ANNOTATIONS

1

Running head: DISTRIBUTED LEADERSHIP IN SCHOOLS

Distributed Leadership: An Action Research Project

Gary W. Street

Washington State University

Ed Research 521

ANNOTATIONS

2

QUESTIONS AND ANNONTATIONS

What are the Leadership Functions Performed in Schools, and by

Whom?

Heller, M. J. & Firestone, W. A. (1995). Who’s in charge here?

Sources of leadership for change in eight schools. The

Elementary School Journal, 96 (1), 65 – 85.

Heller and Firestone studied eight elementary schools in

four districts that have implemented a social problem solving

program (SPS)for at least three years, to determine how six

leadership functions were performed in each school, how the

functions contributed to the levels of institutionalization of

SPS, “what roles contributed to function performance, and how

those roles were configured” (pg. 72). The authors point out

research supporting effective leadership as a set of functions

by many individuals in differing roles. They maintain,

“Successful change in schools results not from the work of a key

leader but from the effective performance of a series of change

leadership functions” (pg. 67). They continue, “This line of

reasoning suggests that certain tasks need to be accomplished,

but it does not matter who does them” (pg. 67). The six

leadership functions identified for this study are:

providing and selling a vision,

obtaining resources,

providing encouragement and recognition,

adapting standard operating procedures,

ANNOTATIONS

3

monitoring the improvement effort,

handling disturbances.

Seven suburban schools selected for the study were similar

in SES (moderate wealth). One inner city school had a high

percentage of free and reduced lunches. Based on SPS consultant

data regarding levels of institutionalizing of SPS, the eight

schools were divided into three groups. Four schools fully

institutionalized SPS, three schools institutionalized SPS in a

token manner, and one school partially implemented it.

Forty-two teachers, principals and central office

administrators were interviewed in the eight schools and four

districts over a period of four months. Interviews focused on

the following areas: assessing institutionalization and

sentiments about SPS, leadership functions as related to change,

and an evaluation of major roles to perform the functions.

The authors triangulated data across roles to verify the

levels of institutionalization at each school – e.g. SPS

consultant information regarding institutionalization was

verified with teacher information. Next, they reviewed

interview information to “clarify the extent to which change

function had been attended to in each school, and if so, to what

extent their contribution to whatever level of

institutionalization had been noted” (pg. 72). Finally, the

ANNOTATIONS

4

authors used interview data to determine the roles that

contributed to accomplishment of the above functions.

Based on interview responses, all of the six leadership

functions were present in the four schools identified as fully

institutionalizing SPS. Only two of the six leadership

functions were present in the token institutionalization school.

Teachers in schools fully institutionalizing SPS fulfilled at

least five leadership functions. Principals and central office

personnel also performed various functions inherent to their

positions – e.g. providing resources, scheduling. The authors

note a “redundancy” of leadership functions performed by a

variety of roles in the four schools fully institutionalizing

SPS. Results from this study suggest that the success of the

SPS initiative in the four schools was not dependent on the

principal alone, but on the leadership functions shared by all.

Mayrowetz, D., & Weinstein, C. S. (1999). Sources of leadership

for inclusive education: creating schools for all children.

Educational Administrative Quarterly, 35 (4), 423 – 449.

The authors examined inclusive leadership in three schools

in relation to the degree of implementation and

institutionalization of special education inclusion. They also

examined whether leadership functions were performed primarily

from school administrators, or performed by others in a variety

of roles.

ANNOTATIONS

5

The six leadership functions used in the study were:

providing and selling a vision, providing encouragement and

recognition, obtaining resources, adapting standard operating

procedures, monitoring, and handling disturbances.

Mayrowetz and Weinstein studied a K-2 primary school, a 3-6

intermediate school and a 7-8 middle school from one district to

determine leadership functions as related to

institutionalization of special education inclusion in each

school. They collected data from administrator and teacher

interviews, information from policies and practices,

observations of formal and informal staff meetings on inclusion,

and case studies of four special education children with a focus

on inclusion, the teacher and the aide. The data was coded

using the six leadership functions. They concluded that the

level of redundancy in leadership functions were consistent with

the degree to which inclusion was institutionalized in the three

schools. At the K-2 school, thirty-eight leadership functions

to implement inclusion were performed by individuals in eight

roles. At the 3-6 school, thirty-nine leadership functions to

implement inclusion were performed by individuals in eight

roles. At the middle school, twenty-seven leadership functions

to implement inclusion were performed by individuals in eight

roles. Based on observational data and interviews, the K-2 and

3-6 schools institutionalized inclusion to a greater degree than

ANNOTATIONS

6

the middle school. The authors note that the level of

involvement and commitment by principals at each of the schools

may have been a factor in the degree to which inclusion was

institutionalized. Finally, they conclude that leadership

functions at the three schools were performed and shared within

eight roles. The authors note that the middle school teachers

performed only three functions, whereas grade school teachers

performed a total of six. The principal and assistant principal

at the middle school performed five functions, and the

principals at the elementary schools each performed six

functions.

Robinson, V. M., & Timperley, H. S. (2007). The Leadership of

the Improvement of Teaching and Learning: Lessons from

Initiative with Positive Outcomes for Students. Australian

Journal of Education, 51(3), 247 - 259.

Robinson and Timperley examined professional development

initiatives that have made a positive impact on students and

teachers. They then analyzed seventeen studies with evidence of

such impact, and noted all leadership practices employed. All

demonstrated leadership practices were collapsed into five broad

dimensions: goal setting co-constructed by teachers and outside

researchers or professional developers; ensuring strategic

alignment of resources and pedagogy; creating and maintaining a

professional learning community that focuses on improvement of

student achievement; engaging in constructive dialogue about

ANNOTATIONS

7

problematic instructional practices, and gaining commitment to

address them; and selecting and developing smart tools – the

resources needed to address teaching and learning and impact

student performance.

The five leadership practices were carried out by those in

formal leadership positions and those not in formal leadership

positions. All leadership dimensions impacted student

performance in the seventeen studies. Distributed leadership was

evident in the studies with respect to “who exercised leadership

and how it was practiced” (pg. 258).

The author note that the leadership practices carried out

by teachers and principals, should not be viewed as distinct

practices, but integrated into continual “cycles of inquiry”

regarding student and staff needs (pg. 258).

Walstrom, K. L., & Louis, K. S. (2008). How teachers experience

principal leadership: the roles of professional trust,

efficacy and responsibility. Educational Administrative

Quarterly, 44(4), 458 - 495.

Walstrom and Louis examine factors “that are present in

principal-teacher interactions and teacher to teacher

relationships, to see how those may have an impact on teachers’

classroom instructional practices” (pg. 458). Data from the

study was based on the Teacher Survey collected from 4,165

K – 12 teachers across the United States. Their findings

indicate a relationship between strong instructional practices

ANNOTATIONS

8

and shared leadership. The three practices identified for the

study were standard contemporary practice (a focus on student

exploration and making connections to the real world), focused

instructional practice (an emphasis on pacing of instruction and

academic learning) and flexible grouping practice (groupings of

students based on needs).

Shared leadership and four PLC variables - reflective

dialogue, collective responsibility, deprivatization of

practice, and shared norms - had a significant impact on

standard contemporary practice, resulting in R²= .065. Shared

leadership with PLC variables had a significant impact on

flexible grouping practice resulting in R²= .086. Shared

leadership and PLC variables had a significant impact of .2 on

focused instructional practice.

Watson, S. T., & Scribner, J. P. (2007). Beyond distributed

leadership: collaboration, interaction, and emergent

reciprocal influence. Journal of School Leadership,

17(July).

Watson and Scribner probe into the conceptual foundations

of the term leadership, and offer a framework for leadership

grounded in collaboration, participation and learning. They

conceptualize leadership, “as the process and product of social

interaction that influences purposive human activity” (pg.445).

“The interactional processes of teacher collaboration has

revealed dimensions of how a form leadership conceived as

ANNOTATIONS

9

emergent reciprocal influence develops within organizations” (pg

447). They maintain that the interactional nature of

distributed leadership does not “reside a few individuals”, but

is spread across the organization (pg 451).

How is Leadership Conceptualized as Distributed in Schools?

What are the Effects of Distributed Leadership on School

Climate?

Anderson, K. D., (2003). The nature of teacher leadership in

schools as reciprocal influences between teachers leaders

and principals. School Effectivenss and School

Improvement, 15 (1), 97-114.

Anderson studied six schools in Saskatoon, Canada noted for

teacher leadership, to determine the influences between teacher

leaders and principals. Anderson notes that because of recent

reform mandates, there has been a shift in emphasis to a greater

involvement of teachers in leadership, decision making and

improvement efforts. Anderson maintains that schools where

principals utilize teacher leaders effectively in reform efforts

have more effective schools than principals who do not. In

addition, principals in successful schools are able to identify

key teachers, and influence them to take leadership roles.

These principals allow teachers to make decisions about teaching

and learning. Teacher leaders in successful schools influence

principals on matters of direction, pedagogy and resources. The

authors assert that because of new leadership roles in schools,

ANNOTATIONS

10

there is a need to better understand the reciprocal nature of

leadership influences between principals and teachers.

Based on interviews of twenty-eight teachers and principals

in the six schools studied, three models of reciprocal

leadership are identified: buffered, interactive and contested.

In the three schools typifying the buffered model of

reciprocal leadership, principals were isolated from other

teachers, and interacted primarily with teacher leaders. They

utilized teacher leaders as “foot soldiers” in sharing various

leadership functions. Because a core group of teachers are

identified as leaders in this model, it leaves out other

potential teacher leaders.

In the two schools using the interactive model, principals

promoted greater teacher leadership by interacting with all

teachers, distributing decision making among them, and ensuring

active teacher participation. Teachers in these schools were

not appointed to leadership roles, but led in areas they found

meaningful. Anderson notes that the interactive model mirrors

transformational leadership.

In the school identified as using a contested model, the

principal was “outside the loop” and was against his teacher

leaders. Teacher leaders in this school attempted to take

decision making from the control of the principal. Teacher

leaders were viewed as being able to stand up to the principal.

ANNOTATIONS

11

Principal decisions were often contested. Other potential

teacher leaders were encouraged by their peers to reject

leadership opportunities.

Beatty, B. (2007). Going through the emotions: leadership that

gets to the heart of school renewal. Australian Journal of

Education, 51(3), 328 - 340.

Beatty maintains that shared leadership for “whole school

renewal..requires emotionally safe spaces for learning and

growing together” (pg. 329). He asserts that for shared

leadership to be effective in school renewal, leaders must be

aware of emotional influences, interpersonal relationships, and

group dynamics of their schools. In addition, principals and

teachers must collectively define the processes they will use to

make decisions, as well as define their purpose. He maintains

that for whole school renewal, adjustments must be made to

collectively create a culture where leadership is pervasive. He

maintains that to re-culture our schools for shared leadership

as part of this renewal, leaders must build relationships with

others. Bureaucratic hierarchies, he maintains, “create

patterns in emotional responses in accordance with perceptions

of power and lack of it” (pg. 329). This perception of power

can result in “emotional fall out” from which “leaders and

others need to recover” for renewal and distributed leadership

in schools (pg. 338).

ANNOTATIONS

12

Camburn, E., Rowan, B., & Taylor, J. (2003). Distributed

leadership in schools: the case of elementary schools

adopting comprehensive school reform models. Educational

Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(4), 347 - 373.

Camburn, Rowan, and Taylor study elementary schools that

have adopted comprehensive school reform models (CSR), and how

these models affect the distribution of leadership. They

maintain that the focus of research on school leadership has

changed from “what” the principal leader does on a daily basis,

to “the leadership exercised by teachers, external change agents

and others” (pg.348). The data used for the study included 374

elementary school leaders (principals, coordinators and others)

who were given the School Leadership Questionnaire, and 100

principals who were given the School Characteristic Inventory

(SCI). The study compares intervention schools – schools using

the CSR model, and comparison schools, within 17 geographical

regions in the United States. Schools using the CSR Model

influence the distribution of leadership across various

positions. In addition, schools using the CSR model allocated

more leadership positions, 5:1 - teacher to leader, than

comparison schools, 9:1 - teacher to leader. The CSR model was

significantly associated with how leadership was configured, and

the extent to which leadership functions were activated.

ANNOTATIONS

13

Harris, A. (2007). Distributed Leadership: Conceptual confusion

and empirical reticence. International Journal of

Leadership in Education, 10(3), 315 - 325.

Harris maintains that distributed leadership has not been

clearly defined. In addition, much of the literature written

about distributed leadership in regards to student learning is

not based on research. A majority of research has focused on

“how leadership is distributed rather than focusing upon the

effects or impact of the different forms of distribution” (Pg

319). Harris points out studies that provide some evidence of

the “benefits of distributive leadership to teacher

effectiveness”, student engagement, and positive student

outcomes (pg.319). Harris maintains that because of the

demands on schools today, one individual cannot do the work.

Therefore, greater “emphasis is being placed on teachers as

leaders” (Pg.321).

Jordanoglou, D. (2007). The teacher as leader: the relationship

between emotional intelligence and leadership

effectiveness, commitment, and satisfaction. Journal of

Leadership Studies, 1 (3) 57 – 66.

Jordanoglou studied the relationships among emotional

intelligence, leadership effectiveness, commitment and

satisfaction in education. The study sample included 210

teachers from different schools in Athens, Greece. Jordanoglou

hypothesized the following: emotional intelligence has a

positive relationship with leadership behavior, commitment, and

ANNOTATIONS

14

effectiveness of teachers; leadership behaviors have a positive

relationship with teacher effectiveness and satisfaction; and, a

positive relationship is expected between commitment and

satisfaction.

Jordanoglou utilized five questionnaires for his study to

assess intrapersonal, intrapersonal, adaptability, stress

management, and general mood; to assess seven teacher leadership

roles of managing interpersonal relationships, developing

others, managing innovations, managing execution, managing

continuous improvement, team building, and energizing people; to

assess job satisfaction; to assess effectiveness. Results using

standardized regression estimates are as follows: emotional

intelligence has a significant effective on leadership roles -

.48, effectiveness - .39, and commitment - .39. In addition,

leadership roles exert a strong influence on effectiveness -

.41, and satisfaction - .22. Commitment had a moderate effect

on satisfaction - .33, and effectiveness - .34.

Mayrowetz, D., (2008). Making sense of distributed

leadership: exploring the multiple usages of the concept in

the field. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44 (3)424

– 435.

Mayrowetz inventories four diverse research perspectives of

the term distributed leadership, discusses their strengths and

weaknesses, and offers suggestions for researchers to link the

above perspectives to the practical concerns in education. He

ANNOTATIONS

15

maintains, the term “attracts a range of meanings and is

associated with a variety of practices..and these significant

discrepancies allow researchers to talk past each other.” (pg.

425).

Below are the four perspectives of distributed leadership

Mayrowetz identifies:

Usage 1: distributed leadership is viewed as an activity

“stretched over multiple people” (pg. 426).

Usage 2: distributed leadership is viewed as a democracy

and shared among all in a democratic way. Some researchers

suggest that a democracy in leadership can have negative

results for teachers and schools.

Usage 3: distributed leadership is viewed for the purposes

of efficiency and effectiveness. Teachers engage in

leadership activities if they have the expertise – e.g.

reading coaches, lead teachers. Using these experts to

assist in leadership makes the job of principal “do-able”.

Mayrowetz notes that not all potential leaders are, or will

be, good leaders. The distribution of leadership could

result in the “distribution of incompetence” (pg, 430).

Usage 4: distributed leadership is viewed as a means for

capacity building. Usage 4 promotes multiple people

engaging in leadership roles so as to learn more about

themselves and the problems facing the school. To achieve

ANNOTATIONS

16

this, it requires re-culturing a school. Mayrowetz notes

that usage 4 may be in the best position for school

improvement because it promotes all teachers in the

engagement of various roles of leadership.

Ogawa, R. T. & Bossert, S. T., 1995. Leadership as an

organizational quality. Educational Administrative

Quarterly, 31 (2), 224-243.

Ogawa and Bossert assert that leadership in an organization

flows through individuals in different roles, and is influenced

by the personal resources – e.g. knowledge, experience,

position. To support this view, they provide the conceptual

roots of organizational leadership, and outline 4 assumptions

guiding it: function, role, the individual, and culture. They

then discuss different perspectives of organizational leadership

- technical-rational and institutional – and how they lead to

different treatments of the above assumptions. Finally, they

offer an alternative view of organizational leadership, focusing

on different treatments of the 4 leadership assumptions within

an institutional perspective.

From the technical rational perspective, individuals are

assigned a hierarchal leadership role for the purpose of

achieving organizational goals. Culture is shaped by the leader

from this perspective. The organization is a reflection of the

leader’s traits and actions.

ANNOTATIONS

17

The institutional perspective sets leadership at the

organizational level, not on an individual level, and is

concerned with survival by seeking external legitimacy. To

achieve external legitimacy and survive, leadership from the

institutional perspective is distributed through individuals

across a network of roles. These roles are based on the

resources individuals possess and/or have access to – e.g.

knowledge, position. Ogawa and Bossert adopt the institutional

perspective, because they believe that, “Among emerging

conceptualizations, it provides a promising viewpoint for

examining the many facets of school organization” (pg. 227).

Printy, S. M. & Marks, H. M. (2006). Shared leadership for

teacher and student learning. Theory into Practice, 45

92), 125-132.

Printy and Marks examined how principals and teachers

contribute to shared instructional leadership in schools, and

the relationship of this leadership with student and teacher

learning.

They studied two schools – Ashley Elementary located in the

deep South, and Flinders High School located in the West - where

shared leadership is highly evident.

The authors note that the high levels of trust in each of

the schools facilitated teacher and principal interactions.

Teachers at both schools felt free to talk about instructional

matters and other issues. Discussions often led to changes that

ANNOTATIONS

18

guided their work. In both schools, teacher leaders emerged

because of their perceived expertise. Teachers held each other

accountable for learning. Slackers - those not willing to follow

the goals set by the schools - were not tolerated. Non-

conforming teachers were ignored by their peers and often

pressured to leave. At both schools, student progress was

monitored by principals and teachers. In addition, innovations

to teaching and learning were encouraged. The above examples of

shared leadership resulted in coherent and stable instructional

programs.

Scribner, J. P., Sawyer, R. K., Watson, S. T., Myers, V. L.

(2007). Teacher teams and distributed leadership: a study

of group discourse and collaboration. Educational

Administration Quarterly, 43 (1), 67 – 100.

J. Scribner, R. Sawyer, S. Watson and V. Myers explore the

social (interactions) and situational aspects of distributed

leadership as related to two teacher teams in a large Missouri

high school (building PLT and instructional PLT). The authors

pose the following questions for their study: What factors

contribute to or interfere with team decision making? What

discursive patterns are associated with leadership within

teacher work teams? What organizational conditions foster or

impede leadership within teacher work teams?

Teacher leadership emerges from the network of

relationships between people. This network focuses on the

ANNOTATIONS

19

activities of leaders, not who formally leads. Researchers

suggest that when schools have teachers in self managed teams –

teams with a specific purpose of making decisions regarding

education, student achievement is higher. Little is known

though, about the interactional processes of teacher teams.

Using comparative and discourse analyses, the authors noted

three constructs that “emerged” from their study regarding the

interactions of team members: purpose, autonomy and patterns of

discourse. They note that purpose and autonomy shaped the

direction and discussion within each teams.

This article brings to light a few of the problems teams

may face in shared leadership and decision making. Noting the

relationship between purpose and autonomy, the authors maintain

that the problem solving team faced a “disabling autonomy”,

engaging in discussions that were administrative. The

instructional PLT’s experienced enabling autonomy, engaging in

meaning discussions regarding teaching and learning. The authors

caution, the instructional PLT “was at risk of solving the wrong

problem or developing solutions that lacked innovation and

creativity because of the team’s agreed-on narrow charge and its

lack of focus on problem solving” (pg. 87). Because of each

team’s charge and challenge, the social interactions of each

team, were different. The building PLT interactions were often

passive (exchanging information and questioning) in the absence

ANNOTATIONS

20

of autonomy. The instructional PLT was characterized with a

“balance of active and passive” discourse (pg. 89).

Spillane, J. P. (2005). Distributed Leadership. The Educational

Forum, 69(Winter), 143-150.

Spillane focuses on the “practice” of distributed

leadership and the “how” it is distributed. Spillane maintains

that an individual leader cannot “single-handedly lead schools

to greatness; leadership involves an array of individuals with

various tools and structures” (pg 143). He also points out

problems with studies that focus on the “what of leadership –

structures, functions, routines, and roles – rather than the how

of school leadership – the daily performance of leadership

routines, functions, and structures” (pg 143). In the article,

he defines how leadership is spread out “over an interactive web

of people and situations” (pg. 144). He maintains, “From a

distributed perspective, leadership is a system of practice

comprised of a collection of interacting components: leaders,

followers, and situation” (pg. 150). He continues, “These

interacting components must be understood together because the

system is more than the sum of the component parts and

practice”.

ANNOTATIONS

21

Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2001).

Investigating school leadership practice: a distributed

perspective. Educational Researcher, April, 23-27.

The authors begin with a distributive leadership theory

from a “cognitive” perspective which has “social origins”. They

maintain, “Cognition is distributed though the environments’

material and cultural artifacts and throughout other people in

collaborate efforts to complete complex tasks” (pg. 23). Their

study focuses on the leader as a “unit of analysis” rather than

individuals as leaders, and how leadership practice and tasks

are “distributed among both positional and informal leaders”.

They give examples from the elementary schools they studied

where the enactment of interdependent tasks, in and out of the

classroom, “lead to the evolution of a leadership practice that

is potentially more than the sum of each individual’s practice”

(pg 24).

Is there a relationship between distributed leadership and

student achievement?

Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D., (1999). The relative effects of

Principal and teacher sources of leadership on student

engagement with school. Educational Administration

Quarterly, 35 (December) 679 – 706.

Leithwood and Jantzi inquire about the effects of principal

and teacher sources of leadership on student engagement and

school conditions. They also identify similarities and

differences of schools in regards to how leadership is

exercised.

ANNOTATIONS

22

The authors assert that findings in other studies done on

the relationships of principals on student achievement have been

inconclusive. The authors continue, “Studies that include

mediating and/or moderating variables in their designs tend to

report significant relationships” (pg. 681). Leithwood and

Jantzi identify mediating variables for their study as purposes

and goals – collectively setting the direction for a school,

planning –collectively establishing and accomplishing

challenging yet attainable goals that are motivational to an

organization, organizational culture – the shared norms, values,

beliefs and assumptions of an organization, structure and

organization – the “nature of relationships established among

people and groups in a school and between the school and its

external constituents” (pg. 683), and information collections

and decision making – how information is collected to for

decision making and which members are involved in decisions.

Student engagement is used as a dependent variable in the study

because of its link to student performance (pg. 685).

A 5-point Likert survey was administered to all K-9

teachers (n=2,465) regarding school conditions and leadership.

A second likert scale was administered to students on engagement

and family educational culture (n=9,941 responses). Path

analysis was used to assess the relationships among separate

variables. Principal leadership had a small effect (.15) on

ANNOTATIONS

23

student participation and a significant effect with school

conditions (.66). Correlation coefficients for teacher

leadership on participation were insignificant (.14), but were

significant on school conditions (.52).

Regression analysis was used to estimate the strength of

relationships between the five mediating school conditions and

teacher and principal leadership. Principal leadership had

modest effects on culture (.26) and structure and organization

(.27). Teacher leadership had weak effects on all school

conditions (.05 to .10).

The authors note that the findings may be disappointing to

those advocating for more teacher leadership in schools. Given

the findings, they question the motivation for educators to

merge the concept of leadership with the teaching profession.

They note that the concept of teaching has been established and

is honored. They also question whether the merging of these two

distinct roles could devalue “the status of the teacher” and do

a disservice “to the concept of leadership” (pg. 700). They

conclude, “If everyone is a leader, does not the concept lose

all value as a legitimate distinction among social and

organizational practices?” (pg. 701).

ANNOTATIONS

24

Leithwood, K., & Mascall, B., (2008). Collective leadership

effects on student achievement. Educational Administrative

Quarterly, 44 (4), 529 – 561.

Leithwood and Mascall explore the impact of shared

leadership on teacher variables and student achievement, the

direct influence of different collective leadership sources, and

different patterns of collective leadership as related to

student outcomes.

Stratified random sampling was used to select teachers from

9 states, 45 districts and 180 schools. 2,570 teachers

responded to a survey measuring collective leadership. The

survey also measured three teacher performance variables:

teacher capacity, teacher motivation, and teacher work settings

and conditions. Student math and reading data were collected

over 3 years from state web sites to measure student

achievement.

Causal relationships among collective leadership, teacher

capacity, teacher motivation and teacher work setting and

conditions were measured using Pearson Production Correlation

Coefficients and LISREL Structural Equations Modeling.

There were correlations among all teacher performance

variables and collective leadership. A strong correlation was

evident between collective leadership and work settings – r=

.58. Teacher motivation and collective leadership was also

significant at r=.55. All variables, except for teacher

ANNOTATIONS

25

capacity, were significantly related to student performance.

Collective leadership on student performance was significant –

r=.34. LISREL path analysis, indicate indirect effects of

collective leadership on student achievement indicate r=.24.

Maeyer, Sven D.,Rymenans, R., Van Petegem, P., van den Bergh, H,

& Rijaarsda, G., (2007). Educational leadership and pupil

achievement: the choice of a valid conceptual model to test

effects in school effectiveness research. School

Effectiveness and School Improvement, 18 (2) 125 – 145.

The authors present a reanalysis of data from a previous

study on the effects of integrated leadership on student

performance done by Maeyer (2004), using four conceptual models:

Model 1 assumes a direct effect from integrated leadership

on student performance.

Model 2 assumes an indirect effect from integrated

leadership on student performance.

Model 3 assumes both indirect and direct effects from

integrated leadership on student performance.

Model 4 assumes direct and indirect effects, and assumes a

direct effect from school context factors on integrated

leadership and academic climate.

Using path analysis to test the models, the authors

maintain that model 4 is the best fit for possible conclusions

regarding integrated leadership on student performance. By

using model 4 and adding the antecedents (IQ, SES, linguistics

ethnic, gender) effects to the analysis, the authors learn that

ANNOTATIONS

26

“integrated leadership has only an indirect effect through

academic climate, on pupils’ reading proficiency” (pg. 141).

They conclude that by adding school context factors, their

conclusions are “closer to the complex reality of education”

(pg. 141).

Marks, H. M., & Printy, S. M., (2003). Principal leadership and

school performance: an interaction of transformational and

instructional leadership. Educational Administrative

Quarterly, 39 (3), 370 – 397.

Marks and Printy study teacher and principal leadership

relations in 24 nationally selected restructured schools, and

its impact on instruction and student achievement.

Shared instructional leadership theory is inclusive,

allowing teachers to share decisions (and accountability) with

the principal regarding instruction and reform efforts.

Although the principal remains the educational leader in the

school in this model, teachers who have expertise or personal

information, may “exercise leadership collaboratively with the

principal” (pg. 374). Teachers inquire together regarding

instructional problems, and work together as “communities of

learners” (pg. 374). Principals promote teacher reflection on

instructional practices, and support them through professional

development opportunities. Transformational leadership theory

provides “direction and aims at innovating within the

organization, while empowering and supporting teachers as

ANNOTATIONS

27

partners in decision making” (pg. 371). Its goal is to improve

organizational performance via collective capacity.

Research questions for this study focused on the

relationship between transformational leadership and shared

instructional leadership on teaching and student performance.

One hundred and forty four teachers were rated three times

on instruction by multiple observers. Over 5000 artifacts of

social studies and math student work were scored by trained

professionals according to standards of authentic achievement.

Shared instructional leadership and transformational leadership,

as independent variables, were constructed through teacher and

principal interviews, and observations in the field.

Nine out of the twenty-four schools scored low on both

instructional and transformational leadership. Six schools

demonstrated high transformational leadership. Seven schools

scored high in both transformational and shared instructional

leadership.

Low leadership schools averaged -.67 SD on instruction and

-.83 SD on achievement. High leadership schools averaged .85 SD

on instruction and .85 SD on achievement. Using multilevel

analysis to control variables, high leadership schools were .6

SD higher than low leadership schools on instruction and .6 SD

higher on achievement.

ANNOTATIONS

28

The findings indicate that an integrated approach to

leadership results in higher levels of achievement and

instruction. The authors conclude, “When the principal elicits

high levels of commitment from teachers and works interactively

with teachers in a shared instructional leadership capacity,

schools have the benefits of integrated leadership; they are

organizations that learn and perform at high levels” (pg. 393).

Maxcy, B. D., & Nguyen, T. S. (2006). The politics of

distributing leadership. Educational Policy, 20(1), 163 –

196.

Maxcy and Nguyen examine the “heroic leadership

portrayals”, the politics and impact of distributed leadership

and its “implications for democratic school governance” in two

Texas schools (Chavez Elementary and Pecan Springs Elementary)

(pg. 163). Chavez Elementary used Firestone and Heller’s (FH)

model of redistributed leadership. FH structures leadership

around “essential functions so that efforts might be more

productively guided and directed, structured and supported” (pg.

168) FH does not confine leadership to a person in a formal

role, such as the principal, but enacted leadership “by members

throughout the organization” (pg. 168). The authors maintain

that the FH principle was not enacted fully at Chavez because

teacher work was controlled by political pressures to perform.

Chavez, in essence, was steered at a distance. Chavez ES earned

an exemplary rating in 2002.

ANNOTATIONS

29

Pecan Elementary School was selected for this study because

of its recent need to expand the VLC (Vietnamese Language)

program, and because the distribution of leadership within the

school community was “crucial to its expansion” (176). Pecan

redistributed leadership using Spillane, Halverson and Diamond’s

(SHD) model of leadership. The SHD model shifts the focus from

behaviors of individuals in formal roles to interdependence

among leaders, followers and situations” (pg. 173). Teachers,

parents and administrators were able to successfully sustain,

improve and expand the VLC program through interdependent

leadership practices, even with high political and

administrative demands. The program was deemed successful

according to a variety of measures. In fact, the high number of

self imposed performance measures used in the program,

facilitated reciprocal accountability that transcended

curricular and standardized tests. These added measures also

helped legitimize the program. The authors maintain that the

leadership by the VLC leaders reflected a “distribution more

sophisticated and complex” than Firestone or Spillane’s models.

Pounder, D. G., Ogawa, R. T., Adams, E. A., (1995). Leadership

as an organization-wide phenomena: its impact on school

performance. Educational Administration Quarterly, 31 (4),

564 – 588.

Pounder, Ogawa and Adams examine relationships between

leadership exercised by principals, teachers and others, with

ANNOTATIONS

30

the 4 functions of effective organizations (adaptation, goal

achievement, integration, latency), and school effectiveness

measures (perceptions of effectiveness, student achievement

based on an SAT adjusted average over three years, student

absenteeism, and staff turnover rates).

A total of fifty-seven middle and elementary schools were

selected for the study. Stratified random sampling was used to

select over one thousand interview participants from the

schools. Seventy eight percent were teachers. Other

respondents included principals, secretaries and community

members.

Path analysis results indicated that overall leadership was

related to two leadership functions – goal achievement (.25) and

latency (.40) – which were associated with four measures of

school effectiveness – student achievement, staff turn-over,

student absenteeism, and perceived effectiveness. Results are

consistent with “the theoretical framework, which suggests that

organizational leadership, affects organizational performance by

shaping the organization of work and by building commitment”

(pg. 583).

Leadership exerted by parents had a significant affect on

absenteeism (-.48) and student achievement (.39). Leadership

exerted by principals and teacher groups positively affected

latency and commitment, which affected perceived effectiveness

ANNOTATIONS

31

and turnover. Leadership by principals and teachers together

did not affect student absenteeism and achievement.

The authors were surprised by their analyses of individuals

exerting leadership as related to outcome measures. The

leadership exerted by secretaries had a negative relationship (-

.27) to student achievement. Principal leadership was not

directly associated with student achievement (-0.02). Finally,

the leadership of individual teachers was not related to

organizational functions or school performance.

Robinson, V. M., & Lloyd, C. A., Rowe, K. J. (2008). The impact

of leadership on student outcomes: an analysis of the

differential effects of leadership types. Educational

Administration Quarterly, 44 (5), 635 – 674.

Robinson, Lloyd and Rowe conducted two meta-analyses of 27

published studies between 1978 and 2006 to determine the impact

of instructional leadership theory, transformation leadership

theory, and leadership practices, on student outcomes. Fifteen

of the studies focused on the principal as the source of

leadership.

The first study analyzed the impact of instructional and

transformational leadership theories on student outcomes.

Transformational leadership had a weak impact on student

outcomes (5 studies, 13 effects, ES = 0.11) whereas

instructional leadership had moderate impact (12 studies, 188

effects, ES = 0.42). Other types of leadership had an impact of

ANNOTATIONS

32

0.30 on student outcomes (5 studies, 50 effects). Two of the 5

“other types of leadership” were from a distributed perspective.

Integrated leadership - teacher and principal influence on

instruction – resulted in an ES of 0.56 (Marks and Printy,

2003). Social network theory - principal and teacher included

in network – resulted in an ES of 0.41 (Friedkin and Slater,

1994).

The second study analyzed the impact of 5 leadership

dimensions on student outcomes. The five dimensions are:

establishing goals; strategic resourcing; planning, coordinating

and evaluating teaching and the curriculum; promoting and

participating in teacher learning and development; and ensuring

and orderly and supportive environment. Dimension 3, planning,

coordination and evaluating teaching and the curriculum, based

on 80 indicators across 9 studies, had a moderate impact (ES

=0.41) on student outcomes. The authors note that in the

higher performing schools studied, leaders engaged teachers in

“collegial” discussions regarding teaching and student

achievement, leaders had “direct oversight” over the

instructional programs, and “leaders and staff worked together

to review and improve teaching – an idea captured by that of

shared instructional leadership” (pg. 662).

The authors note that their findings are similar to Robert

Marzano’s findings on overall leadership effects (0.40);

ANNOTATIONS

33

findings which were based on “unpublished evidence” (pg. 665).

They caution that out of 70 studies included in Marzano’s meta-

analysis, only 10 used published evidence.

Timperley, H. (2005). Distributed leadership: developing theory

from practice. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(4), 395 -

420.

Timperley reconceptualizes leadership in “terms of

activities and interactions that are distributed” (pg. 395).

Timperley conducted a four year empirical study of seven New

Zealand elementary schools undertaking school improvement

initiatives and participating in early literacy professional

development. The study focused on how leadership was

distributed, and its differential effects on promoting school

improvement. The leadership qualities for Timperley’s study in

relation to differential effectiveness include: distribution of

leadership activities, social distribution of task enactment –

how leadership is enacted when it is distributed (a focal point

in this study) and the place of artifacts in distributed

leadership –where distributed leadership makes a difference in

schools. The data from the study was based on observations of

team meetings where distributed leadership was promoted

(principals, literacy coaches, and teachers), interviews and

student achievement data.

Variances were identified regarding how the leaders in each

school conducted their meetings and whether they used data

ANNOTATIONS

34

analysis as a focal point, or programs – the curriculum used as

a means for improvement. Results in student achievement varied

depending how leadership was enacted. Schools that distributed

leadership with a focus on teaching and learning, had higher

student achievement than schools distributing leadership with a

focus on curriculum.

Timperley (2005) suggests, “That increasing the

distribution of leadership is only desirable if the quality of

the leadership activities contributes to assisting teachers to

provide more effective instruction to their students”. These

shared leadership “qualities” varied from school to school

resulting in differences in achievement.