Search results

The large role that emotions play in the work lives of school-level leaders is absent from much of the research exploring what they do on a daily basis. This chapter discusses future directions for research surrounding the emotional aspects of school-level leadership and how this research can influence practice in meaningful ways. For example, it may be beneficial for future research to focus on principals who are struggling to manage their emotions. This would allow researchers to identify factors or practices associated with school-level leaders who are less able to manage their emotions in a positive manner and provide supports. Further, more large-scale research surrounding school-level leadership is needed to better understand how the ability to manage emotions intersects with other challenges in contemporary principals' work. Research of this nature would also provide additional avenues of support for current leaders. Future directions for practice include an emphasis on changing the culture so that school-level leaders who are struggling feel empowered to reach out beyond their immediate colleagues for supports. Without a renewed appreciation for the emotional aspects of their work, principals, vice-principals and other school-level leaders will be unable to maximise their impact on student outcomes.

The purpose of this paper is to test a multilevel, cross-classified model that seeks to illuminate the dynamic nature of relationships among leadership, teaching quality, and student learning in school improvement. The study's primary goal is to shed light on the paths through which leadership influences student learning. At the school level, the model examines the mediating effect of the school's instructional environment on leadership and student learning. At the classroom level, it examines how instructionally focussed leadership can moderate teacher effects on student learning. Then these multiple paths are examined in a single model that seeks to test and highlight the means by which leadership contributes to school improvement.

The current study employed a multilevel longitudinal data set drawn from 60 primary schools in one state in the USA. Using a cross-classification approach to quantitative modeling, the research analyzes the complex cross-level interactions that characterize school-level and classroom level practices that contribute to school improvement and student learning.

The results illustrate the utility of specifying multilevel relationships when examining the “paths” that link school leadership to student learning. First, leadership effects on student learning were fully mediated by the quality of the school's instructional environment. Second, the findings indicated that the classroom-related paths examined in this study directly influenced the measures of student math achievement. Third, the research found that instructionally focussed school leadership moderated the effect of individual teachers on student learning. Fourth, the results suggest that school leaders can enhance student outcomes by creating conditions that lead to greater consistency in levels of effectiveness across teachers.

The study makes substantive contributions to the global knowledge base on school improvement by testing and elaborating on the “paths” that link school leadership and student learning. More specifically, the findings offer insights into strategic targets that instructional leaders can employ to enhance teacher effectiveness and school improvement. Thus, these results both support and extend findings from prior cross-sectional and longitudinal studies of leadership and school improvement.

This is the first study that has tested a conceptualization of leadership for learning in a single “cross-classified longitudinal model” capable of capturing interactions among leadership, classroom teaching processes and growth in student learning. The research illustrates one “state-of-the-art” methodological approach for analyzing longitudinal data collected at both the school and classroom levels when studying school improvement.

This paper presents a model of teacher and school executive satisfaction derived from a study involving 892 respondents in 71 government schools in Western Sydney, Australia. Factor analysis of survey items was utilised to develop an eight factor model of teacher satisfaction. The eight factors were named: school leadership, climate, decision making; merit promotion and local hiring; school infrastructure; school reputation; status and image of teachers; student achievement; workload and the impact of change; and professional self‐growth. Scores on the scales fell into three domains: “core business of teaching” factors (student achievement; professional self‐growth); school level factors (school leadership, climate, decision making; school infrastructure; school reputation); and system level/societal factors (workload and impact of change; status and image of teachers; merit promotion). Respondents were most satisfied with “core business” aspects and least satisfied with system level/societal factors, while school level factors showed the most variation, reflecting the influence of teachers’ specific and varying within‐school experiences. Leadership, communication and decision making styles were found to be important contributing factors to satisfaction with school based aspects of respondents’ roles. It is argued that within the important, school level domain, action to improve teacher satisfaction is most likely to be effective.

Using data from the Children of Immigrants Longitudinal Study, this study examines the structural relationships between negative school social relationships, school safety, educational expectation, and academic achievement of Latino immigrant students. Results from multilevel structural equation modeling show that discrimination, unhelpful school social relationships, and experiences of unsafe school environments influence Latino immigrant adolescents’ academic achievement indirectly and directly through their educational expectations. Specifically, this study explores how noncognitive and contextual factors embedded in different structural layers of school organization influence Latino immigrant adolescents’ academic achievement. It draws attention to the impact of negative school factors such as discriminatory and unsupportive school social relationships, and negative and unsafe school structures that undermine school life. Based on our findings, we argue that as Latino immigrant students internalize negative experiences from their school experiences during the critical period of adolescence, such accumulated negative internalization may reinforce negative self-perceptions and inaccurate stereotypes. Not only discrimination but also other negative school features such as the absence of academic supporters, nonacademically oriented friends, and unsafe learning environments inhibit them from navigating positive school opportunities and ultimately, successful school achievement. Implications for the social organization of U.S. public secondary schools with a focus on Latino immigrant adolescents’ academic achievement are discussed.

Researchers have provided critiques of teacher efficacy research along with suggestions for future research, but no recent reviews have examined the state of collective teacher efficacy (CTE) research as it relates specifically to professional development. This review addressed the following questions: How much research attention has been paid to professional learning and CTE? What does the research tell us about professional learning and CTE? What do we know about influencing CTE through professional learning? The paper aims to discuss these issues.

Educational Resources Information Center and EBSCO databases were searched for peer-reviewed articles written in English and published over the last ten years (between 2007 and 2017). The search terms included “collective efficacy” and “teacher or teachers” and “professional development and professional learning” and were extended beyond titles to include keywords contained within the articles. This would help to broaden the search and increase the number of hits.

There is little that can be gleaned from the research related to professional learning and the contextual factors that influence collective efficacy beliefs. Only one study (Paxon et al., 2014) in this review considered the formation of CTE in relation to both remote and proximate sources. Although some of the studies explained Bandura’s (1993) sources of CTE, reference to the sources were notably absent in the reported findings, implications, and conclusions of many of the studies. Contextual variables examined in the component studies included either implementation patterns, trust, sense of belonging, teacher uncertainty, opportunities for teacher leadership, social relationships, and/or labels assigned to low performing districts and/or high performing districts.

A limitation that influences the findings of this review is that the review was not exhaustive, and articles written in English with the search terms outlined did not capture the population of possible articles. Future reviewers may uncover new patterns in CTE research by searching non-English journals and by examining the range of work completed in graduate theses and dissertations.

In regard to promising professional learning designs, inquiry based approaches, including collaborative action research, problem-solving groups, and teams’ monitoring and tracking individual student progress seemed to hold promise. In each of these designs, educators collaboratively analyze student evidence for the purpose of evaluating their impact, reflecting on their collective work, and determining optimal next steps. Interpreting results by examining student learning data might help to strengthen connections between perceived levels of difficulty related to teaching tasks and perceptions of group competence. When conversations shift from generalized talk about student’s progress and polite sharing of teaching strategies to more in-depth conversations about the connections between the two, professional learning becomes more impactful. The interpretation of results, leads to shifts in causal attributions – from assumptions which included “I planned and taught the lesson, but they didn’t get it” to “you haven’t taught it until they’ve learned” as a result of engaging in these types of professional learning designs.

Hattie’s (2015) research, which synthesized major findings from over 1,200 meta-analyses relating to influences on student achievement, demonstrated the magnitude and overall distribution of more than 150,000 effect sizes. In a recent update, Hattie (2016) ranked CTE as the number one influence of all the factors related to student achievement, reporting an effect size of 1.57.This update was based on Eells’ (2011) meta-analysis that synthesized correlational evidence for CTE and student achievement. Eells (2011) found that CTE was strongly and positively associated with student achievement “across subject areas, when using varied instruments, and in multiple locations” (p. 110). Eells (2011) finding is becoming more widely disseminated through the promotion of Hattie’s (2016) Visible Learning Research due to its prominent position within that body of evidence. Thus, the interest of practitioners in the field, including administrators, teachers, and professional learning facilitators has been piqued. Gaining a better understanding of CTE, sources that shape it, and its antecedents and consequences are likely to surface as a major upcoming focus for designers and facilitators of professional learning. There is a small amount of extant research that examined professional development effects on teacher efficacy (Tschannen-Moran and McMaster, 2009; Ross and Bruce, 2007). However, there are many voids in the collective efficacy research. Given this void and the increased interest to gain a better understanding of CTE on part of practitioners, not only is additional research needed, it is imperative to find ways to address the ongoing dilemma of making research and theory relevant to educators’ practice.

School improvement and effectiveness depend substantially on teachers developing their professional competencies on an ongoing basis. Germany's new approach to school governance combines instruments borrowed from different theoretical concepts: teacher collaboration (in a sense of professional self-regulation with high autonomy) and individualized staff development by principals (in a sense of managerial self-regulation with high within-school accountability). The purpose of the study is to examine whether these instruments are applied at schools in Germany, what factors predict the extent of use, and if the use is associated with the improvement of teachers' instructional competencies.

In order to answer our research questions, we conducted a standardized teacher and principal survey at primary and secondary schools in Germany (658 teachers from 51 schools).

The analyses indicate that the instruments are not being carried out across the board. The results of a multilevel path analysis furthermore show that teacher self-efficacy, principals' leadership behavior, school size and students' SES are important preconditions for the use of the two instruments. However, the instruments have an impact on the improvement of teachers' instructional competencies but through different pathways.

Limitations concern the cross-sectional design of the study and the focus on measures based on retrospective self-reported data.

This study is the first that examines the implementation and impact of two instruments with differing governance theoretical background in German schools.

This chapter highlights the plight of refugees and the strategies and policies crafted by international agencies and non-governmental institutions in providing better access to education especially for refugee children. The chapter explores some of the key terminologies that distinguish refugees from asylum seekers and internally displaced person. The terminologies are significant as the opportunities and facilities handed out differ significantly depending on their status. The chapter then talks about some of the policies toward imparting education and the school- and system-level factors responsible for accessing education. The last section of the chapter summarizes the overview of various chapters that will feature in this volume, talking about cases and interventions from Malawi to Australia.

Models of teacher satisfaction post‐Herzberg have generally presented two mutually exclusive domains of teacher satisfaction/dissatisfaction. However, use of a survey with 2,000 teachers and school executive in England, New Zealand and Australia has provided evidence for a third domain of teacher satisfaction/dissatisfaction grounded in the wider environment surrounding the school, a domain which has grown in importance and influence and which teachers and school executive find uniformly dissatisfying. This outer domain has acted to erode overall teacher satisfaction in contravention of the general principles of “two‐factor” theories of job satisfaction. It is argued that teachers, schools, and others with an interest in education, need to build bridges, forge partnerships and actively participate in educational discourse with members of this outer domain. Further, educational systems and governments need to look within the outer domain of teacher satisfaction for answers to the problems currently facing teachers, schools and society.

Several factors and forces in school-level leaders' work can heighten emotions and incite emotionally charged situations. Challenges that heighten school-level leaders' emotions are related to systemic factors, people factors and personal factors. The extent to which each of these different factors influence the emotional experiences of school-level leaders, and whether that influence ends up being positive, negative or neutral, is contextual in nature. The systemic factors include encountering barriers when advocating for students, managing an intensified and expanding workload, working within disorienting policy contexts, and receiving a lack of support from their employer. Changes in school-level leaders' work and workload due to the COVID-19 pandemic that heightened emotions and emotional labour are also considered when discussing the systemic factors. People factors evident in the literature include workplace conflict, gendered power relations and crises and tragedies in the school community. The emotional labour inherent in school-level leadership comes to the forefront when considering the impact of these people factors on emotions at work because school-level leaders are tasked with making decisions that can have an immense impact on peoples' lives. Personal factors discussed in this chapter surround a school-level leader's individual emotional intelligence abilities and media attention directed towards them.

In this chapter, I propose a model for how school-level leaders manage their emotions. This model consists of six components. School-level leaders typically have little direct influence over the first component of the model, which are the socio-contextual factors in the schools, school communities and jurisdictions in which they work. A school-level leader's identity, sense of self and their personal characteristics comprise the second component of the model. The third component of the model is a multi-directional arrow demonstrating connections and interactions between the socio-contextual factors and a school-level leader's sense of self. Factors that heighten school-level leaders' emotional experiences in schools are considered as part of the fourth component of this model for school-level leaders' emotional regulation. The fifth component are the emotional regulation strategies school-level leaders use to manage emotions that emerge as part of their workday, while influence of supports and professional learning are considered as part of the sixth component, Finally, the model also accounts for the chain reactions and feedback loops that can occur when an individual utilizes an emotional regulation strategy that is unsuccessful. Those processes produce new emotions that must be regulated using similar, or different, emotional regulation strategy(ies).