Search results

The purpose of this paper is to provide concrete examples of what leadership behaviors and strategies look like in high-poverty urban schools in Chicago that are successful at improving student outcomes. The authors compared the strategies used by principals who were rated by their teachers on annual surveys as being strong instructional leaders but had varying success in improving student outcomes for comparison.

This paper is part of a larger mixed-methods study exploring the link between leadership and student learning. For the qualitative portion of the study, the authors utilized a contrasting case study design (Merriam, 1998) to distinguish leadership practices in schools with improvements in student achievement from practices in schools with stagnating or declining student achievement. The authors conducted case studies in a total of 12 schools–6 schools with improving student achievement and 6 schools with stagnating or declining student achievement. For brevity, the authors chose 4 schools to highlight in this manuscript that best illustrate the findings found across the full sample of 12 schools. The authors coded each interview using both inductive and deductive coding techniques.

The study findings indicate that there are subtle but important differences between the strategies principals in improving and contrast schools use to lead school improvement efforts. Principals in improving schools were able to create learning environments where staff were open to new ideas and work together towards goals. Principals in improving schools were also more likely to create structures that facilitated organizational learning than principals in contrast schools.

This study is unique because the authors provide concrete examples of what principals do in their schools to help create strong learning climates that foster organizational learning and improvement. The authors also identify differences in leader practices and structures in schools that are having a harder time making improvements for comparison. The study findings can be used by principals and other educators to better understand which of their various efforts may result in stronger school cultures conducive to organizational learning as outlined in Louis' and colleagues' work.

In the world of public school education everything depends on good leadership. Sadly, many of our schools administrators can't differentiate the difference between leading and managing; far too many of them don't know the first thing about fundamental leadership principles. In short, they don't understand the fundamentals of Mission Oriented Leadership, the need for top-down leadership, or the critical differences between leadership and management. A cursory review of the selection process for school administrators, and the graduate level curriculums for those who seek a degree in school administration, clearly supports the contention that policymakers and educators are under the misconception that anyone can be taught or trained to be an effective school leader. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The purpose of this paper is to explore how important the choice of theoretical perspective is on the analyses of empirical data from a Danish case study.

The empirical bases for the analyses are qualitative, longitudinal case studies of school leadership in the International Successful School Principalship Project (ISSPP). This article discusses and compares analyses from two analytical perspectives. The first is a welfare state perspective, which includes education for democracy and social justice. The second perspective is a competitive state perspective. Here the educational focus is on educating for employability on a labour market.

School leaders are seen to comply with most of the demands of the competitive state: e.g. demands for negotiations and effectiveness. Leaders also intended to lead schools and education for democracy and social justice.

The limitations and possibilities are described more clearly than usual. They therefore provide deeper insights into the complexities of school leadership.

Discusses urban school reform in American cities, in particular Chicago and Pittsburgh, and compares the different ways these ideas are carried through to fruition on different sides of the Atlantic. Looks at the severe difficulties which are experienced by the ethnic minorities in urban schools (only 5 per cent of which are white students). Concludes that the autonomy of school districts does not assist in development and that the challenge is for the United States as a whole.

The aim of this paper is to present a comprehensive framework for capturing the complex concept the authors call school improvement.

The author begins by anchoring that framework on an historical understanding of school improvement. The framework itself is then presented. Five dimensions are described: the essential equation, building material (content), guiding principles, supports, and integrative dynamic.

The construct of school improvement has varied over time. The paper articulates the seedbed from which current efforts at school improvement grow – and why those efforts look the way they do. It then reviews what the author has uncovered about how to build productive schools in the post‐industrial world by exposing and populating the key dimensions of the school improvement framework.

The paper draws on the author's research legacy to develop a framework for analyzing school improvement efforts.

Most school restucturing initiatives assume significant capacity development on the part of individuals, as well as whole organizations; they also depend on high levels of motivation and commitment to solving the substantial problems associated with the implementation of restructuring initiatives. Transformational approaches to leadership have long been advocated as productive under these conditions, and evidence suggests that transformational practices do contribute to the development of capacity and commitment. Much less evidence is available, however, about whether these socio‐psychological effects actually result in organizational change and enhanced organizational outcomes. Survey data from an achieved sample of 1,762 teachers and 9,941 students in one large school district were used to explore the relative effects of transformational leadership practices on selected organizational conditions and student engagement with school. Results demonstrated strong significant effects of such leadership on organizational conditions, and moderate but still significant total effects on student engagement.