A Model of Successful School Leadership from the International Successful School Principalship Project

Abstract

The International Successful School Principalship Project (ISSPP) has been actively conducting research about the work of successful principals since 2001. Findings from four project books and eight models derived from this project are synthesised into a model of successful school leadership. Building on Gurr, Drysdale and Mulford’s earlier model, the work of school leaders is described as engaging within the school context to influence student and school outcomes through interventions in teaching and learning, school capacity building, and the wider context. The qualities a leader brings to their role, a portfolio approach to using leadership ideas, constructing networks, collaborations and partnerships, and utilising accountability and evaluation for evidence-informed improvement, are important additional elements. The model is applicable to all in leadership roles in schools.

1. Introduction

The International Successful School Principalship Project (ISSPP) has been actively conducting research about the work of successful principals since its initiation in 2001. Stimulated by the results of an earlier study [1], Day wanted to explore on a large scale the characteristics and practices of principals leading successful schools, and so assembled a group comprising of researchers from seven countries: Australia, Canada, China, Denmark, England, Norway, and Sweden. This group agreed to conduct multiple-perspective case studies focused on the leadership of principals in successful schools.

The rationale for the project was relatively simple. Up to that time what was known about principal leadership relied too much on studies that only used principals as the data source, and too much of the literature was derived from studies in North America and the United Kingdom. Gathering the opinions of others in the schools (school board members, teachers, parents, and students), and doing this across several countries, was a way to extend and enhance knowledge of the contribution of principals to school success.

The project continues today with active research groups in more than 20 countries, producing more than 100 case studies, and nearly as many papers, book chapters and books published, with four project books [2,3,4,5] and seven special journal issues. The project website is www.uv.uio.no/ils/english/research/projects/isspp, and concise published overviews of the project are contained in Leithwood and Day [6], Jacobson and Ylimaki [7], Moos, Day and Johansson [8], and Gurr and Day [9].

Most principals and schools included in this research have been selected using one or more of the following criteria:

-

Evidence of student achievement beyond expectations on state or national tests, where this evidence exists.

-

Principals’ exemplary reputations in the community and/or school system. This could be gained through consultation with system personnel or other principals, school inspection reports, and so forth.

-

Other indicators of success that are more context-specific, such as the overall reputation of the school, awards for exemplary programs, etc.

Data collection methods for the cases have included individual interviews with principals, senior staffs and school board members, group interviews with teachers, parents and students, and analysis of appropriate documents. Observation of the work of principals and the functioning of their schools was part of those case studies in which principals were revisited to explore the sustainability of success after five years. Further description of methodology can be found in many of the ISSPP research papers cited in this paper.

The intent of this paper is to synthesize what has been learned through the project about how school leadership, primarily principal leadership, influences student learning. The paper summarizes the findings of the project and offers a conception of the links between leadership and student learning partially built on built earlier conceptualizations of project members. The paper is an unapologetically ISSPP self-referential paper which aims to help readers unfamiliar with this project to navigate their way through what has been described by Brian Caldwell [10], in the forward to the fourth book, as “the most comprehensive and coherent international comparative study of the principalship ever undertaken” (p. xxi).

2. ISSPP Findings about the Nature of Successful Principal Leadership

The size of the ISSPP makes it a difficult project to understand. The fourth project book [5] contains 15 stories of principal leadership success from 13 countries, with the final chapter [11] providing a synthesis of these stories. The eleven themes from this chapter provide a convenient way to synthesize the results of the whole the project about the nature of successful principal leadership. The following section is adapted from [12].

2.1. High Expectations

ISSPP results consistently highlight the high expectations of successful principals. Indeed this is a consistent outcome of more than 50 years of evidence from effective schools research. These high expectations are manifest at both personal and collective levels; they are high yet reasonable, and constantly demonstrated and reinforced in the practice of the principals. The expectations are also individualised and very much about helping individuals to achieve their best, rather than focussed on meeting external accountability demands.

2.2. Pragmatic Approaches

ISSPP results indicate that no single model of leadership satisfactorily captures what successful principals do. To take what possibly remain the two dominant views of educational leadership, for example, these principals are neither transformational nor instructional leaders, but show elements of both, with the use of both styles especially important for schools in challenging contexts [13]. In essence, these principals develop approaches to leadership which enable them to lead a school community successfully; they are less concerned with the academic debates that rage about the impact of various leadership styles. They are concerned to motivate and to support and develop staff, and they are also concerned to ensure improvement in teaching and learning. Whilst they typically aren’t the hands-on instructional leader wished for in the eighties, and perhaps evident again see the work of John Fleming described in [14,15,16,17], they are very successful, ensuring improvement in curriculum, pedagogy and assessment, most often by working with other school leaders to influence teacher practice.

2.3. Leadership Distribution

For these successful school leaders, distributed leadership is almost assumed as they will openly say that the success of their school is due to the leadership of many, and they genuinely value the contribution of teachers, parent and students. The distribution of leadership was an important finding from the sustainability phase of the project described in the third project book see [13]. Indeed, developing leadership in others is a focus of their work. Successful leadership, then, is best thought of as layered and multidimensional, with, for example, instructional leadership influence distributed within a school, and having multiple foci such as academic improvement, satisfying accountability policies, and promoting democratic education [18,19].

2.4. Core Leadership Practices

Whilst the principals are not easily labelled as adopting a particular leadership style, it is clear that across countries and contexts there is support for the four core practices of setting direction, developing people, leading change and improving teaching and learning, articulated in other research, e.g., [16] and confirmed throughout the ISSPP see [8,20]; even in a remote village context in Kenya, these dimensions can be seen clearly in how a principal transformed a school [21]. There are also additional practices to these, such as use of strategic problem solving, articulating a set of core ethical values, building trust and being visible in the school, building a safe and secure environment, introducing productive forms of instruction to staff, coalition building, and the promotion of equity, care and achievement [20].

2.5. Heroic Leadership

In many cases there is evidence of heroic leadership, in, for example, the way principals challenge the status quo, fight for the best opportunities for their students, and have a positive and empowering view of what is possible for a school community, whatever the circumstances. But it is heroic leadership that is inclusive see [22] for the initial highlighting of this], and which has been described as post-heroic [23,24]. Whilst there is an obligation on principals and others in leadership roles to exercise leadership, leading a school requires collaborative and aligned effort by all. These leaders are often heroic, but they do not lead alone, and they are concerned to foster collaboration. For example, whilst they typically have important symbolic roles, and are generally the key story-tellers and sense-makers in their communities, they are careful to involve the school community in establishing a compelling shared vision. Ensuring the vision is lived is important, and typically the leaders act as both guardians of the vision and champions of change.

2.6. Capacity Development

Successful school leaders are people centred. They obviously get enormous satisfaction from seeing students develop, but they are also concerned to develop the adults in a school community, and core to this is their interest and ability in building the capacity of teaching and non-teaching staff to be better at what they do. This has been explained in a capacity building model of successful school leadership based on Australian cases [25] and which emphases personal, professional, organisational and community capacity building, and which is clearly illustrated in the description of the leadership of the leadership of Rick Tudor [26].

2.7. Trust and Respect

A standout characteristic of the principals is the degree to which they are respected and trusted by their school communities see, in particular, [27,28,29,30]. Acting with integrity and being transparent about their values, beliefs and actions, modelling good practice, being careful to ensure fairness in how they deal with people, involving many in decision making, are qualities and practices that engender respect and trust. Because of this, the school communities rarely challenge the principals if sometimes they have to make important decisions with little consultation; the foundation of respect and trust meant that top-down decisions could be accepted.

2.8. Continuous Learning

Their leadership characteristics, dispositions and qualities are developed over time, and, as Ylimaki and Jacobson [18] observed, are socially constructed from the interaction of the life experiences and knowledge of principals with their work. Some had early leadership opportunities, but their success as a principal is generally crafted through a blend of on-the-job learning, formal and informal professional learning, mentoring or sponsorship by significant others, and some serendipity in the pathways to leadership. All the principals were restless folk, seeking new ideas, new ways to do things, new opportunities for their schools, and so they are always developing as professionals. The development of the successful principals was a focus of both books two and three which included several dedicated chapters, e.g., [31,32,33,34].

2.9. Personal Resources

There are many personal qualities, beliefs and values that help principals be successful leaders. Acumen, optimism, persistence, trust (behaving in a way that promotes the attribution of trust in the leader by others, and also displaying trust in others), tolerance, empathy, alertness (shown through high levels of physical and mental energy), curiosity, resilience, benevolence, honesty, openness, respectful, and humbleness were some of the traits on display. They have a strong ethic of care, empathy for others, value individuality and display the transformational leadership quality of individual consideration, believe in freedom and democracy, are good at balancing individual versus collective care, and so forth. Above all they are driven by the desire to provide the best educational environment they can for all students. Even in the most challenging contexts, they view challenges as obstacles to overcome rather than problems that are insurmountable, and so they are always looking to improve the learning environment. Perhaps using a spiritual, moral or social justice base, or more simply from an understanding of what is possible in education, they have the courage to what is right to help their students be the best they can. Chapters from the fourth book illustrate this courage well [21,35,36,37,38,39].

2.10. Context Sensitivity

Apart from these themes there are several other observations that can be made. Successful school leadership is context sensitive [3], but it is not context driven. Using a range of common leadership practices that seem to promote success in most contexts, successful school leaders fine tune their responses to the context and culture in which they lead to optimise school success [40]. As Day [41] (p. 68) noted early in the story of the ISSPP, successful principals demonstrate the ability to:

not [be] confined by the contexts in which they work. They do not comply, subvert, or overtly oppose. Rather they actively mediate and moderate within a set of core values and practices which transcend narrowly conceived improvement agendas.

2.11. Sustaining Success

Moos, Johansson and Day [13] found several factors which seemed to be important for principals to sustain their success. These factors included actively engaging with others to arrive at a consensus about what a school should do (what they termed as building the “better argument”); personal qualities and beliefs such as resilience, commitment to making a difference, and engaging the school and wider community; balancing discourses (e.g., social justice and high achievement); utilising both transformational and instructional leadership practices, such practices being especially important for schools in challenging contexts; continuing their own professional learning (whether it be through compulsory or voluntary programs); and, managing accountability expectations. In some of this sustainability research, principals’ attitudes to change had an impact on the level and type of school success. For example, Drysdale, Goode and Gurr [42] described contrasting attitudes toward change on the part of two principals. Both were successful principals, leading successful schools, but one principal had developed her school to a point where she became resistant to further change, and she sought to protect what had been achieved. The other principal, driven by a vision of creating a world-class special school, continued to seek new opportunities and new ways to further improve her school.

Having summarised findings from this large project, a helpful way to conceptualise how school leadership influences student learning is to consider the development of models or schematic representations of the findings. The next section develops a model that is based on several models produced by research groups in the ISSPP and taking into account the summary of findings just reported.

3. A Model of How Successful School Leadership Influences Student Learning

Over the life of the project there have been both individual and team attempts to model the influence of successful principal leadership on student learning. These models have been developed by two Australian groups, from doctoral research supervised by the Australian researchers in Singapore and Indonesia, and from the Cyprus research group full accounts of these models can be found in [11,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58]. Across most of these models from the four countries, establishing collective direction, developing people and improving teaching and learning are common and explicit, and implicitly there is a sense of being able to lead change. All of these attributes are common to mainstream views of school leadership such as that developed by Leithwood and colleagues (e.g., [19]), and confirmed in the early phases of the ISSPP (e.g., [20]). Nuanced differences in leadership are found in the emphasis on developing teacher capacity in the Australian models, on the development of self, acknowledgement of leadership legacy and engaging with the context in the Singapore model, the broad school outcomes and cultural values in the Indonesian model, and creative leadership needed to balance competing values within constrained contexts in Cyprus. Engaging with and influencing context seems important to most models.

Figure 1 synthesizes and extends these ISSPP model-building efforts using, as its main point of departure, a model first described in Gurr, Drysdale and Mulford [48]. This model has two overarching organisers. One of these organizers is the distinction between the why, how and what of successful school leadership articulated by Mulford and Johns [50]. The second organizer is the three impact “levels” from Gurr et al. [46]; these levels moving from the least direct impact on learning outcomes (level 3, impact of the wider school context), to level 2 (impact of leadership in the school), and level 1 (impact of teaching and learning).

Figure 1. An International Successful School Principalship Project (ISSPP) model of successful school leadership.

Figure 1. An International Successful School Principalship Project (ISSPP) model of successful school leadership.

3.1. “What” Leadership Success Means for Students

Both organisers assume broad definitions of student learning, something that has been a consistent feature of the ISSPP research. Although the definition of success used to select schools was relatively narrow, those in selected schools were keen to emphasise the broad range of outcomes that successful schools have, outcomes for both student and others. For example, Mulford and Silins’ [51] analysis of teacher and principal survey data used three measures of student outcomes: student academic achievement, student social and development skills, and student empowerment. Drysdale and Gurr [25] included traditional (e.g., results on standardised tests and other contrived measures of attainment) and authentic, e.g., outcomes of learning that involve knowledge construction and disciplined inquiry; see [59] student learning outcomes. Wang’s [30] Singapore cases included student and school outcomes, with the history and reputation of the school an important element of success. School reputation also featured as an outcome in Mulford and Silins’ [51] model, as this was shown to be a predictor of academic achievement. Raihani’s [55] Indonesian cases emphasised the academic achievement of students on national tests, the spiritual development of students, and the quality of the school and staff.

As these examples illustrate, in terms of the first organiser for the Figure 1 model, the “what” element of the Figure 1 model includes a broad range of student outcomes including academic attainment and progress, participation and achievement in extra and co-curricular programs, and personal aspects such as social development. Importantly, it also includes school outcomes such as the success and reputation of the school, the quality of the teachers, and the quality of the learning environment.

3.2. How and Why Leadership Success is Enacted

The “how” element in Figure 1 includes areas of action associated with leadership and teaching and learning, and the “why” element is associated with the context in which schools operate, both of which are discussed in detail below.

The other organiser in the model is the level of impact on student outcomes, with three levels noted: impact from teaching and learning, from leadership, and from context. Note that this is not an organiser in terms of school outcomes as the impact on these comes mostly from the leadership and the teaching and learning levels, with relatively less influence from context and with this less controlled over this influence (for example, in community judgement on school reputation, or level of government funding assistance). It is also true that the school and student outcomes have a reciprocal effect (e.g., teacher quality influence student outcomes, and student outcomes influence reputation/success), and so school outcomes is placed between level 1/how and outcomes/what, with a dotted border used to indicate the specialness of this group.

Level 1 impact is focused on the work of teachers with students, and includes the usual areas of curriculum, pedagogy, assessment and reporting, plus student involvement in their learning, the use of learning technologies, and the provision of appropriate learning spaces. Leadership intervention in this area directly impacts on the work of teachers and so has the most direct leadership effect on student outcomes. Interventions could include: ensuring there is a guaranteed and viable curriculum, developing teaching expertise, developing assessment of student learning that informs the teaching program, developing greater student ownership of their learning, utilising current learning technologies, and ensuring learning spaces are inviting and conducive to good learning.

Level 2 emphases the role of school leaders in the capacity building of teachers and others adults in the school, what someone brings to the role of school leader, and utilisation by school leaders of various views of leadership. The capacity building emphasis comes primarily from the Victorian cases from Gurr and Drysdale see [25,44,45,46], and draws on the research of King and Newmann [60] and Mitchell and Sackney [61] to make sense of how successful school leaders focus much of their energy on developing people. School capacity is viewed as comprising four areas of personal, professional, organisational and community capacity, with each element having at least four areas. Whilst focussed on developing teachers, it includes development of other staff, parents, and community members. Capacity building is one of three teacher-level predictor variables in Mulford and Silins’ [51] model, and the only one that impacts on all three of the student outcomes (academic achievement, social development and empowerment).

The capacities and dispositions of schools leaders (as summarized in the previous section of this paper) that promote school success are part of all earlier models. For Mulford these are part of the “why” element. Mulford and Johns [50] included principal values (good, passionate, equity and social justice focus, other-centered, hard-working and sense of humour), Drysdale and Gurr [25] included the personal aspects of schools leaders as part of the leadership impact level and so they shifted from Mulford’s emphasis on “why” to “how”. In Figure 1, the school leader box is drawn across the “why” and “how” boundary to indicate that these features might be drivers for what leaders do (the “why” element) as well as features that allow or enable them to be successful leaders (the “what” element).

The term school leader rather than principals is used in Figure 1 deliberately. Although the ISSPP is focused on principal leadership, there is sufficient evidence from the project to broaden the model to apply to all school leaders (senior leaders, middle-level leaders, and perhaps teacher leaders). For principals, the model locates much of their work at level 2, helping to develop the adults in a school. They also often work at level 3 actively responding to and influencing the wider context, and sometimes at level 1, depending to a large extent on the school context, with school size a key determiner of the extent to which they work directly with teachers in classrooms (principals of smaller schools tend to work more closely with teachers directly).

The Figure 1 model also applies to middle level leaders, and others with a leadership role. Depending on their role in terms of influencing teaching and learning, middle level leaders, in particular, are more likely to focus their work across levels 1 and 2 [45]. An example would be a head of a curriculum area working in a coaching role with teachers to improve pedagogy. To date, however, the ISSPP has not done much to unpack the nature of successful middle level leadership although the research has consistently indicated that principals need to draw on a repertoire of leadership ideas, and, in particular, utilise the both instructional and transformational leadership styles. In Figure 1 this has been termed a portfolio approach to leadership see [62] in which wide knowledge about leadership helps develop characteristics and practices that can be drawn upon depending on need and circumstances.

The context identified in level 3 of the model includes the school organization, family and external contexts that leaders need to respond to and influence. Many of these aspects will moderate the impact of leadership behaviour if they are ignored, and so the title is “engaging with and influencing contextual factors”. For example, the survey-based model from Tasmania illustrates the importance of being able to influence the home context (enhancing family educational culture and social capital as noted more than a decade ago by Leithwood and Steinbach, [63]) with a supportive home educational environment showing positive impact on student empowerment and social skills. Bella Irlicht, a case principal from Australia, was renowned for the way she could influence the political and system context to benefit her school, and enable her to build a world-class specialist school see [42,46]. Gurr [40] provides several examples from the ISSPP that show how successful principals are able to not only respond to internal and external contextual factors, but also to influence these so that they become part of the reason for school success.

Developing networks, collaborations and partnerships extends across levels 3 and 2. Often the availability of these is part of the context (for example, a system may construct school networks/partnerships) yet successful principals seem to be good at developing these associations to enhance their schools, and indeed seeking out new associations. Developing networks, collaborations and partnerships was a key feature of the success of many of the ISSPP principals. Examples include Bella Irlicht’s work mentioned previously, and the leadership of another case principal, Elizabeth Minor-Ragan, in transforming a failing school [36].

There are two elements that extend across the model. At the bottom of Figure 1, the use of evidence-based monitoring and critical reflection to promote change reflects earlier modelling efforts by Mulford and John [50], although the language has been adapted to accountability, evaluation and change to better address the need for performance review at individual and organisational levels that leads to positive change and improvement. Throughout the ISSPP cases successful principals have demonstrated considerable skill in collecting evidence to help inform the progress of their schools, and to help teachers and, in some cases, students to collect evidence to improve their individual practices (e.g., the instructional leadership of John Fleming [14,46]).

An addition to earlier ISSPP models across levels is described in the box at the top of Figure 1. This addition reinforces the importance of the school context and how school leaders actively influence this through developing a shared vision and mission and a positive culture, having appropriate structures, people and processes in the school, the active engagement of stakeholders within and outside the school, and the promotion of high expectations for all. This feature of the model builds on Drysdale and Gurr [25], and reflects much of what is known about effective schools [64] and has sometimes been labeled as pre-conditions for school improvement [65].

4. Conclusions

The model in Figure 1, while largely encompassing as well as extending earlier ISSPP conceptual efforts, still needs more refinement, and ultimately verification through further research. In the next phase of the ISSPP, case studies are being collected of schools that are underperforming, as well as further collection of cases of successful schools. A new survey has been developed for principals, teachers, and students, with these surveys meant to be used within the cases rather than more widely within a system as in the Tasmanian survey Analyses of the cases through the conceptual lenses of the model in Figure 1 will help test the power of the Figure 1 model.

It is also possible to test the model using quantitative survey methods. This would allow the ISSPP to say more about variables that may moderate leader practices such as school size, type and location. The caution is that the survey would most likely be large and require the smaller scale of distribution and intense effort to collect responses demonstrated by the Tasmanian research group to achieve a worthwhile sample. The immediate task, though, is to consider this model in relation to other contemporary ideas about how leadership influences student learning; but this is a task for another paper.