317 .007
Creole(d2) .063 .174 .046 .361 .718 .001
Maya (d3) -.231 .211 -.148 -1.094 .276 .009
Garinagu (d4) .008 .184 .056 433 .666 .001
Analysis of Qualitative Data
The 14 focus group participants were male and female principals of primary and
secondary schools located in rural and urban areas as shown in Table 16. The researcher
used the qualitative approach of grounded theory and constant comparative method to
identify patterns in the focus group data with regard to the contextual variables of school
management, school location, and school size. Although this section presents the data
under separate headings, the interrelationships of these factors are a reality that cannot be
ignored. The reality is that there are government-managed schools, Catholic-managed
schools, and high schools located in urban and rural areas, with the school location being
one of the determinants of school size. Most rural schools are smaller than those in urban
areas. Notwithstanding the overlap in the responses, participant's perceptions are
presented under two major headings: (a) school management, and (b) school location, and
school size. The quotations capture the general perceptions of the group.
Table 16
Focus Group Participants
Principal School Management School Location Gender of Participants
Primary Catholic Urban 3 Females
Rural 2 Females, 2 Males
Primary Government Urban 3 Females
Rural 3 Males
High School Board of Urban 3 Females
Management Rural 1 Malea
Note: Size of schools ranged from 50 to 1,800; individual interview.
School Management
The discussions with principals of government schools were very emotionally
charged as principals, with very expressive gestures and voice inflections, demonstrated
how strongly they felt about what they said. As illustrated in this section, the perceptions
of school management were very similar for principals of government-managed schools
regardless of the school location, whether urban or rural. However, principals of Catholic
schools in rural and urban areas held different perceptions of the school management.
Participants from the primary schools used the word management as a blanket term to
mean either the person of the local manager or the person of the general manager. For
high school principals, management referred to that committee to whom they were
Rural and urban government primary schools
Principals of government-managed primary schools, regardless of the school
location, and regardless of the size of the school, held some similar perceptions of the
management. From the beginning of the interviews, these participants identified the
management as the biggest challenge they felt they had to deal with as principals. The
general perception of both rural and urban principals of government-managed schools
was that the management took a long time to respond to their requests regarding school
matters, and sometimes did not respond at all. As one group explained, "Sometimes you
send them (management) letters about the problems (in the school) and they reply-we
will look into the problem. And then the school year is over, and nothing happens." The
high school principal who had submitted a budget to the management for funds "to
purchase equipment," never received an answer.
According to one group, when the manager does respond by visiting the school,
the visit is casual and unsubstantive, "when they (school managers) do come, "Oh, I'm
only dropping this for you." The general sentiment is that these principals want the
school management to show a deeper interest in the school. Principals indicated that they
hoped for deeper involvement and not just a cursory visit where the school manager
"would come and look around and say 'Well, for a government school you are tops
compared to other government schools."'
Those principals in rural areas felt they had no choice when it came to their
placement in those areas. As one individual shared, "sometimes you are placed in
communities against your will, you have no choice. If you want your job you will go
where they send you." Another explained, "they come with your letter, and that's it!" For
the urban principals, the management will say "Oh, you are not supposed to do that, I am
the one who tells you [what to do]."
Principals noted that the management did not provide adequate materials and
supplies for the school, nevertheless, schools still functioned. As one group shared,
|Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd