Search

In this chapter, school climate variables are employed in order to explore school principals’ influence on student achievement through the Pashiardis-Brauckmann Holistic Leadership Framework. The aim is to identify the mechanisms through which leadership influences student learning. For the purposes of the LISA project, a number of school climate variables were used as mediating variables between the principal’s leadership styles and student achievement. All analyses pointed towards a model comprising seven such mediating factors. The seven school climate factors were labeled as follows: Professional Development Opportunities, Evaluation and Feedback, Teacher Commitment, Parental Involvement, Teaching and Learning Practices, Student-Teacher Interactions, and Student Expectations. Then, an analysis was performed that examined the degree to which school leadership styles reliably predicted school climate variables. The findings suggest that the Instructional, the Structuring, and the Entrepreneurial leadership styles are utilized by school principals in order to enhance student achievement.

In this chapter, an examination of the various theories developed on leadership, such as situational theories and transactional and transformational theories, is initially presented. Following, there is an examination of the main empirical findings about the effects of school leadership on student achievement. Finally, an in-depth presentation of the five leadership styles that school principals are likely to employ in their work is provided, as follows: (1) instructional style, (2) structuring style, (3) participative style, (4) entrepreneurial, and (5) personnel development style. Additionally, a more in-depth analysis of the most prominent school climate variables is presented, which includes a learning and orderly climate, personal achievement orientation, evaluation and feedback practices, teachers’ job satisfaction and commitment to the school, teacher-student interactions, students’ opportunity to learn, explicit teaching strategies, and parental involvement. In the end, a description is offered about how all these components are placed together in order to create the Pashiardis-Brauckmann Holistic Leadership Framework in its initial conceptualization.

In this chapter, a thorough description of the methodological approach for both the LISA and Pro-LEAD projects is offered. First, the rationale as to why a mixed-methods approach was utilized is presented for both projects. Then, a step-by-step description of how the projects were implemented is given, providing some insights from the cooperation between researchers and practitioners. Next, for the LISA project, a detailed description of the use of advanced data analysis techniques is presented, which enabled us in the testing and the subsequent validation of the Pashiardis-Brauckmann Holistic Leadership Framework. Then, for the Pro-LEAD project, a presentation of the combination of questionnaire and think-aloud data, which provided converging evidence for the different beliefs individuals possess, is given in detail. The use of think-aloud protocols is stressed as a new way of investigating leadership issues in order to produce a richer set of data.

In this chapter, a series of statistical analyses were carried out in order to examine the extent to which the data from the LISA project supported the Pashiardis-Brauckmann Holistic Leadership Framework. First, descriptive statistics are presented in order to acquaint the reader with the kind of data we used from the school teachers who participated in this piece of research. Then, a description of the main findings is offered through the analyses which were conducted in order to predict school performance level from the relevant leadership style. The theoretical framework was supported and validated in all the European Union participating countries with all five first-order factors contributing to the leadership radius. These included the (1) Instructional Style, (2) Participative Style, (3) Personnel Development Style, (4) Entrepreneurial Style, and (5) Structuring Style. From the analyses, it seems that the Entrepreneurial and Structuring Leadership Styles are perceived as the predominant leadership styles that school principals use in the participating countries.

In this chapter, an examination of the main results of the LISA and the Pro-LEAD projects together is presented. The argument made is that school leaders have a measurable, mostly indirect influence on learning outcomes. After the validation process of the Pashiardis-Brauckmann Holistic Leadership Framework was finished, it became evident from the analyses that the Instructional, the Structuring, and the Entrepreneurial Leadership Styles are necessary ingredients when school principals decide what leadership mix to use in their effort to influence students’ achievement. It seems that school principals’ perception is that an Entrepreneurial Leadership Style, that is, an outward-looking style, entails more involvement of external forces and agents who will monitor and support the work of the school. It seems that this style is also connected with relativist epistemological beliefs. In any case, the argument is presented that the “generic ingredients” which make up school leadership seem to be known and global; however, the specific mix seems to be increasingly local and situational.

In this chapter, an exploration of a new cocktail leadership mix among school principals’ epistemological beliefs and leadership practices in Cyprus is undertaken. The main objective of this chapter is to explore the relationship between the leadership styles school principals adopt and their epistemological worldviews within the contextual and governance structures in which they operate. To achieve this goal, a presentation and discussion of the results of the Pro-LEAD main study (methodology was described in Chap. 3) is offered. Again, as with the LISA study, the Pashiardis-Brauckmann Holistic Leadership Framework was utilized as the guiding model through which the relationship between school leaders’ epistemological beliefs and their leadership styles were explored. In summary, the findings showed that there was a relationship between the Entrepreneurial and Participative Leadership Styles and the Relativism Epistemological Worldviews. The practical applications of these results are discussed specifically with regard to their implications for the design of evidence-based school leadership training programs.

This chapter surveys the professional development of principals in Cyprus , Norway , and the United States with a particular focus on how cultural diversity issues are addressed in leadership preparation programs. Our analysis indicates that principal preparation (particularly preparation for diverse schools) varies in scope, organization, and approach across these three countries, ranging from a highly centralized system where a handful of in-service courses are offered by the Ministry of Education after appointment as a school leader (Cyprus ); to a proposed national system of university-based courses (Norway ); and finally wide-ranging university-based programs with increasing theoretical work on equity and social justice issues but a paucity of well-researched models (USA). We recommend the development of contextually specific leadership preparation programs to help aspiring school leaders learn to be culturally responsive and demonstrate strong advocacy for students, parents, and communities who have been marginalized.

This chapter aims to explore how successful leadership for diversity is defined, negotiated, and addressed in selected policy documents and culturally diverse schools in Norway , the USA, and Cyprus . The reanalysis of leadership practice is based on data from the International Successful School Principalship Project (ISSPP) case studies. We will discuss how leadership for diversity is enacted in the ISSPP schools and explore how principals negotiate the balance between honouring student cultures and emphasizing student learning and achievement. These practices are analysed through the theoretical frameworks of culturally responsive leadership (Ladson-Billings 1995a, b; Johnson 2006, 2007) and leadership for democratic education (Moller 2006; Vedoy and Moller 2007). We argue that establishing a dichotomy between an emphasis on social justice and academics is inappropriate, but a narrow conception of student achievement may privilege certain social and cultural groups and marginalize others. Therefore, self-reflexivity is demanded, and in particular in terms of foregrounding notions of power. Finding a balance between honouring student home cultures and emphasizing student learning outcomes does not easily lend itself to quick fixes.