Distributed Leadership    Annotation Spdf
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Distributed Leadership Annotation Spdf

on

  • 2,865 views

Annotations for ED 521

Annotations for ED 521

Statistics

Views

Total Views
2,865
Views on SlideShare
2,864
Embed Views
1

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
61
Comments
0

1 Embed 1

http://www.lmodules.com 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Distributed Leadership    Annotation Spdf Distributed Leadership Annotation Spdf Document Transcript

    • ANNOTATIONS Running head: DISTRIBUTED LEADERSHIP IN SCHOOLS Distributed Leadership: An Action Research Project Gary W. Street Washington State University Ed Research 521 1
    • ANNOTATIONS QUESTIONS AND ANNONTATIONS What are the Leadership Functions Performed in Schools, and by Whom? Heller, M. J. & Firestone, W. A. (1995). Who’s in charge here? Sources of leadership for change in eight schools. The Elementary School Journal, 96 (1), 65 – 85. Heller and Firestone studied eight elementary schools in four districts that have implemented a social problem solving program (SPS)for at least three years, to determine how six leadership functions were performed in each school, how the functions contributed to the levels of institutionalization of SPS, “what roles contributed to function performance, and how those roles were configured” (pg. 72). The authors point out research supporting effective leadership as a set of functions by many individuals in differing roles. They maintain, “Successful change in schools results not from the work of a key leader but from the effective performance of a series of change leadership functions” (pg. 67). They continue, “This line of reasoning suggests that certain tasks need to be accomplished, but it does not matter who does them” (pg. 67). The six leadership functions identified for this study are:  providing and selling a vision,  obtaining resources,  providing encouragement and recognition,  adapting standard operating procedures, 2
    • ANNOTATIONS  monitoring the improvement effort,  handling disturbances. Seven suburban schools selected for the study were similar in SES (moderate wealth). One inner city school had a high percentage of free and reduced lunches. Based on SPS consultant data regarding levels of institutionalizing of SPS, the eight schools were divided into three groups. Four schools fully institutionalized SPS, three schools institutionalized SPS in a token manner, and one school partially implemented it. Forty-two teachers, principals and central office administrators were interviewed in the eight schools and four districts over a period of four months. Interviews focused on the following areas: assessing institutionalization and sentiments about SPS, leadership functions as related to change, and an evaluation of major roles to perform the functions. The authors triangulated data across roles to verify the levels of institutionalization at each school – e.g. SPS consultant information regarding institutionalization was verified with teacher information. Next, they reviewed interview information to “clarify the extent to which change function had been attended to in each school, and if so, to what extent their contribution to whatever level of institutionalization had been noted” (pg. 72). Finally, the 3
    • ANNOTATIONS authors used interview data to determine the roles that contributed to accomplishment of the above functions. Based on interview responses, all of the six leadership functions were present in the four schools identified as fully institutionalizing SPS. Only two of the six leadership functions were present in the token institutionalization school. Teachers in schools fully institutionalizing SPS fulfilled at least five leadership functions. Principals and central office personnel also performed various functions inherent to their positions – e.g. providing resources, scheduling. The authors note a “redundancy” of leadership functions performed by a variety of roles in the four schools fully institutionalizing SPS. Results from this study suggest that the success of the SPS initiative in the four schools was not dependent on the principal alone, but on the leadership functions shared by all. Mayrowetz, D., & Weinstein, C. S. (1999). Sources of leadership for inclusive education: creating schools for all children. Educational Administrative Quarterly, 35 (4), 423 – 449. The authors examined inclusive leadership in three schools in relation to the degree of implementation and institutionalization of special education inclusion. They also examined whether leadership functions were performed primarily from school administrators, or performed by others in a variety of roles. 4
    • ANNOTATIONS The six leadership functions used in the study were: providing and selling a vision, providing encouragement and recognition, obtaining resources, adapting standard operating procedures, monitoring, and handling disturbances. Mayrowetz and Weinstein studied a K-2 primary school, a 3-6 intermediate school and a 7-8 middle school from one district to determine leadership functions as related to institutionalization of special education inclusion in each school. They collected data from administrator and teacher interviews, information from policies and practices, observations of formal and informal staff meetings on inclusion, and case studies of four special education children with a focus on inclusion, the teacher and the aide. The data was coded using the six leadership functions. They concluded that the level of redundancy in leadership functions were consistent with the degree to which inclusion was institutionalized in the three schools. At the K-2 school, thirty-eight leadership functions to implement inclusion were performed by individuals in eight roles. At the 3-6 school, thirty-nine leadership functions to implement inclusion were performed by individuals in eight roles. At the middle school, twenty-seven leadership functions to implement inclusion were performed by individuals in eight roles. Based on observational data and interviews, the K-2 and 3-6 schools institutionalized inclusion to a greater degree than 5
    • ANNOTATIONS the middle school. The authors note that the level of involvement and commitment by principals at each of the schools may have been a factor in the degree to which inclusion was institutionalized. Finally, they conclude that leadership functions at the three schools were performed and shared within eight roles. The authors note that the middle school teachers performed only three functions, whereas grade school teachers performed a total of six. The principal and assistant principal at the middle school performed five functions, and the principals at the elementary schools each performed six functions. Robinson, V. M., & Timperley, H. S. (2007). The Leadership of the Improvement of Teaching and Learning: Lessons from Initiative with Positive Outcomes for Students. Australian Journal of Education, 51(3), 247 - 259. Robinson and Timperley examined professional development initiatives that have made a positive impact on students and teachers. They then analyzed seventeen studies with evidence of such impact, and noted all leadership practices employed. All demonstrated leadership practices were collapsed into five broad dimensions: goal setting co-constructed by teachers and outside researchers or professional developers; ensuring strategic alignment of resources and pedagogy; creating and maintaining a professional learning community that focuses on improvement of student achievement; engaging in constructive dialogue about 6
    • ANNOTATIONS problematic instructional practices, and gaining commitment to address them; and selecting and developing smart tools – the resources needed to address teaching and learning and impact student performance. The five leadership practices were carried out by those in formal leadership positions and those not in formal leadership positions. All leadership dimensions impacted student performance in the seventeen studies. Distributed leadership was evident in the studies with respect to “who exercised leadership and how it was practiced” (pg. 258). The author note that the leadership practices carried out by teachers and principals, should not be viewed as distinct practices, but integrated into continual “cycles of inquiry” regarding student and staff needs (pg. 258). Walstrom, K. L., & Louis, K. S. (2008). How teachers experience principal leadership: the roles of professional trust, efficacy and responsibility. Educational Administrative Quarterly, 44(4), 458 - 495. Walstrom and Louis examine factors “that are present in principal-teacher interactions and teacher to teacher relationships, to see how those may have an impact on teachers’ classroom instructional practices” (pg. 458). Data from the study was based on the Teacher Survey collected from 4,165 K – 12 teachers across the United States. Their findings indicate a relationship between strong instructional practices 7
    • ANNOTATIONS and shared leadership. The three practices identified for the study were standard contemporary practice (a focus on student exploration and making connections to the real world), focused instructional practice (an emphasis on pacing of instruction and academic learning) and flexible grouping practice (groupings of students based on needs). Shared leadership and four PLC variables - reflective dialogue, collective responsibility, deprivatization of practice, and shared norms - had a significant impact on standard contemporary practice, resulting in R²= .065. Shared leadership with PLC variables had a significant impact on flexible grouping practice resulting in R²= .086. Shared leadership and PLC variables had a significant impact of .2 on focused instructional practice. Watson, S. T., & Scribner, J. P. (2007). Beyond distributed leadership: collaboration, interaction, and emergent reciprocal influence. Journal of School Leadership, 17(July). Watson and Scribner probe into the conceptual foundations of the term leadership, and offer a framework for leadership grounded in collaboration, participation and learning. They conceptualize leadership, “as the process and product of social interaction that influences purposive human activity” (pg.445). “The interactional processes of teacher collaboration has revealed dimensions of how a form leadership conceived as 8
    • ANNOTATIONS emergent reciprocal influence develops within organizations” (pg 447). They maintain that the interactional nature of distributed leadership does not “reside a few individuals”, but is spread across the organization (pg 451). How is Leadership Conceptualized as Distributed in Schools? What are the Effects of Distributed Leadership on School Climate? Anderson, K. D., (2003). The nature of teacher leadership in schools as reciprocal influences between teachers leaders and principals. School Effectivenss and School Improvement, 15 (1), 97-114. Anderson studied six schools in Saskatoon, Canada noted for teacher leadership, to determine the influences between teacher leaders and principals. Anderson notes that because of recent reform mandates, there has been a shift in emphasis to a greater involvement of teachers in leadership, decision making and improvement efforts. Anderson maintains that schools where principals utilize teacher leaders effectively in reform efforts have more effective schools than principals who do not. In addition, principals in successful schools are able to identify key teachers, and influence them to take leadership roles. These principals allow teachers to make decisions about teaching and learning. Teacher leaders in successful schools influence principals on matters of direction, pedagogy and resources. The authors assert that because of new leadership roles in schools, 9
    • ANNOTATIONS there is a need to better understand the reciprocal nature of leadership influences between principals and teachers. Based on interviews of twenty-eight teachers and principals in the six schools studied, three models of reciprocal leadership are identified: buffered, interactive and contested. In the three schools typifying the buffered model of reciprocal leadership, principals were isolated from other teachers, and interacted primarily with teacher leaders. They utilized teacher leaders as “foot soldiers” in sharing various leadership functions. Because a core group of teachers are identified as leaders in this model, it leaves out other potential teacher leaders. In the two schools using the interactive model, principals promoted greater teacher leadership by interacting with all teachers, distributing decision making among them, and ensuring active teacher participation. Teachers in these schools were not appointed to leadership roles, but led in areas they found meaningful. Anderson notes that the interactive model mirrors transformational leadership. In the school identified as using a contested model, the principal was “outside the loop” and was against his teacher leaders. Teacher leaders in this school attempted to take decision making from the control of the principal. Teacher leaders were viewed as being able to stand up to the principal. 10
    • ANNOTATIONS Principal decisions were often contested. Other potential teacher leaders were encouraged by their peers to reject leadership opportunities. Beatty, B. (2007). Going through the emotions: leadership that gets to the heart of school renewal. Australian Journal of Education, 51(3), 328 - 340. Beatty maintains that shared leadership for “whole school renewal..requires emotionally safe spaces for learning and growing together” (pg. 329). He asserts that for shared leadership to be effective in school renewal, leaders must be aware of emotional influences, interpersonal relationships, and group dynamics of their schools. In addition, principals and teachers must collectively define the processes they will use to make decisions, as well as define their purpose. He maintains that for whole school renewal, adjustments must be made to collectively create a culture where leadership is pervasive. He maintains that to re-culture our schools for shared leadership as part of this renewal, leaders must build relationships with others. Bureaucratic hierarchies, he maintains, “create patterns in emotional responses in accordance with perceptions of power and lack of it” (pg. 329). This perception of power can result in “emotional fall out” from which “leaders and others need to recover” for renewal and distributed leadership in schools (pg. 338). 11
    • ANNOTATIONS Camburn, E., Rowan, B., & Taylor, J. (2003). Distributed leadership in schools: the case of elementary schools adopting comprehensive school reform models. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(4), 347 - 373. Camburn, Rowan, and Taylor study elementary schools that have adopted comprehensive school reform models (CSR), and how these models affect the distribution of leadership. They maintain that the focus of research on school leadership has changed from “what” the principal leader does on a daily basis, to “the leadership exercised by teachers, external change agents and others” (pg.348). The data used for the study included 374 elementary school leaders (principals, coordinators and others) who were given the School Leadership Questionnaire, and 100 principals who were given the School Characteristic Inventory (SCI). The study compares intervention schools – schools using the CSR model, and comparison schools, within 17 geographical regions in the United States. Schools using the CSR Model influence the distribution of leadership across various positions. In addition, schools using the CSR model allocated more leadership positions, 5:1 - teacher to leader, than comparison schools, 9:1 - teacher to leader. The CSR model was significantly associated with how leadership was configured, and the extent to which leadership functions were activated. 12
    • ANNOTATIONS Harris, A. (2007). Distributed Leadership: Conceptual confusion and empirical reticence. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 10(3), 315 - 325. Harris maintains that distributed leadership has not been clearly defined. In addition, much of the literature written about distributed leadership in regards to student learning is not based on research. A majority of research has focused on “how leadership is distributed rather than focusing upon the effects or impact of the different forms of distribution” (Pg 319). Harris points out studies that provide some evidence of the “benefits of distributive leadership to teacher effectiveness”, student engagement, and positive student outcomes (pg.319). Harris maintains that because of the demands on schools today, one individual cannot do the work. Therefore, greater “emphasis is being placed on teachers as leaders” (Pg.321). Jordanoglou, D. (2007). The teacher as leader: the relationship between emotional intelligence and leadership effectiveness, commitment, and satisfaction. Journal of Leadership Studies, 1 (3) 57 – 66. Jordanoglou studied the relationships among emotional intelligence, leadership effectiveness, commitment and satisfaction in education. The study sample included 210 teachers from different schools in Athens, Greece. Jordanoglou hypothesized the following: emotional intelligence has a positive relationship with leadership behavior, commitment, and 13
    • ANNOTATIONS effectiveness of teachers; leadership behaviors have a positive relationship with teacher effectiveness and satisfaction; and, a positive relationship is expected between commitment and satisfaction. Jordanoglou utilized five questionnaires for his study to assess intrapersonal, intrapersonal, adaptability, stress management, and general mood; to assess seven teacher leadership roles of managing interpersonal relationships, developing others, managing innovations, managing execution, managing continuous improvement, team building, and energizing people; to assess job satisfaction; to assess effectiveness. Results using standardized regression estimates are as follows: emotional intelligence has a significant effective on leadership roles - .48, effectiveness - .39, and commitment - .39. In addition, leadership roles exert a strong influence on effectiveness - .41, and satisfaction - .22. Commitment had a moderate effect on satisfaction - .33, and effectiveness - .34. Mayrowetz, D., (2008). Making sense of distributed leadership: exploring the multiple usages of the concept in the field. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44 (3)424 – 435. Mayrowetz inventories four diverse research perspectives of the term distributed leadership, discusses their strengths and weaknesses, and offers suggestions for researchers to link the above perspectives to the practical concerns in education. He 14
    • ANNOTATIONS maintains, the term “attracts a range of meanings and is associated with a variety of practices..and these significant discrepancies allow researchers to talk past each other.” (pg. 425). Below are the four perspectives of distributed leadership Mayrowetz identifies:  Usage 1: distributed leadership is viewed as an activity “stretched over multiple people” (pg. 426).  Usage 2: distributed leadership is viewed as a democracy and shared among all in a democratic way. Some researchers suggest that a democracy in leadership can have negative results for teachers and schools.  Usage 3: distributed leadership is viewed for the purposes of efficiency and effectiveness. Teachers engage in leadership activities if they have the expertise – e.g. reading coaches, lead teachers. Using these experts to assist in leadership makes the job of principal “do-able”. Mayrowetz notes that not all potential leaders are, or will be, good leaders. The distribution of leadership could result in the “distribution of incompetence” (pg, 430).  Usage 4: distributed leadership is viewed as a means for capacity building. Usage 4 promotes multiple people engaging in leadership roles so as to learn more about themselves and the problems facing the school. To achieve 15
    • ANNOTATIONS this, it requires re-culturing a school. Mayrowetz notes that usage 4 may be in the best position for school improvement because it promotes all teachers in the engagement of various roles of leadership. Ogawa, R. T. & Bossert, S. T., 1995. Leadership as an organizational quality. Educational Administrative Quarterly, 31 (2), 224-243. Ogawa and Bossert assert that leadership in an organization flows through individuals in different roles, and is influenced by the personal resources – e.g. knowledge, experience, position. To support this view, they provide the conceptual roots of organizational leadership, and outline 4 assumptions guiding it: function, role, the individual, and culture. They then discuss different perspectives of organizational leadership - technical-rational and institutional – and how they lead to different treatments of the above assumptions. Finally, they offer an alternative view of organizational leadership, focusing on different treatments of the 4 leadership assumptions within an institutional perspective. From the technical rational perspective, individuals are assigned a hierarchal leadership role for the purpose of achieving organizational goals. Culture is shaped by the leader from this perspective. The organization is a reflection of the leader’s traits and actions. 16
    • ANNOTATIONS The institutional perspective sets leadership at the organizational level, not on an individual level, and is concerned with survival by seeking external legitimacy. To achieve external legitimacy and survive, leadership from the institutional perspective is distributed through individuals across a network of roles. These roles are based on the resources individuals possess and/or have access to – e.g. knowledge, position. Ogawa and Bossert adopt the institutional perspective, because they believe that, “Among emerging conceptualizations, it provides a promising viewpoint for examining the many facets of school organization” (pg. 227). Printy, S. M. & Marks, H. M. (2006). Shared leadership for teacher and student learning. Theory into Practice, 45 92), 125-132. Printy and Marks examined how principals and teachers contribute to shared instructional leadership in schools, and the relationship of this leadership with student and teacher learning. They studied two schools – Ashley Elementary located in the deep South, and Flinders High School located in the West - where shared leadership is highly evident. The authors note that the high levels of trust in each of the schools facilitated teacher and principal interactions. Teachers at both schools felt free to talk about instructional matters and other issues. Discussions often led to changes that 17
    • ANNOTATIONS guided their work. In both schools, teacher leaders emerged because of their perceived expertise. Teachers held each other accountable for learning. Slackers - those not willing to follow the goals set by the schools - were not tolerated. Non- conforming teachers were ignored by their peers and often pressured to leave. At both schools, student progress was monitored by principals and teachers. In addition, innovations to teaching and learning were encouraged. The above examples of shared leadership resulted in coherent and stable instructional programs. Scribner, J. P., Sawyer, R. K., Watson, S. T., Myers, V. L. (2007). Teacher teams and distributed leadership: a study of group discourse and collaboration. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43 (1), 67 – 100. J. Scribner, R. Sawyer, S. Watson and V. Myers explore the social (interactions) and situational aspects of distributed leadership as related to two teacher teams in a large Missouri high school (building PLT and instructional PLT). The authors pose the following questions for their study: What factors contribute to or interfere with team decision making? What discursive patterns are associated with leadership within teacher work teams? What organizational conditions foster or impede leadership within teacher work teams? Teacher leadership emerges from the network of relationships between people. This network focuses on the 18
    • ANNOTATIONS activities of leaders, not who formally leads. Researchers suggest that when schools have teachers in self managed teams – teams with a specific purpose of making decisions regarding education, student achievement is higher. Little is known though, about the interactional processes of teacher teams. Using comparative and discourse analyses, the authors noted three constructs that “emerged” from their study regarding the interactions of team members: purpose, autonomy and patterns of discourse. They note that purpose and autonomy shaped the direction and discussion within each teams. This article brings to light a few of the problems teams may face in shared leadership and decision making. Noting the relationship between purpose and autonomy, the authors maintain that the problem solving team faced a “disabling autonomy”, engaging in discussions that were administrative. The instructional PLT’s experienced enabling autonomy, engaging in meaning discussions regarding teaching and learning. The authors caution, the instructional PLT “was at risk of solving the wrong problem or developing solutions that lacked innovation and creativity because of the team’s agreed-on narrow charge and its lack of focus on problem solving” (pg. 87). Because of each team’s charge and challenge, the social interactions of each team, were different. The building PLT interactions were often passive (exchanging information and questioning) in the absence 19
    • ANNOTATIONS of autonomy. The instructional PLT was characterized with a “balance of active and passive” discourse (pg. 89). Spillane, J. P. (2005). Distributed Leadership. The Educational Forum, 69(Winter), 143-150. Spillane focuses on the “practice” of distributed leadership and the “how” it is distributed. Spillane maintains that an individual leader cannot “single-handedly lead schools to greatness; leadership involves an array of individuals with various tools and structures” (pg 143). He also points out problems with studies that focus on the “what of leadership – structures, functions, routines, and roles – rather than the how of school leadership – the daily performance of leadership routines, functions, and structures” (pg 143). In the article, he defines how leadership is spread out “over an interactive web of people and situations” (pg. 144). He maintains, “From a distributed perspective, leadership is a system of practice comprised of a collection of interacting components: leaders, followers, and situation” (pg. 150). He continues, “These interacting components must be understood together because the system is more than the sum of the component parts and practice”. 20
    • ANNOTATIONS Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2001). Investigating school leadership practice: a distributed perspective. Educational Researcher, April, 23-27. The authors begin with a distributive leadership theory from a “cognitive” perspective which has “social origins”. They maintain, “Cognition is distributed though the environments’ material and cultural artifacts and throughout other people in collaborate efforts to complete complex tasks” (pg. 23). Their study focuses on the leader as a “unit of analysis” rather than individuals as leaders, and how leadership practice and tasks are “distributed among both positional and informal leaders”. They give examples from the elementary schools they studied where the enactment of interdependent tasks, in and out of the classroom, “lead to the evolution of a leadership practice that is potentially more than the sum of each individual’s practice” (pg 24). Is there a relationship between distributed leadership and student achievement? Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D., (1999). The relative effects of Principal and teacher sources of leadership on student engagement with school. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35 (December) 679 – 706. Leithwood and Jantzi inquire about the effects of principal and teacher sources of leadership on student engagement and school conditions. They also identify similarities and differences of schools in regards to how leadership is exercised. 21
    • ANNOTATIONS The authors assert that findings in other studies done on the relationships of principals on student achievement have been inconclusive. The authors continue, “Studies that include mediating and/or moderating variables in their designs tend to report significant relationships” (pg. 681). Leithwood and Jantzi identify mediating variables for their study as purposes and goals – collectively setting the direction for a school, planning –collectively establishing and accomplishing challenging yet attainable goals that are motivational to an organization, organizational culture – the shared norms, values, beliefs and assumptions of an organization, structure and organization – the “nature of relationships established among people and groups in a school and between the school and its external constituents” (pg. 683), and information collections and decision making – how information is collected to for decision making and which members are involved in decisions. Student engagement is used as a dependent variable in the study because of its link to student performance (pg. 685). A 5-point Likert survey was administered to all K-9 teachers (n=2,465) regarding school conditions and leadership. A second likert scale was administered to students on engagement and family educational culture (n=9,941 responses). Path analysis was used to assess the relationships among separate variables. Principal leadership had a small effect (.15) on 22
    • ANNOTATIONS student participation and a significant effect with school conditions (.66). Correlation coefficients for teacher leadership on participation were insignificant (.14), but were significant on school conditions (.52). Regression analysis was used to estimate the strength of relationships between the five mediating school conditions and teacher and principal leadership. Principal leadership had modest effects on culture (.26) and structure and organization (.27). Teacher leadership had weak effects on all school conditions (.05 to .10). The authors note that the findings may be disappointing to those advocating for more teacher leadership in schools. Given the findings, they question the motivation for educators to merge the concept of leadership with the teaching profession. They note that the concept of teaching has been established and is honored. They also question whether the merging of these two distinct roles could devalue “the status of the teacher” and do a disservice “to the concept of leadership” (pg. 700). They conclude, “If everyone is a leader, does not the concept lose all value as a legitimate distinction among social and organizational practices?” (pg. 701). 23
    • ANNOTATIONS Leithwood, K., & Mascall, B., (2008). Collective leadership effects on student achievement. Educational Administrative Quarterly, 44 (4), 529 – 561. Leithwood and Mascall explore the impact of shared leadership on teacher variables and student achievement, the direct influence of different collective leadership sources, and different patterns of collective leadership as related to student outcomes. Stratified random sampling was used to select teachers from 9 states, 45 districts and 180 schools. 2,570 teachers responded to a survey measuring collective leadership. The survey also measured three teacher performance variables: teacher capacity, teacher motivation, and teacher work settings and conditions. Student math and reading data were collected over 3 years from state web sites to measure student achievement. Causal relationships among collective leadership, teacher capacity, teacher motivation and teacher work setting and conditions were measured using Pearson Production Correlation Coefficients and LISREL Structural Equations Modeling. There were correlations among all teacher performance variables and collective leadership. A strong correlation was evident between collective leadership and work settings – r= .58. Teacher motivation and collective leadership was also significant at r=.55. All variables, except for teacher 24
    • ANNOTATIONS capacity, were significantly related to student performance. Collective leadership on student performance was significant – r=.34. LISREL path analysis, indicate indirect effects of collective leadership on student achievement indicate r=.24. Maeyer, Sven D.,Rymenans, R., Van Petegem, P., van den Bergh, H, & Rijaarsda, G., (2007). Educational leadership and pupil achievement: the choice of a valid conceptual model to test effects in school effectiveness research. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 18 (2) 125 – 145. The authors present a reanalysis of data from a previous study on the effects of integrated leadership on student performance done by Maeyer (2004), using four conceptual models:  Model 1 assumes a direct effect from integrated leadership on student performance.  Model 2 assumes an indirect effect from integrated leadership on student performance.  Model 3 assumes both indirect and direct effects from integrated leadership on student performance.  Model 4 assumes direct and indirect effects, and assumes a direct effect from school context factors on integrated leadership and academic climate. Using path analysis to test the models, the authors maintain that model 4 is the best fit for possible conclusions regarding integrated leadership on student performance. By using model 4 and adding the antecedents (IQ, SES, linguistics ethnic, gender) effects to the analysis, the authors learn that 25
    • ANNOTATIONS “integrated leadership has only an indirect effect through academic climate, on pupils’ reading proficiency” (pg. 141). They conclude that by adding school context factors, their conclusions are “closer to the complex reality of education” (pg. 141). Marks, H. M., & Printy, S. M., (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: an interaction of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational Administrative Quarterly, 39 (3), 370 – 397. Marks and Printy study teacher and principal leadership relations in 24 nationally selected restructured schools, and its impact on instruction and student achievement. Shared instructional leadership theory is inclusive, allowing teachers to share decisions (and accountability) with the principal regarding instruction and reform efforts. Although the principal remains the educational leader in the school in this model, teachers who have expertise or personal information, may “exercise leadership collaboratively with the principal” (pg. 374). Teachers inquire together regarding instructional problems, and work together as “communities of learners” (pg. 374). Principals promote teacher reflection on instructional practices, and support them through professional development opportunities. Transformational leadership theory provides “direction and aims at innovating within the organization, while empowering and supporting teachers as 26
    • ANNOTATIONS partners in decision making” (pg. 371). Its goal is to improve organizational performance via collective capacity. Research questions for this study focused on the relationship between transformational leadership and shared instructional leadership on teaching and student performance. One hundred and forty four teachers were rated three times on instruction by multiple observers. Over 5000 artifacts of social studies and math student work were scored by trained professionals according to standards of authentic achievement. Shared instructional leadership and transformational leadership, as independent variables, were constructed through teacher and principal interviews, and observations in the field. Nine out of the twenty-four schools scored low on both instructional and transformational leadership. Six schools demonstrated high transformational leadership. Seven schools scored high in both transformational and shared instructional leadership. Low leadership schools averaged -.67 SD on instruction and -.83 SD on achievement. High leadership schools averaged .85 SD on instruction and .85 SD on achievement. Using multilevel analysis to control variables, high leadership schools were .6 SD higher than low leadership schools on instruction and .6 SD higher on achievement. 27
    • ANNOTATIONS The findings indicate that an integrated approach to leadership results in higher levels of achievement and instruction. The authors conclude, “When the principal elicits high levels of commitment from teachers and works interactively with teachers in a shared instructional leadership capacity, schools have the benefits of integrated leadership; they are organizations that learn and perform at high levels” (pg. 393). Maxcy, B. D., & Nguyen, T. S. (2006). The politics of distributing leadership. Educational Policy, 20(1), 163 – 196. Maxcy and Nguyen examine the “heroic leadership portrayals”, the politics and impact of distributed leadership and its “implications for democratic school governance” in two Texas schools (Chavez Elementary and Pecan Springs Elementary) (pg. 163). Chavez Elementary used Firestone and Heller’s (FH) model of redistributed leadership. FH structures leadership around “essential functions so that efforts might be more productively guided and directed, structured and supported” (pg. 168) FH does not confine leadership to a person in a formal role, such as the principal, but enacted leadership “by members throughout the organization” (pg. 168). The authors maintain that the FH principle was not enacted fully at Chavez because teacher work was controlled by political pressures to perform. Chavez, in essence, was steered at a distance. Chavez ES earned an exemplary rating in 2002. 28
    • ANNOTATIONS Pecan Elementary School was selected for this study because of its recent need to expand the VLC (Vietnamese Language) program, and because the distribution of leadership within the school community was “crucial to its expansion” (176). Pecan redistributed leadership using Spillane, Halverson and Diamond’s (SHD) model of leadership. The SHD model shifts the focus from behaviors of individuals in formal roles to interdependence among leaders, followers and situations” (pg. 173). Teachers, parents and administrators were able to successfully sustain, improve and expand the VLC program through interdependent leadership practices, even with high political and administrative demands. The program was deemed successful according to a variety of measures. In fact, the high number of self imposed performance measures used in the program, facilitated reciprocal accountability that transcended curricular and standardized tests. These added measures also helped legitimize the program. The authors maintain that the leadership by the VLC leaders reflected a “distribution more sophisticated and complex” than Firestone or Spillane’s models. Pounder, D. G., Ogawa, R. T., Adams, E. A., (1995). Leadership as an organization-wide phenomena: its impact on school performance. Educational Administration Quarterly, 31 (4), 564 – 588. Pounder, Ogawa and Adams examine relationships between leadership exercised by principals, teachers and others, with 29
    • ANNOTATIONS the 4 functions of effective organizations (adaptation, goal achievement, integration, latency), and school effectiveness measures (perceptions of effectiveness, student achievement based on an SAT adjusted average over three years, student absenteeism, and staff turnover rates). A total of fifty-seven middle and elementary schools were selected for the study. Stratified random sampling was used to select over one thousand interview participants from the schools. Seventy eight percent were teachers. Other respondents included principals, secretaries and community members. Path analysis results indicated that overall leadership was related to two leadership functions – goal achievement (.25) and latency (.40) – which were associated with four measures of school effectiveness – student achievement, staff turn-over, student absenteeism, and perceived effectiveness. Results are consistent with “the theoretical framework, which suggests that organizational leadership, affects organizational performance by shaping the organization of work and by building commitment” (pg. 583). Leadership exerted by parents had a significant affect on absenteeism (-.48) and student achievement (.39). Leadership exerted by principals and teacher groups positively affected latency and commitment, which affected perceived effectiveness 30
    • ANNOTATIONS and turnover. Leadership by principals and teachers together did not affect student absenteeism and achievement. The authors were surprised by their analyses of individuals exerting leadership as related to outcome measures. The leadership exerted by secretaries had a negative relationship (- .27) to student achievement. Principal leadership was not directly associated with student achievement (-0.02). Finally, the leadership of individual teachers was not related to organizational functions or school performance. Robinson, V. M., & Lloyd, C. A., Rowe, K. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: an analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44 (5), 635 – 674. Robinson, Lloyd and Rowe conducted two meta-analyses of 27 published studies between 1978 and 2006 to determine the impact of instructional leadership theory, transformation leadership theory, and leadership practices, on student outcomes. Fifteen of the studies focused on the principal as the source of leadership. The first study analyzed the impact of instructional and transformational leadership theories on student outcomes. Transformational leadership had a weak impact on student outcomes (5 studies, 13 effects, ES = 0.11) whereas instructional leadership had moderate impact (12 studies, 188 effects, ES = 0.42). Other types of leadership had an impact of 31
    • ANNOTATIONS 0.30 on student outcomes (5 studies, 50 effects). Two of the 5 “other types of leadership” were from a distributed perspective. Integrated leadership - teacher and principal influence on instruction – resulted in an ES of 0.56 (Marks and Printy, 2003). Social network theory - principal and teacher included in network – resulted in an ES of 0.41 (Friedkin and Slater, 1994). The second study analyzed the impact of 5 leadership dimensions on student outcomes. The five dimensions are: establishing goals; strategic resourcing; planning, coordinating and evaluating teaching and the curriculum; promoting and participating in teacher learning and development; and ensuring and orderly and supportive environment. Dimension 3, planning, coordination and evaluating teaching and the curriculum, based on 80 indicators across 9 studies, had a moderate impact (ES =0.41) on student outcomes. The authors note that in the higher performing schools studied, leaders engaged teachers in “collegial” discussions regarding teaching and student achievement, leaders had “direct oversight” over the instructional programs, and “leaders and staff worked together to review and improve teaching – an idea captured by that of shared instructional leadership” (pg. 662). The authors note that their findings are similar to Robert Marzano’s findings on overall leadership effects (0.40); 32
    • ANNOTATIONS findings which were based on “unpublished evidence” (pg. 665). They caution that out of 70 studies included in Marzano’s meta- analysis, only 10 used published evidence. Timperley, H. (2005). Distributed leadership: developing theory from practice. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(4), 395 - 420. Timperley reconceptualizes leadership in “terms of activities and interactions that are distributed” (pg. 395). Timperley conducted a four year empirical study of seven New Zealand elementary schools undertaking school improvement initiatives and participating in early literacy professional development. The study focused on how leadership was distributed, and its differential effects on promoting school improvement. The leadership qualities for Timperley’s study in relation to differential effectiveness include: distribution of leadership activities, social distribution of task enactment – how leadership is enacted when it is distributed (a focal point in this study) and the place of artifacts in distributed leadership –where distributed leadership makes a difference in schools. The data from the study was based on observations of team meetings where distributed leadership was promoted (principals, literacy coaches, and teachers), interviews and student achievement data. Variances were identified regarding how the leaders in each school conducted their meetings and whether they used data 33
    • ANNOTATIONS analysis as a focal point, or programs – the curriculum used as a means for improvement. Results in student achievement varied depending how leadership was enacted. Schools that distributed leadership with a focus on teaching and learning, had higher student achievement than schools distributing leadership with a focus on curriculum. Timperley (2005) suggests, “That increasing the distribution of leadership is only desirable if the quality of the leadership activities contributes to assisting teachers to provide more effective instruction to their students”. These shared leadership “qualities” varied from school to school resulting in differences in achievement. 34