The restructuring of schools in Australia, which began in the 1980s continues to take place today. As with most complex reforms, it is difficult to decipher exactly what advocates of school restructuring want by way of school reform (Elmore, Peterson, McCarthey, 1996). Ideally, one would like to assume that at some basic level advocates of school reform believe that reforming schools will make them more effective, will cause teachers to teach differently and therefore, this will make a difference to the learning and motivation of students. However, if we are serious about school reform making a difference to the learning and motivation of students, we need a much better understanding of school culture and educational leadership, and the ways they are interrelated, because research indicates that both are critical to the reform and improvement of schools (Sashkin and Walberg, 1993; Sergiovanni, 1996; Stoll and Fink, 1996).

The challenges of school reform have been cited as reasons for advocating transformational leadership (Leithwood, 1994, 1992) as the kind of educational leadership required to promote the transformation of school culture necessary for school reform and improvement. At the same time, researchers have accumulated compelling evidence suggesting that school culture is an important influence on student motivation to learn (Maehr and Anderman, 1993; Maehr and Fyans, 1989; Maehr and Midgley, 1991).

Transformational leadership was first distinguished from transactional leadership by Downton (1973), however, it was the work of Burns (1978) which first drew attention to the ideas associated with transformational leadership (Leithwood, Tomlinson and Genge, 1996).

Burns (1978) conceptualised two factors to differentiate 'ordinary' from 'extraordinary' leadership - transactional from transformational leadership. Transactional (ordinary) leadership is based on an exchange relationship in which follower compliance (effort, productivity, loyalty) is exchanged for expected rewards. Transformational (extraordinary) leaders raise followers' consciousness levels about the importance and value of designated outcomes and ways of achieving them. They also motivate followers to transcend their own immediate self interest for the sake of the mission and vision of the organisation. Followers' confidence levels are raised and their needs broadened by the leader to support development to higher potential. Such total engagement (emotional, intellectual and moral) encourages followers to develop and perform beyond expectations (Burns, 1978; Bass, 1985; Sergiovanni, 1991).

Bass (1985) operationalised the work of Burns (1978) by developing a model of transformational and transactional leadership, referred to in more recent publications as the 'full range leadership model' (Bass and Avolio, 1997). Bass proposed that transformational leadership can be identified by distinct behavioural constructs - Idealised Influence (attributes), Idealised Influence (behaviour), Inspirational Motivation, Intellectual Stimulation and Individualised Consideration. Three behavioural constructs identify transactional leadership - Contingent Reward, Management by Exception (active) and Management by Exception (passive). Bass also identified a non-leadership behavioural construct named Laissez Faire.

Bass's (1985) conception of transformational and transactional leadership contrasts with that of Burns (1978) who considered transformational and transactional leadership practices as opposite ends of a continuum. Bass (1985) contended that most leaders display transformational and transactional leadership in varying degrees. Transformational leadership augments transactional leadership. Transactional practices do little to bring about the enhanced commitment and extra effort required for change which will occur when the members of an organisation experience transformational leadership (Leithwood, Tomlinson and Genge, 1996).

Transformational leadership is well suited to the challenges that school reform brings. It has the potential for building high levels of commitment (amongst teachers) to the complex and uncertain nature of the school reform agenda and for fostering growth in the capacities teachers must develop to respond productively to this agenda (Leithwood and Jantzi, 1997).

The concept of schools having distinctive cultures is not new. Waller observed in 1932 that schools have a culture that is definitely their own. Parents, teachers and principals have always sensed something special yet undefined, something powerful yet difficult to describe about schools. School culture refers to the deep patterns of values and beliefs and traditions that have been formed over the course of the school's history and which are understood by members of the school community (Deal and Peterson, 1990; Heckman, 1993; Schein, 1985; Stolp and Smith, 1995).

Maehr and Midgley (1996) suggest that the deep patterns of values, beliefs and traditions with regard to learning mean that schools differ in the way they go about their business. At the heart of these differences are the existence of and stress placed on certain learning goals, purposes and values - what is worth doing and why. While it is acknowledged that schools will have multiple goals, recent research on motivation and achievement (Ames and Ames, 1989; Deal and Peterson, 1990; Maehr and Midgley, 1991, Maehr and Fyans, 1989) suggests that schools will stress either task-focused goals or performance-focused goals in learning. Central to the task-focused goal is the belief that effort leads to success and that the focus of attention is on the intrinsic value of learning. With task goals, the individual is oriented toward developing new skills, trying to understand his or her work, improving the level of competence or achieving a sense of mastery. With a performance-focused goal, the goal of learning is to do better than others by surpassing norms or by achieving success with little effort. Central to a performance goal is the focus on one's ability. Ability is shown by doing better than others through grades, rewards and approval from others or by achieving success with little effort (Maehr and Anderman, 1993; Midgley, Anderman and Hicks, 1995; Midgley, 1993).

Furthermore, this research on motivation and achievement suggests that student investment in learning is significantly influenced by the adoption of the two goal types of schooling - task-focused and performance-focused. This is based on the notion that the purpose of a school is at the heart of its culture and it is this sense of purpose that is needed to elicit personal investment in learning. A school's definition of the purpose of schooling as primarily task or performance-focused may be exhibited in a number of ways that can be, and are, regularly understood by students. Students will perceive that the school tends to value learning (task goals) or value the demonstration of ability and marks (performance goals) and this will affect the goals that the students adopt for learning, and in turn the quality of their personal investment in learning.

According to a recent review of research on transformational school leadership, few studies have examined the effects of transformational leadership on student outcomes such as motivation and learning and even fewer have examined this in the context of the secondary school (Leithwood et al, 1996). The study reported here took the important step of examining the relationship of Bass's conception of transactional/transformational leadership with teacher outcomes, and with aspects of school learning culture within the Australian secondary school setting. Specifically the purpose of the study was to investigate:

1. the validity of the transformational/transactional leadership model proposed by Bass and Avolio (1997) in New South Wales State secondary schools.

2. the validity of the school learning culture model proposed by Maehr, Midgley, Hicks,Roeser, Urdan, Anderman,Kaplan (1996) in New South Wales State secondary schools.

3. the relationships of transformational and transactional leadership behaviour of school principals with teacher outcomes - extra effort, effectiveness and satisfaction.

4. the relationships between transformational and transactional leadership behaviour of school principals with aspects of school learning culture.

Twelve randomly selected government secondary schools from the population of government secondary schools located in the Sydney Metropolitan area in New South Wales, Australia participated in the study. Fifteen teachers were randomly selected from each school to complete questionnaires. Of the twelve schools, 124 teachers returned completed questionnaires representing a 68% response rate.

The sample comprised 54% female and 46% male teachers and 75% were aged 30- 59 years. The teachers in the sample held various positions in the school, including full time classroom teachers (57%), head teachers (23%), deputy principals (5%) and others, such as librarians, careers advisers, part-time teachers, support teachers (15%). Sixty four percent of the sample had more than eleven years of teaching experience and 60% had three to ten years of this experience at their current school.

The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire - the MLQ 5X (short) developed by Bass and Avolio (1997) was selected to measure leadership style. This instrument is based on three defining constructs - Transformational Leadership, Transactional Leadership and Laissez-faire (non-leadership) which form a model for comprehending the effects of leadership. In addition to determining the transformational, transactional and non-leadership dimensions of the leaders, several items in the questionnaire measure organisational outcomes - specifically, the extent to which followers put in extra effort, and perceive organisational effectiveness and satisfaction as a consequence of leadership.

The Patterns of Adaptive Learning Survey (PALS) developed by Maehr et al (1996) was used to measure the dimensions of school learning culture. This instrument consists of 42 items, which assess teachers' perceptions of school emphasis on task, ability and extrinsic goals for students, accomplishment and power for teachers, personal teaching efficacy and teacher use of instructional strategies which are task-focused or performance-focused for students

Factor analysis (principal axis factoring) using SPSS determined the validity of the leadership model proposed by Bass and Avolio (1997) and the school learning culture model proposed by Maehr et al (1996). Factor extraction criteria included eigenvalues greater than one, scree test and most importantly, interpretation. An oblique rotation was used because conceptually one could expect the factors to be interrelated.

Stepwise multiple regression analysis was used to examine how well the leadership factors predicted teacher outcomes and the aspects of school learning culture identified by the factor analysis. Weighted factor scores of teacher outcomes and the aspects of school learning culture generated by the factor analysis were treated as dependent variables and the factor scores of the four dimensions of leadership were treated as independent variables.

Four interpretable leadership factors (alpha coefficients ranging from 0.59 - 0.93) were found to be present in the Australian setting. Two factors were transformational - individual concern and vision/inspiration. Individual concern consists of items that reflected the leader's focus on the needs of the teacher. Vision/ inspiration consists of items that indicate the leader was perceived to provide a clear sense of purpose that was energising and builds staff identification with the leader's vision. These results suggest that teachers do not distinguish between charisma, intellectual stimulation and inspirational motivation. Bass and Avolio (1997) argue that there are conceptual differences between the transformational leadership behaviours. Carless (1998) and Bycio, Hackett and Allen (1995) report similar results to those described in this study.

Many of the contingent reward items (transactional leadership) loaded on individual concern suggesting that these teachers did not distinguish between individual concern (transformational leadership) and contingent reward (transactional leadership). It is possible that this finding represents the augmentation effect of transformational and transactional leadership style described by Bass and Avolio (1997). However, research (Eden, 1998) suggests that although in theory the two leadership styles have distinct contradictory features, in reality transformational and transactional leadership practices are interwoven. Indeed, this research suggests that transformational leadership is relatively effective when it manages to incorporate transactional leadership practices in a way that is sensitive to teachers and accepted by them.

The transactional factors were active management by exception and passive management by exception. Active management by exception consists of items that suggested the leader focused on monitoring task execution for any mistakes or complaints that were likely to occur, before problems arose. Passive management by exception consists of items which showed that the leader only intervened after problems arose. The difference between active and passive management by exception is that active management by exception involves proactive leadership, whereas, passive management by exception involves reactive leadership.

Factor analysis (principal axis with an oblimin rotation) generated one factor that was named - teacher outcomes (alpha coefficient of 0.91). This factor contains items, which reflected teacher satisfaction, willingness of teachers to put in extra effort and teacher perception of principal effectiveness. This result is different to that of Bass and Avolio (1997) who reported three outcome factors - extra effort, satisfaction and effectiveness.

Factor analysis of the school learning culture items produced five interpretable factors (alpha coefficients ranging from 0.60 - 0.89). These five factors were named - intrinsic motivation for learning, favouritism, personal expectations of teaching ability, extrinsic motivation for learning and excellence in teaching.

The factor intrinsic motivation for learning contains items that suggest the school emphasised the relevance and fun of learning to students. Several items suggest that these teachers identified intrinsic motivation for learning in students with hard work, innovation and improvement in teaching. It is interesting to note that in completing these items, these teachers did not distinguish the school and the classroom levels.

The second factor, favouritism, refers to the perception that the school encouraged competition amongst teachers and allowed some to have more influence than others. These teachers perceived that they were not treated the same. For example, some may have been given preferential treatment when classes were timetabled.

The third factor, personal expectations of teaching ability, refers to the teachers' beliefs about their own ability to teach any student and contribute to his or her learning.

The fourth factor, extrinsic motivation for learning, contains items that refers to the emphasis the school placed on the importance of achieving good marks and performing better than other students.

The final factor, excellence in teaching, contained items which refer to the teacher's commitment to provide students with work that is imaginative and creative and will assist students to understand that learning involves understanding and hard work.

1. Associations between leadership behaviours and teacher outcomes

The results of multiple regression analysis of leadership behaviours and teacher outcomes are shown in Table 1. The leadership behaviours, individual concern, passive management by exception and vision/inspiration together predicted 78% of the variance in teacher outcomes. However, individual concern is the best predictor of teacher outcomes, accounting for 65% of the variance. Clearly, this result strongly supports the idea that when the principal is perceived by teachers to treat each one uniquely, showing understanding and sharing individual concerns, they are more likely to be satisfied, put in extra effort and view the principal as an effective leader.

Bolman and Deal (1997) identified four lenses or frames that people rely on to frame, assess and respond to situations - structural frame, political frame, symbolic frame and human resource frame. They suggested that in education some lenses are more prominent than others and that principals and teachers tend to read and respond to the day-to-day challenges from the human resource frame. This frame emphasises people's needs, skills and the importance of a caring trusting climate. If principals and teachers do in fact view what happens in schools through the human resource frame suggested by Bolman and Deal (1997), then it may explain why there is a strong association between the leadership behaviour, individual concern and teacher outcomes of effectiveness, satisfaction and extra effort.

The second predictor, passive management by exception explains 11% of the variance. This result indicates that the failure of a principal to intervene until things go wrong has a negative association with the satisfaction and extra effort of teachers, and teachers are likely to form a perception of ineffective leadership.

The third predictor, vision/inspiration accounts for a low, but significant 2% of the variance and has a negative relationship with teacher outcomes. A possible explanation for this result is that a principal who is visionary/inspirational may be perceived by teachers to be interfering with the work teachers do with their students by placing greater work demands on teachers outside the classroom. This is consistent with previous research on teacher satisfaction that suggests teacher dissatisfaction is associated with anything that interferes with the student-teacher relationship (Johnston and Wartel, 1998).

Table 1: Multiple regression of leadership factors with dependent variable - teacher outcomes.

1 Indiv. Concern 0.65 223.86*** 0.81

2 MBE(Passive) 0.76 0.11 188.56*** -0.34

3 Vision/Inspiration 0.78 0.02 144.05*** -0.18

*** p < 0.001

Table 2 shows that vision/inspiration and passive management by exception together predicted 29% of the variance with intrinsic motivation for learning. Vision inspiration is the better predictor accounting for 21% of the variance. Although a direct causal relationship may not be drawn, this result suggests that the more visionary or inspirational the leadership behaviour of a principal the less students will be motivated to learn and the less teachers will try to ensure that their teaching strategies encourage students to understand, work hard and enjoy learning. This could be explained in the other direction, but it is unlikely as one would expect at least some consistency of leadership behaviour independent of context. This is an interesting and potentially important result. A possible explanation is that a visionary/inspirational leader may distract teachers from teaching and learning goals in their classrooms. For example, a teacher may be asked to take on a role as part of the school's emphasis on pastoral care. Although he or she may be allocated time to do this, it may not be enough and because of these responsibilities the teacher may be unable to concentrate on the goals of teaching and learning in the classroom. A visionary/inspirational principal may expect teachers to be involved with many other school level activities, which may be viewed as important for achieving and gaining teacher support for the vision of the school. Ironically, the ultimate cost may be the teaching and learning goals in the classroom.

These findings are, indirectly, consistent with Robertson (1993) who, without focusing on leadership behaviours, reviewed the devolution and restructuring in Western Australian schools during the late 1980s. She found that many teachers were increasingly drawn away from the classroom towards the corporate school level by numerous committees being formed to handle devolved management responsibilities. This raised many tensions for teachers. For example, if they participated in the corporate life of the school, it undermined their commitment to the classroom; if they remained committed to the classroom they tended to miss "the promotional raft as it swept by" (1993, p132). Robertson (1993) reported that a significant number of teachers talked about the pedagogical relationship as central to what it meant to be a teacher, a relationship they could see being neglected. There was increasingly little time for personal reflection, for getting to know students and their needs, and for developing a sense of pedagogic purpose.

The second predictor, passive management by exception accounts for 8% of the variance and the results suggest that there is a negative relationship between this type of leadership and the intrinsic motivation of students for learning.

Step Variable R Square R Square F (Eqn) Beta In

1 Vision/Inspiration 0.21 31.67*** -0.45

2 MBE(Passive) 0.29 0.08 24.48*** -0.29

*** p < 0.001

The results of the multiple regression analysis between leadership behaviours and excellence in teaching are reported in Table 3. This indicates that there is a significant relationship between vision/inspiration and excellence in teaching and passive management by exception and excellence in teaching which together predict 16% of the variance. This suggests that the more vision/inspiration of a principal the less teachers will use teaching strategies which encourage an ethos of hard work and enjoyment of learning amongst students, and vice versa.

Elmore, Peterson and McCarthey (1996) concluded from a study on restructuring schools, that teachers find it 'extraordinarily difficult' to attain the deep systematic knowledge of practice needed to make vision a reality. Furthermore, teachers may not automatically see the connection between vision and its implications for teaching. This may explain why the leadership behaviour of vision/inspiration has a negative association with excellence in teaching.

Passive management by exception accounts for a small, but significant, 4% of the variance in excellence in teaching. This result suggests that, there is a negative relationship between passive management by exception and excellence in teaching. It is possible that the passive management by exception behaviour of a principal discourages these teachers from being motivated to work hard and implement teaching strategies, which are risky and more exciting.

It is interesting that, arguably, quite opposite leadership behaviours both have a negative relationship with excellence in teaching.

Table 3: Multiple regression of leadership behaviour factors with dependent variable - excellence in teaching.

Step Variable R Square R Square F (Eqn) Beta In

1 Vision/Inspiration 0.12 16.51*** -0.35

2 MBE(Passive) 0.16 -0.04 11.26*** -0.20

*** p < 0.001

The interpretation of the regression coefficients in the presence of a product term has caused some controversy. However, some have suggested that the coefficients of the interactive model are meaningful and interpretable (Jaccard, Turrisi and Wan,1990). Therefore, with the main effects of the independent variables examined, their possible two way interactions were investigated. New variables as products of the independent variables were introduced into the model

1. Interaction of vision/inspiration and active management by exception with intrinsic motivation for learning.

A statistically significant two-way interaction was found between vision/inspiration and management by exception active with intrinsic motivation for learning. To assist comprehension, regression lines of subjects who scored greater than one standard deviation above the mean on one of the variables, and less than one standard deviation below the mean were graphed.

Figure 1 illustrates the interaction of vision/inspiration with active management by exception for the dependent variable, intrinsic motivation for learning. This suggests that high visionary/inspirational leadership behaviour is associated with relatively low intrinsic motivation whatever the level of active management by exception. On the other hand, low visionary/inspirational leadership behaviour and a low level of active management by exception leadership behaviour is associated with low intrinsic motivation for learning. However, the more a principal displays active management by exception leadership behaviour, the more likely the intrinsic motivation for learning in students. A principal who is perceived to practice active management by exception leadership behaviour may actively concentrate on dealing with mistakes and complaints before they happen. Since, complaints are most likely to come from parents and may concern teaching practice, a principal may encourage teachers to focus on teaching and learning goals in the classroom in order to avoid these types of complaints. Another possible explanation is that, these teachers may have perceived active management by exception leadership behaviour of a principal to be concerned with the day to day school activities of teaching and learning, the activities that concern most teachers. This may involve a principal in activities to ensure that curriculum changes are implemented, assessment schedules are kept, and reporting deadlines are met. It is possible the active management by exception leadership behaviour of a principal is perceived to be at the operational level by teachers, the level at which most teachers' work. On the other hand, vision/inspiration may be perceived to be at a strategic level which is perceived by these teachers to be irrelevant to the day to day activities of teaching and learning which concern most teachers.

This study investigated the relationships of transformational, transactional and non-leadership behaviours with teacher outcomes and aspects of school learning culture. While some limitations with this study exist, such as reliance on teacher perceptions, it has raised some questions regarding commonly held views about the relationship of transformational and transactional leadership behaviours in schools with aspects of school learning culture.

First, this study suggests that the four constructs of leadership found in the Australian school setting are consistent with Bass and Avolio's (1997) conceptualisation of transformational and transactional leadership. However, Bass and Avolio (1997) argue that there are conceptual differences between the transformational leadership behaviours. This study suggests that in practice teachers do not distinguish between charisma, intellectual stimulation and inspirational motivation.

Furthermore, the teachers in this study did not distinguish between the transformational leadership behaviour individual concern and the transactional leadership behaviour contingent reward. This may represent the augmentation effect of transformational and transactional leadership suggested by Bass and Avolio (1997). However, it is possible that in reality transformational and transactional leadership practices are interwoven.

Second, the model of school learning culture conceptualised by Maehr et al (1996) is consistent with the five constructs of school learning culture identified in the Australian school setting. However, the teachers in this study did not perceive a difference between the learning culture at the corporate school level and the classroom level.

Third, the positive teacher outcomes of extra effort, satisfaction and effectiveness were found to be closely related to the transformational leadership behaviour of individual concern. Similar findings have been reported by Leithwood et al (1996). It is suggested that this close relationship may be because principals and teachers view what happens in schools through a human resource frame which values people's needs, skills and the importance of a caring trusting environment.

Fourth, relationships were found to exist between the transformational, transactional leadership behaviour of the school principal with aspects of school learning culture. As has been found in previous research (Leithwood,et al, 1996) the transactional leadership behaviour of passive management by exception was found to be an unhelpful form of leadership in relation to teacher outcomes and student learning culture.

The most important finding of the study is that the transformational leadership behaviour of vision/inspiration has a negative association with intrinsic motivation for learning. This is contrary to what might be expected, given that it would be reasonable to suggest that providing purpose and direction through leadership would assist teachers to focus on teaching and learning goals. However, it is suggested that in fact a visionary/inspirational principal may distract teachers from concentrating on teaching and learning and this may be perceived by teachers to be negatively related to student learning outcomes. Teachers are likely to be expected by a visionary/inspirational principal to be involved in corporate school initiatives, which are aimed at ensuring the vision becomes reality. Teachers' time may be taken up with these initiatives, possibly aimed at improving student outcomes, but ironically they have the opposite effect.

Furthermore, the leadership behaviours of vision/inspiration and management by exception passive (which in theory are quite opposite leadership behaviours) have a negative association with excellence in teaching. It is suggested that teachers may not see the connection between vision/inspiration and its implications for teaching. While passive management by exception leadership behaviour discourages these teachers from being motivated to work hard and implement teaching strategies, which are risky and more exciting.

Finally, significant interactions were found between vision/inspiration and active management by exception with intrinsic motivation for learning. This interaction suggests that the relationship between leadership behaviour and school learning culture is more complex than first thought. Clearly, further research is warranted.

Ames, C and Ames, R. (Eds)., Research on Motivation in Education: Goals and Cognitions. Academic Press, New York, 1989.

Bass, B and Avolio, B., Manual for the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Consulting Psychologist Press, Palo Alto, California, 1990.

Bass, B., Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations. Free Press, New York, 1985.

Bass, B and Avolio, B., The Full Range Leadership Development Manual for the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Mindgarden Inc, Redwood City, CA, 1997.

Bolman, L., Deal, T., Reframing Organisations: Artistry, Choice and Leadership. Second Edition. Jossey Bass, San Francisco, 1997.

Burns, J.M., Leadership. Harper and Row, Publishers. New York, 1978.

Bycio, P., Hackett, R., Allen, J., Further assessments of Bass's (1985) conceptualisation of transactional and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 1995, 468-478

Carless, S., "Assessing the discriminant validity of transformational leader behaviours as measured by the MLQ". Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, 71, 1998, 353-358.

Deal,T.E and Peterson, K.D., The Principal's Role in Shaping School Culture. Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Washington,D.C, 1990.

Deal, T., Peterson, K., Shaping School Culture. Jossey Bass, San Francisco, 1999.

Downton, J.V., Rebel Leadership: Commitment and Charisma in the Revolutionary Process. The Free Press, New York, 1973.

Eden, D., "The paradox of school leadership". Journal of Educational Administration, 36, 3, 1998, 249-261.

Elmore, R., Peterson, P., McCarthey, S., Restructuring in the Classroom. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, 1996.

Heckman, P., "School restructuring in practice:reckoning with the culture of school." International Journal of Educational Reform, 2, 3,July 1993, 263-271.

Johnston, W., Wartel, C., "School culture, leadership style and programmatic vision:a critical analytic reflective narrative". Educational Foundations, Summer, 1998.

Leithwood, K., "The move towards transformational leadership". Educational Leadership, Vol.49, No.5, 1992, 8-12.

Leithwood, K., "Leadership for school restructuring". Educational Administration Quarterly, 30, 4, 1994, 498-518.

Leithwood, K and Tomlinson, D and Genge, M., "Transformational school leadership" in Leithwood, K. (Ed)., International Handbook on Educational Leadership. Kluwer, Norwall, MA, 1996.

Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., "Explaining variation in teachers' perceptions of principals' leadership:a replication. Journal of Educational Administration, 35, 4, 1997, 312-331.

Maehr, M and Anderman, E., "Reinventing schools for early adolescents: emphasising task goals". Elementary School Journal, 93, 5, 1993.

Maehr, M. and Fyans, L., "School culture, motivation and achievement". In Ames, C and Maehr, M. Advances in Motivation and Achievement, Vol 6. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, 1989.

Maehr, M and Midgley, C., A Theory Based Approach to Restructuring Middle Level Schools. Paper presented at the Annual General Meeting of the Educational Research Association, Chicago, 1991.

Maehr, M and Midgley, C., Transforming School Cultures. Westview Press, Boulder, CO, 1996.

Maehr, M and Midgley, C and Hicks, L and Roeser, R and Urdan, T and Anderman, E and Kaplan, A., Patterns of Adaptive Learning Survey. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1996.

Midgley, C., "Motivation and middle level schools". In Pintrich, P., Maehr, M. (eds). Advances in Motivation and Achievement in the Adolescent Years. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, 1993.

Midgley, C., Anderman, E., Hicks, L., "Differences between elementary and middle school teachers and students: a goal theory approach". Journal of Adolescence, 15, 1995, 90-113.

Robertson, S., "The politics of devolution, self-management and post fordism in schools". In Smyth, J (Ed). A Socially Critical View of the Self-Managing School. Falmer Press, London, 1993.

Sashkin, M and Walberg, H.J., Educational Leadership and School Culture. McCutchan Publishing Corporation, Berkeley, California, 1993.

Schein, E., Organisational Culture and Leadership. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 1985.

Sergiovanni, T.J., The Principalship: A Reflective Practice Perspective. Allyn and

Bacon, Massachusetts, 1991.

Sergiovanni,T.J., Leadership for the Schoolhouse: How is it Different? Why is it Important? Jossey-Bass Inc. Publishers, San Francisco, 1996.

Stoll, L and Fink, D., Changing our Schools. Open University Press, Buckingham, 1996.

Stolp, S., Smith, S., Transforming School Culture. ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management, Oregon, 1995.

Waller, W., The Sociology of Teaching. Wiley, New York, 1932.