CCEAM CASEA 2014 University of Brunswick
The Educational Leadership Imperative of Canada’s Outstanding
Principals: Student Achievement
Scott Lowrey, Ed.D.
(Hamilton, Ontario, Canada)
Abstract: Leading schools is complex work in times of constant change. Contemporary Canadian
principals must balance values and ethics in diverse community settings. Fortunately, effective
principals can be found in a variety of contexts. The purpose of this paper is to synthesize the
insights of principals recognized as outstanding in their field. Two research questions are
addressed: How do well-designed leadership development programs influence student
achievement; and How does the Canada’s Outstanding Principals (COP) program influence
student achievement? Recognizing that principal influence on student achievement is indirect,
well-designed leadership programs provide principals with the capacity to leverage mediating
variables. Five findings are presented: principal leadership behaviours, mediated by something,
are driven by commitment to improving student achievement; trust of a community transcends
instructional leadership; leadership lessons from non-educational contexts are important;
purposeful integration of theory and practice focuses on student achievement; and leadership
development is grounded in context, but context is a layered concept. Although leadership is
context specific, principals with a larger inventory of leadership strategies, transfer leadership
skills to, and from, different contexts. Four findings are presented: COP program influenced
student achievement; enhanced understanding of alignment and reciprocity between
leadership theory and practice was evident; change leadership successes increased principal
efficacy; and national conversations improved leadership capacity regardless of context.
1
Introduction
Statement of the Problem
Leading contemporary Canadian schools is complex work in times of constant change.
Studies indicate that leadership is essential to student achievement (Waters, Marzano, &
McNulty 2003), and principals are second only to classroom teachers in impact on student
achievement (Leithwood et al., 2004; Louis et al., 2010). Leithwood et al. (2004) state, “Indeed,
there are virtually no documented instances of troubled schools being turned around without
the intervention of a powerful leader.” Fortunately, effective principals can be found in a
variety of contexts.
Bolman and Deal (2003: 336) emphasize that leadership is always situated in both
context and relationships. The complexity of demands faced by school leaders is, in part, a
function of serving many constituencies and stakeholders each having a variety of needs.
Moreover, contemporary Canadian principals must balance values and ethics in diverse
community settings. Leadership development programs must be responsive to complex
contexts while meeting the developmental needs of principals.
Stewart (2006) identifies the pivotal leadership role principals play in fostering
community support for publicly funded education. However, she also stresses that principals
must balance input from several, and often competing, stakeholders while working in complex
leadership contexts. Hallinger (2003) cautions that principal authority is challenging when their
role is partially defined by meeting the expectations of those both above them and below them
in the hierarchy. Dewa et al. (2009) equate the principalship to typical middle management.
Cuban (2000) argues that a complexity of factors (i.e., political, contextual, and leadership)
2
contribute to the existence of a “good” school. Moreover, Cuban argues that there are multiple,
integrated factors contributing to multiple conceptualizations and manifestations of a “good”
school. Riehl (2007: 144) states, “Given this, the search for effective leadership may lead only to
contingent conclusions; there likely is no single form of leadership that will be effective in all
contexts.”
Principal leadership development experiences can be either formal, job-embedded, or a
combination of both. Formal leadership preparation programs remain relevant. For example,
Waters and Grubb (2004: 4) state, “Those who approve preparation programs and licensure
standards need to focus their policy initiatives on the responsibilities and practices that
research indicates will have the largest effect on student achievement.” The priority of such
programs is to align principal competencies with creating teaching and learning environments
that enhance student achievement. Different, dynamic contexts require principals to draw from
personal and professional repertoires of leadership knowledge, skills, and behaviours.
The Wallace Foundation (2008, Spring), in their study Mission of the Heart: What Does It
Take to Transform a School, concludes that traditional educational leadership development
programs are out-of-touch with current realities especially given the leadership context of
constant change. One remedy offered by the Wallace Foundation was to incorporate coaching
and mentoring opportunities as one critical element of ongoing, job-embedded leadership
development. In terms of career stage and trajectory, the current reality for principals differs
even within the same school district. The alignment between current realities and leadership
development programs, be they formal or informal, and leadership contexts, requires flexibility
and differentiation. Leadership development programs can be either mandated by school
3
districts, self-selected by school principals, or a combination of both. Influential leadership
development experiences of principals at various career stages and trajectories are unique to
each individual. Foundationally, the purpose of leadership development programs is to
positively influence student achievement.
Research Setting and Context
The inaugural Canada’s Outstanding Principal’s (COP) program was held from February
23 to 26, 2005 in Toronto, Ontario. The Learning Partnership, in association with the University
of Toronto’s Rotman School of Management and the Canadian Association of Principals,
initiated this annual leadership development program to celebrate, encourage, and support
principals. Each year approximately 30 principals, with representation from all ten provinces
and three territories, receive COP recognition. COP celebrated its tenth anniversary in 2014.
COP is a leadership development program that occurs in combination with, and as an
extension of, a national recognition of being outstanding in the field. COP celebrates exemplary
principals from across Canada. Despite this rich diversity of contexts, COP recipients, whose
nomination packages navigate a rigourous selection process, meet common criteria for
outstanding leadership. Research-based selection criteria are derived from Leithwood et al.’s
(2004) How Leadership Influences Pupil Learning: A Review of Research for the Learning from
Leadership Project and Waters et al.’s (2003) Balanced Leadership: What 30 Years of Research
Tells Us About the Effect of Leadership on Student Achievement. Selection criteria are as follows:
demonstrates instructional leadership; leads others to develop professional learning teams;
partnering with families and communities; and actions ongoing professional and personal
growth initiatives. Each dimension is further subdivided into leadership behaviours that are
4
reflective of each domain. COP recipients attend a four-day executive leadership development,
recognition, and celebration program in Toronto, Ontario. A measure of program success,
beyond the COP recognition, is not evident although there is an expectation that all COP
recipients achieve promotion.
One intended outcome of this, and successive COP programs, was to create a national
learning network of principals. This network was further extended and reinforced with the
establishment, beginning 2007, of Canada’s Outstanding Principals Academy (COPA). COP
recipients automatically become part of COPA. Similar to COP, COPA meets annually each
February in Toronto. Approximately 30 previous COP recipients attend COPA for a four-day
leadership development program. Occasionally, COP and COPA program elements are
integrated.
The Learning Partnership (2005) outlines the COP program objectives as follows: to
engage, and to leverage learning through reflective dialogue, in a forum of collaborative
deliberations about issues in education (e.g., vision and leadership, political intelligence,
emotional intelligence, experiential change simulation); to act as mentors to colleagues upon
return to their school environment; and to continue engagement in collaborative deliberation
through the use of facilitated Internet-based collaborative tools. The Learning Partnership
(2007) outlines the COPA program objectives as follows: to enroll new COP recipients in COPA;
to enhance the leadership capability of COP recipients; to develop the community of COP
recipients as COPA; and to build upon year over year momentum. Finally, The Learning
Partnership (2007) states, “The COP/COPA program seeks to fulfill the vision of exemplary
5
principals across Canada recognized as a national academy of champions of best practice in
education.”
COP, including COPA, serves as a catalyst for principals to broaden and deepen their
spheres of influence locally, provincially, nationally, and globally. Leadership insights are gained
from leaders from education, business, non-profit, and political sectors. These leadership
insights are further enhanced through connecting peers with the moral purpose of championing
publicly funded education.
Significance and Purpose
Leithwood et al. (2004: 22-23) state, “Research is also urgently needed which unpacks,
more specifically, how successful leaders create the conditions in their schools which promote
student learning.” By extension, the dimensions of effective educational leadership
development programs that provided principals with the requisite and current knowledge and
skills were studied. Core transformational leadership practices and principal efficacy, both
supported by significant bodies of empirical research, were essential to creating these
conditions.
COP recipients represented leaders identified as being successful in a wide variety of
regional contexts. A study focused on COP provides a rich source of evidence representing the
diversity of successful principal leadership from across Canada and their leadership
development experiences, and how these leadership development experiences improved
student achievement.
The purpose of this paper is to synthesize the insights of contemporary Canadian principals
recognized as outstanding in their field. Two research questions will be addressed: How do
6
well-designed leadership development programs influence student achievement; and How does
the Canada’s Outstanding Principals (COP) program influence student achievement?
Literature Review
School Leadership and Student Achievement
The indirect impact of principal leadership on student achievement continues to be
important, perhaps even more so, as summarized by the Learning from Leadership Project
(Louis et al., 2010). It is important to examine principals who have been identified as being
successful school-based leaders to build leadership capacity, and to extend and communicate
best practices across principals. This statement is reinforced by Leithwood et al. (2006: 5) who
state, “As far as we are aware, there is not a single documented case of a school successfully
turning around its pupil achievement trajectories in the absence of talented leadership.”
Research confirms that principals are key to the improvement process (Leithwood et al., 2004;
Marzano et al. 2005; Sharratt and Fullan, 2012).
Elmore (2000) defines leadership as the guidance and direction of instructional
improvement. Hallinger and Heck (1998) examined research, from 1980 to 1995, relating to
contributions made to school effectiveness by principals. Two findings were pertinent to my
thesis research. First, direct-effects studies of the impact of principals on student achievement
indicate that principal leadership does not have a direct impact on student achievement. This
finding suggests that principals must pursue strategies that indirectly influence the teachinglearning critical pathway. Second, principal leadership behaviours aimed at changing the
behaviours of others can have an indirect impact on student achievement. Hallinger and Heck’s
(1998) conclusions are reinforced by Leithwood and Jantzi (1999: 454) who state, “Studies that
7
inquire only about the direct effects of school leadership on student outcomes tend to report
weak or inconclusive outcomes, whereas studies that include mediating and/or moderating
variables in their designs tend to report significant effects.” The role of principal leadership
having an indirect influence on student achievement is well documented in the education
research literature.
Robinson et al. (2008) stress the positive impact principals have on student achievement
when they promote and participate in teacher learning and staff development. Wahlstrom and
Louis (2008) suggest that as the power differential between principals and teachers diminished,
the quality of instruction is influenced positively.
Transformational Leadership and Student Achievement
Silins (1994: 279) states, “Transformational leaders tend to separate from the system
and create change, whereas transactional leaders tend to work within the system to preserve it.”
Silins (1994) also concludes that transformational leadership has a strong indirect influence on
student achievement, and behaviors that mediate transformational leadership require further
empirical research.
Engels et al. (2008) examined the role that school leadership plays in establishing a
positive or negative school culture. Positive school culture was operationalized as a culture
where enhanced student learning and meaningful staff development are evident. They
attributed the transformational leadership practices to the creation of such school cultures.
This conclusion is aligned with Sharratt and Fullan’s (2009) concept of ‘realization’, where
universal and sustainable capacity building within an organization are foundational to student
achievement.
8
Williams (2001) has identified the need of a strong principal to the building of an
effective school. Leithwood et al. (2007) suggest that an important imperative of leadership
research is to identify leadership behaviours that can be applied universally, and have a positive
influence on followers. Leithwood et al. (2007: 42-43) state,
One of the most important missions for leadership research (and one of the most
practical) is to uncover those leadership behaviours or practices that have
predictable and desirable influences that can be predicted across a significant range
of contexts or situations.
Fortunately, successful principal leadership behaviours can be found across a variety of
contexts. There is some suggestion that the principalship is too difficult for one person to
manage (Grubb and Flessa, 2006). Leithwood (2001: 228) cautions, “But no one uses the term
manageable in reference to the job of school leaders these days.” However, Ross and Gray
(2006) argue that sufficient empirical evidence exists to hold principals accountable for student
achievement.
Since principals’ influence on student achievement is indirect, mediating variables must
be considered. Potential mediating variables to be considered include school culture, collective
teacher efficacy, systematic capacity building for teachers, and classroom conditions.
Waters et al. (2003) explained McREL’s Balanced Leadership Framework. McREL’s
Balanced Leadership Framework was derived from a meta-analysis which identified 21
research-based leadership responsibilities (e.g., situational awareness, intellectual stimulation,
and change agent) and associated practices, and a knowledge taxonomy (i.e., experiential,
declarative, procedural, and contextual). Each of these leadership responsibilities were
significantly correlated with student achievement. The impact of leadership on student
achievement can be either positive or negative based on the focus of change (e.g., school and
9
classroom practices) and order of change (i.e., first order change versus second order change).
The focus of change would be the mediating variable between principal leadership and student
achievement. For example, principals who effectively build staff capacity in the area of effective
feedback (mediating variable) have a positive, indirect influence on student achievement.
Leithwood et al. (2004) studied how leadership influenced student learning. Major
sections included successful school and district leadership, the state, the district, and leaders’
professional learning experiences. This document identified core transformational leadership
practices as foundational to successful leadership while recognizing that successful leaders
draw from their acquired leadership repertoire and leadership experiences. Since leadership is
context specific, broader and deeper repertoires better able leaders to effectively navigate new
or non-routine leadership challenges. Principals can influence student learning positively by
focusing on mediating variables such as developing a positive school culture, implementing
collaborative decision making models with teachers, and fostering positive parental
involvement.
Leadership Development Programs
The purpose of this section was to synthesize research supported features of welldesigned leadership development programs. Leithwood et al. (2003) conclude that welldesigned leadership development programs can enhance student learning. Darling-Hammond
and McLaughlin (1995) assert that professional development is a lifelong, inquiry-based, and
collegial process. They stress that capacity building must be the focus of professional
development programs aimed at improving student achievement. Sharratt and Fullan (2009;
2012) support this focus on capacity building. Darling-Hammond et al. (2007) stress that
10
exemplary leadership development programs share three common features: a lifelong learning
continuum spanning pre-service preparation to retirement; inquiry-based and grounded in
practice; and collegial learning networks.
Leithwood et al. (2003) advocate for leadership development programs that are: longterm; job-embedded; carefully planned with a coherent curriculum; focused on student
achievement; emphasize reflective practice; provide purposeful peer networking; and provide
coaching and mentoring. Foundationally, The Wallace Foundation (2008, June) stress,
“Curricula at exemplary programs tend to be more tightly focused on instructional
improvement and transformational leadership than at more traditional programs.” This Wallace
Foundation study provides four lessons linking instructional improvement with leadership
development programs: focus on instructional improvement that is aligned with district
strategic priorities and job-embedded; respectful of career trajectories and career-long growth;
allocation of necessary financial resources; and addressing workplace pressures that distract
principals from the work of leadership.
Hargreaves et al. (2003) advise that principals need different kinds of
preparation and support depending on career stage and trajectory. The professional
developmental needs of aspiring, novice and experienced principals vary. Zellner et al. (2002)
attempted to identify key strategies that effectively enhanced how principals recruited,
supported, and mentored others into leadership roles as a result of their own involvement in a
leadership initiative. Their study differentiated between leadership development programs
targeted at aspiring principals with those targeted at experienced principals who had received
recognition for making positive change in the school setting Zellner et al. (2002: 14) conclude,
11
Principal preparation programs should remember that the role of the principal is
changing from the view that the principal “is the leader” to the principal “is the facilitator” of
leadership, school wide leadership. The success of the principal is the role played in building
leadership capacity through a shared vision and commitment to that vision.
To synthesize, well-designed leadership development programs included six common
elements: purposeful and reciprocal iterative peer networking; developmentally appropriate
for career stage and trajectory; strengthening the iterative nature of practice and theory;
focused on improving instructional capacity and student achievement; balancing jobembeddedness with a life-long commitment to continuous professional growth; and based on
core transformational leadership practices. These six elements were used to frame analysis,
reflection, and discussion of the impact of leadership development programs and leadership
development experiences have on student achievement. Moreover, it is important to recognize
that leadership development programs cannot exist in isolation. Several references stressed
that leadership development programs must be simultaneously embedded in individual and
organizational contexts (e.g., Avolio and Hannah, 2008; Fullan 2008; Fullan 2010).
Research Methodology
Data Selection
Data was generated from telephone interviews. One challenge, and hence opportunity,
of this research was that approximately 30 principals each year successfully navigated a
rigorous nomination process, were evaluated against a research-based synthesis of what
outstanding principals do, and were recognized as outstanding principals before arriving in
Toronto for the COP/COPA leadership development program. The challenge of this research
12
was to determine the impact of the COP program on individuals identified as successful in their
field. The opportunity was to synthesize interviewee reflections on influential leadership
development experiences, and leadership development programs, in order to influence existing
and future leadership development programs. Interview methodology was used to gain a
broader and more in-depth understanding of how the COP/COPA program further contributed
above and beyond an existing skill set.
Population and Sampling
This study focused on the COP recipient population (2005 to 2010) of 185 principals.
Completion of an online survey was a prerequisite for being an interviewee. The analysis of
online survey data did not inform the development of the telephone interview protocol and
vice versa. Purposeful sampling technique influenced the sampling decisions. Fortunately, the
seventeen survey respondents who also volunteered to be interviewed appeared to be a
reasonable representation of the COP national population. Two additional online survey
respondents were approached to improve the cohort and regional representation. Merriam
(1998: 61) states, “Purposeful sampling is based on the assumption that the investigator wants
to discover, understand, and gain insight and therefore must select a sample from which the
most can be learned.” Maximum variation sampling was then considered to capture Canada’s
regional diversity, and to achieve regional, school panel, gender, public/Catholic board, and
cohort/year representation. Merriam (1998: 63) reminds researchers that maximum variation
sampling involves identifying and seeking out participants who represent the widest possible
range of characteristics of interest for a study. The achieved telephone interview sample
represented a reasonable representation of the COP recipient national population.
13
Scope of Study
Scope of Study: Strengths
One, insights from all five distinct regions of Canada were represented in the data. The
achieved interviewee sample represented a reasonable representation of the COP recipient
national population. The evidence and insights presented were from accomplished leaders (i.e.,
principals) of publicly funded education. Moreover, for some interviewees, insights reflected
their successful transition into other leadership roles including district leadership, provincial
leadership, and post-secondary institution leadership.
Two, the literature stressed that leadership development programs should focus on
practices that improve student achievement. These findings generated implications and
recommendations for system leaders, program developers, and policymakers.
Three, the foundational elements of well-designed leadership development programs
identified through the literature review were communicated to be influential throughout career
trajectory. However, their relative importance appeared to change over the career trajectory of
principals. Individual principals reflected upon these elements in combinations specific to their
experiences.
Four, the positive impact of the COP program on student achievement was articulated.
COP recipients perceived that both the COP program and COP processes contributed over and
above their existing skill set. There appeared to be a transferability of leadership repertoires
into different leadership contexts locally, inter-provincially, globally, and when navigating
organizational hierarchy. Leadership knowledge and skills developed in one context were
adapted when transitioning into other leadership contexts.
14
Five, this study operationalized COP recipients as “outliers” which does not allow for
generalizability to the broader principal population. This represented both a strength and a
limitation of this research. However, an in-depth study of COP recipients provided insights into
what successful principals do. The challenge for future research is to take these insights and
build leadership capacity across the principal population for the purposes of succession,
sustainability, and raising student achievement.
Scope of Study: Limitation
The limitations of self-report data must be acknowledged.
Results
Profile of Telephone Interviewees
Table 1 summarizes the percentage of interviewees by COP cohort. All cohorts were
represented. Three interviewees came from each of the 2005, 2006, 2008, 2009, and 2010
cohorts. Four interviewees came from the 2007 cohort.
Table 1: Telephone Interviewee by COP Cohort Year, 2005-2010
Cohort Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Respondents
3
3
4
3
3
3
Percentage
15.8
15.8
21.0
15.8
15.8
15.8
Table 2 summarizes the percentage of interviewees by region. Eight provinces and one
territory were represented in the telephone interview data with larger populated provinces
such as Ontario (35.8 percent of COP recipients and 37 percent of interviewees), British
Columbia (13.9 percent of COP recipients and 11 percent of interviewees), and Alberta (8.0
15
percent of COP recipients and 16 percent of survey respondents) having multiple interviewees.
Newfoundland and Labrador also had multiple interviewees. Manitoba, New Brunswick,
Nunavut, Quebec, and Saskatchewan each had a single interviewee. The achieved telephone
interview sample represented a reasonable representation of the COP recipient national
sample in terms of both cohort and regional representation.
Table 2: Telephone Interviewee by Region at the Time of COP Recognition
Region
Alberta
British Columbia
Manitoba
Newfoundland and Labrador
New Brunswick
Nunavut
Ontario
Quebec
Saskatchewan
Total
Interviewees
3
2
1
2
1
1
7
1
1
19
Percentage
16
11
5
11
5
5
37
5
5
100
Citizenship and Immigration Canada (2011) defines five distinct regions of Canada:
Atlantic Region (Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, and New
Brunswick); Central Canada (Ontario and Quebec), Prairie Provinces (Alberta, Manitoba, and
Saskatchewan), West Coast (British Columbia), and North (Northwest Territories, Nunavut, and
Yukon Territory). All five distinct regions were represented in the telephone interview data.
Table 3 compares interviewee leadership role pre-recognition and post-recognition. Prerecognition, fifteen interviewees were elementary school principals while eight interviewees
remained elementary school principal post-recognition. Pre-recognition, four interviewees
were secondary school principals while three interviews remained secondary school principal
post-recognition. These findings suggest successful transitions into new leadership roles. None
16
of the interviewees were in a system or district leadership role, Ministry or provincial role
and/or secondment, post-secondary institution, retirement, or other leadership role prerecognition. However, post-recognition four interviewees were in a system or district
leadership role, one interviewee was in a Ministry or provincial role and/or secondment, two
interviewees were in a post-secondary institution, and one interviewee was retired.
Table 3: Telephone Interviewee by Pre-Recognition and Post-Recognition Leadership Roles
Leadership Role
Elementary school principal
Secondary school principal
System or district leadership role
Ministry or provincial role and/or secondment
Post-secondary institution
Retirement
Other (e.g., consulting, authoring)
Pre-Recognition
15
4
0
0
0
0
0
Post-Recognition
8
3
4
1
2
1
0
Question 1: How do well-designed leadership development programs influence student
achievement?
The following five findings become evident during analysis of research question 1 responses:

Principal leadership behaviours, mediated by something, was driven by commitment to
improving student achievement;

Trust of a community transcends and precedes principal’s instructional leadership;

Leadership lessons from non-educational contexts are important;

Purposeful integration of theory and practice focused on student achievement; and

Leadership development is grounded in context, but context is a layered concept.
Ultimately, the purpose of publicly funded education is framed by a commitment to improve
the achievement and well-being of all students. Recognizing that a principal’s influence on
student achievement is indirect, well-designed leadership programs provide principals with the
17
knowledge and skills to leverage mediating variables. Instructional leadership remains a critical
element of well-designed leadership programs as demonstrated by interviewee 4’s comments.
I would say that there is a strong link when leadership opportunities are geared,
in a very purposeful way, to look at student achievement and to look at how
students learn. What are the instructional practices? What are those high yield
instructional strategies that we are to be using and get a clear understanding of
what they look like, how they are used, why we use them, then as that leader
you can carry that forward within your own school in your own consultants.
Whatever the role is, the greater that capacity to share the mastery of the gains
that impact on student achievement.
However, instructional leadership cannot be pursued in isolation. Transformational leadership
practices such as setting directions and developing people must be integrated with instructional
leadership behaviours to influence student achievement as stated by interviewee 14.
I think they enable you to see those connections. To understand that your
leadership actions and practices do have an impact on student learning. You
need to always be aware of that. It helps you to get a laser like-focus on the
learning and yourself become a better instructional leader, instructional coach,
and to be able to model best practices for your staff. Within a program like
Leadership at Work, you are modeling for your teachers the sharing in best
practices and the networking and the collaboration that you know works well in
a school to improve student achievement.
Interviewee 16 offers the opinion that less successful leaders, while having strong
expertise in instructional leadership typically lacked broader knowledge of leadership theory.
One of the things I notice from principal colleagues who struggle is when you
look back into their preparation paths. In our district, the only qualification you
need to have is a Master’s. It doesn’t necessarily have to be a Master’s in
leadership. It could be a Master’s in curriculum. I know that principals are
instructional leaders, but when you take away that leadership piece, that
understanding of leadership and change, I see those people struggle more.
Both instructional leadership expertise and a foundational understanding of leadership and
change are necessary to influence student achievement. This interviewee’s comments appear
to be consistent with the analysis of question 1 where strengthening the relationship between
18
theory and practice is identified as the most influential leadership development program
element. In the absence of solid understanding of leadership theory, this interviewee suggests
that principals may struggle regardless of expertise in other areas, especially in times of change.
This opinion is not evident in the responses of the other interviewees.
Additional extended quotations from four interviewees serve to highlight interviewee
reflections regarding how well-designed leadership development programs influence student
achievement at individual, school community, system, and cross-sector levels. These quotations
also serve to demonstrate how the COP program contributed over and above an existing skill
set at various levels. Interviewee 7 focuses on the impact on an individual principal, primarily in
setting a school’s direction towards increased student achievement collaboratively pursued.
This interviewee’s response describes the principal’s influence on developing collective teacher
efficacy as an iterative, collaborative process.
Definitely the principal sets the tone. Definitely the principal sets the overriding
expectations that put a focus that all students can achieve. It should be collective
among all staff. Collaboratively, how well are the students going to achieve in
the school? What can each person contribute to that achievement? Do you have
everybody with you all the time on your staff? No. So in terms of measuring that
student achievement influence that’s where it gets difficult. If you have that
collaborative, collective goal, and trust and attitude towards achievement, then
it is going to make a difference because people will want to move along with you.
Interviewee 1 moves from the individual principal focus to the collective climate of the school
as a component of a well-designed leadership development program focused on jobembeddedness with consideration for redesigning the organization, setting direction and
developing people as a collective process. The impact of such leadership development extends
beyond the individual.
19
I think also the process of building the school climate is important. It’s not your
climate; it is the collective climate of the school that you are working towards.
That definitely influences student achievement. So we can all be on the same
page or at least agree on the same moral imperatives and we are going to
collectively breathe those moral imperatives and uphold them. And you’re then
going to move forward as a school.
Moreover, this interviewee’s response is aligned with the principals’ influence on student
achievement being mediated by other variables. In this case, the influence focuses on building
the school climate and collaborative school culture.
Throughout our interview, interviewee 13 often focuses her comments on how districts,
serve as impediments to building leadership capacity by structuring leadership development to
maintain the status quo. Leadership context, articulated at the district level, often precludes
principals from applying, or developing, integrative and critical thinking skills to school-based
decisions in the opinion of this interviewee. Maintenance of system status quo is defined as an
impediment to improving student achievement. Moreover, maintenance of status quo runs
contrary to transformational leadership theory.
There’s such a need for it. Sometime leaders in school systems are leaders who
maintain status quo, don’t rock the boat. That’s why they are where they are
depending on your school system. I think what COP and good leadership
development programs do is help leaders realize that student achievement is the
priority not taking care of the system that’s already in existence. They give
leaders a better critical thinking approach to understanding student
achievement.
Context in this response is defined by schools working within a system.
Finally, interviewee 15 highlights that well-designed leadership programs are not purely
defined by the education sector. Rather, as became a theme throughout this research, welldesigned leadership development programs integrate leadership practices from across sectors.
20
I think if you narrow a leadership development program just to educational
leaders we wouldn’t be able to understand the broad scope on how to achieve.
So that’s why I like integrating the various types of leaders because we look at
Jim Collins for example Good to Great or some of the other writings from Peter
Drucker or Frances Hesselbein focus on business models, but link the key points
to creating a better organization. I think, in a sense, educational leadership
programs focus on this is what is effective so how do we apply that to our
schools into increasing student achievement? I think one of the most critical
pieces that we’ve had since 2005 is our work with Michael Fullan and Ben Levin
because they have kind of crossed those two fields of both business and
education. They have really focused in on the depth of the business models and
really applied those to what we do in student achievement. We are learning how
to get better results while being human at the same time.
Over and above an existing skill set, well-designed leadership development programs integrate
leadership practices from across sectors.
Question 2: What are your thoughts on how the COP program influences student achievement?
The following five findings became evident during analysis of question 2 responses:

Majority of interviewees (17/19) state that COP program influences student
achievement;

Two interviews questioned the COP program’s influence on student achievement based
on measurement challenges or the belief that the program only increases awareness of
this influence;

Enhanced understanding of alignment and reciprocity between leadership theory and
practice;

Change leadership successes increases principal efficacy; and

National conversations improve leadership inventories regardless of leadership contexts.
Since the majority of interviewees state that the COP program does influence student
achievement, qualitative evidence from this group exists to link the student achievement with
21
the COP program. Specifically, the COP program further enhances, over and above an existing
skill set, COP recipient influence over student achievement. The research methodology of this
thesis does not allow for the same comment to be made quantitatively. A quantitative link
between the COP program and student achievement remains elusive. This is in part explained
by the mobility of COP recipients either to other school-based assignments or to different types
of leadership roles. The strengthening relationship between theory and practice is again
evident. Although leadership is context specific, interviewees suggest that principals with a
larger inventory of leadership strategies, gained through national professional learning
conversations, can transfer leadership skills to, and from, different contexts. Extended
quotations from two regionally diverse contexts serve to highlight the findings presented above.
Interviewee 7 explains how the COP program reinforces COP recipient recognition as
instructional leaders, a defining characteristic of all COP recipients. Furthermore, this
interviewee suggests that conversations within the context of a national professional learning
network enhance existing skill sets.
I don’t think you can go through a leadership program as powerful as what we
got without having it influence student achievement because it is going to have
that domino effect through what we have learned as leaders, passing that
leadership on in the schools, and hopefully being more effective and better
instructional leaders. It has to have an influence. I don’t know how you measure
that. How does COP influence student achievement? It does so indirectly by
better equipping principals. However, the people that are in the COP program
have already made a significant contribution to student achievement in their
schools. Does it help us to achieve that? I would say so in terms of what they
learn and the confidence that they get from being a recipient. It’s really the
connection to each other. There’s ways to tap into that expertise and groups of
people who are experts could be very powerful.
22
This quotation also highlights that the leadership capacity building of COP recipients is
shared upon return to home context. The influence of the COP program extends beyond
COP recognition. Whether this is purposeful or incidental is uncertain.
Interviewee 18 explains how school-based leaders implement theory-practice
continuum into his leadership actions and, ultimately, towards improved student achievement.
Change leadership successes further raise his instructional leadership bar and his principal
efficacy.
That is the most important question of this whole interview. All leadership
development programs for principals and administration now should talk about
the principal as the key to student achievement because we are missing the
force of change sometimes. Our role is multi-level in public education. Student
achievement is the driving force behind us. Student achievement is the
educational leadership of the principal. They have unique skills to make change
and be leaders. The most important thing I can do is to take my leadership and
my self-efficacy to the school to support teachers so that we can improve
student achievement. That means empowering teachers to making the
processes in the building better. Empower teachers to say how we take current
best practices and incorporate them into our school. Empower teachers to
recognize that they are doing well but we’re not experts, but have to learn skills
from places that do it better than us. We have to empower teachers and other
administrators to be humble enough to say, “I don’t have the answer to this. Can
you help me?” And if we take those approaches, we’re going to improve student
achievement for all students.
COP programming consolidates instructional leadership capacity and enhances principal
efficacy. Shared best instructional practices, discussed throughout COP/COPA program, build
collective teacher efficacy and improved student achievement when interviewees return to
their home leadership context.
Conclusions
The purpose of this paper is to synthesize the insights of principals recognized as
outstanding in their field. Two research questions were addressed: How do well-designed
23
leadership development programs influence student achievement; and How does the Canada’s
Outstanding Principals (COP) program influence student achievement? Ultimately, all
leadership development programs seek to improve student achievement.
COP represents a national learning network of principals each coming from a unique
context framed, in part, by regional diversity. What unites COP recipients, and brings them
together as a national learning network of principals, is the COP recognition. COP recognition is
based on a score against four characteristics: demonstrating instructional leadership, leading
others to develop professional learning teams, partnering with families and communities, and
actioning ongoing professional and personal growth initiatives. These characteristics are
derived from a synthesis of two primary sources: Leithwood et al. (2004) and Waters et al.
(2003). Implementation of the nomination process varies across COP recipient experiences. In
many ways, the nomination process might be the most political dimension of COP. For example,
as indicated by interviewees, some COP recipients are directly involved in the nomination
process while others are unaware that they had been nominated until news of the COP
recognition is communicated. Some COP recipients are recognized by a more grassroots
process where the school community, often including community partners, mobilize to
nominate “their” principal. Several recipients are nominated by district principal colleagues
while others received support from supervisory officers as part of their climb into higher levels
of a district’s leadership hierarchy. There is no single profile of a COP recipient suggesting a
variety of leadership development needs. However, as evidenced through this paper, welldesigned leadership programs built around the six elements identified in the research literature,
influence the leadership capacities of COP recipients. One commonality of COP recipients was a
24
commitment to continued service of publicly funded education. One difference was the
conscious choice to pursue higher levels of influence in an organization versus purposefully
staying in the principal’s role. This statement identifies a direction for future research.
Implications for Future Research and Practice
The Learning Partnership (2005) outlines the COP program objectives as follows: to
engage, and to leverage learning through reflective dialogue, in a forum of collaborative
deliberations about issues in education (e.g., vision and leadership, political intelligence,
emotional intelligence, experiential change simulation); to act as mentors to colleagues upon
return to their school environment; and to continue engagement in collaborative deliberation
through the use of facilitated Internet-based collaborative tools. The first two program
objectives have been achieved. The third objective has not been fully realized. The necessity for,
and potential of, technology-based networking is not reported to be an impactful COP process.
Future research needs to examine why this particular group of principals are not engaging in
significant numbers in collaborative deliberation through the use of facilitated Internet-based
collaborative tools.
The Learning Partnership (2007) outlined the COPA program objectives as follows: to
enrol new COP recipients in COPA; to enhance the leadership capability of COP recipients; to
develop the community of COP recipients as COPA; and to build upon year over year
momentum. The first two objectives have been achieved. The third objective appeared to be in
need of future study since the majority of COP recipients do not subscribe to COPA. A multiyear commitment to COP/COPA is not universally pursued by COP participants. The fourth
objective has been achieved by program refinements based on annual program evaluations.
25
Future research is required to determine why COP recipients disengage from the multi-year
commitment to the COP program.
Recommendations and Implications for Various Stakeholders
COP recipient reflections on influential leadership development programs and
experiences suggest best leadership practices. Consequently, COP recipients are well positioned
to foster leadership capacity of others, and to extend and communicate best practices to nonCOP principals.
Recommendations and Implications for System Leaders
One, system leaders must recognize the complexity of the principal leadership role in
order to better respond to the leadership development needs of principals. This reinforced the
necessity for leadership development programs to frame principal leadership broadly. A
recognition that system-based leaders acknowledge the complex expertise and skills required
for successful school-based principals to lead within multiple layered contents, often
simultaneously, appears necessary. Part of this recognition is to provide principals with
sufficient autonomy to work within adaptive, iterative contexts throughout times of change in
order to improve student achievement. The implication for system leaders is to consistently
align their articulated recognition of principal leadership role complexity with providing
principals greater autonomy to respond to school community complexity.
Two, system leaders must consider succession widely and focus on building leadership
capacity across stakeholders. Succession and sustainability of leadership are enhanced when
facilitated by experienced and senior system leaders who are committed to the leadership
capacity building of principals and multiple stakeholders. Unfortunately, several interviewees
26
expressed the perception that system leaders were often impediments to leadership capacity
building by structuring leadership development opportunities to maintain the status quo. Given
the complexity of school-based leadership, system leaders must facilitate learning based on
job-embedded opportunities for principals to lead successfully, provide feedback that stretches
a principal’s thinking about leadership, and foster, where appropriate, innovative approaches to
responding to complex school-specific leadership challenges that a system leader may not have
previously considered.
Three, system leaders must structure leadership development approaches to balance
individual leadership development needs with organizational imperatives. Study participants
stressed that individual skill sets were enhanced with the perspective of approaching schoolbased leadership through a system lens. The role of system leaders is to articulate the system
lens, and to provide principals with the autonomy to develop the necessary expertise to meet
the needs of school-specific communities. The expertise of principals whose leadership
behaviours are informed by the system lens is then further strengthened by networking beyond
a school-specific context. The implication for system leaders is that systems are strengthened
when direction is clearly articulated, principals are enabled to approach their leadership
contexts through the system lens, and principals are given sufficient autonomy to also pursue
leadership development that honours an individual’s professional growth needs.
Four, system leaders must create and maintain cross-sector partnerships where
educational leaders are co-learning leadership with non-educational leaders. The implication
for system leaders is that principals will be exposed to leadership strategies of other
professionals and leadership repertoires will be enhanced. This will allow principals to better
27
meet student and community needs. Cross-sector partnerships are strengthened when they are
purposefully fostered by system leaders.
Five, system leaders should consider the role of recognition in enhancing principal
leadership especially for experienced principals. Some study participants articulated that
receiving recognition for successful leadership initiatives from system leaders was more
influential in further raising their leadership bar than actual leadership development training.
The implication is to publically, meaningfully, and formally celebrate the work of principals.
Recommendations and Implications for Program Developers
One, well-designed leadership development programs must contain the following six
elements: developmentally appropriate for career stage and trajectory; aligning with core
transformational practices; strengthening the relationship between theory and practice;
balancing job-embeddedness with a lifelong commitment to continuous professional growth;
purposeful, reciprocal, and iterative peer networking; and focusing on improving instructional
leadership and student achievement. These six elements represent a synthesis of the research
literature reviewed for the purposes of this paper. It is acknowledged that other elements of
leadership development programs may exist, and these six elements may combine specific,
individual elements. For example, job-embeddedness could be separated from a lifelong
commitment to continuous professional growth. However, the evidence generated in this
research supported both the conclusion that these elements were influential in leadership
development experiences, and their inclusion in well-developed leadership development
programs. The implication for program developers is to include these elements in their
28
leadership development programs. Program developers may wish to disaggregate these six
items further.
Three, job-embeddedness must be balanced with opportunities for collaboration
between leadership development program participants. Interviewees reported that jobembedded leadership development experiences, while in the role of principal, were influential
to their professional learning, and also provided opportunities to consolidate principal efficacy.
Interviewees also reflected that leadership development was best done as a collaborative
exercise with other leaders while doing leadership. Interviewees recognized that leadership is
context specific, and a job-embeddedness focus to their leadership development was influential.
However, several interviewees experienced that their repertoire of skills and expertise was
transferable to another jurisdiction (e.g., school, province, country, or organizational hierarchy).
Job-embeddedness matters, but leadership skills are transferrable. There was also the
recognition of the value of collective reflective practice where leadership development was also
approached as a collaborative exercise with other principals while engaged in leadership. The
implication for program developers is to integrate job-embeddedness with opportunities to
collaborate, including collective reflective practice, with colleagues.
Three, leadership development programs require a multi-year commitment where
leadership development program lessons can then be applied to a job-embedded home
leadership context. This multi-year commitment would also provide opportunities for
participants to further share their professional learning. The implication for program developers
is to recognize that leadership development programs are strengthened when program lessons
29
are applied to job-embedded contexts, and participants are provided the opportunity to share
their learning.
Four, leadership development programs must integrate theory and practice. There is
some complexity inherent in this recommendation. For principals, both instructional leadership,
and foundational understanding of both leadership and change theory are necessary to
(indirectly) influence student achievement. This integration between theory and practice can
become increasingly sophisticated where leadership lessons from education and non-education
leadership contexts are integrated. Potential benefits from this approach include the following:
although leadership development is context specific, there are professional growth
opportunities inherent when co-learning in other contexts; integrative thinking is fostered
when leaders are confronted with complex challenges; and the understanding of the theory
and practice continuum is enhanced by cross-referencing leadership lessons from noneducation leaders. The implication for program developers is to seek integrated partnership
opportunities between education and non-education program developers.
Five, program developers must recognize that core transformational leadership
behaviours (i.e., setting directions and developing people) are a mediating variable between
principal efficacy and student achievement. The imperative of leadership development
programs in publicly funded education is to positively enhance the leadership behaviours that
indirectly influence student achievement. Given the indirect influence of principal leadership on
student achievement, program focus must be on mediating variables. The quantitative
evidence generated in this research suggests that aligning with core transformational
leadership practices is representative of the six dimensions of well-designed leadership
30
development programs. The implication for program developers is to concentrate on
consolidating principal expertise in core transformational behaviours, and how to apply them as
a mediating variable between principal leadership and student achievement.
Six, program developers must focus on consolidating principal efficacy early in
leadership development programs. Interviewees defined principal efficacy as foundational to
successful school leadership, and as a prerequisite to transformational leadership and student
achievement. The implication for program developers is the recognition that gathering
individuals with high principal efficacy does not necessarily translate into high collective
principal efficacy; it is clear that collective principal efficacy must be deliberately fostered.
Recommendations and Implications for Policymakers
One, this research identified principal efficacy as a prerequisite to transformational
leadership. One foundational goal of leadership development policy is to foster the principal
efficacy of aspiring leaders, and then to expand the leadership development program to include
increasingly sophisticated leadership behaviours. The implication for policymakers is to
recognize that principal efficacy must be established and consolidated during the initial stages
of a leadership development program.
Two, there must be a recognition that the principal leadership role, especially for those
serving as school-based leaders, is more complex than being narrowly focused on instructional
leadership. As perceived and reported by interviewees, this is not always the case. Principals
require a large repertoire of leadership practices and behaviours that can then be adapted to
specific leadership contexts. Principals do not work exclusively from one leadership model or
style. In addition, leadership development programs are strengthened when leadership theory
31
is combined with the instructional leadership imperative. The implication for policymakers is to
generate leadership development policies that balance and integrate foundational knowledge
of leadership theory with instructional leadership.
Three, over and above an existing skill set, well-designed leadership development
programs need to integrate leadership practices from education and non-education sectors.
Several interviewees identified their learning from non-education sector leaders as insightful
and applicable to school-based contexts. Leading schools is complex work in times of change.
Change is constant. However, non-education sectors must also respond to change on a daily
basis. Shared leadership wisdom between education and non-education sectors would
potentially enhance the leadership repertoire of these sectors. The implication for policymakers
is to establish guidelines for co-learning among leaders from different sectors.
Four, principal leadership development programs are enhanced when professional
learning networks are expanded beyond specific district school boards to include provincial and
national perspectives. Publically funded education in Canada is under provincial jurisdiction.
Different provinces and territories have similar but unique definitions of what successful
principal leadership behaviours are required to achieve provincial and territorial strategic
priorities. Co-learning with colleagues, beyond narrowly defined district school boundaries,
provides the opportunity for leadership development program participants to expand their
leadership repertoire, and to adapt the leadership behaviours from other contexts into their
own leadership context where appropriate. Expanding professional learning networks into
provincial and national perspectives also requires a multi-year commitment with an
opportunity to flourish if continuity is to be achieved. The implication for policymakers is to
32
actively pursue professional learning networks beyond a specific jurisdiction with the
requirement that leadership development program participants make a multi-year
commitment.
33
References
Avolio, B.J., & Hannah, S.T. (2008). Developmental readiness: Accelerating leader
development. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 60(4), 331-347.
Bolman, L.G., & Deal, T.E. (2003). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership (3rd
ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Cuban, L. (2000). “Why is it so hard to get good schools?” In L. Cuban & D. Shipps (Eds.),
Reconstructing the Common Good in Education: Coping with Intractable American Dilemmas
(pp.148-169). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., Meyerson, D., & Orr, M. (2007). Preparing school leaders
for a changing world: Executive summary. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Stanford
Educational Leadership Institute.
Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M.W. (1995). Policies that support professional
development in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(8), 597-604.
Dewa, C. S, Dermer, S. W., Chau, N., Lowrey, S., Mawson, S., & Bell. J. (2009). Examination of
factors associated with the mental health status of principals. Work, 33, 439-448.
Elmore, R. F. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Washington, DC: The Albert
Shanker Institute.
Engels, N., Hotton, G., Devos, G., Bouckenoogle, D., & Aelterman, A. (2008). Principals in
schools with a positive school culture. Educational Studies, 34(3), 159-174.
Fullan, M. (2008). What’s worth fighting for in the principalship (2nd ed.)? Toronto, ON: Ontario
Principals’ Council.
Fullan, M. (2010). All systems go: The change imperative for whole system reform. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Fullan, M. (2014). The principal: Three keys to maximizing impact. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass.
Grissom, J.A., Loeb, S., & Master, B. (2013). Effective instructional time use for school leaders:
Longitudinal evidence from observations of principals. Educational Researcher, 42, 433-444.
Grubb, W. N., & Flessa, J. J. (2006). “A job too big for one”: Multiple principals and other
nontraditional approaches to school leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(4),
518-550.
34
Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading educational change: Reflections on the practice of instructional
and transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education, 33(3), 229-251.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1998). Exploring the principal’s contribution to school effectiveness:
1980-1995. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9(2), 157-191.
Hargreaves, A., Moore, S., Fink, D., Brayman, C. & White, R. (2003). Succeeding leaders? A study
of principal succession and sustainability. Toronto, ON: Ontario Principals’ Council.
Leithwood, K. (2001). School leadership in the context of accountability policies. International
Journal of Leadership in Education, 4(3), 217-235.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (1999). Transformational school leadership effects: A replication.
School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 10(4), 451-479.
Leithwood, K., Day, C., Sammons, P., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2006). Seven strong claims about
successful leadership. London: DfES.
Leithwood, K., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S., & Walstrom, K. (2004). How leadership influences pupil
learning: A review of research for the Learning from Leadership Project. New York: The Wallace
Foundation.
Leithwood, K., Mascall, B., Strauss, T., Sacks, R., Memon, N., Yashkina, A. (2007). Distributing
leadership to make schools smarter: Taking the ego out of the system. Leadership and Policy in
Schools, 6(1), 37-67.
Leithwood, K., Riedlinger, B., Bauer, S., & Jantzi, D. (2003). Leadership program effects on
student learning: The case of the Greater New Orleans School Leadership Center. Journal of
School Leadership, 13(6), 707-738.
Louis, K.S., Leithwood, K., Wahlstrom, K.L., Anderson, S.E. (2010). Learning from Leadership
Project – Investigating the Links to Improved Student Learning: Final Report of Research
Findings. New York: The Wallace Foundation.
Lowrey, S. (2014). Canada’s Outstanding Principals: A mixed-methods investigation of
leadership development, principal efficacy, and transformational leadership. Germany: Scholars’
Choice.
Marzano, R.J., Waters, T., and McNulty, B.A. (2005). School leadership that works: From
research to results. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
35
Reitzug, U.C., West, D.L., & Angel, R. (2008). Conceptualizing instructional leadership: The
voices of principals. Education and Urban Society, 40(6), 694-714.
Riehl, C. (2007). Research on educational leadership: Knowledge we need for the world we live
in. In F. English & G. Furman (Eds.), Research and Educational Leadership: Navigating the New
National Research Council Guidelines (pp.133-168). Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield.
Robinson, V. M. J., 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.
Ross, J.A., & Gray, P. (2006). School leadership and student achievement: The mediating effects
of teacher beliefs. Canadian Journal of Education, 29(3), 798-822.
Sharratt, L., & Fullan, M. (2009). Realization: The change imperative for deepening district-wide
reform. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Sharratt, L., & Fullan, M. (2012). Putting FACES on the data: What great leaders do! Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Silins, H.C. (1994). The relationship between transformational and transactional leadership and
school improvement outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 5(3), 272-298.
Stewart, J. (2006). Transformational leadership: An evolving concept examined through the
works of Burns, Bass, Avolio, and Leithwood. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration
and Policy. 54, 1-28.
The Learning Partnership (2005). 2005 Annual Report. Toronto, ON: TLP.
The Learning Partnership (2007). 2007 Annual Report. Toronto, ON: TLP.
Wallace Foundation (2008, Spring). Mission of the heart: what does it take to transform a school?
New York, NY: Public Agenda.
Wallace Foundation (2008, June). Becoming a leader: Preparing school leaders for today’s
schools. New York, NY: Public Agenda.
Waters, T., & Grubb, S. (2004). The leadership we need: Using research to strengthen the use of
standards for administrator preparation and licensure programs. Aurora, CO: Mid-continent
Research for Education and Learning (McREL).
Waters, T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of
research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement. Aurora, CO: Midcontinent Research for Education and Learning (McREL).
36
Williams, T. R. (2001). Unrecognized exodus, unaccepted accountability: The looming shortage
of principals and vice-principals in Ontario public school boards. Toronto, ON: Ontario Principals’
Council (OPC).
Zellner, L., Jinkins, D., Gideon, B., Doughty, S., & McNamara, P. (2002). Saving the principal: The
evolution of initiatives that made a difference in the recruitment and retention of school
leadership. New Orleans, LA: American Educational Research Association.