Showing papers by "Kenneth Leithwood published in 2016"
TL;DR: In this article, a review of research was prompted by the widespread belief that department heads are an underutilized, if not untapped, source of instructional leadership, the type of leadership critical to secondary-school improvement initiatives.
Abstract: This review of research was prompted by the widespread belief that at least in a significant number of secondary schools, department heads are an underutilized, if not untapped, source of instructional leadership, the type of leadership critical to secondary-school improvement initiatives. Forty-two methodologically diverse empirical studies were used to inquire about department and department-head contributions to secondary-school improvement. Results indicate that department and department-head effects on students are consistently positive, practically meaningful and larger than school effects. Well-functioning departments are powerful centers for improvement. But significant hurdles to effective department-head leadership often minimize its effect, for example, some secondary teacher cultures, some teacher union policies, and some heads’ own conceptions of their roles and responsibilities. Conditions enabling successful department-head leadership are identified.
81 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors used path-analytic techniques with survey data provided by 450 school and district leaders in Ontario to test a path model of effective network characteristics including network leadership, structure, health, connectivity, outcomes and unintended challenges.
Abstract: Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to inquire about the characteristics of effective school leadership networks and the contribution of such networks to the development of individual leaders’ professional capacities Design/methodology/approach – The study used path-analytic techniques with survey data provided by 450 school and district leaders in Ontario to test a path model of effective network characteristics Variables in the model included network leadership, structure, health, connectivity, outcomes and unintended challenges Findings – Results confirmed that the model was a very good fit with the data, and as a whole, explained 51 percent of the variation in network outcomes Network leadership had the largest total effect on network outcomes (R2=056), followed closely by the effects of network health (R2=049) and network connectivity (R2=046) Research limitations/implications – The study was limited to leadership networks intentionally organized within districts, not networks organized by
57 citations