Transcription of Seven strong claims about successful school …
1 < strong >strong strong > < < strong >strong strong > >claims < strong >strong strong > > < < strong >strong strong > >about < strong >strong strong > > successful < < strong >strong strong > >school < strong >strong strong > > leadershipKenneth Leithwood, Christopher Day, Pam Sammons, Alma Harris and David HopkinsIntroductionThis is a summary of the key findings of a review of literature undertaken by the authors as a point of departure for a large-scale empirical study organised around what we refer to as < strong >strong strong > < < strong >strong strong > >claims < strong >strong strong > > < < strong >strong strong > >about < strong >strong strong > > successful < < strong >strong strong > >school < strong >strong strong > > < < strong >strong strong > >leadership < strong >strong strong > > . These < < strong >strong strong > >claims < strong >strong strong > > are not all < strong >strong strong > in quite the same way, as we shall explain, but they all find support in varying amounts of quite robust empirical evidence, the first two having attracted the largest amount of such evidence.
2 Those in < < strong >strong strong > >leadership < strong >strong strong > > roles have a tremendous responsibility to get it right. Fortunately, we know a great deal < < strong >strong strong > >about < strong >strong strong > > what getting it right means. The purpose of this paper is to provide a synopsis of this < strong >strong strong > claims1. < < strong >strong strong > >school < strong >strong strong > > < < strong >strong strong > >leadership < strong >strong strong > > is second only to classroom teaching as an influence on pupil Almost all successful leaders draw on the same repertoire of basic < < strong >strong strong > >leadership < strong >strong strong > > The ways in which leaders apply these basic < < strong >strong strong > >leadership < strong >strong strong > > < < strong >strong strong > >practices < strong >strong strong > > not the < < strong >strong strong > >practices < strong >strong strong > > themselves demonstrate responsiveness to, rather than dictation by, the contexts in which they < < strong >strong strong > >school < strong >strong strong > > leaders improve teaching and learning indirectly and most powerfully through their influence on staff motivation.
3 Commitment and working < < strong >strong strong > >school < strong >strong strong > > < < strong >strong strong > >leadership < strong >strong strong > > has a greater influence on schools and students when it is widely Some patterns of distribution are more effective than A small handful of personal traits explains a high proportion of the variation in < < strong >strong strong > >leadership < strong >strong strong > > < strong >strong strong > < < strong >strong strong > >claims < strong >strong strong > > < < strong >strong strong > >about < strong >strong strong > > successful < < strong >strong strong > >school < strong >strong strong > > < < strong >strong strong > >leadership < strong >strong strong > > < < strong >strong strong > >claim < strong >strong strong > > 1: < < strong >strong strong > >school < strong >strong strong > > < < strong >strong strong > >leadership < strong >strong strong > > is second only to classroom teaching as an infl uence on pupil learningThis < < strong >strong strong > >claim < strong >strong strong > > will be considered controversial by some. We could have claimed simply that < < strong >strong strong > >school < strong >strong strong > > leadershiphas a signifi cant effect on pupil learning, but our choice of wording captures the comparative amount of (direct and indirect) infl uence exercised by successful < < strong >strong strong > >school < strong >strong strong > > leaders.
4 < < strong >strong strong > >leadership < strong >strong strong > > acts as a catalyst without which other good things are quite unlikely to happen. Five sources of evidence justify this the middle three sources we identify are quite compelling, it is the fi rst and fi fth sources that placeleadership in contention with sources of evidence1. The fi rst justifi cation for this < < strong >strong strong > >claim < strong >strong strong > > is based upon primarily qualitative case study evidence. Studies providing this type of evidence are typically conducted in exceptional < < strong >strong strong > >school < strong >strong strong > > Such settings are believed to contribute to pupil learning and achievement that is signifi cantly above or below normal expectations (defi ned, for example, by research on effective schools based on comparing value-added similarities and differences among high and low performing schools).
5 Studies of this type usually report very large < < strong >strong strong > >leadership < strong >strong strong > > effects, not only on pupil learning but on an array of < < strong >strong strong > >school < strong >strong strong > > conditions as What is lacking in this evidence, however, is external validity or generalisability. 2. The second type of evidence < < strong >strong strong > >about < strong >strong strong > > < < strong >strong strong > >leadership < strong >strong strong > > effects is from large-scale quantitative studies of overall leader effects. Evidence of this type reported between 1 0 and 1 (approximately four dozen studies across all types of < < strong >strong strong > >school < strong >strong strong > > ) has been reviewed in several papers by Hallinger and These reviews conclude that the combined direct and indirect effects of < < strong >strong strong > >school < strong >strong strong > > < < strong >strong strong > >leadership < strong >strong strong > > on pupil outcomes are small but educationally signifi cant.
6 While < < strong >strong strong > >leadership < strong >strong strong > > explains only fi ve to < < strong >strong strong > >Seven < strong >strong strong > > per cent of the difference in pupil learning and achievement across schools (not to be confused with the typically very large differences among pupils within schools), this difference is actually < < strong >strong strong > >about < strong >strong strong > > one-quarter of the total difference across schools (12 to 20 per cent) explained by all < < strong >strong strong > >school < strong >strong strong > > -level variables, after controlling for pupil intake or background The quantitative < < strong >strong strong > >school < strong >strong strong > > effectiveness studies providing much of this data indicate that classroom factors explain more than one-third of the variation in pupil A third type of research < < strong >strong strong > >about < strong >strong strong > > < < strong >strong strong > >leadership < strong >strong strong > > effects is, like the second type, large scale and quantitative in nature.
7 However, instead of examining overall < < strong >strong strong > >leadership < strong >strong strong > > effects, it enquires < < strong >strong strong > >about < strong >strong strong > > the effects of specifi c < < strong >strong strong > >leadership < strong >strong strong > > < < strong >strong strong > >practices < strong >strong strong > > . A recent meta-analysis,5 for example, identifi ed 21 < < strong >strong strong > >leadership < strong >strong strong > > responsibilities and calculated an average correlation between each one and the measures of pupil achievement used in the original studies. From this data, estimates were made of the effects on pupil test scores. The authors concluded that a 10 percentile point increase in pupil test scores would result from the work of an average headteacher who improved her demonstrated abilities in all 21 For example, see Gezi (1 0) and Reitzug & Patterson (1 ).
8 2 See Mortimore (1 3) for evidence on this point from England, and Scheurich (1 ) for evidence from the United See Hallinger & Heck (1 6a; 1 6b; 1 ). 4 Evidence justifying this point has been reported by Creemers & Reezigt (1 6) and by Townsend (1 4). 5 Results have been reported in more or less detail in two sources: Marzano, Waters & McNulty (2005) and Waters, Marzano & McNulty (2003). < < strong >strong strong > >Seven < strong >strong strong > > < strong >strong strong > < < strong >strong strong > >claims < strong >strong strong > > < < strong >strong strong > >about < strong >strong strong > > successful < < strong >strong strong > >school < strong >strong strong > > Leadership44. A fourth source of evidence has explored < < strong >strong strong > >leadership < strong >strong strong > > effects on pupil engagement. In addition to being an important variable in its own right, some evidence suggests that < < strong >strong strong > >school < strong >strong strong > > engagement is a < strong >strong strong > predictor of pupil At least 10 mostly recent large-scale, quantitative, similarly designed studies in Australia and North America have concluded that the effects of transformational < < strong >strong strong > >school < strong >strong strong > > < < strong >strong strong > >leadership < strong >strong strong > > on pupil engagement7 are significantly The < < strong >strong strong > >leadership < strong >strong strong > > succession research indicates that unplanned headteacher succession is one of the most common sources of schools failure to progress.
9 In spite of what teachers might do. These studies demonstrate the devastating effects of unplanned headteacher succession, especially on initiatives intended to increase pupil achievement. The appointment and retention of a new headteacher is emerging from the evidence as one of the most important strategies for turning around struggling schools or schools in special measures. Our conclusion from this evidence as a whole is that < < strong >strong strong > >leadership < strong >strong strong > > has very significant effects on the quality of < < strong >strong strong > >school < strong >strong strong > > organisation and on pupil learning.
10 As far as we are aware, there is not a single documented case of a < < strong >strong strong > >school < strong >strong strong > > successfully turning around its pupil achievement trajectory in the absence of talented < < strong >strong strong > >leadership < strong >strong strong > > . One explanation for this is that < < strong >strong strong > >leadership < strong >strong strong > > serves as a catalyst for unleashing the potential capacities that already exist in the organisation. 6 This evidence has been comprehensively reviewed by Frederick, Blumenfeld & Paris (2004). 7 Such evidence can be found in Leithwood & Jantzi (1 a; 1 b); Leithwood, Riedlinger, Bauer & Jantzi (2003); Silins & Mulford (2002) and Silins, Mulford & Zarins (2002).