School Leadership for Learning launch - Presentation by Montserrat Gomendio - 20-09-16
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
3 likes•13,065 views
1. The document summarizes findings from the Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) 2013, which surveyed over 100,000 teachers and school leaders from over 6,500 schools in more than 30 countries and economies. 2. It finds that most school leaders engage in both instructional leadership, such as supporting teacher collaboration and development, and distributed leadership, through involving stakeholders in decision making. However, countries differ in the balance of these approaches among their school leaders. 3. School leadership is linked to stronger professional learning communities among teachers, as measured by factors like collaborative activities and shared responsibilities. Instructional leadership specifically relates to more reflective dialogue, deprivatized practice, and collective focus on student learning.
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to School Leadership for Learning launch - Presentation by Montserrat Gomendio - 20-09-16
Similar to School Leadership for Learning launch - Presentation by Montserrat Gomendio - 20-09-16 (20)
More from EduSkills OECD
More from EduSkills OECD (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
School Leadership for Learning launch - Presentation by Montserrat Gomendio - 20-09-16
- 1. 1 School leadership for Learning Insights from TALIS 2013
- 2. Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after accounting for socio-economic status Fig II.3.322 Background: TALIS 2013 …representing more than 4 million teachers in over 30 countries and economies… Over 100 thousand randomly selected lower secondary teachers and their school leaders from over 6500 schools …took an internationally-agreed survey about the working conditions and learning environments in their schools… …principals respond to questions about their background, their practices, support and development, their relationships with teachers and other stakeholders and the leadership in their schools
- 3. TALIS 2013 – 38 systems *Note: TALIS 2013 only runs in a sub-national entity in the following countries: Belgium (Flemish Community), Canada (Alberta), United Arab Emirates (Abu Dhabi) and United Kingdom (England). This map is for illustrative purposes and is without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory covered by this map. TALIS 2013 Participants 2014
- 4. Leadership for learning at the school
- 5. Instructional leadership • Refers to the efforts of the principal in supporting instruction and learning in their school • Index includes the frequency that principals: take action to support co-operation among teacher to develop new teaching practices, take action to ensure that teachers take responsibility for improving their teaching skills, take action to ensure that teachers feel responsible for their student’s learning outcomes. Distributed leadership • Acknowledges the collective effort of improving school quality by taking into account the involvement of other relevant stakeholders. • Index includes the level of principals agreement on whether: the school provides staff with opportunities to actively participate in school decisions, provides parents or guardians with opportunities to actively participate in school decisions, and provides students with opportunities to actively participate in school decisions. 5 55 Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after accounting for socio-economic status Fig II.3.3 55 Defining instructional and distributed leadership
- 6. 6 66 Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after accounting for socio-economic status Fig II.3.3 66 Principals’ engagement in instructional leadership in lower secondary education. International average compare with the U.S. average 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Take action to support co-operation among teachers to develop new teaching practices Take action to ensure that teachers take responsibility for improving their teaching skills Take action to ensure that teachers feel responsible for their students’ learning outcomes International Average United States Percentage
- 7. 7 77 Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after accounting for socio-economic status Fig II.3.3 77 Engagement in instructional leadership in lower secondary education across TALIS systems 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Malaysia AbuDhabi(UAE) Shanghai(China) Chile Romania Bulgaria Serbia SlovakRepublic Singapore Alberta(Canada) Brazil Mexico Korea Poland Israel RussianFederation Australia Latvia England(UK) Georgia NewZealand CzechRepublic Average Portugal Netherlands Croatia Italy Iceland Spain France Sweden Estonia Norway Denmark Finland Flanders(Belgium) Japan Take action to support co-operation among teachers to develop new teaching practices Take action to ensure that teachers take responsibility for improving their teaching skills Take action to ensure that teachers feel responsible for their students' learning outcomes Cumulativepercentage
- 8. 8 88 Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after accounting for socio-economic status Fig II.3.3 88 Instructional leadership, by principals’ training in instructional leadership in lower secondary education 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 Spain Romania Denmark Norway Brazil Mexico Bulgaria CzechRepublic RussianFederation Portugal SlovakRepublic Estonia Finland Average France NewZealand Serbia Croatia Poland Israel Italy Latvia Flanders(Belgium) Australia England(UK) Netherlands Principals received training in instructional leadership Principals received no training in instructional leadership Averagescoreontheinstructionalleadershipscale Notes: The figure includes only those countries and economies in which at least 10% of the principals indicated that they participated in training or a course in instructional leader ship and at least 10% of the principals indicated that they did not participate in such a training or course.
- 9. 9 99 Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after accounting for socio-economic status Fig II.3.3 99 Principals’ engagement in distributed leadership activities in lower secondary education. International average compare with the U.S. average 0 20 40 60 80 100 This school provides staff with opportunities to actively participate in school decisions This school provides parents or guardians with opportunities to actively participate in school decisions This school provides students with opportunities to actively participate in school decisions International Average United States Percentage
- 10. 1 1010 Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after accounting for socio-economic status Fig II.3.3 1010 Engagement in distributed leadership in lower secondary education across TALIS systems 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Latvia Shanghai(China) Poland Korea Estonia Georgia Serbia Russian… Norway Flanders… Brazil CzechRepublic Croatia Portugal Alberta(Canada) NewZealand Spain Australia Mexico England(UK) Romania Iceland Average Bulgaria Chile Denmark AbuDhabi(UAE) Netherlands Singapore France Malaysia SlovakRepublic Sweden Finland Italy Israel Japan This school provides students with opportunities to actively participate in school decisions This school provides parents or guardians with opportunities to actively participate in school decisions This school provides staff with opportunities to actively participate in school decisions Cumulativepercentage
- 11. 1 1111 Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after accounting for socio-economic status Fig II.3.3 1111 Distributed leadership, by principals’ professional development activities, in lower secondary education -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 Netherlands England(UK) Korea Shanghai(China) Mexico Iceland Spain Singapore SlovakRepublic Bulgaria AbuDhabi(UAE) Romania Brazil Serbia Italy Average Denmark Malaysia Finland NewZealand Alberta(Canada) Japan Sweden CzechRepublic Flanders(Belgium) Croatia Estonia Latvia Israel France Australia Portugal RussianFederation Chile Norway Poland Georgia Professional network, mentoring or research activity Courses, conferences or observational visits Other professional development Differenceinscoresonthedistributedleadershipscale
- 12. Profiles of school leadership across educational systems
- 13. •Strong focus on instructional as well as distributed leadership. •Spend considerable time on curriculum and teaching related tasks in school. •Most use student outcomes to develop the school’s educational goals or programmes and a professional development plan for his/her school. Integrated leaders •Strong focus on distributed leadership, but a weak focus on instructional leadership. •Spend little time on curriculum and teaching related tasks in school. •Some use student outcomes to develop the school’s educational goals or programmes and a professional development plan for his/her school. Inclusive leaders •Strong focus on instructional leadership, but a weak focus on distributed leadership. •Spend much time on curriculum and teaching related tasks in school. •Most use student outcomes to develop the school’s educational goals or programmes and a professional development plan for his/her school. Educational leaders •Weak focus on instructional as well as distributed leadership. •Spends some time on curriculum and teaching-related tasks in school. •Many use student outcomes to develop the school’s educational goals or programmes and a professional development plan for their school. Administrative leaders 1313 Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after accounting for socio-economic status Fig II.3.3 1313 Four types of school leadership
- 14. 1 1414 Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after accounting for socio-economic status Fig II.3.3 1414 Percentage of principals in TALIS exercising integrated, inclusive, educational or administrative leadership 50% 17% 23% 10% Integrated leadership Inclusive leadership Educational leadership Administrative leadership
- 15. 1 1515 Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after accounting for socio-economic status Fig II.3.3 1515 Countries and economies’ classification according to the overall leadership type of their principals Mainly integrated leaders Mainly inclusive leaders Mainly educational leaders Abu Dhabi (United Arab Emirates) Croatia England (United Kingdom) Alberta (Canada) Denmark Israel Australia Estonia Italy Brazil Finland Japan Bulgaria Flanders (Belgium) New Zealand Chile France Norway Czech Republic Iceland Slovak Republic Georgia Netherlands Korea Portugal Latvia Spain Malaysia Sweden Mexico Poland Romania The Russian Federation Serbia Singapore Shanghai (China)
- 16. 1616 Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after accounting for socio-economic status Fig II.3.3 1616 Countries and economies’ classification according to the overall leadership type of their principals (cont.) Japan Finland Flanders (Belgium) Denmark Estonia Sweden France Spain Italy Croatia New Zealand Portugal The Netherlands The Czech Republic Latvia Georgia PolandAustralia Israel Slovak Republic Brazil Russian Federation KoreaAlberta (Canada) Serbia England (UK) Romania Bulgaria Mexico Shanghai (China) Singapore Chile Abu Dhabi (UAE) Malaysia 9.0 9.5 10.0 10.5 11.0 11.5 12.0 12.5 13.0 13.5 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 Degree of distributed leadership Degreeofinstructionalleadership Iceland Countries and economies with mainly integrated leaders Countries and economies with mainly educational leaders Countries and economies with mainly inclusive leaders
- 18. Reflective dialogue Teachers perception about the quality of the feedback received Deprivatised practice Teachers provide feedback following direct observation of the classroom teaching of a colleague Collaborative professional activity Teachers report on the frequency with which they engage in sharing materials, discuss and work with colleagues Shared sense of purpose Teachers perception on whether the school has a culture of shared responsibility and mutual support Collective focus on student learning Teachers description on the feedback content (e.g. student performance, behaviour and assessment) 1 1818 Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after accounting for socio-economic status Fig II.3.3 1818 Professional learning communities’ factors
- 19. 1 1919 Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after accounting for socio-economic status Fig II.3.3 1919 Deprivatised practice factor, by country and economy, in lower secondary education 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Korea NewZealand Norway Netherlands England(UK) RussianFederation Australia Denmark Japan Shanghai(China) Latvia Finland Portugal Estonia Singapore Romania Average Italy CzechRepublic Sweden Alberta(Canada) SlovakRepublic Bulgaria Serbia Mexico Spain Brazil Georgia Israel Croatia Iceland Chile Malaysia AbuDhabi(UAE) France Poland Flanders(Belgium) Averagepercentageofteachersreceivingfeedbackfollowing classroomobservationbytheirpeers
- 20. 2 2020 Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after accounting for socio-economic status Fig II.3.3 2020 Association between types of leadership and professional learning communities' dimensions, across educational levels Reflective dialogue Deprivatised practice Shared sense of purpose Collaborative activity Collective focus on student learning Instructional leadership + + + + Distributed leadership + Instructional leadership + + Distributed leadership + Instructional leadership + Distributed leadership + Primary education Lower secondary education Upper secondary education Notes: + = positive effect; - = negative effect Signs in bold font indicate significant effects at p < 0.01; grey signs indicate significant effects at p < 0.05 Results of association are controlled for other school and teacher characteristics that might influence these relationships.
- 21. 2 2121 Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after accounting for socio-economic status Fig II.3.3 2121 Association of integrated leaders and countries with mainly integrated leaders with professional learning communities’ dimensions, in comparison with other types of leadership and country profiles Notes: + = positive effect; - = negative effect Signs in bold font indicate significant effects at p < 0.01; grey signs indicate significant effects at p < 0.05 Results of association are controlled for other school and teacher characteristics that might influence these relationships. Reflective dialogue Deprivatised practice Shared sense of purpose Collaborative activity Collective focus on student learning Integrated leaders (ref. category) Educational leaders - - - - Inclusive leaders - - Administrative leaders - - - - Country Profile: Mainly integrated leaders (ref. category) Mainly inclusive leaders - - - Mainly educational leaders
- 22. 2 2222 Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after accounting for socio-economic status Fig II.3.3 2222 Association of students’ socio-demographic characteristics with professional learning communities' dimensions, on lower secondary education Notes: + = positive effect; - = negative effect Signs in bold font indicate significant effects at p < 0.01; grey signs indicate significant effects at p < 0.05 Results of association are controlled for other school and teacher characteristics that might influence these relationships. Reflective dialogue Deprivatised practice Shared sense of purpose Collaborative activity Collective focus on student learning 0% of students with special needs (ref. category) 1-10% of students + + + 11-30% of students + + + 31-60% of students more than 60% of students + - 0% of low SES students (ref. category) 1-10% of students + 11-30% of students + + 31-60% of students + + more than 60% of students + +
- 23. 2 2323 Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after accounting for socio-economic status Fig II.3.3 2323 Association of teachers’ characteristics with professional learning communities' dimensions, on lower secondary education Notes: + = positive effect; - = negative effect Signs in bold font indicate significant effects at p < 0.01; grey signs indicate significant effects at p < 0.05 Results of association are controlled for other school and teacher characteristics that might influence these relationships. Reflective dialogue Deprivatised practice Shared sense of purpose Collaborative activity Collective focus on student learning Self-efficacy in the classroom - + - + Self-efficacy instruction + - + + + Self-efficacy in student engagement + - + + +
- 24. 2 2424 Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after accounting for socio-economic status Fig II.3.3 2424 Other relevant variables Non-significant, weak or inconsistent associations with professional learning communities were found for the following variables: • School size • School autonomy • School type
- 25. Classroom disciplinary climate Teachers’ description of student’s behaviour in the classroom. Teacher-student relationships Teachers’ description on the quality of relation that the teaching staff has with their students. 2 2525 Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after accounting for socio-economic status Fig II.3.3 2525 Learning climate factors
- 26. 2 2626 Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after accounting for socio-economic status Fig II.3.3 2626 Classroom disciplinary climate scale, by country and economy, lower secondary education. 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 Japan Georgia Shanghai(China) Romania AbuDhabi(UAE) RussianFederation Croatia Serbia Poland Denmark Estonia Italy England(UK) NewZealand Mexico Bulgaria CzechRepublic Israel Average Australia Alberta(Canada) Latvia Norway Sweden Malaysia Flanders(Belgium) Finland Korea France Netherlands SlovakRepublic Iceland Portugal Singapore Spain Chile Brazil Averagescoreontheclassroomdisciplinaryclimatescale
- 27. 2 2727 Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after accounting for socio-economic status Fig II.3.3 2727 Association between types of leadership and positive learning environment dimensions, across educational levels Notes: + = positive effect; - = negative effect Signs in bold font indicate significant effects at p < 0.01; grey signs indicate significant effects at p < 0.05 Results of association are controlled for other school and teacher characteristics that might influence these relationships. Classroom disciplinary climate Positive teacher- student relationships Instructional leadership Distributed leadership + Instructional leadership Distributed leadership + Instructional leadership Distributed leadership + Lower secondary education Upper secondary education Primary education
- 28. 2 2828 Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after accounting for socio-economic status Fig II.3.3 2828 Association of students’ socio-demographic characteristics with learning environment dimensions, lower secondary education Notes: + = positive effect; - = negative effect Signs in bold font indicate significant effects at p < 0.01; grey signs indicate significant effects at p < 0.05 Results of association are controlled for other school and teacher characteristics that might influence these relationships. Classroom disciplinary climate Positive teacher-student relationships 0% of students with special needs 1-10% of students - + 11-30% of students - 31-60% of students - more than 60% of students - + 0% of low SES students 1-10% of students 11-30% of students - 31-60% of students - - more than 60% of students - -
- 29. 2 2929 Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after accounting for socio-economic status Fig II.3.3 2929 Association of teachers’ characteristics with learning environment dimensions, lower secondary education Notes: + = positive effect; - = negative effect Signs in bold font indicate significant effects at p < 0.01; grey signs indicate significant effects at p < 0.05 Results of association are controlled for other school and teacher characteristics that might influence these relationships. Classroom disciplinary climate Positive teacher-student relationships Self-efficacy in the classroom + + Self-efficacy instruction - + Self-efficacy in student engagement + +
- 30. 3 3030 Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after accounting for socio-economic status Fig II.3.3 3030 Association of school’ characteristics with learning environment dimensions, lower secondary education Notes: + = positive effect; - = negative effect Signs in bold font indicate significant effects at p < 0.01; grey signs indicate significant effects at p < 0.05 Results of association are controlled for other school and teacher characteristics that might influence these relationships. Classroom disciplinary climate Positive teacher-student relationships 300- or fewer students 301-600 students - - 601-1200 students - - more than 1200 students - -
- 31. Discussion
- 32. 3 3232 Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after accounting for socio-economic status Fig II.3.3 3232 Context, School leadership and professional learning communities • The link between principals' leadership and students achievement is rarely direct. • Principals' actions are mediated by a series of school factors which include teacher quality. • Principals' have the means of improving teacher quality through actions such as fostering a professional learning community.
- 33. 3 3333 Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after accounting for socio-economic status Fig II.3.3 3333 Context, School leadership and professional learning communities (cont.) • However, the association between leadership, professional learning communities and student achievement should be considered carefully: – In schools with several or many less-competent teachers, actions such as providing feedback, observing each other’s classes or engaging in teacher collaboration may lead to the diffusion or the perpetuation of bad practices. – On the other hand, in schools with a highly qualified teaching workforce, professional learning communities may do very little to improve the practices of an already exceptional workforce, but it can help to sustain their level of excellence. • More research is needed to understand how principals, professional learning communities and student achievement operate in different contexts.
- 34. Conclusions
- 35. 3 3535 Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after accounting for socio-economic status Fig II.3.3 3535 The importance of school leadership In this report we were able to show the link between different types of school leadership and professional learning communities. • Distributed leadership Greater sense of purpose in the schools • Instructional leadership Greater levels of collaboration between teachers • Integrated leadership Most favourable approach for PLC • Although a large number of principals demonstrate forms of integrated leadership, some school leaders mainly rely on instructional leadership or distributed leadership. For developing professional learning communities, a integrated role for the school leader seems appropriate.
- 36. Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after accounting for socio-economic status Fig II.3.3 3636 How can systems support school leadership? Policies supporting school leadership should consider: • requiring principals to participate in training and in-service professional development instances that include leadership; • guiding principals and teachers in creating a culture of shared responsibility based on collaboration and support; • “freeing” hours of administrative work for principals in order to engage with teachers’ work or assigning a specific staff member to this task; • opening up opportunities for the participation of teachers in school decisions; and • supporting teachers in their professional development needs in order to boost their sense of self-efficacy.
- 37. Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after accounting for socio-economic status Fig II.3.3 37 “School leadership for Learning” authors: • The report has been prepared by researchers from the Groningen Institute for Educational Research (GION): Lyset Rekers-Mombarg Marij Veldman Ralf Maslowski Under the oversight of the OECD Secretariat Roel Bosker
- 38. Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after accounting for socio-economic status Fig II.3.3 3838 TALIS 2013 partnership TALIS is a partnership between an international research consortium Governments in 38 countries and economies European Commission Teachers’ unions
Editor's Notes
- It is easy to know effective school leadership when you see it in action, but it is much harder to describe, define and measure it. To make a difference in school and student performance, school leaders need to promote teamwork among teachers, and engage in teacher monitoring, evaluation and professional development. In order to provide data to improve practice, this recent report School Leadership for Learning: Insights from TALIS 2013 looks at different approaches to school leadership and the impact of leadership on professional learning communities and on the learning environment of schools.
- 34 countries and economies participated in TALIS 2013, with data for additional 4 countries/economies added in 2014, incl. Georgia, New Zealand, Russian Federation and Shanghai, China.
- The report focus on two types of leadership that the literature has identified as crucial approaches for improving teacher quality: instructional leadership and distributed leadership
- Both instructional leadership and distributed leadership are types of school leadership that research has identified as part of “leadership for learning”. This type of leadership is highly desirable for improving school quality. Is important to consider that these types of leadership are not mutually exclusive, but rather emphasis different aspects of the principals’ work that can help to improve educational quality.
- The graph shows the percentage of lower secondary education teachers who have engaged “often” or “very often” in the following instructional leadership activities in the last 12 months. On average, most principals in the TALIS participating countries and economies engage in some form of instructional leadership. However, as it can be observed, in each of the indicators of instructional leadership about one-third of all principals do not actively support these actions and further stimulation of leadership for learning is needed. When we compare the international average with US Data, we can observe that American principals engage more often in instructional leadership practices than the average principal. A point of caution: As usual with TALIS 2013 results US data should be used carefully because the United States did not meet the international standards for participation rates. As such, US data is only used for descriptive purpose and is not included in the international averages or in the regression analysis.
- The breakdown of instructional leadership by participating countries and economies, shows us that there is an important variability in the level of engagement with this practice. For example In Malaysia, nearly all principals agree that they took instructional leadership action in their school. Principals are less engaged in instructional leadership practices in Denmark; Estonia; Finland; Flanders, Belgium; Japan; and Norway. While in most of these countries and economies about half of the principals indicate that they engaged in instructional leadership practices actions, in Japan, only slightly over one-third of all principals on average agrees that they were engaged in these practices.
- The graph shows the association between receiving training in instructional leadership and the engagement on this type of leadership across TALIS systems. Countries are ranked according to the gap difference between principals received training in instructional leadership and those who did not. Overall, principals who acquired instructional leadership competencies in their educational leadership training or in a separate course were more engaged in instructional leadership actions in their school. This association seems to be stronger in the Spain, Romania and Denmark. This suggests that instructional leadership in schools can be fostered by including instructional leadership skills in leadership preparation programmes or by encouraging principals to take courses in which these skills are developed. In some countries and economies, no effect of training in instructional leadership was observed regarding the activities taken by principals. Furthermore, in a few countries the opposite association (principals who did not participate in instructional leadership programmes are more likely to engage in instructional leadership that the principals who do) can be observe (e.g. England and Netherlands)
- The graph shows the percentage of lower secondary education teachers who “agree” or “strongly agree” with following statements about distributed leadership Across countries, nearly all principals reported the involvement of their staff in the decision-making process at the school. However, fewer principals reported the same concerning the involvement of parents and students. If we look at the U.S. data we can see that American principal do not report as strongly on the distributional characteristics of their school as their international peers. A notable gap can be observe regarding the participation of students in school decisions. It is important to clarify that including parents, staff or students into the school decision making process may not depend solely in the willingness and actions of a school principal, but also on the regulations and framework imposed by local, regional or national legislation. A point of caution: As usual with TALIS 2013 results US data should be used carefully because the United States did not meet the international standards for participation rates. As such, US data is only used for descriptive purpose and is not included in the international averages or in the regression analysis.
- Across countries, nearly all principals reported the involvement of their staff in the decision-making process at the school. Schools and countries differ, however, regarding to opportunities offered to students and their parents or guardians to be involved in school decisions. For example, 98% of the principals in Latvia considers that their school offer students the opportunity to participate in school decisions in contrast to around 38% of principals in Japan who agree with the same statement. Likewise, around 98% of the principals in Shanghai, China agrees that their school integrates parents and guardian in their school compare with around 52% of Finnish principals. Regarding these differences, it is important to clarify that including staff, parents or guardians and students in the decision-making process of the school may not depend solely in the willingness and actions of a school principal, but also on the regulations and framework imposed by local, regional or national legislation.
- The graph compares principals who engage in some type of professional development activity with principals who do not. For example, in the Netherlands, principals who have participated in professional networks, mentoring or research activity score more that one point in the distributed leadership scale that principals who did not engage in these activities. How to read this chart: In the Netherlands, principals who engaged in a professional network, mentoring or research activity over the 12 months prior to the survey score more than one score point higher on the distributed leadership scale than principals who did not engage. Overall, principals who participate in professional development activities, are more often engaged in distributed leadership, although the characteristics of the professional development activity that are related to distributed leadership differ widely across countries and economies. For example in Malaysia, is not professional networking, mentoring or research activity the type of professional development that is closer associated with distributed leadership, but rather the participation in courses, conferences or observational visits.
- Specific types of school leadership are more prominent in certain countries and economies than others, which might indicate that leadership practices are idiosyncratic to each national context. Thus, across countries is possible to find different profiles of leadership. The study combine instructional leadership with distributed leadership along with the proportion of time principals are dedicated to developing a professional development plan and overall goals for the schools. From these analyses different principals profiles are identified. Next, the report observe how predominant are these profiles across countries.
- Four different types of school leadership were identified.
- Results shows that 50% of principals can be characterised as integrated leaders. These are principals who pay a lot of attention to both instructional and distributed leadership in their schools and spend relatively more time on curriculum and teaching-related tasks in school. The second group, inclusive leaders, represent 17% of the principals, and refer to principals that engage staff, students and their parents or guardians in the decisions at school, but relatively less often take up a role as instructional leaders and spend less time on curriculum and teaching-related tasks in their school. 23% of the principals are identified as “educational leaders”. These principals are less concerned with enabling students and their parents or guardians in the decision making process at school, but take considerable action to support co-operation among teachers and ensure that teachers take responsibility for the learning outcomes of their students and their own professional development. Finally, 10% of the principals can be characterised under “administrative leadership” who are less engaged in distributed and instructional leadership than integrated and educational leaders.
- The report classified countries based on the profiles previously identified. This analysis revealed three categories of countries; countries with mainly integrated leaders, with mainly inclusive leaders and with mainly educational leaders.
- The graph shows the countries and economies distribution regarding their level of engagement with instructional and distributed leadership. From this data, the three group of countries shown in the previous slide are clearly distinguishable based on their emphasis on distributed leadership or instructional leadership.
- Thus far we have explored how different types of school leadership are distributed across educational systems and what are the determinants of leadership. In this section, we will explore how school leadership helps the establishment of two crucial factors for educational quality: professional learning communities and positive learning environments.
- Professional learning communities refer to structural and recurrent actions aimed at encouraging dialogue and collaboration between school teachers in order to improve their practices. In this study, professional learning communities was measured through 5 factors. The diagram show the TALIS indicators use for measuring each one.
- Teacher’s engagement in professional development varies considerable across each country. For example, the engagement of deprivatized practice (i.e. observations of classrooms) is low in most participating countries with the exception of Korea.
- This table shows the association between each leadership style (i.e. instructional and distributed leadership) with each of the 5 factors of professional learning communities in three different educational levels. The “+” indicates a positive association between the variables while the “-” reflects a negative association. Only statistically significant associations are shown. Bold signs signal associations that are particular strong. The first relevant result is that instructional leadership is more common in schools with teacher collaboration. This suggests that when principals take action to support co-operation among teachers to develop new teaching practices, teachers are, indeed, more inclined to collaborate. This may indicate that the steps principals take to develop co-operation and to promote teachers’ responsibility for their instruction affect teachers’ collaboration in their school. On the other hand, when teachers are engaged in exchanging practices and co-operation, it is probably much easier for principals to stimulate collaboration among the staff. Instructional leadership seems to be a strong predictor of the establishment of reflective dialogues between teachers at all educational levels. In schools in which principals are more engaged in instructional leadership, teachers more often perceive a positive change in their instruction as a result of feedback on their classroom management practices, their teaching practices and their use of student assessments to improve learning. In countries and economies in which primary as well as lower secondary schools participated in TALIS 2013, primary schools operate to a greater extent as professional learning communities than do lower secondary schools. In primary schools in which principals are engaged in instructional leadership action, teachers more often collaborate and engage in reflective dialogue, as well as in deprivatised practices (i.e. having teachers observe other teachers’ classes), and have a shared sense of purpose. Finally, distributed leadership is positively related to a shared sense of purpose in schools. This finding, which is reported for primary, lower secondary and upper secondary education, suggests that involving students and their parents or guardians, along with the staff of the school, creates a culture of shared responsibility for school issues, which is characterised by mutual support among all stakeholders.
- This table contrast the different profiles of leadership style previously described and their association with each factor of professional learning communities. Using “integrated leaders” as the reference category, we can see that integrated principals (i.e. those who balanced instructional and distributed leadership) are more likely to engage in reflective dialogue than the other three types of leaders. More in detail, integrated leaders are more likely to be associated with reflective dialogue, deprivatsed practice, shared sense of purpose and collective focus on student learning in their school than educational leaders (i.e. leaders that prioritize instructional leadership over distributional). At the same time, integrated leaders are more likely to be associated with reflective dialogue and collaborative activity than inclusive leaders (i.e. leaders that prioritize distributional leadership over instructional leadership). Finally, integrated leaders are more likely to be associated with reflective dialogue, a shared sense of purpose, collaborative activity and collective focus on student learning on their school than administrative leaders (i.e. leaders that do not emphasize instructional leadership nor distributional leadership) The table shows that also country level variables might be affecting the practices of principals. We can see that principals in country with mainly integrated leaders are more likely to be associated with reflective dialogue, shared sense of purpose and collective focus on student learning that principals in countries with mainly inclusive leaders. in three different educational levels. The “+” indicates a positive association between the variables while the “-” reflect a negative association. Only statistically significant association are shown. Bold signs signal associations that are particular strong. The first relevant results is that instructional leadership is more common in schools with teacher collaboration. This suggests that when principals take action to support co-operation among teachers to develop new teaching practices, teachers are, indeed, more inclined to collaborate. This may indicate that the steps principals take to develop co-operation and to promote teachers’ responsibility for their instruction affect teachers’ collaboration in their school. On the other hand, when teachers are engaged in exchanging practices and co-operation, it is probably much easier for principals to stimulate collaboration among the staff. Instructional leadership seems to be a strong predictor of the establishment of reflective dialogues between teachers at all educational levels. In schools in which principals are more engaged in instructional leadership, teachers more often perceive a positive change in their instruction as a result of feedback on their classroom management practices, their teaching practices and their use of student assessments to improve learning. In countries and economies in which primary as well as lower secondary schools participated in TALIS 2013, primary schools operate to a greater extent as professional learning communities than do lower secondary schools. In primary schools in which principals are engaged in instructional leadership action, teachers more often collaborate and engage in reflective dialogue, as well as in deprivatised practices (i.e. having teachers observe other teachers’ classes), and have a shared sense of purpose. Finally, distributed leadership is positively related to a shared sense of purpose in schools. This finding, which is reported for primary, lower secondary and upper secondary education, suggests that involving students and their parents or guardians, along with the staff of the school, creates a culture of shared responsibility for school issues, which is characterised by mutual support among all stakeholders.
- This table shows the association between student’s socio-demographic characteristics and the dimensions of professional learning communities. In particular, it shows how different school proportion of students with special needs and student coming from socio-economic disadvantage background are associated with the implementation of these communities. Regarding the SES variable, we can observe that schools with 11% to more than 60% of low SES are more likely to engage in reflective dialogue than schools with 0% of low SES students. A similar message can be said from collaborative activity. Likewise, schools with 1% to 30% of student with special needs are more likely to engage in reflective dialogue, shared sense of purpose and collaborative activity than school with 0% of students with special needs. However, with the exception of reflective dialogue, when the proportion of students rises above 31% we do not see significance difference from schools with 0% of students with special needs. Overall, this might be indicating that school with more challenging students needs to use the elements of professional learning community more frequently in comparison to school who do not have students with these characteristics.
- This table shows the association between teacher characteristics, specifically, teachers’ self-efficacy with the implementation of professional learning communities. We can observe that teacher’s self-efficacy on instruction (i.e. perception on his ability to deliver a good instruction) and self-efficacy in student engagement (i.e. perception on his ability to commit students with their learning) are related with all the indicators of professional learning communities except with deprivatised practice. Self-efficacy in the classroom (i.e. perception on his ability to manage a classroom) is only positively associated with a couple of these dimensions and negatively associated with others, making the overall association ambiguous.
- A positive learning climate means the opportunity given to students to work in an orderly and encouraging environment that does not present a distraction to their learning. Principals’ actions aim at improving teacher relations with students and the involvement of students in some aspects of school decisions can definitely create a more positive and engaging environment. In this study, learning climates was measured through 2 factors: classroom disciplinary climate and teacher-student relationships. The diagram shows the TALIS indicators use for measuring each one.
- Once again is possible to observe a great variation between the countries and economies in their level of engagement with these dimensions. For example, this graph shows the variation in classroom disciplinary climate where we see a group of countries with high values in the scale (Japan, Georgia and Shanghai) and others with significant lower (Spain, Chile, Brazil).
- This table shows the association between each leadership style (i.e. instructional and distributed leadership) with each of the 2 factors of positive learning environment in three different educational levels. The “+” indicates a positive association between the variables while the “-” reflects a negative association. Only statistically significant association are shown. Bold signs signal associations that are particular strong. The table shows that A stronger engagement of principals in distributed leadership is related to more positive teacher student relationships in primary, lower secondary and upper secondary schools. Creating opportunities for students and their parents or guardians to participate in school decisions means teachers are interested in what students have to say and are likely to be concerned with students’ well being. Thus, distributed leadership may result in a greater sense of belonging among students and parents, as well as common responsibility for the functioning of the school among all key stakeholders Taking action to support co-operation among teachers to develop new teaching practices, as well as stimulating teachers’ responsibility for their teaching skills and students’ learning outcomes are not related to an orderly classroom climate. This finding suggests that the classroom climate is merely outside the sphere of influence of principals. Because principals generally set conditions for teachers to perform well and to engage in further professional development, their impact on classroom climate is mainly indirect and therefore likely to be relatively weak. Other factors, like teacher characteristics, are more directly related to establishing a disciplinary classroom climate
- This table shows the association between student’s socio-demographic characteristics and the dimensions of learning environment. As we have seen previously, it shows how different school proportion of students with special needs and student coming from socio-economic disadvantage background are associated with the dimensions of learning environment. Overall, we can observe that schools which have a high proportion of students with special needs or coming from socio-economic disadvantage backgrounds tend to have lower levels of classroom disciplinary climate than schools that have 0% of students with special needs or low SES. Regarding the positive teacher-student relationship, we can see that schools that have more than 60% of students with these characteristics are more likely to have positive relations compare to schools that have 0%. On the other hand, school with 31% to more than 60% of students coming from low SES background have lower levels of positive relations between teacher and students than school with 0% of these type of students.
- This table shows the association between teacher characteristics, specifically, teachers’ self-efficacy with the implementation of a positive learning environment. With the exception of the association between teachers’ self-efficacy with classroom disciplinary climate, all the other associations between the types of self-efficacy and the dimensions of learning environment are positive.
- Although most of the school variables did not have a significant association with these indicators, school size did present some interesting findings. This tables shows that schools that have from 301 to more than 1200 students have worst disciplinary climate and teacher-student relations than schools with less than 300 students.
- The teacher professionalism report was drafted by