Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Educational Management
Administration & Leadership
2014, Vol. 42(5) 680700
The Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1741143213502187
emal.sagepub.com
Abstract
School leadership has been shown to exert a positive but mostly indirect influence on school and
student outcomes. Currently, there is great interest in how quality leadership preparation is
related to leadership practice and improved teacher outcomes. The purpose of the study was to
understand the moderating influence of leadership preparation on leadership practices and
teachers job collaboration, leadership and satisfaction. The study features a non-experimental
design that combined data from a US study of exemplary leadership preparation and a nationally
representative sample of elementary school principals. The sample consists of 175 teachers whose
principals were prepared in an exemplary leadership program and 589 teachers whose principals
were traditionally prepared. Data were analyzed with structural equation techniques and results
have shown that innovative leadership preparation exerts a statistically significant direct effect
on principalship leadership practices and a significant indirect effect on teacher collaboration and
satisfaction. The results provide important policy implications. Investments in leadership preparation influences leadership practices that yield more positive teacher work conditions, which are
essential for improve student learning and as a result leadership preparation program design and
improvement can play an important role in district reform and school improvement.
Keywords
leadership effects, leadership preparation, program evaluation teacher outcomes
Introduction
In the USA and elsewhere, educators and policymakers strive to make a connection between leadership preparation and school outcomes (Shelton, 2009; Wallace Foundation, 2006). The reason is
to consider whether investments in preparation through policy requirements, guidelines and
Corresponding author:
Stelios Oprhanos, Department of Primary Education, Frederick University, Cyprus.
Email: stelios.orphanos@gmail.com
680
681
funding can be instrumental, along with other related policies, in improving schools and student
learning. In recent years, many new US federal policies, often aimed at improving low-performing
schools, focus attention on the quality and effectiveness of leadership preparation (US Department
of Education, 2009, 2010).
As discussed below, a large and growing body of research demonstrates how effective leadership practices influence teacher effectiveness and, together, how these influence school outcomes. To unpack the influence of leadership preparation on improved school outcomes, the
ways in which leadership preparation influence the principalteacher relationship must be investigated first.
682
practices. Their results were positive, demonstrating that transformational leadership practices
directly affect teachers professional learning, teacher collaboration and teacher participation in decision making, and through these, teachers sense of well-being and quality instructional practices.
683
A recent promising body of work has begun to examine the relationship between principals
graduate preparation and teachers perceptions of their leadership practices (Korach et al., 2011;
Leithwood et al., 1996; Newman and Osterman, 2011). Leithwood et al. (1996) were able to
positively associate teacher feedback with selected preparation program features, where their principals had been prepared. Specifically, they found that some innovative program features instructional strategies, cohort membership and program content were most predictive of teacher
perceptions of principals leadership effectiveness. The other studies used teacher ratings of principals as feedback on leadership preparation program features and design, and found similar positive results. Korach et al. (2011) and Newman and Osterman (2011) similarly found that teachers
perceptions of areas of effective principal practices were positively associated with the principals
perceptions of the strengths of their preparation content and experiences. Thus, from the perceptions of both principals and teachers, preparation appears to positively influence the nature of leadership practices.
Parental Support
The role of parents in the principalteacherstudent relationship is less well understood in research
on school improvement and in-school factors that influence student learning. In his review of
683
684
research on effective school correlates, Edmonds (1979) drew attention to the quality of parental
involvement (among other factors) for improving schools, as confirmed in other correlational studies (Lezotte, 1991). Recent large-scale Chicago school research found that the quality of parent and
community relationships positively complements other school-related supports in improving student achievement (Bryk et al., 2010; Sebring et al., 2006). Specifically, Sebring et al. (2006) found
that schools with strong parent involvement were much more likely to improve in students math
and reading performance than were schools weak on this measure.
Other researchers have begun to explore how the quality of parental involvement contributes to
teacher and leader effectiveness. For example, in surveying teachers from 80 mid-Atlantic schools,
Tschannen-Moran (2009) found that their perceptions of colleagues professionalism were influenced by perceptions of principal trust and professionalism moderated in part by their trust in parents.
Implications
Given the importance of school leadership to improving teacher quality and effectiveness for
improved student learning, closer study is needed of the relationship between quality leadership
preparation, leadership practices and improved teacher outcomes. Prior research points to the positive influence of the positive relationship among teacher engagement in professional development, teacher collaboration, teachers role in decision making and job satisfaction all of
which are likely to be influenced by quality leadership practices. Drawing on the above research,
it appears that quality leadership preparation programs would have a positive, but indirect influence on teacher participation in professional development, teacher collaboration, participation
in decision making and job satisfaction in schools led by program graduates, as mediated through
principals greater use of transformational leadership practices. It is also likely that the quality of
teacher-perceived parental involvement would have a separate, mediating influence on the principalteacher relationship.
PDEV
INNOV
685
DISLEAD
TSAT
PLEAD
PSUPP
TCOLL
Figure 1. Hypothesized model of the relationship between participation in an innovative leadership preparation program and teacher satisfaction.
Notes: INNOV participation in an innovative preparation program; PLEAD principals perceived leadership; PSUPP parental support to school; PDEV extent of teachers participation of teachers in professional development opportunities; DISLEAD teachers distributed leadership; TCOLL teacher
collaboration; TSAT teacher satisfaction.
Method
We used a nonexperimental research design, drawing on quantitative survey research methods and
structural equation modeling techniques. Data were collected as part of a national study of leadership preparation and its impact on leadership practices and school improvement (DarlingHammond et al., 2009). The study (referred to here as the Stanford Leadership Study) documented
six exemplary preparation and in-service programs and used national samples of principals and
national survey data of teachers as comparisons for programs graduates and their teachers.1 The
teacher survey data provided an opportunity to investigate and compare the experiences of the sample of the graduates teachers with other teachers nationally on how their principals preparation
and development impacted their work and professional experiences.
685
686
Sample
This study integrated three groups of teachers collected from two different studies to investigate
the leadershipteacher outcome relationship. The first two groups were drawn from all teachers
in 16 schools selected four cities and one rural (but population-dense) area as part of the Stanford
Leadership Study. These schools were selected based on their principals recent completion of one
of six innovative leadership preparation program or leadership development programs (or ones that
reflect a continuum of preparation and development). The leadership programs had been selected
based on their professional reputation for having the quality program features described above, the
existence of which were confirmed by the study (Darling-Hammond et al., 2010), and program
effectiveness information. Principals who completed these programs were more likely than a
national sample of principals to rate their preparation highly for having purposeful, targeted
recruitment; a coherent curriculum; active, problem-based learning; a cohort structure and mentoring and advising to support candidate learning; well-designed and supervised internships; and
strong relationships between local districts and universities.
The innovative in-service programs were selected through a similar process, with attention to
programs that were part of a district-supported continuum of leadership preparation and development and the availability of information on program effectiveness. Study results showed that new
and experienced principals who had participated in these programs were more likely than a
national sample of principals to report improved organizational outcomes and teacher effectiveness, and to have a stronger commitment to the principalship (Darling-Hammond et al., 2010).
The principals at the selected schools also had at least one years experience as principal; only
elementary schools were included. Some had participated in only the innovative preparation program and some only the innovative in-service leadership development program. The teachers at
their schools were surveyed in 2005 during faculty meetings or other means of distributing surveys
on site. Based on the schools estimates of the number of teachers in these schools and our response
rates, the majority of classroom teachers had responded. The first group of teachers in the Stanford
Leadership Study consisted of 165 teachers in schools led by graduates of an innovative preparation program, while the second group consisted of 75 teachers in schools led by graduates who only
had innovative in-service leadership development (see Table 1).
The third group of teachers was drawn from the 19992000 teacher survey of the federal School
and Staffing Survey (SASS) (NCES, 2006). SASS uses a stratified probability sample design based
on teachers race, teaching assignment, and professional experience. In all, there are 8432 schools
and approximately 42,000 teachers in the SASS sample, selected to represent all schools and teachers nationwide. To make this sample comparable to our study sample (based on school type, location and principal experience), we significantly restricted this sample further to teachers employed
in urban elementary schools (of the five states from which the Stanford sample was drawn), who
taught full-time and had at least a temporary teaching credential, and whose principals had no more
than five years principalship experience. This yielded an SASS sample of 524 teachers from 14
schools. The combined sample of this study was 764 teachers, which was appropriately weighted
during the analysis using the SASS weights provided by NCES.
Table 2 shows the demographic and educational characteristics of the three groups of teachers.
The Stanford sample teachers were primarily female (8588%), White (6567%), with a masters
degree or higher (6577%). They averaged 3842 years of age, with 1113 years teaching experience overall. The SASS sample teachers were primarily female (92%), White (93%), with a masters degree or higher (33%). They averaged 38 years of age, with 11 years teaching experience
686
687
524
240
774
51
23
22
73
47
24
14
14
28
2
3
2
3
4
Total
number of
teachers
3
1
1
2
3
0
10
n/a
Number of principals in
innovative pre-service
preparation
0
2
1
1
2
0
n/a
Number of principals
in innovative inservice only
51
0
8
46
47
13
165
n/a
0
23
14
27
0
11
75
n/a
Notes: M-DR Mississippi Delta Region; H-CT Hartford, Connecticut; JC-KY Jefferson County, Kentucky; NYC New York City; SD San Diego; UC University of
Connecticuts Administrator Preparation Program (UCAPP).
Source: The Stanford University School Leader Study teacher survey files, ND; School and Staffing Survey (NCES, 2006).
SASS
sample
SLS
sample
Total
Programs
in SLS
sample:
M-DR
H-CT
JC-KY
NYC
SD
UC
Number of
elementary
schools
Table 1. Number of schools and teachers by location, Stanford Study sample and SASS teacher sample.
688
Characteristic
Female
Percent White
Age
Total teaching experience
Percent of postgraduate degree holders
SLS: Innovative
Preparation
(n 165)
SLS: In-service
only innovative
preparation
(n 75)
Traditional
Preparation
(SASS)
(n 524)
0.88b
0.67b
42.8b
13.4b
0.65b
0.85a
0.65a
38.8
11.6
0.77a
0.92
0.93
38.4
10.7
0.33
Notes: aDifferences between traditional (SASS) and innovative preparation are significant at the 0.05 level of significance.
b
Differences between traditional (SASS) and innovative preparation are significant at the 0.05 level of significance. SLS:
Stanford Leadership Study.
overall. The comparison of the two samples via t-tests showed that the three teacher groups differed somewhat demographically. The two groups of Stanford teachers were statistically different
(0.05 level of significance) in terms of race and teacher credentials: teachers in the Stanford Leadership Study were more likely to be non-White and somewhat more likely to have a postgraduate
degree (possibly reflecting state certification requirement differences in the samples).
We combined all three groups of teachers in this analysis and only differentiated the teachers
principals based on whether or not they had been in an exemplary leadership preparation program.
Consequently, for teachers whose principals only had an innovative in-service preparation, we
decided to include the Stanford in-service only group of teachers with the SASS group of teachers;
the benefit of this was reducing some of the sample-related differences due to school district
affiliation, particularly with regard to teachers gender, race and credentials.
Instruments
The sample teachers were surveyed through two different but parallel survey instruments. The
study sample teachers were asked to complete the Stanford University School Leader Study survey. This survey has 115 items designed to assess teachers assessments of: (1) the principals leadership practices; (2) their school improvement practices and recent accomplishments; (3)
organizational contexts in the schools; and (4) their own demographic and educational experiences. Survey items were drawn heavily from the federal SASS (NCES, 2006) and Leithwood and
Jantzis (1999, 2000) studies of effective school leadership practices. The comparison sample
teachers completed the SASS survey conducted in 19992000. The School Teacher Questionnaire
contained information about general employment, certification and training, teachers classroom
organization, teachers resources and student assessment, working conditions, and decision making and the principals leadership practices.
This article drew only on those common survey items, restricting the extent to which leadership
practices and school outcomes can be investigated to only those measures included in the SASS
survey. These common items were about teachers demographic characteristics (gender, race/ethnicity, age, teaching experience, advanced preparation); their principals leadership practices; their
schools improvement climate (based on extent of teachers role in decision making, extent of professional development experiences in the last 12 months and parental support); and teacher
688
689
Skewness Kurtosis
0.12
0.01
2.11
2.15
1.09
0.85
3.28
2.58
On a scale from Not at all effectively (1) to Extremely effective (5), indicate how effectively the school
principal performs each of the following at your current school.
Items Description
q9a
q9b
q9c
q9d
q9e
q9f
q9g
q9h
Skewness Kurtosis
0.72
0.59
0.75
0.82
0.62
0.78
0.64
2.76
2.87
2.98
2.99
2.50
3.08
2.82
0.76
2.96
On a scale from Strongly disagree (1) to Strongly agree (5), to what extent do you agree or disagree with each
of the following statements?
Items Description
q8l
q8i
q8k
Skewness Kurtosis
In this school, staff members are recognized for a job well done
Most of my colleagues share my beliefs and values about school mission
Great deal of cooperative effort among staff
0.52
0.74
0.77
2.51
3.63
3.05
outcomes (teacher collaboration and job satisfaction). Table 3 presents the survey items used in
this study along with normality statistics for each item.
Both surveys were linked to their schools principal survey data (the Stanford Principal Survey
[Darling-Hammond et al., 2007] and the SASS Principal Survey [NCES, 2006], respectively) to
identify which teachers schools were associated with principals who had completed an innovative
preparation program, to eliminate the teachers from high schools in the samples, and in the SASS
sample to eliminate teachers from nonurban schools whose principals had more than five years
experience.
Dependent Measures
The study used two dependent measures: (1) teacher job satisfaction; and (2) teacher cooperation.
Using five-point Likert agreement rating scales, teachers rated the degree of cooperation at their
school, based on three items. The survey items asked teachers to indicate whether colleagues
689
690
shared beliefs and values about the schools central mission, the extent of collaborative effort
among staff members in this school and if staff members are recognized for a job well done. Teachers job satisfaction was based on a single item, which asked teachers about their level of satisfaction with being a teacher at their school.
691
effects (independent variables) on multiple outcome variables of interest. First, we assessed the
quality of the data set by evaluating the scale items for individual and joint normality because the
validity of the SEM approach rests on first meeting the assumption of multivariate normality of the
variables used. We found that the assumption of univariate normality was rejected for all variables,
and therefore the assumption of multivariate normality did not hold either. However, the data
exhibited moderate non-normality since skewness was less than 2.0 for all variables while kurtosis
was less than 4.0 for all but one variable (see Table 3). According to the literature, this normality
assessment showed moderate non-normality that was not very problematic. Therefore, we concluded that we should use an estimation method that would take the moderate non-normality of
the variables into consideration. We first estimated the model with the asymptotic distribution free
(ADF) method, which is a form of weighted least squares and makes no assumption of joint normality. However, since the data were moderately non-normal, we also estimated the SEM model
with the maximum likelihood (ML) method. The conclusions drawn from the estimates from the
two methods were very similar in the sense that all designated relationships were of the same sign
and, in some cases, magnitude (even though individual estimates for certain paths of the structural
model naturally differed). Therefore, given the familiarity of most readers with ML, we present
estimates from both methods, but make use of the estimates from the ML solution.
Specifying and Testing the Measurement Model: Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Before fitting and estimating the statistical model, we tested the hypothesized measurement (factorial) model using confirmatory factor analysis with STATA 12.0. Fifteen indicator variables were loaded on three
different latent variables that were left to be freely correlated (see Table 4). According to the confirmatory factor analysis results, the data fitted the model well.
Validity of latent variables was measured in two different ways: standardized loadings and average variance extracted per latent variable. According to Bollen (1989), the indicator loadings for
each latent variable can serve as a measure of validity. The standardized loadings in Table 3 represent the correlation between each observed variable and the corresponding latent variable. The
loadings for the latent variable principal leadership (PLEAD) ranged from 0.76 to 0.87. The loadings for the latent variable teachers distributed leadership (DISLEAD) ranged from 0.60 to 0.69
and the range of loadings for the latent variable teacher collaboration (TCOLL) were in the range
of 0.51 to 0.89. All loadings were statistically significant. The composite reliability value is an
overall measure of each latent variables reliability. According to Table 3, the reliability for the
three latent variables was satisfactory because all three latent variables had composite reliability
values well above 0.60, which is considered the lowest acceptable value (Bagozzi and Yi,
1988). The average variance extracted (AVE) value shows the amount of variance captured by the
latent variable in relation to the amount of variance due to measurement error (Fornell and Larcker,
1981). As such, it served as a second appropriate measure of construct validity. AVE values should
exceed 0.50, which means that the underlying latent variable accounts for a greater amount of variance in the indicators than does the measurement error (Diamantopoulos and Siguaw, 2000). The
AVE value for the PLEAD was 0.75, while the AVE for DISLEAD and TCOLL were very close to
the 0.50 threshold. The information garnered from the indicator loadings and the AVE values
showed an adequate, but not ideal, validity for the latent variables in the study.
To assess the fit of the measurement model as a whole, we used a number of fit indexes. The x2
statistic (87, n 764) as a measure of absolute fit was equal to 415.33 (p < 0.01) and significant
enough to reject the model. Using a cut-off rule of 0.90 for all indexes (Hu and Bentler, 1999), it
was found that adjunct fit indexes indicated a good fit to the data: the RMSEA was 0.072 with a
691
692
Items
q7b
q7c
q7d
q7e
q9a
q9b
q9c
q9d
q9e
q9f
q9g
q9h
q8l
q8i
q8k
Factor
loading
0.60
0.69
0.67
0.61
0.82
0.82
0.87
0.86
0.87
0.76
0.86
0.82
0.51
0.56
0.89
Latent variables
z-value
Std
error
Item
reliability
18.85
23.45
21.99
19.35
61.68
61.36
86.08
79.19
88.44
45.82
79.37
61.07
13.58
14.71
19.39
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.04
0.04
0.05
0.36
0.48
0.44
0.37
0.67
0.66
0.76
0.74
0.76
0.58
0.74
0.66
0.26
0.31
0.79
Composite
reliability
Average
Variance
extracted
Distributed leadership
0.75
0.43
Principalship leadership
0.95
0.75
Teachers collaboration
0.70
0.46
Name of variable
Notes: Q7b influence of teachers in establishing curriculum; q7c influence of teachers in determining the content of inservice professional development programs; q7d influence of teachers in evaluating teachers; q7e influence of teachers
in hiring new FT teachers; q9a principal communicates respect to teachers; q9b principal encourages teacher to change
teaching methods; q9c principal works with staff to develop and attain curriculum standards; q9d principal encourages
professional collaboration; q9e principal works with teaching staff to solve school or department problems; q9f principal
encourages staff to use student evaluation results in planning lessons; q9 h principal develops broad agreement among the
teaching staff about school goals; q8 l in this school, staff members are recognized for a job well done; q8i most of my
colleagues share my beliefs and values about school mission; q8 k great deal of cooperative effort among staff.
90% confidence interval of (0.065, 0.078), the comparative fit index 0.948, and the Tucker
Lewis index 0.938.
PDEV
.09
INNOV
.14
693
.14
DISLEAD
.26
.25
TSAT
.23
PLEAD
.28
.12
PSUPP
.52
.19
TCOLL
Figure 2. Completely standardized weighted least squares solution for the structural model. All estimates
shown are statistically significant at the 0.05 level of significance.
Note: see Figure 1.
Parameter Estimates
The completely standardized solution for the structural portion of the model is given in Figure 2.
The estimates measure the expected change in a dependent variable in standard deviation units that
accompanies a one standard deviation change in an explanatory variable while holding constant the
other explanatory variables. Direct, indirect and total effects are given in Table 5. All reported
effects were statistically significant at the 0.05 level of significance. The signs of the estimates
were in the expected direction based on what theory and prior literature suggests.
According to the estimates, innovative leadership preparation appeared to positively influence
the perceived quality of leadership practices. Principals who were trained through an innovative
leadership preparation program (INNOV) were rated more highly on positive leadership practices
than principals who went through a conventional preparation program or had innovative in-service
training coupled with their conventional preparation. Participation in an innovative leadership preparation program was associated with a 0.14 standard deviation increase in the quality of perceived
leadership practices. Parental support towards teachers also had a positive effect on PLEAD. A one
standard deviation increase in parental support was associated with a 0.12 of a standard deviation
increase in teacher-perceived quality of leadership practices. Such an effect may be in part capturing the overall supportive climate of the larger school community which reinforces principal leadership practices for school improvement. However, it should be noted that parental support, along
with innovative program participation, as the two direct effects on principal leadership explain
only a small (as expected) portion of variation in leadership practices (around 9%). Parental support was also positively associated with teachers satisfaction, with 0.24 standard deviation
increase in satisfaction for a one standard deviation increase in parental support. This finding is
consistent with other school improvement research (Sebring et al., 2006) that underscores the contributing influence of parent support on teachers work.
According to our model, principalship leadership had positive and significant effects on teachers degree of professional development, teachers influence on school policies (distributed leadership), teachers collaboration and satisfaction. The area of showing leadership practices greatest
impact was teacher satisfaction and collaboration. A one standard deviation increase in the
693
694
Innovative preparation
Innovative preparation
Innovative preparation
Innovative preparation
Principalship leadership
Principalship leadership
Principalship leadership
Principalship leadership
Parental support
Parental support
Professional development
Professional development
Distributed leadership
Teacher satisfaction
Independent variables
Principalship leadership
Distributed leadership
Teachers collaboration
Teacher satisfaction
Teachers collaboration
Distributed leadership
Teacher satisfaction
Professional development
Teacher satisfaction
Principalship leadership
Distributed leadership
Teacher satisfaction
Teacher satisfaction
Teachers collaboration
Dependent variables
0.28*
0.25*
0.29*
0.09*
0.24*
0.12*
0.14*
0.04
0.23*
0.52*
0.14*
Direct effect
(ML)
0.12*
0.08*
0.33*
0.05
0.12
0.13
Indirect effect
(ML)
0.14*
0.12*
0.08*
0.33*
0.23*
0.37*
0.42*
Overall effect
(ML)
0.22*
0.32*
0.16*
0.17*
0.20*
0.02
0.14*
0.02
0.29*
0.59*
0.21*
Direct effect
(ADF)
0.09*
0.10*
0.27*
0.00
0.05*
0.14*
Indirect effect
(ADF)
.21*
.09*
.10*
.27*
.22*
.37*
.30*
Overall effect
(ADF)
695
perceived quality of leadership practices was associated with 0.29 of a standard deviation increase
in teachers satisfaction and 0.28 of a standard deviation increase in teacher collaboration. It should
be noted that leadership practices, parental support and, to a lesser extent, degree of professional
development accounted for 16% of the variation in teachers satisfaction.
Teacher collaboration seemed to be dependent on overall teacher satisfaction. A one standard
deviation increase in teachers satisfaction was associated with 0.52 of a standard deviation
increase in teachers collaboration. Taken together, perceived leadership practices and teachers
satisfaction explained almost half of the variation (44%) in teacher collaboration. Finally, the more
that teachers participate in professional development activities, the more distributed leadership
they seem to experience at their schools, which is consistent with prior literature (Geijsel et al.,
2001). A one standard deviation increase in the professional development participation was associated with 0.14 standard deviation increase in distributed leadership.
Discussion
Major findings
Based on the results, we can answer the research questions as posed by hypotheses 14. For
hypothesis 1, we found that the more positive the perceptions of their principals leadership practices, the greater the teachers job satisfaction and perceived collaboration. Specifically, more
effective leadership practices have a strong influence on teachers job satisfaction and on their collaboration. Principal leadership practices also have a strong indirect influence on teacher collaboration through their influence on job satisfaction. These results confirm prior research
(Thoonen et al., 2011) that similarly found a positive relationship between transformational leadership practices and these teacher outcomes. Like Thoonen et al., we also found a strong, positive
relationship among the teacher outcome measures, showing the reinforcing effects when improving them.
For hypothesis 2, the results confirmed that the type of preparation the principals had was a
moderating influence on the principal leadershipteacher outcome relationship. Teachers whose
principals had participated in one of the innovative leadership preparation programs under study
were more likely to rate their principals leadership practices highly, and, through that, had higher
job satisfaction and teacher collaboration ratings. When we substituted conventional leadership
preparation as an alternative hypothesis, the model did not fit as well, further confirming this
hypothesis. Such findings confirm similar research findings drawn from principals perspectives
(Orr and Orphanos, 2011).
For hypotheses 3 and 4, the addition of three school improvement conditions the extent of
teacher-distributed leadership, teacher participation in professional development and perceived
parental support provide a fuller account of the variance in teacher job satisfaction. However,
perceived parental support fit better as a moderating influence on principal leadership, rather than
as a mediating influence between principal leadership and teacher job satisfaction. Given this, we
concluded that this measure of perceived parental support may be serving as a measure of district
and community culture, particularly given the size of its influence, as was found in other school
improvement research (Bryk et al., 2010)
Finally, the test of the hypothesized SEM model confirmed that innovative leadership preparation has a small but statistically significant influence on teacher collaboration and job satisfaction
through its influence on effective leadership practices, even when other factors are taken into
695
696
consideration. Such results were quite positive and confirmed earlier research on innovative preparation and teacher perceptions (Leithwood et al., 1996). More important, these findings underscore the importance of investing in quality leadership preparation. Better preparation yields
demonstrable benefits for the schools and teachers whom graduates eventually lead as principals.
697
makes an important difference in the quality of leadership practiced and, through that, in improving teachers working conditions and collaboration and satisfaction with their work. Finally, the
present findings serve as an important model for future research in evaluating the effects of leaders preparation on improving the work and working conditions of their staff and their school
improvement outcomes.
698
References
Anthes K (2004 April) Administrator license requirements, portability, waivers and alternative certification.
StateNotes.
Bagozzi RP and Yi Y (1988) On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 16: 7494.
Berry B, Daughtrey A and Wieder A (2010) A Better System for Schools: Developing, Supporting and Retaining EffectiveTeachers. Hillsborough, NC: Center for Teaching Quality.
Bollen K (1989) Structural Equations with Latent Variables. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Bottoms G, ONeill K, Fry B and Hill D (2003) Good Principals are the Key to Successful Schools: Six strategies to Prepare More Good Principals. Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Education Board.
Bryk AS, Sebring PB, Allensworth E, Luppescu S and Easton JQ (2010) Organizing Schools for Improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Bush T and Jackson D (2002) A preparation for school leadership: international perspectives. Educational
Management and Administration 30: 417.
Commission on No Child Left Behind (NCLB) (2007) Beyond NCLB: Fulfilling the Promise to Our Nations
Children. Aspen, CO: The Aspen Institute.
Copland MA (2001) The reform of administrator preparation at Stanford: an analytic description. Journal of
School Leadership 11: 335366.
Darling-Hammond L, LaPointe M, Meyerson D, et al. (2007) Preparing Leaders for a Changing World. Palo
Alto, CA: Stanford University, Stanford Educational Leadership Institute.
Darling-Hammond L, Meyerson D, La Pointe MM, et al. (2010) Preparing Principals for a Changing World.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Davis S, Darling-Hammond L, Meyerson D, et al. (2005) Review of Sesearch. School Leadership Study. Developing
Successful Principals. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University, Stanford Educational Leadership Institute.
Diamantopoulos A and Siguaw J (2000) Introducing LISREL. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Earley P and Evans J (2004) Making a difference? Educational Management Administration & Leadership
32: 325338.
Edmonds R (1979) Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational Leadership 37(1): 1518, 2024.
Fornell C and Larcker DF (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research 18: 3950.
Fuller E, Young MD and Baker BD (2011) Do principal preparation programs influence student achievement
through the building of teacher-team qualifications by the principal? An exploratory analysis. Educational
Administration Quarterly 47: 173216.
Geijsel F, Sleegers P, van den Berg R and Kelchtermans G (2001) Conditions fostering the implementation of
large-scale innovation programs in schools: teachers perspectives. Educational Administration Quarterly
37(1): 130166.
Glasman NS (1997) An experimental program in leadership preparation. Peabody Journal of Education 72: 4265.
Hallinger P and Heck R (1996) Reassessing the principals role in school effectiveness: a review of empirical
research, 19801995. Educational Administration Quarterly 32: 544.
Hallinger P and Heck RH (2010) Leadership for learning: does collaborative leadership make a difference in
school improvement? Educational Management Administration & Leadership 38(6): 654678.
Hoy WK, Sweetland SR and Smith PA (2002) Toward an organizational model of achievement in high
schools: the significance of collective efficacy. Educational Administration Quarterly 38: 7793.
Hu LT and Bentler P (1999) Cutoff criteria in fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling 6: 155.
698
699
Huber SG (2004) Preparing School Leaders for the 21st Century: An International Comparison of Development Programs in 15 Countries. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Hulpia H, Devos G and Van Kerr H (2011) The relation between school leadership from a distributed
perspective and teachers organizational commitment. Educational Administration Quarterly 47(5):
728771.
Jackson BL and Kelley C (2002) Exceptional and innovative programs in educational leadership. Educational
Administration Quarterly 38: 192212.
Jacobson SL and Bezzina C (2008) Effects of leadership on student academic/affective achievement. In:
Lumby J, Crow G and Pashiardis P (eds) International Handbook on the Preparation and Development
of School Leaders. New York: Routledge, 81103.
Jacobson SL, Johansson O and Day C (2011) Preparing school leaders to lead organizational building and
capacity building. In: Ylimaki RM and Jacobson SL (eds) US and Cross-National Policies, Practices and
Preparation. Dordrecht: Springer.
Jacobson A, ONeill K, Fry B, Hill D and Bottoms G (2002) Are SREB States Making Progress? Tapping,
Preparing and Licensing School Leaders Who Can Influence Student Achievement. Atlanta, GA: Southern
Regional Educational Board.
Korach S, Alford BJ and Ballenger JN (2011) Linking Principal Preparation to Teaching and Learning: Lessons Learned Through a Mixed-method Multi-case Evalutaion Study. New Orleans, LA: American Educational Research Association.
Leithwood K and Jantzi D (2005) A Review of Transformational School Leadership Research. Montreal:
American Educational Research Association.
Leithwood K and Jantzi D (2008) Linking leadership to student learning: The contributions of leader efficacy.
Educational Administration Quarterly 44: 496528.
Leithwood K and Mascall B (2008) Collective leadership effects on student achievement. Educational
Administration Quarterly 44(4): 529561.
Leithwood K, Jantzi D, Coffin G, et al. (1996) Preparing school leaders: What works? Journal of School
Leadership 6: 316342.
Lezotte LW (1991) Correlates of Effective Schools: The First and Second Generation. Okemos, MI: Effective
Schools Products.
Lumby J, Crow G and Pashiardis P (2008) International Handbook on the Preparation and Development of
School Leaders. New York: Routledge.
Marzano RJ, Waters T and McNulty BA (2005) School Leadership That Works: From Research to Results.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervison and Curriculum Development.
McCarthy MM and Forsyth PB (2009) An historical review of research and development activities pertaining
to the preparation of school leaders. In: Young MD, Crow GM, Murphy J, et al. (eds) Handbook of
Research on the Education of School Leaders. New York: Routledge, 86128.
Milstein MM and Kruger J (1997) Improving educational administration preparation programs: What we have
learned over the past decade. Peabody Journal of Education 72: 100116.
Newman F and Osterman KF (2011) Transfer of Learning from Preparation to Practice. New Orleans, LA:
American Educational Research Association.
Orr MT (2006) Mapping innovation in leadership preparation in our nations schools of education. Phi Delta
Kappan 87: 492499.
Orr MT (2009) Program evaluation in leadership preparation and related fields. In: Young MD and Crow G
(eds) Handbook of Research on the Education of School Leaders. New York: Routledge, 457498.
Orr MT (2011) Pipeline to preparation to advancement: Graduates experiences in, through, and beyond leadership preparation. Educational Administration Quarterly 47: 114172.
699
700
Orr MT and Barber ME (2007) Collaborative leadership preparation: A comparative study of innovative programs and practices. Journal of School Leadership 16: 709739.
Orr MT and Orphanos S (2011) How preparation impacts school leaders and their school improvement: comparing exemplary and conventionally prepared principals. Educational Administration Quarterly 47: 1870
Pashiardis P, Savvides V, Lytra E and Angelidou K (2011) Successful school leadership in rural contexts: The
case of Cyprus. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 29(5): 536553.
Robinson VMJ, Lloyd CA and Rowe KJ (2008) The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An analysis of
the differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly 44: 635674.
Sebring PB, Allensworth E, Bryk AS, Easton JQ and Luppescu S (2006) The Essential Supports for School
Improvement. Chicago, IL: Consortium on Chicago School Research at the University of Chicago.
Shelton SV (2009) Strong Leaders Strong Schools: 2008 State Laws. Denver, CO: National Conference of
State Legislatures.
Thoonen EEJ, Sleegers PJC, Oort FJ, et al. (2011) How to improve teaching practices: the role of teacher motivation, organizational factors, and leadership practices. Educational Administration Quarterly 47: 496536.
Tschannen-Moran M (2009) Fostering teacher professionalism in schools: the role of leadership orientation
and trust. Educational Administration Quarterly 45(2): 217247.
Twale DJ and Kochan F (2000) Assessment of an alternative cohort model for part-time students in an educational leadership program. Journal of School Leadership 10: 188208.
US Department of Education (2009) Race to the Top Program Executive Summary. Washington, DC: US
Department of Education.
US Department of Education (2010) A Blueprint for Reform: The Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.
Wahlstrom KL and Seashore-Louis K (2008) How teachers experience principal leadership: the role of professional
community, trust, efficacy, and shared responsibility. Educational Administration Quarterly 44(4): 458493.
Walker A and Dimmock C (2006) Preparing leaders, preparing learners: The Hong Kong experience. School
Leadership and Management 26: 125147.
Wallace Foundation (2003) Beyond the Pipeline: Getting the Principals We Need, Where They Are Needed
Most. New York: Wallace Foundation.
Wallace Foundation (2006) Leadership for Learning: Making the Connections among State, District, and
School Policies and Practices. New York: Wallace Foundation.
Waters JT, Marzano RJ and McNulty RA. (2003) Balanced Leadership: What 30 Years of Research Tells Us
about the Effect of Leadership on Student Achievement. Aurora, CO: McREL.
Youngs P and King MB (2002) Principal leadership for professional development to build school capacity.
Educational Administration Quarterly 38(5): 643670.
Author biography
Stelios Orphanos is a lecturer of educational leadership and administration at the School of
Education at Frederick University. His main research interests lie in the areas of educational
management and leadership, teacher and school effectiveness.
Margaret Terry Orr is a faculty member of Bank Street College of Education (NY) preparing
school and district leaders. She has conducted numerous studies on leadership preparation and
assessment and school reform, and published widely in books and peer-reviewed journal articles.
She is currently Division A-Vice President of the American Educational Research Association.
700