Question One

1
Question One

• Leadership Practices That Make A Difference For
  Students

2
Past Decade Context-independent Leadership
Practices

• Hallinger Heck (1996)
• Leithwood Riehl (2005)
• Waters, Marzano McNulty (2005)
• Robinson et al (2007)

3
One example

• Setting Directions
• Developing People
• Redesigning the Organization
• Managing the Instructional Program

4
GroupGoals
Vision
SettingDirections
Communication
Expectations
5
Next Steps Levels Of LeadershipEnactment

• Level 2 Broad contextual differences
• Level 3 Mid-range contextual
  differences
• Level 4 Dyadic differences

6
Level 2 Broad Contextual Differences

• e.g.
• School size and school level
• Student population characteristics
• Unique policy demands
• Level of school performance

7
Level 3 Mid-range Contextual Differences

• Middletown elementary school
• vs.
• Pearson Elementary school
• Unique values of all broad contextual differences
  interacting together

8
Level 4 Dyadic Contextual Differences

• Moiras parents vs. Sheldons parents
• The experienced, highly committeed grade 7
  science teacher vs. the new, undecided grade 4
  teacher.
• LMX Theory

9
Sohow relevant is current research?

• Tells us what all successful leaders do
• But limited by the very large grain size of the
  knowledge
• Not yet able to discriminate, for example
• large vs. small school
• high performing vs. turnaround schools

10
Question Two

• Guidance About How To Prepare Leaders To Be More
  Effective

11
Three Sets Of Challenges

• Content ..of leadership preparation experiences
• Nature ..of the preparation experiences
• Evaluation ..of effects

12
CONTENT

• Leadership standards should reflect context-free
  successful practices and when possible, their
  enactments at level 2
• Preparation of leaders for successful practice
  at levels 3 and 4 should focus on the development
  of their problem solving expertise

13
PROCESS constructed, social,
situated aggressive recruitmentcohort
groupsproblem-based instructionsignificant
internshipsalternative dissertation
designscollaboration with schools districts
14
Still need more clarity about purposes for
alternative processes

• Didactic methods help develop declarative
  knowledge
• Case study methods good for transforming
  declarative into procedural knowledge
• internships and district collaboration-
  opportunities for level 3 and 4 enactments

15
Evaluating Program Effects

• Moderating
• Family background
• Family ed. culture
• Gender

• Independent
• Leader practices

Dependent (student outcomes)

• Mediating
• School conditions
• Class conditions
• Individual teachers
• Professional community

16
Leadership Program Effects

• Antecedents
• Programs
• (but also)
• Socialization
• Traits, values
• Early childhood experiences

Leadership Practices
17
Bringing the ideal and the doable closer together

• Very few program assessments get to student
  outcomes
• Student outcomes may be too ambitious a reach
  (technically and fiscally)
• More attention in programs to variables with
  demonstrable effects on students
• More attention in program evaluations to impact
  on those variables