educational management administration & leadership-2014-orphanos-learning leadership matters

8/19/2019 Educational Management Administration & Leadership-2014-Orphanos-Learning Leadership Matters

1/21

Article

Learning leadership matters:The influence of innovative

school leadership preparationon teachers’ experiencesand outcomes

Stelios Orphanos and Margaret Terry Orr

Abstract

School leadership has been shown to exert a positive but mostly indirect influence on school andstudent outcomes. Currently, there is great interest in how quality leadership preparation isrelated to leadership practice and improved teacher outcomes. The purpose of the study was tounderstand the moderating influence of leadership preparation on leadership practices andteachers’ job collaboration, leadership and satisfaction. The study features a non-experimentaldesign that combined data from a US study of exemplary leadership preparation and a nationallyrepresentative sample of elementary school principals. The sample consists of 175 teachers whoseprincipals were prepared in an exemplary leadership program and 589 teachers whose principals

were traditionally prepared. Data were analyzed with structural equation techniques and resultshave shown that innovative leadership preparation exerts a statistically significant direct effecton principalship leadership practices and a significant indirect effect on teacher collaboration andsatisfaction. The results provide important policy implications. Investments in leadership prepara-tion influences leadership practices that yield more positive teacher work conditions, which areessential for improve student learning and as a result leadership preparation program design andimprovement can play an important role in district reform and school improvement.

Keywords

leadership effects, leadership preparation, program evaluation teacher outcomes

Introduction

In the USA and elsewhere, educators and policymakers strive to make a connection between lead-

ership preparation and school outcomes (Shelton, 2009; Wallace Foundation, 2006). The reason is

to consider whether investments in preparation – through policy requirements, guidelines and

Corresponding author:

Stelios Oprhanos, Department of Primary Education, Frederick University, Cyprus.Email: [email protected]

Educational Management

Administration & Leadership

2014, Vol. 42(5) 680–700ª The Author(s) 2013

Reprints and permission:

sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1741143213502187

emal.sagepub.com

680

at Universiti Utara Malaysia on March 25, 2016ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navhttp://emal.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://emal.sagepub.com/http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav


2/21

funding – can be instrumental, along with other related policies, in improving schools and student

learning. In recent years, many new US federal policies, often aimed at improving low-performing

schools, focus attention on the quality and effectiveness of leadership preparation (US Department

of Education, 2009, 2010).

As discussed below, a large and growing body of research demonstrates how effective lead-ership practices influence teacher effectiveness and, together, how these influence school out-

comes. To unpack the influence of leadership preparation on improved school outcomes, the

ways in which leadership preparation influence the principal–teacher relationship must be inves-

tigated first.

How School Leaders Influence Teachers

Various researchers have tried to sort out the influence path in the principal–teacher–student

achievement relationship to identify essential principal practices and teacher experiences, as

well as to identify potential moderating and mediating factors (Bryke et al., 2010; Leithwood and Jantzi, 2008; Thoonen et al., 2011). Critically, such research identifies how leader prac-

tices influence teachers and, together, how teachers and leaders influence school outcomes.

Over the past 20 years, research in the USA and elsewhere has consistently shown that school

leaders, by exercising instructional and transformational leadership practices, have a positive

but indirect influence on school and student outcomes (Hallinger and Heck, 1996; Hoy et al.,

2002; Jacobson and Bezzina, 2008; Leithwood and Jantzi, 2008; Marzano et al., 2005; Robin-

son et al., 2008). Specifically, effective instructional and transformational leadership practices

are strongly associated with improved teacher engagement and commitment and organiza-

tional culture and effectiveness, which in turn are positively associated with improved student

outcomes. While the size of this effect has been debated among these studies, the existence of leadership’s contribution to student outcomes has not. While measured in different ways,

there is strong agreement that principal practices combining transformational and instructional

leadership – direction-setting, individual teacher support and encouragement and organiza-

tional support – are most influential for teacher engagement and effectiveness (Geijsel

et al., 2001; Leithwood and Jantzi, 2008; Thoonen et al., 2011). Among the teacher outcomes

and experiences most commonly affecting student learning and influenced by leadership qual-

ity are teacher collaboration, professional learning, distributed leadership, efficacy, instruc-

tional practices and satisfaction.

Leithwood and Jantzi (2008), drawing on a large-scale study of principals, teachers and student

outcomes, explored the influence of leadership practices on teachers and student outcomes. Their findings validate the nature of effective transformational leadership practices, their direct effect on

school (which includes teacher decision-making, opportunities for professional development, and

a collaborative culture, among other factors) and classroom conditions, and their indirect influence

on student achievement outcomes.

Geijsel et al. (2001) conducted a survey of Dutch teachers about conditions fostering the imple-

mentation of large-scale innovation, focusing on the principal–teacher relationship. They found

that teachers’ perceptions of their principals’ transformational leadership, their participation in

decision making, their sense of uncertainty and professional development activities influenced

how much they changed their practices. Similarly, Thoonen et al. (2011), in a study of Dutch teach-

ers, examined the relationship between these teacher factors and teachers’ use of constructivist and differentiated instructional practices, and the mediating influence of transformational leadership

Orphanos and Orr: Learning leadership matters 681

681


http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/


3/21

practices. Their results were positive, demonstrating that transformational leadership practices

directly affect teachers’ professional learning, teacher collaboration and teacher participation in deci-

sion making, and through these, teachers’ sense of well-being and quality instructional practices.

The Role of Leadership Preparation

To improve leadership quality, policymakers, researchers and educators have turned to leader-

ship preparation in order to understand how and in what ways preparation programs are influ-

ential. In the USA, licensure for public school leaders (typically termed principals) usually

requires completion of an approved advanced degree program in educational leadership, a

teaching degree and at least three years’ teaching experience (Anthes, 2004). Other countries

vary widely in the nature of their school leader requirements (Huber, 2004). In recent years,

concern has grown internationally over how best to define quality leadership preparation and

improve its effectiveness, as a means of developing better school leaders (Huber, 2004; Jacob-son et al., 2002, 2011; Wallace Foundation, 2003).

While policymakers and educators have been frustrated by the limited research on exemplary

leadership preparation and its impact on leadership practices and schools (Lumby et al., 2008;

McCarthy and Forsyth, 2009), recent results have been promising. First, researchers have docu-

mented innovative program models (Bush and Jackson, 2002; Copland, 2001; Earley and Evans,

2004; Glasman, 1997; Jacobson et al., 2011; Twale and Kochan, 2000; Walker and Dimmock,

2006), and synthesized research on quality program features (Davis et al., 2005; Jackson and Kel-

ley, 2002). Such research has shown that exemplary, innovative programs share common features.

These include: having a well-defined theory of leadership for school improvement that frames and

integrates the program features around a shared vision, philosophy or set of principles; beingstandards-based; recruiting and selecting candidates based on leadership potential; having a coher-

ent curriculum that addresses effective instructional leadership and school improvement; using

adult learning theory, developmental learning principles or active learning strategies; offering

quality internships and other field-based experiences that provide intensive leadership develop-

ment; using cohort structures or other supports to enhance learning; utilizing assessments for

candidate and program continuous improvement; engaging knowledgeable faculty with relevant

field-based experiences; and engaging in collaborations or partnerships with local districts in pro-

gram development and delivery.

Until recently, only scant research existed on program outcomes (Orr, 2009). The investigation

of the relationship between leadership preparation and graduate and school outcomes has beenmethodologically challenging, primarily because of the time lag between preparation, career

advancement to a principalship position and school change. Moreover, programs typically prepare

small numbers of candidates who become dispersed across different districts as they advance to

principal positions. Finally, most programs lack resources to track graduates and compile evidence

of their graduates’ effects on their schools or to compare the effects of different preparation

approaches (Orr, 2009). Available research has been promising, showing positive relationships

between innovative, research-based leadership preparation approaches and graduate outcomes

(Darling-Hammond et al., 2010; Milstein and Kruger, 1997; Orr, 2011; Orr and Barber, 2007),

principal hiring practices (Fuller et al., 2011), and principal practices and school improvement

work (Orr and Orphanos, 2011). Such studies, however, have been based on principals’ perceptionsof both their preparation and their leadership practices and school improvement.

682 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 42(5)

682




4/21

A recent promising body of work has begun to examine the relationship between principals’

graduate preparation and teachers’ perceptions of their leadership practices (Korach et al., 2011;

Leithwood et al., 1996; Newman and Osterman, 2011). Leithwood et al. (1996) were able to

positively associate teacher feedback with selected preparation program features, where their prin-

cipals had been prepared. Specifically, they found that some innovative program features – instruc-tional strategies, cohort membership and program content – were most predictive of teacher

perceptions of principals’ leadership effectiveness. The other studies used teacher ratings of prin-

cipals as feedback on leadership preparation program features and design, and found similar pos-

itive results. Korach et al. (2011) and Newman and Osterman (2011) similarly found that teachers’

perceptions of areas of effective principal practices were positively associated with the principals’

perceptions of the strengths of their preparation content and experiences. Thus, from the percep-

tions of both principals and teachers, preparation appears to positively influence the nature of lead-

ership practices.

Other Influences on Teacher Outcomes

While principal leadership has a strong, direct influence on teacher collaboration and job satisfac-

tion, other in-school factors, which principals can influence, have been found to contribute to these

outcomes as well. These are opportunities for professional development and teacher leadership

(Leithwood and Mascall, 2008). These relationships have been studied in a variety of ways, both

for how they influence each other and how they contribute to student learning. In their large-scale

study of schools’ influence on student achievement, Leithwood and Mascall (2008) found that col-

lective leadership – engaging teachers, parents and students as well as principals – explained a sig-

nificant proportion of variation in student achievement across schools. Hallinger and Heck (2010)

also found in their large-scale study in one USA state that there were significant direct effects of collaborative leadership (defined as both principal leadership and distributed teacher leadership)

on change in the schools’ academic capacity and indirect effects on rates of growth in student read-

ing achievement. Wahlstrom and Seashore-Louis (2008), in their US national study of teachers and

schools, found that the presence of shared leadership (among teachers and their principal) and pro-

fessional community (reflecting teacher cooperation and collaboration) explains the strength of

effective teacher practice (based on three types of instructional behavior). Similarly, based on sur-

veys of secondary school teachers in Belgium, Hulpia et al. (2011) found that teachers’ commit-

ment was strongly influenced by the quality of supportive leadership, cooperation within the

leadership team and opportunities for participative decision making. How principals structure pro-

fessional learning opportunities for teachers also contributes to their improved effectiveness(Youngs and King, 2002). In their qualitative study of urban elementary schools, Youngs and King

(2002) found that effective principals can sustain high levels of capacity by establishing trust, cre-

ating structures that promote teacher learning, and supporting learning by engaging external exper-

tise or helping teachers work cooperatively. Finally, Pashiardis et al. (2011), in their multi-case

study analysis of five effective rural Cyprus principals, found that successful principals both

strongly promoted professional learning and networked leadership for school improvement.

Parental Support

The role of parents in the principal–teacher–student relationship is less well understood in researchon school improvement and in-school factors that influence student learning. In his review of


683




5/21

research on effective school correlates, Edmonds (1979) drew attention to the quality of parental

involvement (among other factors) for improving schools, as confirmed in other correlational stud-

ies (Lezotte, 1991). Recent large-scale Chicago school research found that the quality of parent and

community relationships positively complements other school-related supports in improving stu-

dent achievement (Bryk et al., 2010; Sebring et al., 2006). Specifically, Sebring et al. (2006) found that schools with strong parent involvement were much more likely to improve in students’ math

and reading performance than were schools weak on this measure.

Other researchers have begun to explore how the quality of parental involvement contributes to

teacher and leader effectiveness. For example, in surveying teachers from 80 mid-Atlantic schools,

Tschannen-Moran (2009) found that their perceptions of colleagues’ professionalism were influ-

enced by perceptions of principal trust and professionalism moderated in part by their trust in parents.

Implications

Given the importance of school leadership to improving teacher quality and effectiveness for improved student learning, closer study is needed of the relationship between quality leadership

preparation, leadership practices and improved teacher outcomes. Prior research points to the pos-

itive influence of the positive relationship among teacher engagement in professional develop-

ment, teacher collaboration, teachers’ role in decision making and job satisfaction – all of

which are likely to be influenced by quality leadership practices. Drawing on the above research,

it appears that quality leadership preparation programs would have a positive, but indirect influ-

ence on teacher participation in professional development, teacher collaboration, participation

in decision making and job satisfaction in schools led by program graduates, as mediated through

principals’ greater use of transformational leadership practices. It is also likely that the quality of

teacher-perceived parental involvement would have a separate, mediating influence on the principal–teacher relationship.

Study Purpose, Conceptual Model and Hypotheses

The purpose of this study was to understand the moderating influence of leadership preparation on

leadership practices and teachers’ cooperation, distributed leadership and job satisfaction. The

hypothesized model is shown in Figure 1.

This investigation is adapted from two earlier studies. One is Leithwood and Jantzi’s (2008)

mediating-effects framework for transformational leadership, in which specific leadership prac-

tices influence student learning outcomes through their effects on teachers, specifically teacher engagement and commitment; the other is Thoonen et al. (2011) model, as applied to teacher

instructional practices. We limited our investigation to two teacher outcomes: job satisfaction and

teacher collaboration. Drawing on the work of Geijsel et al. (2001) and Thoonen et al. (2011), we

modified our investigation further to include, as mediating effects, leadership influences on these

two teacher outcomes through the extent of teacher-distributed leadership and teacher engagement

in professional development. We extended this model to include the moderating influence of inno-

vative leadership preparation, as shown in the early research of Leithwood et al. (1996) on prin-

cipal practices and the principal–teacher relationship. Finally, we extended the model further to

include the external influence of parent support of teachers’ work, as suggested by previous

research (Bryk et al., 2010; Sebring et al., 2006; Tschannen-Moran, 2009), suggesting that it would influence principal leadership practices as well as teacher satisfaction.


684




6/21

Taken together, this investigation tested four research hypotheses.

Hypothesis 1: The more positive teachers’ rating of principal leadership, the greater their

perceived job satisfaction and teacher leadership and collaboration.

Hypothesis 2: Whether principals had innovative preparation experiences will have a mod-erating influence on the effects of perceived leadership practices on selected teacher out-

comes (teachers’ perceived job satisfaction and teacher leadership and collaboration).

Hypothesis 3: The extent of participation in different types of professional development and

of distributed leadership in the school will mediate the effects of perceived leadership pr-

actices on teachers’ perceived job satisfaction and collaboration.

Hypothesis 4: The extent of positive working conditions (parental support) will mediate the

effect of perceived leadership practices on teachers’ perceived job satisfaction, engagement,

and collaboration.

Method

We used a nonexperimental research design, drawing on quantitative survey research methods and

structural equation modeling techniques. Data were collected as part of a national study of lead-

ership preparation and its impact on leadership practices and school improvement (Darling-

Hammond et al., 2009). The study (referred to here as the Stanford Leadership Study) documented

six exemplary preparation and in-service programs and used national samples of principals and

national survey data of teachers as comparisons for programs’ graduates and their teachers.1 The

teacher survey data provided an opportunity to investigate and compare the experiences of the sam-

ple of the graduates’ teachers with other teachers nationally on how their principals’ preparationand development impacted their work and professional experiences.

INNOV

PDEV

PSUPP

DISLEAD

PLEAD

TCOLL

TSAT

Figure 1. Hypothesized model of the relationship between participation in an innovative leadership pre-

paration program and teacher satisfaction.Notes: INNOV ¼ participation in an innovative preparation program; PLEAD ¼ principals’ perceived lead-ership; PSUPP ¼ parental support to school; PDEV ¼ extent of teachers’ participation of teachers’ in pro-fessional development opportunities; DISLEAD ¼ teachers’ distributed leadership; TCOLL ¼ teachercollaboration; TSAT¼ teacher satisfaction.


685




7/21

Sample

This study integrated three groups of teachers collected from two different studies to investigate

the leadership–teacher outcome relationship. The first two groups were drawn from all teachers

in 16 schools selected four cities and one rural (but population-dense) area as part of the Stanford

Leadership Study. These schools were selected based on their principals’ recent completion of one

of six innovative leadership preparation program or leadership development programs (or ones that

reflect a continuum of preparation and development). The leadership programs had been selected

based on their professional reputation for having the quality program features described above, the

existence of which were confirmed by the study (Darling-Hammond et al., 2010), and program

effectiveness information. Principals who completed these programs were more likely than a

national sample of principals to rate their preparation highly for having purposeful, targeted

recruitment; a coherent curriculum; active, problem-based learning; a cohort structure and mentor-

ing and advising to support candidate learning; well-designed and supervised internships; and

strong relationships between local districts and universities.

The innovative in-service programs were selected through a similar process, with attention to

programs that were part of a district-supported continuum of leadership preparation and develop-

ment and the availability of information on program effectiveness. Study results showed that new

and experienced principals who had participated in these programs were more likely than a

national sample of principals to report improved organizational outcomes and teacher effective-

ness, and to have a stronger commitment to the principalship (Darling-Hammond et al., 2010).

The principals at the selected schools also had at least one year’s experience as principal; only

elementary schools were included. Some had participated in only the innovative preparation pro-

gram and some only the innovative in-service leadership development program. The teachers at

their schools were surveyed in 2005 during faculty meetings or other means of distributing surveys

on site. Based on the schools’ estimates of the number of teachers in these schools and our response

rates, the majority of classroom teachers had responded. The first group of teachers in the Stanford

Leadership Study consisted of 165 teachers in schools led by graduates of an innovative prepara-

tion program, while the second group consisted of 75 teachers in schools led by graduates who only

had innovative in-service leadership development (see Table 1).

The third group of teachers was drawn from the 1999–2000 teacher survey of the federal School

and Staffing Survey (SASS) (NCES, 2006). SASS uses a stratified probability sample design based

on teachers’ race, teaching assignment, and professional experience. In all, there are 8432 schools

and approximately 42,000 teachers in the SASS sample, selected to represent all schools and teach-

ers nationwide. To make this sample comparable to our study sample (based on school type, loca-

tion and principal experience), we significantly restricted this sample further to teachers employed in urban elementary schools (of the five states from which the Stanford sample was drawn), who

taught full-time and had at least a temporary teaching credential, and whose principals had no more

than five years’ principalship experience. This yielded an SASS sample of 524 teachers from 14

schools. The combined sample of this study was 764 teachers, which was appropriately weighted

during the analysis using the SASS weights provided by NCES.

Table 2 shows the demographic and educational characteristics of the three groups of teachers.

The Stanford sample teachers were primarily female (85–88%), White (65–67%), with a master’s

degree or higher (65–77%). They averaged 38–42 years of age, with 11–13 years’ teaching expe-

rience overall. The SASS sample teachers were primarily female (92%), White (93%), with a mas-

ter’s degree or higher (33%). They averaged 38 years of age, with 11 years’ teaching experience


686




8/21

T a b l e 1 . N u m b e r o f s c h o o l s a n d t e a c h e r s b y l o c a t i o n , S t a n f o r d S t u d y s a m p l e a n d S A S S t e a c h e r s a m p l e .

N u m b e r o f

e l e m e n t a r y

s c h o o l s

T o t a l

n u m b e r o

f

t e a c h e r s

N u m b e r o f p r i n c i p a l s i n

i n n o v a t i v e p r e - s e r v i c e

p r e p a r a t i o n

N u m b e r o f p r i n c i p a l s

i n i n n o v a t i v e i n -

s e r v i c e o n l y

N u m b e r

o f t e a c h e r s w h o s e

p r i n c i p a

l s h a d p r e - s e r v i c e

i n n o v a

t i v e p r e p a r a t i o n

N u m b e r o f t e a c h e r s w h o s e

p r i n c

i p a l s h a d i n - s e r v i c e

i n n o

v a t i v e p r e p a r a t i o n

S A S

S

s a m p l e

1 4

5 2 4

n / a

n / a

n / a

n / a

S L S s a m p l e

1 4

2 4 0

1 0

6

1 6 5

7 5

T o t a l

2 8

7 7 4

P r o g r a m s

i n

S L S

s a m p l e :

M

- D R

2

5 1

3

0

5 1

0

H

- C T

3

2 3

1

2

0

2 3

J C

- K Y

2

2 2

1

1

8

1 4

N

Y C

3

7 3

2

1

4 6

2 7

S D

4

4 7

3

2

4 7

0

U

C

2 4

0

0

1 3

1 1

N o t e s : M - D R ¼

M i s s i s s i p p i D e l t a R e g i o n ;

H - C T ¼

H a r t f o r d , C o n n e c t i c u t ; J C - K

Y ¼

J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y , K e n t u c k y ; N Y

C ¼

N e w Y o r k C i t y ; S D ¼

S a n D i e g o ; U C ¼

U n i v e r s i t y o f

C o n

n e c t i c u t ’ s A d m i n i s t r a t o r P r e p a r a t i o n

P r o g r a m

( U C A P P ) .

S o u r c e : T h e S t a n f o r d U n i v e r s i t y S c h o o l L e a d e r S t u d y t e a c h e r s u r v e y f i l e s , N D ;

S c h o o l a n d S t a f f i n g S u r v e y ( N C E S , 2 0 0 6 ) .

687




9/21

overall. The comparison of the two samples via t -tests showed that the three teacher groups dif-

fered somewhat demographically. The two groups of Stanford teachers were statistically different

(0.05 level of significance) in terms of race and teacher credentials: teachers in the Stanford Lead-

ership Study were more likely to be non-White and somewhat more likely to have a postgraduate

degree (possibly reflecting state certification requirement differences in the samples).

We combined all three groups of teachers in this analysis and only differentiated the teachers’

principals based on whether or not they had been in an exemplary leadership preparation program.

Consequently, for teachers whose principals only had an innovative in-service preparation, we

decided to include the Stanford in-service only group of teachers with the SASS group of teachers;

the benefit of this was reducing some of the sample-related differences due to school district

affiliation, particularly with regard to teachers’ gender, race and credentials.

Instruments

The sample teachers were surveyed through two different but parallel survey instruments. The

study sample teachers were asked to complete the Stanford University School Leader Study sur-

vey. This survey has 115 items designed to assess teachers’ assessments of: (1) the principal’s lead-

ership practices; (2) their school improvement practices and recent accomplishments; (3)

organizational contexts in the schools; and (4) their own demographic and educational experi-

ences. Survey items were drawn heavily from the federal SASS (NCES, 2006) and Leithwood and Jantzi’s (1999, 2000) studies of effective school leadership practices. The comparison sample

teachers completed the SASS survey conducted in 1999–2000. The School Teacher Questionnaire

contained information about general employment, certification and training, teachers’ classroom

organization, teachers’ resources and student assessment, working conditions, and decision mak-

ing and the principal’s leadership practices.

This article drew only on those common survey items, restricting the extent to which leadership

practices and school outcomes can be investigated to only those measures included in the SASS

survey. These common items were about teachers’ demographic characteristics (gender, race/eth-

nicity, age, teaching experience, advanced preparation); their principals’ leadership practices; their

schools’ improvement climate (based on extent of teachers’ role in decision making, extent of pro-fessional development experiences in the last 12 months and parental support); and teacher

Table 2. Teachers’ demographic and educational characteristics, by sample.

Characteristic

SLS: InnovativePreparation

(n ¼165)

SLS: In-serviceonly innovative

preparation

(n ¼ 75)

TraditionalPreparation

(SASS)

(n ¼ 524)

Female 0.88b 0.85a 0.92Percent White 0.67b 0.65a 0.93Age 42.8b 38.8 38.4Total teaching experience 13.4b 11.6 10.7Percent of postgraduate degree holders 0.65b 0.77a 0.33

Notes: aDifferences between traditional (SASS) and innovative preparation are significant at the 0.05 level of significance.bDifferences between traditional (SASS) and innovative preparation are significant at the 0.05 level of significance. SLS:Stanford Leadership Study.


688




10/21

outcomes (teacher collaboration and job satisfaction). Table 3 presents the survey items used in

this study along with normality statistics for each item.

Both surveys were linked to their schools’ principal survey data (the Stanford Principal Survey[Darling-Hammond et al., 2007] and the SASS Principal Survey [NCES, 2006], respectively) to

identify which teachers’ schools were associated with principals who had completed an innovative

preparation program, to eliminate the teachers from high schools in the samples, and – in the SASS

sample – to eliminate teachers from nonurban schools whose principals had more than five years’

experience.

Dependent Measures

The study used two dependent measures: (1) teacher job satisfaction; and (2) teacher cooperation.

Using five-point Likert agreement rating scales, teachers rated the degree of cooperation at their school, based on three items. The survey items asked teachers to indicate whether colleagues

Table 3. Survey items used in the study.

On a scale from ‘No influence’ (1) to ‘A great deal of influence’ (5), how much actual influence do you think teachers have over school policy AT THIS SCHOOL in each of the following areas?

Items Description Skewness Kurtosis

q7b Influence of teachers in establishing curriculum 0.12 2.11q7c Influence of teachers in determining the content of in-service professional

development programs0.01 2.15

q7d Influence of teachers in evaluating teachers 1.09 3.28q7e Influence of teachers in hiring new FT teachers 0.85 2.58

On a scale from Not at all effectively (1) to Extremely effective (5), indicate how effectively the schoolprincipal performs each of the following at your current school.


q9a Principal communicates respect to teachers 0.72 2.76q9b Principal encourages teacher to change teaching methods 0.59 2.87q9c Principal works with staff to develop and attain curriculum standards 0.75 2.98q9d Principal encourages professional collaboration 0.82 2.99q9e Principal works with teaching staff to solve school or department problems 0.62 2.50q9f Principal encourages staff to use student evaluation results in planning lessons 0.78 3.08q9g Develops broad agreement among the teaching staff about the school’s or

department’s mission0.64 2.82

q9h Principal develops broad agreement among the teaching staff about school goals 0.76 2.96

On a scale from Strongly disagree (1) to Strongly agree (5), to what extent do you agree or disagree with each

of the following statements?


q8l In this school, staff members are recognized for a job well done 0.52 2.51q8i Most of my colleagues share my beliefs and values about school mission 0.74 3.63q8k Great deal of cooperative effort among staff 0.77 3.05


689




11/21

shared beliefs and values about the school’s central mission, the extent of collaborative effort

among staff members in this school and if staff members are recognized for a job well done. Teach-

ers’ job satisfaction was based on a single item, which asked teachers about their level of satisfac-

tion with being a teacher at their school.

Independent, Moderating and Mediating Measures

The study used one independent measure – principal leadership. Teachers rated the extent of their

agreement on eight statements about their principals, using a five-point Likert agreement rating

scale (1 ¼ strongly disagree to 5 ¼ strongly agree). These statements reflect highly recommended

attributes of transformational/instructional leadership of direction setting, support and encourage-

ment, and organizational support. Their scale reliability was very satisfactory (alpha ¼ 0.86).

The study used three mediating measures: (1) teacher-distributed leadership; (2) teacher partic-

ipation in different types of professional development; and (3) extent of parent support. To mea-

sure teacher-distributed leadership, teachers were asked to rate the extent to which teachers had influence in five school policy areas (setting performance standards, establishing curriculum, eval-

uating teachers, budget, and content of in-service professional development). The alpha coefficient

for the perceived teacher influence construct was 0.773.

Teachers were asked to indicate participation in six types of professional development (university

courses for re-certification or advanced certification, observational visits to other schools, individual

and collaborative research, regularly scheduled collaboration with colleagues, mentoring and attend-

ing workshops). The extent of professional development participation was the summation of partic-

ipation in the various types of professional development. Perceived parental support was measured

using a single item: ‘I receive a great deal of support from parents for the work I do.’ In all, approx-

imately 20% of sample teachers agreed or strongly agreed that parents support the work they do.The study used one moderating measure: whether the principal was in an exemplary leadership

preparation program. Here, 23% of the teachers in the combined sample had principals who had

participated in one of the innovative leadership preparation programs. The five innovative leader-

ship preparation programs2 were similarly strong by having: (1) a comprehensive, standards-based

and coherent curriculum; (2) a philosophy and curriculum emphasizing leadership of instruction

and school improvement; (3) active, student-centered instruction that integrates theory and practice

and stimulates reflection; (4) knowledgeable faculty and practitioners; (5) targeted recruitment and

selection to seek out expert teachers with leadership potential; and (6) well-designed and super-

vised internships that give candidates leadership responsibilities for substantial periods of time.

The Stanford Leadership Study also included teachers whose principals had participated in oneof the five innovative in-service training programs, which were primarily district-led and com-

bined seminars, mentoring, coaching and other forms of leadership development, but had not par-

ticipated in the innovative preparation program. The comparison principals also included the

national SASS sample, for whom preparation and in-service program information was unavailable

and assumed to be primarily conventional in nature.

Evaluating the Quality of the Data

The relationship among the measures was investigated using structured equation modeling (SEM)

techniques, which allow the simultaneous testing of relationships among multiple variables. Thus,we were able to study indirect effects (mediating variables), moderating effects as well as direct


690




12/21

effects (independent variables) on multiple outcome variables of interest. First, we assessed the

quality of the data set by evaluating the scale items for individual and joint normality because the

validity of the SEM approach rests on first meeting the assumption of multivariate normality of the

variables used. We found that the assumption of univariate normality was rejected for all variables,

and therefore the assumption of multivariate normality did not hold either. However, the dataexhibited moderate non-normality since skewness was less than 2.0 for all variables while kurtosis

was less than 4.0 for all but one variable (see Table 3). According to the literature, this normality

assessment showed moderate non-normality that was not very problematic. Therefore, we con-

cluded that we should use an estimation method that would take the moderate non-normality of

the variables into consideration. We first estimated the model with the asymptotic distribution free

(ADF) method, which is a form of weighted least squares and makes no assumption of joint nor-

mality. However, since the data were moderately non-normal, we also estimated the SEM model

with the maximum likelihood (ML) method. The conclusions drawn from the estimates from the

two methods were very similar in the sense that all designated relationships were of the same sign

and, in some cases, magnitude (even though individual estimates for certain paths of the structuralmodel naturally differed). Therefore, given the familiarity of most readers with ML, we present

estimates from both methods, but make use of the estimates from the ML solution.

Specifying and Testing the Measurement Model: Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Before fitting and esti-

mating the statistical model, we tested the hypothesized measurement (factorial) model using con-

firmatory factor analysis with STATA 12.0. Fifteen indicator variables were loaded on three

different latent variables that were left to be freely correlated (see Table 4). According to the con-

firmatory factor analysis results, the data fitted the model well.

Validity of latent variables was measured in two different ways: standardized loadings and aver-

age variance extracted per latent variable. According to Bollen (1989), the indicator loadings for each latent variable can serve as a measure of validity. The standardized loadings in Table 3 rep-

resent the correlation between each observed variable and the corresponding latent variable. The

loadings for the latent variable principal leadership (PLEAD) ranged from 0.76 to 0.87. The load-

ings for the latent variable teachers’ distributed leadership (DISLEAD) ranged from 0.60 to 0.69

and the range of loadings for the latent variable teacher collaboration (TCOLL) were in the range

of 0.51 to 0.89. All loadings were statistically significant. The composite reliability value is an

overall measure of each latent variable’s reliability. According to Table 3, the reliability for the

three latent variables was satisfactory because all three latent variables had composite reliability

values well above 0.60, which is considered the lowest acceptable value (Bagozzi and Yi,

1988). The average variance extracted (AVE) value shows the amount of variance captured by thelatent variable in relation to the amount of variance due to measurement error (Fornell and Larcker,

1981). As such, it served as a second appropriate measure of construct validity. AVE values should

exceed 0.50, which means that the underlying latent variable accounts for a greater amount of var-

iance in the indicators than does the measurement error (Diamantopoulos and Siguaw, 2000). The

AVE value for the PLEAD was 0.75, while the AVE for DISLEAD and TCOLL were very close to

the 0.50 threshold. The information garnered from the indicator loadings and the AVE values

showed an adequate, but not ideal, validity for the latent variables in the study.

To assess the fit of the measurement model as a whole, we used a number of fit indexes. The x2

statistic (87, n ¼ 764) as a measure of absolute fit was equal to 415.33 ( p < 0.01) and significant

enough to reject the model. Using a cut-off rule of 0.90 for all indexes (Hu and Bentler, 1999), itwas found that adjunct fit indexes indicated a good fit to the data: the RMSEA was 0.072 with a


691




13/21

90% confidence interval of (0.065, 0.078), the comparative fit index ¼ 0.948, and the Tucker–

Lewis index ¼ 0.938.

Results: Assessing the Structural Equation Model

The relationships among the measures were investigated using structural equation modeling (SEM).We investigated model fit using selected goodness-of-fit statistics which collectively showed a satis-

factory model fit. All fit indexes (excluding x2) were above the recommended cut-off points. The

RMSEA was under 0.05 (0.065 with a 90% confidence interval of 0.066–0.077), while compara-

tive fit index and Tucker–Lewis index were are above 0.90 (0.92 and 0.91, respectively). At this

point, it should be noted that even though the model fit was satisfactory, we cannot claim that this

model is a totally accurate representation of the data, nor that it is the only possible model that

fits with the structure of the data. Given the fit assessment, we can safely say that our proposed

model could be one model that possibly explains the structure of the survey data (Bollen, 1989).

Also, we decided against modifying the model based on modification indexes because any

changes in a structural model should be grounded on theoretical considerations and not on fitstatistics.

Table 4. Measure analysis of measurement model.

Measured variables Latent variables

ItemsFactorloading z-value

Stderror

Itemreliability Name of variable

Compositereliability

Average

Varianceextracted

q7b 0.60 18.85 0.03 0.36 Distributed leadership 0.75 0.43q7c 0.69 23.45 0.03 0.48q7d 0.67 21.99 0.03 0.44q7e 0.61 19.35 0.03 0.37q9a 0.82 61.68 0.01 0.67 Principalship leadership 0.95 0.75q9b 0.82 61.36 0.01 0.66q9c 0.87 86.08 0.01 0.76q9d 0.86 79.19 0.01 0.74q9e 0.87 88.44 0.01 0.76

q9f 0.76 45.82 0.02 0.58q9g 0.86 79.37 0.02 0.74q9h 0.82 61.07 0.02 0.66q8l 0.51 13.58 0.04 0.26 Teachers’ collaboration 0.70 0.46q8i 0.56 14.71 0.04 0.31q8k 0.89 19.39 0.05 0.79

Notes: Q7b ¼ influence of teachers in establishing curriculum; q7c ¼ influence of teachers in determining the content of in-service professional development programs; q7d ¼ influence of teachers in evaluating teachers; q7e ¼ influence of teachersin hiring new FT teachers; q9a ¼ principal communicates respect to teachers; q9b ¼ principal encourages teacher to changeteaching methods; q9c ¼ principal works with staff to develop and attain curriculum standards; q9d ¼ principal encouragesprofessional collaboration; q9e ¼ principal works with teaching staff to solve school or department problems; q9f ¼ principal

encourages staff to use student evaluation results in planning lessons; q9 h ¼ principal develops broad agreement among theteaching staff about school goals; q8 l ¼ in this school, staff members are recognized for a job well done; q8i ¼ most of mycolleagues share my beliefs and values about school mission; q8 k ¼ great deal of cooperative effort among staff.


692




14/21

Parameter Estimates

The completely standardized solution for the structural portion of the model is given in Figure 2.

The estimates measure the expected change in a dependent variable in standard deviation units that

accompanies a one standard deviation change in an explanatory variable while holding constant the

other explanatory variables. Direct, indirect and total effects are given in Table 5. All reported

effects were statistically significant at the 0.05 level of significance. The signs of the estimates

were in the expected direction based on what theory and prior literature suggests.According to the estimates, innovative leadership preparation appeared to positively influence

the perceived quality of leadership practices. Principals who were trained through an innovative

leadership preparation program (INNOV) were rated more highly on positive leadership practices

than principals who went through a conventional preparation program or had innovative in-service

training coupled with their conventional preparation. Participation in an innovative leadership pre-

paration program was associated with a 0.14 standard deviation increase in the quality of perceived

leadership practices. Parental support towards teachers also had a positive effect on PLEAD. A one

standard deviation increase in parental support was associated with a 0.12 of a standard deviation

increase in teacher-perceived quality of leadership practices. Such an effect may be in part captur-

ing the overall supportive climate of the larger school community which reinforces principal lead-ership practices for school improvement. However, it should be noted that parental support, along

with innovative program participation, as the two direct effects on principal leadership explain

only a small (as expected) portion of variation in leadership practices (around 9%). Parental sup-

port was also positively associated with teachers’ satisfaction, with 0.24 standard deviation

increase in satisfaction for a one standard deviation increase in parental support. This finding is

consistent with other school improvement research (Sebring et al., 2006) that underscores the con-

tributing influence of parent support on teachers’ work.

According to our model, principalship leadership had positive and significant effects on teach-

ers’ degree of professional development, teachers’ influence on school policies (distributed lead-

ership), teachers’ collaboration and satisfaction. The area of showing leadership practices’ greatestimpact was teacher satisfaction and collaboration. A one standard deviation increase in the

INNOV

PDEV

PSUPP

TSAT

DISLEAD

PLEAD

TCOLL

.14

.14

.12

.25

.23

.28

.09

.52

.26

.19

Figure 2. Completely standardized weighted least squares solution for the structural model. All estimates

shown are statistically significant at the 0.05 level of significance.Note: see Figure 1.


693




15/21

T a b l e 5 . D i r e c t a n d i n d i r e c t e f f e c t a

n a l y s i s .

I n d e

p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e s

D e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e s

D i r e c t e f f e

c t

( M L )

I n d i r e c t e f f e c t

( M L )

O v e r a l l e

f f e c t

( M L )

D i r e c t e f f e c t

( A D F )

I n d i r e c t

e f f e c t

( A D

F )

O v e r a l l e f f e c t

( A D F )

I n n o


P r i n c i p a l s h i p l e a d e r s h i p

0 . 1 4 *

0 . 1 4 *

0 . 2 1 *

. 2 1 *

I n n o


D i s t r i b u t e d l e a d e r s h i p

0 . 1 2 *

0 . 1 2 *

0 . 0 9

*

. 0 9 *

I n n o


T e a c h e

r s ’ c o l l a b o r a t i o n

0 . 0 8 *

0 . 0 8 *

0 . 1 0

*

. 1 0 *

I n n o


T e a c h e

r s a t i s f a c t i o n

0 . 3 3 *

0 . 3 3 *

0 . 2 7

*

. 2 7 *

P r i n

c i p a l s h i p l e a d e r s h i p

T e a c h e


0 . 2 8 *

0 . 0 5

0 . 2 3 *

0 . 2 2 *

0 . 0 0

. 2 2 *

P r i n



0 . 2 5 *

0 . 1 2

0 . 3 7 *

0 . 3 2 *

0 . 0 5

*

. 3 7 *

P r i n


T e a c h e


0 . 2 9 *

0 . 1 3

0 . 4 2 *

0 . 1 6 *

0 . 1 4

*

. 3 0 *

P r i n


P r o f e s s

i o n a l d e v e l o p m e n t

0 . 0 9 *

0 . 1 7 *

P a r e n t a l s u p p o r t

T e a c h e


0 . 2 4 *

0 . 2 0 *

P a r e n t a l s u p p o r t

P r i n c i p a l s h i p l e a d e r s h i p

0 . 1 2 *

0 . 0 2

P r o f e s s i o n a l d e v e l o p m e n t


0 . 1 4 *

0 . 1 4 *

P r o f e s s i o n a l d e v e l o p m e n t

T e a c h e


0 . 0 4

0 . 0 2


T e a c h e


0 . 2 3 *

0 . 2 9 *

T e a

c h e r s a t i s f a c t i o n

T e a c h e


0 . 5 2 *

0 . 5 9 *

N o t e : * p < 0 . 0 5 .

694




16/21

perceived quality of leadership practices was associated with 0.29 of a standard deviation increase

in teachers’ satisfaction and 0.28 of a standard deviation increase in teacher collaboration. It should

be noted that leadership practices, parental support and, to a lesser extent, degree of professional

development accounted for 16% of the variation in teachers’ satisfaction.

Teacher collaboration seemed to be dependent on overall teacher satisfaction. A one standard deviation increase in teachers’ satisfaction was associated with 0.52 of a standard deviation

increase in teachers’ collaboration. Taken together, perceived leadership practices and teachers’

satisfaction explained almost half of the variation (44%) in teacher collaboration. Finally, the more

that teachers participate in professional development activities, the more distributed leadership

they seem to experience at their schools, which is consistent with prior literature (Geijsel et al.,

2001). A one standard deviation increase in the professional development participation was asso-

ciated with 0.14 standard deviation increase in distributed leadership.

DiscussionMajor findings

Based on the results, we can answer the research questions as posed by hypotheses 1–4. For

hypothesis 1, we found that the more positive the perceptions of their principals’ leadership prac-

tices, the greater the teachers’ job satisfaction and perceived collaboration. Specifically, more

effective leadership practices have a strong influence on teachers’ job satisfaction and on their col-

laboration. Principal leadership practices also have a strong indirect influence on teacher colla-

boration through their influence on job satisfaction. These results confirm prior research

(Thoonen et al., 2011) that similarly found a positive relationship between transformational lead-

ership practices and these teacher outcomes. Like Thoonen et al., we also found a strong, positiverelationship among the teacher outcome measures, showing the reinforcing effects when improv-

ing them.

For hypothesis 2, the results confirmed that the type of preparation the principals had was a

moderating influence on the principal leadership–teacher outcome relationship. Teachers whose

principals had participated in one of the innovative leadership preparation programs under study

were more likely to rate their principals’ leadership practices highly, and, through that, had higher

job satisfaction and teacher collaboration ratings. When we substituted conventional leadership

preparation as an alternative hypothesis, the model did not fit as well, further confirming this

hypothesis. Such findings confirm similar research findings drawn from principals’ perspectives

(Orr and Orphanos, 2011).For hypotheses 3 and 4, the addition of three school improvement conditions – the extent of

teacher-distributed leadership, teacher participation in professional development and perceived

parental support – provide a fuller account of the variance in teacher job satisfaction. However,

perceived parental support fit better as a moderating influence on principal leadership, rather than

as a mediating influence between principal leadership and teacher job satisfaction. Given this, we

concluded that this measure of perceived parental support may be serving as a measure of district

and community culture, particularly given the size of its influence, as was found in other school

improvement research (Bryk et al., 2010)

Finally, the test of the hypothesized SEM model confirmed that innovative leadership prepara-

tion has a small but statistically significant influence on teacher collaboration and job satisfactionthrough its influence on effective leadership practices, even when other factors are taken into


695




17/21

consideration. Such results were quite positive and confirmed earlier research on innovative pre-

paration and teacher perceptions (Leithwood et al., 1996). More important, these findings under-

score the importance of investing in quality leadership preparation. Better preparation yields

demonstrable benefits for the schools and teachers whom graduates eventually lead as principals.

Limitations of the Investigation and Directions for Future Research

The results should be interpreted in light of the study’s context and possible biases. First, we should

keep in mind that the two samples were surveyed at somewhat different time periods (early 2000

and 2005) and this may have biased the results in two possible ways. The first is the policy climate.

Strong US accountability policies (NCLB) were implemented between these two time periods and

led to changes in schools’ accountability and press for academic improvement, particularly for

urban schools in the Stanford sample we are using. The second possible bias is that the innovative

preparation programs, in which 6 of the 16 principals participated, are in three settings – Jefferson

County, New York City and San Diego – and the programs were part of larger district reforms. Byadding the Stanford in-service-only sample (which included teachers from these same districts) to

the SASS comparison sample, we tried to reduce possible sample bias.

Second, measurement conditions limited the degree to which we could explore the relationship

between innovative preparation and leadership and teacher outcomes for this investigation, sug-

gesting that the relationship is probably significantly stronger than could be modeled here. For this

study, we could only use a dichotomous measure of innovative preparation. Moreover, we could

not account for the extent of innovative leadership preparation of the principals in the SASS

teacher sample. Within both samples, the extent to which their leadership preparation featured

most of the exemplary program features found to be influential on principals’ reports of their lead-

ership practices (Darling-Hammond et al., 2010) is likely to vary. Future analyses that can take thisvariation into account may explain more of the variations in leadership and teacher outcomes. As

well, such analyses could provide insight into which innovative program features contribute most

to these outcomes.

Third, as the sample was purposefully restricted to newer principals, the overall relationship

may differ when examined among all principals as a whole. The difficulty in modeling the rela-

tionship, however, illustrates how much it is contextualized. Restricting comparison samples to

similar settings helps to isolate the effects, but limits the scope to which the findings can be gen-

eralized to other settings. Here, the sample was restricted to urban and small city school districts

with large numbers of low-performing schools where there is often significant focus, support, and

opportunity for change.Fourth, the analysis is limited to just measures available in both survey samples, which in turn

limited the reliability of certain latent variables. As shown in Table 3, the latent variables of dis-

tributed leadership, teacher collaboration, parental support and teachers’ participation in profes-

sional development can be better constructed in future research if different and additional

variables are used (in the present study, parental support and teachers’ participation in professional

development were single-item variables). Other explorations of the Stanford teacher sample pro-

vide a broader scope of how different intensities of leadership preparation and development con-

tribute to leadership practices and, in turn, to teacher and school improvement outcomes.

Despite these limitations, the findings confirmed the hypothesized relationships between pre-

paration and teacher outcomes, as had been modeled from related prior research. How leaders are prepared – particularly through the collaborative university-district programs used in this study –


696




18/21

makes an important difference in the quality of leadership practiced and, through that, in improv-

ing teachers’ working conditions and collaboration and satisfaction with their work. Finally, the

present findings serve as an important model for future research in evaluating the effects of lead-

ers’ preparation on improving the work and working conditions of their staff and their school

improvement outcomes.

Implications for Policy and Practice

The results provide both theoretical and methodological implications. First, they demonstrate that

more innovative principal preparation has a small but discernible and significant influence on

teacher outcomes. This confirms the importance of quality leadership preparation as a school

reform strategy for policymakers to consider. Second, the results confirm that more effective lead-

ership practices are influenced by the nature and quality of leadership preparation. These findings

are highly consistent with prior research that was foundational to this work and suggested that such

a relationship exists, based on the relationship between exemplary preparation and leadership prac-tices (Leithwood et al., 1996; Orr and Orphanos, 2011), and the relationship between transforma-

tional/instructional leadership practices and teacher outcomes (Geijsel et al., 2001; Leithwood and

Jantzi, 2008; Thoonen et al., 2011). These results also importantly show that how principals are

prepared influences the extent to which they positively support and develop their staff and broadly

distribute leadership responsibilities in their schools. Through testing the effectiveness of the tra-

ditional program as an alternative hypothesis, the results also show that adding innovative in-

service program participation to a traditional preparation experience does not yield the same

positive effects.

Given the field’s advancement of better leadership preparation approaches (Jackson and Kelley,

2002; Orr, 2006) and current policy emphasis on developing quality leaders for better schools

(Bottoms et al., 2003; Commission on No Child Left Behind [NCLB], 2007), such findings are

very encouraging and provide important policy direction. The positive benefits for teachers –

improving collaboration, participation in decision making, and job satisfaction – show that invest-

ments in leadership preparation influences leadership practices that yield more positive teacher

work conditions, which are essential for improving student learning (Berry et al., 2010)

Related findings by Darling-Hammond and others (2010) provide an in-depth examination of

the innovative preparation programs used in this study. A related article (Orr and Orphanos,

2011) provides a statistical analysis on the relationship between preparation program features and

graduate career outcomes and, as school leaders, their practices and school improvement work,

thus demonstrating the strong moderating influence of program content, active student learning

experiences and internship quality. Together, these findings underscore the benefits of a high-

quality, coherent preparation focus on the leading-learning work of school leaders for school and

teacher outcomes. Such results provide strong directions for leadership preparation program design

and improvement, and stress the role that leadership preparation plays in district reform and school

improvement work.

Notes

1. Descriptions of the six programs and findings on the graduates’ and principals’ experiences are presented

in the final report (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007).

2. Three of the five that were developed as university-district partnerships were tailored to address districtreform priorities and leadership expectations.


697




19/21

References

Anthes K (2004 April) Administrator license requirements, portability, waivers and alternative certification.

StateNotes.

Bagozzi RP and Yi Y (1988) On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Mar-

keting Science 16: 74–94.

Berry B, Daughtrey A and Wieder A (2010) A Better System for Schools: Developing, Supporting and Retain-

ing EffectiveTeachers. Hillsborough, NC: Center for Teaching Quality.

Bollen K (1989) Structural Equations with Latent Variables. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Bottoms G, O’Neill K, Fry B and Hill D (2003) Good Principals are the Key to Successful Schools: Six stra-

tegies to Prepare More Good Principals. Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Education Board.

Bryk AS, Sebring PB, Allensworth E, Luppescu S and Easton JQ (2010) Organizing Schools for Improve-

ment: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Bush T and Jackson D (2002) A preparation for school leadership: international perspectives. Educational

Management and Administration 30: 417.

Commission on No Child Left Behind (NCLB) (2007) Beyond NCLB: Fulfilling the Promise to Our Nation’sChildren. Aspen, CO: The Aspen Institute.

Copland MA (2001) The reform of administrator preparation at Stanford: an analytic description. Journal of

School Leadership 11: 335–366.

Darling-Hammond L, LaPointe M, Meyerson D, et al. (2007) Preparing Leaders for a Changing World . Palo

Alto, CA: Stanford University, Stanford Educational Leadership Institute.

Darling-Hammond L, Meyerson D, La Pointe MM, et al. (2010) Preparing Principals for a Changing World .

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

DavisS, Darling-HammondL, Meyerson D, et al. (2005) Review of Sesearch. School LeadershipStudy. Developing

Successful Principals. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University, Stanford Educational Leadership Institute.

Diamantopoulos A and Siguaw J (2000) Introducing LISREL. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Earley P and Evans J (2004) Making a difference? Educational Management Administration & Leadership

32: 325–338.

Edmonds R (1979) Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational Leadership 37(1): 15–18, 20–24.

Fornell C and Larcker DF (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and mea-

surement error. Journal of Marketing Research 18: 39–50.

Fuller E, Young MD and Baker BD (2011) Do principal preparation programs influence student achievement

through the building of teacher-team qualifications by the principal? An exploratory analysis. Educational

Administration Quarterly 47: 173–216.

Geijsel F, Sleegers P, van den Berg R and Kelchtermans G (2001) Conditions fostering the implementation of

large-scale innovation programs in schools: teachers’ perspectives. Educational Administration Quarterly37(1): 130–166.

Glasman NS (1997) An experimental program in leadership preparation. Peabody Journal of Education72: 42–65.

Hallinger P and Heck R (1996) Reassessing the principal’s role in school effectiveness: a review of empirical

research, 1980–1995. Educational Administration Quarterly 32: 5–44.

Hallinger P and Heck RH (2010) Leadership for learning: does collaborative leadership make a difference in

school improvement? Educational Management Administration & Leadership 38(6): 654–678.

Hoy WK, Sweetland SR and Smith PA (2002) Toward an organizational model of achievement in high

schools: the significance of collective efficacy. Educational Administration Quarterly 38: 77–93.

Hu LT and Bentler P (1999) Cutoff criteria in fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional cri-

teria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling 6: 1–55.


698




20/21

Huber SG (2004) Preparing School Leaders for the 21st Century: An International Comparison of Develop-

ment Programs in 15 Countries. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Hulpia H, Devos G and Van Kerr H (2011) The relation between school leadership from a distributed

perspective and teachers’ organizational commitment. Educational Administration Quarterly 47(5):

728–771.Jackson BL and Kelley C (2002) Exceptional and innovative programs in educational leadership. Educational

Administration Quarterly 38: 192–212.

Jacobson SL and Bezzina C (2008) Effects of leadership on student academic/affective achievement. In:

Lumby J, Crow G and Pashiardis P (eds) International Handbook on the Preparation and Development

of School Leaders. New York: Routledge, 81–103.

Jacobson SL, Johansson O and Day C (2011) Preparing school leaders to lead organizational building and

capacity building. In: Ylimaki RM and Jacobson SL (eds) US and Cross-National Policies, Practices and

Preparation. Dordrecht: Springer.

Jacobson A, O’Neill K, Fry B, Hill D and Bottoms G (2002) Are SREB States Making Progress? Tapping,

Preparing and Licensing School Leaders Who Can Influence Student Achievement . Atlanta, GA: SouthernRegional

educational management administration & leadership-2014-orphanos-learning leadership matters

Documents