Education Drivers

Leadership Models

Several major school leadership models have served to identify and organize the research literature regarding what is known about the competencies and characteristics of effective school leaders to enhance understanding and inform practice. Instructional leadership, which considers how school leaders influence teaching and learning and includes functions such as developing the school’s mission/vision/goals, managing every facet of the instructional program, and ensuring a positive school climate, has been consistently shown to influence teaching quality and student outcomes through several decades of research. The most recent models of instructional leadership have broadened to include examination of how factors, such as school context and teacher leadership, moderate the influence of instructional leadership. Distributed or shared leadership has also emerged as a leading model, with research suggesting that principals cannot “do it alone,” but must share leadership responsibilities among staff. Distributed leadership research has yielded positive associations between this style and a variety of teacher and student outcomes, but also suggests that effectiveness depends on allocating leadership tasks based on patterns of staff expertise to optimize outcomes. Transformational leadership, which stresses school leaders as change agents that inspire and motivate staff to improve collective efficacy and a positive school trajectory, has shown to be influential to teacher outcomes, but somewhat less influential for student outcomes than other types of leadership. Today, integrated models of leadership, which include elements of instructional, distributed, and transformation leadership are most common, and reflect how school leaders use different types of leadership in different situations and coordinate with teachers to influence instructional and learning. Also emerging are leadership frameworks for equity, such as culturally responsive leadership, that focus on how school leaders foster or inhibit equitable educational systems and student outcomes.

School Leadership Models

Leadership Models PDF

 

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

Principals exert a strong influence on student learning and achievement through their ability to impact the types of organizational school features necessary for high-quality teaching and learning (Hitt & Tucker, 2016; Leithwood, Harris, & Hopkins, 2020; Leithwood, Harris, & Strauss, 2010; Robinson, Lloyd, & Rowe, 2008; Supovitz, Sirinides, & May, 2010). While leadership effects on student learning are mediated by other conditions that more directly impact achievement (Hallinger & Heck, 2010; Louis, Leithwood, Wahlstrom, & Anderson, 2010), principals do exert influence over factors such as school climate and teacher working conditions, and make human capital (i.e., teacher hiring) and professional development decisions that indirectly influence student learning outcomes (Cannata et al., 2017; Sebastian & Allensworth, 2012).

            Researchers in educational leadership have proposed theoretical models of school leadership that identify and organize the types of competencies and characteristics desired in school leaders. This review highlights major models that have been influential in the field and discusses evidence for their efficacy in explaining school leaders’ influence.         

Historical Overview and Background

Effective principals are effective leaders. While no single definition has been identified in the research literature (Bush, 2008), school leadership has generally been referred to as “the work of mobilizing and influencing others to articulate and achieve the school’s shared intentions and goals” (Leithwood & Riehl, 2005, p. 14). The scholarship on leadership prior to 1950 focused on the personality traits that distinguished leaders from followers, arguing that traits such as charisma and diligence were essential and often found in “great men” serving as leaders (Gümüş, Bellibaş, Esen, & Gümüş, 2018; Krüger & Scheerens, 2012). Attention then shifted to the behaviors that were thought to be indicative of effective school leaders (Krüger & Scheerens, 2012). Other prominent models during this time period included one positing the importance of contingency/situational leadership, which argued that effective leadership was highly dependent on leaders’ school context (Gümüş et al., 2018).

The “effective schools” research of the 1980s followed, providing qualitative evidence for schools that were able to help all students thrive no matter their socioeconomic background (Clark, Lotto, & Astuto, 1984). This body of research determined that strong leaders led these effective schools (Purkey & Smith, 1983) and served as the cornerstone of the development of school leadership models that are well studied today, such as instructional leadership (Gümüş et al., 2018; Hallinger, Gümüş, & Bellibaş, 2020). The transition into the 21st century brought an increased emphasis on accountability in the United States and globally, with the metric of student achievement seen as the basis for assessing educational effectiveness and, in turn, the effectiveness of principals (Hallinger et al., 2020).

Effective school leaders today are thought to have” a set of competencies manifested by behavior that relates to effective or outstanding performance in a specific job or role” (Hitt, Meyers, Woodruff, & Zhu, 2019, p. 190). Principals’ practices represent their competencies in various leadership areas, and research has attempted to investigate the relationship between these behaviors/practices and student, teacher, and school outcomes. Leadership models have helped researchers clarify the definition and practices of effective leadership and how principals influence schools from varying perspectives.

While school leadership has been the object of a great deal of discussion and research in the past few decades, most systematic research reviews have incorporated all types of educational leadership studies without isolating and studying leadership models per se (Gümüş et al., 2018). This overview examines contemporary prevalent school leadership models along with supporting research for their efficacy in explaining principals’ effectiveness.

Instructional Leadership

Defined as “school leadership intended to influence school and classroom teaching and learning processes with the goal of improving learning for all students” (Hallinger et al., 2020, p. 1632), instructional leadership emerged from studies on the characteristics of effective principals to become one of the most intensely studied leadership models (Gümüş et al., 2018; Tian & Huber, 2019). Instructional leadership dominated the field from 1980 to 1995 (Gümüş et al., 2018; Hallinger et al., 2020). After that, scholars focused on other leadership models, for example, distributed or shared leadership, because of policy shifts such as teacher professionalization (Hallinger et al., 2020). However, interest in instructional leadership grew again after 2010 (Gümüş et al., 2018).

            The first conceptual model to address instructional leadership grew out of a research synthesis on the topic, proposing how principals’ instructional leadership impacted student learning outcomes, and how this impact depended on variables such as instructional climate and community context (Bossert, Dwyer, Rowan, & Lee, 1982). Hallinger’s Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale (PIMRS) concurrently provided a key research tool and framework that produced abundant lines of research addressing instructional leadership (Hallinger & Heck, 1996, 1998; Hallinger & Murphy, 1985). This framework suggested that instructional leaders must balance three key functions: (1) developing the school’s mission by framing and communicating school goals; (2) managing the instructional program by coordinating curriculum, assessing instructional effectiveness, and monitoring learning; and (3) instilling a positive school climate by maintaining high visibility, enforcing academic standards, and providing professional development coupled with protected teacher instructional time (Hallinger, 2005; Hallinger & Murphy, 1985).

A variety of quantitative research reviews have affirmed positive, though mediated, relationships between principal’s instructional leadership and student learning and other school outcomes (Bossert et al., 1982; Hallinger & Heck, 1996; Leithwood et al., 2020; Liebowiz & Porter, 2019; Louis et al., 2010; Robinson et al., 2008; Scheerens, 2012; Witziers, Bosker, & Krüger, 2003). A recent meta-analysis of the empirical literature, for example, documented a strong relationship between principals’ focus on instruction-specific support (including behaviors related to planning and providing professional development) and teaching effectiveness, student achievement, and school organizational health (Liebowitz & Porter, 2019). In their review of qualitative and quantitative research published from 2001 to 2012, Osborne-Lampkin, Folsom, and Herrington (2015) identified instructional management behaviors that addressed classroom instruction and curricula as one of four principal competencies that significantly influenced student achievement.

Recent content analyses of instructional leadership research suggest that these studies have largely shifted toward exploring models that consider how the influence of instructional leadership is moderated by other factors, and the relationship between leadership and student learning and other school and teacher variables (Boyce & Bowers, 2018; Hallinger, 201l). In a review of 109 studies published between 1988 and 2013 that used Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) data, Boyce and Bowers (2018) noted themes found in the instructional leadership research and confirmed a trend in the field from a narrow focus on instructional leadership toward broader notions of “leadership for learning” (Leithwood, Harris, & Hopkins, 2008; Murphy, Elliott, Goldring, & Porter, 2007)

This broader concept of instructional leaders is reflected in the research on the behaviors of effective principals. Effective school leaders engage in side-by-side professional learning with their faculty as they learn about curricular and instructional improvements (Robinson et al., 2008); this action strengthens principals’ knowledge and capacity to be a resource and support to teachers, and enhances their credibility and legitimacy as instructional leaders in schools (Murphy et al., 2006). Instructional leadership also involves a principal’s active involvement in planning, coordinating, and assessing curriculum and teaching through activities such as discussions about and influence over vertical/horizontal curriculum alignment, and observation of and feedback on classroom teaching (Murphy et al., 2006; Robinson et al., 2008).

School leaders exerting instructional leadership protect instructional time during the school day, limit disruptions, and encourage teacher and student attendance (Hitt & Tucker, 2016). They view assessment as pivotal to evaluating student progress and making adjustments based on regularly collected formative and summative data; they also ensure that this data is disaggregated by indicators important for tracking progress toward school improvement goals, such as by ethnicity, special education status, and socioeconomic status (Murphy et al., 2006). Instructional leaders ensure that students’ backgrounds are incorporated into the instructional program and create personalized and culturally responsive learning environments (Hitt & Tucker, 2008; Leithwood, 2012; Murphy et al., 2006; Sebring, Allensworth, Bryk, Easton, & Luppescu, 2006).

Murphy and Hallinger (1988) were among researchers who took a broader view of instructional leadership to argue for the inclusion of a principal’s skill in organizational management, which includes managing budgets, providing a safe learning environment, acquiring and allocating resources strategically, and building collaborative decision-making processes. The importance of organizational management has been validated in research conducted more recently, and has been shown to have a strong influence on student achievement (Grissom & Loeb, 2011; Horng, Klasik, & Loeb, 2010; Liebowitz & Porter, 2019). Strong organizational management skills allow principals to align support systems so that teachers can maximize instructional best practices and enhance student achievement (Grissom & Loeb, 2011; Horng et al., 2010). In fact, instructional leadership and organizational management are both likely components of the broader construct of leadership effectiveness (Bryk, Sebring, Allensworth, Luppescu, & Easton, 2010; Sebastian, Allensworth, Wiedermann, Hochbein, & Cunningham, 2019).

Distributed or Shared Leadership

As the notion of the need for a strict bureaucratic hierarchy in schools eroded because of the democratic and participative school restructuring movement that called for empowering teachers as professional educators (Marks & Louis, 1997), the concept of instructional leadership as a principal-centered practice evolved into shared instructional leadership, in which the principal and teachers work together to determine the best instructional practices for the school (Marks & Printy, 2003). Also referred to as distributed (Spillane, Halverson, & Diamond, 2001, 2004) or collective leadership (Browne-Ferrigno, 2016), this model points out that principals generally are unable to enact instructional leadership alone (Hallinger, 2005) and, in fact, inflexible hierarchies can produce low staff morale and performance (Tian, Risku, & Collin, 2016). Principals need teachers to fulfill leadership roles and perform leadership tasks; teachers are the elements of instructional leadership that form a collaborative school culture (Spillane et al., 2001, 2004).

            Distributed leadership is effective when informal responsibilities are shared among educators based on patterns of expertise, such as teams created to solve problems of practice (DeFlaminis, 2013; Hulpia & Devos, 2010). The notion of distributed leadership was operationalized in the Annenberg Foundation’s Distributed Leadership Project (DLP), which sought to build leadership capacity 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).

Distributed leadership has also received an extensive amount of research attention, particularly in the past decade (Gümüş et al., 2018), and the body of research has generally confirmed the leadership potential of teachers (Tian & Huber, 2019). This leadership style has been associated with positive outcomes such as improved student performance in math and reading, teacher satisfaction, enhanced teacher skills, and individual and collective teacher efficacy (Hallinger & Heck, 2010; Heck & Hallinger, 2009; Leithwood & Mascall, 2008; Mascall, Leithwood, Strauss, & Sacks, 2008; Supovitz & Riggan, 2012), as well as teacher retention (Booker & Glazerman, 2009; Cowan & Goldhaber, 2016).

The effectiveness of distributed leadership on school outcomes and student achievement continues to be documented in the recent literature (Leithwood et al., 2020). However, how leadership is distributed produces diverse outcomes and results, and its effectiveness depends on the way in which leadership roles and responsibilities are distributed to optimally address the organization’s needs through staff expertise, which varies from school to school (Eckert, 2019; Heck & Hallinger, 2009; Leithwood & Mascall, 2008; Leithwood et al., 2020). As Harris and DeFlaminis (2016) noted, “distributed leadership is not a panacea, it depends on how it is shared, received and enacted” (p. 143).

Transformational Leadership

As instructional and distributed leadership models grew in prominence, another important line of research addressed the leadership required to turn around poorly performing schools. These researchers suggested that transformational leadership in which principals and other school leaders serve as change agents who inspire and motivate staff to improve organizational performance collaboratively, was required for this Herculean task (Hallinger, 1992; Leithwood, 1994). Transformational leadership stresses the following factors: “building school vision and goals, providing intellectual stimulation, offering individualized support, modeling professional practices and values, demonstrating high performance expectations, and developing structures to foster participation in school decisions” (Urick & Bowers, 2014, p. 100). Transformative school leadership connects leaders to teachers within continual improvement processes so that combined efforts result in a collective efficacy and a positive school trajectory, with teachers motivated to look past their individual interests and invest in the success of the school as a whole (Leithwood, 2012).

A series of meta-analyses showed a modest correlation between transformational leadership and student achievement. However, they showed stronger relationships to teacher and school process outcomes (Leithwood & Sun, 2012; Sun & Leithwood, 2012, 2015); individual direction-setting leadership practices such as “developing a shared vision” and “holding high performance expectations” were strongly related to these outcomes. Robinson et al.’s (2008) meta-analysis of research addressing the impact of leadership styles showed that instructional leadership had 3 to 4 times the effects on student achievement as transformative leadership, although others subsequently argued that the distinctions drawn in the study between instructional and transformational leadership may have been overly rigid (Day, Gu, & Sammons, 2016).

In fact, a study of highly improved schools in England revealed that principals exerted both instructional and transformational leadership strategies to build teachers’ commitment to, and capacity for, improvement by introducing, implementing, and sustaining standards of high-quality teaching and learning (Day et al., 2011). This integrated model was echoed in research by Marks and Printy (2003), who noted that integrated leadership, which stresses the importance of both instructional and transformational principal competencies, was found in schools with higher teaching quality and achievement. Integrated leadership “acknowledges that a solid, results-focused management approach must be in place before, or at least simultaneously to, expecting teachers to engage in transcendental and transformative work” (Hitt & Tucker, 2016, p. 535).

Integrated Leadership

Several lines of research have attempted to unify the results from research on instructional, transformational, and distributed leadership into an integrated model of school leadership while further considering how school context influences principals’ enactment of leadership behaviors. Marks and Printy (2003) found that transformational leadership was a necessary, but not sufficient, component of shared instructional leadership. The investigators suggested that this form of integrated leadership created a synergy among principals and teachers around instructional innovation and improvement. Researchers have extended the work of Marks and Printy, finding that principals’ leadership styles vary depending on their background and school context and needs, and that principals may simultaneously practice different leadership behaviors accordingly to address these factors (Boberg & Bourgeois, 2016; Bruggencate, Luyten, Scheerens, & Sleegers, 2012; Day et al., 2016; Urick & Bowers, 2014). For example, Hallinger (2018) identified several types of contexts that shape leadership practice, including cultural, economic, community, political, and school improvement contexts. Flexibility to consider the school’s context or situation allows leaders to not only understand an issue but also adapt solutions accordingly to optimize outcomes (Daly, 2009; Leithwood, 2012; Marks & Printy, 2003; Murphy et al., 2006; Sebring et al., 2006).

            In an analysis of instructional leadership research, Boyce and Bowers (2018) developed an integrated leadership model that attempted to depict the relationship among key factors that emerged from research findings. They noted four instructional leadership themes (principal leadership and influence, teacher autonomy and influence, adult development, and school climate), and described their relationship with three other factors emerging from the literature (teacher satisfaction, commitment, and retention), developing an integrated model that included both shared instructional leadership and human resource management. They found, for example, that teacher autonomy and perceptions of influence combine to form a reciprocal relationship with principal leadership, together forming the foundation for instructional leadership.

            Hitt and Tucker (2016) reviewed 56 studies and three major leadership frameworks in an attempt to synthesize the major findings and frameworks in the field into a unified model of effective leader practices (see Table 1). The three frameworks reviewed were the Ontario Leadership Framework, or OLF (Leithwood, 2012); Learning-Centered Leadership Framework (Murphy et al., 2006); and Essential Supports Framework (Sebring et al., 2006). While a discussion of each of these frameworks is beyond the scope of this paper, Hitt and Tucker’s Unified Framework provides an example of how elements of instructional, distributed or shared, and transformational leadership are integrated into a contemporary leadership framework.

Table 1

 

Adapted from Hitt and Tucker (2016)

Leadership for Equity

While the cited leadership frameworks and accompanying leadership behaviors have been shown to positively influence school-level achievement measures, schools and school leaders are increasingly held responsible for other outcomes, most prominently equity (Leithwood et al., 2020). Equity has been referred to as “attention to the fairness of outcomes within the context of an unequal playing field” (Ishimaru & Galloway, 2014, p. 94). Leadership for equity has become an emergent focus of research over the past decade, as scholars have attempted to build upon and extend what is known about effective school leadership to include how leaders enact behavior that promotes equitable outcomes for all students (Oplatka, 2014; Tian & Huber, 2019). 

Researchers have noted that principals who positively influence student achievement also incorporate students’ backgrounds into the instructional program and create personalized and culturally responsive learning environments (Hitt & Tucker, 2016; Leithwood, 2012; Murphy et al., 2006; Sebring et al., 2006); however, little attention and guidance have been given to how school leaders can most effectively address the frequent disparate academic outcomes observed for marginalized student groups and students of color resulting from persistent and pervasive opportunity gaps in educational systems (Darling-Hammond, 2010; Theoharis, 2007). The topics of culturally responsive school leadership (Khalifa, Gooden, & Davis, 2016) and leadership for social justice (Brayboy, Castagno, & Maughan, 2007; Ryan, 2006; Theoharis, 2007) have emerged as prevalent lines of inquiry addressed by school leadership researchers. For example, Khalifa et al. (2016) reviewed the literature on culturally responsive school leadership, concluding that culturally responsive leaders (1) develop critical awareness of their own values, beliefs and dispositions; (2) ensure that teacher use culturally responsive curricula and instruction; (3) create culturally responsive and welcoming school environments; and (4) engage student and families in community contexts by accepting and embracing students’ home cultures.

   Leadership frameworks for educational equity are emerging as efforts to integrate the accumulating body of school leadership research with research addressing leadership for equity. For example, Ishimaru and Galloway (2014), in collaboration with researchers, practitioners, and community leaders with expertise in educational equity, developed a research-based organizational leadership conceptual framework for educational equity; it argues for a central emphasis on leadership practices that foster or inhibit equitable educational systems. This framework proposes 10 high-leverage equitable school leadership practices adapted from and aligned to national standards developed by the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC):

  1. Construct and enact an equity vision that explicitly recognizes existing systemic inequities, and demonstrate high expectations for educator practice and student outcomes.
  2. Supervise for improvement of equitable teaching and learning, to include instructional practices such as culturally responsive teaching and differentiated instruction.
  3. Develop organizational leadership for equity in others, such as parents, students, and community members, by building their capacity for self-reflection regarding biases and assumptions, and collaborating to move instructional practices to become more equitable.
  4. Foster an equitable school culture by intentionally deepening the voices of students, families, and staff who have been traditionally marginalized and building relationships across the school community.
  5. Allocate resources (financial, material, time, human resources) to address the needs of students who traditionally have not been well served because of their ethnicity, language, or economic class.
  6. Hire, place, and retain personnel of color who also possess strong equity commitments, understanding, and skills.
  7. Collaborate with families and communities by establishing and maintaining meaningful and sustained relationships, engaging these stakeholders in school improvement for equity, and ensuring plenty of two-way communication.
  8. Engage in self-reflection and growth by examining one’s own identity, values, biases, and privileges, and developing and understanding how they operate in school and society both historically and currently.
  9. Model integrity, advocacy, conviction, and tenacity in pursuing equity.
  10. Influence the sociopolitical context by collaborating with stakeholders to address the roots of systemic inequities and publicly working toward socially just policy and implementation.

            These leadership practices are “designed to support the professional growth and practice of leadership teams in creating more equitable education environments” (Ishimaru & Galloway, 2014, p. 120), rather than being entirely focused on the school principal. The framework also has implications for designing principal preparation programs, selecting and developing faculty for these preparation programs, implementing assessment licensure programs, evaluating principal effectiveness, and providing K–12 professional development programs (Galloway & Ishimaru, 2015).

Summary and Conclusions

School leadership has been the subject of extensive research, and several models have been framed to synthesize and organize what is known about how principals and other school leaders influence student, teacher, and school outcomes.

            The instructional leadership model, in which principals are thought to exert a highly influential, though mediated, effect on teaching and learning, has received strong support in the research literature. Strong instructional leaders actively plan and participate in professional learning with teachers, involve themselves substantively in curriculum and teaching, and use data to monitor progress toward goals. Research shows that instructional leadership also broadly includes organizational management duties, such as resource acquisition and allocation, and providing safe learning environments.

            The distributed or shared leadership model emerged as research accumulated regarding the benefits of teacher leadership and the need to spread the responsibility for school improvement beyond the building principal. Shared 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 tailored to the needs of the school’s context by appropriately using staff’s areas of expertise.

            The transformational leadership model, in which principals or other school leaders act as change agents to inspire and motivate staff to work toward school, rather than individual, success, has become another prominent line of inquiry. Research has consistently documented relationships between key direction-setting leadership practices and teacher and school outcomes; however, it is likely that solid instructional and organizational leadership must form the basis for principals to be able to successfully exert transformative leadership strategies.

            The integrated leadership model represents recent efforts to synthesize, organize, and unify the research on effective school leadership that has been addressed in instructional, distributed or shared, and transformational leadership models, as well as incorporate the school context in which leadership takes place. For example, the integrated model has suggested that instructional leadership likely is a result of the degree of teacher autonomy and influence and a principal’s human resource management strategies. Principals likely use elements of all three types of leadership styles or strategies, and recent leadership frameworks clearly reflect this integrated approach. Use of a broad array of leadership strategies is often crucial, particularly for principals leading schools in high-poverty communities.

            Increasing attention in the field has been devoted to studying the leadership needed for advancing toward equitable outcomes for all students. Research on culturally responsive school leadership has described, for example, how leaders build bridges with families by embracing students’ home cultures, and develop teachers’ capacity to use culturally responsive instruction. Culturally responsive school leadership is reflected in a recent leadership framework that integrates national school leadership standards with this research, and proposes high-leverage school practices to support leadership teams as they seek to create more equitable school environments.

Citations

Boberg, J. E., & Bourgeois, S. J. (2016). The effects of integrated transformational leadership on achievement. Journal of Educational Administration, 54(3), 357–374.

 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

Bossert, S. T., Dwyer, D. C., Rowan, B., & Lee, G. V. (1982). The instructional management role of the principal. Educational Administration Quarterly, 18(3), 34–64.

Boyce, J., & Bowers, A. J. (2018). Toward an evolving conceptualization of instructional leadership as leadership for learning: Meta-narrative review of 109 quantitative studies across 25 years. Journal of Educational Administration, 56(2), 161–182.

Brayboy, B. M. J., Castagno, A. E, & Maughan, E. (2007). Equality and justice for all? Examining race in education research. Review of Research in Education, 31(1), 159–194.

Browne-Ferrigno, T. (2016). Developing and empowering leaders for collective school leadership: Introduction to special issue. Journal of Research in Leadership Education, 11(2), 151-157.

Bruggencate, G. T., Luyten, H., Scheerens, J., & Sleegers, P. (2012). Modeling the influence of school leaders on student achievement: How can school leaders make a difference? Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(4), 699–732. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258132484_Modeling_the_Influence_of_School_Leaders_on_Student_Achievement_How_Can_School_Leaders_Make_a_Difference

Bryk A. S., Sebring, P. B., Allensworth, E., Luppescu, S., & Easton, J. Q. (2010). Organizing schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Bush, T. (2008). Leadership and management development in education. London, UK: SAGE Publications.

Cannata, M., Rubin, M., Goldring, E., Grissom, J. A., Neumerski, C. M., Drake, T. A., & Schuermann, P. (2017). Using teacher effectiveness data for information-rich hiring. Educational Administration Quarterly, 53(2), 180–222.

Clark, D. L., Lotto, L. S., & Astuto, T. A. (1984). Effective schools and school improvement: A comparative analysis of two lines of inquiry. Educational Administration Quarterly, 20(3), 41–68.

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.

Daly, A. J. (2009). Rigid response in an age of accountability: The potential of leadership and trust. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45(2), 168–216.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The flat world and education: How America’s commitment to equity will determine our future. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Day, C., Gu, Q., & Sammons, P. (2016). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: How successful school leaders use transformational and instructional strategies to make a difference. Educational Administration Quarterly, 52(2), 221–258.

Day, C., Sammons, P., Leithwood, K., Harris, A., Hopkins, D., Gu, Q., … Ahtaridou, E. (2011). Successful school leadership: Linking with learning and achievement. London, UK: Open University Press.

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

Galloway, M. K., & Ishimaru, A. M. (2015). Radical recentering: Equity in educational leadership standards. Educational Administration Quarterly, 51(3), 372–408.

Grissom, J. A., & Loeb, S. (2011). Triangulating principal effectiveness: How perspectives of parents, teachers, and assistant principals identify the central importance of managerial skills. American Educational Research Journal, 48(5), 1091–1123.

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. (1992). The evolving role of American principals: From managerial to instructional to transformational leaders. Journal of Educational Administration, 30(3), 35–48.

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. (2011). A review of three decades of doctoral studies using the Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale: A lens on methodological progress in educational leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47(2), 271–306.

Hallinger, P. (2018). Bringing context out of the shadows of leadership. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 46(1), 5–24.

Hallinger, P., Gümüş, S. & Bellibaş, M. Ş. (2020). Are principals instructional leaders yet? A science map of the knowledge base on instructional leadership, 1940–2018. Scientometrics 122(3), 1629–1650. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338923620_%27Are_principals_instructional_leaders_yet%27_A_science_map_of_the_knowledge_base_on_instructional_leadership_1940-2018 

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1996). Reassessing the principal’s role in school effectiveness: A review of empirical research, 1980–1995. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32(1), 5–44.

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1998). Exploring the principal’s contribution to school effectiveness: 1980–1995. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9(2), 157–191.

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

Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. F. (1985). Assessing the instructional management behavior of principals. Elementary School Journal, 86(2), 217–247.

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

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., Meyers, C. V., Woodruff, D., & Zhu, G. (2019). Investigating the relationship between turnaround principal competencies and student achievement. NASSP Bulletin, 103(3), 189–208.

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.

Ishimaru, A. M., & Galloway, M. K. (2014). Beyond individual effectiveness: Conceptualizing organizational leadership for equity. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 13(1), 93–146. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262057301_Beyond_Individual_Effectiveness_Conceptualizing_Organizational_Leadership_for_Equity

Khalifa, M. A., Gooden, M. A., & Davis, J. E. (2016). Culturally responsive school leadership: A synthesis of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 1272–1311.

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.

Leithwood, K. (1994). Leadership for school restructuring. Educational Administration Quarterly, 30(4), 498–518.

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

Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2008). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership. School Leadership and Management, 28(1), 27–42. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alma_Harris/publication/251888122_Seven_Strong_Claims_about_Successful_School_Leadership/links/0deec5388768e8736d000000/Seven-Strong-Claims-about-Successful-School-Leadership.pdf

Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2020). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership revisited. School Leadership and Management, 40(1), 5–22.

Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Strauss, T. (2010). Leading school turnaround: How successful school leaders transform low performing schools. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

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., & 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. 

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.

Liebowitz, D. D., & Porter, L. (2019). The effect of principal behaviors on student, teacher, and school outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 89(5), 785–827.

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

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. 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

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., & Hallinger, P. (1988). Characteristics of instructionally effective school districts. Journal of Educational Research, 81(3), 176–181. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270821429_Characteristics_of_Instructionally_Effective_School_Districts

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.

Osborne-Lampkin, L., Folsom J. S., & Herrington, C. D. (2015). A systematic review of the relationships between principal characteristics and student achievement (REL 2016-091). Washington, DC: Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED561940.pdf

Purkey, S. C., & Smith, M. S. (1983). Effective schools: A review. Elementary School Journal, 83(4), 427–452.

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.

Ryan, J. (2006). Inclusive leadership and social justice for schools. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 5(1), 3–17. https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/32335/1/RyanFinal.Inclusive%20Leadership%20and%20Social%20Justice%20for%20schools.pdf

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

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.

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 Schools, 18(4), 591–613. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/15700763.2018.1513151?needAccess=true

Sebring, P. B., Allensworth, E., Bryk, A. S., Easton, J. Q., & Luppescu, S. (2006). The essential supports for school improvement. Chicago, IL: Consortium on Chicago School Research at the University of Chicago.

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

Sun, J., & Leithwood, K. (2012). Transformational school leadership effects on student achievement. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 11(4), 418–451.

Sun, J., & Leithwood, K. (2015). Direction-setting school leadership practices: A meta-analytic review of evidence about their influence. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 26(4), 499–523.

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.

Theoharis, G. (2007). Social justice educational leaders and resistance: Toward a theory of social justice leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(2), 221–258. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1033.662&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Tian, M., & Huber, S. G. (2019). 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 and Leadership, 44(1), 146–164.

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 Quarterly, 50(1), 96–134. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1031.4904&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Witziers, B., Bosker, R. J., & Krüger, M. L. (2003). Educational leadership and student achievement: The elusive search for an association. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 398–425.

 

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.

Leadership Models

This review highlights major models that have been influential in the field and discusses evidence for their efficacy in explaining school leaders’ influence.  

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

 

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.
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.
Can teacher performance pay improve student achievement?
This literature review examines the use of performance compensation as a tool for improving teacher and student performance.
States, J. (2015). Can teacher performance pay improve student achievement? Retrieved from can-teacher-performance-pay.

 

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.
Installing Tier 2/3 Behavior Supports in Schools: The Principal's Role
This paper describes the development, content and delivery of a professional development course for Principals regarding their role in multi-tiered systems of school-wide positive behavior supports.
Eber, L. (2015). Installing Tier 2/3 Behavior Supports in Schools: The Principal's Role [Powerpoint Slides]. Retrieved from 2015-wing-presentation-lucille-eber.
Principal Leadership and Why It Matters
This paper outlines what we know from both the research and the field in terms of principal leadership. It addresses the research and implementation challenges of developing effective principals.
McNulty, B. (2015). Principal Leadership and Why It Matters [Powerpoint Slides]. Retrieved from 2015-wing-presentation-brian-mcnulty.
TITLE
SYNOPSIS
CITATION
Characteristics of Public, Private, and Bureau of Indian Education Elementary and Secondary School Principals in the United States: Results From the 2007-08 Schools and Staffing Survey. First Look.

This report presents selected findings from the school principal data files of the 2007-08 Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS).  It provides the following descriptive information on school principals by school type, student characteristics, and other relevant categories: number, race/ethnicity, age, gender, college degrees, salary, hours worked, focus of work, years experience, and tenure at current school.

Battle, D. (2009). Characteristics of Public, Private, and Bureau of Indian Education Elementary and Secondary School Principals in the United States: Results From the 2007–08 Schools and Staf ng Survey (NCES 2009-323). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC.

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.

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. https://core.ac.uk/reader/228577190

 
A Policymaker’s Guide: Research-Based Policy for Principal Preparation Program Approval and Licensure

Intended as a formative assessment tool, this guide provides detailed, individual state profiles and state-to-state comparisons of 8 policy areas and 21 policy criteria that support the development of effective leaders.

Anderson, E., & Reynolds, A. L. (2015). A policymaker’s guide: Research-based policy for principal preparation program approval and licensure. Charlottesville, VA: University Council for Educational Administration.

Improving School Leadership the promise of cohesive leadership system

This paper has three objectives: (1) to create set of policies and initiatives by document the actions taken by Wallace Foundation, (2) to describe how states and districts have worked together to forge more-cohesive policies and initiatives aroung school leadership, (3)to examine the hypothesis that more-cohesive systems do in fact improve school leadership.

Augustine, C. H., Gonzalez, G., Ikemoto, G. S., Russell, J., & Zellman, G. L. (2009). Improving school leadership: The promise of cohesive leadership systems. Rand Corporation.

The flip side of the coin: Understanding the school's contribution to dropout and completion.

Using a structural perspective from organizational theory, the authors review aspects of schooling associated with dropout. They then briefly review selected reform initiatives that restructure the school environment to improve student achievement and retention. 

Baker, J. A., Derrer, R. D., Davis, S. M., Dinklage-Travis, H. E., Linder, D. S., & Nicholson, M. D. (2001). The flip side of the coin: Understanding the school's contribution to dropout and completion. School psychology quarterly16(4), 406.

Pay for Percentile

This paper proposes an incentive scheme for educators that links compensation to the ranks of their students within comparison sets. 

Barlevy, G., & Neal, D. (2012). Pay for percentile. The American Economic Review, 102(5), 1805-1831.

Characteristics of Public and Private Elementary and Secondary School Principals in the United States: Results From the 2011-12 Schools and Staffing Summary, First Look

The Characteristics of Public and Private Elementary School Principals in the United States is a subsection of the NCES 2011-12 Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS). It provides descriptive statistics on K-12 school principals in areas such as: race, gender, education level, salary, experience, and working conditions.

Bitterman, A., Goldring, R., Gray, L., Broughman, S. (2014).Characteristics of Public and Private Elementary and Secondary School Principals in the United States:Results From the 2011-12 Schools and Staffing Summary, First Look. IES, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education

Assertive supervision: Building involved teamwork.

This well-written book on assertiveness clearly describes the non assertive, assertive, and aggressive styles of supervision. Each chapter provides numerous examples, practice exercises, and self-tests. The author identifies feelings and beliefs that support aggressiveness, non aggressiveness, or non assertiveness which help the reader "look beyond the words themselves."

Black, M. K. (1991). Assertive Supervision-Building Involved Teamwork. The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing22(5), 224-224.

The effects of integrated transformational leadership on achievement.

Greater understanding about how variables mediate the relationship between leadership and achievement is essential to the success of reform efforts that hold leaders accountable for student learning. This multi-source, quantitative study tests a model of integrated transformational leadership including three important school mediators.

 
 

Boberg, J. E., & Bourgeois, S. J. (2016). The effects of integrated transformational leadership on achievement. Journal of Educational Administration, 54(3), 357–374.

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

The instructional management role of the principal.

This review of related literature and research prompted the development of a framework for understanding the role of the principal as an instructional manager. A number of links between school-level variables and student learning are proposed. The discussion includes consideration of instructional organization, school climate, influence behavior, and the context of principal management.

Bossert, S. T., Dwyer, D. C., Rowan, B., & Lee, G. V. (1982). The instructional management role of the principal. Educational Administration Quarterly, 18(3), 34–64.

 
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.

Toward an evolving conceptualization of instructional leadership as leadership for learning: Meta-narrative review of 109 quantitative studies across 25 years.

The purpose of this paper is to present a comprehensive review of 25 years of quantitative instructional leadership research, up through 2013, using a nationally generalizable data set.

Boyce, J., & Bowers, A. J. (2018). Toward an evolving conceptualization of instructional leadership as leadership for learning: Meta-narrative review of 109 quantitative studies across 25 years. Journal of Educational Administration, 56(2), 161–182.

Equality and justice for all? Examining race in education research.

Although the scholarship on race in education is vast, the authors attempt to review some of the most pressing and persistent issues in this chapter. They also suggest that the future of race scholarship in education needs to be centered not on equality but rather on equity and justice. 

Brayboy, B. M. J., Castagno, A. E, & Maughan, E. (2007). Equality and justice for all? Examining race in education research. Review of Research in Education31(1), 159–194.

 
Developing and empowering leaders for collective school leadership: Introduction to special issue.

The articles in this special issue emerged from papers presented by the authors during a symposium at an annual meeting of the University Council of Educational Administration (UCEA). The authors’ intent then and now is to shed light on the perceptions, preparation, practices, and impact of teacher leaders in schools through presenting reports of research on leadership development conducted in diverse states and for diverse purposes.

Browne-Ferrigno, T. (2016). Developing and empowering leaders for collective school leadership: Introduction to special issue. Journal of Research in Leadership Education11(2), 151-157.

Modeling the influence of school leaders on student achievement: How can school leaders make a difference?

The aim of this study was to examine the means by which principals achieve an impact on student achievement. 

Bruggencate, G. T., Luyten, H., Scheerens, J., & Sleegers, P. (2012). Modeling the influence of school leaders on student achievement: How can school leaders make a difference? Educational Administration Quarterly48(4), 699–732. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258132484_Modeling_the_Influence_of_School_Leaders_on_Student_Achievement_How_Can_School_Leaders_Make_a_Difference

 
Leadership and management development in education.

This article revisits the concepts of leadership and management, examines the impact of the ERA on management practice in schools and colleges, and discusses the notion of managerialism.

Bush, T. (2008). Leadership and management development in education. London, UK: SAGE Publications. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1741143207087777

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.

 

 
The effects of school-based decision-making on educational outcomes in low- and middle-income contexts: a systematic review

This review assesses the effectiveness of school-based curricula, finance, management, and teacher’s decision-making. This report has implications for the impact of charter schools, as the primary intervention in this model is local control. The report finds limited evidence of the effectiveness of these reforms, especially from low-income countries.

Carr-Hill, R., Rolleston, C., Pherali, T., & Schendel, R. (2014). The effects of school-based decision making on educational outcomes in low-and middle-income contexts: A systematic review.

A multilevel study of leadership, empowerment, and performance in teams

A multilevel model of leadership, empowerment, and performance was tested using a sample of 62 teams, 445 individual members, 62 team leaders, and 31 external managers from 31 stores of a Fortune 500 company. Leader-member exchange and leadership climate-related differently to individual and team empowerment and interacted to influence individual empowerment. 

Chen, G., Kirkman, B. L., Kanfer, R., Allen, D., & Rosen, B. (2007). A multilevel study of leadership, empowerment, and performance in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology92(2), 331–346.

 

Principal leadership in new teacher induction: Becoming agents of change

This small-scale pilot study investigated the role of school principals in the induction of new teachers in Ontario, Canada.

Cherian, F., & Daniel, Y. (2008). Principal Leadership in New Teacher Induction: Becoming Agents of Change. International Journal of Education Policy and Leadership3(2), 1-11.

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.

 
Opportunities suspended: The devastating consequences of zero tolerance and school discipline policies. Report from a national summit on zero tolerance.

This is the first comprehensive national report to scrutinize the impact of strict Zero Tolerance approach in the America public school. This report illustrate that Zero Tolerance is unfair, is contrary to developmental needs of children, denies children educational opportunities, and often results in the criminalization of children. 

Civil Rights Project. (2000). Opportunities suspended: The devastating consequences of zero tolerance and school discipline policies.

Effective schools and school improvement: A comparative analysis of two lines of inquiry

The history and the intra-and inter-literature consensus of these two lines of inquiry will be examined in this review. The purpose is to determine whether the findings and generalizations of those bodies of research can be used conjointly in order to understand how schools strive to change to attain more effective instructional outcomes. 

Clark, D. L., Lotto, L. S., & Astuto, T. A. (1984). Effective schools and school improvement: A comparative analysis of two lines of inquiry. Educational Administration Quarterly20(3), 41–68.

The flat world and education: How America’s commitment to equity will determine our future.

The authors arguing that the United States needs to move much more decisively than it has in the last quarter-century to establish a purposeful, equitable education system that will prepare all our children for success in a knowledge-based society.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The flat world and education: How America’s commitment to equity will determine our future. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

 
Leadership Models

This review highlights major models that have been influential in the field and discusses evidence for their efficacy in explaining school leaders’ influence.  

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

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.

Planning for the Future: Leadership development and succession planning in education

This article reviews the research and best practices on succession planning in education as well as in other sectors. The authors illustrate how forward-thinking superintendents can partner with universities and other organizations to address the leadership challenges they face by creating strategic, long-term, leadership growth plans that build leadership capacity and potentially yield significant returns in improved student outcomes.

Fusarelli, B. C., Fusarelli, L. D., & Riddick, F. (2018). Planning for the future: Leadership development and succession planning in education. Journal of Research on Leadership Education13(3), 286–313.

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.

Radical recentering: Equity in educational leadership standards.

In this article, the authors put forth a new set of standards with equity at the core. They seek to advance the conversation about why standards centered on equity are needed—particularly in light of a proposed standards refresh—and what implications would follow from equity-focused standards.

 

Galloway, M. K., & Ishimaru, A. M. (2015). Radical recentering: Equity in educational leadership standards. Educational Administration Quarterly51(3), 372–408.

Effective Instructional Time Use for School Leaders: Longitudinal Evidence From Observations of Principals

This study examines the associations between leadership behaviors and student achievement gains using a unique data source: in-person, full-day observations of principals collected over three school years. The study finds that principals’ time spent broadly on instructional functions does not predict student achievement growth. Time spent on informal classroom walkthroughs negatively predicts student growth, particularly in high schools.

Grissom, J. A., Loeb, S., & Master, B. (2013). Effective instructional time use for school leaders longitudinal evidence from observations of principals. Educational Researcher, 0013189X13510020.

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

 
Reassessing the principal’s role in school effectiveness: A review of empirical research

This article reviews the empirical literature on the relationship between the principal's role
and school effectiveness during the period from 1980 to 1995

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1996). Reassessing the principal’s role in school effectiveness: A review of empirical research, 1980–1995. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32(1), 5–44.

Exploring the principal’s contribution to school effectiveness: 1980–1995

This article reviews research from 1980‐1995 exploring the relationship between principal leadership and student achievement. The focuses is on the substantive findings that emerged from the review.

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1998). Exploring the principal’s contribution to school effectiveness: 1980–1995. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9(2), 157–191.

 
Assessing the instructional management behavior of principals.

This article presents results from a study that examined the instructional management behavior of 10 elementary school principals in a single school district. The primary goal of the research was to describe the instructional management behavior of these principals in terms of specific job behaviors.

Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. F. (1985). Assessing the instructional management behavior of principals. Elementary School Journal, 86(2), 217–247.

Are principals instructional leaders yet? A science map of the knowledge base on instructional leadership

The authors used a variety of quantitative bibliometric analyses to examine 1206 Scopus-indexed journal articles on instructional leadership published between 1940 and 2018. The results affirm that the knowledge base on instructional leadership has not only increased in size, but also geographic scope.

Hallinger, P., Gümüş, S. & Bellibaş, M. Ş. (2020). Are principals instructional leaders yet? A science map of the knowledge base on instructional leadership, 1940–2018. Scientometrics 122(3), 1629–1650. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338923620_%27Are_principals_instructional_leaders_yet%27_A_science_map_of_the_knowledge_base_on_instructional_leadership_1940-2018 

 
Improving school leadership through support, evaluation, and incentives: The Pittsburgh Principal Incentive Program.

The RAND Corporation served as the evaluator of PPIP and examined implementation and outcomes from school years 2007–2008 through 2010–2011. Although the district is likely to continue implementing much of what constitutes PPIP, this report focuses only on the period during which PPIP was being funded by the TIF grant.

Hamilton, L. S., Engberg, J., Steiner, E. D., Nelson, C. A., & Yuan, K. (2012). Improving school leadership through support, evaluation, and incentives: The Pittsburgh Principal Incentive Program. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. Retrieved from https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2012/RAND_MG1223.pdf

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.

The Work of Leadership

Companies today face adaptive challenges. Changes in societies, markets, customers, competition, and technology around the globe are forcing organizations to clarify their values, develop new strategies, and learn new ways of operating.

Heifetz, R. A., & Laurie, D. L. (1997). The work of leadership. Harvard business review75, 124-134.

School leadership interventions under the Every Student Succeeds Act: Evidence review.

This report describes the opportunities for supporting school leadership under ESSA, discusses the standards of evidence under ESSA, and synthesizes the research base with respect to those standards.

Herman, R., Gates, S. M., Arifkhanova, A., Barrett, M., Bega, A., Chavez-Herrerias, E. R., … Wrabel, S. L. (2017). School leadership interventions under the Every Student Succeeds Act: Evidence review. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. Retrieved from https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR1500/RR1550-3/RAND_RR1550-3.pdf

Trends in Public and Private School Principal Demographics and Qualifications: 1987 - 88 to 2011 - 12

This report provides descriptive information on traditional public, charter, and private school principals over the period of 1987-88 through 2011-12. It includes comparative data on number of principals, gender, race/ethnicity, age, advance degrees, principal experience, teaching experience, salaries, hours worked, focus of work, experience and tenure at current schools, etc.

Hill, J., Ottem, R., & DeRoche, J. (2016). Trends in Public and Private School Principal Demographics and Qualifications: 1987-88 to 2011-12. Stats in Brief. NCES 2016-189. National Center for Education Statistics.

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.

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

 
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

Leadership and the Fate of Organizations

This article concerns the real-world importance of leadership for the success or failure of organizations and social institutions. The authors propose conceptualizing leadership and evaluating leaders in terms of the performance of the team or organization for which they are responsible.

Kaiser, R. B., Hogan, R., & Craig, S. B. (2008). Leadership and the fate of organizations. American Psychologist63(2), 96.

Learning-focused leadership and leadership support: Meaning and practice in urban systems.

The study explored the following overarching question: What does it take for leaders to promote and support powerful, equitable learning in a school and in the district and state system that serves the school? The study pursued this question through a set of coordinated investigations,

Knapp, M. S., Copland, M. A., Honig, M. I., Plecki, M. L., & Portin, B. S. (2010). Learning-focused leadership and leadership support: Meaning and practice in urban systems. Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy–University of Washington.

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.

A framework for shared leadership.

Instead of looking at the principal alone for instructional leadership, we need to develop leadership capacity among all members of the school communities.

Lambert, L. (2002). A framework for shared leadership. Beyond Instructional Leadership59(8), 37–40. Retrieved from http://johnwgardnertestsite.pbworks.com/f/S4%20Readings%20-%20Lambert%20Article.doc

Leadership for school restructuring

This article describes a 4-year program of research about transformational forms of leadership in schools
responding to a variety of restructuring initiatives.

Leithwood, K. (1994). Leadership for school restructuring. Educational administration quarterly30(4), 498-518.

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 Learning.

The purpose of this paper is to provide one perspective on this question, focusing in particular on findings that may be applicable in the Nordic context.

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

Collective leadership effects on student achievement.

This study aimed to estimate the impact of collective, or shared, leadership on key teacher variables and on student achievement. 

Leithwood, K., & Mascall, B. (2008). Collective leadership effects on student achievement. Educational administration quarterly44(4), 529-561.

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.

How Leadership Influences Student Learning.

This report by researchers from the Universities of Minnesota and Toronto examines the available evidence and offers educators, policymakers and all citizens interested in promoting successfulschools, some answers to these vitally important questions

Leithwood, K., Seashore, K., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). Review of research: How leadership influences student learning.

Principal leadership and school capacity effects on teacher learning in Hong Kong

The purpose of this paper is to examine relationships between principal leadership, dimensions of school capacity, and teacher professional learning in 32 Hong Kong primary schools.

Li, L., Hallinger, P., & Ko, J. (2016). Principal leadership and school capacity effects on teacher learning in Hong Kong. International Journal of Educational Management30(1), 76-100.

Transformational leadership: Principals, leadership teams, and school culture

The purpose of this study was to develop an understanding of the relationships among principal transformational leadership, school leadership-team transformational leadership, and school culture.

Lucas, S., & Valentine, J. (2002). Transformational leadership: Principals, leadership teams, and school culture.American Educational Research Association annual convention, New Orleans. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED468519.pd

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 Role of Districts in Fostering Instructional Improvement Lessons from Three Urban Districts Partnered with the Institute for Learning

This study analyzed three urban districts' efforts to improve the instructional quality and performance of their schools. The study also assessed the efforts made in four: (1) promoting the instructional leadership of principals; (2) supporting the professional learning of teachers, in particular through school-based coaching models; (3) specifying curriculum; (4) and promoting data-based decision making for planning and instructional improvement.

Marsh, J. A., Kerr, K. A., Ikemoto, G. S., Darilek, H., Suttorp, M., Zimmer, R. W., & Barney, H. (2005). The Role of Districts in Fostering Instructional Improvement Lessons from Three Urban Districts Partnered with the Institute for Learning. RAND Corporation.

School leadership that works: From research to results. 

Building on the analysis that was first reported in School Leadership That Works, the authors of Balanced Leadership identify the 21 responsibilities associated with effective leadership and show how they relate to three overarching responsibilities

Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. (2005). School leadership that works: From research to results. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

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

 
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.

Murphy, J. F. (2016). Professional standards for educational leaders: The empirical, moral, and experiential foundations. Corwin Press.

Vanderbilt assessment of leadership in education.

This paper presents the research base and conceptual framework for a new principal leadership assessment tool: the Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education (VAL-ED™).

Murphy, J. F., Goldring, E. B., Cravens, X. C., Elliott, S. N., & Porter, A. C. (2007). The Vanderbilt assessment of leadership in education: Measuring learning-centered leadership. Journal of East China Normal University29(1), 1-10.

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).

Collective leadership: Principals’ decision influence and the supportive or inhibiting decision influence of other stakeholders.

Using the collective leadership framework, this study examines (a) how principals perceive their own influence and that of other key stakeholders in various school decisions and (b) how principals’ perceived influences of other stakeholders are associated with their own influence.

Ni, Y., Yan, R., & Pounder, D. (2018). Collective leadership: Principals’ decision influence and the supportive or inhibiting decision influence of other stakeholders. Educational Administration Quarterly54(2), 216–248. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318790312_Collective_Leadership_Principals%27_Decision_Influence_and_the_Supportive_or_Inhibiting_Decision_Influence_of_Other_Stakeholders

 

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.

Strategic management of human capital in education: Improving instruction and student learning in schools.

This book offers a comprehensive and strategic approach to address what has become labeled as "talent and human capital."

Odden, A. R. (2011). Strategic management of human capital in education: Improving instructional practice and student learning in schools. Routledge.

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.

 
Howard County board pledged to pay Foose $1.65 million packages to step down as school superintendent

The Howard County school board agreed to pay nearly $1.65 million in salary and benefits to persuade Renee Foose to retire as schools superintendent.

Prudente, T. (2017). Howard County board pledged to pay Foose $1.65 million packages to step down as school superintendent.  Retrieved from https://www.baltimoresun.com/education/bs-md-foose-buyout-20170503-story.html

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

Growing Great Teachers: How School System Leaders Can Use Existing Resources to Better Develop, Support, and Retain New Teachers--and Improve Student Outcomes

The authors use research-based "impact modeling" to show how a strategic approach to recruiting and supporting rookie teachers could yield as much as 4.2 extra months of student learning. We provide 5 recommendations for school systems to leverage their investment in structures that provide rookie teachers with both shelter and development.

Rosenberg, D., & Miles, K.H. (2018). Growing Great Teachers: How School System Leaders Can Use Existing Resources to Better Develop, Support, and Retain New Teachers--and Improve Student Outcomes. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED593368.pdf

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).

 
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

 
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

Complexity and Creativity in Organizations.

Traditional organizational theory mandates that organizations predict and stay in control in order to avoid chaos. This book proposes that members of organizations work at developing a new frame of reference for understanding organizational life

Stacey, R. D. (1996). Complexity and creativity in organizations. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Does greater autonomy improve school performance? Evidence from a regression discontinuity analysis In Chicago.

This paper provides evidence on how school leaders used their new autonomy and its impact on school performance. 

Steinberg, M. P. (2014).  Does greater autonomy improve school performance?  Evidence from a regression discontinuity analysis In Chicago.  Education Finance and Policy, 9(1), 1-35.

Student and teacher safety in Chicago Public Schools: The roles of community context and school social organization

The report examines the internal and external conditions that matter for students’ and teachers’ feelings of safety.

Steinberg, M. P., Allensworth, E., & Johnson, D. W. (2011). Student and Teacher Safety in Chicago Public Schools: The Roles of Community Context and School Social Organization. Consortium on Chicago School Research. 1313 East 60th Street, Chicago, IL 60637.

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.

Direction-setting school leadership practices: A meta-analytic review of evidence about their influence.

This study reviews evidence about the overall influence of direction-setting leadership practices (DSLPs), 1 of 4 major categories of practices included in a widely known conception of effective leadership (e.g., Leithwood & Louis, 2011) and a focus of many other such conceptions, as well.

Sun, J., & Leithwood, K. (2015). Direction-setting school leadership practices: A meta-analytical review of evidence about their influence. School Effectiveness and School Improvement26(4), 499-523.

School Boards Give Superintendents Hefty Severance Packages to Quit Early

When school boards offer hefty buy-out packages to get rid of superintendents with whom they no longer see eye-to-eye, do taxpayers get the shaft?

Superville, D. R. (2011). School Boards Give Superintendents Hefty Severance Packages to Quit Early. Retrieved from https://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/District_Dossier/2017/05/School_boards_pay_hefty_packages_to_get_rid_of_superintendents_early.html 

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

 
Characteristics of Public Elementary and Secondary School Principals in the United States: Results From the 2015-16 National Teacher and Principal Survey First Look

The National Teacher and Principal Survey is completed every four years soliciting descriptive information from principals and teachers across the 50 states. A few highlights include: Sixty percent of school principals have been at their schools for three years or less. 

Taie, S., and Goldring, R. (2017). Characteristics of Public Elementary and Secondary School Principals in the United States: Results From the 201516 National Teacher and Principal Survey First Look (NCES 2017-070). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved [date] from https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2017070.

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.

Knowledge and the Leadership for Learning.

This empirical study of the practice of five elementary school principals whose student achievement gains were three times the expected rate of progress redefines some capabilities identified in the literature as central to leadership for learning.

Timperley, H. (2011). Knowledge and the leadership of learning. Leadership and policy in schools10(2), 145-170.

Fostering teacher professionalism in schools: The role of leadership orientation and trust.

The hypothesis that guided this study was that the degree of teacher professionalism in a school would be related to (a) the professional orientation of principals in their exercise of administrative authority—especially, the extending of adaptive discretion to teachers in the conduct of their work—and (b) the trust evident among various actors in the school community.

Tschannen-Moran, M. (2009). Fostering teacher professionalism in schools: The role of leadership orientation and trust. Educational Administration Quarterly45(2), 217-247.

Faculty trust in the principal: An essential ingredient in high-performing schools.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the relationships among faculty trust in the principal, principal leadership behaviors, school climate, and student achievement.

Tschannen-Moran, M., & Gareis, C. R. (2015). Faculty trust in the principal: An essential ingredient in high-performing schools. Journal of Educational Administration53(1), 66-92.

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

 
How teachers experience principal leadership: The roles of professional community, trust, efficacy, and shared responsibility

The purpose of this study was to examine various factors that are often present in principal–teacher interactions and teacher–teacher relationships to see how those may have an impact on teachers’ classroom instructional practices.

Wahlstrom, K. L., & Louis, K. S. (2008). How teachers experience principal leadership: The roles of professional community, trust, efficacy, and shared responsibility. Educational administration quarterly44(4), 458-495.

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.

Principals’ data-driven practice and its influences on teacher buy-in and student achievement in comprehensive school reform models.

This study investigates: (1) how principals’ data-driven practices may vary by principals’ and school backgrounds and how that changes over time; (2) how principals’ data-driven practices influence teacher buy-in; and (3) how principals’ data-driven practices and teachers’ buy-in influence student outcomes.

Yoon, S. Y. (2016). Principals’ data-driven practice and its influences on teacher buy-in and student achievement in comprehensive school reform models. Leadership and Policy in Schools15(4), 500-523.

TITLE
SYNOPSIS
Center for Creative Leadership
The Center for Creative Leadership provides research, training, consultation, and support for schools to improve their leadership capacity.
Center for Educational Leadership
The Center for Educational Leadership provides research and training in teaching effectiveness and school leadership.
Center on Education Policy (CEP)
CEP is a national, independent advocate for public education and for more effective public schools.
Center on Innovations in Learning
The Center on Innovations in Learning is funded by the United States Department of Education. It focuses on increasing the capacity of state education agencies and regional comprehensive centers.
Center on Reinventing Public Education
CRPE’s research and policy analysis is focused on addressing the complex systemic challenges affecting public education.
Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO)
CCSSO is a nonpartisan, nationwide, nonprofit organization of public officials who head departments of elementary and secondary education in the states, provides leadership, advocacy, and technical assistance on major educational issues.
Council of the Great City Schools

The Council’s mission is to promote the cause of urban schools and to advocate for inner-city students through legislation, research and media relations.

EdDigest
The Education Digest is monthly publication that scans hundreds of publications so it can select the most critical, most newsworthy articles. They are then condensed for quick reading.
Education Commission of the States
The Education Commission of the States tracks state policy trends, translates academic research, provides advice and creates opportunities for state leaders to learn from one another.
Education Next
This web site focuses on American K-12 school reform across a wide range of issues and topics.
National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP)
NAESP is a professional organization serving elementary and middle school principals and other education leaders throughout the United States, Canada, and overseas.
National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP)
NASSP is a professional organization serving secondary school principals and other education leaders throughout the United States, Canada, and overseas.
National Center for the Evaluation of Educational Leadership Preparation and Practice
The purpose of this center is to make available valid and reliable evaluation research tools, methods and training materials and strategies for leadership preparation programs.
New Leaders
New Leaders is a national nonprofit that develops transformational school leaders and designs effective leadership policies and practices for school systems across the country.
Rainwater Leadership Alliance (RLA)
RLA exists to share data, provide exemplars, and promote and scale effective methods to develop and support PK-12 school leaders.
The University of Chicago Consortium on School Research

UChicago Consortium was created in 1990 after the passage of the Chicago School Reform Act that decentralized governance of the city's public schools. Researchers at the University of Chicago joined with researchers from the school district and other organizations to form UChicago Consortium with the imperative to study this landmark restructuring and its long-term effects

Back to Top