Education Drivers

Distributed Leadership

Distributed leadership, in which the principal shares certain leadership work with teachers to optimize student and school outcomes, has emerged as a leading school leadership model, and indeed is reflected within recent principal leadership standards. The model’s origins lie in research that suggested that principals cannot “do it alone,” in today’s complex and challenging school environments, and that teachers have often performed leadership work that was not acknowledged. Rather than simple task delegation by principals, distributed leadership involves teacher leaders and administrators collaborating together to perform leadership practices, and sharing responsibility for outcomes. Research has shown positive associations between distributed leadership and a variety of teacher and student outcomes, including teachers’ professional efficacy and teaching effectiveness, and student academic performance. However, distributed leadership’s positive outcomes are contingent upon having leadership activities enacted based on patterns of staff expertise. Critics of distributed leadership note the potential for growing teacher workloads without corresponding compensation, and the possibility of exclusion of certain groups of teachers from leadership work. Careful planning and purposeful design, a collaborative work culture based on trust and respect, and having teachers at the school who possess leadership capacity, all appear to be needed ingredients in order for distributed leadership to be effective. School leadership teams, in which the principal works with a team of teacher leaders to share leadership work, represent an example of distributed leadership in action, and have been shown to accelerate and sustain school reform work.

Distributed Leadership

Distributed Leadership PDF

 

Donley, J., Detrich, R., States, J., & Keyworth, (2020). Distributed Leadership. Oakland, CA: The Wing Institute. https://www.winginstitute.org/leadership-models-distributed

School principals have been the focus of much of the research on educational leadership, with studies generally demonstrating that principals exert a strong, though mediated, influence on student learning, and powerfully impact factors such as school climate and teacher working conditions (Hallinger & Heck, 2010a; Hitt & Tucker, 2016; Leithwood, Harris, & Hopkins, 2020; Robinson, Lloyd, & Rowe, 2008; Sebastian & Allensworth, 2012; Supovitz, Sirinides, & May, 2010). However, with the advent of the democratic and participative school restructuring movement of the 1990s that called for empowering teachers as professional educators to maximize the potential for school improvement (Marks & Louis, 1997), a key leadership model emerged to describe how principals and teachers work together to share the leadership load and determine the best instructional practices for the school (Marks & Printy, 2003). The distributed leadership model has been the focus of abundant lines of research (Gümüş, Bellibaş, Esen, & Gümüş, 2018); this review summarizes the evidence for the model’s efficacy in explaining how principals and teachers together influence school practices and effectiveness.

Background and Definitions of Terms

The origins of distributed leadership grew out of turning away from the “great man” concept of educational leadership, in which a single actor was thought necessary to lead in a top-down way in a bureaucratic organizational school structure (Leithwood & Louis, 2012; Pearce & Conger, 2003). The shift toward a flatter organizational structure, in which there are few or no levels of middle management between leaders and staff-level employees, reflected an increased appreciation for the contributions of individuals who often performed leadership roles in schools without holding positions of formal authority (Gronn, 2003). Distributed leadership was also touted as a way to support school principals who frequently face increasing complexities of leadership challenges in today’s schools. As noted previously, these challenges resulted from massive restructuring efforts to improve schools and to professionalize the role of teachers so more teachers could share responsibility for leadership work (Marks & Louis, 1997; Marks & Printy, 2003).

            The seminal research conducted by Spillane, Halverson, and Diamond (2001, 2004) set the stage for further lines of investigation into distributed leadership. These researchers argued that “to understand leadership practice, it is essential to go beyond a consideration of the roles, strategies, and traits of the individuals who occupy formal leadership positions to investigate how the practice of leadership is stretched over leaders, followers, and material and symbolic artifacts in the situation” (Spillane et al., 2004, p. 27). Distributed leadership involves the principal and teachers collaborating to determine and carry out the best practices for the school, rather than the principal serving as the sole or primary authority on these matters (Spillane et al., 2001, 2004).

            Studies on distributed leadership use a variety of perspectives and terminology (Liu, Bellibaş, & Gümüş, 2020), such as shared instructional leadership (Marks & Printy, 2003), collective leadership (e.g., Leithwood & Mascall, 2008), and democratic leadership (Natsiopoulou & Giouroukakis, 2010). These terms are often used interchangeably with distributed leadership, leading to some confusion and the misperception that distributed leadership includes the notion that everyone leads together at the same level (Harris, 2007). Rather, distributed leadership “essentially means that those best equipped or skilled or positioned to lead do so, in order to fulfill a particular goal or organizational requirement.” (Harris & DeFlaminis, 2016, p. 144).

Eckert (2019) noted that distributed leadership does not consist solely of delegation of tasks by principals to teachers. Rather, distributed leadership is considered a key component of learning-centered leadership, which is performed collaboratively by administrators and teachers and relies on complex, organic interrelationships as well as shared responsibility for learning outcomes (Murphy, Elliott, Goldring, & Porter, 2006). Administrators and teachers work and learn together as they coordinate practices such as setting the direction for the school, developing school staff, redesigning the organization as necessary, and improving the instructional program (Leithwood & Louis, 2012; Murphy, 2005). The idea of distributed leadership is based on the notion that when teacher-leaders, who have assumed responsibility for achieving common goals, work together with the principal, they accomplish more than the principal could accomplish working alone (Chrispeels, 2004; Hallinger, 2005). In fact, inflexible hierarchies can produce low staff morale and performance (Tian, Risku, & Collin, 2016).

Supporting Research and Important Factors and Caveats

Distributed leadership has received an extensive amount of research attention, particularly in the past decade (Gümüş et al., 2018), and supporting research includes related investigations that have generally confirmed the leadership potential of teachers to act as mentors, curriculum specialists, and resource providers in addition to classroom instructors (Tian & Huber, 2020). Distributed leadership has been associated with positive outcomes such as improved student academic performance (Hallinger & Heck, 2010a; Hallinger & Heck, 2010b; Heck & Hallinger, 2009; Leithwood & Mascall, 2008), teacher academic optimism and professional efficacy (Mascall, Leithwood, Strauss, & Sacks, 2008), organizational commitment (Hulpia & Devos, 2010; Hulpia, Devos, & Van Keer, 2011), teacher satisfaction (Liu et al., 2020), and teacher retention (Booker & Glazerman, 2009; Cowan & Goldhaber, 2016), as well as increased teacher effectiveness and instructional improvement (Ali & Yangaiya, 2015; Camburn & Han, 2009; Supovitz & Riggan, 2012).

            Collective leadership, which “encompasses the practices through which teachers and administrators influence colleagues, policymakers, and others to improve teaching and learning” (Eckert, 2018, p. 5), has also been shown to have a greater influence on student outcomes than individual principal leadership (Louis, Leithwood, Wahlstrom, & Anderson, 2010). The source of this influence may lie at least in part on collective leadership’s potential to enhance teachers’ professional efficacy, which has been shown to be a highly influential factor for student learning (Hattie, 2017).

In a recent overview of the research support for distributed leadership, Leithwood et al. (2020) stated that “school leadership can have an especially positive influence on school and student outcomes when it is distributed” (p. 9). Still, how that leadership is distributed produces diverse outcomes and results, and effectiveness depends on how leadership roles and responsibilities are distributed to optimally address the organization’s needs. Research suggests that careful planning, coordination, and intentional support on the part of the principal or other school leaders to distribute leadership based on staff characteristics or competencies maximize the chances for improved school outcomes (Bush & Glover, 2012; Leithwood et al., 2007).

The quality and distribution of leadership functions and opportunities for participative decision making and cooperation in leadership teams have been found to influence teachers’ organizational commitment, with teachers more strongly committed when informal leadership responsibilities are shared based on patterns of staff expertise, such as when new teams are created to solve problems of practice (DeFlaminis, 2013; Hulpia & Devos, 2010). These patterns of expertise, of course, vary from school to school context (Eckert, 2019; Hallinger & Heck, 2010a; Leithwood & Mascall, 2008; Leithwood et al., 2020), meaning that distributed leadership will likely be enacted differently across schools.

As the research base on distributed leadership has expanded, criticisms have appeared in the literature. For example, some critiques suggested that distributed leadership was conceived as a way to get teachers to do more work and as a more efficient way to deliver top-down, standardized policies and practices (Hargreaves & Fink, 2009). Lumby (2013) argued that claims of distributed leadership’s potential to empower and open up new teacher opportunities might be unwarranted and that there was no mention of the potential for unequal inclusion related to gender and race. Lumby suggested that distributed leadership “reconciles staff to growing workloads and accountability and writes troubling issues of the disempowerment and/or exclusion of staff out of the leadership script” (p. 582). Indeed, some research has included examples of how those with leadership authority and responsibility in schools have used distributed leadership for detrimental and damaging purposes (Harris, 2013).

The empirical research suggests that careful design and wise execution of distributed leadership strategies, when tailored to suit the school context, provide the best chance for distributed leadership to improve organizational performance and outcomes (Camburn & Han, 2009). In addition, high levels of trust, transparency, and mutual respect, along with a culture of collaborative learning and shared practice, are necessary for distributed leadership to have a positive impact (Harris, 2014; Massachusetts Department Elementary and Secondary Education, n.d.; Tian et al., 2016). The leadership capacity of teachers must also be considered, as this capacity can be hampered or supported by factors such as degree of preparation and professional development for leadership work (Jensen, Roberts-Hull, Magee, & Ginnivan, 2016; Wei, Darling-Hammond, Andree, Richardson, & Orphanos, 2009), and even meaningful leadership work, when added to the workload of teachers who are already at capacity with their own instructional responsibilities, will likely not translate to more positive student outcomes (Eckert, 2019). As Harris and DeFlaminis (2016) noted, “distributed leadership is not a panacea, it depends on how it is shared, received and enacted” (p. 143).

Distributed Leadership in Action

Distributed leadership was initially intended to be a theoretical framework for understanding how school leadership actions are enacted among school leaders and staff depending on the situational context (Spillane et al., 2001). However, many researchers today view it through a prescriptive lens and advocate it for purposes of reshaping leadership practices to increase the likelihood of school improvement (Robinson, 2009). Nonprofit organizations, such as the Wallace Foundation, have supported research on distributed leadership and widely disseminated the encouraging findings to policymakers working toward school improvement (e.g., Hallinger & Heck, 2009, 2010a, 2010b; Leithwood & Mascall, 2008). National principal leadership standards now reflect the importance of distributed leadership and include it in effective practices for operations and management and school improvement (National Policy Board for Educational Administration, 2015).

The notion of distributed leadership was operationalized in the Annenberg Foundation’s Distributed Leadership Project (DLP), which sought to build leadership capacity through a distributed perspective in urban schools with highly diverse student populations and in need of substantial school improvement (DeFlaminis, 2013). The DLP provided principal preparation to establish a distributed leadership mindset, and assisted with the development of distributed leadership teams to build leadership capacity in Philadelphia schools. Positive results in the form of multiple leadership team outcomes (e.g., effective team functioning and trust and efficacy levels among team members) led to the program being replicated in New York in 2015 (Harris & DeFlaminis, 2016).

Leadership teams. As noted previously, studies have determined that distributed leadership must be purposefully designed (Leithwood et al., 2007). School leadership teams in the form of overall school improvement teams, instructional teams, or professional learning communities (PLCs) are examples of distributed leadership in practice that have received wide research attention. Research shows that when principals work with a team of teachers, forming school-based leadership teams, the speed at which improvement efforts occur increases and reform is more likely to be sustained (Edwards & Gammell, 2016; Pedersen, Yager, & Yager, 2010). Further, school leadership models are more effective when they distribute responsibilities to a team rather than promoting unilateral decisions and actions (Hanover Research, 2013; Wallace Foundation, 2013).

The potential of leadership teams to free up time for administrators to be more directly involved in day-to-day instruction and organization management appears to be part of the reason that distributed management responsibilities improve student performance. Horng, Klasik, and Loeb (2010) reported that principals spent significantly less time on administrative tasks and more time on day-to-day instructional tasks in high-performing schools than in low-performing schools, as rated by state accountability systems. To become effective instructional leaders—by visiting classrooms, contributing to curriculum development, and coaching teachers—principals must step away from more managerial responsibilities and delegate some leadership tasks to others (Hallinger & Murphy, 2013; Murphy, Elliot, Goldring, & Porter, 2007). These leadership tasks must be assigned based on patterns of expertise in the school and avoid excessive burdens to teacher-leaders (Spillane, 2005). In addition, a principal does not have expertise in every area of his or her instructional responsibility, particularly when it comes to secondary content areas. The literature recommends that principals share or distribute leadership to teachers with content area expertise in these areas, and that they partner with the leadership team to oversee their work (Hallinger & Murphy, 2013).

Summary and Conclusions

Distributed leadership has emerged as a key model in the field of educational leadership, as research has accumulated regarding the benefits of teacher leadership and the need to spread the responsibility for school improvement beyond the sole domain of the building principal. The model is part of learning-centered leadership, in which principals and teachers work together to share responsibility for the school’s instructional program and learning outcomes at the school. Distributed leadership has received extensive research support, suggesting that these collaborative leadership cultures are associated with positive teacher and student outcomes. However, leadership roles and responsibilities must be carefully planned and tailored to meet the needs of the school’s context by appropriately using staff’s areas of expertise to assign leadership roles. This, in turn, means that distributed leadership will look quite different in practice across schools.

            Distributed leadership is not without critics who raise issues about the potential to burden already overworked teachers with additional responsibilities, and with failure in the research to discuss how to ensure equal opportunities based on staff gender and race. Schools offering a staff climate of trust, transparency, and a culture of shared practice, along with preparation and development to fulfill leadership roles, provide the best chance for distributed leadership to be effective.

            The research support for distributed leadership has led many in the field to view the model as prescriptive for educational leadership practice, and this view has resulted in national principal standards that call for principal capacity to distribute leadership in schools as a key indicator of effective practice. Distributed leadership has taken the form of training and development of school leaders and teams in schools in need of improvement, with positive outcomes. The rise of leadership teams in schools also demonstrates how distributed leadership is enacted, and these teams afford principals the opportunity to engage more closely with instructional leadership as well as the chance to build the leadership capacity of school staff. 

Citations

Ali, H. M., & Yangaiya, S. A. (2015). Investigating the influence of distributed leadership on school effectiveness: A mediating role of teachers’ commitment. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 5(1), 163–174. https://core.ac.uk/reader/228577190

Booker, K., & Glazerman, S. (2009). Effects of the Missouri Career Ladder program on teacher mobility. Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED507470.pdf

Bush, T, & Glover, D (2012) Distributed leadership in action: Leading high-performing leadership teams in English schools. School Leadership and Management, 32(1), 21–36. 

Camburn, E., & Han, S. W. (2009). Investigating connections between distributed leadership and instructional change. In A. Harris (Ed.), Distributed leadership: Different perspectives (pp. 25–45). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

Chrispeels, J. H. (Ed.). (2004). Learning to lead together: The promise and challenge of sharing leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Cowan, J., & Goldhaber, D. (2016). National board certification and teacher effectiveness: Evidence from Washington State. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 9(3), 233–258.

DeFlaminis, J. A. (2013). The implementation and replication of the distributed leadership program: More lessons learned and beliefs confirmed. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

Eckert, J. (2018). Leading together: Teachers and administrators improving student outcomes. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Eckert, J. (2019). Collective leadership development: Emerging themes from urban, suburban, and rural high schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 55(3), 477–509.

Edwards, B., & Gammell, J. (2016). Building strong school leadership teams to sustain reform. Leadership, 45(3), 20-22. https://www.shastacoe.org/uploaded/Haylie_Blalock/Building-Strong-School-Leadership-Teams-to-Sustain-Reform.pdf

Gronn, P. (2003). The new work of educational leaders: Changing leadership practices in an era of school reform. London: Paul Chapman.

Gümüş, S., Bellibaş, M. S., Esen, M., & Gümüş, E. (2018). A systematic review of studies of leadership models in educational research from 1980 to 2014. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 46(1), 25–48.

Hallinger, P. (2005). Instructional leadership and the school principal: A passing fancy that refuses to fade away. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4(3), 221–239. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228633330_Instructional_Leadership_and_the_School_Principal_A_Passing_Fancy_that_Refuses_to_Fade_Away

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2009). Distributed leadership in schools: Does system policy make a difference? In A. Harris (Ed.), Distributed leadership: Studies in educational leadership (pp. 101–117). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2010a). Leadership for learning: Does collaborative leadership make a difference in school improvement? Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 38(6), 654–678.

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2010b). Collaborative leadership and school improvement: Understanding the impact on school capacity and student learning. School Leadership and Management, 30(2), 95–110. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Philip_Hallinger/publication/280887669_Collaborative_Leadership_and_School_Improvement_Understanding_the_Impact_on_School_Capacity_and_Student_Learning/links/55caa71408aeca747d69f0cd/Collaborative-Leadership-and-School

Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. (2013). Running on empty? Finding the time and capacity to lead learning. NASSP Bulletin, 97(1), 5–21. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0192636512469288

Hanover Research (2013). Best practices in K-12 leadership structures. Washington, DC: Author. http://gssaweb.org/webnew/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Best-Practices-in-K-12-Leadership-Structures.pdf

Hargreaves, A., & Fink, D. (2009). Distributed leadership: Democracy or delivery? In A. Harris (Ed.), Distributed leadership: Different perspectives (pp. 181–193). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

Harris, A. (2007). Distributed leadership: Conceptual confusion and empirical reticence. International Journal of School Leadership, 10(3), 315–325.

Harris, A. (2013). Distributed leadership matters: Perspectives, practicalities, and potential. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Harris, A. (2014, September 29). Distributed leadership. Teacher. https://www.teachermagazine.com.au/articles/distributed-leadership?lang=en

Harris, A., & DeFlaminis, J. (2016). Distributed leadership in practice: Evidence, misconceptions and possibilities. Management in Education, 30(4), 141–146.

Hattie, J. (2017). Visible learning: 250+ influences on student achievement. https://visible-learning.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/VLPLUS-252-Influences-Hattie-ranking-DEC-2017.pdf

Heck, R. H., & Hallinger, P. (2009). Assessing the contribution of distributed leadership to school improvement and growth in math achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 46(3), 659–689.

Hitt, D. H., & Tucker, P. D. (2016). Systematic review of key leader practices found to influence student achievement: A unified framework. Review of Educational Research, 86(2), 531–569.

Horng, E. L., Klasik, D., & Loeb, S. (2010). Principal’s time use and school effectiveness. American Journal of Education, 116(4), 491–523. https://cepa.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/Principal%27s%20Time%20Use%20AJE.pdf

Hulpia, H., & Devos, G. (2010). How distributed leadership can make a difference in teachers’ organizational commitment? A qualitative study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(3), 565–575.

Hulpia, H., Devos, G., & Van Keer, H. (2011). The relation between school leadership from a distributed perspective and teachers’ organizational commitment: Examining the source of the leadership function. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47(5), 728–771.

Jensen, B., Roberts-Hull, K., Magee, J., & Ginnivan, L. (2016). Not so elementary: Primary school teacher quality in high-performing systems. Washington, DC: National Center on Education and the Economy. http://ncee.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/169726_Not_So_Elementary_Report_FINAL.pdf

Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2020). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership revisited. School Leadership and Management, 40(1), 5–22. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332530133_Seven_strong_claims_about_successful_school_leadership_revisited

Leithwood, K., & Mascall, B. (2008). Collective leadership effects on student achievement. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(4), 529–561. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b3d8/34602d17a14f306f6961863aef9c7ab9e901.pdf?_ga=2.12843442.469798984.1593548135-1379934943.1547574243

Leithwood, K., Mascall, B., Strauss, T., Sacks, R., Memon, R., & Yashkina, A. (2007). Distributing leadership to make schools smarter. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 6(1), 37–67.

Leithwood, K., & Louis, K. S. (2012). Linking leadership to student learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Leithwood, K., & Sun, J. (2012). The nature and effects of transformational school leadership: A meta-analytic review of unpublished research. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(3), 387–423.

Liu, T., Bellibaş, M. S., & Gümüş, S. (2020). The effect of instructional leadership and distributed leadership on teacher self-efficacy and job satisfaction: Mediating roles of supportive school culture and teacher collaboration. Educational Management Administration and Leadership. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143220910438

Louis, K. S., Leithwood, K., Wahlstrom, K. L., & Anderson, S. E. (2010). Investigating the links to improved student learning. New York, NY: Wallace Foundation. http://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/Documents/Investigating-the-Links-to-Improved-Student-Learning.pdf

Lumby, J. (2013). Distributed leadership: The uses and abuses of power. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 41(5), 581–597. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258135611_Distributed_Leadership_The_Uses_and_Abuses_of_Power

Marks, H. M., & Louis, K. S. (1997). Does teacher empowerment affect the classroom? The implications of teacher empowerment for instructional practice and student academic performance. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(3), 245–275.

Marks, H. M., & Printy, S. M. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 370–397.

Mascall, B., Leithwood, K., Strauss, T., & Sacks, R. (2008). The relationship between distributed leadership and teachers’ academic optimism. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(2), 214–228. https://www.hsredesign.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/09578230810863271.pdf

Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. (n.d.). An interactive planning guide for distributed leadership. http://www.doe.mass.edu/edeval/leadership/DistributedLeadershipIPG.pdf

Murphy, J. (2005). Connecting teacher leadership and school improvement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Murphy, J., Elliot, S. N., Goldring, E., & Porter, A. C. (2006). Learning-centered leadership: A conceptual foundation. Nashville, TN: Learning Sciences Institute, Vanderbilt University.

Murphy, J., Elliott, S. N., Goldring, E., & Porter, A. C. (2007). Leadership for learning: A research-based model and taxonomy of behaviors. School Leadership and Management, 27(2), 179–201.

National Policy Board for Educational Administration. (2015). Professional standards for educational leaders. Reston, VA: Author. https://www.npbea.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Professional-Standards-for-Educational-Leaders_2015.pdf

Natsiopoulou, E., & Giouroukakis, V. (2010). When teachers run the school. Educational Leadership, 67(7), 2–5. http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/apr10/vol67/num07/When-Teachers-Run-the-School.aspx

Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. (2003). Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Pedersen, J., Yager, S. & Yager, R. (2010). Distributed leadership influence on professional development initiatives: Conversations with eight teachers. Academic Leadership: The Online Journal, 8(3).

Robinson, V. M. J. (2009). Fit for purpose: An educationally relevant account of distributed leadership. In A. Harris (Ed.), Distributed leadership: Different perspectives (pp. 219–240). New York, NY: Springer.

Robinson, V. M. J., Lloyd, C. A., & Rowe, K. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on school outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 635–674.

Sebastian, J., & Allensworth, E. (2012). The influence of principal leadership on classroom instruction and student learning: A study of mediated pathways to learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(4), 626–663.

Spillane, J. (2005). Distributed leadership. The Educational Forum, 69(2), 143-150. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00131720508984678

Spillane, J., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. (2001). Investigating school leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 23≠28. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5283/8fdbf34414a8beb75fed057f4959705215de.pdf?_ga=2.55369006.469798984.1593548135-1379934943.1547574243

Spillane, J., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. (2004). Towards a theory of leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(1), 3–34. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233013775_Towards_a_theory_of_leadership_practice_A_distributed_perspective

Supovitz, J., & Riggan, M. (2012). Building a foundation for school leadership: An evaluation of the Annenberg Distributed Leadership Project, 2006–2010. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania. https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1013&context=cpre_researchreports

Supovitz, J., Sirinides, P., & May, H. (2010). How principals and peers influence teaching and learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(1), 31–56.

Tian, M., & Huber, S. G. (2020). Mapping educational leadership, administration and management research 2007–2016. Journal of Educational Administration, 58(2), 129–150.

Tian, M., Risku, M., & Collin, K. (2016). A meta-analysis of distributed leadership from 2002 to 2013: Theory development, empirical evidence and future research focus. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 44(1), 146–164.

Wallace Foundation. (2013). The school principal as leader: Guiding schools to better teaching and learning. New York, NY: Author. https://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/Documents/The-School-Principal-as-Leader-Guiding-Schools-to-Better-Teaching-and-Learning-2nd-Ed.pdf

Wei, R. C., Darling-Hammond, L., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009). Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development in the U.S. and abroad. Dallas, TX: National Staff Development Council. https://edpolicy.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publications/professional-learning-learning-profession-status-report-teacher-development-us-and-abroad.pdf

 

 

 

Publications

TITLE
SYNOPSIS
CITATION
A Research-Informed Design for Preparing Principals: What We Could Do Differently and Why It Might Work

This paper explores an alternative principal development program that combines the development of shared leadership and individual leaders as schools pursue their learning-improvement agendas.

Bellamy, T. (2015). A Research-Informed Design for Preparing Principals: What We Could Do Differently and Why It Might Work Retrieved from ../../uploads/docs/2015WingSummitTB.pdf.

A Research-Informed Design for Preparing Principals: What We Could Do Differently and Why It Might Work

This paper explores an alternative principal development program that combines the development of shared leadership and individual leaders as schools pursue their learning-improvement agendas.

Bellamy, T. (2015). A Research-Informed Design for Preparing Principals: What We Could Do Differently and Why It Might Work Retrieved from ../../uploads/docs/2015WingSummitTB.pdf.

Seeking the Magic Metric: Using Evidence to Identify and Track School System Progress

This paper discusses the search for a “magic metric” in education: an index/number that would be generally accepted as the most efficient descriptor of school’s performance in a district.

Celio, M. B. (2013). Seeking the Magic Metric: Using Evidence to Identify and Track School System Quality. In Performance Feedback: Using Data to Improve Educator Performance (Vol. 3, pp. 97-118). Oakland, CA: The Wing Institute.

Innovation, Implementation Science, and Data-Based Decision Making: Components of Successful Reform

Schools are often expected to implement innovative instructional programs.  Most often these initiatives fail because what we know from implementation science is not considered as part of implementing the initiative.  This chapter reviews the contributions implementation science can make for improving outcomes for students.

Detrich, R. Innovation, Implementation Science, and Data-Based Decision Making: Components of Successful Reform. Handbook on Innovations in Learning, 31.

Distributed Leadership

This review summarizes the evidence for the model’s efficacy in explaining how principals and teachers together influence school practices and effectiveness.

Donley, J., Detrich, R., States, J., & Keyworth, (2020). Distributed Leadership. Oakland, CA: The Wing Institute. https://www.winginstitute.org/leadership-models-distributed

 

Data Mining

TITLE
SYNOPSIS
CITATION
How differently do principals and teachers view working condition issues in their schools?
This analysis examines how teacher and principal perception of school working conditions differ.
Keyworth, R. (2009). How differently do principals and teachers view working condition issues in their schools? Retrieved from how-differently-do-principals.
How do teacher working conditions impact teacher turnover?
This item analyzes teacher reports of differing working condition issues and how they correlate to student achievement.
Keyworth, R. (2009). How do teacher working conditions impact teacher turnover? Retrieved from how-do-teacher-working.
What is the relationship between teacher working conditions and school performance?
This item analyzes teacher reports of differing working condition issues and how they correlate to student achievement.
Keyworth, R. (2009). What is the relationship between teacher working conditions and school performance? Retrieved from what-is-relationship-between900.
Is there empirical research to validate the use of prereferral intervention teams (PIT) to reduce special education referrals, achieve gains, or improve student conduct?
This is a review of a meta-analysis of Prereferral Intervention Teams on student and system outcomes.
States, J. (2011). Is there empirical research to validate the use of prereferral intervention teams (PIT) to reduce special education referrals, achieve gains, or improve student conduct? Retrieved from is-there-empirical-research.
How important are principals and administrative support in the retention of teachers?
This review looks at the impact of principal and administrative support in retaining teachers.
States, J. (2012). How important are principals and administrative support in the retention of teachers? Retrieved from how-important-are-principals904.

 

Presentations

TITLE
SYNOPSIS
CITATION
A Research-Informed Design for Preparing Principals: What We Could Do Differently and Why It Might Work
This paper explores an alternative principal development program that combines the development of shared leadership and individual leaders as schools pursue their learning-improvement agendas.
Bellamy, T. (2015). A Research-Informed Design for Preparing Principals: What We Could Do Differently and Why It Might Work [Powerpoint Slides]. Retrieved from 2015-wing-presentation-tom-bellamy.
TITLE
SYNOPSIS
CITATION
A New Approach to Principal Preparation: Innovative Programs Share Their Practices and Lessons Learned

This paper examines a number of promising principal preparation programs to identify lessons for improving the impact of principals on student perrmance.

A new approach to principal preparation: Innovative programs share their practices and lessons learned. Rainwater Leadership Alliance, 2010.

Distributed leadership and relational trust: Bridging two frameworks to identify effective leadership behaviors and practices

This dissertation investigates how relational trust manifests within schools that have recently
enacted the distributed leadership framework, a program implementation by the Penn
Center for Educational Leadership.

Abdul-Jabbar, M. (2013). Distributed leadership and relational trust: Bridging two frameworks to identify effective leadership behaviors and practices. University of Pennsylvania.

Investigating the influence of distributed leadership on school effectiveness: A mediating role of teachers’ commitment.

The purpose of this study is to investigate the influence of distributed leadership (DL) on school effectiveness (SE) in junior secondary schools in Katsina State, Nigeria. The study also investigates if teachers’ commitment (TC) mediates the relationship between DL and SE.

Ali, H. M., & Yangaiya, S. A. (2015). Investigating the influence of distributed leadership on school effectiveness: A mediating role of teachers’ commitment. Journal of Educational and Social Research5(1), 163–174. 

 
Effects of the Missouri Career Ladder program on teacher mobility.

This paper seeks to estimate the effect that Career Leader (CL) program has had on teachers’ career decisions, specifically their decisions to stay in a specific school district or to remain in the teaching field.

Booker, K., & Glazerman, S. (2009). Effects of the Missouri Career Ladder program on teacher mobility. Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED507470.pdf

Progress Over a Decade in Preparing More Effective School Principals

Over the past 10 years, the Southern Regional Education Board has helped states and public universities across the region evaluate their state policies for preparing school principals who are leaders of instruction. This benchmark report reviews the past decade and looks at 10 learning-centered leadership indicators to gauge how far states have come and how far they need to go in selecting, preparing and supporting leaders of change.

Bottoms, G., Egelson, P., & Bussey, L. H. (2012). Progress over a decade in preparing more effective school principals. Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Education Board.

Investigating connections between distributed leadership and instructional change.

In this chapter of "Distributed leadership: Different perspectives" the authors take a small step towards addressing such questions by investigating the association between the distribution of leadership to teachers and instructional change in schools.

Camburn, E., & Han, S. W. (2009). Investigating connections between distributed leadership and instructional change. In A. Harris (Ed.), Distributed leadership: Different perspectives (pp. 25–45). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

 

 
Seeking the Magic Metric: Using Evidence to Identify and Track School System Quality

This paper discusses the search for a “magic metric” in education: an index/number that would be generally accepted as the most efficient descriptor of school’s performance in a district.

Celio, M. B. (2013). Seeking the Magic Metric: Using Evidence to Identify and Track School System Quality. In Performance Feedback: Using Data to Improve Educator Performance (Vol. 3, pp. 97-118). Oakland, CA: The Wing Institute.

Learning to lead together: The promise and challenge of sharing leadership.

Through real-life single and multiple case studies, This book addresses how principals and their staffs struggle with the challenge of shared leadership, how they encourage teacher growth and development, and how shared leadership can lead to higher levels of student learning. 

 

Chrispeels, J. H. (Ed.). (2004). Learning to lead together: The promise and challenge of sharing leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

 
Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development in the United States and abroad.

This report examines practices in teacher and principal development in the United States in 2010. It looks at ineffective approaches as well as those models that show promise for improving educator and student performance.

Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R. C., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009). Professional learning in the learning profession. Washington, DC: National Staff Development Council.

Distributed Leadership

This review summarizes the evidence for the model’s efficacy in explaining how principals and teachers together influence school practices and effectiveness.

Donley, J., Detrich, R., States, J., & Keyworth, (2020). Distributed Leadership. Oakland, CA: The Wing Institute. https://www.winginstitute.org/leadership-models-distributed

Leading together: Teachers and administrators improving student outcomes.

Leadership is what is done, not who is doing it. The leadership work blurs the lines between teachers and administrators. Leading Together introduces a collective approach to progress, process, and programs to help build the conditions in which strong leadership can flourish and student outcomes improve. Explore the Collective Leadership Development Model for School Improvement.

Eckert, J. (2017). Leading together: Teachers and administrators improving student outcomes. Corwin Press.

Collective leadership development: Emerging themes from urban, suburban, and rural high schools.

Applying an analytic model to better understand collective leadership development, this study examines three high schools: one urban, one suburban, and one rural. Each school's unique structure and context tests the model's explanatory power.

Eckert, J. (2019). Collective leadership development: Emerging themes from urban, suburban, and rural high schools. Educational Administration Quarterly55(3), 477–509.

Building strong school leadership teams to sustain reform.

Effective Instructional Leadership Teams can be integral to helping underperforming schools strengthen their leadership, professional learning systems and core instruction.

Edwards, B., & Gammell, J. (2016). Building strong school leadership teams to sustain reform. Leadership, 45(3), 20-22. https://www.shastacoe.org/uploaded/Haylie_Blalock/Building-Strong-School-Leadership-Teams-to-Sustain-Reform.pdf

 

A systematic review of studies of leadership models in educational research from 1980 to 2014.

The purpose of this study is to reveal the extent to which different leadership models in education are studied, including the change in the trends of research on each model over time, the most prominent scholars working on each model, and the countries in which the articles are based. 

Gümüş, S., Bellibaş, M. S., Esen, M., & Gümüş, E. (2018). A systematic review of studies of leadership models in educational research from 1980 to 2014. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 46(1), 25–48.

The new work of educational leaders: Changing leadership practices in an era of school reform.

The author provides a new framework for understanding leadership practice. The work of leaders will increasingly be shaped by three overriding but contradictory themes: design; distribution; and disengagement. These are the `architecture' of school and educational leadership.

Gronn, P. (2003). The new work of educational leaders: Changing leadership practices in an era of school reform. London: Paul Chapman.

Instructional leadership and the school principal: A passing fancy that refuses to fade away.

This paper ties together evidence drawn from several extensive reviews of the educational leadership literature that included instructional leadership as a key construct. 

Hallinger, P. (2005). Instructional leadership and the school principal: A passing fancy that refuses to fade away. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4(3), 221–239. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228633330_Instructional_Leadership_and_the_School_Principal_A_Passing_Fancy_that_Refuses_to_Fade_Away

 
Distributed leadership in schools: Does system policy make a difference?

In this chapter, the authors synthesize the results of a series of analyses of empirical data on distributed leadership and school improvement. The studies centered on the impact of new state policies that sought to create broader and deeper leadership capacity in schools as a vehicle for stimulating and sustaining school improvement.

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2009). Distributed leadership in schools: Does system policy make a difference? In A. Harris (Ed.), Distributed leadership: Studies in educational leadership (pp. 101–117). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

Leadership for learning: Does collaborative leadership make a difference in school improvement?

This longitudinal study examines the effects of collaborative leadership on school improvement and student reading achievement in 192 elementary schools in one state in the USA over a 4-year period

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2010). Leadership for learning: Does collaborative leadership make a difference in school improvement?. Educational Management Administration & Leadership38(6), 654-678.

Collaborative leadership and school improvement: Understanding the impact on school capacity and student learning.

This chapter describes findings from a series of related quantitative studies in which we sought to understand how leadership contributes to school capacity for improvement and student learning.

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2010b). Collaborative leadership and school improvement: Understanding the impact on school capacity and student learning. School Leadership and Management30(2), 95–110. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Philip_Hallinger/publication/280887669_Collaborative_Leadership_and_School_Improvement_Understanding_the_Impact_on_School_Capacity_and_Student_Learning/links/55caa71408aeca747d69f0cd/Collaborative-Leadership-and-School

 

Running on empty? Finding the time and capacity to lead learning.

This article reviews the evolution of instructional leadership as a model for principal practice, examines barriers to its successful enactment, and proposes strategies

Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. F. (2013). Running on empty? Finding the time and capacity to lead learning. NASSP Bulletin97(1), 5-21.

Distributed leadership: Democracy or delivery?

The article underlines how, within this conception, distributed leadership operates as a network
of strong cells organized through cohesive diversity and emergent development rather than mechanical
alignment and predictable delivery.

Hargreaves, A., & Fink, D. (2009). Distributed leadership: Democracy or delivery? In A. Harris (Ed.), Distributed leadership: Different perspectives (pp. 181–193). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Dean_Fink/publication/226816252_Distributed_Leadership_Democracy_or_Delivery/links/5bfdb1b9299bf1c2329e7742/Distributed-Leadership-Democracy-or-Delivery

Distributed leadership: Conceptual confusion and empirical reticence

This article aims to address and explain the conceptual ambiguity surrounding distributed leadership.

 

Harris, A. (2007). Distributed leadership: conceptual confusion and empirical reticence. International Journal of Leadership in Education10(3), 315-325. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alma_Harris/publication/233209809_Distributed_leadership_Conceptual_confusion_and_empirical_reticence/links/56667a7a08ae4931cd62729c.pdf

Distributed leadership matters: Perspectives, practicalities, and potential.

This book anchors distributed leadership in the core work of instruction and argues that to be most effective, leadership distribution has to be first and foremost focus upon improving learners outcomes

Harris, A. (2013). Distributed leadership matters: Perspectives, practicalities, and potential. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

 
Teacher Magazine: Distributed Leadership.

what is distributed leadership? What does the evidence say? And, can it work for your school? Teacher Magazine asked Professor Alma Harris.

Harris, A. (2014, September 29). Distributed leadership. Teacher. https://www.teachermagazine.com.au/articles/distributed-leadership?lang=en

 
Distributed leadership in practice: Evidence, misconceptions and possibilities.

This article takes a contemporary look at distributed leadership in practice by drawing upon empirical evidence from a large-scale project in the USA. Initially, it considers the existing knowledge base on distributed leadership and questions some of the assertions and assumptions in recent accounts of the literature. 

Harris, A., & DeFlaminis, J. (2016). Distributed leadership in practice: Evidence, misconceptions and possibilities. Management in Education, 30(4), 141–146.

The School Principal As Leader: Guiding Schools To Better Teaching And Learning

This Wallace paper summarizes a decade of the foundation’s research in school leadership to identify five critical roles for school principals to be effective.

Harvey, J., et al. (2013). The School Principal As Leader: Guiding Schools To Better Teaching And Learning. The Wallace Foundation.

Visible learning: 250+ influences on student achievement

The Visible Learning research synthesizes findings from 1,400 meta-analyses of 80,000 studies involving 300 million students, into what works best in education.

Hattie, J. (2017). Visible learning: 250+ influences on student achievement. https://visible-learning.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/VLPLUS-252-Influences-Hattie-ranking-DEC-2017.pdf

Assessing the contribution of distributed leadership to school improvement and growth in math achievement

This longitudinal study examines the effects of distributed leadership on school improvement and growth in student math achievement in 195 elementary schools in one state over a 4-year period.

Heck, R. H., & Hallinger, P. (2009). Assessing the contribution of distributed leadership to school improvement and growth in math achievement. American educational research journal46(3), 659-689.

Systematic review of key leader practices found to influence student achievement: A unified framework.

The specific purposes of this article are to identify and synthesize the empirical research on how leadership influences student achievement and to provide evidence on how school leaders should direct their efforts.

Hitt, D. H., & Tucker, P. D. (2016). Systematic review of key leader practices found to influence student achievement: A unified framework. Review of Educational Research86(2), 531-569.

Principal’s time use and school effectiveness.

This article examines the relationship between the time principals spent on different types of activities and school outcomes, including student achievement, teacher and parent assessments of the school, and teacher satisfaction

Horng, E. L., Klasik, D., & Loeb, S. (2010). Principal’s time use and school effectiveness. American Journal of Education116(4), 491–523. https://cepa.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/Principal%27s%20Time%20Use%20AJE.pdf

 
How distributed leadership can make a difference in teachers’ organizational commitment? A qualitative study.

The present study explores the relationship between distributed leadership and teachers' organizational commitment. Semi-structured interviews with teachers and school leaders of secondary schools were conducted

Hulpia, H., & Devos, G. (2010). How distributed leadership can make a difference in teachers’ organizational commitment? A qualitative study. Teaching and Teacher Education26(3), 565–575. https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/955117/file/6828753

 
The relation between school leadership from a distributed perspective and teachers’ organizational commitment: Examining the source of the leadership function.

In this study the relationship between school leadership and teachers'
organizational commitment is examined by taking into account a distributed leadership
perspective.

Hulpia, H., Devos, G., & Van Keer, H. (2011). The relation between school leadership from a distributed perspective and teachers’ organizational commitment: Examining the source of the leadership function. Educational Administration Quarterly47(5), 728–771. https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/1938871/file/6762325.pdf

Great Principals at Scale: Creating Districts That Enable All Principals to be Effective

This report is a comprehensive and research-based framework outlining the conditions necessary for transformational school leaders to succeed. It offers a framework of conditions that can help districts enable great school leadership.

Ikemoto, G., Taliaferro, L., Fenton, B., Davis, J. (2014)Great Principals at Scale: Creating Districts That Enable All Principals to be Effective. New Leaders

Beyond individual effectiveness: Conceptualizing organizational leadership for equity.

The authors propose a conceptual framework of equitable leadership practice, describing three drivers to catalyze organizational growth in 10 high-leverage equitable practices designed to mitigate disparities for non-dominant students.

Ishimaru, A. M., & Galloway, M. K. (2014). Beyond individual effectiveness: Conceptualizing organizational leadership for equity. Leadership and Policy in Schools13(1), 93–146. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262057301_Beyond_Individual_Effectiveness_Conceptualizing_Organizational_Leadership_for_Equity

Not so elementary: Primary school teacher quality in high-performing systems

This report analyses whether and how highperforming systems have supported the subject expertise of their elementary school teachers.

Jensen, B., Roberts-Hull, K., Magee, J., & Ginnivan, L. (2016). Not so elementary: Primary school teacher quality in high-performing systems. Washington, DC: National Center on Education and the Economy. http://ncee.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/169726_Not_So_Elementary_Report_FINAL.pdf

 
Conceptual Perspectives on School Leadership

In this report, the development of altering concepts of school leadership over a period of about 4 decades is sketched.

Krüger, M., & Scheerens, J. (2012). Conceptual Perspectives on School Leadership. In J. Scheerens (Ed.), School leadership effects revisited: Review and meta-analysis of empirical studies (pp. 1–30). New York, NY: Springer.

Ontario Leadership Framework 2012 with a discussion of the research foundations.

For purposes of the Ontario Leadership Framework (OLF), leadership is defined as the exercise of influence on organizational members and diverse stakeholders toward the identification and achievement of the organization’s vision and goals. For aspiring leaders, this framework provides important insights about what they will need to learn to be successful. Those already exercising leadership will find the framework a useful tool for self-reflection and self-assessment.

Leithwood, K. (2012). Ontario Leadership Framework 2012 with a discussion of the research foundations. Ottawa, Canada: Institute for Education Leadership. https://www.education-leadership-ontario.ca/application/files/2514/9452/5287/The_Ontario_Leadership_Framework_2012_-_with_a_Discussion_of_the_Research_Foundations.pdf

Linking leadership to student learning

This study aimed to improve our understanding of the nature, causes, and consequences of school leader efficacy, including indirect influences on student learning.

Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2008). Linking leadership to student learning: The contributions of leader efficacy. Educational administration quarterly44(4), 496-528. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0013161X08321501

Collective leadership effects on student achievement. Educational Administration Quarterly

This study aimed to estimate the impact of collective, or shared, leadership on key teacher variables and on student achievement. As well, it inquired about the relative contribution of different sources of such leadership and whether differences among patterns of collective leadership were related to differences in student achievement

Leithwood, K., & Mascall, B. (2008). Collective leadership effects on student achievement. Educational Administration Quarterly44(4), 529–561. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b3d8/34602d17a14f306f6961863aef9c7ab9e901.pdf?_ga=2.12843442.469798984.1593548135-1379934943.1547574243

 
What do we already know about educational leadership?

This chapter of "A New Agenda for Research in Educational Leadership" book presents a broad agenda to help strengthen the extent, quality, and clarity of the latter source of knowledge -- empirical research on leadership. 

Leithwood, K., & Riehl, C. (2005). What do we already know about educational leadership? In W. A. Firestone & C. Riehl (Eds.), A new agenda for research in educational leadership (pp. 12–27). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. 

The nature and effects of transformational school leadership: A meta-analytic review of unpublished research

Using meta-analytic review techniques, this study synthesized the results of 79
unpublished studies about the nature of transformational school leadership (TSL) and its
impact on the school organization, teachers, and students.

Leithwood, K., & Sun, J. (2012). The nature and effects of transformational school leadership: A meta-analytic review of unpublished research. Educational Administration Quarterly48(3), 387-423.

Seven strong claims about successful school leadership revisited

In 2008 the authors published an article in this journal entitled Seven Strong Claims about Successful School Leadership (Leithwood, Harris, and Hopkins 2008). This article revisits each of the seven claims, summarising what was said about each in the original publications, weighing each of the claims considering recent empirical evidence, and proposing revisions or refinements as warranted.

Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2019). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership revisited. School Leadership & Management, 1-18.

Distributing leadership to make schools smarter.

This study inquired about patterns of leadership distribution, as well as which leadership functions were performed by whom, the characteristics of nonadministrative leaders, and the factors promoting and inhibiting the distribution of leadership functions. 

Leithwood, K., Mascall, B., Strauss, T., Sacks, R., Memon, R., & Yashkina, A. (2007). Distributing leadership to make schools smarter. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 6(1), 37–67.

The effect of instructional leadership and distributed leadership on teacher self-efficacy and job satisfaction: Mediating roles of supportive school culture and teacher collaboration.

In this study, the six aforementioned variables are added to one model focusing on both the direct effects instructional and distributed leadership have on teacher job satisfaction and self-efficacy, and the indirect effects through the mediation variables of supportive school culture and teacher collaboration. 

Liu, T., Bellibaş, M. S., & Gümüş, S. (2020). The effect of instructional leadership and distributed leadership on teacher self-efficacy and job satisfaction: Mediating roles of supportive school culture and teacher collaboration. Educational Management Administration and Leadership. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143220910438

 
Distributed leadership: The uses and abuses of power

In about a decade the theory of distributed leadership has moved from a tool to better understand the ecology of leadership to a widely prescribed practice. This article considers how to account for its spread and dominance and what purpose it serves.

Lumby, J. (2013). Distributed leadership: The uses and abuses of power. Educational Management Administration and Leadership41(5), 581–597. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258135611_Distributed_Leadership_The_Uses_and_Abuses_of_Power

 
Does teacher empowerment affect the classroom? The implications of teacher empowerment for instructional practice and student academic performance

This study investigates teacher empowerment in schools that have at least four years of experience with some form of decentralized or school-based management. 

Marks, H. M., & Louis, K. S. (1997). Does teacher empowerment affect the classroom? The implications of teacher empowerment for instructional practice and student academic performance. Educational evaluation and policy analysis19(3), 245-275.

Principal leadership and school performance: An integration of transformational and instructional leadership.

Focusing on school leadership relations between principals and teachers, this study examines the potential of their active collaboration around instructional matters to enhance the quality of teaching and student performance

Marks, H. M., & Printy, S. M. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational administration quarterly39(3), 370-397.

The relationship between distributed leadership and teachers’ academic optimism

The goal of this study was to examine the relationship between four patterns of distributed leadership and a modified version of a variable Hoy et al. have labeled “teachers’ academic optimism.” The paper finds that high levels of academic optimism were positively and significantly associated with planned approaches to leadership distribution, and conversely, low levels of academic optimism were negatively and significantly associated with unplanned and unaligned approaches to leadership distribution.

Mascall, B., Leithwood, K., Strauss, T. and Sacks, R. (2008). The relationship between distributed leadership and teachers’ academic optimism. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(2), 214–228. https://www.hsredesign.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/09578230810863271.pdf

 
Connecting teacher leadership and school improvement.

This book is designed to help the reader fully comprehend teacher leadership as a pathway to school improvement.

Murphy, J. (2005). Connecting teacher leadership and school improvement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

 

Learning-centered leadership: A conceptual foundation

The purpose of this analysis is to describe the research base that undergirds the emerging concept of learning-centered leadership.

Murphy, J., Elliott, S. N., Goldring, E., & Porter, A. C. (2006). Learning-Centered Leadership: A Conceptual Foundation. Learning Sciences Institute, Vanderbilt University (NJ1).

Leadership for learning: a research-based model and taxonomy of behaviors, 2007

In this article, the authors examine leadership for effective learning employing research on highly productive schools and districts and high-performing principals and superintendents.

Murphy, J., Elliott, S. N., Goldring, E., & Porter, A. C. (2007). Leadership for learning: a research-based model and taxonomy of behaviors 1. School Leadership and Management, 27(2), 179-201.

Professional standards for educational leaders.

This book introduces the foundations of the recently revised professional educational leadership standards and provides an in-depth explanation and application of each one. 

National Policy Board for Educational Administration. (2015). Professional standards for educational leaders. Reston, VA: Author. https://www.npbea.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Professional-Standards-for-Educational-Leaders_2015.pdf

 

 
When teachers run the school.

In a high school in Greece, teachers assume all administrative roles, freeing up the principal to take school governance to the next level.

Natsiopoulou, E., & Giouroukakis, V. (2010). When teachers run the school. Educational Leadership, 67(7), 2–5. http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/apr10/vol67/num07/When-Teachers-Run-the-School.aspx

 
Taking Charge of Principal Preparation-A Guide to NYC Leadership Academy's Aspiring Principals Program

This report provides an overview of NYCLA’s flagship principal preparation program. Intended to help others involved in principal preparation think through important elements of principal preparation, including candidate selection, developing experiential learning opportunities, and funding, staffing and sustaining the program, the guide shares NYCLA’s successes and lessons learned during the 11 years we have delivered the Aspiring Principals Program in New York City, as well as through our work with various state and district partners nationally to adapt the program.

NYC Leadership Academy (2014). Taking Charge of Principal Preparation-A Guide to NYC Leadership Academy's Aspiring Principals Program.  Retrieved from http://www.nycleadershipacademy.org/news-and-resources/tools-and-publications/pdfs/app-guide-full-guide.

The place of “social justice” in the field of educational administration: A journal-based historical overview of emergent area of study

The purpose of this chapter was to trace the place of “social justice” in the field's discourse since the early 1960s, the decade in which the first academic journals of the field appeared. More specifically, the chapter aims at (1) presenting the emergence of “social justice” as an area of study in the field's journals from a historical perspective and (2) analyzing the major topics related to this area of study and its types of publication. 

Oplatka, I. (2014). The place of “social justice” in the field of educational administration: A journal-based historical overview of emergent area of study. In I. Bogotch & C. M. Shields (Eds.), International handbook of educational leadership and social (in)justice (pp. 15–35). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

 
Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership.

This book aim is to advance understanding along many dimensions of the shared leadership phenomenon: its dynamics, moderators, appropriate settings, facilitating factors, contingencies, measurement, practice implications, and directions for the future. 

Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. (2003). Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

 

Distributed leadership influence on professional development initiatives: Conversations with eight teachers.

This study attempts to investigate the differential effectiveness of provocation, brainstorming, and emotional mastery at fostering the emotional intelligence of adolescents.

 

Pedersen, J., Yager, S. & Yager, R. (2010). Distributed leadership influence on professional development initiatives: Conversations with eight teachers. Academic Leadership: The Online Journal, 8(3).

Effective schools: A review

A review of school effectiveness literature is presented in this paper. Research studies and other literature on this topic are examined, including case studies, surveys and evaluations, studies of program:implementations, and organizational theories of schools and other institutions.

Purkey, S. C., & Smith, M. S. (1983). Effective schools: A review. Elementary School Journal, 83(4), 427–452. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED221534.pdf

Fit for purpose: An educationally relevant account of distributed leadership

Given the burgeoning interest in distributed leadership in education, it is timely to consider how research on this topic could make stronger and more rapid connections with student outcomes than has been evident in the history of the parent field of educational leadership (Harris, 2008). The purpose of this chapter, therefore, is to develop an account of distributed leadership that is appropriate for research on this relationship.

Robinson, V. M. J. (2009). Fit for purpose: An educationally relevant account of distributed leadership. In A. Harris (Ed.), Distributed leadership: Different perspectives (pp. 219–240). New York, NY: Springer.

 
The impact of leadership on school outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types.

The purpose of this study was to examine the relative impact of different types of leadership on students' academic and nonacademic outcomes.

Robinson, V. M. J., Lloyd, C. A., & Rowe, K. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on school outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly44(5), 635–674.

Inclusive leadership and social justice for schools

This article sketches out a framework for inclusive leadership. As one of the constellation approaches to leadership and social justice, inclusive leadership is concerned first and foremost with inclusion, both in its processes and the ends for which it strives.

Ryan, J. (2006). Inclusive leadership and social justice for schools. Leadership and Policy in Schools5(1), 3–17. https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/32335/1/RyanFinal.Inclusive%20Leadership%20and%20Social%20Justice%20for%20schools.pdf

School leadership effects revisited: Review and meta-analysis of empirical studies.

The bulk of the study is dedicated to an analysis of the empirical research literature on leadership effects. This includes the presentation of results from an earlier meta-analysis carried out by the authors, a summary of other meta-analyses, and a new meta-analysis based upon 25 studies carried out between 2005 and 2010.

Scheerens, J. (Ed.). (2012). School leadership effects revisited: Review and meta-analysis of empirical studies. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

 
What Makes A Leadership Preparation Program Exemplary

In this report, the Southern Regional Education Board outlines critical actions that states, districts, universities and principals themselves should take as part of a systematic plan to address principal succession. The report makes the case for principal succession planning and describes six steps for succession planning that states and districts can implement to ensure they have the right principals for the job.

Schmidt-Davis, J., & Bottoms, G. (2011). Who's Next? Let's Stop Gambling on School Performance and Plan for Principal Succession. Southern Regional Education Board (SREB).

 
Investigating the Links to Improved Student Learning: Final Report of Research Findings

This report examines the evidence and analyses to substantiate the claim that leadership and principals in particular have a significant impact on students and schools.

Seashore, K., Leithwood, K., Wahlstrom, K., & Anderson, S. (2010). Investigating the links to improved student learning: Final report of research findings.

The influence of principal leadership on classroom instruction and student learning: A study of mediated pathways to learning.

This study examines the influence of principal leadership in high schools on classroom instruction and student achievement through key organizational factors, including professional capacity, parent–community ties, and the school’s learning climate.

Sebastian, J., & Allensworth, E. (2012). The Influence of Principal Leadership on Classroom Instruction and.

Principal leadership and school performance: An examination of instructional leadership and organizational management.

The authors use principals’ self-ratings to construct typologies of effectiveness in both domains and compare their relationship to student achievement. Results show that principals view themselves as either strong or weak on instructional leadership and organizational management skills simultaneously. They also find that learning gains vary significantly across the principal profiles.

Sebastian, J., Allensworth, E., Wiedermann, W., Hochbein, C., & Cunningham, M. (2019). Principal leadership and school performance: An examination of instructional leadership and organizational management. Leadership and Policy in Schools18(4), 591–613. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/15700763.2018.1513151?needAccess=true

 
The Educational Forum: Distributed leadership.

Stories of leadership successes follow a familiar structure: A charismatic leader, often the CEO or school principal, takes over a struggling school, establishing new goals and expectations and challenging business as usual within the organization. 

Spillane, J. (2005). Distributed leadership. The Educational Forum69(2), 143-150. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00131720508984678

 
Investigating school leadership practice: A distributed perspective.

This 4-year longitudinal study, funded by the National Science Foundation and the Spencer Foundation, is designed to make the “black box” of leadership practice more transparent through an in-depth analysis of leadership practice. This research identifies the tasks, actors, actions, and interactions of school leadership as they unfold together in the daily life of schools. 

Spillane, J., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. (2001). Investigating school leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Educational Researcher30(3), 23–28. http://dm.education.wisc.edu/rrhalverson/intellcont/SpillaneHalversonDiamond%20ER-1.pdf

 
Towards a theory of leadership practice: A distributed perspective.

Building on activity theory and theories of distributed cognition, this paper develops a distributed perspective on school leadership as a frame for studying leadership practice, arguing that leadership practice is constituted in the interaction of school leaders, followers, and the situation.

 
 

Spillane, J., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. (2004). Towards a theory of leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies36(1), 3–34. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233013775_Towards_a_theory_of_leadership_practice_A_distributed_perspective

Transformational school leadership effects on student achievement.

Based on a synthesis of unpublished transformational school leadership (TSL) research completed during the last 14 years, this study inquired into the nature of TSL and its effects on student achievement using review methods including standard meta-analysis and vote-counting techniques. 

Sun, J., & Leithwood, K. (2012). Transformational school leadership effects on student achievement. Leadership and Policy in Schools11(4), 418-451.

Building a foundation for school leadership: An evaluation of the Annenberg Distributed Leadership Project, 2006–2010

This report describes the Consortium for Policy Research in Education’s mixed-method evaluation of the Distributed Leadership (DL) project. The evaluation featured a cluster randomized control trial, where schools first agreed to participate in the study and then were chosen by lottery to participate in the DL project or serve in the comparison group. Overall there were 16 DL schools and 21 comparison sites in the evaluation.

Supovitz, J., & Riggan, M. (2012). Building a foundation for school leadership: An evaluation of the Annenberg Distributed Leadership Project, 2006–2010. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania. https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1013&context=cpre_researchreports

 
How principals and peers influence teaching and learning

This paper examines the effects of principal leadership and peer teacher influence on teachers' instructional practice and student learning.

Supovitz, J., Sirinides, P., & May, H. (2010). How principals and peers influence teaching and learning. Educational Administration Quarterly46(1), 31-56.

Social justice educational leaders and resistance: Toward a theory of social justice leadership.

A subgroup of principals—leaders for social justice—guide their schools to transform the culture, curriculum, pedagogical practices, atmosphere, and schoolwide priorities to benefit marginalized students. The purpose of the article is to develop a theory of this social justice educational leadership.

Theoharis, G. (2007). Social justice educational leaders and resistance: Toward a theory of social justice leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly43(2), 221–258. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1033.662&rep=rep1&type=pdf

 
Mapping educational leadership, administration and management research 2007–2016.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the development of educational leadership, administration and management (EdLAM) research by identifying thematic strands that hallmark key publications and synthesise major research findings and limitations. 

Tian, M., & Huber, S. G. (2019). Mapping educational leadership, administration and management research 2007–2016. Journal of Educational Administration58(2), 129–150.

A meta-analysis of distributed leadership from 2002 to 2013: Theory development, empirical evidence and future research focus.

This article provides a meta-analysis of research conducted on distributed leadership from 2002 to 2013. It continues the review of distributed leadership commissioned by the English National College for School Leadership (NCSL) which identified two gaps in the research during the 1996–2002 period.

Tian, M., Risku, M., & Collin, K. (2016). A meta-analysis of distributed leadership from 2002 to 2013: Theory development, empirical evidence and future research focus. Educational Management Administration and Leadership44(1), 146–164.

What are the different types of principals across the United States? A latent class analysis of principal perception of leadership.

Latent class analysis (LCA) was used to identify different types of principals across the U.S. The authors analyzed the 1999-2000 Schools and Staffing Survey as it presents a unique opportunity to study the different types of U.S. principals since it contains leadership measures not found in other national surveys or administrations. A final sample of 7,650 public schools and principals were included in the analysis.

Urick, A., & Bowers, A. J. (2014). What are the different types of principals across the United States? A latent class analysis of principal perception of leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly50(1), 96–134. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1031.4904&rep=rep1&type=pdf

 
Learning from Leadership: Investigating the Links to Improved Student Learning

The purpose of this paper is to discuss findings from Learning from Leadership. This study was designed to identify and describe successful educational leadership and to explain how such leadership can yield improvements in student learning.

Wahlstrom, K. L., Louis, K. S., Leithwood, K., & Anderson, S. E. (2010). Learning from Leadership: Investigating the Links to Improved Student Learning. The Informed Educator Series. Educational Research Service.

The New York City Aspiring Principals Program-A School-Level Evaluation

This report represents the first systematic comparison of student outcomes in schools led by the Aspiring Principals Program (APP) graduates after three years to those in comparable schools led by other new principals.

Weinstein, M., Schwartz, A. E., & Corcoran, S. P. (2009). The New York City Aspiring Principals Program: A School-Level Evaluation. NYU Wagner Research Paper, (2011-07).

Educational leadership and student achievement: The elusive search for an association

This quantitative meta-analysis examines impact of the principal's leadership on student achievement.

Witziers, B., Bosker, R. J., & Kr�ger, M. L. (2003). Educational leadership and student achievement: The elusive search for an association. Educational administration quarterly, 39(3), 398-425.

No items found.

Back to Top