<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html>
<head>
<title>UTas ePrints - Leadership and school results</title>
<script type="text/javascript" src="http://eprints.utas.edu.au/javascript/auto.js"><!-- padder --></script>
<style type="text/css" media="screen">@import url(http://eprints.utas.edu.au/style/auto.css);</style>
<style type="text/css" media="print">@import url(http://eprints.utas.edu.au/style/print.css);</style>
<link rel="icon" href="/images/eprints/favicon.ico" type="image/x-icon" />
<link rel="shortcut icon" href="/images/eprints/favicon.ico" type="image/x-icon" />
<link rel="Top" href="http://eprints.utas.edu.au/" />
<link rel="Search" href="http://eprints.utas.edu.au/cgi/search" />
<meta content="Silins, Halia" name="eprints.creators_name" />
<meta content="Mulford, Bill" name="eprints.creators_name" />
<meta content="Leithwood, K." name="eprints.editors_name" />
<meta content="Hallinger, P." name="eprints.editors_name" />
<meta content="book_section" name="eprints.type" />
<meta content="2007-08-27" name="eprints.datestamp" />
<meta content="2008-01-08 15:30:00" name="eprints.lastmod" />
<meta content="show" name="eprints.metadata_visibility" />
<meta content="Leadership and school results" name="eprints.title" />
<meta content="pub" name="eprints.ispublished" />
<meta content="330104" name="eprints.subjects" />
<meta content="restricted" name="eprints.full_text_status" />
<meta content="The original publication is available at www.springerlink.com" name="eprints.note" />
<meta content="This chapter focuses on three aspects of high school functioning in the context of
educational reform: leadership and the school results of organisational learning and
student outcomes. A brief review of recent and significant work in these areas provides a
framework for a discussion of what makes a difference to high school performance. The
findings of a three-year study of high schools in two Australian states is used to extend
our present knowledge of these areas and the nature of their interaction and influence on
school processes and outcomes.
Prior to the review of recent and significant work in the areas of leadership,
organisational learning and student outcomes, it is relevant to place the chapter within the
ongoing debate on the value of school effectiveness and improvement research. The
central themes of critics of the school effectiveness movement are that it overclaims the
success of effective schools and that it is a socially and politically decontextualised body
literature which, wittingly or unwittingly, has provided support for the inequitable
reform programs of neo-liberal and managerial governments (Angus, 1993; Anyon, 1997;
Elliot, 1996; Hamilton, 1996; Slee et al., 1998; Sammons et al., 1996; Sammons &
Reynolds, 1996; Stringfield & Herman, 1996; Thrupp, 1999, 2000). Another major theme
centres on the respective emphasis given to 'top down' or 'bottom up' approaches to
school effectiveness and improvement (Scheerens, 1997).
The social and political decontextualisation and inequitable use of school
effectiveness research arguments are important and need to be addressed. However, it is
the overclaiming argument that has the most relevance for this chapter. Most school
effectiveness studies show that 80% or more of student achievement can be explained by
student background rather than schools (Teddlie & Reynolds, 2000). On the other hand,
school effectiveness supporters believe that, even with only 20% of achievement
accounted for by schools, their work has convincingly helped to destroy the belief that
schools do not make any difference. They argue that schools not only make a difference
but they add value despite the strong influence of family background on children's
development (Reynolds & Teddlie, 2000; Sammons, 1998; Thomas, et al., 1997).
Other within schools research suggests that it is teachers in classrooms rather than
the school and how it is organised or led that makes the difference. Hill and his
colleagues, for example, who found that almost 40% of the variation in achievement in
mathematics was due to differences between classrooms, explained this difference as a
result of teacher quality and effectiveness. (Hill, 1998; Hill et al., 1993; Rowe & Hill,
1997) More recent research based on results from the Third International Mathematics
and Science Survey (TIMSS), questions this explanation. Lamb and Fullarton (2000)
found that the variation in mathematics achievement in high schools was due mainly to differences within classrooms (57%), between classrooms (28%) and between schools
(15%). However, the reasons for the differences between classrooms and schools were
related to more student background and attitude toward mathematics and the types of
pupil grouping practices schools employ than to teachers. In brief, organisational and
compositional features of schools and classrooms had a more marked impact on
mathematics achievement than the quality of teachers.
Of course, student achievement in mathematics and science represents a very
limited understanding of the full purpose of schooling. But little evidence is available
concerning non-cognitive student outcomes. We have tried to take this and the other
points made in the debate on the value of school effectiveness research on board in our
own research. School performance is measured against student outcome measures which
include student participation in and engagement with schools, their views of their
academic performance, as well as school retention, completion rates and academic
results. In respect of the context for school improvement, we include analysis by student
SES and home educational environment as well as school size. In this way we believe we
are able to test the relative contribution of a range of individual, school and societal
factors on student outcomes. Because of this approach to our research, the unfinished
nature of the debate on school effectiveness and improvement and the fact that we can do
little to determine how our results might be used by others, we believe we are justified in
our pursuance of the links between leadership and the school results of organisational
learning and student outcomes in the manner described in the chapter. Our emphasis is
clearly at the 'bottom up' end of the 'top down'/'bottom up' debate. As we will show,
both through the following literature review and our research findings, a 'bottom up'
emphasis does not preclude 'top down' approaches if a strong 'bottom up' approach is
first in place." name="eprints.abstract" />
<meta content="2002" name="eprints.date" />
<meta content="published" name="eprints.date_type" />
<meta content="Kluwer Academic" name="eprints.publisher" />
<meta content="Norwell, MA" name="eprints.place_of_pub" />
<meta content="561-612" name="eprints.pagerange" />
<meta content="UNSPECIFIED" name="eprints.thesis_type" />
<meta content="TRUE" name="eprints.refereed" />
<meta content="Second International Handbook of Educational Leadership and Administration" name="eprints.book_title" />
<meta content="Ainley, J. (1994, April). Multiple indicators of high school effectiveness. Paper presented
at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New
Orleans, LA.
Angus, L. (1993). The sociology of school effectiveness. British Journal of Sociology of
Education, 14, 333-345.
Angus, M., Chadbourne, R., & Olney, H. (1999, November). Innovation and flexibility in
school practice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Australian
Association for Research in Education Conference, Melbourne.
Anyon, J. (1997). Ghetto schooling: A political economy of urban education reform. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Baker, R., & Dellar, G. (1999). If itÃÂÃÂÃÂâÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂs not one thing itÃÂÃÂÃÂâÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂs another: Issues of concern to
school principals. International Studies in Educational Administration, 27(2), 12-
21.
Bell, L. (2000, April). Strategic planning in education: A flawed concept and a way
forward. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Berends, M. (2000). Teacher-reported effects of New American School design: Exploring
relationships to teacher background and school context. Educational Evaluation
and Policy Analysis, 22, 65-82.
Berends, M., Heilbrunn, J., McKelvey, C., & Sullivan, T. (1998). Monitoring the
progress of New American Schools: A description of implementing schools in a
longitudinal sample. Draft series paper DRU-1935-NAS for RAND.
Binkley, N. (1997). PrincipalsÃÂÃÂÃÂâÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂàrole in policy change: Mediating language through
professional beliefs, Journal of Educational Administration, 35(1), 56-73.
Bishop, P. (1999). Trust: A much espoused but little understood aspect of educational
leadership, Leading & Managing, 5(2), 125-138.
Bishop, P., & Mulford, W. (1999). When will they ever learn? Another failure of
centrally-imposed change. School Leadership and Management, 19(2), 179-187.
Blackmore, J. (1998). The politics of gender and educational change: Managing gender
or gender relations?. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan, & D. Hopkins
(Eds.), International handbook of educational change (pp. 460-481). Dordrecht,
The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Blase, J. (1993). The micropolitics of effective school-based leadership: TeachersÃÂÃÂÃÂâÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂ
perspectives. Educational Administration Quarterly, 29(2), 142-163.
34
Blase, J. 1998. The micropolitics of educational change. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman,
M. Fullan, & D. Hopkins (Eds), International handbook of organizational change
pp. 544-557. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Blase, J., & Blase, J. (1994). Empowering teachers: What successful principals do.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Blase, J., & Blase, J. (1999). Effective instructional leadership: Teacher perspectives on
how principals promote teaching and learning in schools. Journal of Educational
Administration, 38(2), 130-141.
Blase, J., & Blase, J. (2000). Implementation of shared governance for instructional
improvement: PrincipalsÃÂÃÂÃÂâÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂàperspectives. Journal of Educational Administration,
37(5), 476-500.
Bodilly, S. (1998). Lessons from new American schoolsÃÂÃÂÃÂâÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂàscale up phase. Santa Monica,
CA: RAND.
Brown, M., & Rutherford, D. (1999). A re-appraisal of the role of the head of department
in UK secondary schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 37(3), 229-242.
Brown, M., Boyle, B., & Boyle, T. (1999, April). Commonalities between perception and
practice in models of school decision making systems in secondary schools in
England and Wales. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
Bryk, A., Easton, J., Kerbav, D., Rollow, S., & Sebring, P. (1993). A view from the
schools: The state of reform in Chicago. Chicago: University of Chicago
Consortium on Chicago School Reform.
Caldwell, B. (1998). Strategic leadership, resource management and effective school
reform. Journal of Educational Administration, 36(5), 445-461.
Caldwell, B., & Hayward, D. (1998). The future of schools: Lessons from the reform of
public education. London: Falmer.
Camp, W. G., (1990). Participation in student activities and achievement: A covariance
structural analysis. Journal of Educational Research, 83 (5), 272-278.
Chapman, J. (1997). Leading the learning community. Leading and Managing, 3(3), 151-
170.
Chrispeels, J. H., Brown, J. H., & Castillo, S. (2000). School leadership teams: Factors
that influence their development and effectiveness. In K. Leithwood (Ed.),
Understanding schools as intelligent systems (pp. 39-73). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
Churchill, R., & Williamson, J. (1999). Traditional attitudes and contemporary
experiences: Teachers and educational change. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher
Education and Development, 2(2), 43-51.
Cousins, B. (1996). Understanding organisational learning for educational leadership and
school reform. In K. Leithwood (Ed.), International handbook of leadership and
administration (pp. 589-652). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
35
Cranston, N., & Jarzabkowski, L. (2000). The role of the district director in a restructured
education system in Australia. International Studies in Educational Administration,
28(1), 11-24.
Craven, R. G., Debus, R. L., & Marsh, H. W. (1997, November). New techniques for
enhancing childrenÃÂÃÂÃÂâÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂs academic self-concepts in educational settings: Advances in
new times. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Australian Association
for Research in Education, Brisbane.
Craven, R., Marsh, H., & Print, M. (1997, November). New times, new programs for
gifted and talented students: impact on self-concept, achievement and motivation.
Paper presented at the annual conference of the Australian Association for Research
in Education, Brisbane.
Creemers, B. (1994). The effective classroom. London: Cassell.
Creemers, B., Perters, T., Reynolds, D. (Eds.). (1989). School effectiveness and school
improvement. Amsterdam: Swetz & Zeitlinger.
Creemers, B., & Reezigt, G. (1996). School level conditions affecting the effectiveness of
instruction. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 7(3), 197-228.
Crowther, F., & Olsen, P. (1996). Teachers as leaders: An exploration of success stories
in socio-economic disadvantaged communities. Brisbane: Queensland Department
of Education.
Crowther, F., Hann, L., McMaster, J., & Ferguson, M. (2000, April). Leadership for
successful school revitalisation: Lessons from recent Australian research. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
New Orleans, LA.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow, the psychology of discovery and
invention. New York, NY: Harper Collins.
Day, C., Harris, A., Hadfield, M., Tolley, H., & Beresford, J. (2000). Leading schools in
times of change. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Deal, T., & Peterson, K. (1994). The leadership paradox: Balancing logic and artistry in
schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Dempster, N. (2000). Guilty or not: The impact and affects of site-based management on
schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 38(1), 47-63.
Dibbon, D. (2000). Diagnosing the extent of organizational learning capacity in schools.
In K. Leithwood (Ed.), Understanding schools as intelligent systems (pp. 211-236).
Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
Dinham, S., & Scott, C. (1999, April). The relationship between context, type of school
and position held in school and occupational satisfaction, and metal stress. Paper
presented to Australian College of Education/Australian Council for Educational
Administration National Conference, Darwin.
Dinham, S., Brennan, K., Collier, J., Deece, A., & Mulford, D. (2000). The secondary
head of department: duties: Delights, dangers, directions and development.
36
Nepean: School of Teaching and Educational Studies, University of Western
Sydney.
Duke, D., & Leithwood, K. (Eds.). (1994). Defining effective leadership for
ConnecticutÃÂÃÂÃÂâÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂs schools. A monograph prepared for the Connecticut Administrator
Appraisal Project, University of Connecticut.
Durland, M., & Teddie, C. (1996, April). A network analysis of the structural dimensions
of principal leadership in differentially effective schools. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.
Elliot, J. (1996). School effectiveness research and its critics: Alternative visions of
schooling. Cambridge Journal of Education, 26, 199-223.
Fink, D. (2000). Good school/real school: Why school reform doesnÃÂÃÂÃÂâÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂt last. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Finn, J, & Cox, D. (1992). Participation and withdrawal among fourth-grade pupils.
American Educational Research Journal, 299(1), 141-162.
Finn, J. D. (1989). Withdrawing from school. Review of Educational Research, 59, 117-
142.
Finn, J. D. (1993). School engagement & students at risk. [Microfiche]. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 362322.) Baltimore, MD: National Information
Services Corporation.
Finn, J. D., & Cox, D. (1992). Participation and withdrawal among fourth-grade pupils.
American Educational Research Journal, 29 (1), 141-162.
Fleming, G., & Leo, T. (2000, April). The role of trust building and its relation to teacher
efficacy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Freiberg, H., & Driscoll, A. (1996). Universal teaching strategies. Needham Heights,
Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon.
Fullan, M. (1995). The school as a learning organisation: Distant dreams. Theory into
Practice, 34(4), 230-235.
Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces. Bristol UK: Falmer Press.
Geijsel, F., Sleegers, P., & Van Den Berg, R. (1999). Transformational leadership and the
implementation of large-scale innovation programs. Journal of Educational
Administration, 37(4), 309-328.
Glennan, T. (1998). New American schools after six years. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Guildford, J. P., & Fruchter, B. (1978). Fundamental statistics in psychology and
education. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hajnal, V., Walker, K., & Sackney, L. (1998). Leadership, organisational learning and
selected factors related to the institutionalisation of school improvement initiatives.
The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 44(1), 70-89.
37
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (1998). Exploring the principalÃÂÃÂÃÂâÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂs contribution to school
effectiveness:1980-1995. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9(2), 157-
191.
Hamilton, D. (1996). Peddling feel-good fictions. Forum, 38, 54-56.
Hannay, L., & Ross, J. (1999). Self-renewing secondary schools: The relationship
between structural and cultural change. Paper presented at the American
Educational Research Association, Montreal.
Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times. London: Cassell.
Harris, A., & Hopkins, (1999). Teaching and learning and the challenge of educational
reform. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 10(2), 257-267.
Harrison, J. (1998). School governance: Is the clash between teachers and principals
inevitable? Journal of Educational Administration, 36(1), 59-82.
Hausman, C. (2000). Principal role in magnet schools: Transformed or retrenched?
Journal of Educational Administration, 38(1), 25-46.
Hill, P. Holmes-Smith, P., & Rowe, K. J. (1993). School and teacher effectiveness in
Victoria. Key findings from Phase 1 of the Victorian Quality Schools Project.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED367067). The University of
Melbourne.
Hill, P. (1998). Shaking the foundations; Research driven school reform. School
Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9(4), 419-436.
Hodges, A. (2000, April). Web of support for a personalised, academic foundation. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
New Orleans, LA.
Hoge, D. R., Smit, E. K., & Crist, J. T., (1995). Reciprocal effects of self-concept and
academic achievement in sixth and seventh grade. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 24, 295-315.
Hoy, W., & Hannum, J. (1997). Middle school climate: An empirical assessment of
organisational health and student achievement. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 33(3), 290-311.
Johnston, C. (1997). Leadership and learning organisation in self-managing schools.
Unpublished EdD thesis, University of Melbourne.
Keeves, J. P. (1986). Aspiration, motivation and achievement: Different methods on
analysis and different results. International Journal of Educational research, 10(2),
115-243.
Keeves, J. P. (1988). Path analysis. In J. P. Keeves (Ed.). Educational research,
methodology and measurement: An international handbook (pp. 723-731). Oxford:
Pergamon Press.
Kelly, K.R., & Jordan, L.K. (1990). Effects of academic achievement and gender on
academic and social self-concept: A replication study. Journal of Counseling and
Development, 69(2), 173-177.
38
Kennedy, M. (1999). Approximations to indicators of student outcomes. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(4), 345-363.
Kinney, D.A. (1993). From nerds to normals: The recovery of identity among adolescents
from middle school to high school. Sociology of Education, 66, 21-40.
Kochan, S., Tashakkori, T., & Teddlie, C. (1996, April). You can't judge a high school by
achievement alone: Preliminary findings from the construction of a behavioural
indicator of high school effectiveness. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, New York. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 4023482.) Baltimore, MD: National Information
Services Corporation.
Kruse, S., Louis, K. S., & Bryk, A. (1995). An emerging framework for analysing schoolbased
professional community. In K. S. Louis & S. Kruse (Eds.), Professionalism
and community: Perspectives on reforming urban schools (pp. 23-44). Newbury
Park, CA: Corwin.
Lamb, S., & Fullarton, S. (2000). Factors affecting mathematics achievement in primary
and secondary schools: Results from TIMSS. In J. Malone, J. Bana, & A. Chapman
(Eds.), Mathematics education beyond 2000 (pp. 210-219). Proceedings of the 23rd
annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia,
Perth, Australia.
Law, S. (1999). Leadership for learning: The changing culture of professional
development in schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 37(1), 66-79.
Leask, M., & Terrell, I. (1997). Development planning and school improvement for
middle managers. London: Kogan Page.
Lee, V., & Smith, L. (1996). Collective responsibility for learning and its effects on gains
in achievement and engagement for early secondary school students. American
Educational Research Journal, 33(4), 757-798.
Lee, V. E., Bryk, A. S., & Smith, J. B. (1993). The organization of effective schools. In
L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. 19, pp. 171-
267). Washington, DC: American Education Research Association.
Lee, V. E., & Smith, J. B. (1993). Effects of school restructuring on the achievement and
engagement of middle-grade students. Sociology of Education, 66, 164-187.
Leithwood, K. (1992). The move toward transformational leadership. Educational
Leadership, 49(5), 8-12.
Leithwood, K. (1993, November). Contributions of transformational leadership to school
restructuring. Invited address, annual conference of the University Council for
Educational Administration, Houston, TX.
Leithwood, K. (1994). Leadership for school restructuring. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 30(4).498-518.
Leithwood, K. (Ed.). (2000). Understanding schools as intelligent systems. Stamford: JAI
Press.
39
Leithwood, K., Cousins, B., & Gerin-Lajoie, D. (1993). Years of transition, times for
change: A review and analysis of pilot projects investigating issues in the transition
years (Vol. 2: Explaining variations in progress). Toronto: Final report of research
to the Ontario Ministry of Education, Canada.
Leithwood, K., Dart, B., Jantzi, D., & Steinbach, R. (1993). Building commitment for
change and fostering organizational learning. Final report for Phase Four of the
research project: Implementing British Columbia's Education Policy. Prepared for
the British Columbia Ministry of Education.
Leithwood, K., & Duke, D. (1999). A centuryÃÂÃÂÃÂâÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂs quest to understand school leadership. In
J. Murphy & K. S. Louis (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational
administration (2nd ed., pp. 45-72). Washington, DC: American Educational
Research Association.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (1998, April). Distributed leadership and student
engagement in school. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2000). The effects of transformational leadership on
organisational conditions and student engagement with school. Journal of
Educational Administration, 38(2), 112-129.
Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., & Steinbach, R. (1999). Changing leadership for changing
times. Open University Press.
Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D, & Steinbach, R. (1998). Leadership and other conditions which
foster organizational learning in schools. In K. Leithwood & K. S. Louis (Eds.),
Organizational learning in schools (pp. 67-90). The Netherlands: Swets &
Zeitlinger.
Leithwood, K., Leonard, L., & Sharratt, L. (1998). Conditions fostering organizational
learning in schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 34(2), 243-276.
Leithwood, K., & Louis, K. S., (Eds.). (1998). Organizational learning in schools. The
Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Leithwood, K., & Menzies, T. (1998). A review of research concerning the
implementation of site-based management. School Effectiveness and School
Improvement, 9(3), 233-287.
Limerick, B., & Nielsen, H. (Eds.). (1995). School and community relations. Sydney:
Harcourt Brace.
Lingard, B., Hayres, D., & Mills, M. (1999, November). Developments in devolution and
school-based management: The specific case of Queensland, Australia. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the Australian Association for Research in
Education Conference, Melbourne.
Little, J. (1990). The persistence of privacy: Autonomy and initiative in teachersÃÂÃÂÃÂâÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂ
professional relations. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 3-28.
40
Lofton, G., Ellett, C., Hill, F., & Chauvin, S. (1998). Five years after implementation:
The role of the district in maintaining an ongoing school improvement process.
School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9(1), 58-69.
Louden, W., & Wallace, J. (1994). Too soon to tell: School restructuring and the
National Schools Project (Monograph No. 17). Melbourne: Australian Council for
Educational Administration.
Louis, K. S. (1994). Beyond ÃÂÃÂÃÂâÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂmanaged changeÃÂÃÂÃÂâÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂ: Rethinking how schools improve.
School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 5(1), 2-24.
Louis, K. S. (1998). Effects of teacher quality of work life in secondary schools on
commitment and sense of efficacy. School Effectiveness and School Improvement,
9(1), 1-27.
Louis, K. S., Marks, H., & Kruse, S. (1996). TeachersÃÂÃÂÃÂâÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂàprofessional community in
restructuring schools. American Journal of Education, 104(2), 103-147.
Louis, K. S., & Marks, H. M. (1998). Does professional community affect the classroom?
TeachersÃÂÃÂÃÂâÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂàwork and student experiences in restructuring schools. American Journal
of Education, 106, 532-575.
Louis, K. S., & Miles, M. (1990). Improving the urban high school: What works and
why. New York: Teachers College Press.
March, J. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organisational learning. Organisation
Science, 2(1), 71-87.
Marks, H., & Louis, K. S. (1999). Teacher empowerment and capacity for organisational
learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(5), 707-750.
Marks, H. M., Louis, K. S., & Printy, S. M. (2000). The capacity for organizational
learning. In K. Leithwood (Ed.), Understanding schools as intelligent systems (pp.
239-265). Stamford: JAI Press.
Marsh, H. W. (1992). Extracurricular activities: Beneficial extension of the traditional
curriculum or subversion of academic goals? Journal of Educational Psychology,
84(4), 553-562.
Marsh, H. W., Byrne, B. M., & Shavelson, R. J. (1988). A multifaceted academic selfconcept:
Its hierarchical structure and its relation to academic achievement. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 80, 366-380.
Marsh, H. W., & Craven, R. (1997). Academic self-concept: beyond the dustbowl. In G.
D. Phye (Ed.), Handbook of classroom assessment learning, achievement and
adjustment, (pp. 131-198). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Mawhinney, H. (1999). Reappraisal: The problems and prospects of studying the
micropolitics of leadership in reforming schools. School Leadership and
Management, 19(2), 159-170.
McGaw, B., Piper, K., Banks, D., & Evans, B. (1992). Making schools more effective.
Report of the Australian Effective Schools Project. Hawthorn, VIC: Australian
Council for Educational Research.
41
McLaughlin, M. (1998). Listening and learning from the field: Tales of policy
implementation and situated practice. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan,
& D. Hopkins (Eds.), International handbook of educational change (pp. 70-84).
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Mohrman, S., Wohlstetter, P., & Associates. (1994). School-based management:
Organising for high performance. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Moos, L. (1999). New dilemmas in school leadership. Leading and Managing, 5(1), 41-
59.
Mortimore, P. (1996, August). High performing schools and school improvement. Paper
delivered at the Schools of the Third Millennium Conference, Melbourne.
Muijs, R. D., (1997). Predictors of academic achievement and academic self-concept: a
longitudinal perspective. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 263-277.
Mulford, B. (1994). Shaping tomorrowÃÂÃÂÃÂâÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂs schools (Monograph No. 15). Melbourne,
Victoria: Australian Council for Educational Administration.
Mulford, B. (1998). Organizational learning and educational change. In A. Hargreaves,
A. Lieberman, M. Fullan, & D. Hopkins (Eds), International handbook of
organizational change (pp. 616-641). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Mulford, B., & Hogan, D. (1999). Local school management: The views of Tasmanian
principals and teachers. Leading and Managing, 5(2), 139-161.
Mulford, B., Hogan, D., & Lamb, S. (in press). Professional and lay personÃÂÃÂÃÂâÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂs views on
school council in Tasmania. Leading and Managing.
Mulford, W. (2000, September). The global challenge: A matter of balance. The 10th
William Walker Oration at the Commonwealth Council for Educational
Administration and Management Conference, Hobart, Tasmania.
Murphy, J., & Beck. L. (1995). School-based management as school reform. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Newmann, F. M. (1989). Student engagement and high school reform. Educational
Leadership, 46 (5), 34-36.
Newmann, F., & Wehlage, G. (1995). Successful school restructuring: A report to the
public and educators. Centre on Organisation and Restructuring of Schools,
University of Wisconsin-Madison.
O'Brien, E., & Rollefson, M. (1996). Extracurricular participation and student
engagement. National Centre for Educational Statistics. Washington, DC. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 384097.) Baltimore, MD: National
Information Services Corporation.
Ouston, J. (1998). The school effectiveness and school improvement movement: A
reflection on its contribution to the development of good schools. Milton Keynes: A
paper presented to the third ESRC Seminar, ÃÂÃÂÃÂâÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂRefining Educational ManagementÃÂÃÂÃÂâÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂ,
Open University.
42
Peters, J., Dobbins, D., & Johnson, B. (1996). Restructuring and organisational culture
(National Schools Network Research Paper No. 4). Ryde, Australia: National
Schools Network.
Prestine, N. (1998, April). Disposable reform? Assessing the durability of secondary
school reform. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, San Diego, CA.
Reitzug, U. (1994). A case study of empowering principal behavior. American
Educational Research Journal, 31(2), 283-307.
Retallick, J., & Fink, D. (2000, April). Framing leadership: Contributions and
impediments to educational change. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Reynolds, D., & Teddlie, C. (2000, April). Reflections on the critics and beyond them.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, New Orleans, LA.
Ribbins, P. (1999). Producing portraits of leaders in education: Cultural relativism and
methodological absolutism? Leading and Managing, 5(2), 78-99.
Robertson, P., & Briggs, K. (1998). Improving schools through school-based
management: An examination of the process of change. School Effectiveness and
School Improvement, 9(1), 28-57.
Rowe, K., & Hill, P. (1997, January). Simultaneous estimation of multilevel structural
equations to model studentsÃÂÃÂÃÂâÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂàeducational progress. Paper presented at the Tenth
International Congress for School Effectiveness and Improvement, Memphis,
Tennessee.
Sackney, L., Walker, K., & Hajnal, V. (1995, April). Organizational learning,
leadership, and selected factors relating to the institutionalization of school
improvement initiatives. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
Samdal, D., Wold, B., & Bronis, M. (1999). Relationships between studentsÃÂÃÂÃÂâÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂàperceptions
of the school environment, their satisfaction with school and perceived academic
achievement: An international study. School Effectiveness and Improvement, 10(3),
296-320.
Sammons, P. (1996). Complexities in the judgement of school effectiveness. Educational
Research and Evaluation, 2, 113-149.
Sammons, P., & Reynolds, D. (1996). A partisan evaluation: John Elliot on school
effectiveness. Cambridge Journal of Education, 26, 320-324.
Sammons, P., Hillman, J., & Mortimore, P. (1995). Key characteristics of effective
schools: A review of school effectiveness research. London: Office for Standards in
Education.
Sammons, P., Mortimore, P., & Hillman, J. (1996) Key characteristics of effective
schools: A response to ÃÂÃÂÃÂâÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂPeddling feel-good fictionsÃÂÃÂÃÂâÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂ. Forum, 38, 88-90.
43
Sammons, P., Thomas, S., Mortimore, P., Walker, A., Cairns, R., & Bausor, J. (1998).
Understanding differences in academic effectiveness: PractitionersÃÂÃÂÃÂâÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂàviews. School
Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9(3), 286-309.
Sarason, S. (1990). The predictable failure of educational reform. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Scheerens, J. (1997). Conceptual models and theory-embedded principles on effective
schooling. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 8(3), 269-310.
Scott, A. (2000). Exploitation or exploration? Secondary school administrative team
learning. In K. Leithwood (Ed.), Understanding schools as intelligent systems (pp.
75-95). Stamford: JAI Press.
Sellin, N. (1990). PLSPATH Version 3.01 Program Manual. Hamburg.
Sellin, N., & Keeves, J. P. (1997). Path analysis with latent variables. In J. P. Keeves
(Ed.), Educational research, methodology, and measurement: An international
handbook (2nd ed., pp. 633-640). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Shakeshaft, C. (1989). Women in educational administration. California?: Corwin Press.
Shan, M. (1999). Academics and a culture of caring: The relationship between school
achievement and prosocial and antisocial behaviours in four urban middle schools.
School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 10(4), 390-413.
Sheppard, B., & Brown, J. (2000). The transformation of secondary schools into learning
organizations. In K. Leithwood (Ed.), Understanding schools as intelligent systems
(pp. 293-314). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
Sheppard, B., & Brown, J. (1999, April). Leadership approach, the new work of teachers
and successful change. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
Shernoff, D., Schneider, B., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000, April). Engagement in high
school maths and science: Examining school, individual, and family influences.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, New Orleans, LA.
Silins, H. (1994b). Leadership characteristics and school improvement. Australian
Journal of Education, 38(3), 266-281.
Silins, H. C. (1992). Effective leadership for school reform. The Alberta Journal of
Educational Research, 38(4), 317-334.
Silins, H. C. (1994a). The relationship between transformational and transactional
leadership and school improvement outcomes. School Effectiveness and School
Improvement, 5(3), 272-298.
Silins, H., & Mulford, B. (2000). Organisational learning and school change. Manuscript
submitted for publication.
Silins, H., & Murray-Harvey, R. (1999). What makes a good senior secondary school?
Journal of Educational Administration, 37(4), 329-344.
44
Silins, H. C., & Murray-Harvey, R. (2000). Students as a central concern. Journal of
Educational Administration, 38(3), 230-246.
Silins, H., Mulford, W., Zarins, S., & Bishop, P. (2000). Leadership for organizational
learning in Australian secondary schools. In K. Leithwood (Ed.), Understanding
schools as intelligent systems (pp. 267-291). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
Silins, H., Zarins, S., & Mulford, W. (1998, November). What characteristics and
processes define a school as a learning organisation? Is this a useful concept for
schools? Paper presented at the national conference of the Australian Association
for Research in Education, Adelaide, South Australia.
Silins, H., Zarins, S., & Mulford, W. (1999, April). Leadership for organisational
learning and student outcomes - the LOLSO Project. Paper presented at AERA,
Montreal, Canada.
Sizer, T. (1996). HoraceÃÂÃÂÃÂâÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂs hope. New York: Mariner Books.
Slavin, R. (1996). Education for all. Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Slee, R., Tomlinson, S., & Weiner, G. (Eds.). (1998). School effectiveness for whom?
London: Falmer.
Smith, L., Maxwell, S., Lowther, D., Hacker, D., Bol, L., & Nunnery, J. (1997).
Activities in schools and programs experiencing the most, and least, early
implementation success. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 8(1), 125-
150.
Smith, W. J., Butler-Kisber, L., LaRocque, L. J., Portelli, J. P., Shields, C. M., Sparkes,
C. S., & Vibert, A. B. (1998). Student engagement in learning and school life:
National project report. Montreal: McGill University, Office of Research on
Educational Policy.
Smylie, M., Lazarus, V., & Brownlee-Conyers, J. (1996). Instructional outcomes of
school-based participative decision making. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 18(3), 181-198.
Smyth, E. (1999b). Do schools differ? Academic and personal development among pupils
in the second-level sector. Dublin: Oak Tree Press.
Smyth, E. (1999a). Pupil performance, absenteeism and school drop-out: A multidimensional
analysis. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 10(4), 480-
502.
Spencer, B., & Webber, C. (2000, April). Educational reform in Alberta: Where do we go
from here? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Stoll, L., & Fink, D. (1996). Changing our schools. Buckingham, UK: Open University
Press.
Strachan, J. (1999). Feminist educational leadership in a New Zealand neo-liberal
context. Journal of Educational Administration, 37(2), 121-138.
45
Stringfield, S., & Herman, R. (1996). Assessment of the state of school effectiveness
research in United States of America. School Effectiveness and School
Improvement, 7(2), 159-180.
Stringfield, S., Herman, R., Millsap, M., & Scott, E. (1996). The three-year effects of ten
ÃÂÃÂÃÂâÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂpromising programsÃÂÃÂÃÂâÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂàon the academic achievements of students placed at risk.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, New York.
Stringfield, S., & Ross, S. (1997). A ÃÂÃÂÃÂâÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂreflectionÃÂÃÂÃÂâÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂàat mile three of a marathon: The
Memphis restructuring initiative in mid-stride. School Effectiveness and School
Improvement, 8(1), 151-161.
Tarter, C., Bliss, J., & Hoy, W. (1989). School characteristics and faculty trust in
secondary schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 25(3), 294-308.
Teddlie, C., & Reynolds, D. (2000). International handbook of school effectiveness
research. London: Falmer.
Thomas, S., Sammons, P., Mortimore, P., & Smees, R. (1997). Stability and consistency
in secondary schoolsÃÂÃÂÃÂâÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂàeffects on studentsÃÂÃÂÃÂâÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂàGCSE outcomes over three years. School
Effectiveness and School Improvement, 8(2), 169-197.
Thrupp, M. (1999). Schools making a difference: LetÃÂÃÂÃÂâÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂs be realistic. Buckingham, UK:
Open University Press.
Thrupp, M. (2000, April). Sociological and political concerns about school effectiveness
research: Time for a new research agenda. Paper presented at the annual meeting
of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Timperly, H., & Robinson, V. (1998). Collegiality in schools: Its nature and implications
for problem solving. Educational Administration Quarterly, 34(Suppl.), 608-629.
Timperly, H., & Robinson, V. (2000). Workload and the professional culture of teachers.
Educational Management and Administration, 28(1),47-62.
Townsend, T. (1994). Goals for effective schools: The view from the field. School
Effectiveness and School Improvement, 5(2), 127-148.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, W. (1998). Trust in schools: A conceptual and empirical
analysis. Journal of Educational Administration, 36(4), 334-352.
Van Den Berg, R., & Sleegers, P. (1996). The innovative capacity of secondary: A
qualitative study. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 9(2),
201-223.
Van der Werf, G. (1997). Differences in school and instruction characteristics between
high-, average-, and low-effective schools. School Effectiveness and School
improvement, 8(4), 430-448.
Vergugo, R., Greenberg, N., Henderson, R., Uribe O., & Schneider, J. (1997). School
governance regimes and teachersÃÂÃÂÃÂâÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂàjob satisfaction: Bureaucracy, legitimacy, and
community, Educational Administration Quarterly,? 33(1), 38-66.
46
Voelkl, K. (1995). School warmth, student participation, and achievement. Journal of
Experimental Education, 63(2), 127-138.
Walberg, H., Paik, S., Komukai, A., & Freeman, K. (2000). Decentralisation: An
international perspective. Educational Horizons, Spring, 153-164.
Wallace, J. (1999). Professional school cultures: Coping with the chaos of teacher
collaboration. The Australian Educational Researcher, 26(2), 67-86.
Wentzel, K. (1995). Relations between social competence and academic achievement in
early adolescence. Child Development, 62, 1066-1078.
Whitty, G., Power, S., & Halpin, D. (1998). Devolution and choice in education: The
school, the state and the market. Buckingham, Country: Open University Press.
Wilson, P., & Wilson, J. (1992). Environmental influences on adolescent educational
aspirations: A logistical transform model. Youth and Society, 24(1), 52-70.
Wilson, S., & Berne, J. (1999). Teacher learning and the acquisition of professional
knowledge: An examination of research on contemporary professional
development. In A. Iran-Nejad & D. Pearson (Eds.), Review of research in
education (pp. 173-210). Washington, DC: American Educational Research
Association.
Yeung, A.S., & Marsh, H.W. (1997, November). Gender differences in the development
of English and Maths constructs: Longitudinal models of academic self-concept
and achievement. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Australian
Association for Research in Education, Brisbane." name="eprints.referencetext" />
<meta content="Silins, Halia and Mulford, Bill (2002) Leadership and school results. In: Second International Handbook of Educational Leadership and Administration. . Kluwer Academic, Norwell, MA, pp. 561-612." name="eprints.citation" />
<meta content="http://eprints.utas.edu.au/1661/1/1_SilinsMulfordHandbook2002PDF.pdf" name="eprints.document_url" />
<link rel="schema.DC" href="http://purl.org/DC/elements/1.0/" />
<meta content="Leadership and school results" name="DC.title" />
<meta content="Silins, Halia" name="DC.creator" />
<meta content="Mulford, Bill" name="DC.creator" />
<meta content="330104 Educational Policy, Administration and Management" name="DC.subject" />
<meta content="This chapter focuses on three aspects of high school functioning in the context of
educational reform: leadership and the school results of organisational learning and
student outcomes. A brief review of recent and significant work in these areas provides a
framework for a discussion of what makes a difference to high school performance. The
findings of a three-year study of high schools in two Australian states is used to extend
our present knowledge of these areas and the nature of their interaction and influence on
school processes and outcomes.
Prior to the review of recent and significant work in the areas of leadership,
organisational learning and student outcomes, it is relevant to place the chapter within the
ongoing debate on the value of school effectiveness and improvement research. The
central themes of critics of the school effectiveness movement are that it overclaims the
success of effective schools and that it is a socially and politically decontextualised body
literature which, wittingly or unwittingly, has provided support for the inequitable
reform programs of neo-liberal and managerial governments (Angus, 1993; Anyon, 1997;
Elliot, 1996; Hamilton, 1996; Slee et al., 1998; Sammons et al., 1996; Sammons &
Reynolds, 1996; Stringfield & Herman, 1996; Thrupp, 1999, 2000). Another major theme
centres on the respective emphasis given to 'top down' or 'bottom up' approaches to
school effectiveness and improvement (Scheerens, 1997).
The social and political decontextualisation and inequitable use of school
effectiveness research arguments are important and need to be addressed. However, it is
the overclaiming argument that has the most relevance for this chapter. Most school
effectiveness studies show that 80% or more of student achievement can be explained by
student background rather than schools (Teddlie & Reynolds, 2000). On the other hand,
school effectiveness supporters believe that, even with only 20% of achievement
accounted for by schools, their work has convincingly helped to destroy the belief that
schools do not make any difference. They argue that schools not only make a difference
but they add value despite the strong influence of family background on children's
development (Reynolds & Teddlie, 2000; Sammons, 1998; Thomas, et al., 1997).
Other within schools research suggests that it is teachers in classrooms rather than
the school and how it is organised or led that makes the difference. Hill and his
colleagues, for example, who found that almost 40% of the variation in achievement in
mathematics was due to differences between classrooms, explained this difference as a
result of teacher quality and effectiveness. (Hill, 1998; Hill et al., 1993; Rowe & Hill,
1997) More recent research based on results from the Third International Mathematics
and Science Survey (TIMSS), questions this explanation. Lamb and Fullarton (2000)
found that the variation in mathematics achievement in high schools was due mainly to differences within classrooms (57%), between classrooms (28%) and between schools
(15%). However, the reasons for the differences between classrooms and schools were
related to more student background and attitude toward mathematics and the types of
pupil grouping practices schools employ than to teachers. In brief, organisational and
compositional features of schools and classrooms had a more marked impact on
mathematics achievement than the quality of teachers.
Of course, student achievement in mathematics and science represents a very
limited understanding of the full purpose of schooling. But little evidence is available
concerning non-cognitive student outcomes. We have tried to take this and the other
points made in the debate on the value of school effectiveness research on board in our
own research. School performance is measured against student outcome measures which
include student participation in and engagement with schools, their views of their
academic performance, as well as school retention, completion rates and academic
results. In respect of the context for school improvement, we include analysis by student
SES and home educational environment as well as school size. In this way we believe we
are able to test the relative contribution of a range of individual, school and societal
factors on student outcomes. Because of this approach to our research, the unfinished
nature of the debate on school effectiveness and improvement and the fact that we can do
little to determine how our results might be used by others, we believe we are justified in
our pursuance of the links between leadership and the school results of organisational
learning and student outcomes in the manner described in the chapter. Our emphasis is
clearly at the 'bottom up' end of the 'top down'/'bottom up' debate. As we will show,
both through the following literature review and our research findings, a 'bottom up'
emphasis does not preclude 'top down' approaches if a strong 'bottom up' approach is
first in place." name="DC.description" />
<meta content="Kluwer Academic" name="DC.publisher" />
<meta content="Leithwood, K." name="DC.contributor" />
<meta content="Hallinger, P." name="DC.contributor" />
<meta content="2002" name="DC.date" />
<meta content="Book Chapter" name="DC.type" />
<meta content="PeerReviewed" name="DC.type" />
<meta content="application/pdf" name="DC.format" />
<meta content="http://eprints.utas.edu.au/1661/1/1_SilinsMulfordHandbook2002PDF.pdf" name="DC.identifier" />
<meta content="Silins, Halia and Mulford, Bill (2002) Leadership and school results. In: Second International Handbook of Educational Leadership and Administration. . Kluwer Academic, Norwell, MA, pp. 561-612." name="DC.identifier" />
<meta content="http://eprints.utas.edu.au/1661/" name="DC.relation" />
<link rel="alternate" href="http://eprints.utas.edu.au/cgi/export/1661/BibTeX/epprod-eprint-1661.bib" title="BibTeX" type="text/plain" />
<link rel="alternate" href="http://eprints.utas.edu.au/cgi/export/1661/ContextObject/epprod-eprint-1661.xml" title="OpenURL ContextObject" type="text/xml" />
<link rel="alternate" href="http://eprints.utas.edu.au/cgi/export/1661/ContextObject::Dissertation/epprod-eprint-1661.xml" title="OpenURL Dissertation" type="text/xml" />
<link rel="alternate" href="http://eprints.utas.edu.au/cgi/export/1661/ContextObject::Journal/epprod-eprint-1661.xml" title="OpenURL Journal" type="text/xml" />
<link rel="alternate" href="http://eprints.utas.edu.au/cgi/export/1661/DC/epprod-eprint-1661.txt" title="Dublin Core" type="text/plain" />
<link rel="alternate" href="http://eprints.utas.edu.au/cgi/export/1661/DIDL/epprod-eprint-1661.xml" title="DIDL" type="text/xml" />
<link rel="alternate" href="http://eprints.utas.edu.au/cgi/export/1661/EndNote/epprod-eprint-1661.enw" title="EndNote" type="text/plain" />
<link rel="alternate" href="http://eprints.utas.edu.au/cgi/export/1661/HTML/epprod-eprint-1661.html" title="HTML Citation" type="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
<link rel="alternate" href="http://eprints.utas.edu.au/cgi/export/1661/METS/epprod-eprint-1661.xml" title="METS" type="text/xml" />
<link rel="alternate" href="http://eprints.utas.edu.au/cgi/export/1661/MODS/epprod-eprint-1661.xml" title="MODS" type="text/xml" />
<link rel="alternate" href="http://eprints.utas.edu.au/cgi/export/1661/RIS/epprod-eprint-1661.ris" title="Reference Manager" type="text/plain" />
<link rel="alternate" href="http://eprints.utas.edu.au/cgi/export/1661/Refer/epprod-eprint-1661.refer" title="Refer" type="text/plain" />
<link rel="alternate" href="http://eprints.utas.edu.au/cgi/export/1661/Simple/epprod-eprint-1661text" title="Simple Metadata" type="text/plain" />
<link rel="alternate" href="http://eprints.utas.edu.au/cgi/export/1661/Text/epprod-eprint-1661.txt" title="ASCII Citation" type="text/plain; charset=utf-8" />
<link rel="alternate" href="http://eprints.utas.edu.au/cgi/export/1661/XML/epprod-eprint-1661.xml" title="EP3 XML" type="text/xml" />
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000" onLoad="loadRoutine(); MM_preloadImages('images/eprints/ePrints_banner_r5_c5_f2.gif','images/eprints/ePrints_banner_r5_c7_f2.gif','images/eprints/ePrints_banner_r5_c8_f2.gif','images/eprints/ePrints_banner_r5_c9_f2.gif','images/eprints/ePrints_banner_r5_c10_f2.gif','images/eprints/ePrints_banner_r5_c11_f2.gif','images/eprints/ePrints_banner_r6_c4_f2.gif')">
<div class="ep_noprint"><noscript><style type="text/css">@import url(http://eprints.utas.edu.au/style/nojs.css);</style></noscript></div>
<table width="795" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<tr>
<td><script language="JavaScript1.2">mmLoadMenus();</script>
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="795">
<!-- fwtable fwsrc="eprints_banner_final2.png" fwbase="ePrints_banner.gif" fwstyle="Dreamweaver" fwdocid = "1249563342" fwnested="0" -->
<tr>
<td><img src="/images/eprints/spacer.gif" width="32" height="1" border="0" alt="" /></td>
<td><img src="/images/eprints/spacer.gif" width="104" height="1" border="0" alt="" /></td>
<td><img src="/images/eprints/spacer.gif" width="44" height="1" border="0" alt="" /></td>
<td><img src="/images/eprints/spacer.gif" width="105" height="1" border="0" alt="" /></td>
<td><img src="/images/eprints/spacer.gif" width="41" height="1" border="0" alt="" /></td>
<td><img src="/images/eprints/spacer.gif" width="16" height="1" border="0" alt="" /></td>
<td><img src="/images/eprints/spacer.gif" width="68" height="1" border="0" alt="" /></td>
<td><img src="/images/eprints/spacer.gif" width="68" height="1" border="0" alt="" /></td>
<td><img src="/images/eprints/spacer.gif" width="68" height="1" border="0" alt="" /></td>
<td><img src="/images/eprints/spacer.gif" width="82" height="1" border="0" alt="" /></td>
<td><img src="/images/eprints/spacer.gif" width="69" height="1" border="0" alt="" /></td>
<td><img src="/images/eprints/spacer.gif" width="98" height="1" border="0" alt="" /></td>
<td><img src="/images/eprints/spacer.gif" width="1" height="1" border="0" alt="" /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="12"><img name="ePrints_banner_r1_c1" src="/images/eprints/ePrints_banner_r1_c1.gif" width="795" height="10" border="0" alt="" /></td>
<td><img src="/images/eprints/spacer.gif" width="1" height="10" border="0" alt="" /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td rowspan="6"><img name="ePrints_banner_r2_c1" src="/images/eprints/ePrints_banner_r2_c1.gif" width="32" height="118" border="0" alt="" /></td>
<td rowspan="5"><a href="http://www.utas.edu.au/"><img name="ePrints_banner_r2_c2" src="/images/eprints/ePrints_banner_r2_c2.gif" width="104" height="103" border="0" alt="" /></a></td>
<td colspan="10"><img name="ePrints_banner_r2_c3" src="/images/eprints/ePrints_banner_r2_c3.gif" width="659" height="41" border="0" alt="" /></td>
<td><img src="/images/eprints/spacer.gif" width="1" height="41" border="0" alt="" /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="3"><a href="http://eprints.utas.edu.au/"><img name="ePrints_banner_r3_c3" src="/images/eprints/ePrints_banner_r3_c3.gif" width="190" height="31" border="0" alt="" /></a></td>
<td rowspan="2" colspan="7"><img name="ePrints_banner_r3_c6" src="/images/eprints/ePrints_banner_r3_c6.gif" width="469" height="37" border="0" alt="" /></td>
<td><img src="/images/eprints/spacer.gif" width="1" height="31" border="0" alt="" /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="3"><img name="ePrints_banner_r4_c3" src="/images/eprints/ePrints_banner_r4_c3.gif" width="190" height="6" border="0" alt="" /></td>
<td><img src="/images/eprints/spacer.gif" width="1" height="6" border="0" alt="" /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2"><img name="ePrints_banner_r5_c3" src="/images/eprints/ePrints_banner_r5_c3.gif" width="149" height="1" border="0" alt="" /></td>
<td rowspan="2" colspan="2"><a href="/information.html" onMouseOut="MM_swapImgRestore();MM_startTimeout()" onMouseOver="MM_showMenu(window.mm_menu_0821132634_0,0,25,null,'ePrints_banner_r5_c5');MM_swapImage('ePrints_banner_r5_c5','','/images/eprints/ePrints_banner_r5_c5_f2.gif',1);"><img name="ePrints_banner_r5_c5" src="/images/eprints/ePrints_banner_r5_c5.gif" width="57" height="25" border="0" alt="About" /></a></td>
<td rowspan="2"><a href="/view/" onMouseOut="MM_swapImgRestore();MM_startTimeout()" onMouseOver="MM_showMenu(window.mm_menu_0821133021_1,0,25,null,'ePrints_banner_r5_c7');MM_swapImage('ePrints_banner_r5_c7','','/images/eprints/ePrints_banner_r5_c7_f2.gif',1);"><img name="ePrints_banner_r5_c7" src="/images/eprints/ePrints_banner_r5_c7.gif" width="68" height="25" border="0" alt="Browse" /></a></td>
<td rowspan="2"><a href="/perl/search/simple" onMouseOut="MM_swapImgRestore();MM_startTimeout()" onMouseOver="MM_showMenu(window.mm_menu_0821133201_2,0,25,null,'ePrints_banner_r5_c8');MM_swapImage('ePrints_banner_r5_c8','','/images/eprints/ePrints_banner_r5_c8_f2.gif',1);"><img name="ePrints_banner_r5_c8" src="/images/eprints/ePrints_banner_r5_c8.gif" width="68" height="25" border="0" alt="Search" /></a></td>
<td rowspan="2"><a href="/perl/register" onMouseOut="MM_swapImgRestore();MM_startTimeout();" onMouseOver="MM_showMenu(window.mm_menu_1018171924_3,0,25,null,'ePrints_banner_r5_c9');MM_swapImage('ePrints_banner_r5_c9','','/images/eprints/ePrints_banner_r5_c9_f2.gif',1);"><img name="ePrints_banner_r5_c9" src="/images/eprints/ePrints_banner_r5_c9.gif" width="68" height="25" border="0" alt="register" /></a></td>
<td rowspan="2"><a href="/perl/users/home" onMouseOut="MM_swapImgRestore();MM_startTimeout()" onMouseOver="MM_showMenu(window.mm_menu_0821133422_4,0,25,null,'ePrints_banner_r5_c10');MM_swapImage('ePrints_banner_r5_c10','','/images/eprints/ePrints_banner_r5_c10_f2.gif',1);"><img name="ePrints_banner_r5_c10" src="/images/eprints/ePrints_banner_r5_c10.gif" width="82" height="25" border="0" alt="user area" /></a></td>
<td rowspan="2"><a href="/help/" onMouseOut="MM_swapImgRestore();MM_startTimeout()" onMouseOver="MM_showMenu(window.mm_menu_0821133514_5,0,25,null,'ePrints_banner_r5_c11');MM_swapImage('ePrints_banner_r5_c11','','/images/eprints/ePrints_banner_r5_c11_f2.gif',1);"><img name="ePrints_banner_r5_c11" src="/images/eprints/ePrints_banner_r5_c11.gif" width="69" height="25" border="0" alt="Help" /></a></td>
<td rowspan="3" colspan="4"><img name="ePrints_banner_r5_c12" src="/images/eprints/ePrints_banner_r5_c12.gif" width="98" height="40" border="0" alt="" /></td>
<td><img src="/images/eprints/spacer.gif" width="1" height="1" border="0" alt="" /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td rowspan="2"><img name="ePrints_banner_r6_c3" src="/images/eprints/ePrints_banner_r6_c3.gif" width="44" height="39" border="0" alt="ePrints home" /></td>
<td><a href="/" onMouseOut="MM_swapImgRestore()" onMouseOver="MM_swapImage('ePrints_banner_r6_c4','','/images/eprints/ePrints_banner_r6_c4_f2.gif',1);"><img name="ePrints_banner_r6_c4" src="/images/eprints/ePrints_banner_r6_c4.gif" width="105" height="24" border="0" alt="ePrints home" /></a></td>
<td><img src="/images/eprints/spacer.gif" width="1" height="24" border="0" alt="" /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><img name="ePrints_banner_r7_c2" src="/images/eprints/ePrints_banner_r7_c2.gif" width="104" height="15" border="0" alt="" /></td>
<td colspan="8"><img name="ePrints_banner_r7_c4" src="/images/eprints/ePrints_banner_r7_c4.gif" width="517" height="15" border="0" alt="" /></td>
<td><img src="/images/eprints/spacer.gif" width="1" height="15" border="0" alt="" /></td>
</tr>
</table></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><table width="100%" style="font-size: 90%; border: solid 1px #ccc; padding: 3px"><tr>
<td align="left"><a href="http://eprints.utas.edu.au/cgi/users/home">Login</a> | <a href="http://eprints.utas.edu.au/cgi/register">Create Account</a></td>
<td align="right" style="white-space: nowrap">
<form method="get" accept-charset="utf-8" action="http://eprints.utas.edu.au/cgi/search" style="display:inline">
<input class="ep_tm_searchbarbox" size="20" type="text" name="q" />
<input class="ep_tm_searchbarbutton" value="Search" type="submit" name="_action_search" />
<input type="hidden" name="_order" value="bytitle" />
<input type="hidden" name="basic_srchtype" value="ALL" />
<input type="hidden" name="_satisfyall" value="ALL" />
</form>
</td>
</tr></table></td></tr>
<tr>
<td class="toplinks"><!-- InstanceBeginEditable name="content" -->
<div align="center">
<table width="720" class="ep_tm_main"><tr><td align="left">
<h1 class="ep_tm_pagetitle">Leadership and school results</h1>
<p style="margin-bottom: 1em" class="not_ep_block"><span class="person_name">Silins, Halia</span> and <span class="person_name">Mulford, Bill</span> (2002) <xhtml:em>Leadership and school results.</xhtml:em> In: Second International Handbook of Educational Leadership and Administration. . Kluwer Academic, Norwell, MA, pp. 561-612.</p><p style="margin-bottom: 1em" class="not_ep_block"></p><table style="margin-bottom: 1em" class="not_ep_block"><tr><td valign="top" style="text-align:center"><a href="http://eprints.utas.edu.au/1661/1/1_SilinsMulfordHandbook2002PDF.pdf"><img alt="[img]" src="http://eprints.utas.edu.au/style/images/fileicons/application_pdf.png" class="ep_doc_icon" border="0" /></a></td><td valign="top"><a href="http://eprints.utas.edu.au/1661/1/1_SilinsMulfordHandbook2002PDF.pdf"><span class="ep_document_citation">PDF</span></a> - Full text restricted - Requires a PDF viewer<br />367Kb</td></tr></table><div class="not_ep_block"><h2>Abstract</h2><p style="padding-bottom: 16px; text-align: left; margin: 1em auto 0em auto">This chapter focuses on three aspects of high school functioning in the context of
educational reform: leadership and the school results of organisational learning and
student outcomes. A brief review of recent and significant work in these areas provides a
framework for a discussion of what makes a difference to high school performance. The
findings of a three-year study of high schools in two Australian states is used to extend
our present knowledge of these areas and the nature of their interaction and influence on
school processes and outcomes.
Prior to the review of recent and significant work in the areas of leadership,
organisational learning and student outcomes, it is relevant to place the chapter within the
ongoing debate on the value of school effectiveness and improvement research. The
central themes of critics of the school effectiveness movement are that it overclaims the
success of effective schools and that it is a socially and politically decontextualised body
literature which, wittingly or unwittingly, has provided support for the inequitable
reform programs of neo-liberal and managerial governments (Angus, 1993; Anyon, 1997;
Elliot, 1996; Hamilton, 1996; Slee et al., 1998; Sammons et al., 1996; Sammons &
Reynolds, 1996; Stringfield & Herman, 1996; Thrupp, 1999, 2000). Another major theme
centres on the respective emphasis given to 'top down' or 'bottom up' approaches to
school effectiveness and improvement (Scheerens, 1997).
The social and political decontextualisation and inequitable use of school
effectiveness research arguments are important and need to be addressed. However, it is
the overclaiming argument that has the most relevance for this chapter. Most school
effectiveness studies show that 80% or more of student achievement can be explained by
student background rather than schools (Teddlie & Reynolds, 2000). On the other hand,
school effectiveness supporters believe that, even with only 20% of achievement
accounted for by schools, their work has convincingly helped to destroy the belief that
schools do not make any difference. They argue that schools not only make a difference
but they add value despite the strong influence of family background on children's
development (Reynolds & Teddlie, 2000; Sammons, 1998; Thomas, et al., 1997).
Other within schools research suggests that it is teachers in classrooms rather than
the school and how it is organised or led that makes the difference. Hill and his
colleagues, for example, who found that almost 40% of the variation in achievement in
mathematics was due to differences between classrooms, explained this difference as a
result of teacher quality and effectiveness. (Hill, 1998; Hill et al., 1993; Rowe & Hill,
1997) More recent research based on results from the Third International Mathematics
and Science Survey (TIMSS), questions this explanation. Lamb and Fullarton (2000)
found that the variation in mathematics achievement in high schools was due mainly to differences within classrooms (57%), between classrooms (28%) and between schools
(15%). However, the reasons for the differences between classrooms and schools were
related to more student background and attitude toward mathematics and the types of
pupil grouping practices schools employ than to teachers. In brief, organisational and
compositional features of schools and classrooms had a more marked impact on
mathematics achievement than the quality of teachers.
Of course, student achievement in mathematics and science represents a very
limited understanding of the full purpose of schooling. But little evidence is available
concerning non-cognitive student outcomes. We have tried to take this and the other
points made in the debate on the value of school effectiveness research on board in our
own research. School performance is measured against student outcome measures which
include student participation in and engagement with schools, their views of their
academic performance, as well as school retention, completion rates and academic
results. In respect of the context for school improvement, we include analysis by student
SES and home educational environment as well as school size. In this way we believe we
are able to test the relative contribution of a range of individual, school and societal
factors on student outcomes. Because of this approach to our research, the unfinished
nature of the debate on school effectiveness and improvement and the fact that we can do
little to determine how our results might be used by others, we believe we are justified in
our pursuance of the links between leadership and the school results of organisational
learning and student outcomes in the manner described in the chapter. Our emphasis is
clearly at the 'bottom up' end of the 'top down'/'bottom up' debate. As we will show,
both through the following literature review and our research findings, a 'bottom up'
emphasis does not preclude 'top down' approaches if a strong 'bottom up' approach is
first in place.</p></div><table style="margin-bottom: 1em" cellpadding="3" class="not_ep_block" border="0"><tr><th valign="top" class="ep_row">Item Type:</th><td valign="top" class="ep_row">Book Chapter</td></tr><tr><th valign="top" class="ep_row">Additional Information:</th><td valign="top" class="ep_row">The original publication is available at www.springerlink.com</td></tr><tr><th valign="top" class="ep_row">Subjects:</th><td valign="top" class="ep_row"><a href="http://eprints.utas.edu.au/view/subjects/330104.html">330000 Education > 330100 Education Studies > 330104 Educational Policy, Administration and Management</a></td></tr><tr><th valign="top" class="ep_row">ID Code:</th><td valign="top" class="ep_row">1661</td></tr><tr><th valign="top" class="ep_row">Deposited By:</th><td valign="top" class="ep_row"><span class="ep_name_citation"><span class="person_name">Mrs Anita Cubit</span></span></td></tr><tr><th valign="top" class="ep_row">Deposited On:</th><td valign="top" class="ep_row">27 Aug 2007</td></tr><tr><th valign="top" class="ep_row">Last Modified:</th><td valign="top" class="ep_row">09 Jan 2008 02:30</td></tr><tr><th valign="top" class="ep_row">ePrint Statistics:</th><td valign="top" class="ep_row"><a target="ePrintStats" href="/es/index.php?action=show_detail_eprint;id=1661;">View statistics for this ePrint</a></td></tr></table><p align="right">Repository Staff Only: <a href="http://eprints.utas.edu.au/cgi/users/home?screen=EPrint::View&eprintid=1661">item control page</a></p>
</td></tr></table>
</div>
<!-- InstanceEndEditable --></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><!-- #BeginLibraryItem "/Library/footer_eprints.lbi" -->
<table width="795" border="0" align="left" cellpadding="0" class="footer">
<tr valign="top">
<td colspan="2"><div align="center"><a href="http://www.utas.edu.au">UTAS home</a> | <a href="http://www.utas.edu.au/library/">Library home</a> | <a href="/">ePrints home</a> | <a href="/contact.html">contact</a> | <a href="/information.html">about</a> | <a href="/view/">browse</a> | <a href="/perl/search/simple">search</a> | <a href="/perl/register">register</a> | <a href="/perl/users/home">user area</a> | <a href="/help/">help</a></div><br /></td>
</tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"><p><img src="/images/eprints/footerline.gif" width="100%" height="4" /></p></td></tr>
<tr valign="top">
<td width="68%" class="footer">Authorised by the University Librarian<br />
© University of Tasmania ABN 30 764 374 782<br />
<a href="http://www.utas.edu.au/cricos/">CRICOS Provider Code 00586B</a> | <a href="http://www.utas.edu.au/copyright/copyright_disclaimers.html">Copyright & Disclaimers</a> | <a href="http://www.utas.edu.au/accessibility/index.html">Accessibility</a> | <a href="http://eprints.utas.edu.au/feedback/">Site Feedback</a> </td>
<td width="32%"><div align="right">
<p align="right" class="NoPrint"><a href="http://www.utas.edu.au/"><img src="http://www.utas.edu.au/shared/logos/unioftasstrip.gif" alt="University of Tasmania Home Page" width="260" height="16" border="0" align="right" /></a></p>
<p align="right" class="NoPrint"><a href="http://www.utas.edu.au/"><br />
</a></p>
</div></td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top">
<td><p> </p></td>
<td><div align="right"><span class="NoPrint"><a href="http://www.eprints.org/software/"><img src="/images/eprintslogo.gif" alt="ePrints logo" width="77" height="29" border="0" align="bottom" /></a></span></div></td>
</tr>
</table>
<!-- #EndLibraryItem -->
<div align="center"></div></td>
</tr>
</table>
</body>
</html>
