Giffith University (Neil Dempster and Elizabeth Wheeley)
Brief summary of literature on secondary school, principal,
leadership, and literacy
Despite a growing emphasis on school principals as instructional leaders,
secondary school principals’ roles as literacy leaders are not yet clearly
understood. Research on principals’ literacy leadership to date focuses
predominantly on elementary or primary school principals and as Murphy
warns, there are:
conceptual, theoretical and methodological limitations in the instructional
leadership literature (e.g., drawing conclusions for secondary school
leaders based on studies from elementary schools) (Murphy, 2004, p. 66)
At the same time,
Schools that are especially effective in teaching children to read are
characterized by vigorous instructional leadership. The leader is usually
the principal. . . . (Anderson et al., 1985, p. 112, in Murphy, 2004, p. 92)
The effectiveness of high school principals who exercise instructional leadership
behaviors has also been supported by Peariso (2011) in his doctoral research.
Principals’ potential roles in leading literacy learning in secondary schools are
not yet clearly defined, with some studies identifying the value of principals’
‘support’ for literacy programs without any further role in literacy learning
brought to light. The very small body of literature focusing on literacy leadership
in a secondary school context includes the qualitative research of Dinham (2005)
who identifies leadership behaviours related to student learning as well as
touching on the principal’s role in encouraging literacy initiatives across the
curriculum. In addition, the SSLI project in New Zealand (May, 2007; May &
Smyth, 2007; May & Wright, 2007; Smyth, 2007; Smyth & Whitehead, 2007;
Whitehead, 2007; and Wright, 2007) provides insights in secondary school
leadership recognising that implementation of literacy initiatives across the
curriculum is complex in the secondary school setting.
Principals’ potential to impact student literacy and provide instructional
leadership in secondary schools seem worthy of further investigation where
leadership behaviours in the secondary school context in relation to literacy
development has not been comprehensively addressed.
1
Secondary school references to principal, leadership, literacy
Brief summary of literature on secondary school, principal, leadership, and
literacy ................................................................................................................................................. 1
Secondary school references to principal, leadership, literacy ..................................... 2
Index of authors in main reference list ................................................................................... 4
Evaluating the individual and combined impact of national leadership
programmes in England: Perceptions and practices..................................................... 5
Response to intervention at the secondary level ............................................................ 8
Principal leadership for outstanding educational outcomes .................................. 10
Raising literacy achievement in reading: How principals of 10- to 12-year-old
students are making this happen ....................................................................................... 13
Improving literacy outcomes for all students through leadership in learning: A
discussion based on a study on the literacy needs of 10 to 13 year old students
and the strategies that lead to their success.................................................................. 17
Faculty perceptions of shared decision making and the principal's leadership
behaviors in secondary schools in a large urban district ......................................... 19
The challenge of large-scale literacy improvement .................................................... 21
Sustaining effective literacy practices over time in secondary schools: School
organisational and change issues ...................................................................................... 22
Leadership and writing: How principals' knowledge, beliefs, and interventions
affect writing instruction in elementary and secondary schools .......................... 24
Leadership for literacy: A framework for policy and practice ............................... 25
Within the accountability era: Principals' instructional leadership behaviors
and student achievement ...................................................................................................... 27
Making sense of an urban district's adolescent literacy reform ............................ 28
Participation in network learning community programmes and standards of
pupil achievement: Does it make a difference? ............................................................ 29
How teachers experience principal leadership: The roles of professional
community, trust, efficacy, and shared responsibility ............................................... 31
Building literacy communities of practice across subject disciplines in
secondary schools .................................................................................................................... 32
Secondary School Literacy Project potentially of interest ............................................ 33
Secondary schools’ literacy initiative (SSLI) ................................................................. 33
Leadership Projects potentially of interest ........................................................................ 34
PricewaterhouseCoopers Independent study into school leadership ................ 34
The impact of school leadership on pupil outcomes .................................................. 34
Vanderbilt assessment of leadership in education ..................................................... 34
Literacy and numeracy secretariat – Ontario ............................................................... 35
Instructional leadership project – elementary schools only ................................... 36
Wallace foundation project .................................................................................................. 36
2
International successful school principalship project (ISSPP)............................... 36
Instructional leadership dissertation – high school ................................................... 36
Other secondary school context articles potentially of some interest ..................... 38
Reference list .................................................................................................................................. 48
3
Index of authors in main reference list
Brundrett, M. ............................................................................................................................ 5
Burns, M. K. ............................................................................................................................... 8
Dinham, S. ............................................................................................................................... 10
Fletcher, J., Greenwood, J., Grimley, M., & Parkhill, F. ............................................ 13
Greenwood, J., Fletcher, J., Parkhill, F., Grimley, M., & Bridges, S. ..................... 17
Leech, D. F., & Fulton, C. R. ............................................................................................... 19
Levin, B. ................................................................................................................................... 21
May, S. ...................................................................................................................................... 22
McGhee, M. W., & Chulsub, L. .......................................................................................... 24
Murphy, J. ................................................................................................................................ 25
O’Donnell, R. J., & White, G. P........................................................................................... 27
Patterson, J. A., Eubank, H., Rathbun, S. E., & Noble, S. .......................................... 28
Sammons, P., Mujtaba, T., Earl, L., & Gu, Q. ............................................................... 29
Wahlstrom, K. L., & Louis, K. S. ....................................................................................... 31
Wright, N. ................................................................................................................................ 32
4
Title
Evaluating the individual and combined impact of national leadership
programmes in England: Perceptions and practices
Author
Brundrett, M.
Publication details
Brundrett, M. (2006). Evaluating the individual and combined impact of national
leadership programmes in England: Perceptions and practices. School Leadership
and Management, 26(5), 473-488.
Purpose
“The National College for School Leadership (NCSL) was launched in 2000 with a
remit to supervise and further enhance educational leadership development
initiatives in England and Wales. Its corporate plan for 2003�/07 set out a series
of key objectives, which include a commitment to demonstrate the impact of the
NCSL on school leadership. Some empirical evidence is beginning to emerge
regarding the efficacy and impact of programmes delivered under the aegis of
the NCSL but systematic studies of the ways in which school effectiveness is
enhanced in schools that have been subject to multiple interventions in
leadership development are less visible in the literature. This article reports on a
study that included both a questionnaire survey and case studies of 10 schools
which required school leaders, at all levels from middle managers to
headteachers, to reflect on the impact that national programmes, both
individually and cumulatively, were having on their personal professional
development and on their schools as a whole.” (Abstract p. 473)
Sample
“Schools were identified where multiple numbers of individuals had undertaken
either the LfTM, NPQH, HEADLAMP/HIP or LPSH programmes and then ranked
according to the total number of programmes undertaken in order to identify
those institutions that had most engagement with national programmes. The
highest ranking 50 such schools formed the sample.” (p. 478)
LftM – Leading from the Middle
HEADLAMP – Headteachers’ Leadership and Management Programme
HIP – Headteachers Induction Programme
NPQH – National Professional Qualification for Headship
LPSH – Leadership Programme for Serving Headteachers
Methods
Questionnaire survey and case studies of 10 schools.
“A self�/administered postal questionnaire was developed and pre�/piloted,
which contained both open and closed questions. Closed questions were used to
elicit data on number on roll; number of teaching staff; social indicators; school
organisation; and leadership structure. However, the main body of the
questionnaire consisted of open questions designed to elicit responses on the
5
key aims of the study, outlined above. After follow�/up telephone calls, the
questionnaire gained 36 responses, a 72% response rate.” (p. 478)
In the latter phase of the study the intention was to sample a cross�/section of
teaching staff holding leadership posts within each school from middle to senior
leaders, in each case with respondents who had taken one of the target
programmes. In the majority of schools this meant that three interviews in each
institution took place. However, in two of the largest secondary schools four
interviews took place and in two of the smallest primary schools, which
contained very small numbers of staff including a teaching head, only the
headteacher consented to be interviewed. Thus a total of 28 such interviews
were carried out in the course of the study. In each phase of the study the sample
included different ‘types’ of school in order to take into account salient features
such as: age�/phase, size, location, and status. Phase 1 thus included: seven
infant schools; four junior schools; 29 primary schools; and 10 secondary
schools. Phase 2 included: seven primary schools; and three secondary
schools. In each phase care was taken to include institutions in locations that
represented urban, suburban and rural locations.” (pp. 478-9)
Findings/Results/Conclusions
“Findings of the study suggest that there is evidence that national leadership
programmes are impacting positively on leadership in schools although the level
of impact appears to be variable across programmes. The paper is offered as one
contribution to the International Study of the Preparation of Principals (ISPP)
project based at the University of Calgary.” (Abstract p. 473)
References to literacy leadership occur p. 483 and p. 484. Notably these involve
primary school data.
“This evidence of syndication of leadership activity through enhanced school
culture fits within a model of collaboration in which individuals are valued as
people, for their contribution to others and as part of a team (Campbell &
Southworth, 1992), and articulates with the notion that distributed leadership
has come to be seen as one of the key elements in leadership development
(Southworth, 2005). Such cultural changes appeared to be a key factor in
enhancing leadership across programmes:
Overall leadership has improved. Leading from the Middle has had an impact on
leadership of Literacy, Numeracy, ICT and Foundation Stage. As a result of
individuals being more proactive we have seen an improvement in standards in
these areas over the last two years. NPQH has impacted on the leadership skills
of the deputy head in terms of knowledge, style and confidence to manage
projects and day-to-day issues. (Primary school headteacher)” (p. 483)
“Some responses identified a specific impact on pupil outcomes. Two
respondents gave examples of improvements in overall school performance and
supported these assertions by reference to school achievement data:
6
The Panda report (shows that the) school has developed planning for creative
learning - noticeable improvement in opportunities and achievements for pupils
in foundation subjects. (Infant school headteacher)
Improvement in standards at the end of KS2 in literacy are a direct outcome of
[the] literacy coordinator putting into practice skills learned on LftM . . . [and
there is] much improved teaching and learning in the Foundation Stage.
(Primary school headteacher)
The addition of leadership learning to the chain of possible variables within the
relationship between practice and performance means that one must be
especially careful in ascribing direct correlation between the input of
programmes and the outputs of school performance. Nonetheless, it is clear that
some respondents were keen to attribute a positive change in learning outcomes
to their leadership development experiences.” (p. 484)
7
Note: Following is a professional publication that discusses Principal application of
Response-to-intervention (RTI). Empirical research about RTI reported in Burns,
M. K., Appleton, J. J., & Stehouwer, J. D. (2005). Meta-analytic review of
responsiveness-to-intervention research: Examining field-based and researchimplemented models. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23(4), 381-394.
Title
Response to intervention at the secondary level
Authors
Burns, M. K.
Publication details
Burns, M. K. (2008). Response to intervention at the secondary level: Tiered
interventions—including whole-school, small-group, and individual
interventions—are what make RTI initiatives successful. Principal Leadership,
8(7), 12-15.
Purpose
Discussion of application of primary level intervention in a secondary school
context.
Sample
One principal’s application of “training about “flexible service delivery”...(which
emphasised) data-based decision making and evidence-based practice.” Training
focussed on elementary students. Principal wanted to address student
homework completion initially, then extended to “a multitiered system of service
delivery that includes universal screening and benchmark assessments to
identify students who are in need of assistance and implementing appropriate
interventions for small groups of students” (p. 12) in a secondary context.
Methods
Assessment using Curriculum-based measurement (CBM) of literacy followed by
application of RTI process.
Findings/Results/Conclusions
“Perhaps the most significant outcome of Maple’s RTI efforts is that all the
students at Maple can now be successfully held to the high expectations of the
community. Moreover, at the middle level, the curriculum is mostly literacybased rather than reading-based, and teachers can intervene with students who
do not have sufficient reading skills for success as well as reduce the number of
students who require specially education services. RTI is, according to Waitz, a
shift in focus from what educators cannot do to help student to what educators
can do, and his students have benefited from the change.” (p.12)
Note: Steven Waitz is the principal of Maple Northbrook school offering what
appears to be anecdotal evidence of his application of RTI.
8
For further professional reporting in secondary context, follow-up: Windram,
Scierka, & Silberglitt (2007). Response to intervention at the secondary level: A
description of two districts’ models of implementation. Communique, 35(5), 4345.
9
Title
Principal leadership for outstanding educational outcomes
Author
Dinham, S.
Publication details
Dinham, S. (2005). Principal leadership for outstanding educational outcomes.
Journal of Educational Administration, 43(4), 338-356.
Purpose
“Aims to explore the role of Principals in producing outstanding education
outcomes in Years 7 to 10 in New South Wales (Australia) government schools.”
(Abstract p. 338)
Sample
“Sites where “outstanding” educational outcomes were believed to be occurring
were selected using a variety of data including performance in standardised
tests, public examinations, various value added measures and nominations from
various stakeholders. Sites were of two types: subject departments responsible
for teaching certain subjects and teams responsible for cross-school programs in
Years 7 to 10. Sites were selected to be broadly representative. Some schools had
more than one site, e.g. Mathematics and Student Welfare. A total of 50 sites
across NSW from 38 secondary schools were studied.” (Abstract p. 338)
Methods
“Site visit research teams consisted of a an university academic who acted as
leader, another academic with expertise in the area under investigation, a Head
Teacher (faculty head) from another school in the District with expertise in the
area under investigation, and the Chief Education Officer (School Improvement)
from the local District. Additional academics and Head Teachers were included
in multi-site visits.
Site teams were expected to undertake the following:
.
interview the principal about the outstanding faculty/program;
.
interview the head teacher/leader of the outstanding faculty/program;
.
with classroom teacher approval, visit classes to observe students at
work, and discuss pedagogy and related matters with those teachers;
.
hold a faculty forum (staff meeting);
.
conduct student fora in two-year groups years 7 and 8, years 9 and 10;
.
conduct a parent forum;
.
team leader to organise additional discussions with the principal and
perhaps the head teacher as needed;
.
team to investigate any documents that are held and used by the
faculty/program, e.g. policy documents, newsletters, management plans,
programs etc; and
.
provide verbal feedback to the faculty/program staff and principal on last
day.
10
Site teams used prepared protocols to record data and observations and
submitted a report in electronic format. These reports were not provided to
schools for reasons of confidentiality and concerns over the use of report
findings but Principals and relevant staff were provided with a verbal briefing of
the broad findings on the final day of the visit.“ (p. 342)
NUD*IST, open coding, axial coding and selective coding (grounded theory
techniques) to produce seven categories – one core and six “contributing
categories”
Findings/Results/Conclusions
“Findings – With both subject departments and teams responsible for crossschool programs, leadership was found to be a key factor in the achievement of
outstanding educational outcomes. Often, this leadership was exercised by the
Principal, but additional key personnel included Head Teachers (heads of
faculties/departments), Deputy Principals, and teachers playing leading roles in
faculties and programs. Analysis of data revealed certain attributes and practices
of the Principals of these schools, which are explored, central to which is a focus
on students and their learning.
Research limitations/implications – Principals were those of secondary schools
from one educational system. Other papers will explore the role of leaders such
as Heads of Department, Deputy Principals and teacher leaders.
Practical implications – This article has implications for principal selection,
training, appraisal and professional development.
Originality/value – Detailed case studies have provided an examination of
leadership effectiveness in a wide range of contexts, which much commonality
confirmed.” (Abstract p.338)
Figure copied from p. 341
11
“A site report at a school identified for success with literacy across the
curriculum noted:
The Principal has created the context in which these programs operate.
There is widespread agreement that the Principal “allows” people to take
the lead with ideas. [A staff member] said, “We are given ‘permission to
play here’ by the Principal – always encouraged to try things out”. One
English teacher told us that “the Principal does a lot of allowing” and she
saw the Principal as having created the “productive environment” for her
to grow as a teacher.”
(p. 352)
12
Note: Although following article is not focussed on secondary school principals, it
specifically addresses literacy and principals’ leadership of students in Years 7 and
8 branching across into secondary school age in Australian context
Title
Raising literacy achievement in reading: How principals of 10- to 12-year-old
students are making this happen
Authors
Fletcher, J., Greenwood, J., Grimley, M., & Parkhill, F.
Publication details
Fletcher, J., Greenwood, J., Grimley, M., & Parkhill, F. (2011). Raising literacy
achievement in reading: How principals of 10- to 12-year-old students are
making this happen.
Purpose
“Many studies show that school leadership is a key factor in supporting change
within schools, but few have specifically considered the impact leadership has on
gains in students’ reading outcomes. This article focuses on factors that typify
leadership in schools where such gains have been identified and explores the
nature and quality of leadership that contribute to a school environment
conducive to improving the reading achievement of 10- to 12-year-old students.”
(Abstract p. 61)
“Our research aim was to explore, from a constructivist leadership research
perspective (Heck and Hallinger 1999, Foster 2004), the leadership style and
practices of the principals of five New Zealand primary schools whose staff was
identified as implementing systematic, regular and sustained teaching of reading
in the final years of primary schooling. In terms of the particular, we were
interested in identifying the behaviours, beliefs and special characteristics of
principals and (where relevant) other school members that create and sustain a
school environment conducive to the reading achievement of students in their
final years of primary school. In terms of the general, we sought, in line with
Foster’s (2004) advocacy, to address the ‘blank spots’ in our understanding of
school leadership and how it contributes to school improvement.” (p. 65)
Sample
“The five schools and their principals were identified by the research project’s
advisory committee of literacy experts and educational leaders. The commit- tee
included literacy advisors, a regional Ministry of Education literacy development
officer (responsible for leading and facilitating literacy development within a
designated geographic area of New Zealand) and the president of the regional
reading association. The committee considered these schools to have effective
reading programmes, particularly in their upper primary levels, where the
students, overall, were achieving at higher than normal levels on standardized
tests of literacy achievement.” (p. 66)
13
Methods
“Interviews were conducted with principals and other relevant parties at five
New Zealand primary schools.” (Abstract p. 61)
“Data analysis
For the scope of this present article, we focused primarily on the interview data
from the principals. In line with the work by Watling and James (2007), we used
coding to segment these data and then develop themes. We incrementally
refined the themes as we considered each new set of segmented data. During the
analysis, we wanted to understand the ‘why’ rather than merely ‘what’ so that
we could gain as great a depth of understanding as possible, inform existing
knowledge by relating the themes back to the literature on leadership and/or
contribute new knowledge (Denscombe 2003). Davidson and Tolich (1999)
remind us that such flexibility in qualitative research is one of its greatest
strengths. We also conducted a second round of analysis in which we used axial
coding to identify links between the concepts and themes that had emerged from
our first round of analysis (Neuman 2003). This secondary analysis allowed us to
cluster information and thereby create a denser web of support for emergent
themes drawn from the qualitative data (Neuman 2003). This approach also
allowed us to examine patterns of similarities and differences across the case
study schools.” (pp. 68-69)
Findings/Results/Conclusions
“Findings showed that the schools’ principals were openly passionate about
raising students’ literacy achievement. They provided tangible support for all
staff, particularly in the form of whole-school professional development in
literacy. They trusted their staff, worked collaboratively with them and were
committed to using summative standardized reading assessment as a means of
identifying students’ ongoing literacy needs and tracking the assessment of
learning.” (Abstract p. 61)
“Findings
The five themes that arose from our analyses of the case study schools provide
strong indicators that the behaviour of principals is associated with better than
normal reading test results. Four of the five principals had only been in their
position of principal for one year (see Table 1), although the principal from
School A had been the deputy principal of that school for the previous 10 years
and had led literacy development in that role. It would seem that these principals
had influenced the literacy learning environment during the time of their first
year of principalship, as the students in their schools had shown an
improvement in reading scores or positive achievement in comparison with the
achievement of students from similar school types.
Although the principals were each cognisant of their own school context and
acted in ways that would best meet the needs of their school’s culture, their
principles and practices were very similar. For example, the principals of Schools
A and E, which had higher percentages of Maori students, and also School E,
which had higher percentages of Pasifika students, had developed along with
their staff a school culture that overtly acknowledged and valued the cultural
14
experiences that these students brought to their learning. However, the
principals and their staff at the other schools with very low percentages of Maori
and Pasifika students were cognisant of the need to develop a learning
environment that supported students from all ethnic groups.
These similarities (or themes) give clear guidelines for principals seeking to
improve reading achievement within their schools. Such principals need to take
account of the following:
●
provide staff with sustained professional literacy development using
external experts and take part in it with the staff;
●
develop school-wide use of standardized assessment in reading to
monitor achievement and identify specific needs;
●
build a collaborative environment where there is whole-school
commitment to professional development;
●
develop an environment of trust within the school so that literacy leaders
can work collaboratively alongside other teachers; and
● articulate and develop a school-wide environment where there is an
expectation of achievement for all learners.” (pp. 69-70)
“Summary and conclusion
This study focused on the characteristics and behaviours of the principals of five
New Zealand primary schools where standardized test results, positive reports
from the ERO and informed advice from literacy experts showed that students’
overall levels of reading achievement were improving and/or well above
national norms for each school type. Moreover, this achievement was evident in
the upper levels of the school, despite the general national trend that shows
reading achievement tailing off during these middle years of schooling.
Commentary primarily from the schools’ principals, along with our own
observations, confirmed that the principals promoted regular and sustained
reading programmes at Years 7 and 8 and saw targeted, sustainable, wholeschool professional development directed at raising students’ literacy
achievement as a vital, ongoing, and not short-term, measure. The principals
thus encouraged school-wide use of standardized assessment in reading to
monitor achievement and identify specific needs. They strove to build a
collaborative environment that favoured whole-school commitment to
professional development. They were intent on developing an environment of
trust where literacy leaders could work collaboratively alongside other teachers.
They gave the literacy leader release time to facilitate change in literacy
pedagogy and provided that person with the support needed to do this. They
clearly articulated and developed a school-wide expectation of achievement for
all learners.
All five schools were using standardized testing in reading achievement to
identify reading needs at whole-school, syndicate, class and individual levels.
Those at Schools A, C and E were also strongly focused on identifying the needs
of their culturally diverse learners and raising their achievement. All five schools
consistently had in place a designated literacy leader who was a teacher with
expertise in reading. The principals visibly supported the literacy leaders by
15
providing release time so that they could plan and implement literacy strategies
across the school and provide leadership and support for their staff. This
approach had led to the schools developing key strategies to raise reading
achievement such as targeting reading comprehension and vocabulary
knowledge.
Essentially, the five principals had a vision that all students should achieve in
learning in general and reading in particular. They therefore established
relational trust with their staff to foster this vision, invested time and resources
into literacy leadership within the school and were instrumental in providing
and taking part with staff in ongoing professional development in literacy
facilitated by external experts. However, they made sure that this expertise fit
the school’s culture. A primary goal for the five principals was creating and
sustaining an environment in which members of their school communities (both
within and beyond the school gates) could actively look to one another for
support and collaboratively make decisions to provide optimum learning
conditions for all their students (Sergiovanni 2005).
This study shows how professional development programmes that effectively
raise literacy achievement in schools occur over longer periods of time, have an
extensive investment both in time and finances, are content based, offer sound
theoretical understandings for teachers in the subject matter and have wholeschool commitment (Snow 2002). Such programmes are most likely to come into
play and be sustained if they have robust, active and well- informed direction
from the school leadership.” (pp. 79-80)
16
Title
Improving literacy outcomes for all students through leadership in learning:
A discussion based on a study on the literacy needs of 10 to 13 year old
students and the strategies that lead to their success
Authors
Greenwood, J., Fletcher, J., Parkhill, F., Grimley, M., & Bridges, S.
Publication details
Greenwood, J., Fletcher, J., Parkhill, F., Grimley, M., & Bridges, S. (2009).
Improving literacy outcomes for all students through leadership in learning: A
discussion based on a study on the literacy needs of 10 to 13 year old students and
the strategies that lead to their success. Paper presented at the International
Congress of School Effectiveness and Improvement (ICSEI) Annual Conference.
Available online at http://canterburynz.academia.edu/MickGrimley/Papers/184157/Improving_Literacy_Outcomes_f
or_All_Students_Through_Leadership_In_Learning_A_Discussion_Based_on_a_Stu
dy_on_the_Literacy_Needs_of_10_to_13_Year_Old_Students_
Purpose
“A ‘dip’ or ‘plateau’ in students’ literacy learning progress is reported
internationally to occur in years 9 to 13. This paper examines the nature of that
dip, discusses its causes and offers an emerging theorisation of factors that lead
to successful development. We report current research that analyses the match
(of lack of it) between learning needs and classroom strategies and propose a
composite model of leadership of learning in literacy that will support shifts in
current practice.”
Sample
Schools with Years 7 and 8 in New Zealand, central and upper South Island.
Methods
Survey “about current school practices, classroom programmes, teaching and
learning strategies, use of resources and support for marginalised and
underachieving groups.
Case studies of schools that “had rigorous literacy programmes and that measure
their students’ reading achievement by a nationally standardised test... Each case
included observations and interview with teachers, students of varying reading
ability, principals, literacy lead teachers and parents.”
Findings/Results/Conclusions
“Literacy leadership
At the case study schools the comments from the literacy leaders indicated how
their role influences the quality of effective literacy teaching and student
achievement. Themes that emerged a discussion of the importance of (sic) were
school-wide professional development in literacy, sharing and collaborating
17
amongst staff, including literacy leaders, principals and teachers, and
interpreting school-wide and individual class assessment data.”
Literacy leadership qualities listed in figure to include:
 “Literacy leaders
 Support by principal
 Sustained professional development
 Supported by external facilitators
 Active review of professional development provision
 Choice of provider
 Passion for literacy achievement
 Collaborative support
 Working to shift stuck attitudes
 Use of norm referenced assessment
 Whole school analysis
 Attention to gender and ethnic groups”
18
Note: Not specifically literacy but includes the principal’s role in curriculum
instruction
Title
Faculty perceptions of shared decision making and the principal's leadership
behaviors in secondary schools in a large urban district
Authors
Leech, D. F., & Fulton, C. R.
Publication details
Leech, D. F., & Fulton, C. R. (2008). Faculty perceptions of shared decision making
and the principal's leadership behaviors in secondary schools in a large urban
district. Education 128(4), 630-644.
Purpose
“...the purpose of this correlational study was to explore the relationship
between teachers’ perceptions of the leadership behaviors of secondary school
principals in a large urban school district and their perceptions of the level of
shared decision making practiced in their schools.” (Abstract p. 630)
Sample
Sample from secondary schools in a large urban public school system where
principals had served more than 2 years.
Methods
Teachers surveyed using Posner’s (1997) Leadership Practices Inventory and
Ferrara’s (1994) Shared Educational Decisions Survey – Revised.
Findings/Results/Conclusions
“Leadership behaviour was operationalized by the responses to each of the five
practices on the Leadership Practices Inventory [LPI] (Kouzes & Posner, 1997).
These behaviors were (a) challenging the process, (b) inspiring a shared vision,
(c) enabling others to act, (d) modelling the way, and (e) encouraging the heart.
The level of shared decision making was measure by responses the Shared
Educational Decisions survey-Revised (Ferrara, 1994) in the areas of (a)
planning, (b) policy development, (c) curriculum and instruction, (d) student
achievement, (e) pupil personnel services, (f) staff development, and (g) budget
management.” (Abstract p. 630)
Relationships between leadership behaviours and shared decision making
illustrated below.
19
Table copied from p. 638
20
Note: Primary and secondary mentioned. Not specifically principal. Main focus of
literacy initiatives at the primary level.
Title
The challenge of large-scale literacy improvement
Authors
Levin, B.
Publication details
Levin, B. (2010). The challenge of large-scale literacy improvement. School
Effectiveness and School Improvement: An International Journal of Research,
Policy and Practice, 21(4), 359-376.
Purpose
“This paper discusses the challenge of making large-scale improvements in
literacy in schools across an entire education system. Despite growing interest
and rhetoric, there are very few examples of sustained, large-scale change efforts
around school-age literacy. The paper reviews 2 instances of such efforts, in
England and Ontario.” (Abstract p. 359)
Sample
Review of reform programs in England and Ontario.
Methods
Review of published sources.
Findings/Results/Conclusions
“After describing main features of these reforms, the paper presents 4 main
reasons that such efforts are not more frequent: (a) the educational challenge of
changing very large numbers of schools and classrooms on a sustained basis, (b)
the bureaucratic challenge of improving the connections among different areas
of social policy in pursuit of better outcomes for students, (c) the learning
challenge of organizing complex systems to do this work while continually
modifying the approach in light of new evidence and system feedback, and (d)
the political challenge of galvanizing and maintaining the effort required to
support these other changes.” (Abstract p. 359)
For further reporting of studies, see:
Canadian Language and Literacy Research Network. (2009). The impact of the
Literacy and Numeracy Secretariat: Changes in Ontario’s education system.
London, UK: Author.
Note: Literacy reform initiated in elementary school context.
Ungerleider, C. (2008). Evaluation of the Ontario Ministry of Education’s Student
Success Strategy. Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Council on Learning.
re. high school success strategy (Canada)
21
Title
Sustaining effective literacy practices over time in secondary schools: School
organisational and change issues
Authors
May, S.
Publication details
May, S. (2007). Sustaining effective literacy practices over time in secondary
schools: School organisational and change issues. Language and Education,
21(5), 387-405.
Purpose
[Abstract:
The effective, sustained implementation of literacy across the curriculum in
secondary schools is still a relatively rare phenomenon. This is because such an
approach to literacy requires secondary schools to undergo extensive and
complex processes of school change, involving altering teachers’ thinking,
attitudes and behaviour in relation to literacy and pedagogy, and establishing
and maintaining organisational processes that support teachers’ change
processes and their impact on student learning. Such changes take time, not least
because they often run counter to traditional organisational and pedagogical
approaches in secondary schools. Drawing on our research evaluation of the
Secondary Schools’ Literacy Initiative (SSLI) in New Zealand, this paper
examines the medium to long term implications of school change processes for
secondary schools undertaking a cross-curricular literacy focus. In so doing, it
identifies three key phases that secondary schools may undergo in order to
achieve and sustain effective literacy practices over time and suggests that these
phases, and their characteristics, may well have wider applicability.” (p. 387)]
Sample
New Zealand secondary schools – See SSLI Project
Methods
See SSLI Project
Findings/Results/Conclusions
References to principal (Note: LL = literacy leader)
“Principal initiates literacy focus – e.g. appoints LL, creates literacy budget, sets
strategic goals.” (p. 394)
“ Principal advocates for LL funding and time allowance; requires
departments/faculties to account for literacy within subject jurisdictions; school
language/literacy policy implemented and
HODs/HOFs and/or key subject teachers lead subject/discipline-specific literacy
practices.” (p. 400)
22
Copy of figure p. 403
See also May, H., & Wright, N. (2007). Secondary literacy across the curriculum.
Language and Education, 21(5), 370-376.
23
Title
Leadership and writing: How principals' knowledge, beliefs, and
interventions affect writing instruction in elementary and secondary schools
Authors
McGhee, M. W., & Chulsub, L.
Publication details
McGhee, M. W., & Chulsub, L. (2007). Leadership and writing: How principals'
knowledge, beliefs, and interventions affect writing instruction in elementary
and secondary schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(3), 358-380.
Purpose
“Purpose: This study explored the perceptions of teachers regarding principal
support for and understanding of effective writing instruction and whether
certain areas of knowledge influence principals' actions and interventions.”
(Abstract p. 358)
Sample
“The sample (N = 169) included elementary and secondary rural, urban, and
suburban teachers.” (Abstract p. 358)
Methods
“Research Design: Researchers surveyed teacher participants using the
Principal's Support for Writing Instrument and also asked whether their
principal was trained in writing as a process.” (Abstract p. 358)
Findings/Results/Conclusions
“Findings: An exploratory principle-axis factor analysis with a promax rotation
was conducted to determine the underlying structure of the 13 survey items.
Results of the factor analysis yielded a two-factor correlated solution. The first
factor accounted for 55.79% of the variance and the second for 6.94%. The twofactor correlated structure was confirmed using structural equation modeling.
Most fit statistics were observed to be good. Using the subscales as observed
variables, a path analysis was conducted using the theoretical latent variables
generated in the confirmatory factor analysis to explore the potential causal
relationship. The effect of Belief on Intervention was .72. Knowledge explained
approximately 57% of the variance of Intervention.
Conclusions: There is clear indication that principals who have strong knowledge
of and belief in effective writing practices act in ways that help teachers do their
best work. Those high in knowledge and belief were likewise high in quality
actions and interventions. These results hold promise for school leaders and
those shaping preservice and professional development opportunities for
current and future practitioners.” (Abstract p. 358)
24
Title
Leadership for literacy: A framework for policy and practice
Authors
Murphy, J.
Publication details
Murphy, J. (2004). Leadership for literacy: A framework for policy and practice.
School Effectiveness and School Improvement: An International Journal of
Research, Policy and Practice, 15(1), 65-96.
Purpose
“This article provides a framework for practitioners and policy actors that links
leadership and literacy. The focus is on the specification of research-anchored
scaffolding that can assist school administrators and policy players in their quest
to strengthen student performance in reading.” (Abstract p. 65)
Sample
Literature/theoretical/framing paper
Methods
“The framework itself is built from material culled from 4 lines of empirical
investigation: quality instruction, effective reading programs, school effects, and
educational leadership.” (Abstract p. 65)
Findings/Results/Conclusions
“CONCLUSION
Principal leadership is deemed to be critical for programmatic development of
early reading. (Fisher & Adler, 1999, p. 25)
Schools that are especially effective in teaching children to read are
characterized by vigorous instructional leadership. The leader is usually the
principal. . . . (Anderson et al., 1985, p. 112)
In this article, considerable space was devoted to defining the key leverage
points for improvement of literacy programs in the early grades of the
elementary school, especially for groups of youngsters who have not fared
particularly well in the existing educational system. Each leverage point was
crafted from an analysis of the empirical literature – in the form of original
studies and reviews – that draws connections between factors in schools and
student achievement in reading. Specifically, we constructed our narrative from
four lines of work: studies of effective instructional strategies, investigations of
effective reading programs, research on high performing schools, and work in
instructional leadership.
25
Throughout the review, sometimes explicitly and sometimes implicitly, we kept
one eye on the role of leadership. The critical premise of the article in that regard
is that the 10 leverage points portrayed herein provide the wagon to which
leadership must be hitched if it is to serve to strengthen literacy in our
elementary schools. The leverage points tell us to what we should attend.
Leadership provides one of the most powerful strategies we have in our arsenal
to make these conditions of quality reading programs come to life in classrooms
and schools so that all youngsters achieve high levels of literacy skills.” (pp. 9293)
Of interest:
Little reference to secondary school literacy leadership, but:
“While reference to the instructional function of school leaders is found in the
literature of school administration throughout most of the 20th century, it was
not until the 1980s that an instructional perspective began to inch its way onto
the center stage of the profession. Powered by (1) a confluence of empirical
studies in the broad area of school improvement (e.g., school change, effective
schools); (2) a breathtaking recasting of the goals of education (from schooling
to educating youngsters) and the accepted measures of success (from inputs and
processes to learning outcomes); and (3) critical appraisals of the existing
infrastructure of the profession, threads from the core technology of education
began to be woven deeply into the fabric of school administration. During the
first decade of the ‘‘instructional leadership’’ movement, scholarly work was
dominated by four lines of investigation: (1) uncovering and illuminating the
concept in the school improvement literature, that is drawing connections
between learning, the variables that contributed to that valued outcome (e.g.,
opportunity to learn, quality instruction), and the activities of school leaders,
primarily principals; (2) analyzing and explaining the striking absence of
attention to learning and teaching in the profession writ large and in the work of
practicing administrators in particular; (3) unfolding and repacking the concept
of instructional leadership, that is creating frameworks on which to hang
research findings; and (4) analyzing the conceptual, theoretical, and
methodological limitations in the instructional leadership literature (e.g.,
drawing conclusions for secondary school leaders based on studies from
elementary schools).” (p. 66)
26
Title
Within the accountability era: Principals' instructional leadership behaviors
and student achievement
Authors
O’Donnell, R. J., & White, G. P.
Publication details
O'Donnell, R. J., & White, G. P. (2005). Within the accountabiltiy era: Principals'
instructional leadership behaviors and student achievement. NASSP Bulletin,
89(645), 56-71.
Purpose
“...to identify significant relationships between principals' instructional
leadership behaviors and student achievement, with school socioeconomic
status (SES) as a secondary variable of interest.” (Abstract p. 56)
Sample
Random selection of Pennsylvania public middle schools
Methods
“For each participant school, four teachers and the principal were asked to
complete Hallinger's (1987) Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale.
This instrument includes 50 behaviors that have been identified by the research
on effective schools. Data analysis includes achievement test data from the
Pennsylvania System of School Assessment.” (Abstract p. 56)
Findings/Results/Conclusions
“Findings indicate that teacher perceptions of principal behaviors focused on
improving school learning climate were identified as predictors of student
achievement. In addition, principals of schools with high SES who believe they
frequently exhibit behaviors associated with defining their schools' respective
missions are related to higher reading achievement.” (Abstract p. 56)
27
Title
Making sense of an urban district's adolescent literacy reform
Authors
Patterson, J. A., Eubank, H., Rathbun, S. E., & Noble, S.
Publication details
Patterson, J. A., Eubank, H., Rathbun, S. E., & Noble, S. (2010). Making sense of an
urban district's adolescent literacy reform. NASSP Bulletin, 94(3), 227-246.
Purpose
“Weick’s theory of sensemaking is used to analyze findings from a qualitative
study of the implementation of a district-initiated adolescent intervention
literacy course in two urban secondary schools.” (Abstract p. 227)
Sample
Midwestern urban school district
Methods
Qualitative – focus group, interview, observations, document review
Findings/Results/Conclusions
“The authors concluded that implementation of the literacy course was
hampered because district administrators, building leaders, teachers, and
students all constructed multiple meanings of the course’s purpose and priority
within the district. Teachers expected to implement the initiative constructed
their identities as Language Arts and English teachers and did not see
themselves as literacy specialists.” (Abstract p. 227)
Note: More details offered in paper as well as principal involvement, but not
specifically principal literacy leadership.
28
Note: Primary and secondary schools. Reference made to literacy and improved
English results, but not specifically principal role.
Title
Participation in network learning community programmes and standards of
pupil achievement: Does it make a difference?
Authors
Sammons, P., Mujtaba, T., Earl, L., & Gu, Q.
Publication details
Sammons, P., Mujtaba, T., Earl, L., & Gu, Q. (2007). Participation in network
learning community programmes and standards of pupil achievement: Does it
make a difference? School Leadership and Management, 27(3), 213-238.
Purpose
“This paper analyses national assessment and examination data sets in England
to test the claim that networked learning activity contributes to raising
standards of attainment.” (Abstract p. 213)
Sample
Primary and secondary schools involved in Network Learning Community
programme in England.
Methods
Comparison of participant schools’ result and national patterns of achievement.
Findings/Results/Conclusions
“The results indicate that there has been considerable variation in the extent of
improvement in attainment results over the three years. Improvement patterns
for NLC schools are generally in line with the rising national trend. There is no
convincing evidence that NLC primary schools as a whole have improved more
rapidly or narrowed the attainment gap in relation to national results between
2003 and 2005. For secondary schools there are some indications for Key Stage 3
that the change in English results shows greater improvement than the national
pattern for a majority of schools, but this is not the case for maths or science. The
paper also examines the results of a survey of NLC participants’ perceptions.
These show that most have a generally positive view of the professional learning
promoted, the improvement of practice in their schools and the impact on pupil
engagement and motivation, but that perceptions of the influence on pupil
attainment and behaviour are somewhat less favourable, Again there is
considerable variation amongst respondents suggesting that both involvement in
and the influence of NLC activity varies within and between schools and
individual networks. Heads and deputies generally have more favourable views
than other respondents. It is concluded that the main benefit of networked
learning has been to enhance professional practice but that caution should be
exercised in making claims concerning the potential role of networked activity in
raising attainment. While some schools and networks have shown marked
improvement across a range of outcomes, the findings indicate that there is no
29
overall NLC effect on attainment outcomes; rather, there is considerable
variation at the school level within and between networks.” (Abstract p. 213)
30
Title
How teachers experience principal leadership: The roles of professional
community, trust, efficacy, and shared responsibility
Authors
Wahlstrom, K. L., & Louis, K. S.
Publication details
Wahlstrom, K. L., & Louis, K. S. (2008). How teachers experience principal
leadership: The roles of professional community, trust, efficacy, and shared
responsibility. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(4), 458-495.
Purpose
“Purpose: The leadership of the principal is known to be a key factor in
supporting student achievement, but how that leadership is experienced and
instructionally enacted by teachers is much less clear. The purpose of this study
was to examine various factors that are often present in principal–teacher
interactions and teacher–teacher relationships to see how those may have an
impact on teachers’ class- room instructional practices.” (Quoted from Abstract
p. 458)
Sample
Teachers K-12 US
Methods
“Data Collection and Analysis: Data for this quantitative study are from a
teacher survey developed for the national research project, Learning from
Leadership, funded by the Wallace Foundation. There are 4,165 completed
surveys in the database, which reflects responses from teachers in grades K-12
in a sample of schools across the United States. Using a conceptual framework
based on various known components of effective schools today, a stepwise linear
regression examined the relationships among practices such as shared
leadership and professional community with contextual variables such as trust
and efficacy.” (Quoted from Abstract p. 458)
Findings/Results/Conclusions
“Findings: Three types of instructional behaviors—Standard Contemporary
Practice, Focused Instruction, and Flexible Grouping Practices—emerged as
strong factors which operationally described effective teacher practice. The
presence of shared leadership and professional community explain much of the
strength among the three instructional variables. Furthermore, the effect of
teachers’ trust in the principal becomes less important when shared leadership
and professional community are present. Self-efficacy strongly predicts Focused
Instruction, but it has less predictive value for the other measures of
instructional behavior. Individual teacher characteristics of gender and years of
experience have clear impact on instructional practice, but there are no
discernible patterns that suggest that the level of the principal (elementary vs.
secondary) have more or less influence on teacher instructional behaviors.”
(Quoted from Abstract p. 458)
31
Title
Building literacy communities of practice across subject disciplines in
secondary schools
Authors
Wright, N.
Publication details
Wright, N. (2007). Building literacy communities of practice across subject
disciplines in secondary schools. Language and Education, 21(5), 420-433.
Purpose
[Abstract:
“This paper examines the relationship between communities of practice and
literacy as a pedagogical focus in secondary schools in New Zealand in the light
of Corson's arguments about critical conditions for effective language policy
development in schools. It is also positioned within the current international
emphasis (at least in English-speaking countries) on improving students' literacy
in order to increase academic achievement. Part of this focus stems from an
unbalanced relationship between learning mainly content (what) and learning
processes (how and why) through content in secondary school classrooms. If
teachers' work is centred on equipping students with the learning and thinking
tools that allow them to navigate, make sense of and critically examine subject
content, then literacy as a pedagogical focus can be seen as supporting that shift.
However, shifting secondary teachers to a focus on learning and thinking
processes can be difficult, because it implicates their pedagogical values,
practices and pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). How schools in New
Zealand have developed this focus and made efforts to sustain it are examined
through the concept of communities of practice.”]
Sample
New Zealand secondary schools
Methods
See SSLI Project
Findings/Results/Conclusions
Conclusion focuses on Communities of Practice (CP), but reference to Principals
made throughout.
32
Secondary School Literacy Project potentially of interest
Secondary schools’ literacy initiative (SSLI)
Director: Stephen May
Researchers: John Smyth, Noeline Wright and David Whitehead.
Project Dates: 2003-2005
The Secondary Schools’ Literacy Initiative (SSLI) Research Evaluation (20032005) was funded by the Ministry of Education.
The three-year SSLI research
evaluation has explored and assessed the development, implementation and
efficacy of targeted professional development support for 60 secondary schools
nation-wide aimed at developing secondary literacy across the curriculum
programs in those schools.
Key issues that have emerged from the case study analyses have been:
 role of senior management and key personnel
 processes of school change
 teacher buy-in (and resistance)
 implications for departments/disciplines
 sustainability
Publications:
Whitehead, D., May, S. & Wright, N. (2004). Secondary Schools' Literacy Initiative
(SSLI) Research Evaluation: Literacy assessment and achievement: 2003 - 2004.
Hamilton: Wilf Malcolm Institute for Educational Research. (Copy of report not
located. See articles below.)
May, H., & Smyth, J. (2007). Addressing literacy in secondary schools:
Introduction. Language and Education, 21(5), 365-369.
May, H., & Wright, N. (2007). Secondary literacy across the curriculum:
Challenges and possibilities. Language and Education, 21(5), 370-376.
Smyth, J., & Whitehead, D. (2007). Literacy research methodology that is up to
the challenge. Language and Education, 21(5), 377-386.
May, S. (2007). Sustaining effective literacy practices over time in secondary
schools: School organisational and change issues. Language and Education,
21(5).
Smyth, J. (2007). Pedagogy, school culture and teacher learning: Towards more
durable and resistant approaches to secondary school literacy. Language and
Education, 21(5), 406-419.
Wright, N. (2007). Building literacy communities of practice across subject
disciplines in secondary schools. Language and Education, 21(5), 420-433.
Whitehead, D. (2007). Literacy assessment practices: Moving from standardised
to ecologically valid assessments in secondary schools. Language and Education,
21(5), 434-452.
33
Leadership Projects potentially of interest
PricewaterhouseCoopers Independent study into school leadership
References:
PricewaterhouseCoopers. (2007). Independent study into school leadership: Main
report. Nottingham, UK: Department for Education and Skills.
PricewaterhouseCoopers. (2007a). Independent study into school leadership:
Technical report. Nottingham, UK: Department for Education and Skills.
The impact of school leadership on pupil outcomes
References:
Leithwood, K., Day, C., Sammons, P., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2006). Successful
school leadership: What it is and how it influences pupil learning. London, UK:
DfES.
Day, C., Sammons, P., Hopkins, D., Harris, A., Leithwood, K., Gu, Q., et al. (2009).
The impact of school leadership on pupil outcomes: Research report RR108.
London: Department for Children, Schools and Families.
Day, C., Sammons, P., Hopkins, D., Harris, A., Leithwood, K., Gu, Q., et al. (2007).
The impact of school leadership on pupil outcomes: Interim report. Nottingham,
UK: University of Nottingham.
Day, C., Sammons, P., Hopkins, D., Harris, A., Leithwood, K., Gu, Q., et al. (2009a).
The impact of school leadership on pupil outcomes: Final report. Nottingham, UK:
University of Nottingham.
Gu, Q., Sammons, P., & Mehta, P. (2008). Leadership characteristics and practices
in schools with different effectiveness and improvement profiles. School
Leadership and Management, 28(1), 43-63.
Vanderbilt assessment of leadership in education
References:
Porter, A. C., Murphy, J., Goldring, E., Elliott, S. N., Polikoff, M. S., & May, H. (2008).
VAL-ED Technical manual.
Porter, A. C., Polikoff, M. S., Goldring, E. B., Murphy, J., Elliott, S. N., & May, H.
(2010). Investigating the validity and reliability of the Vanderbilt Assessment of
Leadership in Education. The Elementary School Journal, 111(2), 282-313.
34
Porter, A. C., Polikoff, M. S., Goldring, E., Murphy, J., Elliott, S. N., & May, H. (2010).
Developing a psychometically sound assessment of school leadership: The VALED as a case study. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(2), 135-173.
Murphy, J., Elliott, S. N., Goldring, E., & Porter, A. C. (2007). Leaderhip for
learning: A research-based model and taxonomy of behaviors. School Leadership
and Management, 27(2), 179-201.
Goldring, E., Porter, A. C., Murphy, J., Elliott, S. N., & Cravens, X. (2009). Assessing
learning-centred leadership: Connections to research, professional standards,
and current practices. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 8, 1-36.
Murphy, J., Elliott, S. N., Goldring, E., & Porter, A. C. (2010). Leaders for
productive schools. In P. Peterson, E. Baker & B. McGaw (Eds.), International
encyclopedia of education (Vol. 4, pp. 746-751). Oxford: Elsevier.
Goldring, E., Cravens, X., Murphy, J., Porter, A., Elliott, S., & Carson, B. (2009). The
evaluation of principals: What and how do states and urban districts assess
leadership? Elementary School Journal, 110(1), 19-39.
Polikoff, M., May, H., Porter, A., Elliott, S., Goldring, E., & Murphy, J. (2009). An
examination of differential item functioning on teh Vanderbilt Assessment of
Leadership in Education. Journal of School Leadership, 19, 661-679.
Murphy, J., Goldring, E. B., Cravens, X. C., Elliott, S., & Porter, A. C. (2011). The
Vanderbilt Assessment of Leaderhip in Education: Measuring learning-centred
leadership. Journal of East China Normal University, 29(1), 1-10.
Cravens, X., Goldring, E., Porter, A., Polikoff, M., Murphy, J., & Elliott, S. (under
review). Standard setting for principal leadership assessment: A deliberative
process.
Literacy and numeracy secretariat – Ontario
Reference:
Canadian Language and Literacy Research Network. (2009). The impact of the
literacy and numeracy secretariat: Changes in Ontario's education system.
London, UK: Author.
Note: Primarily literacy seems focussed on LNS impact on Grade 3 and Grade 6
test scores.
35
Instructional leadership project – elementary schools only
Reference:
Quint, J. C., Akey, T. M., Rappaport, S., & Willner, C. J. (2007). Instructional
leadership, teaching quality, and student achievement: Suggestive evidence from
three urban school districts: MDRC.
Wallace foundation project
Reference:
Louis, K. S., Wahlstrom, K. L., Michlin, M., Gordon, M., Thomas, E., Leithwood, K.,
et al. (2010). Learning from leadership: Investigating the links to improved student
learning: University of Minnesota.
Note: 4 elementary schools and one junior high. Literacy scores were part of the
study as were classroom observations of literacy instruction.
“(Playa Jr. High School). The leadership influence of the principal extended
across various focal points of school-improvement activity, but the evidence was
less robust for influential sources of teacher leadership and for principal
collaboration with teachers and/or external change agents. Teacher leadership
was limited to traditional grade-level or program-specific structures, and there
was less emphasis, school-wide, on teacher collaboration.” (p. 58)
International successful school principalship project (ISSPP)
References:
Gurr, D., Drysdale, L., Swann, R., Doherty, J., Ford, P., & Goode, H. (2005). The
international successful school principalship project (ISSPP): Comparison across
country case studies. Paper presented at the The Australian Council for
Educational Leaders National Conference.
Gurr, D., Drysdale, L., & Mulford, B. (2005). Successful principal leadership:
Australian case studies. Journal of Educational Administration, 43(6), 539-551.
Gurr, D., Drysdale, L., & Mulford, B. (2006). Models of successful principal
leadership. School Leadership and Management, 26(4), 371-395.
Instructional leadership dissertation – high school
Reference:
Peariso, J. F. (2011). A study of principals' instructional leadership behaviors and
beliefs of good pedagogical practice among effective California high schools serving
36
socioeconomically disadvantaged and English language learners. Unpublished
EdD, Liberty University.
Abstract:
This mixed methods descriptive and causal-comparative study investigates what
instructional leadership behaviors effective California high school principals
have and what their beliefs are in regards to pedagogy, related issues, and
professional issues, either constructivist or instructivist in nature, in the
environment of the current NCLB accountability era. Differences found in eight
specific demographic variables were analyzed in combination with data obtained
from principals' responses on the Principal Instructional Management Rating
Scale (PIMRS) and the Principal Beliefs Survey (PBS, a variation of the Teacher
Beliefs Survey).
The population comprised of principals whose schools have met their API
growth targets for two consecutive school years school wide and for
socioeconomically disadvantaged, English learner subgroups. A volunteer rate of
51% (N = 36) was obtained from a population of 71.
Results indicate that effective high school principals frequently engaged in
instructional leadership behaviors. Concerning pedagogy, principals held eclectic
beliefs, but were united in the beliefs of accountability and the importance of a
prescriptive, well designed curriculum. Subjects' gender, ethnicity, and the
percentage of instructional leadership delegated were not significantly different
in regards to principals' instructional leadership practices or pedagogical beliefs.
Significant differences were found among a few specific instructional leadership
practices and pedagogical beliefs based on subjects' education level, overall
years as a classroom teacher, subject taught as a teacher, overall years as the
current principal, and overall years of administrative experience. From the
findings, a contingency model of principals' pedagogical beliefs was developed.
Additionally, reliability testing was performed on both instruments.
37
Other secondary school context articles potentially of some
interest
Reference:
Barnes, C. A., Camburn, E., Sanders, B. R., & Sebastian, J. (2010). Developing
instructional leadership: Using mixed methods to explore the black box of
planned change in principals' professional practice. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 46(2), 241-279.
Abstract:
Purpose: This study examines learning, and both cognitive and behavioral
change among a sample of randomly assigned urban principals, half of whom
participated in a sustained, district-based professional development program
(DPD). Research Methods: Latent class analyses of daily log data, qualitative
typology development, and case studies of change provide a rich portrait of the
learning and change process. Findings: Few dramatic transformations of
practice. Instead, principals attributed to the DPD a gradual refinement of
existing practice through a process that allowed them to “break down”
declarative knowledge to better understand its consequences for their work, but
also provided knowledge structures, tools, and routines for reintegrating ideas
from the program into strategically valuable procedural knowledge.
Implications: Results suggest potential for developing principals’ competencies
within continuing practice communities, but expectation of incremental rather
than a dramatic “turn around” in principals’ leadership through program
interventions.
Note:
Instructional leadership, intervention in principal leadership, primary, middle
and secondary sectors.
Reference:
Bishop, A. R., Berryman, M. A., Wearmouth, J. B., & Peter, M. (2012). Developing an
effective education reform model for indigenous and other minoritized students.
School Effectiveness and School Improvement: An International Journal of
Research, Policy and Practice, 23(1), 49-70.
Abstract:
Educational disparities between indigenous Maori students and those of the
majority continue to be a major issue in New Zealand. Te Kotahitanga, an
iterative research and development programme, which commenced in 2001,
supports teachers to implement a relationship-based pedagogy in their
classrooms in order to improve Maori students’ achievement in mainstream
secondary schools. This article addresses the question of how gains in Maori
students’ achievement can be sustained and expanded. Schools, from an earlier
phase of the project, in their 6th and 7th year of the programme were examined,
38
using a theory-based model designed to evaluate and promote dimensions
necessary for effective institutional support of the teaching innovation. This
article demonstrates that schools that have been the most effective
implementers of the intervention have seen the greatest gains made by Maori
students in the 1st year of national assessments. This article then discusses
effective leadership for addressing problems schools encountered while
implementing the pedagogic reform.
Note:
Principal involvement mentioned
Reference:
Crum, K. S., & Sherman, W. H. (2008). Facilitating high achievement: High school
principals' reflections on their successful leadership practices. Journal of
Educational Administration, 46(5), 562-580.
Abstract:
Purpose – The burden for school improvement in a time of accountability falls
squarely on the shoulders of principals as new requirements demand that they
act as instructional leaders. The purpose of this study is to discover the common
themes of school leadership and instructional practices of high school principals
at successful schools in Virginia. Design/methodology/approach – An inductive
exploratory study was designed to provide insight into how successful high
school principals facilitate high levels of student achievement. The research was
grounded by allowing principals to talk about their actual practices as leaders.
Findings – The principals provided valuable insights into their daily practices
that foster an environment which is supportive of high-student achievement.
These practices are categorized in the following themes: developing personnel
and facilitating leadership, responsible delegation and empowering the team,
recognizing ultimate accountability, communicating and rapport, facilitating
instruction, and managing change.
Practical implications – Findings have direct implications for current principals,
aspiring leaders, and leadership preparation programs. The themes that
emerged serve as a powerful framework to help current and aspiring principals
develop a leadership philosophy that promotes and fosters a successful learning
environment.
Originality/value – The need to promote high-achievement permeates the daily
practices of principals. Although, reform efforts are not new, No Child Left
Behind has created new demands on leaders. Studies on effective leadership
practices, though, do not reflect empirical research based on contemporary
schools. Instead, most are meta-analyses of twentieth century research creating
a need for research on effective leadership practices in today’s schools.
Note:
Principal, secondary schools, leadership, not specifically literacy.
39
Reference:
Day, C. (2005). Principals who sustain success: Making a difference in schools in
challenging circumstances. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 8(4),
273-290.
Abstract:
For the last 15 years, schools in the UK have been experiencing an
unprecedented number of government imposed reforms in the quest to raise
standards and increase accountability. Such reforms have relied for their
implementation on the compliance and co-operation of principals and have
generated a number of tensions and dilemmas Multiperspective research on
successful principals in schools located in challenging socio-economic contexts
reveals that vision and distributed leadership, so often key features in writings
about leadership qualities, were accompanied by strong core values and beliefs,
an abiding sense of agency, identity, moral purpose, resilience, and trust.
Note: Primary and secondary, literacy references primary level.
Reference:
Day, C. (2005a). Sustaining success in challenging contexts: Leadership in English
schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 43(6), 573-583.
Abstract:
Purpose – This paper aims to report multiperspective research on ten successful,
experienced headteachers working in a range of urban and suburban schools of
different sizes (with different school populations and free school meals indices of
between 20 and 62 per cent).
Design/methodology/approach – A discussion combining narrative and analysis.
Findings – The research revealed that the headteachers sustained their success
by the application of a combination of essential leadership values, qualities and
skills and that these enabled them to manage a number of tensions and
dilemmas associated with the management of change.
Originality/value – Illustrates that successful headteachers are those who place
as much emphasis on people and processes as they do upon product: all had
raised the levels of measurable pupil attainments in their schools and all were
highly regarded by their peers. A key characteristic among the heads was that all
revealed a passion for education, for pupils and for the communities in which
they worked that this was recognised and appreciated by them, that they had
translated their passion into practice, and that pupils' achievements had
increased over a sustained period of time.
Note:
Primary and secondary principal leadership. Literacy reference primary level.
Reference:
Fancera, S. F., & Bliss, J. R. (2011). Instructional leadership influence on collective
teacher efficacy to improve school achievement. Leadership and policy in schools,
10(3), 349-370.
40
Abstract:
The purpose of this study was to examine whether instructional leadership
functions, as defined in Hallinger's Principal Instructional Management Rating
Scale, positively influence collective teacher efficacy to improve school
achievement. Teachers from sample schools provided data for measures of
collective teacher efficacy and instructional leadership, while school report cards
provided data for measures of socioeconomic status and school achievement.
The authors used these data to test their hypothesized model of school
achievement via path analysis. They identified school socioeconomic status as a
stronger predictor of student achievement than either instructional leadership
or collective teacher efficacy.
Note:
Secondary school principal instructional leadership.
Reference:
Fink, D., & Brayman, C. (2006). School leadership succession and the challenges of
change. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(1), 62-89.
Abstract:
Background: Throughout the Western world, the fallout from the
standards/standardization agenda has resulted in potential leaders questioning
educational leadership as a career path. Moreover, the aging of the baby boom
generation has created a shortage of qualified principals in many educational
jurisdictions. Policy makers have responded to these twin pressures by initiating
major programs to identify, recruit, and prepare future leaders. Leadership
succession, whether planned or unplanned, has become an accelerated and
cumulative process that is including people of increasing levels of inexperience.
Succession is now a chronic process rather than an episodic crisis.
Purpose: This article argues that succession is not the key issue. What is crucial
is the degree of autonomy that principals can exercise on behalf of their school
community.
Findings: During the 30 years of the Change Over Time? study (described
elsewhere), we have seen this autonomy eroded to the point that leaders have
become managers of systems’ agendas rather than serving their schools and
students. Staff members have be- come cynical about both leaders and
leadership succession in the face of cumulative and accelerated succession and
perceived changes in their principals’ roles and obligations—increasing the
degree of resistance to change. Only when young people begin to see that
leadership roles in schools once again make a difference to students learning not
just test scores, then quality leaders will emerge and effective succession
planning policies developed.
Note:
Principal succession, elementary and high, leadership, one reference to a
principal and a literacy program.
41
Reference:
Foster, R. (2004). Leadership and secondary school improvement: Case studies of
tensions and possibilities. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 8(1),
35-52.
Abstract:
There is a relative absence of research that documents ways principals and other
school members construct the concept of leadership and understand its
relationship to school improvement. School improvement here is defined as the
enhancement of student learning, through focusing on the teaching‐learning
process and the conditions that support it (Hopkins 1998). This study reports
principals’, teachers’, parents’ and students’ perspectives of leadership within
secondary schools involved in school improvement initiatives. Findings support
growing recognition that competent administrative and teacher leadership
contribute to school success; reinforce recent literature that defines leadership
as a shared social influence process; underscore that parents and students often
feel excluded from leading in school improvement; and suggest that traditional
school organization is a leadership‐resistant architecture. Implications are noted,
including the need to consider ways in which non‐traditional perspectives of
school leadership address issues related to influence and inclusion in setting and
achieving goals for successful schooling.
Note:
Pre-dates scope of current inquiry. Principal leadership mentioned, but not
specifically literacy.
Reference:
Gentilucci, J. L., & Muto, C. C. (2007). Principals' influence on academic
achievement: The student perspective. NASSP Bulletin, 91(3), 219-236.
Abstract:
Research identifying relationships between principals' instructional leadership
behavior and academic achievement is problematic because it fails to consider
the perspectives of the “consumer” (i.e., students). Consequently, this study
investigated what students perceive principals do to influence their academic
achievement. Students identified direct and highly influential instructional
leadership behaviors. Among these were principal approachability, interactive
classroom observation and/or visitation, and instructional leadership behaviors
that firmly establish administrators as the “principal teachers” in their respective
schools.
Note:
Instructional leadership included. Literacy not included.
Reference:
Gurr, D., Drysdale, L., & Mulford, B. (2005). Successful principal leadership:
Australian case studies. Journal of Educational Administration, 43(6), 539-551.
42
Abstract:
Purpose – This paper aims to provide an Australian perspective on successful
school leadership. Design/methodology/approach – The paper focuses on case
studies in two Australian states (Tasmania and Victoria). Case studies for each
state were developed independently and are reported separately. Findings – The
findings show a remarkable degree of commonality demonstrating that the core
aspects of successful school leadership can be identified in ways that can help
explain the complexity of principal leadership that leads to improved student
outcomes. Originality/value – Highlights the importance and contribution of the
principal to the quality of education.
Note:
Primary and secondary sample. Some reference to literacy, but more generally
principal leadership qualities.
Reference:
Gurr, D., Drysdale, L., & Mulford, B. (2006). Models of successful principal
leadership. School Leadership and Management, 26(4), 371-395.
Abstract:
This article provides an Australian perspective on successful school leadership
that focuses on case studies in two states (Tasmania and Victoria). Case studies
for each state were developed independently and are reported separately. Two
models of successful school leadership are outlined and compared, with the
models, showing a remarkable degree of commonality demonstrating that the
core aspects of successful school leadership can be identified in ways that can
help explain the complexity of principal leadership that leads to improved
student outcomes. Both studies showed the significant contributions principals
made to schools, particularly in the areas of capacity building and teaching and
learning. Characteristics and qualities of the principals identified showed a
common and consistent set of personal traits, behaviours, values and beliefs,
such as honesty and openness, highly developed communication skills, flexibility,
commitment, passion, empathy with others, a sense of ‘innate goodness’, support
of equity and social justice, a belief that all children are important and can
succeed, being other-centred, high expectations and a belief that schools can
make a difference.
Note:
Same study as above Gurr, Drysdale & Mulford, 2005.
Reference:
Hallinger, P. (2005). Instructional leadership and the school principal: A passing
fancy that refuses to fade away. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4(3), 221-239.
Abstract:
One lasting legacy of the effective schools movement was the institutionalization
of the term “instructional leadership” into the vocabulary of educational
administration. Evidence from other recent reviews of the literature on principal
43
leadership (e.g., Hallinger, 2001; Hallinger & Heck 1996; Southworth, 2002)
suggest that twenty years later, the instructional leadership construct is still
alive in the domains of policy, research, and practice in school leadership and
management. Indeed, since the turn of the twenty-first century, the increasing
global emphasis on accountability seems to have reignited interest in
instructional leadership.
This paper ties together evidence drawn from several extensive reviews of the
educational leadership literature that included instructional leadership as a key
construct (Hallinger, 2001, 2003b; Hallinger & Heck, 1996b; Southworth, 2002).
The paper will seek to define the core characteristics underlying this approach to
school leadership and management based upon both conceptual developments
and empirical investigation. The review will identify the defining characteristics
of instructional leadership as it has evolved, elaborate on the predominant
model in use for studying instructional leadership, and report the empirical
evidence about its effects. Finally, the paper will reflect on the relationship
between this model and the evolving educational context in which it is exercised
and how this is reshaping our perspective on instructional leadership.
Note:
Principal instructional leadership, but not literacy.
Reference:
Hargreaves, A., & Goodson, I. (2006). Educational change over time? The
sustainability and nonsustainability of three decades of secondary school change
and continuity. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(1), 3-41.
Abstract:
What can school leaders really do to increase student achievement, and which
leadership practices have the biggest impact on school effectiveness? For the
first time in the history of leadership research in the United States, here's a book
that answers these questions definitively and gives you a list of leadership
competencies that are research-based. Drawing from 35 years of studies, the
authors explain critical leadership principles that every administrator needs to
know: (1) 21 leadership responsibilities that have a significant effect on student
learning and the correlation of each responsibility to academic achievement
gains; (2) The difference between first-order and second-order change and the
leadership responsibilities--in rank order--that are most important for each; (3)
How to choose the right work to focus on to improve student achievement; (4)
The advantages and disadvantages of comprehensive school reform models for
improving student achievement; (5) 11 factors and 39 actions that help you take
a site-specific approach to improving student achievement; and (6) A five-step
plan for effective school leadership that includes a strong team, distributed
responsibilities, and 31 team action steps.
Note:
Principal leadership included, but not specifically literacy.
44
Reference:
Moller, J., & Eggen, A. B. (2005). Team leadership in upper secondary education.
School Leadership and Management, 25(4), 331-347.
Abstract:
This article aims at presenting some of the findings from the Norwegian part of
the ‘Successful School Leadership Project’. In order to adequately capture the
complicated and dynamic nature of leadership in the participating schools, a
distributed and micro-political perspective on leadership is chosen. The
Norwegian team has been investigating elementary as well as secondary
education, but we will for this presentation emphasize some general aspects of
leadership in upper secondary education. Three upper secondary schools will be
presented and used as examples in our discussion. Our findings underscore how
school leadership is an interactive process involving many people and players.
Geographical location, school history and size point to a variety of challenges, but
in all schools we could identify success as a result of a continuous team effort.
Leadership analysed within a distributed perspective can be described as an
organizational quality in these schools. The many faces of distributed leadership
in upper secondary education can best be comprehended in the light of the
schools’ historical, cultural, political and social context. The study also
demonstrates how trust and power within distributed leadership of an
organization were closely interrelated.
Note:
Principal leadership included, but not specifically literacy.
Reference:
Opdenakker, M. C., & Van Damme, J. (2007). Do school context, student
composition and school leadership affect school practice and outcomes in
secondary education? British Educational Research Journal, 33(2), 179-206.
Abstract:
This study examined effects of school context, student composition and school
leadership on school practice and outcomes in secondary education in Flanders.
The study reveals that relations between school characteristics do exist and that
it is possible to explain an important part of the differences in mean effort and
mathematics achievement of schools by means of these school characteristics.
Furthermore, it was found that school size positively affects school outcomes and
that its effect is mediated by school practice characteristics like the amount of
cooperation between teachers, which affects school climate and outcomes.
School leadership did not affect the school practice much, perhaps because of a
lack of a strong educational leadership in most of the Flemish secondary schools.
However, the student composition of schools seemed to be very important for
school practice, as well as for school outcomes. Nevertheless, the study revealed
that schools can affect the outcomes of their students independently of their
student composition and context by means of school practice.
Note:
Principal leadership mentioned and school characteristics.
45
Reference:
Robinson, V. M., Lloyd, C. A., & Rowe, K. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on
student outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 635-674.
Abstract:
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to examine the relative impact of
different types of leadership on students' academic and nonacademic outcomes.
Research Design: The methodology involved an analysis of findings from 27
published studies of the relationship between leadership and student outcomes.
The first meta-analysis, including 22 of the 27 studies, involved a comparison of
the effects of transformational and instructional leadership on student outcomes.
The second meta-analysis involved a comparison of the effects of five inductively
derived sets of leadership practices on student outcomes. Twelve of the studies
contributed to this second analysis.
Findings: The first meta-analysis indicated that the average effect of instructional
leadership on student outcomes was three to four times that of transformational
leadership. Inspection of the survey items used to measure school leadership
revealed five sets of leadership practices or dimensions: establishing goals and
expectations; resourcing strategically; planning, coordinating, and evaluating
teaching and the curriculum; promoting and participating in teacher learning
and development, and ensuring an orderly and supportive environment. The
second meta-analysis revealed strong average effects for the leadership
dimension involving promoting and participating in teacher learning and
development and moderate effects for the dimensions concerned with goal
setting and planning, coordinating, and evaluating teaching and the curriculum.
Conclusions and Implications for Research and Practice: The comparisons
between transformational and instructional leadership and between the five
leadership dimensions suggested that the more leaders focus their relationships,
their work, and their learning on the core business of teaching and learning, the
greater their influence on student outcomes. The article concludes with a
discussion of the need for leadership research and practice to be more closely
linked to the evidence on effective teaching and effective teacher learning. Such
alignment could increase the impact of school leadership on student outcomes
even further.
Note:
Principal leadership, instructional leadership, not specifically literacy.
Reference:
Schaffer, E., Reynolds, D., & Stringfield, S. (2012). Sustaining turnaround at the
school and district levels: The high reliability schools project at Sandfields
Secondary School. Journal of Education for Students at Risk, 17(1-2), 108-127.
46
Abstract:
Beginning from 1 high-poverty, historically low-achieving secondary school's
successful turnaround work, this article provides data relative to a successful
school turnaround, the importance of external and system-level supports, and
the importance of building for sustainable institutionalization of improvements.
The evidence suggests the importance of creating a more nearly high-reliability
set of reform supports at the school and district levels.
Note:
Principal involvement and literacy/ student achievement effect, but not principal
leadership of literacy specifically.
Reference:
Smyth, J. (2007). Pedagogy, school culture and teacher learning: Towards more
durable and resistant approaches to secondary school literacy. Language and
Education, 21(5), 406-419.
Abstract:
The relational, cultural and contextual view of literacy discussed in this paper
has profound and widespread implications for the way teachers think about
their students, their families, backgrounds and experiences and the aspirations
students hold for the future. Focussing on the theoretical construct of teacher
identity, the paper discusses the ways teachers worked and what happened to
the culture of their schools when a structured literacy intervention enabled them
to develop some agency as educational professionals, when provided with some
‘social space’ in respect of their literacy practices. The paper concludes that the
teachers were involved to varying degrees in embracing changes that
represented a move in the direction of a socially just pedagogy – the paper
explains why.
Note:
Theoretical paper – no sample/method.
47
Reference list
Barnes, C. A., Camburn, E., Sanders, B. R., & Sebastian, J. (2010). Developing
instructional leadership: Using mixed methods to explore the black box of
planned change in principals' professional practice. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 46(2), 241-279.
Bishop, A. R., Berryman, M. A., Wearmouth, J. B., & Peter, M. (2012). Developing
an effective education reform model for indigenous and other minoritized
students. School Effectiveness and School Improvement: An International Journal
of Research, Policy and Practice, 23(1), 49-70.
Brundrett, M. (2006). Evaluating the individual and combined impact of national
leadership programmes in England: Perceptions and practices. School Leadership
and Management, 26(5), 473-488.
Burns, M. K. (2008). Response to intervention at the secondary level: Tiered
interventions—including whole-school, small-group, and individual
interventions—are what make RTI initiatives successful. Principal Leadership,
8(7), 12-15.
Canadian Language and Literacy Research Network. (2009). The impact of the
literacy and numeracy secretariat: Changes in Ontario's education system.
London, UK: Author.
Cravens, X., Goldring, E., Porter, A., Polikoff, M., Murphy, J., & Elliott, S. (under
review). Standard setting for principal leadership assessment: A deliberative
process.
Crum, K. S., & Sherman, W. H. (2008). Facilitating high achievement: High school
principals' reflections on their successful leadership practices. Journal of
Educational Administration, 46(5), 562-580.
Day, C. (2005). Principals who sustain success: Making a difference in schools in
challenging circumstances. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 8(4),
273-290.
Day, C. (2005a). Sustaining success in challenging contexts: Leadership in English
schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 43(6), 573-583.
Day, C., Sammons, P., Hopkins, D., Harris, A., Leithwood, K., Gu, Q., et al. (2009).
The impact of school leadership on pupil outcomes: Research report RR108.
London: Department for Children, Schools and Families.
Day, C., Day, C., Sammons, P., Hopkins, D., Harris, A., Leithwood, K., Gu, Q., et al.
(2009a). The impact of school leadership on pupil outcomes: Final report.
Nottingham, UK: University of Nottingham.
48
Dinham, S. (2005). Principal leadership for outstanding educational outcomes.
Journal of Educational Administration, 43(4), 338-356.
Fancera, S. F., & Bliss, J. R. (2011). Instructional leadership influence on collective
teacher efficacy to improve school achievement. Leadership and policy in schools,
10(3), 349-370.
Fink, D., & Brayman, C. (2006). School leadership succession and the challenges
of change. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(1), 62-89.
Fletcher, J., Greenwood, J., Grimley, M., & Parkhill, F. (2011). Raising literacy
achievement in reading: How principals of 10- to 12-year-old students are
making this happen.
Foster, R. (2004). Leadership and secondary school improvement: Case studies
of tensions and possibilities. International Journal of Leadership in Education,
8(1), 35-52.
Gentilucci, J. L., & Muto, C. C. (2007). Principals' influence on academic
achievement: The student perspective. NASSP Bulletin, 91(3), 219-236.
Goldring, E., Porter, A. C., Murphy, J., Elliott, S. N., & Cravens, X. (2009). Assessing
learning-centred leadership: Connections to research, professional standards,
and current practices. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 8, 1-36.
Goldring, E., Cravens, X., Murphy, J., Porter, A., Elliott, S., & Carson, B. (2009). The
evaluation of principals: What and how do states and urban districts assess
leadership? Elementary School Journal, 110(1), 19-39.
Greenwood, J., Fletcher, J., Parkhill, F., Grimley, M., & Bridges, S. (2009).
Improving literacy outcomes for all students through leadership in learning: A
discussion based on a study on the literacy needs of 10 to 13 year old students and
the strategies that lead to their success. Paper presented at the International
Congress of School Effectiveness and Improvement (ICSEI) Annual Conference.
Gu, Q., Sammons, P., & Mehta, P. (2008). Leadership characteristics and practices
in schools with different effectiveness and improvement profiles. School
Leadership and Management, 28(1), 43-63.
Gurr, D., Drysdale, L., & Mulford, B. (2006). Models of successful principal
leadership. School Leadership and Management, 26(4), 371-395.
Gurr, D., Drysdale, L., & Mulford, B. (2005). Successful principal leadership:
Australian case studies. Journal of Educational Administration, 43(6), 539-551.
Gurr, D., Drysdale, L., Swann, R., Doherty, J., Ford, P., & Goode, H. (2005). The
international successful school principalship project (ISSPP): Comparison across
country case studies. Paper presented at the The Australian Council for
Educational Leaders National Conference.
49
Hallinger, P. (2005). Instructional leadership and the school principal: A passing
fancy that refuses to fade away. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4(3), 221-239.
Hargreaves, A., & Goodson, I. (2006). Educational change over time? The
sustainability and nonsustainability of three decades of secondary school change
and continuity. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(1), 3-41.
Leech, D. F., & Fulton, C. R. (2008). Faculty perceptions of shared decision making
and the principal's leadership behaviors in secondary schools in a large urban
district. Education 128(4), 630-644.
Leithwood, K., Day, C., Sammons, P., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2006). Successful
school leadership: What it is and how it influences pupil learning. London, UK:
DfES.
Levin, B. (2010). The challenge of large-scale literacy improvement. School
Effectiveness and School Improvement: An International Journal of Research, Policy
and Practice, 21(4), 359-376.
Louis, K. S., Wahlstrom, K. L., Michlin, M., Gordon, M., Thomas, E., Leithwood, K.,
et al. (2010). Learning from leadership: Investigating the links to improved student
learning: University of Minnesota.
May, S. (2007). Sustaining effective literacy practices over time in secondary
schools: School organisational and change issues. Language and Education,
21(5), 387-405.
May, H., & Smyth, J. (2007). Addressing literacy in secondary schools:
Introduction. Language and Education, 21(5), 365-369.
May, H., & Wright, N. (2007). Secondary literacy across the curriculum:
Challenges and possibilities. Language and Education, 21(5), 370-376.
McGhee, M. W., & Chulsub, L. (2007). Leadership and writing: How principals'
knowledge, beliefs, and interventions affect writing instruction in elementary
and secondary schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(3), 358-380.
Moller, J., & Eggen, A. B. (2005). Team leadership in upper secondary education.
School Leadership and Management, 25(4), 331-347.
Murphy, J. (2004). Leadership for literacy: A framework for policy and practice.
School Effectiveness and School Improvement: An International Journal of
Research, Policy and Practice, 15(1), 65-96.
Murphy, J., Elliott, S. N., Goldring, E., & Porter, A. C. (2007). Leaderhip for
learning: A research-based model and taxonomy of behaviors. School Leadership
and Management, 27(2), 179-201.
50
Murphy, J., Elliott, S. N., Goldring, E., & Porter, A. C. (2010). Leaders for
productive schools. In P. Peterson, E. Baker & B. McGaw (Eds.), International
encyclopedia of education (Vol. 4, pp. 746-751). Oxford: Elsevier.
Murphy, J., Goldring, E. B., Cravens, X. C., Elliott, S., & Porter, A. C. (2011). The
Vanderbilt Assessment of Leaderhip in Education: Measuring learning-centred
leadership. Journal of East China Normal University, 29(1), 1-10.
O'Donnell, R. J., & White, G. P. (2005). Within the accountabiltiy era: Principals'
instructional leadership behaviors and student achievement. NASSP Bulletin,
89(645), 56-71.
Opdenakker, M. C., & Van Damme, J. (2007). Do school context, student
composition and school leadership affect school practice and outcomes in
secondary education? British Educational Research Journal, 33(2), 179-206.
Patterson, J. A., Eubank, H., Rathbun, S. E., & Noble, S. (2010). Making sense of an
urban district's adolescent literacy reform. NASSP Bulletin, 94(3), 227-246.
Peariso, J. F. (2011). A study of principals' instructional leadership behaviors and
beliefs of good pedagogical practice among effective California high schools serving
socioeconomically disadvantaged and English language learners. Unpublished
EdD, Liberty University.
Polikoff, M., May, H., Porter, A., Elliott, S., Goldring, E., & Murphy, J. (2009). An
examination of differential item functioning on teh Vanderbilt Assessment of
Leadership in Education. Journal of School Leadership, 19, 661-679.
Porter, A. C., Murphy, J., Goldring, E., Elliott, S. N., Polikoff, M. S., & May, H. (2008).
VAL-ED Technical manual.
Porter, A. C., Polikoff, M. S., Goldring, E., Murphy, J., Elliott, S. N., & May, H. (2010).
Developing a psychometically sound assessment of school leadership: The VALED as a case study. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(2), 135-173.
Porter, A. C., Polikoff, M. S., Goldring, E. B., Murphy, J., Elliott, S. N., & May, H.
(2010). Investigating the validity and reliability of the Vanderbilt Assessment of
Leadership in Education. The Elementary School Journal, 111(2), 282-313.
PricewaterhouseCoopers. (2007). Independent study into school leadership: Main
report. Nottingham, UK: Department for Education and Skills.
PricewaterhouseCoopers. (2007a). Independent study into school leadership:
Technical report. Nottingham, UK: Department for Education and Skills.
Quint, J. C., Akey, T. M., Rappaport, S., & Willner, C. J. (2007). Instructional
leadership, teaching quality, and student achievement: Suggestive evidence from
three urban school districts: MDRC.
51
Robinson, V. M., Lloyd, C. A., & Rowe, K. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on
student outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 635-674.
Sammons, P., Hopkins, D., Harris, A., Leithwood, K., Gu, Q., et al. (2007). The
impact of school leadership on pupil outcomes: Interim report. Nottingham, UK:
University of Nottingham.
Sammons, P., Mujtaba, T., Earl, L., & Gu, Q. (2007). Participation in network
learning community programmes and standards of pupil achievement: Does it
make a difference? School Leadership and Management, 27(3), 213-238.
Schaffer, E., Reynolds, D., & Stringfield, S. (2012). Sustaining turnaround at the
school and district levels: The high reliability schools project at Sandfields
Secondary School. Journal of Education for Students at Risk, 17(1-2), 108-127.
Smyth, J. (2007). Pedagogy, school culture and teacher learning: Towards more
durable and resistant approaches to secondary school literacy. Language and
Education, 21(5), 406-419.
Smyth, J., & Whitehead, D. (2007). Literacy research methodology that is up to
the challenge. Language and Education, 21(5), 377-386.
Wahlstrom, K. L., & Louis, K. S. (2008). How teachers experience principal
leadership: The roles of professional community, trust, efficacy, and shared
responsibility. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(4), 458-495.
Whitehead, D. (2007). Literacy assessment practices: Moving from standardised
to ecologically valid assessments in secondary schools. Language and Education,
21(5), 434-452.
Wright, N. (2007). Building literacy communities of practice across subject
disciplines in secondary schools. Language and Education, 21(5), 420-433.
52