General Educational Leadership Overview



General Educational Leadership Overview

Alan J. Daly, Ph.D.

University of California, San Diego

Leadership Models: Education

Leithwood and Duke (1999) describe six distinct educational leadership approaches. These models were culled from a study of 121 complete articles published in four representative English language educational administration journals since 1988. The six educational leadership approaches listed in order of appearance in educational journals include: instructional, transformational, moral, participative, managerial, and contingent. As is true for general leadership models, in terms of variation and amount of scholarship dedicated to their exploration, the same holds for educational leadership approaches. The following paragraphs concisely describe educational leadership models based on the efforts of Leithwood and Duke (1999), and in turn are also conceptually connected to the work of Yukl (1998). This serves to support and connect educational leadership with the broader foundational studies of leadership. Table 2.1 provides an overview. Both general and educational models above the double line can be read across to note suggested linkages.

The Instructional leadership approach is epitomized by a focus on defining school mission, managing curriculum and instruction, and supporting a climate focused on teaching and learning. In reflecting back on Yukl’s (1998) general overview of leadership, instructional leadership is most closely associated with the “behavioral” approach in its focus on the leader’s specific behaviors related to instruction. The approach has it roots in an “expert” model, in that those in authority are also those who possess the knowledge, similar to the notion of a skill set of “effective” behaviors discussed in behavioral models of leadership.

Having it roots in Yukl’s (1998) idea of an integrative model of leading is transformational leadership which is primarily associated with the work of Leithwood (1994), and centers around dimensions of shared school vision including: goal development, intellectual stimulation, individualized support, organizational values, high expectations, and participative decision-making. Implied within the model is a change in the “purposes and resources of those involved in the leader-follower relationship, but also an elevation of both—a change for the better (Leithwood & Duke, 1999, p.49).”

Moral leadership is conceptualized as those leadership dimensions best defined as value-laden, normative, democratic, and symbolic, also is an aspect of an integrative approach. The moral approach according to Leithwood and Duke (1999) has its roots in democratic values and stands in opposition to traditional authoritative power models. Moral leadership is normative calling for the consideration of what is right or good. These belief structures pervade leadership and are the imperative for action (Fullan, 1999, 2003).

Participative leadership, on the surface, holds the value that the key to augmented organizational effectiveness is providing all stakeholders with a voice around decisions. Deeper, it represents the core of democratic principles in that authority and influence are open and available to any one in the system. Its central beliefs are on the inclusive power of the group. This approach coupled with transformational and moral rounds out the third that is most closely associated related to Yukl’s (1998) integrative model.

The idea that the rational, technical competency of others within a system will enable the entire organization to operate more efficiently is referred to as the managerial approach. Viewing leadership through the managerial lens is similar to a behavioral model in that the area of focus is the observable behaviors of the leader. The direct link from managerial to behavioral leadership is in the careful examination of discreet behaviors as they influence the organization.

Leadership that centers on unique contexts and environments are most commonly referred to in the general leadership literature as situational, and in the educational literature as a contingent approach. Undergirding this approach is the idea that there are wide variances in contexts and in order to be effective leaders must engage a large repertoire of practices to meet the ever-changing contextual settings.

Table 2.1 Models of Contemporary Leadership Research (Yukl, 1998; Leithwood & Duke, 1999)

|Leadership |Descriptor |Core Beliefs |Educational Leadership|Descriptor |Core Beliefs |

|Approach | | |Style | | |

| |Focus on |Observation and | |Functions, tasks,|If functions are carried out|

|Behavioral |procedures and |classification of |Managerial |or behaviors of |competently the work of |

| |specific |behaviors | |the leader |others in the organization |

| |behaviors |facilitate | | |will be facilitated |

| | |understanding of | | | |

| | |leadership | | | |

| | |Behaviors of |Authority and influence |

| |Instructional |teachers engaging|attached to formal |

| | |activities |administrative roles through|

| | |directly |which considerable influence|

| | |affecting |vis a vis expert knowledge |

| | |students |on the part of those |

| | | |occupying the role |

| |Emphasize |Examining context, | |Response to |Wide variations in the |

|Situational |importance of |and characteristics|Contingency |unique |contexts for leadership and |

| |context; |of leaders will | |circumstance |that to be effective these |

| | |facilitate | | |contexts require different |

| | |leadership | | |leadership responses |

| |Focus on |Leaders ability to | |Commitment and |Higher levels of personal |

|Integrative |dynamics |inspire followers |Transformational |capacities of |commitment to goals and |

| |between leaders|and integrate | |organization |greater capacities for |

| |and followers |personality, | |members |accomplishing those goals |

| | |behavior, | | |result in extra effort and |

| | |influence, and | | |greater productivity |

| | |situation | | | |

| | | | |Decision-making |Increased participation will|

| | | |Participative |processes of the |enhance effectiveness. |

| | | | |group |Authority and influence are |

| | | | | |potentially available to any|

| | | | | |stakeholder |

| | | | |Values and ethics|Authority and influence are |

| | | |Moral |of the leaders |to be derived from |

| | | | | |defensible conceptions of |

| | | | | |what is right or good |

| |Focus on power |Power, its | | | |

|Power-Influence|possessed and |accumulation & | | | |

| |how used |distribution, | | | |

| | |defines leadership | | | |

| |Personal |Leaders are born | | | |

|Trait |attributes of | | | | |

| |leader | | | | |

Although Leithwood and Duke (1999) indicate six distinct categories, perhaps the most salient point is that there is considerable overlap within and between approaches. Leithwood and Duke’s (1999) findings indicate that while at their basic foci level the approaches differ in terms of locus of control, assumptions, and core beliefs, the approaches intersect and often compliment one another. Therefore, while important in providing some guides to leading, the various models imply a more blended, integrative, transformational approach in practice. It is Leithwood and Riehl’s (2003) conceptualization of educational leaders as philosophically and operationally acting in more eclectic manners that leads to my assumption that adaptive leadership theory as conceptualized by Heifetz (1994) is another contemporary example of an integrative model. However, prior to exploring adaptive theory as a potential unifying model, and supporting the renewed emphasis on empirical research, an overview of research on successful leaders is first provided.

Educational Leadership Empirical Findings

This study is built on the empirical claims of balanced leadership and its connection to adaptive leadership. Various models of leadership were provided to set the context for understanding the breadth and foci that is the frame of the contemporary educational leader. Within these next paragraphs six general empirical claims of leadership will be made in order to gain a perspective on what is known about the impact of educational leadership, they will be followed by the balanced leadership study that incorporate these six general claims into specific leadership practices that directly impact the one of the ultimate goals of education, achievement.

Leithwood and Reihl (2003) distilled from the large body of empirical research on leadership six “defensible” claims about school leadership. Before engaging their work, it is important to note, that the review provided by Liethwood and Riehl (2003) is complex and is worthy of careful review, yet the breadth of their scholarship extends beyond the scope of this study. In addition, their review does not include other authors on leadership, such as Wheatley (1999) and Brooke-Smith (2003) who do not, despite their important contributions, have an extensive empirical base. Therefore, the empirical claims, and a brief synthesis are offered in these paragraphs as well as in a more detailed format in Table 2.2.

The first empirical claim is that school leaders affect improve student learning. Although complicated by conceptual and methodological issues, there is empirical evidence to indicate that leadership behaviors have impact, albeit at times indirect, on student achievement. In addition to the review provided by Leithwood and Riehl (2003), Waters et al (2003), who will be explored in more depth in the next section, conducted a comprehensive meta-analysis of leadership and achievement, and arrived at the same conclusion. Educational leadership therefore is critical to schooling as is evidenced by one of the overarching goals of all education, that of improved student achievement.

The second claim is that the primary source of successful leadership in schools is principals and teachers. This large body of research may be more interesting not for who has been studied for their leadership roles, but for those who have not. Noticeably missing from the leadership literature are other stakeholders in schools, namely parents. This is not an oversight by Liethwood and Riehl (2003), but a fact of the minimal existing research. Beyond principals and teachers, leadership is, and ought to be, distributed to others in the school and school community. This claim is coming to the fore with researchers such as Chrispeels (2004) who has an edited compendium on the importance of shared leadership throughout the entire learning community. Knapp, Copland, and Talbert (2003) who acknowledge the necessity to engage external environments and their powerful impacts on learning in their Leadership for Learning framework. In addition, the work of Chrispeels, Brown, and Castillo (2000) emphasizes the importance of building and sharing leadership through a team approach. These researchers suggest the value of distributing leadership to all corners of the organization, yet ultimately, we must consider the skills of the leader, no matter their position.

In considering what it takes to be an effective leader, Leithwood and Riehl (2003) offer the empirical assertion that there is a core set of “basic” leadership practices. These skills revolve around three distinct areas: setting directions, developing people, and redesigning the organization. The sub-skills within each of these areas represent a minimum level of proficiency and are considered the “basic skills” of effective school leadership. Leithwood and Riehl (2003) make a crucial observation in regard to the skills, “while mastery provides no guarantee that a leader’s work will be successful in a particular school context, lack of mastery likely guarantees failure (p. 21).” Attending to these three areas is the least that must be accomplished; a truly successful leader needs to do more, but cannot do less. Armed with this set of basics, a contemporary educational leader must acknowledge the accountability-oriented policy climate in which schools exist, this claim has particular import given the mandates of NCLB.

The new context of accountability demands that leaders go beyond the aforementioned basics, reaching for new levels of performance. The awareness of the demand for accountability frames the next claim. There are at least four different approaches to increasing the accountability of schools: market, decentralization, professional, and managerial approaches (Leithwood & Earl, 2000). Within these broad terms, effective leaders are attending to: increasing the “competition” for students, supporting and promoting professional standards, increasing “voice,” and executing strategic plans. It is the context of the new accountability that requires the contemporary educational leader to utilize skills to meet complex external demands. In considering the demands of the context, one must continually be cognizant of the reason for the renewed attention on school leadership, the achievement gap. Leithwood and Riehl’s (2003) final empirical claim revolves around concerns with social justice.

Successful leaders enact practices to promote school quality, equity, and social justice. Hallinger and Heck (1996) note that in schools that have higher proportions of students of color, and from impoverished backgrounds, leadership appears to be especially important and practiced differently. Interestingly, leadership effects on student achievement appear to be stronger in impoverished schools. Liethwood and Riehl (2003) illuminate a host of skills that are especially critical in schools serving students of color and poverty. These approaches involve creating small, relationship-oriented, learning communities that provide challenging curriculum, and foster both higher order thinking skills and high expectations. It is these environs, not dissimilar to Effective Schools correlates (Edmonds, 1979), both established and supported by school leadership that assists in leveling the academic playing field and closing the gap.

Table 2.2 Empirical Research Claims (Leithwood & Riehl, 2003)

|Empirical Claim |Description |

|School Leadership Makes |The impact of educational leadership on student achievement is demonstrable. Leadership effects are primarily |

|Contributions to the |indirect, and they appear primarily to work through the organizational variable of school mission or goals and |

|Improvement of Student |through variables related to classroom curriculum and instruction. |

|Learning | |

|The Primary Sources of |Substantial literatures exist around the leadership of principals and teachers. In many theories of leadership,|

|Successful Leadership in |leadership is earned and emerges from the relationship between leaders and others. This appears to be true for |

|Schools are Principals and |teachers as well as principals, even given the latter’s placement in formal leadership roles. |

|Teachers | |

|In Addition to Principals |In addition to principals and teachers, professionals in many different positions in schools and school systems |

|and Teachers, Leadership is |are one source of distributed leadership. Parents and students are other sources. Drawing attention to the |

|and Ought to be Distributed |many persons and roles over which leadership is typically dispersed in schools and districts, distributed |

|to Others in the School and |conceptions of leadership serve as an antidote to the dominant, individual-centered and often heroic views of |

|School Community |leadership frequently found in the literature. |

|A Core Set of “Basic” |Setting Directions |

|Leadership Practices are |Develop shared understandings about the organization and its activities and goals that can undergird a sense of |

|Valuable in Almost All |purpose or vision |

|Contexts |Creating High Performance Expectations |

| |Providing direction through actions, such as verbal persuasion, that demonstrate their expectations for |

| |excellence, quality, and high performance |

| |Offering Intellectual Stimulation |

| |Generating the questions and ideas that prompt change by challenging staff to reexamine and rethink assumptions |

| |and performance about their work |

| |Providing Individualized Support |

| |Demonstrating respect and concern about staff’s personal feelings and needs. |

| |Providing an Appropriate Model |

| |Setting examples for staff to follow that are consistent with the organization’s values. |

| |Strengthening School Cultures |

| |Influence organizational culture through practices aimed at developing shared norms, values, and beliefs among |

| |staff, and promoting mutual caring |

| |and trust among staff. |

| |Modifying Organizational Structures |

| |Redesign organizational structures through changes in the nature of task assignments, organization of time and |

| |space, routine operating procedures, and the deployment of resources, all of which can hinder or enable |

| |performance and goals. |

| |Building Collaborative Processes |

| |Enhance the performance of the school by providing opportunities for staff to participate in decision-making. |

|In Addition to Engaging in a|Market Accountability: Creating and Sustaining a Competitive School |

|Core Set of Leadership |Accountability designed to increase school’s potential competition for students. |

|Practices, Leaders Must Act |Decentralization Accountability: Empowering Others to Make Significant Decisions |

|in Ways that Acknowledge the|Increase the voice of those who are not heard, or at least not sufficiently listened to, in the context of |

|Accountability-Oriented |typical school governance structures. |

|Policy Context in which |Professional Accountability: Providing Instructional Leadership |

|Almost All Work. |Creation and use of standards as applied to the practices of teachers and administrators |

| |Management Accountability: Developing and Executing Strategic Plans |

| |Efforts to create more goal-oriented, effective schools by creating rational procedures. |

|Successful Leaders in |Leaders promote appropriate and powerful forms of teaching and learning, create strong communities in school, |

|Schools Serving Highly |nurture the development of family’s educational cultures, and expand the proportion of students” social capital |

|Diverse Student Populations |valued by the school. |

|Enact Practices to Promote | |

|School Quality, Equity, and | |

|Social Justice. | |

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download