This review summarizes the evidence for the model’s efficacy in explaining how principals and teachers together influence school practices and effectiveness.
Donley, J., Detrich, R., States, J., & Keyworth, (2020). Distributed Leadership. Oakland, CA: The Wing Institute. https://www.winginstitute.org/leadership-models-distributed
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
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.
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 Research, 5(1), 163–174.
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.
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
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 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.
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
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.
This report tells policymakers what metrics they must track in order to make the best decisions regarding the supply and training of school leaders.
Campbell, C., & Gross, B. (2012). Principal Concerns: Leadership Data and Strategies for States. Center on Reinventing Public Education.
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 Psychology, 92(2), 331–346.
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.
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 Quarterly, 20(3), 41–68.
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.
This report examines practices in teacher and principal development in the United States in 2010. It looks at ineffective approaches as well as those models that show promise for improving educator and student performance.
Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R. C., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009). Professional learning in the learning profession. Washington, DC: National Staff Development Council.
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
Leadership is what is done, not who is doing it. The leadership work blurs the lines between teachers and administrators. Leading Together introduces a collective approach to progress, process, and programs to help build the conditions in which strong leadership can flourish and student outcomes improve. Explore the Collective Leadership Development Model for School Improvement.
Eckert, J. (2017). Leading together: Teachers and administrators improving student outcomes. Corwin Press.
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 Quarterly, 55(3), 477–509.
Effective Instructional Leadership Teams can be integral to helping underperforming schools strengthen their leadership, professional learning systems and core instruction.
Edwards, B., & Gammell, J. (2016). Building strong school leadership teams to sustain reform. Leadership, 45(3), 20-22. https://www.shastacoe.org/uploaded/Haylie_Blalock/Building-Strong-School-Leadership-Teams-to-Sustain-Reform.pdf
This study examined elementary school principal preparation programs to identify which program characteristics produced principals who were able to build well-qualified teams of teachers and improve student performance.
Fuller, E., Young, M., & Baker, B. D. (2010). Do principal preparation programs influence student achievement through the building of teacher-team qualifications by the principal? An exploratory analysis. Educational Administration Quarterly, 0011000010378613.
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 Education, 13(3), 286–313.
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.
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 Quarterly, 51(3), 372–408.
An analysis by The New York Times of the city’s signature report-card system shows that schools run by graduates of the celebrated New York City Leadership Academy — which the mayor created and helped raise more than $80 million for — have not done as well as those led by experienced principals or new principals who came through traditional routes.
Gootman, E., Gebeloff, R. (2009). Principals Younger and Freer, but Raise Doubts in the Schools. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/26/nyregion/26principals.html
This study hypothesizes that school working conditions help explain both teacher satisfaction and turnover. In particular, it focuses on the role of effective principals in retaining teachers, particularly in disadvantaged schools with the greatest staffing challenges.
Grissom, J. A. (2011). Can good principals keep teachers in disadvantaged schools? Linking principal effectiveness to teacher satisfaction and turnover in hard-to-staff environments. Teachers College Record, 113(11), 2552-2585.
Using multiple measures of teacher and principal effectiveness, the authors document that indeed more effective principals see lower rates of teacher turnover, on average
Grissom, J. A., & Bartanen, B. (2019). Strategic retention: Principal effectiveness and teacher turnover in multiple-measure teacher evaluation systems. American Educational Research Journal, 56(2), 514–555.
The author provides a new framework for understanding leadership practice. The work of leaders will increasingly be shaped by three overriding but contradictory themes: design; distribution; and disengagement. These are the `architecture' of school and educational leadership.
Gronn, P. (2003). The new work of educational leaders: Changing leadership practices in an era of school reform. London: Paul Chapman.
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
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.
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.
In this chapter, the authors synthesize the results of a series of analyses of empirical data on distributed leadership and school improvement. The studies centered on the impact of new state policies that sought to create broader and deeper leadership capacity in schools as a vehicle for stimulating and sustaining school improvement.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2009). Distributed leadership in schools: Does system policy make a difference? In A. Harris (Ed.), Distributed leadership: Studies in educational leadership (pp. 101–117). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
This chapter describes findings from a series of related quantitative studies in which we sought to understand how leadership contributes to school capacity for improvement and student learning.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2010b). Collaborative leadership and school improvement: Understanding the impact on school capacity and student learning. School Leadership and Management, 30(2), 95–110. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Philip_Hallinger/publication/280887669_Collaborative_Leadership_and_School_Improvement_Understanding_the_Impact_on_School_Capacity_and_Student_Learning/links/55caa71408aeca747d69f0cd/Collaborative-Leadership-and-School
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.
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
The article underlines how, within this conception, distributed leadership operates as a network
of strong cells organized through cohesive diversity and emergent development rather than mechanical
alignment and predictable delivery.
Hargreaves, A., & Fink, D. (2009). Distributed leadership: Democracy or delivery? In A. Harris (Ed.), Distributed leadership: Different perspectives (pp. 181–193). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Dean_Fink/publication/226816252_Distributed_Leadership_Democracy_or_Delivery/links/5bfdb1b9299bf1c2329e7742/Distributed-Leadership-Democracy-or-Delivery
This article aims to address and explain the conceptual ambiguity surrounding distributed leadership.
Harris, A. (2007). Distributed leadership: conceptual confusion and empirical reticence. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 10(3), 315-325. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alma_Harris/publication/233209809_Distributed_leadership_Conceptual_confusion_and_empirical_reticence/links/56667a7a08ae4931cd62729c.pdf
This book anchors distributed leadership in the core work of instruction and argues that to be most effective, leadership distribution has to be first and foremost focus upon improving learners outcomes
Harris, A. (2013). Distributed leadership matters: Perspectives, practicalities, and potential. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
what is distributed leadership? What does the evidence say? And, can it work for your school? Teacher Magazine asked Professor Alma Harris.
Harris, A. (2014, September 29). Distributed leadership. Teacher. https://www.teachermagazine.com.au/articles/distributed-leadership?lang=en
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 Visible Learning research synthesizes findings from 1,400 meta-analyses of 80,000 studies involving 300 million students, into what works best in education.
Hattie, J. (2017). Visible learning: 250+ influences on student achievement. https://visible-learning.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/VLPLUS-252-Influences-Hattie-ranking-DEC-2017.pdf
Using findings generated from a large-scale survey of 1,400 Ontario principals, this paper reports on the influence of opportunities for school–community involvement on the work principals do on a daily basis and details how involvement in such activities influences and impacts their workloads.
Hauseman, D. C., Pollock, K., & Wang, F. (2017). Inconvenient, but Essential: Impact and Influence of School-Community Involvement on Principals' Work and Workload. School Community Journal, 27(1), 83-105.
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.
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 Research, 86(2), 531-569.
This article examines the relationship between the time principals spent on different types of activities and school outcomes, including student achievement, teacher and parent assessments of the school, and teacher satisfaction
Horng, E. L., Klasik, D., & Loeb, S. (2010). Principal’s time use and school effectiveness. American Journal of Education, 116(4), 491–523. https://cepa.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/Principal%27s%20Time%20Use%20AJE.pdf
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 Education, 26(3), 565–575. https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/955117/file/6828753
In this study the relationship between school leadership and teachers'
organizational commitment is examined by taking into account a distributed leadership
Hulpia, H., Devos, G., & Van Keer, H. (2011). The relation between school leadership from a distributed perspective and teachers’ organizational commitment: Examining the source of the leadership function. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47(5), 728–771. https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/1938871/file/6762325.pdf
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 Schools, 13(1), 93–146. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262057301_Beyond_Individual_Effectiveness_Conceptualizing_Organizational_Leadership_for_Equity
This report analyses whether and how highperforming systems have supported the subject expertise of their elementary school teachers.
Jensen, B., Roberts-Hull, K., Magee, J., & Ginnivan, L. (2016). Not so elementary: Primary school teacher quality in high-performing systems. Washington, DC: National Center on Education and the Economy. http://ncee.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/169726_Not_So_Elementary_Report_FINAL.pdf
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 Psychologist, 63(2), 96.
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.
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
This study aimed to improve our understanding of the nature, causes, and consequences of school leader efficacy, including indirect influences on student learning.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2008). Linking leadership to student learning: The contributions of leader efficacy. Educational administration quarterly, 44(4), 496-528. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0013161X08321501
This study aimed to estimate the impact of collective, or shared, leadership on key teacher variables and on student achievement. As well, it inquired about the relative contribution of different sources of such leadership and whether differences among patterns of collective leadership were related to differences in student achievement
Leithwood, K., & Mascall, B. (2008). Collective leadership effects on student achievement. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(4), 529–561. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b3d8/34602d17a14f306f6961863aef9c7ab9e901.pdf?_ga=2.12843442.469798984.1593548135-1379934943.1547574243
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.
This study inquired about patterns of leadership distribution, as well as which leadership functions were performed by whom, the characteristics of nonadministrative leaders, and the factors promoting and inhibiting the distribution of leadership functions.
Leithwood, K., Mascall, B., Strauss, T., Sacks, R., Memon, R., & Yashkina, A. (2007). Distributing leadership to make schools smarter. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 6(1), 37–67.
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.
In this study, the six aforementioned variables are added to one model focusing on both the direct effects instructional and distributed leadership have on teacher job satisfaction and self-efficacy, and the indirect effects through the mediation variables of supportive school culture and teacher collaboration.
Liu, T., Bellibaş, M. S., & Gümüş, S. (2020). The effect of instructional leadership and distributed leadership on teacher self-efficacy and job satisfaction: Mediating roles of supportive school culture and teacher collaboration. Educational Management Administration and Leadership. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143220910438
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
In about a decade the theory of distributed leadership has moved from a tool to better understand the ecology of leadership to a widely prescribed practice. This article considers how to account for its spread and dominance and what purpose it serves.
Lumby, J. (2013). Distributed leadership: The uses and abuses of power. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 41(5), 581–597. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258135611_Distributed_Leadership_The_Uses_and_Abuses_of_Power
this report identifies three crucial areas leaders across all states can usefully consider as they seek answers to some key questions. The report emphasizes that every state faces a unique blend of educational, political and financial circumstances and that, therefore, each state's approach should fit its needs and particularities.
Manna, P. (2015). Developing Excellent School Principals to Advance Teaching and Learning: Considerations for State Policy. Wallace Foundation.
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
This book is designed to help the reader fully comprehend teacher leadership as a pathway to school improvement.
Murphy, J. (2005). Connecting teacher leadership and school improvement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
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 University, 29(1), 1-10.
In this article, the authors examine leadership for effective learning employing research on highly productive schools and districts and high-performing principals and superintendents.
Murphy, J., Elliott, S. N., Goldring, E., & Porter, A. C. (2007). Leadership for learning: a research-based model and taxonomy of behaviors 1. School Leadership and Management, 27(2), 179-201.
This book introduces the foundations of the recently revised professional educational leadership standards and provides an in-depth explanation and application of each one.
National Policy Board for Educational Administration. (2015). Professional standards for educational leaders. Reston, VA: Author. https://www.npbea.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Professional-Standards-for-Educational-Leaders_2015.pdf
In a high school in Greece, teachers assume all administrative roles, freeing up the principal to take school governance to the next level.
Natsiopoulou, E., & Giouroukakis, V. (2010). When teachers run the school. Educational Leadership, 67(7), 2–5. http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/apr10/vol67/num07/When-Teachers-Run-the-School.aspx
Founded in 2000 by a team of social entrepreneurs, New Leaders is a national nonprofit that develops transformational school leaders and designs effective leadership policies and practices for school systems across the country.
New Leaders. (2014). Prioritizing Leadership: New Leaders' Federal Policy Platform. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED559351.pdf
There are a number of vehicles federal policymakers can use to create or encourage effective leadership policies. Throughout this series we will describe an ideal policy and then suggest potential vehicles policymakers could use to pursue that policy.
New Leaders. (2014). Pre-Service Preparation: Building a Strong Supply of Effective Future Leaders. Retrieved from http://www.nysed.gov/common/nysed/files/file-8-pre-service-prep-2016.pdf
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 Quarterly, 54(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
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 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.
This book aim is to advance understanding along many dimensions of the shared leadership phenomenon: its dynamics, moderators, appropriate settings, facilitating factors, contingencies, measurement, practice implications, and directions for the future.
Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. (2003). Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
This study attempts to investigate the differential effectiveness of provocation, brainstorming, and emotional mastery at fostering the emotional intelligence of adolescents.
Pedersen, J., Yager, S. & Yager, R. (2010). Distributed leadership influence on professional development initiatives: Conversations with eight teachers. Academic Leadership: The Online Journal, 8(3).
This article examines the salary trajectory of teachers as they move up the career ladder into leadership positions.
Pijanowski, J. C., & Brady, K. P. (2009). The influence of salary in attracting and retaining school leaders. Education and Urban Society, 42(1), 25–41.
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
This brief is intended to inform state leaders and others in the field about the participating states’ efforts to strengthen the recruitment, preparation, support, and supervision of school leaders.
Riley, D. L., & Meredith, J. (2017). State Efforts to Strengthen School Leadership: Insights from CCSSO Action Groups. Policy Studies Associates, Inc.
Given the burgeoning interest in distributed leadership in education, it is timely to consider how research on this topic could make stronger and more rapid connections with student outcomes than has been evident in the history of the parent field of educational leadership (Harris, 2008). The purpose of this chapter, therefore, is to develop an account of distributed leadership that is appropriate for research on this relationship.
Robinson, V. M. J. (2009). Fit for purpose: An educationally relevant account of distributed leadership. In A. Harris (Ed.), Distributed leadership: Different perspectives (pp. 219–240). New York, NY: Springer.
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 Schools, 5(1), 3–17. https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/32335/1/RyanFinal.Inclusive%20Leadership%20and%20Social%20Justice%20for%20schools.pdf
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.
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.
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 Schools, 18(4), 591–613. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/15700763.2018.1513151?needAccess=true
This report sets forth a framework of essential supports and contextual resources for school improvement, examines empirical evidence on its key elements and how they link to improvements in student learning, and investigates how a school's essential supports interact with community context to affect student learning.
Sebring, P. B., Allensworth, E., Bryk, A. S., Easton, J. Q., & Luppescu, S. (2006). The Essential Supports for School Improvement. Research Report. Consortium on Chicago School Research.
Using examples from states throughout the country, this guidebook from the National Conference of State Legislatures describes six key areas in which state legislators can take action to improve the quality of leadership in public schools
Shelton, S. V. (2012). Preparing a pipeline of effective principals: A legislative approach. National Conference of State Legislatures.
This paper examines research on what we know about the causes and impact of principal turnover.
Snodgrass Rangel, V. (2018). A review of the literature on principal turnover. Review of Educational Research, 88(1), 87-124.
Stories of leadership successes follow a familiar structure: A charismatic leader, often the CEO or school principal, takes over a struggling school, establishing new goals and expectations and challenging business as usual within the organization.
Spillane, J. (2005). Distributed leadership. The Educational Forum, 69(2), 143-150. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00131720508984678
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 Researcher, 30(3), 23–28. http://dm.education.wisc.edu/rrhalverson/intellcont/SpillaneHalversonDiamond%20ER-1.pdf
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 Studies, 36(1), 3–34. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233013775_Towards_a_theory_of_leadership_practice_A_distributed_perspective
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.
The Wallace Foundation, which invested tens of millions of dollars into strengthening the ranks of school leaders in those districts, is trying to answer that question. Over the next several months, the foundation will take the knowledge and lessons learned in its “principal pipeline” districts to 90 more school systems in 31 states.
Superville, D. R. (2020). 6 districts invested in principals and saw dramatic gains. Dozens more will try to do the same. Retrieved from https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2020/02/10/6-districts-invested-in-principals-and-saw.html?cmp=eml-enl-eu-news2&M=59040207&U=553060&UUID=9bc4fda5086bf85fdf82fb5f1a2a674c
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
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 2015–16 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.
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 Quarterly, 43(2), 221–258. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1033.662&rep=rep1&type=pdf
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 Administration, 58(2), 129–150.
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 Leadership, 44(1), 146–164.
Intended for state officials involved in the assessment and approval of university and other programs to train future school principals, this report describes five design principles for effective program evaluation.
UCEA and New Leaders (2016). Improving state evaluation of principal preparation programs. Retrieved from: www.sepkit.org
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 Quarterly, 50(1), 96–134. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1031.4904&rep=rep1&type=pdf
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 quarterly, 44(4), 458-495.
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.