Purpose: The leadership of the principal is known to be a key factor in supporting student achievement, but how that leadership is experienced and instructionally enacted by teachers is much less clear. The purpose of this study was to examine various factors that are often present in principal—teacher interactions and teacher—teacher relationships to see how those may have an impact on teachers' classroom instructional practices.
Data Collection and Analysis:Data for this quantitative study are from a teacher survey developed for the national research project, Learning from Leadership, funded by the Wallace Foundation. There are 4,165 completed surveys in the database, which reflects responses from teachers in grades K-12 in a sample of schools across the United States. Using a conceptual framework based on various known components of effective schools today, a stepwise linear regression examined the relationships among practices such as shared leadership and professional community with contextual variables such as trust and efficacy.
Findings: Three types of instructional behaviors—Standard Contemporary Practice, Focused Instruction, and Flexible Grouping Practices—emerged as strong factors which operationally described effective teacher practice. The presence of shared leadership and professional community explain much of the strength among the three instructional variables. Furthermore, the effect of teachers' trust in the principal becomes less important when shared leadership and professional community are present. Self-efficacy strongly predicts Focused Instruction, but it has less predictive value for the other measures of instructional behavior. Individual teacher characteristics of gender and years of experience have clear impact on instructional practice, but there are no discernible patterns that suggest that the level of the principal (elementary vs. secondary) have more or less influence on teacher instructional behaviors.
Conclusions: Increasing our knowledge about what leaders do and how they have an impact on the instructional behaviors of teachers will lead us to a better understanding of how leadership has a direct relationship to improved student achievement. These findings create a clearer picture of teacher—principal and teacher—teacher interactions that support learning and bring us closer to the elusive goal of clarifying the link between leadership and learning.
Allington, R.L. (2001). What really matters for struggling readers: Designing research-based interventions. New York: Longman.
2.
Anderson, G. (1998). Toward authentic participation: Deconstructing the discourses of participatory reforms in education. American Educational Research Journal, 35(4), 571-603.
3.
Ashton, P.T., & Webb, R.B. (1986). Making a difference: Teachers' sense of efficacy and student achievement. New York: Longman.
4.
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117-148.
5.
Brookover, W.B., Schweitzer, J.H., Schneider, J.M., Beady, C.H., Flood, P.K., & Wisenbaker, J.M. (1978). Elementary school social climate and school achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 15, 301-318.
6.
Brophy, J. (1986). Teacher influences on student achievement. American Psychologist, 41(10), 1069-1077.
7.
Bryk, A., Camburn, E., & Louis, K.S. (1999). Professional community in Chicago elementary schools: Facilitating factors and organizational consequences. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(5), 751-781.
8.
Bryk, A.S., & Schneider, B. (2003). Trust in schools: A core resource for school reform . Educational Leadership, 60(6), 40-44.
9.
Camburn, E., Rowan, B., & Taylor, J. (2003). Distributed leadership in schools: The case of elementary schools adopting comprehensive school reform models. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(4), 347-373.
10.
Chrispeels, J.H., Castillo, S., & Brown, J. (2000). School leadership teams: A process model of team development. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 11(1), 20-56.
11.
Chrispeels, J.H., & Martin, K.J. (2002). Four school leadership teams define their roles within organizational and political structures to improve student learning . School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 13(3), 327-365.
12.
Clark, D.L., Lotto, L.S., & Astuto, T.A. (1984). Effective schools and school improvement: A comparative analysis of two lines of inquiry. Education Administration Quarterly, 20, 41-68.
13.
Cohen, D., Raudenbush, S., & Ball, D. (2003). Resources, instruction, and research. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(2), 119-142.
14.
Cohen, E. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 1-35.
15.
Copeland, M. (2003). Leadership of inquiry: Building and sustaining capacity for school improvement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(4), 375-395.
16.
da Costa, J.L., & Riordan, G. (1996, April). Teacher efficacy and the capacity to trust . Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.
17.
Driscoll, J.W. (1978). Trust and participation in organizational decision making as predictors of satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 21(1), 44-56.
18.
Firestone, W.A., & Martinez, M.C. (2007). Districts, teacher leaders, and distributed leadership: Changing instructional practice. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 6(1), 3-35.
19.
Firestone, W.A., & Pennell, J. (1993). Teacher commitment, working conditions, and differential incentive policies. Review of Educational Research, 63(4), 489-525.
20.
Frase, L. (2001, April). Impact of school principal classroom presence in large inner city schools. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
21.
Freedman, B. (2003, January). Principal visibility and classroom walk-throughs: Supporting instructional leadership and school improvement. Paper presented at annual conference of the International Congress of School Effectiveness and School Improvement, Sydney , Australia.
22.
Fullan, M.G. (1995). The limits and the potential of professional development . In T. R. Guskey & M. Huberman (Eds.), Professional development in education: New paradigms and practices (pp. 253-267). New York: Teachers College Press.
23.
Gamoran, A. (1987a). Organization, instruction, and the effects of ability grouping: Comment on Slavin's "best-evidence synthesis." Review of Educational Research, 57(3), 341-345.
24.
Gamoran, A. (1987b). The stratification of high school learning opportunities . Sociology of Education, 6(3), 135-155.
25.
Glickman, C. (2002). Leadership for learning: How to help teachers succeed. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
26.
Goddard, R.D., & Goddard, Y.L. (2001). A multilevel analysis of the relationship between teacher and collective efficacy in urban schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 807-818.
27.
Goddard, R., Hoy, W.K., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning, measure, and impact on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 37, 479-508.
28.
Gronn, P. (2003). The new work of educational leaders: Changing leadership practice in an era of school reform. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
29.
Gronn, P., & Hamilton, A. (2004). `A bit more life in the leadership': Co-principalship as distributed leadership practice. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 3(1), 3-35.
30.
Hargreaves, A. (2002). The emotional geographies of teaching. Teachers College Record, 103(6), 1056-1080.
31.
Hipp, K.A. (1996, April). Teacher efficacy: Influence of principal leadership behavior. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.
32.
Hord, S.M., & Sommers, W.A. (2008). Leading professional learning communities: Voices from research and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
33.
Hoy, W., Hannum, J., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (1998). Organizational climate and student achievement: A parsimonious and longitudinal view. Journal of School Leadership, 8(4), 336-359.
34.
Hoy, W.K., & Sweetland, S.R. (2001). Designing better schools: The meaning and measure of enabling school structures. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(3), 296-321.
35.
King, M.B., & Newmann, F.M. (2001). Building school capacity through professional development: Conceptual and empirical considerations. International Journal of Educational Management, 15(2), 86-93.
36.
Kirschner, P.A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R.E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist , 41(2), 75-86.
37.
Knapp, M. (1995). Teaching for meaning in high poverty classrooms . New York: Teachers College Press .
38.
Kruse, S.D., Louis, K.S., & Bryk, A.S. (1995). An emerging framework for analyzing school-based professional community. In K. S. Louis & S. D. Kruse (Eds.), Professionalism and community: Perspectives on reforming urban schools (pp. 23-44). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
39.
Lee, V.E., Dedrick, R., & Smith, J. (1991). The effect of social organization of schools on teachers' efficacy and satisfaction. Sociology of Education , 64(3), 190-208.
40.
Lee, V., & Loeb, S. (2000). School size in Chicago elementary schools: Effects on teachers' attitudes and students' achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 37(1), 3-31.
41.
Lee, V.E., & Smith, J.B. (1995). Effects of high school restructuring and size on early gains in achievement and engagement. Sociology of Education, 68(4), 241-270.
42.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D.( 1999). The relative effects of principal and teacher sources of leadership on student engagement with school. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(5), 679-706.
43.
Leithwood, K., Louis, K.S., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). Learning from leadership: A review of the literature . Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement.
44.
Leithwood, K., & Mascall, B. (2007). Collective leadership effects on student achievement . American Educational Research Association. Chicago, IL.
45.
Little, J.W. (2003). Inside teacher community: Representations of classroom practice. Teachers College Record, 105(6), 913-945.
46.
Louis, K.S. (2006). Changing the culture of schools: Professional community, organizational learning, and trust. Journal of School Leadership, 16, 477-487.
47.
Louis, K.S. (2007). Trust and improvement in schools. Journal of Educational Change, 8(1), 1-24.
48.
Louis, K.S., & Marks, H.M. (1998). Does professional community affect the classroom? Teachers' work and student experiences in restructuring schools. American Journal of Education, 106(4), 532-575.
49.
Lyons, J.E., & Algozzine, B. (2006). Perceptions of the impact of accountability on the role of principals. Education Policy Analysis Archives , 14(16), 1-16.
50.
Malen, B. (1995). The micropolitics of education: Mapping the multiple dimensions of power relations in school polities. In J. Scribner & D. Layton (Eds.), The study of educational politics. The twenty- fifth anniversary yearbook of the politics of education association (pp. 147-167). New York: Falmer.
51.
Marks, H., & Louis, K.S. (1997). Does teacher empowerment affect the classroom? The implications of teacher empowerment for instructional practice and student academic performance. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis , 19(3), 245-275.
52.
Marks, H., Louis, K.S., & Printy, S. (2000). The capacity for organizational learning: Implications for pedagogy and student achievement. In K. Leithwood (Ed.), Organizational learning and school improvement (pp. 239-266). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
53.
Marks, H., & Printy, S. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 370-397.
54.
Mayer, D.P. (1999). Measuring instructional practice: Can policymakers trust survey data? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis , 21(1), 29-45.
55.
Mayrowetz, D., Murphy, J., Louis, K.S., & Smylie, M. (2007). Distributed leadership as work redesign: Retrofitting the Job Characteristics Model. International Journal of Leadership and Policy, 6(1), 69-103.
56.
Mayrowetz, D., & Smylie, M. (2004). Work redesign the works for teachers. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 103(1), 274-302.
57.
McLaughlin, M.W., & Talbert, J.E. (2001). Professional communities and the work of high school teaching. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
58.
Murphy, J. (2000). Leadership for literacy: A framework for policy and practice. School Effectiveness and School Improvement , 15(1), 65-96.
59.
Newmann, F. (Ed.). (1996). Authentic achievement: Restructuring schools for educational quality. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
60.
Newmann, F., Smith, B., Allensworth, E., & Bryk, A. (2001). Instructional program coherence: What it is and why it should guide school improvement policy. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(4), 297-322.
61.
Pounder, D.G. (1999). Teacher teams: Exploring job characteristics and work-related outcomes of work group enhancement. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(3), 317-348.
62.
Raudenbush, S.W., Rowan, B., & Cheong, Y.F. (1992). Contextual effects on the self-perceived efficacy of high school teachers. Sociology of Education, 65(2), 150-167.
63.
Rosenshine, B. (1995). Advances in research on instruction. The Journal of Educational Research, 88(5), 262-268.
64.
Schein, E. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
65.
Serva, M.A., Fuller, M.A., & Mayer, R.C. (2005). The reciprocal nature of trust: A longitudinal study of interacting teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 26, 625-648.
66.
Smylie, M.A., Conley, S., & Marks, H.M. (2002). Exploring new approaches to teacher leadership for school improvement. In J. Murphy (Ed.), The educational leadership challenge: Redefining leadership for the 21st century (pp. 162-188). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
67.
Smylie, M.A., & Wenzel, S.A. (2003). The Chicago Annenberg Challenge: Successes, failures, and lessons for the future (Final Technical Report of the Chicago Annenberg Research Project). Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
68.
Southworth, G. (2002). Instructional Leadership in Schools: reflections and empirical evidence. School Leadership & Management , 22(1), 73-91.
69.
Spillane, J. (2003). Educational leadership. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(4), 343-346.
70.
Spillane, J.P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J.B. (2001). Investigating school leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 23-28.
71.
Spillane, J., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J.B. (2004). Towards a theory of leadership practice: A distributed perspectiveJournal of Curriculum Studies, 36(1), 3-34.
72.
Tarter, C.J., Bliss, J.R., & Hoy, W.K. (1989). School characteristics and faculty trust in secondary schools. Education Administration Quarterly, 25(3), 294-308.
73.
Taylor, B., Pearson, D., Clark, K., & Walpole, S. (2000). Effective schools and accomplished teachers: Lessons about primary-grade reading instruction in low-income schools. The Elementary School Journal, 101(2), 121-165.
74.
Tighe, E., Wang, A., & Foley, E. (2002). An analysis of the effect of children achieving on student achievement in Philadelphia elementary schools. Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education .
75.
Tschannen-Moran, M. (2004). Trust matters: Leadership for successful schools . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
76.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A.W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct . Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783-805.
77.
Wilson, S.M., & Peterson, P. (2006). Theories of learning and teaching: What do they mean for educators. Washington, DC: National Education Association.
78.
Wiske, M. S. (Ed.). (1998). Teaching for understanding: Linking research with practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
79.
Yair, G. (2000). Not just about time: Instructional practices and productive time in school. Educational Administration Quarterly , 36(4), 485-512.
80.
Youngs, P., & King, M.B. (2002). Principal leadership for professional development to build school capacity. Educational Administration Quarterly , 38(5), 643-670.
