APCLC Monograph Leading Change

8/3/2019 APCLC Monograph Leading Change

1/42


2/42

MonographEditors:AllanWalkerandPhilipHallinger

CorrespondenceTheJosephLauLuenHungCharitableTrustAsiaPacificCentreforLeadershipandChange,HongKongInstituteofEducation,Tai

Po,

N.T.,

HONG

KONG.

Fax:+85229488634

Tel:+85229488783

Email:[email protected]

Website:www.ied.edu.hk/apclc/

TheHongKongInstituteofEducation2010

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or

transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including

photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system,

without

permissionin

writing

from

Hong

Kong

Institute

of

Education.

For

any

copyright matters please contact Allan WALKER at Hong Kong Institute of

Education.

ThismonographispublishedbyTheJosephLauLuenHungCharitableTrust

AsiaPacificCentreforLeadershipandChange,HongKongInstituteofEducation.

This monograph was first published as an article in Cambridge Journal of

Education.[Hallinger,P.(2003). Leadingeducationalchange:Reflectionsonthe

practiceof instructionalandtransformational leadership.CambridgeJournalof

Education,33(3), 329351.]


3/42

One of the key aims of the APCLC is to disseminate useful

informationaboutschoolleadershipthroughtheprogrammeswe

offers. This monograph series is one of the ways we do this.

Monographs

may

either

present

papers

which

have

beenpublishedpreviouslyor,as theCentredevelops,accountsofour

researchand/orotherdevelopmentwork.

Monographs are aimed squarely at the large community of

scholarpractitioners we serve. As such they are not how toos

butmoresubstantivepieces.

AllanWalkerChairProfessorofInternationalEducationalLeadershipHead,DepartmentofEducationPolicyandLeadershipDirector,TheJosephLauLuenHungCharitableTrustAsiaPacificCentreforLeadershipandChangeHongKongInstituteofEducation

PhilipHallingerChairProfessorofLeadershipandChangeDirector,TheJosephLauLuenHungCharitableTrustAsiaPacificCentreforLeadershipandChangeHongKongInstituteofEducation


4/42


5/42

1

ContentsIntroduction2ConceptualizationsofEducationalLeadership4

InstructionalLeadership5TransformationalLeadership11Discussion20

TowardsanIntegrationofLeadershipModels22

Abstract2

ContingencyModelsLeadershipintheSchoolContext25References29


6/42

2

LeadingEducationalChange:

Reflectionsonthepracticeof

instructionaland

transformational

leadership

PHILIPHALLINGERHongKongInstituteofEducation

ABSTRACT

Over the past two decades, debate over the most suitable

leadership

role

for

principals

has

been

dominated

by

two conceptual models: instructional leadership and

transformationalleadership.Thisarticlereviewsthe conceptual

andempiricaldevelopmentofthesetwoleadershipmodels.The

author concludes that the suitability or effectiveness of a

particular leadership model is linked to factors in the external

environment and the local context of a school. Moreover, the

paper argues that the definitions of the two models are also

evolving in response to the changing needs of schools in the

contextof

global

educational

reforms.

INTRODUCTION

The past 25 years have witnessed the emergence of new

conceptualmodelsinthefieldofeducationalleadership.Twoof

the foremostmodels,asmeasuredby thenumberofempirical

studies, are instructional leadership and transformational

leadership(Heck

&

Hallinger,

1999).

In

contrast

with

many

earlier

leadership models applied to school administration (e.g.

situational leadership, trait theories,contingency theory), these

models focusexplicitlyon themanner inwhich theeducational

leadership exercised by school administrators and teachers

bringsabout improvededucationaloutcomes(e.g.Leithwood&

Jantzi,1999b;Southworth,2002).


7/42

3

Instructional leadershipmodelsemerged in theearly1980s from

early

research

on

effective

schools.

This

body

ofresearch identified strong, directive leadership focused on

curriculum and instruction from the principal as a

characteristic of elementary schools that were effective at

teaching children in poor urban communities (Edmonds, 1979;

Leithwood & Montgomery, 1982). Although not without its

critics(e.g.Cuban,1984;Miskel,1982),thismodelshapedmuchof

the thinking about effective principal leadership disseminated in

the1980sandearly1990sinternationally.Moreover,theemerging

popularity of this model, at least in the USA, soon

became evident from its widespread adoption as the model of

choice by most principal leadership academies (Hallinger, 1992;

Hallinger&Wimpelberg,1992).

With the advent of school restructuring in North America during

the 1990s, scholars and practitioners began to popularise terms

such as shared leadership, teacher leadership, distributed

leadership, and transformational leadership. The emergence of

these leadership models indicated a broader dissatisfaction with

theinstructional

leadership

model,

which

many

believed

focused

toomuchon theprincipalas thecentreof expertise,powerand

authority.

Leadershipmodels ineducationare subject to the same faddism

that is apparent in other areas of education. Todays

favourite brand is soon replaced by another. Nonetheless, it is

fortunatethatoverthepast25years,scholarshavesubjectedboth

instructionalleadership(e.g.Glasman,1984;Heck,Marcolouides&

Larsen,

1990)

and

transformational

leadership

(e.g.,

Leithwood

&

Jantzi,2000a;Silins,1994)toextendedempiricalstudy.

As a scholar who has contributed to this literature, I have been

challenged time and again to reconcile the theoretical and

practicalvalidityofthese leadershipmodels.Morerecently,Iwas

offered the challenge of trying to turn a school around, a task

that entailed the exercise of leadership. This admittedly

unconventionalarticleisareflectionupontheutilityofthesetwo

leadershipmodelsbaseduponbothresearchandmyownpractice.


8/42

4

CONCEPTUALISATIONSOF

EDUCATIONALLEADERSHIP

Although a variety of conceptual models have been employed

over the past 25 years of research into educational leadership,

two major approaches have predominated: instructional

leadership and transformational leadership. Studies from the

early to late 1980s were dominated by an instructional

leadership conceptualisation drawn from the effective schools

literature (e.g. Andrews & Soder, 1987; Hallinger & Murphy,

1986;ODay,1983).

Asnoted

above,

around

1990

researchers

began

to

shift

their

attentiontoleadershipmodelsconstruedasmoreconsistentwith

evolving trends in educational reform such as empowerment,

shared leadership,andorganizational learning.Thisevolutionof

the educational leadership role has been labelled as reflecting

secondorderchanges(Leithwood,1994)asitisaimedprimarily

at changing the organizations normative structure. The most

frequentlyusedmodelof thisvarietyhasbeen transformational

leadership (e.g. Bass, 1985, 1997; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2000b;

Silins

&

Mulford,

2002).

Transformational leadership focuses on developing the

organizations capacity to innovate. Rather than focusing

specifically on direct coordination, control, and supervision of

curriculumand instruction, transformational leadershipseeks to

build the organizations capacity to select its purposes and to

supportthedevelopmentofchangestopracticesofteachingand

learning. Transformational leadership may be viewed as

distributed in that it focuses on developing a shared vision and

shared

commitment

to

school

change.

In

this

section

of

thebookletIwillbrieflyreviewwhathasbeenlearnedabouteachof

thesemodelsthroughresearchconductedoverthepast25years.


9/42


10/42

6

Instructional

leadership

focuses

predominantly

on

the

role

of

theschool

principal

in

coordinating,

controlling,

supervising,

and developing curriculum and instruction in the school(Bamburg&Andrews,1990;Hallinger&Murphy,1985).

With itsbirthplace inthe instructionaleffectiveelementaryschool (Edmonds, 1979), instructional leadership wasgenerally conceived to be a unitary role of the elementaryschoolprincipal(Leithwood&Montgomery,1982).

Similarly,thefactthatstudiesofeffectiveschoolsfocusedonpoor urban schools in need of substantial change, it is notsurprising to note that instructional leaders weresubsequently conceived to be strong, directive leaders

(Edmonds,1979;

Hallinger

&

Murphy,

1986).

Instructional leaders lead from a combination of expertiseand charisma. They are handson principals, hipdeep incurriculum and instruction, and unafraid of working withteachers on the improvement of teaching and learning(Cuban,1984;Hallinger&Murphy,1986).

Instructional leaders are goaloriented, focusing on theimprovementofstudentacademicoutcomes.Giventhedirestraitsinwhichtheyfindtheirschools,theseprincipalsfocusonamorenarrowmissionthanmanyoftheirpeers.

Instructional leaders are viewed as culture builders. They

sought

to

create

an

academic

press

that

fosters

high

expectations and standards for students, as well as forteachers(Mortimore,1993;Purkey&Smith,1984).

The most frequently used conceptualisation of instructional

leadership was developed by Hallinger (2000). This model

proposes three dimensions of the instructional leadership

construct: defining the schools mission, managing the

instructionalprogram,andpromotingapositiveschoollearning

climate (Hallinger, 2000). These dimensions are further

delineatedintoteninstructionalleadershipfunctions.

Two functions, framing the schools goals and communicating

theschoolsgoals,comprisethedimension,definingtheschools

mission.These functionsconcern theprincipalsrole inworking

with staff to ensure that the school has clear,

measurablegoalsthatarefocusedontheacademicprogressof


11/42

7

its

students.

It

is

the

principals

responsibility

to

ensure

that

these goals are widely known and supported throughout the

schoolcommunity.Whilethisdimensiondoesnotassumethat

theprincipaldefinestheschoolsmissionalone,itdoesassume

that the principals responsibility is toensure that the school

hasaclearacademicmissionandtocommunicateittostaff.

The second dimension, managing the instructional program,

focuses on the coordination and control of instruction and

curriculum. This dimension incorporates three leadership

functions:supervising

and

evaluating

instruction,

coordinating

thecurriculum,monitoringstudentprogress.Thesefunctions,

more so than functions in the other twodimensions, require

the leader to be deeply engaged in the schools instructional

development. In larger schools, it is clear that the principal

cannot be the only person involved in leading the schools

instructional program. Yet this framework assumes that

development of the academic core of the school is a key

leadershipresponsibilityoftheprincipal(Hallinger&Murphy,

1985).

The third dimension, promoting a positive school learning

climate, includes several functions: protecting instructional

time, promoting professional development, maintaining high

visibility,providingincentivesforteachers,providingincentives

for learning. This dimension is broader in scope and

intent. Itconformstothenotion thateffectiveschoolscreate

an academic press through the development of high

standards

and

expectations

and

a

culture

of

continuous

improvement. It is the responsibility of the instructional

leadershiptoaligntheschoolsstandardsandpracticeswithits

mission and to create a climate that supports teaching and

learning.


12/42

8

ResearchFindingsonInstructionalLeadershipGiven the emergent popularity of this leadership model during

theearly

1980s,

scholars

subsequently

generated

asubstantial

body of international research (Bamburg & Andrews, 1990;

Goldring & Pasternak, 1994; Leitner, 1994). Indeed, in their

comprehensive review of research on school

leadershipanditseffects,HallingerandHeck(1996b)concluded

that this was the most common conceptualization of school

leadership used during the period of their review of empirical

researchonschoolleadershipeffects(19801995).Asubsequent

review of research focused solely upon instructional leadership

foundthat

over

125

empirical

studies

employed

this

construct

between1980and2000(Hallinger,2000).

Thisbodyofresearchhasyieldedawealthoffindingsconcerning

antecedents of instructional leadership behaviour (school level,

school size, school SES), the effects of the school context on

instructional leadership (e.g., gender, training, experience), as

wellastheeffectsofschoolleadershipontheorganization(e.g.,

school mission and goals, expectations, curriculum, teaching,

teacher engagement) and school outcomes (e.g., school

effectiveness,

student

achievement).

Again,

space

limitations

make an extended discussion of these findings impractical;

interested readers are therefore referred to other relevant

sources (Hallinger, 2000; Leithwood et al., 1990; Southworth,

2002).Giventhefocusofthisarticle,however,Iwouldnotethe

following conclusions from this research on instructional

leadership:

Thepreponderanceofevidence indicatesthatschoolprincipalscontribute to school effectiveness and student achievement

indirectlythrough

actions

they

take

to

influence

what

happens

intheschoolandinclassrooms.

The most influential avenue of effects concerns the principalsroleinshapingthepurposesoftheschool(Bamburg&Andrews,1990; Goldring & Pasternak, 1994). The actual role thatprincipals play in mission building is influenced by features oftheschoolcontextsuchassocioeconomicstatusandschoolsize(Hallinger&Heck,2002;Hallinger&Murphy,1986).

Instructional leadership influences the quality of schooloutcomes through the alignment of school structures (e.g.,academic standards, time allocation, curriculum) with theschoolsmission(Hallinger&Heck,1996a,1996b).


13/42


14/42

10

principalswereinstructionalleaders.However,theformoftheir

leadershipwasadjustedtotheneedsoftheirschools.Principals

in the low SES effective schools had clear measurable goals

focusedon

academic

achievement

of

the

students.

These

were

knownandsupportedthroughouttheschoolanditscommunity.

In each of the high SES effective schools, there was a clear

academic mission known and supported by staff, students and

parents. However, the missions were expressed more broadly

andseveraloftheschoolsdidnothaveanymeasurablegoalsat

all(Hallinger&Murphy,1986).

HaveWebeenAbletoCreateInstructionalLeaders?During the 1980s when instructional leadership emerged as a

modelofchoice,numerousscholarsquestioned thecapacityof

principals to fulfil this somewhat heroic role. Principals who

demonstratedthetypeofinstructionalleadership.neededtolift

performanceintheirschools,werebydefinitionasmallminority

(Barth,1986).Scepticswonderedifthemajorityofprincipalshad

thenecessarycombinationofwillandskilltocarryoutthistype

of handson, directive leadership (Barth, 1986; Bossert et al.,

1982).Others

suggested

that

the

very

nature

of

the

principalship

renders instructional leadershipan impossibledreamformany

principals(e.g.Barth,1986;Cuban,1988).

Professor Larry Cuban, a selfdescribed friendly critic of

instructional leadership and effective schools described the

managerialormaintenanceroleoftheprincipalasembeddedin

the DNA of the principalship (Cuban, 1988). He asserted that

efforts by principals to act as instructional leaders in schools

inevitably run aground against basic structural and normative

conditionsof

the

principalship

and

the

school.

Forexample,principalsoccupyamiddlemanagementpositionin

whichtheirauthoritytocommandisseverelylimited.Thelimited

authorityofprincipals iscompoundedwhenconsidered in light

oftheirneedtomeettheexpectationsofthoseaboveandbelow

them in the hierarchy. Moreover, any intention to provide

instructional leadership, especially in secondary schools, is

complicatedby the fact that inmanycasesprincipalshave less

expertisethan

the

teachers

whom

they

supervise

(Barth,

1990;

Lambert,1998).


15/42


16/42

12

Fig.

1:Instructionalmanagement

framework(from

Hallinger&Mruphy,

1985)


17/42

13

First the model does not assume that the principal alone will

provide the leadership that creates these conditions.

Leadershipmaywellbeshared,coming from teachersaswell

as

from

the

principal

(Leithwood

&

Jantzi,

2000a;

Louis

&

Marks,1998;Ogawa&Bossert,1995).Second,themodelstarts

from somewhat different motivational assumptions.

Behavioural components such as individualised support,

intellectual stimulation, and personal vision suggest that the

model is grounded in understanding the needs of Individual

staff rather than coordinating and controlling them towards

theorganisationsdesiredends. In thissense themodelseeks

toinfluencepeoplebybuildingfromthebottomupratherthan

fromthe

top

down.

The conceptual distinctions between the terms instructional

leadership and transformational leadership depend heavily

uponthedefinitionsthathaveevolvedovertime.Nonetheless,

Iwouldsuggestthatseveralcriteriamaybeusefulinidentifying

theirdistinguishingcharacteristics:

Fig.2:Transformationalleadershipmodel(adaptedfromLeithwoodetal,1998)


18/42

14

Topdownvs.bottomupfocusonapproachtoschoolimprovement.

Firstorderorsecondordertargetforchange.

Managerialor

transactional

vs.

transformational

relationship

to

staff.

Instructional leadership has been characterised by some

scholars as a directive and topdown approach to school

leadership (Barth, 1990; Day et al., 2001). Instructional

leadership emphasises the principals coordinationand control

of instruction (Cohen & Miller, 1980; Heck et al., 1990). The

broad brushes of research on instructional leadership in

effectiveschoolsproducesanimageoftheprincipalasdirecting

ororchestratingimprovementsintheschool.

In contrast, transformational leadership is often

considered a type of shared or distributed leadership. Rather

than a single individualthe principal coordinating and

controlling fromabove, transformational leadership focuseson

stimulatingchangethroughbottomupparticipation(Dayetal.,

2001; Jackson, 2000; Marks & Printy, in press). Indeed,

transformationalleadershipmodelsmayexplicitlyconceptualise

leadershipas

an

organisational

entity

rather

than

the

property

of a single individual, accounting for multiple sources of

leadership.

A second distinction has evolved around the conceptual

dichotomyoftransactionalvs.transformational leadership(e.g.

Bycio & Allen, 1995; Howell & Avolio, 1993; Silins, 1994). This

distinctioncontrastsleadershipthatfocusesonmanagementof

existing relationships and maintenance of the status quo with

leadership

that

seeks

to

envision

and

create

the

future

by

synthesizing and extending the aspirations of members of the

organisationalcommunity.


19/42

15

A third conceptualdistinction,clearly related to the first two,

contrasts the means by which leadership achieves its

effects, through firstorder vs. second order changes in the

school.Instructional

leadership

is

conceptualised

as

targeting

firstordervariablesinthechangeprocess.Thismeansthatthe

instructional leader (i.e., the principal) seeks to influence

conditions that directly impact the quality of curriculum and

instruction delivered to students in classrooms (Cuban, 1984,

1988). Examples of instructional leadership behaviours that

seek to produce firstorder effects include the principals

setting schoolwide goals, direct supervision of teaching, and

coordinationof thecurriculum (Hallingeretal.,1996;Leitner,

1994;

Marks

&

Printy,

in

press).

In contrast, transformational leadership seeks to generate

secondorder effects. Transformational leaders increase the

capacity of others in the school to produce firstorder effects

on learning (Lambert, 1998; Leithwood & Louis, 1999). For

example, transformational leaders create a climate in which

teachers engage in continuous learning and in which they

routinely share their learning with others. Transformational

leaders workwith others in the school community to identify

personal goals and then link these to the broaderorganisational goals (Barth, 1990; Lambert, 2002). This

approach isbelievedto increasecommitmentofthestaffwho

see the relationship between what they are trying to

accomplish and the mission of the school. These changes are

conceived as secondorder effects in the sense that the

principal is creating the conditions under which others are

committed and selfmotivated to work towards the

improvement of the school without specific direction from

above.

ResearchFindingson TransformationalLeadershipInasynthesisofseveralstudiesof the impactof theprincipal

from a transformational leadership perspective, Leithwood

(1994) highlights people effects as a cornerstone of the

transformationalleadershipmodel.Withinthemodelproposed

byLeithwoodandcolleagues,manyoftheoutcomesofinterest


20/42

16

in terms of restructuring schools are teacher effects (e.g.

changes

of

behaviour,

adoption

of

new

programs,

teaching

techniques). Thus, as suggested above, the principals efforts

becomeapparentintheschoolconditionsthatproducechanges

in people rather than in promoting specific instructional

practices (e.g., Bottery, 2001; Leithwood & Jantzi, 1999a;

Mulford&Bishop,1997).

Leithwood (1994)also found thatprincipaleffectsareachieved

through fostering group goals, modelling desired behaviour for

others, providing intellectual stimulation, and individualised

support(e.g., towardpersonalandstaffdevelopment). Inthese

schools, principals were better at supporting staff, providing

recognition, knowing problems of school, were more

approachable, follow through, seek new ideas, and spent

considerabletimedevelopinghumanresources.

Thedifferenttargetforprincipalleadershipisexemplifiedin

a study of the effects of transformational leadership

conductedbyLeithwoodandJantzi(1999b):

Transformational leadership had strong direct effects onschool conditions (.80) which, in turn, had strong directeffects on classroom conditions (.62). Together,transformational leadershipandschoolconditionsexplain17%ofthevariationinclassroomconditions,eventhoughthe direct effects of transformational leadership onclassroom conditions are negative and non significant.Transformational leadership has a weak (.17) butstatistically significant effect on student identification: itseffectsonstudentparticipationarenotsignificant.(p.467)

Several studies reinforce the conclusion that transformational

leadership

has

an

impacton

teachers

perceptions

of

school

conditions,theircommitmenttochange,andtheorganisational

learning thattakesplace(Bogler,2001;Dayetal.,2001;Fullan,

2002).Withrespecttooutcomes,leadershiphadaninfluenceon

teachers perceptions of progress with implementing reform

initiatives and teachers perceptions of increases in

studentoutcomes.


21/42

17

These observations again focus on two characteristics of

transformational leadership: its distributed nature and its

targeting of capacity development across a broader spectrum

of the school community members. Jacksons (2000)

assessment of attempts to development shared

transformational leadership ina setofEnglish schools further

illuminatesthesefeatures.

WhathasemergedfromSharnbrookswork,andthatofothers

within the project, is a set of understandings about a more

dispersed leadership model which is opportunistic, flexible,

responsive and contextspecific, rather than prescribed by

roles,inflexible,

hierarchical

and

status

driven.

It

is

amodel

that encourages and provides support for a broadly based

leadershipapproach.Intheseschoolsinwhichsustainedschool

improvementhasbeenmaintained,andwhichhavelearntfrom

the questioning of fundamental assumptions to which

collaborativeenquirygives rise,anewparadigmof leadership

seems to have emerged. We can, perhaps, draw three

conclusions about leadership from these actively improving

schoolcontexts:

Forthelonghaulofschoolimprovement,schoolleadershavetodevelopandexpandtheirleadershiprepertoires.

Theschoolimprovementjourneyoffersacontextforthedevelopment of new understandings, both aboutleadershipandaboutschooldevelopment.

The collaborative processes inherent to the enquiryapproach to school improvement offer the opportunityfor teachers to study, to learn about, to share and toenactleadership.

TheworkatSharnbrookandinotherschoolshasallowedusto

study more diffuse styles of leadership. The influence of the

school improvement group has generated shared

influencesettings,evolving leadershippatternsthataremore

collaborative, interactive and dynamicuncertain and

exploratory, too! These are not the characteristics readily

developed on management training courses, nor do they sit

neatly with the competencybased skills training currently

being promoted in this country. These are characteristics not

even located inone individual.Theyarecharacteristicsnotso

muchof

the

leader,

but

of

leadership.


22/42

18

Jacksons conclusions about the development or

evolution of shared transformational leadership within the

schoolcommunityalsodrawattentiontootherdistinguishing

characteristicsembedded

in

this

model.

For

instance,

he

notes

thatas leadershipbecomesmorediffusedwithin the school,

uncertaintymayincreaseratherthandecrease.Thisisaresult

of more voices (administrators, teachers, parents, staff,

students)engaging in theprocessofproviding leadership for

school improvement. As Jackson (2000) suggests,

transformational leadership requires a higher tolerance for

ambiguityanduncertaintyfromtheprincipal,andanabilityto

livewiththemessyprocessofchange.

This

imagery

contrasts

with

the

strong

leader

imagery

encompassed in much of the instructional leadership

literature. Indeed, in the classic instructional leadership

model, the principal actually seeks to limit uncertainty. S/he

does this through the increased coordination and control of

curriculum and instruction, even if it may reduce

opportunitiesforexercisingvoiceamongothers.

LimitationsA debt is owed to Leithwood and his colleagues for thesignificantadvances inourunderstandingoftransformational

leadership gained over the past decade. Programmatic

research of this type is too rare in our field. Nonetheless,

limitationsremainwithrespecttothisknowledgebase.

If studying the effects of a single leader on features of the

school organization and its outcomes has proven to be a

challengingtaskforscholars(Hallinger&Heck,1996a,1996b),

then

studying

transformational

leadership

is

even

more

daunting.Thetransformational leadershipconstructdoesnot

assume that leadership is located in a single individual.

Developing valid measures, as well as integrating and

interpreting leadership that is distributed across a variety of

people requires even greater sophistication. Measurement

issues become even more relevant because this body of

research has sought to go beyond traditional student

achievement outcomes. Studies of transformational


23/42

19

leadershiparemorelikelytoincludeoutcomevariablessuchas

teacher engagement, teacher perceptions of change and

improvement, student engagement with the school (e.g.,

Leithwood&

Jantzi,

1999a,

2000a).

IsTransformationalLeadershiptheAnswertoCritiquesofInstructionalLeadership?I noted earlier that interest in transformational leadership

increased at a time whenNorth American educators began to

investigate how to support school restructuring (e.g.,

Leithwood, 1992, 1994; Sheppard, 1996). The imagery of the

American school restructuring movement of the early 1990s

was

captured

inphrases

such

as

teacher

professionalism,

learning communities, and professional development schools.

Transformational leadership, a conceptual model that had

originated in studies of political and corporate leadership,

appearedbettersuitedtotheneedsofschoolsastheyevolved

in the era of restructuring (see Kirby et al., 1992;

KleineKracht,1993).

However,normativebeliefsmaynotbesupportedbyempirical

reality.

In

addition,

the

cultural

context

of

education

not

only

differs from one nation to another, but the policy

contextofeducationcontinuestoevolve.Appropriateformsof

leadership must adapt to both (Bottery, 2001; Dimmock &

Walker,2000).

Indeed, Leithwood has gone almost full circle by reprising the

issue of how conceptions of suitable leadership styles

reflect the latest fad or politically correct notion of schooling.

One of his most recent studies examined transformational

teacherleadership.

The

study

yielded

distinctly

disappointing

results concerning the contribution of teacher leadership

towardsarangeofvariables.These includedschoolconditions

that influence classrooms and students, student engagement

with the school and student participation in the school

(Leithwood&Jantzi,2000b).


24/42

20

Normativeconceptionsofwhatismostsuitableorcorrectmust

beappraisedintermsofevidence.Thisisespeciallytrueinlight

of theeffort required for a school to move in the direction of

empowermentand

shared

leadership.

It

does

not

occur

easily,

and many studies suggest considerable reluctance among

teachers to participate in leading (Bishop & Mulford, 1996;

Sheppard&Brown,1996).

Moreover,theavailableevidencesuggeststhattransformational

leadershipisnoeasiertoexercisethaninstructionalleadership.

Indeed, Jacksons (2000) observation concerning the

uncertaintiesthataccompanysharedleadershipshouldbetaken

asacautionarynotethatthepersonalcapacitiesassociatedwith

transformationalleadership

may

be

more

difficult

to

cultivate

through training. I was, however, unable to find published

empiricaldataconcerningthisparticularissue.

DISCUSSION

This booklet has examined conceptualisations as well as

empirical research concerned with the two predominant

conceptualmodels

studied

in

educational

leadership

over

the

past 25 years: instructional leadership and transformational

leadership (Hallinger & Heck, 1996a, 1996b). As a scholar

involvedinthisfieldsinceinstructionalleadershipwasbirthed

fromresearchoneffectiveschools,Ihavewitnessedthecyclical

popularity of these theories among researchers and

practitioners.


25/42

21

Thepopularityoftheinstructionalleadershipconstructarosein

North America during the 1980s along with that of its

progenitor, theeffective schoolsmovement.As the topdown

emphasis

of

American

school

reform

gave

way

to

therestructuring movements attempts to professionalise schools

in the early 1990s, transformational leadership overtook

instructional leadership as the model of choice. As the 1990s

progressed, a mixed mode of educational reform began to

evolve, with a combination of topdown and bottomup

characteristics.

At the turn of the century, the global trend in educational

reformhas refocused toa largedegreeon thequestion:How

canwe

bring

more

powerful

methods

of

learning

and

teaching

tobearon thepracticeofschools Hallinger,2003;Murphy&

Shipman, 2003)? Somewhat surprisingly, this refocusing of

attention on the improvement of learning and teaching has

once again brought instructional leadership to the fore. As

noted earlier, there has been an unprecedented global

commitment among government agencies towards principal

training. Moreover, the focus of much of this training is

towards instructional leadership (Gewirtz, 2003; Huber, 2003;

Stricherz,2001a,

2001b).

In this final section of the paper, I will reflect upon

lessons we have learned about the use of these leadership

models by principals in schools. The discussion is organised

aroundthreeissues:

Comparingthesubstantivefocusofinstructionalandtransformationalleadershipmodels.

Leadershipintheschoolcontext. Developingleadershipcapacities


26/42

TOWARDSANINTEGRATIONOF

LEADERSHIPMODELS

This review has identified conceptual similarities and

differences between instructional and transformational

leadership. Table I summarises these findings. Clearly the

similaritiesbetweenthemodelsaremoresignificantthanthe

differences, at least in terms of the substantive focus of the

models (i.e., the focus of the principals

improvementoriented activities). Both models would have

theprincipalfocuson:

Creating

a

shared

sense

of

purpose

in

the

school.

Focusondevelopingaclimateofhighexpectationsanda school culture focused on the improvement ofteachingandlearning.

Shaping the reward structure of the school to reflectthegoalssetforstaffandstudents.

Organiseandprovideawiderangeofactivitiesaimedatintellectualstimulationanddevelopmentforstaff.

Being a visible presence in the school, modelling thevaluesthatarebeingfosteredintheschool.

Thesesimilaritiesbetweenthemodelsprovideausefulpoint

ofdepartureforanyprincipalwhowishestoreflectupon

his/herleadership.

Conceptual

differences

identified

in

this

reviewwerethe:

Targetofchange(i.e.firstorderorsecondordereffects). Theextenttowhichtheprincipalemphasisesacoordination

andcontrolstrategyvs.anempowermentstrategy.

Thedegreetowhichleadershipislocatedinanindividual(i.e.instructionalleader),orisshared(i.e.transformational).

ThesedifferencesaremostapparentinTableIintheemphasis

given intransformational leadershipto individualisedsupport

forstaff

and

to

building

organisational

goals

from

the

ground

up (i.e. out of the personal professional goals of staff and

community members). The instructional leadership model is

somewhatmoretopdownwithanemphasisoncoordinating

andcontrollingothers tomove towardsgoals thatmayhave

beensetatthetopoftheorganisation.

Oneofthemajor impediments toeffectiveschool leadership

istryingtocarrytheburdenalone.Whenaprincipaltakeson

thechallengesofgoingbeyondthebasicdemandsofthejob

(i.e.the

transactional

tasks

of

making

the

school

run),

the

22


27/42

23

burden becomes even heavier (Barth, 1980; Cuban, 1988).

Influential scholars have questioned whether it is realistic to

expect any significant number of principals to meet this

challenge.Lambert

(2002)

contends

that

the

days

of

the

lone

instructional leader are over. We no longer believe that one

administrator can serve as the instructional leader for the

entire school without the substantial participation of other

educators(p.37).

Marks and Printys (forthcoming) research has sought to

analysetheextenttowhichshared instructional leadership is

possible.Theirconclusionpointsthewaytowardsonepossible

avenue of reconciliation for these constructs. This study

suggests

that

strong

transformational

leadership

by

the

principalisessentialinsupportingthecommitmentofteachers.

Because teachers themselves can be barriers to the

developmentofteacherleadership,transformationalprincipals

are needed to invite teachers to share leadership functions.

When teachers perceive principals instructional leadership

behaviours to be appropriate, they grow in commitment,

professional involvement, and willingness to innovate

(Sheppard, 1996). Thus, instructional leadership can itself be

transformational.

In summary, the integrated view of leadership we propose

highlights the synergistic power of leadership shared by

individualsthroughouttheschoolorganisation.Weagreewith

the argument that past understandings of school leadership

have failed to meet two functional tests: that leadership

promoteorganisationalimprovement,andthatitissustainable

for the leaders themselves. The study demonstrates the

effectiveness of integrated leadershipboth transformational

andinstructionalin

eliciting

the

instructional

leadership

of

teachers for improving school performance. Arguably,

principals who share leadership responsibilities with others

would be less subject to burnout than principal heroes who

attempt the challenges and complexities of leadership alone.

When the principal elicits high levels of commitment and

professionalism from teachers and works interactively with

teachers in a shared instructional leadership capacity, schools

have the benefit of integrated leadership; they are

organizationsthat

learn

and

perform

at

high

levels.


28/42

24

TableI:Comparisonofin

structionalandtransformationalleadershipmodels(adaptedfrom

Hallinger&Murphy,

1985andLeithwood,

etal,1998)


29/42

25

CONTINGENCYMODELSLEADERSHIP

INTHESCHOOLCONTEXT

A second approach to understanding these leadership models

lies throughcontingency theory.At theoutsetof theeffective

schoolsera in 1982, StephenBossert andhiscolleaguesmade

thefollowingobservation:

Likeearlierleadershipstudiesnosinglestyleofmanagement

seems appropriate for all schools principals must find the

styleandstructuresmostsuitedtotheirownlocalsituationa

carefulexaminationofquantitativestudiesofeffectiveschools

suggests that certain principal behaviours have different

effects

in

different

organizational

settings.

Such

findings

confirm the contingency approach to organizational

effectiveness found in current leadership theories. (Bossert et

al.,1982,p.38).

This prediction has been borne out through subsequent

research on instructional leadership. It appears that schools

that are in greater need do respond to the type of directive

leadership encompassed in the traditional instructional

leadershipmodel.Thischaracterisationwouldincludethetype

ofschoolshighlightedintheearlyeffectiveschoolsstudies,i.e.,

poor urban elementary schools. These turn around schools

need an urgent stimulus to convert a climate of low

expectations intooneofsuccess.Moreover,whenschoolsare

failing to provide adequate education, there is often a

perceived need to produce quick results. Strong instructional

leadership isa leadershipapproachthatseemstomeetthese

needs.

Atthe

same

time,

as

Jackson

(2000)

and

Fullan

(2002)

observe,

schoolimprovementisajourney.Thetypeofleadershipthatis

suitable toa certain stageof thejourney may wellbecome a

limiting or even counterproductive force as the school

develops.ThisisanexampleofwhatBossertandhiscolleagues

referredtoasacontingencymodelofleadership.


30/42


31/42

27

Roland Barth (2002) highlights both the principals impact on

theschoolscultureandtheculturesimpactontheprincipal:

Probablythemostimportantandthemostdifficultjobofan

instructional leader is to change the prevailing culture of a

school.Theschoolsculturedictates,innouncertainterms,the

waywedothingsaroundhere.Aschoolsculturehasfarmore

influence on life and learning in the schoolhouse than the

president of the country, the state department of education,

the superintendent, the school board, or even the principal,

teachers, and parents can ever have. One

cannot, ofcourse,changea schoolculturealone.Butone can

provide forms of leadership that invite others to join as

observersoftheoldandarchitectsofthenew.Theeffectmust

beto

transform

what

we

did

last

September

into

what

we

wouldliketodonextSeptember.(p.6)

Thus,one resolutionof thequest foranappropriatemodelof

leadershipineducationwouldbetolinktheappropriatetypeof

leadership to the needs of the school context. If school

improvement isajourney,one could hypothesise thatamore

directive leadership style might be more suitable in contexts

thatarelesswellorganisedaroundeffectivemodelsofteaching

and

learning.

Schoolsat

risk

may

initially

require

a

moreforceful topdown approach focused on instructional

improvement. Instructional leaders would typically set clear,

time based, academically focused goals in order to get the

organisationmovinginthedesireddirection.Theywouldtakea

more active handson role in organizing and coordinating

instruction.

The extent of appropriate staff participation in leading these

processes(i.e.,developmentoftheschoolsgoals,coordination

of

the

curriculum)

might

vary

depending

upon

where

the

location of the school is in its improvement journey.

Nonetheless, it is safe to say that longterm, sustained

improvement will ultimately depend upon the staff assuming

increasing levels of ownership over proposed changes in the

school. As suggested earlier, this contingent approach was

indicatedinourstudyofeffectiveschools intheUSA(Hallinger

&Murphy,1985).


32/42

28

This conclusion would be consistent with other contingency

models that conceptualise leadership as a developmental

process (e.g. Graeff, 1997). Day and his colleagues (2000)

cameto

asimilar

conclusion

in

his

own

analysis

of

current

leadership models. They recommended the application of,

contingency leadership which takes into account the

realities of successful principalship of schools in changing

times,andmovesbeyondpolarisedconceptsoftransactional

and transformational leadership (p.456).This reviewcomes

toasimilarconclusion.


33/42

29

REFERENCESANDREWS,R.&SODER,R.(1987)Principalinstructional

leadershipandschoolachievement,EducationalLeadership,

44,

pp.

911.

BAMBURG,J.&ANDREWS,R.(1990)Schoolgoals,principalsandachievement,SchoolEffectivenessandSchoolImprovement,2(3),pp.175191.

BARTH,R.(1990)ImprovingSchoolsfromWithin(SanFrancisco,CA,JosseyBass).

BARTH,R.(1986)Onsheepandgoatsandschoolreform,PhiDeltaKappan,68(4),pp.293296.

BARTH,R.(1980)RunSchoolRun(Cambridge,MA,HarvardUniversityPress).

BASS,B.(1985)LeadershipandPerformancebeyondExpectations(NewYork,TheFreePress).

BASS,B.(1997)Doesthetransactionaltransformationalleadershipparadigmtranscendorganizationalandnationalboundaries?AmericanPsychologist,52(2),pp.130138.

BASS,B.M.&AVOLIO,B.J.(1993)Transformationalleadership:aresponsetocritiques,in:M.M.CHEMERS&R.AYMAN(Eds)LeadershipTheoryandResearch:perspectivesanddirections(SanDiego,CA,AcademicPress).

BISHOP,P.

&

MULFORD,

B.

(1996)

Empowerment

in

four

primaryschools:theydontreallycare,InternationalJournalofEducationalReform,5(2),pp.193204.

BLASE,J.&BLASE,J.(1998)HandbookofInstructionalLeadership:howreallygoodprincipalspromoteteachingandlearning(ThousandOaks,CA,CorwinPress).

BOGLER,R.(2001)Theinfluenceofleadershipstyleonteacherjobsatisfaction,EducationalAdministrationQuarterly,37(5),pp.662643.

BOLAM,R.(1997)Managementdevelopmentfor

headteachers,Educational

Management

and

Administration,25(3),pp.265283.

BOLMAN,L.&DEAL,T.(1992)ReframingOrganizations(SanFrancisco,CA,JosseyBass).

BOSSERT,S.,DWYER,D.,ROWAN,B.&LEE,G.(1982)Theinstructionalmanagementroleoftheprincipal,EducationalAdministrationQuarterly,18(3),pp.3464.

BOTTERY,M.(2001)GlobalisationandtheUKcompetitionstate:noroomfortransformationalleadershipineducation?SchoolLeadership&Management,21(2),pp.

199218.


34/42

BRAUGHTON,R.&RILEY,J.(1991)Therelationshipbetweenprincipalsknowledgeofreadingprocessesand

elementaryschool

reading

achievement

(ERIC

Document

ReproductionServiceNo.ED341952).

BRIDGES,E.(1982)Researchontheschooladministrator:thestateoftheart,19671980,EducationalAdministrationQuarterly,18(3),pp.1233.

BYCIO,P.&ALLEN,J.(1995)FurtherassessmentofBasss(1985)conceptualizationoftransactionalandtransformationalleadership,JournalofAppliedPsychology,80(4),pp.468478.

CHONG,K.C.,STOTT,K.&LOW,G.T.(2003)DevelopingSingaporeschoolleadersforalearningnation,in:P.HALLINGER

(Ed.)

Reshaping

the

Landscape

of

School

LeadershipDevelopment:aglobalperspective(Lisse,Netherlands,Swets&Zeitlinger).

COHEN,E.&MILLER,R.(1980)Coordinationandcontrolofinstructioninschools,PacificSociologicalReview,4,pp.446473.

CUBAN,L.(1984)Transformingthefrogintoaprince:effectiveschoolsresearch,policy,andpracticeatthedistrictlevel,HarvardEducationalReview,54(2),pp.129151.

CUBAN,L.

(1988)

The

Managerial

Imperative

and

the

PracticeofLeadershipinSchools(Albany,NY,SUNYPress).

DAVIS,B.(2003)Developingleadersforselfmanagingschools:theroleofaprincipalcenterinaccreditationandprofessionallearning,in:P.HALLINGER(Ed.)ReshapingtheLandscapeofSchoolLeadershipDevelopment:aglobalperspective(Lisse,Netherlands,Swets&Zeitlinger).

DAY,C.,HARRIS,A.&HADFIELD,M.(2001)Challengingtheorthodoxyofeffectiveschoolleadership,International

Journalof

Leadership

in

Education,

4(1),

pp.

3956.

DIMMOCK,C.&WALKER,A.(2000)Introductionjustifyingacrossculturalcomparativeapproachtoschoolleadershipandmanagement,SchoolLeadershipandManagement,20(2),pp.137141.

DWYER,D.(1986)Understandingtheprincipalscontributiontoinstruction,PeabodyJournalofEducation,63(1),pp.318.

EDMONDS,R.(1979)Effectiveschoolsfortheurbanpoor,EducationalLeadership,37,pp.1524.

30


35/42

31

FULLAN,M.(2002)Thechangeleader,EducationalLeadership,59(8),pp.1620.

FWU,B.&WANG,H.(2001)Principalsatthecrossroads:profiles,preparationandroleperceptionofsecondaryschoolprincipalsinTaiwan.PaperpresentedattheInternationalConferenceonSchoolLeaderPreparation,Licensure,Certification,Selection,EvaluationandProfessionalDevelopment,Taipei,ROC.

GEWERTZ,C.(2003)N.Y.C.Chancelloraimstobolsterinstructionalleadership,EducationWeek,22(16),7,12.

GLASMAN,N.(1983)Increasedcentralityofevaluationandtheschoolprincipal,AdministratorsNotebook,30(1),pp.

14.

GLASMAN,N.(1984)Studentachievementandtheschoolprincipal,EducationalEvaluationandPolicyAnalysis,6(3),pp.283296.

GOLDRING,E.&PASTERNAK,R.(1994)Principalscoordinatingstrategiesandschooleffectiveness,SchoolEffectivenessandSchoolImprovement,5(3),pp.239253.

GOLDRING,E.&SULLIVAN,A.(1996)Beyondtheboundaries:principals,parentsandcommunitiesshapingtheschoolenvironment,in:K.LEITHWOOD,J.CHAPMAN,D.CARSON,P.HALLINGER&A.HART(Eds)InternationalHandbook

of

Educational

Leadership

and

Administration

(Dordrecht,TheNetherlands,KluwerAcademicPress).

GRAEFF,C.(1997)Evolutionofsituationalleadershiptheory:acriticalreview,LeadershipQuarterly,8(2),pp.1726.

GRIER,L.(1987)TheNorthCarolinaleadershipinstituteforprincipals,in:J.MURPHY&P.HALLINGER(Eds)ApproachestoAdministrativeTraininginEducation(Albany,NY,SUNYPress).

HALLINGER,P.(1992)Schoolleadershipdevelopment:evaluatingadecadeofreform,EducationandUrban

Society,24(3),

pp.

300316.

HALLINGER,P.(2000)AreviewoftwodecadesofresearchontheprincipalshipusingthePrincipalInstructionalManagementRatingScale.PaperpresentedattheannualmeetingoftheAmericanEducationalResearchAssociation,Seattle,Washington.

HALLINGER,P.(2003)Schoolleadershipdevelopment:globalchallengesandopportunities,in:P.HALLINGER(Ed.)ReshapingtheLandscapeofSchoolLeadershipDevelopment:aglobalperspective(Lisse,Netherlands,Swets&Zeitlinger).


36/42


37/42

33

HALLINGER,P.&MURPHY,J.(1985)Assessingtheinstructionalleadershipbehaviorofprincipals,Elementary

School

Journal,

86(2),

pp.

217248.

HALLINGER,P.&MURPHY,J.(1986)Thesocialcontextofeffectiveschools,AmericanJournalofEducation,94(3),pp.328355.

HALLINGER,P.&WIMPELBERG,R.(1992)Newsettingsandchangingnormsforprincipaldevelopment,TheUrbanReview,67(4),pp.122.

HECK,R.(1992)Principalinstructionalleadershipandtheidentificationofhigh andlowachievingschools:theapplicationofdiscriminanttechniques,Administrators

Notebook,34(7),

pp.

14.

HECK,R.(1993)Schoolcontext,principalleadership,andachievement:thecaseofsecondaryschoolsinSingapore,TheUrbanReview,25(2),pp.151166.

HECK,R.&HALLINGER,P.(1999)Conceptualmodels,methodology,andmethodsforstudyingschoolleadership,in:J.MURPHY&K.SEASHORELOUIS(Eds)The2ndHandbookofResearchinEducationalAdministration(SanFrancisco,CA,McCutchan).

HECK,R.,LARSON,T.&MARCOULIDES,G.(1990)Principalinstructionalleadershipandschoolachievement:validation

of

acausal

model,

Educational

Administration

Quarterly,26,pp.94125.

HALL,G.&HORD,S.(1987)ChangeinSchools(Albany,NY,SUNYPress).

HOWELL,J.&AVOLIO,B.(1993)Transformationalleadership,transactionalleadership,locusofcontrol,andsupport,JournalofAppliedPsychology,78(6),pp.891893.

HUBER,S.(2003)Schoolleaderdevelopment:currenttrendsfromaglobalperspective,in:P.HALLINGER(Ed.)ReshapingtheLandscapeofSchoolLeadership

Development:aglobal

perspective

(Lisse,

Netherlands,

Swets&Zeitlinger).

JACKSON,D.(2000)Theschoolimprovementjourney:perspectivesonleadership,SchoolLeadership&Management,20(1),pp.6178.

JONES,P.(1987)TherelationshipbetweenprincipalbehaviorandstudentachievementinCanadiansecondaryschools.Unpublisheddoctoraldissertation,StanfordUniversity,PaloAlto,CA.


38/42

KIRBY,P.,PARADISE,L.&KING,M.(1992)Extraordinaryleadersineducation:understandingtransformationalleadership,

Journalof

Educational

Research,

85(5),

pp.

303311.

KLIENEKRACHT,P.(1993)Indirectinstructionalleadership:anadministratorschoice,EducationalAdministrationQuarterly,18(4),pp.129.

LAM,J.(2003)Balancingstabilityandchange:ImplicationsforprofessionalpreparationanddevelopmentofprincipalsinHongKong,in:P.HALLINGER(Ed.)ReshapingtheLandscapeofSchoolLeadershipDevelopment:aglobalperspective(Lisse,Netherlands,Swets&Zeitlinger).

LAMBERT,L.(1998)BuildingLeadershipCapacityinSchools(Alexandria,VA,AssociationforSupervision

and

Curriculum

Development).

LAMBERT,L.(2002)Aframeworkforsharedleadership,EducationalLeadership,59(8),pp.3740.

LEITHWOOD,K.(1992)Themovetowardtransformationalleadership,EducationalLeadership,49(5),pp.813.

LEITHWOOD,K.(1994)Leadershipforschoolrestructuring,EducationalAdministrationQuarterly,30(4),pp.498518.

LEITHWOOD,K.,BEGLEY,P.&COUSINS,B.(1990)The

nature,

causes

and

consequences

of

principals

practices:

anagenda

for

future

research,

Journal

of

Educational

Administration,28(4),pp.531.

LEITHWOOD,K.&JANTZI,D.(1999a)Therelativeeffectsofprincipalandteachersourcesofleadershiponstudentengagementwithschool,EducationalAdministrationQuarterly,35,pp.679706.

LEITHWOOD,K.&JANTZI,D.(1999b)Transformationalleadershipeffects:areplication,SchoolEffectivenessandSchoolImprovement,4(10),pp.451479.

LEITHWOOD,K.&JANTZI,D.(2000a)Principalandteacher

leadereffects:

areplication,

School

Leadership

and

Management,20(4),pp.415434.

LEITHWOOD,K.&JANTZI,D.(2000b)Theeffectsoftransformationleadershiponstudentengagementwithschool,JournalofEducationalAdministration,38(2),pp.112129.

LEITHWOOD,K.,JANTZI,D.,SILINS,H.&DART,B.(1993)Usingtheappraisalofschoolleadersasaninstrumentforschoolrestructuring,PeabodyJournalofEducation,68(2),pp.85110.

34


39/42

35

LEITHWOOD,K.,JANTZI,D.&STEINBACH,R.(1998)Leadershipandotherconditionswhichfosterorganizational

learning

in

schools,

in:

K.

LEITHWOOD

&

K.SEASHORELOUIS(Eds)OrganizationalLearninginSchools(Lisse,Netherlands,Swets&Zeitlinger).

LEITHWOOD,K.,LEONARD,L.&SHARRATT,L.(1998)Conditionsfosteringorganizationallearninginschools,EducationalAdministrationQuarterly,34(2),pp.243276.

LEITHWOOD,K.&LOUIS,K.S.(1999)Organizationallearninginschools:anintroduction,in:K.LEITHWOOD&K.S.LOUIS(Eds)OrganizationalLearninginSchools(Dordrecht,TheNetherlands,KluwerAcademicPress).

LEITHWOOD,K.&MONTGOMERY,D.(1982)Theroleoftheelementaryprincipalinprogramimprovement,ReviewofEducationalResearch,52(3),pp.309339.

LEITHWOOD,K.,TOMLINSON,D.&GENGE,M.(1996)Transformationalschoolleadership,in:K.LEITHWOOD,J.CHAPMAN,D.CORSON,P.HALLINGER&A.WEAVERHART(Eds)InternationalHandbookofEducationalLeadershipandAdministration(NewYork,Kluwer).

LEITNER,D.(1994)Doprincipalsaffectstudentoutcomes?An

organizationalperspective,

School

Effectiveness

and

SchoolImprovement,5(3),pp.219239.

LOUIS,K.S.,&MARKS,H.(1998)Doesprofessionalcommunityaffecttheclassroom?AmericanJournalofEducation,106(4),pp.532575.

MARCH,J.(1978)TheAmericanpublicschooladministrator:ashortanalysis,SchoolReview,86,pp.217250.

MARKS,H.&PRINTY,S.(inpress)Principalleadershipandschoolperformance:anintegrationoftransformationandinstructionalleadership,EducationalAdministrationQuarterly.

MARSH,D.(1992)Schoolprincipalsasinstructionalleaders:theimpactoftheCaliforniaSchoolLeadershipAcademy,EducationandUrbanSociety,24(3),pp.386410.

MARSHALL,K.(1996)HowIconfrontedHSPS(HyperactiveSuperficialPrincipalSyndrome)PhiDeltaKappan,77(5),pp.336345.


40/42

MISKEL,C.(1982)Ananalysisofprincipaleffects.UnpublishedspeechtotheNationalGraduateStudentSeminarin

EducationalAdministration,

Princeton,

New

Jersey,

April.

MORTIMORE,P.(1993)Schooleffectivenessandthemanagementofeffectivelearningandteaching,SchoolEffectivenessandSchoolImprovement,4,pp.290310.

MULFORD,B.&BISHOP,P.(1997)Leadershipinorganisationallearningandstudentoutcomes(LOLSO)Project,Launceston,Australia,UniversityofTasmania.

MURPHY,J.(2002)Reculturingtheprofessionofeducationalleadership:newblueprints,EducationalAdministrationQuarterly,38(2),pp.176192.

MURPHY,J.

&

SHIPMAN,

N.

(2003)

Developing

standards

for

schoolleadershipdevelopment:aprocessandrationale,in:P.HALLINGER(Ed.)ReshapingtheLandscapeofSchoolLeadershipDevelopment:aglobalperspective(Lisse,Netherlands,Swets&Zeitlinger).

ODAY,K.(1983)Therelationshipbetweenprincipalandteacherperceptionsofprincipalinstructionalmanagementbehaviorandstudentachievement.Unpublisheddoctoraldissertation(NorthernIllinoisUniversity,Normal,Illinois).

OGAWA,R.&BOSSERT,S.(1995)Leadershipasan

organizational

quality,

Educational

Administration

Quarterly,31(2),

pp.

224243.

PURKEY,S.&SMITH,M.(1983)Effectiveschools:areview,ElementarySchoolJournal,83,pp.427452.

ROWAN,B.&DENK,C.(1984)Managementsuccession,schoolsocioeconomiccontextandbasicskillsachievement,AmericanEducationalResearchJournal,21(3),pp.17537.

RUTTER,M.,MAUGHAN,B.,MORTIMORE,P.,OUSTON,J.&SMITH,A.(1979)FifteenThousandHours:secondaryschoolsandtheireffectsonchildren(Cambridge,MA,HarvardUniversityPress).

SCOTT,C.&TEDDLIE,C.(1987)Student,teacher,andprincipalacademicexpectationsandattributedresponsibilityaspredictorsofstudentachievement:acausalmodelingapproach,PaperpresentedattheAnnualMeetingoftheAmericanEducationalResearchAssociation,WashingtonDC,April.

SHEPPARD,B.(1996)Exploringthetransformationalnatureofinstructionalleadership,TheAlbertaJournalofEducationalResearch,42(4),pp.325344.

36


41/42

SHEPPARD,B.&BROWN,J.(1996)Soyouthinkteamleadershipiseasy?Trainingandimplementationconcerns,NASSPBulletin,

84(614),

pp.

7174.

SILINS,H.(1994)Therelationshipbetweentransformationalandtransactionalleadershipandschoolimprovementoutcomes,SchoolEffectivenessandSchoolImprovement,5(3)pp.272298.

SILINS,H.,MULFORD,B.,ZARINS,S.&BISHOP,P.(2000)LeadershipfororganisationallearninginAustraliansecondaryschools,in:K.LEITHWOOD(Ed.)UnderstandingSchoolsasIntelligentSystems(Greenwich,Connecticut,JAI).

SILINS,H.&MULFORD,B.(2002)Leadership,restructuringand

organisationaloutcomes,

in:

K.

LEITHWOOD,

P.

HALLINGER,

G.FURMANBROWN,B.MULFORD,P.GRONN,W.RILEY&K.SEASHORELOUIS(Eds)SecondInternationalHandbookofEducationalLeadershipandAdministration(Dordrecht,TheNetherlands,KluwerAcademicPress).

SOUTHWORTH,G.(2002)Instructionalleadershipinschools:reflectionsandempiricalevidence,SchoolLeadership&Management,22(1),pp.7392.

STRICHERZ,M.(2001a)D.C.Principalstrainingdesignedtoboostinstructionalleadership.EducationWeek,21(2),p.13.

STRICHERZ,M.(2001b)LeadershipgrantaimedatschoolsinSouth,

Education

Week,

21(3),

p.

21.

VANDEGRIFT,W.(1990)Educationalleadershipandacademicachievementinelementaryeducation,SchoolEffectivenessandSchoolImprovement,1(3),pp.2640.

.

37


42/42

Documents

APCLC Monograph Leading Change