The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 4 – Issue 1 – Spring 2016

Teacher’s Influence Scale from their Colleagues and Principals: Its
Relation with School Performance in Public Schools of the
Albanian Educational System

Valbona Nathanaili

106The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 4 – Issue 1 – Spring 2016

Abstract

This article aims to evaluate the relation between school performance and the Teacher’s
Influence Scale on certain issues from their colleagues and principals in the public educational
system of Albania. For this purpose, a questionnaire was used. The sample consisted of 428
teachers, teaching at 20 public schools in the pre-university educational system in Albania who
filled in self-report questionnaires with six items. The schools were chosen based on
performance criteria, with higher and lower performance based on the Educational Directoryof each city: Tirana, Kamëz, Elbasan and Shkodra. One of the conclusions is that teacher’s
influence by their colleagues is very low, (M=2.5197), as is teacher’s influence by theirprincipals (M=2.1789); but teachers are slightly more influenced by their colleagues. The
school performance, in the case of Albanian public schools, is related very weak with the scaleof teachers’ influence. However, this relation is slightly higher in schools with lower
performance. Furthermore, the school performance is overall more than the collective efforts
of teacher and principals and involves the background of the school community.
Keywords: teacher collaboration; reform; pupils’ expectations; social relations

	
  

107

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 4 – Issue 1 – Spring 2016

Introduction
The Educational System in Albania, during these last two decades, has undertaken a series ofreforms. Most of them are related to the core of schooling, for example: curricula, textbooks,
standardized tests, school leadership, and professional development. Professional development
is related to the classification of a school based on school performance (IShA, 2014). School
performance include: general data about the school, the percent of passed pupils on the State
exams, average grade, the percent of dropouts, staff development, teacher results on thequalification tests, the percent of teachers/principals in professional networks, socio-economic
environment and the scale of teacher satisfaction at school. During the scholastic year 20132014, for the first time in Albania, the schools are listed based on their performance; hence,school performance is becoming a very important concept. This new shift is an effort toevaluate the schools based on criteria. It creates an opportunity to see what happens inside theschools or to evaluate schools from the inside-out (Elmore, 2008) rather than vice versa.
According to data from the Educational Directory of each city, taken in consideration in thisstudy, the schools with better performance are located at the center of cities, in communities
with high socio-economic backgrounds, have parents with high expectations for their children
and are able to help and support their children with home-duties or other responsibilities
assigned by the school. According to PISA results of 2009 (OECD, 2010, p.13-14), “Homebackground influences educational success, and schooling often appears to reinforce its effects.
Although poor performance in school does not automatically stem from a disadvantaged socioeconomic background, the socio-economic background of students and schools does appear tohave powerful influence on learning outcomes. In Albania, as well as in many other countries,
students in urban schools perform better than students in rural schools.”
The same must be said for the teachers: the teachers of schools with better performance usually
have more training or more qualifications, including the right diploma. Teacher results of theseschools, in qualification exams of the last 3 years are better. PISA results of 2009 (OECD,2010) confirm this fact. In Albania, the correlation between the socio-economic background of
schools and the percentage of teachers with university-level (ISCED 5A) among all full-timeteachers is 0.38 Additionally, it is of note that the Educational System in Albania is very poorin granting teacher rewards or other bonuses for high performance. The socio-economic
background of students and teacher performance influences student outcomes. This inquiry
focuses on certain teacher attributes. The question is, “How much public school performance,
in a selection of Albanian districts, is related to the influence between teachers or from theprincipal on school performance?”
Literature Review
Studies regarding the teaching profession has shifted from isolation to collaboration andinfluence (Elmore, 2008; Payne, 2011). For the Consortium on Chicago Schools Research(Payne, 2011), one of the five fundamentals ways for improving school systems is professional
capacity, including the capacity of teachers to talk about their teaching with one another andthe degree to which the adults in a building take collective responsibility for what happens
there. For Dewey (2007), as the most mature member of the group, the teacher has a peculiar
responsibility for the conduct of the interactions and communications which are the very lifeof the group as a community. For Payne (2011, p. 32) in the USA, “many reform initiatives of
the 1990s agreed on the need for collegiality and collaboration among teachers... Norms of
isolation and competitiveness may be very strong.” High quality human relationships arestrongly predictive of whether or not a school can gather itself to get better. Low quality

	
  

108

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 4 – Issue 1 – Spring 2016

relationships, manifested in teacher isolation, even when their numbers are small, may beenough to shape the non-cooperation culture at school. For example teaches may think that“what goes on in my classroom is my business” (Payne, 2011, p. 80). For Elmore (2008) oneof the reason why successful instructional practices never take root in a small proportion ofclassrooms and schools, is because teaching continues to be isolated work. Hill, Pierce andGuthrie (1997, p. 8), in addition to listing what we need to have good public schools state:“Schools should be whole organizations and true communities, act like serious enterprises thathave definite goals... schools exist because their work is to do what individuals alone cannot
accomplish.” Johnson & Kolderie (2011) emphasize the necessity to widen the role of teacher
in decision-making of how the school runs and how the learning is handled. “This might meanthat teachers form the kind of partnerships we see in other professional occupations, fully incharge and with the administrators working for them. What form this takes, or how thearrangements evolves over time in a particular school, can be left to the staff in the school todecide based on what they prefer and believe will best ensure school and student success” (p.
185).
For Elmore (2018), professional development is related with group work and collaborative
practice within schools. If we want good educational practice we have to study how “teachers
relate to each other in the course of their daily work” (p. 15) and we have to construct collective
expectations: when expectations are collective they are factors for better achievement andperformance. Cole & Weinbaum (2010) in research conducted towards reform and the scale ofsuccess, have focused on reform related to teachers’ attitudes. More than their own individual
attributes, and more than new structures and materials a reform may bring to the school,teachers are influenced by the peers with whom they have formed relationship over time.
Johnson (1976) examines the relationship between school type and the participation andinfluence of teachers in school management, as well as between school type and the principal’s
influence in certain issues and professional interaction with teachers in elementary schools.
Johnson (1976) connects the word “influence” with power and control, which are born throughinterdependent relationships. According to Johnson, teachers involved in team teaching andjoint teaching demonstrated considerably more influence in school decisions on personnel,
administration, pupil management, curricula, and teaching methods than did teachers in schools
where there was no collaboration. In schools where there were many teams, much joint teachingand shared decision-making, principals as well as teachers felt more, rather than less,influential. The present study is grounded in the work of research that has studied social
relations that are created at school and their role in the scale of school performance (Elmore,
2008; Daly, 2010; Payne, 2011; Hess & Manno, 2011; Hill, Pierce and Guthrie, 1997, Johnson,1976).
MethodThe purpose of this study is to investigate the Teacher’s Influence Scale from their colleagues
and principals, as well as its relation with school performance in public schools of the Albanian
Educational System. Influence, in this study, is used according to Johnson (1976): The act ofbasically making the decision in question. Johnson examined teachers’ influence on four typesof decisions. This study takes into consideration only pupil management, focusing on
expectations regarding quality of achievement. There are three hypotheses:
H 1: Teachers are influenced by their colleagues and principals regarding expectations for thequality of pupil achievement.
H 2: Teaching years of experience are not significantly related to how influenced teachers areby their colleagues and principals.
	
  

109

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 4 – Issue 1 – Spring 2016

H 3: School performance is related to how influenced teachers are by colleagues and principals.
In order to test the hypotheses, a set of questions was developed, asking teachers to assess how
much they are influenced by their colleagues and principals. For this reason, the present study
used a short questionnaire with six items. The survey instrument comprised demographic andinfluence questions. The first three items are related to demography and included: age, teaching
years of experience, and gender. Two other items are related to influence by the colleagues andprincipal. Each of these items was scored into a Likert-type scale from 1 (Never) to 5 (Always);reliability for the influence: N = 2; Cronbach's Alpha .693. The items related to influence are:1.   Does your colleague influence your expectations regarding the quality of achievementof your pupil/student?
2.   Does your principal influence your expectations regarding the quality of achievementof your pupil/student?
The last item, the sixth, regarding the quality of school performance, was fulfilled by the
researcher according to the data collected from the Educational Directory. All thequestionnaires were administrated by the author, in order to minimize the validity problems
relating to interviewer variation and bias. The data were collected for a group of 428 Albanianteachers, teaching in low-secondary and high-secondary level, respectively: 214 teaching inschools with higher performance and 214 teaching in schools with lower performance. The
schools are, in total, 20: 10 schools with higher performance and 10 with lower performance.
For each city (Tirana, Kamëz, Elbasan and Shkodra) the number of chosen schools are 4 (2 foreach level of performance), except Tirana city (8 schools in total, 4 of each level of
performance). The sample consisted of: 332 Women (77.6 %), 58 Men (13.6 %); 38 (8.9 %failed to reply).
SampleData for age (4 groups), teacher years of experience (5 groups) and the statistic regarding thesample are in the tables below (1, 2 and 3). The sample is composed mostly of female teachers.
Table 1. Data regarding age of the sample
Age
Valid

21-30 years old (1)31-40 years old (2)41-50 years old (3)Over 51 years old (4)Total
Missing Without answer
Total

Frequency Percent
27
6.3
143
33.4
161
37.6
94
22.0
425
99.3
3
.7
428
100.0

	
  

110

Valid %
6.4
33.6
37.9
22.1
100.0

Cumulative %
6.4
40.0
77.9
100.0

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 4 – Issue 1 – Spring 2016

Table 2. Data regarding the teacher years of experience of the sample
Teacher years of experienceValid
1-5 years (1)6-10 years (2)11-20 years (3)21-30 years (4)Over 31 years (5)Total
Missing Without answer
Total

Frequency Percent
35
8.2
60
14.0
146
34.1
116
27.1
59
13.8
416
97.2
12
2.8
428
100.0

Valid %
8.4
14.4
35.1
27.9
14.2
100.0

Cumulative %
8.4
22.8
57.9
85.8
100.0

Table 3. Statistics
School performancehigher or lower
N
Valid
428
Missing0Mean1.5000Median1.5000
Minimum
1.00
Maximum
2.00
Percentiles 25
1.0000501.500075
2.0000Gender Age
390
38
1.14871.00001.00
2.00
1.00001.00001.0000Teacher yearsof experience
425
416
3
12
2.7576 3.2500
3.0000 3.0000
1.00
1.00
4.00
5.00
2.0000 3.0000
3.0000 3.0000
3.0000 4.0000

Results
Teacher-Teacher Influence and Teacher-Principal Influence: Results of Questionnaire
Table 4 shows the mean, median and mode of all teachers’ reports, independent of the type ofschool performance. In each of the columns are reports for both kinds of influence: teachers
from colleagues and from the principals.
Table 4. Mean, median and mode of teachers reporting
Statistics

Teacher-teacher influence, Teacher-principal influence, for:for: "expectations regarding "expectations regarding thethe quality of achievement quality of achievement of yourof your pupil"
pupil"
N
Valid
406
408
Missing 22
20
Mean
2.51972.1789Median2.00002.0000
a
Mode
2.00
2.00
a. Multiple modes exist. The smallest value is shown
Tables 5 and 6 show the ranking answers with: frequency, percent, valid and cumulative
percent. The responses are divided in two tables: table 5 teacher-teacher influence and table 6teacher-principal influence. Important differences among these influences are apparent. The
great majority of teachers perceived themselves to be “never” and “rarely” influenced by their

	
  

111

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 4 – Issue 1 – Spring 2016

colleagues and principals. 22.9 of teachers report that they never are influenced by theircolleagues and 31.1% of teachers report that they never are influenced by their principals.
At the other extreme are the answers “always” and “very often.” 2.3 % of teachers report thatthey always are influenced by the principals regarding setting expectations for the quality ofachievement of their pupils and 4.7 % of them report that they are “always” influenced by theircolleagues for the same issue.
Table 5. Ranking answers for teacher-teacher influence
Teacher-teacher influence, for: "expectations regarding the quality ofachievement of your pupil"
Frequency Percent Valid % Cumulative %
Valid
Never
98
22.9
24.1
24.1
Rarely
109
25.5
26.8
51.0
Sometimes
109
25.5
26.8
77.8
Very often
70
16.4
17.2
95.1
Always
20
4.7
4.9
100.0
Total
406
94.9
100.0
Missing Without answer 22
5.1
Total
428
100.0
Table 6. Ranking answers for teacher-principal influence
Teacher-principal influence, for: "expectations regarding the quality ofachievement of your pupil"
Frequency Percent Valid %Cumulative %
Valid
Never
127
29.7
31.1
31.1
Rarely
148
34.6
36.3
67.4
Sometimes
76
17.8
18.6
86.0
Very often
47
11.0
11.5
97.5
Always
10
2.3
2.5
100.0
Total
408
95.3
100.0
Missing
Without answer 20
4.7
Total
428
100.0
Correlation of Influence with Other Variables: Teacher Years of Experience and Age
In these data, gender is excluded because the sample is mostly from females. The results of thequestionnaire show the absence of any correlation between influence and teacher years ofexperience and between influence and age. These variables do not play any important role inthe scale of influence.

	
  

112

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 4 – Issue 1 – Spring 2016

Table 7. Correlation with teacher years of experience and age
Correlation

Teacher-teacher Teacher-principal Teacher Age
influence:
influence:years of"expectations, "expectations,experience
quality ofquality ofachievement of achievement of
your pupil"
your pupil"
1.532**
.035
-.015
.000
.488
.757

TeacherPearson CorrelationteacherSig. (2-tailed)influence:
Sum of Squares and557.342"expectations Cross-products
the quality of Covariance
1.376
achievement N
406
of your pupil"
TeacherPearson Correlation .532**
principal
Sig. (2-tailed).000
influence:
Sum of Squares and260.815"expectations Cross-products
the quality of Covariance.662
achievement N
395
of your pupil"

260.815

18.177-6.355

.662

.046

-.016

395

395

403

1

.014
.773

-.022
.653

467.939

6.899-8.272

1.150

.017

-.020

408

397

405

In the data collected regarding teaching years of experience (Tables 8a and 8b), teachers with
1-5 years (Table 8a) of experience have the more significant and interesting data: 35.3% ofthem report they are never influenced by their colleagues and 0% of them report they are always
influenced by their colleagues. The same could be said (Table 8b), for this group of teaching
years, about the influence from their principals. 34.3% of them report they are never influenced
by their principals and 0% of them report they are always influenced by their principals.
Teachers with over 31 years of experience are more accepting of these two kinds of influences:
9.1% report they are always influenced by their colleagues and 7.3% report they are always
influenced by their principals. But in all groups of teaching years of experience, the answers
are mostly “never” and “rarely” regarding the influence from both colleagues and principals(see Figure 1 for Teacher-teacher influence according to teaching years of experience).

	
  

113

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 4 – Issue 1 – Spring 2016

Table 8a. Teacher-teacher influence according to teaching years of experience
Crosstab
Teaching years of experience
Influence: “expectations of the quality of
1-5
6-10
11-20 21-30
achievement of your pupil”
years years years years
Teacher- Never
Count
12
11
32
28
teacher% within teaching
35.3% 19.6% 22.7% 25.7%
years
Rarely
Count
5
12
46
30
% within teaching
14.7% 21.4% 32.6% 27.5%
years
Sometimes Count
9
20
39
27
% within teaching
26.5% 35.7% 27.7% 24.8%
years
Very often Count
7
13
16
19
% within teaching
20.6% 23.2% 11.3% 17.4%
years
Always
Count
1
0
8
5
% within teaching
2.9% 0.0% 5.7% 4.6%
years
Total
Count
34
56
141
109
% within teaching
100% 100% 100% 100%
years

Total
over 31years
13
96
23.6% 24.3%
13106

23.6% 26.8%
11106

20.0% 26.8%
1368

23.6% 17.2%
5

19

9.1%

4.8%

55

395

100%

100%

(Chi-square test: Pearson Chi-Square = 20.515a, df = 16, Asymp. Sig. 2-sided = .198, a. 3 cells(12.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.64.).

Figure 1. Teacher-teacher influence according to teaching years of experience

	
  

114

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 4 – Issue 1 – Spring 2016

Table 8b. Teacher-principal influence according to teaching years of experience
CrosstabInfluence, for: “expectations regarding
the quality of achievement of your pupil”
Teacher- NeverCount
principal% within teaching
years
RarelyCount% within teaching
years
SomeCounttimes% within teaching
years
Very
Count
often
% within teaching
years
Always Count% within teaching
years
Total
Count
% within teaching
years

1-5
years
12

Teaching years of experience
Total
6-10
11-20
21-30
over 31
years
years
years
years
14
41
37
19
123

34.3%

24.1%

29.9%

33.0%

34.5%

31.0%

12

20

55

39

20

146

34.3%

34.5%

40.1%

34.8%

36.4%

36.8%

8

19

24

17

6

74

22.9%

32.8%

17.5%

15.2%

10.9%

18.6%

3

5

14

17

6

45

8.6%

8.6%

10.2%

15.2%

10.9%

11.3%

0

0

3

2

4

9

0.0%

0.0%

2.2%

1.8%

7.3%

2.3%

35

58

137

112

55

397

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%(Chi-square test: Pearson Chi-Square = 21.761a, df =16, Asymp. Sig. 2-sided = .151, a. 6 cells(24.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .79).
Teacher-Teacher and Teacher-Principal Influence Related to School Performance:
Results of the Questionnaire
The information presented in this section aims to evaluate the relation between teacher-teacher
and teacher-principal influence with school performance. Information is classified according
to school performance: schools with higher and lower performance. The evaluation of school
performance is based on the same criteria, but the schools are located in different cities ofAlbania (Tirana, Kamëz, Elbasan and Shkodra). Data on school performance were taken fromthe Educational Directory of each city. In Table 9a and 9b are data for the mean, median,standard deviation, standard error, 95% confidence interval for mean, minimum and maximum
and between-component variance. Schools with lower performance have a slightly greater
value for the teachers’ influence from their principals. Figures 2 and 3 show the medians forteacher-teacher influence and teacher-principal influence according to the level of school
performance.

	
  

115

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 4 – Issue 1 – Spring 2016

Table 9a. Data for the mean, median, standard deviation, standard error, 95% confidence
interval for mean (Min. = 1 and Max. = 5) and between-component variance for both kinds ofinfluence
Descriptive
Influence, for: "expectations
regarding the quality ofachievement of your pupil"
Teacherteacher

N

Schools with
204
higher perform.
Schools with202
lower perform.
Total
406
Model
Fixed
Effects
Rand.
Effects
Teacher- School with
206
principal higher perform.
influence School with202
lower perform.
Total
408
Model
Fixed
Effects
Rand.
Effects

Mean

Std.
Deviat.

Std.
Error

95% Confidence Betw.
Interval for
Comp.
Mean
Varian.
Lower Upper
Bound Bound

2.4755 1.05718 .07402

2.32952.62142.5644 1.28067 .09011

2.38672.74202.5197 1.17310 .05822

2.40532.6342

1.17370 .05825

2.40522.6342.05825a 1.7796a 3.2598a -.00284
2.0097 .93699.065281.88102.13842.3515 1.17190 .08245

2.18892.51412.1789 1.07225 .05308

2.07462.2833

1.05982 .05247

2.07582.2821.17089.0075

4.3503 .05290

Table 9b. Between and within group analysis
ANOVA
Influence, for: "expectations regarding thequality of achievement of your pupil"
Teacher-teacher
Between Groups
influenceWithin Groups
Total
Teacher-principal
Between Groups
influenceWithin Groups
Total

Sum ofSquaresdf

Mean
Square

F

Sig.

.802
556.541557.342
11.914456.025467.939

1
404
405
1
406
407

.802
1.378

.582

.446

11.914
1.123

10.607

.001

	
  

116

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 4 – Issue 1 – Spring 2016

Figure 2. Teacher-teacher influence for: “Quality of achievement of pupil” (Legend: school+with higher performance and school- lower performance)

Figure 3. Teacher-principal influence for “Quality of achievement of pupil” (Legend: school+with higher performance and school- lower performance)
Table 10 and Table 11 have detailed data for the answers: never, rarely, sometimes, very often
and always. The greatest tendency for both kinds of influence takes place in never, rarely andsometimes. The lowest percentage is for the answer: always.

	
  

117

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 4 – Issue 1 – Spring 2016

Table 10. Teacher-teacher influence, for: "expectations regarding the quality of achievementof your pupil”
CrosstabInfluence, for: "expectations regarding the quality ofachievement of your pupil"

Schoolperformance
Higher Lower

Teacher-teacher
influence

42
20.6%
65
31.9%
59
28.9%
34
16.7%
4
2.0%
204
100.0%

Total

Never

Count
% within school performance
Rarely Count% within school performanceSome- Count
times% within school performance
Very
Count
often
% within School performance
Always Count% within School performanceCount% within School performance

Total

56
98
27.7% 24.1%
44109
21.8% 26.8%
50
109
24.8% 26.8%
3670
17.8% 17.2%
16
20
7.9%
4.9%
202
406
100.0% 100.0%

School performance, results of questionnaire (Chi-square test: Pearson Chi-Square = 14.037a,
df = 4, Asymp. Sig. 2-sided = .007, a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The
minimum expected count is 9.95).
	  Table 11. Teacher-principal influence, for: "expectations regarding the quality of achievementof your pupil"	  Crosstab
School performance
Influence, for: "expectations regarding the quality ofHigher Lower
achievement of your pupil"
Teacher- Never
Count
68
59
principal% within school performance 33.0% 29.2%
influence Rarely
Count
87
61
% within school performance 42.2% 30.2%
Some-times Count
34
42% within school performance 16.5% 20.8%
Very often Count15
32% within school performance 7.3%
15.8%
AlwaysCount
2
8% within school performance 1.0%
4.0%
Total
Count
206
202
% within school performance 100.0% 100.0%

Total
127
31.1%
148
36.3%
76
18.6%
47
11.5%
10
2.5%
408
100.0%

School performance, results of questionnaire (Chi-square test: Pearson Chi-Square = 15.759a,
df = 4, Asymp. Sig. 2-sided = .003, a. 1 cells (10.0%) have expected count less than 5. The
minimum expected count is 4.95).

	
  

118

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 4 – Issue 1 – Spring 2016

Research Limitations
This study has some limitations:•   Schools were classified based on their performance. They were located in different cities,
and included in different Educational Directories. Although the criteria are the same, theschool performance of different cities is not always the same.
•   The limited number of items used on the questionnaire.
•   The perception of influence may have been different among teachers.
The study reports only the perceptions of' teachers about this issue. The principals’ view of thematter was not asked. An assumption is that, because all the reporters hold the same position,
their perception about the influence, at least regarding these issues, must be the same. Also,
this study focused on extreme cases: schools with the higher and lower performance. Even withthese limitations, empirical studies such as this help examine what happens at the school level.
For if we want improvements on a large scale, we have to go to the schools and study themfrom inside (Elmore, 2008).
Discussion and Conclusions
In this study, influence is examined from teacher to teacher and from principal to teacher, for
an important issue: the quality of expectations for pupils’ achievement. In order to test thetheory that a greater degree of influence is related to better decision making, achievement andattitudes towards influence, were considered.
H 1: Teachers are influenced by their colleagues and principals regarding the
expectations for the quality of pupil achievement
Pearson correlation for the two items of influence is 0.532. The results show that the teachers
are influenced, in average terms, more from their colleagues than from the principals,
respectively. The scale of teachers influence, regarding the expectations for the quality ofpupil’s achievement by their colleagues and principals, is very low. About the influence ofprincipals, Johnson (1976) argued that “he needs only a few good communication links rather
than many in order to be reasonably well informed and to exert influence by making his ideas
and his judgment known.” These links, in the case of principals of Albanian Public schools,
seem that they are in this level: only 2.5% of the teachers say that are always influenced byprincipals and 11.5% very often. 31.1% of the teachers declared that they are never influenced
by their principals. In Johnson’s study, the result about principals’ influence regarding pupil
achievement is 41% (N = 77 out of 188). In the case of Albanian schools, if we group all theanswers: sometimes, very often and always, this is altogether 128 teachers or 32.3% of thesample. So, regarding the teachers’ perception, only 32.3 % report that they are influenced bytheir principals. The situation is a little bit better in the case of teacher-teacher influence.
H 2: Teaching years of experience are not significantly related to how influenced teachers
are by their colleagues and principals
The Chi-Square test had a reasonable value 20.515 (df =16), although this value was not
significant. According to Fox (2003: 303) for df = 16, Chi-Square must be a value of 26.296(.05). Pearson Correlation and sig. (2 tailed) confirmed the same.
H 3: School performance is related to how influenced teachers are by colleagues andprincipals
In the case of Albanian Public schools, both kinds of influences are very low. It’s worthwhile
to note that the influence from the colleagues and principals on teachers from schools with
	
  

119

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 4 – Issue 1 – Spring 2016

lower performance represent a better value (although slight). More than results of collective
teacher and principal effort, school success is the result of other factors, including, but not only,
the school community background. Further study also might explore another issue for Albanianpublic schools: the instability of principals. In almost all the schools, the principals wereassigned recently, mostly after the last political election. Even after 25 years of transition, theprincipal position continues to be political and is under the influence of different politicalparties. Further studies might explore how school improvement is perhaps related to theabsence of teachers' desire to set up close collaboration with principals, which makes theteachers’ profession more isolated and potentially undermines school performance.

	
  

120

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 4 – Issue 1 – Spring 2016

References
Cole, R., & Wienbaum, E. (2010). Changes in attitude: Peer influence in high school reform.
In
A. J. Daly (Ed.). Social network theory and educational change (pp.
77-95). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard Education Press.
Daly, A. J. (2010). Social network theory and educational change. Cambridge, Massachusetts:
Harvard Education Press.
Dewey, J. (2007). Social control. In R. Curren (Ed.), Philosophy of Education. An Anthology(pp. 368-371). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Elmore, R. F. (2008). School reform from the inside out. Policy, Practice and Performance.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard Education Press.
Fox, W. (2003). Social statistics. A text using micro case. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Group,Thomson Learning, Inc.
Hess, F. M., & Manno, B. V. (Eds.). (2011). Customized schooling. Beyond whole-school
reform. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard Education Press.
Hill, P., Pierce, L. C., & Guthrie, J. W. (1997). Reinventing public education. How contracting
can transform America's schools. University Chicago Press.
https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226336534.001.0001
Inspektorati Shtetëror i Arsimit (IShA), (2014). Karta e performancës së shkollës. Tiranë:Ministria e Arsimit dhe e Sporteve.
Johnson, R. (1976). Teacher collaboration, principal influence and decision making inelementary schools. Technical report No. 48. Stanford University, Stanford Center for
Research and Development in Teaching. Retrieved January 05, 2016 fromhttp://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED126083.pdf.
Johnson, C., & Kolderie, T. (2011). Will policy let demand drive change? In F. M. Hess &B.V. Manno (Eds.), Customized Schooling. Beyond whole-school reform (pp. 173-190).
Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard Education Press.
OECD (2010). PISA 2009 Results: Overcoming social background – Equity in learning
opportunities and outcomes. Volume II.
Payne, C. M. (2011). So much reform, so little change. The persistence of failure in urban
schools. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard Education Press.

121