School Effectiveness and School Improvement

Vol. 21, No. 3, September 2010, 315–336

How does leadership affect student achievement?1 Results from a

national US survey
Karen Seashore Louis*, Beverly Dretzke and Kyla Wahlstrom

University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA

(Received 6 November 2009; final version received 4 March 2010)

Using survey responses from a national sample of US teachers, this paper

provides insight into 2 questions: (1) Do 3 specific attributes of leadership
behavior – the sharing of leadership with teachers, the development of trust
relationships among professionals, and the provision of support for instructional
improvement – affect teachers’ work with each other and their classroom
practices? and (2) Do the behaviors of school leaders contribute to student
achievement? We tie this investigation of school leader behaviors to 2 additional
factors that have also received increasing attention in research because they have
been shown to be related to student achievement: professional community and the
quality of classroom instruction. Our analysis provides an empirical test of the
notion that leadership variables are positively related to student learning. It also
suggests that both shared and instructionally focused leadership are complemen-
tary approaches for improving schools.
Keywords: leadership; trust; instruction; student achievement

Introduction
There is increasing evidence that leadership makes a difference in schools. A few
scholars have made sustained contributions to the question of how formal leadership
from principals affects a variety of school outcomes (see Hallinger, 2003; Hallinger &
Heck, 1998; Heck & Hallinger, 2009; Leithwood & Jantzi, 1999, 2000, 2005), but
many others have contributed to the accumulation of evidence that principals do, in
fact, make a difference.
Most of the syntheses summarizing this research have produced relatively long
lists of leadership behaviors that make a difference. Perhaps the most widely cited is
the review by Marzano and his colleagues (Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005), but
others have weighed in with their own set of principles (Day et al., 2009; Leithwood,
Harris, & Hopkins, 2008). One problem facing the syntheses, however, is that the
research studies typically examine a limited range of leadership behaviors, thus
making comparisons across studies difficult. Another is that they often assume that
leadership affects students because it changes teacher behavior, but relatively few
studies look at the connection between leadership and instructional practices.

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

ISSN 0924-3453 print/ISSN 1744-5124 online

Ó 2010 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/09243453.2010.486586
http://www.informaworld.com
316 K.S. Louis et al.

This paper investigates three different school leader behaviors that have been
under the microscope in recent studies: instructional leadership (which focuses on
improving classroom pedagogy), shared leadership (which emphasizes the engage-
ment of leaders at many levels), and trust (which focuses on the importance of
emotions and emotional intelligence in motivating high performance), and connects
them to student achievement through their impact on teachers’ work.

Framework
Our investigation is premised on the assumption that the school leader’s effects on
students are almost entirely indirect (Day et al., 2009; Witziers, Bosker, & Kruger,
2003). What we know from the long line of school effectiveness research is that
instruction and classroom environments have the greatest impact on student
learning, although there are still debates about what kinds of instruction are most
efficacious in increasing student learning (Cohen, Raudenbush, & Ball, 2003).
Teacher characteristics, such as type of degree or certification, also have limited
effects (Wayne & Youngs, 2003), and those characteristics are largely indirect
through their impact on instruction (Smith, Desimone, & Ueno, 2005). In other
words, an examination of instruction must be at the heart of the question of how
leadership contributes to student learning (Wahlstrom & Louis, 2008).

Starting with instruction

Models of good instruction have evolved over the last several decades, but
differences among them remain only partially resolved. An early review of US
research (Brophy, 1986) found that certain behaviors of teachers, such as using
academic objectives to establish learning expectations, effective classroom manage-
ment strategies, and differentiated pacing of instruction based on both the content
and the characteristics of the learners, were consistently associated with student
achievement. From the late 1980s into the early 2000s, the emphasis shifted toward
inquiry-based instructional models, in which the teacher’s most important role was
in designing lessons or learning experiences that involved guiding students toward
new understanding through exploration and induction (Wiske, 1998). While some
approaches to constructivism emphasized modest roles for teachers (guides on the
side), others gave teachers clear responsibilities for being good in their traditional
roles but also for organizing learning environments that develop students’ sense of
responsibility for their own learning (Fenstermacher & Richardson, 2005).
While researchers rarely talk about mechanical ‘‘time on task’’ anymore, there is
still accumulating evidence that teacher’s efforts to control the timing and pacing of
work in classrooms is important for student learning (Allington, 2001; Knapp, 1995;
Taylor, Pearson, Clark, & Walpole, 2000), at least when it is carried out in the
context of using rich materials and stimuli. Recent reviews have begun to re-
emphasize the role of the teacher in directing student learning (Kirschner, Sweller, &
Clark, 2006).
A particular problem is that the most valuable research strategies for observing
instruction in widely varying settings (different disciplines, different grade levels) are
short on details to guide teacher choices (see, e.g., Newmann & Associates, 1996).
Measuring the complexity of classroom instruction is very difficult. As Cohen et al.
(2003) note, this is because teachers and students are independent and idiosyncratic
 School Effectiveness and School Improvement 317

actors. What happens instructionally in a given situation is context specific, making

generalizations about reform efforts, such as role of shared leadership or teachers’
professional community, difficult to confirm. Added to this incomplete picture,
however, is the limited amount of research that directly links policies and practices of
leaders at the school level to high quality instruction in the classroom, whether
teacher directed or teacher guided.
In a previous paper (Wahlstrom & Louis, 2008), we used factor analysis to
demonstrate that teachers report a distinctive style of teaching that incorporates
both direct influence over the pacing and content of classroom work and
opportunities for students to take charge of their own learning and construct their
own knowledge, a type of teaching that we called ‘‘focused instruction’’. In our view,
if we overlook teacher educator debates (Wilson & Peterson, 2006), our finding that
‘‘real teachers’’ combine elements of a traditional teacher-centered model with
practices that emphasize constructivist models in which students are led to figure out
the meaning of the task for themselves is consistent with other research on
instructional approaches that are linked to student achievement (Newmann &
Associates, 1996).

Instructional leadership
As Hallinger notes in a recent review of the literature, instructional leadership is an
idea that refuses to go away, although it has been poorly defined since it was first
introduced in the 1970s (Hallinger, 2005). In the building, the formal school leader is
expected to understand the tenets of quality instruction, as well as have sufficient
knowledge of the curriculum to know that appropriate content is being delivered to
all students (Marzano et al., 2005). This presumes that he or she is capable of
providing constructive feedback to improve teaching or is able to design a system in
which others provide this support. Research suggests that there is increasing pressure
on school leaders to ‘‘deliver’’ (or at least promote) better support instruction, and
that consistent and knowledgeable support from them makes a difference (Hallinger,
2005; Mosenthal, Lipson, Torncello, Russ, & Mekkelsen, 2004). Formal school
leaders who have support in becoming instructional leaders (e.g., through
professional development) are more likely to do so consistently (Camburn, Rowan,
& Taylor, 2003).
While some scholars emphasize the importance of principals’ deep understanding
of curricular content and instructional materials (Stein & Nelson, 2003), others pay
more attention to principals’ support for improved instruction (Leithwood, 2001;
O’Donnell & White, 2005). Typically those who emphasize the importance of deep
content knowledge study elementary schools (e.g., Burch & Spillane, 2003), but even
in elementary schools the principal’s ability to draw on effective interactional styles
and supportive approach may be more important than their specific content
knowledge (Spillane, Hallett, & Diamond, 2003). Secondary principals cannot be
expected to provide substantive support to the multiple disciplines that are taught in
middle and high schools. Thus, many of the studies of instructional leadership in
secondary schools emphasize the development of improved learning environments
for teachers, focusing on the ability of principals to stimulate teachers’ innovative
behaviors rather than on their direct support (Halverson, Grigg, Prichett, &
Thomas, 2007; Silins & Mulford, 2004). Because our study includes secondary
schools (where principals cannot be expected to be content experts in all
318 K.S. Louis et al.

subjects), we choose to emphasize supportive behaviors as well as direct coaching or

modeling.

Shared leadership
For over 3 decades, reform proposals in many countries have recommended the
inclusion of teachers in leadership roles. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, efforts to
promote school-based management often included formal representation of teachers
in decision making – although many investigations report weak implementation
(Anderson, 1998; Malen, 1994). Recent policy discussions in the USA and elsewhere
suggest there is broad support for expanding teachers’ participation in leadership
and decision-making tasks. These discussions are supported by research suggesting
that increased teacher influence in schools has the potential for significant positive
effects on school improvement (Huber, 2004; Leithwood & Beatty, 2007; Leithwood
et al., 2008; Matthews & Sammons, 2005; Riley & McBeath, 2003).
Still, what constitutes and promotes the sharing of leadership in a school is more
ambiguous. Distributed leadership, another term that is often used interchangeably
with shared leadership, is usually thought of as the network of both formal and
informal influential relationships in a school. Shared leadership, on the other hand, is
typically investigated as an organizational property that reflects deliberate patterns
of commitment and mutual influence among organizational members (although not
necessarily reflected in formal position descriptions or an organization chart).2 In
this paper, we are focused on deliberate organizational behaviors. It is important to
emphasize, however, that a distinction between shared and distributed leadership is
far from clear in the existing literature.
Shared leadership may have its greatest impact by reducing teacher isolation and
increasing commitment to the common good (Pounder, 1999). Experiencing
influence and feedback in the context of important professional discussions is an
important ingredient that encourages a focus on shared practices and goals
(Chrispeels, Castillo, & Brown, 2000; Marks & Printy, 2003) and may promote
organizational innovation (Harris, 2008; Printy & Marks, 2006). On the other hand,
research to date suggests that involvement in formal decision making or leadership
roles may have limited impact on student achievement (Leithwood & Jantzi, 1999;
Marks & Louis, 1997; Smylie, Conley, & Marks, 2002) For purposes of this paper,
shared leadership is defined as teachers’ influence over and participation in school-
wide decisions.3

Trust
Organizational trust has also been a staple of organizational research for some time.
An early study found that trust in the decision-making capacity of the organization’s
leadership predicted overall satisfaction with the organization better than did
employee participation in decision making (Driscoll, 1978). More recently, an
examination of changes in work team trust found that perceived ability of colleagues
was a strong predictor of trust, and that trust was a significant predictor for risk-
taking behaviors (Serva, Fuller, & Mayer, 2005).
Within the past 2 decades, studies of trust as a factor in school improvement have
begun to illuminate the actions that leaders take which positively alter the culture in
a school (Bryk & Schneider, 2002; Louis, 2007; Tarter, Bliss, & Hoy, 1989;
 School Effectiveness and School Improvement 319

Tschannen-Moran, 2004). Tarter et al. found that supportive principal behavior and
faculty trust were significantly correlated in their sample of secondary schools, and
that schools with higher levels of engaged teachers (including commitment to
students) had higher levels of trust in colleagues. The study implies that principals
can build trust indirectly through supportive behavior, but they cannot make
teachers trust one another through direct action. Similarly, Bryk and Schneider’s
study of Chicago elementary schools found that principal respect and personal
regard for teachers, competence in core role responsibilities, and personal integrity
were associated with relational trust among all adult members of the school. Louis
identified similar principal behaviors that affect trust and also linked trust to shared
leadership. High trust schools exhibited more collective decision making, with a
greater likelihood that reform initiatives were widespread and with demonstrated
improvements in student learning. Tschannen-Moran also outlines key leadership
behaviors and specific actions that engender trust. For example, ‘‘Competence’’ is
enacted by ‘‘engaging in problem solving, setting standards, buffering teachers,
pressing for results’’ (p. 34). More recently, trust has been shown to be a predictor of
how educators interpret their superior’s ability to carry out more technical and
transformational leadership functions (Daly & Chrispeels, 2008).
Embedded in the notion of trust is the key distinction between the ‘‘trustee’’ and
the ‘‘trustor’’ or, said another way, those having more or less power (or dependence)
in a particular situation (Driscoll, 1978). Teachers’ views of trustworthy principals
tend to be based upon the leadership characteristics outlined above. However, we
have less information about why principals do or do not trust their teachers.

Teacher leadership and professional community

While we have focused thus far on shared leadership and principal–teacher trust,
teacher–teacher relationships are even more important as a foundation for the way in
which teachers work to improve instruction (Louis, 2006) and are also affected by
principal leader behavior (Wiley, 2001). Here, we emphasize the importance of
professional community, largely because of the accumulating evidence that it is
related both to improved instruction and to student achievement (King & Newmann,
2001; Louis & Marks, 1998; Smylie & Wenzel, 2003) and its ties to one of our
leadership variables (shared leadership) (Scribner, Sawyer, Watson, & Myers, 2007;
York-Barr & Duke, 2004).
York-Barr and Duke (2004) view professional community as a vehicle for the
exercise of teacher leadership, a perspective that we adopt in this paper. Supportive
interactions among teachers in school-wide professional communities enable them to
assume various roles with one another as mentor, mentee, coach, specialist, advisor,
facilitator, et cetera. However, professional community is more than just support
and includes shared values, a common focus on student learning, collaboration in
the development of curriculum and instruction, and the purposeful sharing of
practices – all of which may be thought of as distributed leadership (Hord &
Sommers, 2008; McLaughlin & Talbert, 2001).
The findings of the several studies cited above suggest that, when the focus of the
professional community is on the quality of student learning, teachers adopt
instructional practices that enhance students’ learning opportunities. While many
factors affect whether or not professional community exists in a school, one of the
most significant factors is strong principal leadership (Bryk, Camburn, & Louis,
320 K.S. Louis et al.

1999; Louis & Marks, 1998; Wiley, 2001; Youngs, 2001; Youngs & King, 2002).
Professional community is closely associated with organizational learning, and the
term ‘‘professional learning communities’’ has become a common short hand among
practitioners. Thus, the presence of professional community appears to foster
collective learning of new practices – when there is principal leadership (Marks,
Louis, & Printy, 2002).

School level
Many characteristics of schools may moderate leadership effects. In this paper, we
choose to focus on the potential differences between elementary and secondary
schools. Frequently cited investigations of leadership effects on teachers and students
are most often carried out using only one type of school (Bryk & Schneider, 2002;
Cascadden, 1998; Friedkin & Slater, 1994; Goddard, Sweetland, & Hoy, 2000;
Harris, 2002). Those that use samples from all levels, such as Marks and Printy
(2003), are based on a small number of cases, while those with a larger number of
schools are often a convenience sample drawn from a single district (Leech & Fulton,
2008; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2000). Nevertheless, as noted above in our discussion of
instructional leadership, there is reason to anticipate that leadership practices and
their effects may be different in elementary and secondary schools because of size and
organization. The school leader in a very large school simply does not have the time
to work directly with all teachers, while the complexity of departmental organization
seems to limit influence. As Harris (2002) points out, secondary leaders seem to have
an effect on teaching because of the organizational ethos they create rather than
specific interpersonal interactions or interventions.

Summary
The literature suggests two critical questions that have not been fully examined in the
existing literature:

(1) Do three specific attributes of leadership behavior – the sharing of leadership

with teachers, the development of trust relationships among professionals,
and the provision of support for instructional improvement – affect teachers’
work with each other and their classroom practices?
(2) Do these leadership behaviors and attributes of formal school leaders
contribute to student achievement?

An analytic framework derived from the review of the literature and our previous
investigation of the relationship of principal leadership and instruction (Wahlstrom
& Louis, 2008) guided us in our examination of how teachers experience the
leadership effects of the principal. We assume that both principal–teacher relation-
ships (indicated by trust, instructional leadership, and perceptions of shared
leadership) and teacher–teacher relationships (indicated by professional community)
will affect classroom practice. Classroom practice – particularly the type of focused
instruction that thoughtfully combines elements of teacher-directed and constructi-
vist approaches – should, in turn, affect student learning. We already know a
considerable amount about these subcomponents. We know much less about how
they interact to affect student learning, because there is little evidence, from either
 School Effectiveness and School Improvement 321

survey or qualitative methods, that principal leadership can have a direct effect
without involving changes in teacher practice.

Methods
Data sources
Data for this study are from 2005 and 2008 teacher surveys developed for a US
research project funded by the Wallace Foundation. Begun in December of 2004,
this mixed-methods project aims to further our understanding about the nature of
successful educational leadership and how such leadership at the school, district, and
state levels eventually influences teaching and learning in schools. The research
design called for the collection of quantitative data at either end of the 5 years work
with three rounds of qualitative data collection in between. The quantitative data are
provided by surveys of teachers and administrators, along with student achievement
and demographic data available from the district or state.
The sampling design involved respondents in 180 schools nested within 45
districts nested, in turn, in nine states. These states were randomly sampled from the
four quadrants of the USA. Districts and schools were chosen randomly within
states, with the sample stratified to reflect variation in organization size, socio-
economic status (SES), and achievement trajectories over 3 to 5 years prior to the
start of the data collection. The quantitative sample included 157 schools and the
teachers and administrators who were members of them. The sample deliberately
represented elementary and secondary schools in equal numbers. This paper utilizes
both the first round and second round of survey data from teachers.4
The two surveys each contained items from established instruments as well as
new items. All attitudinal variables were measured with 6-point Likert scales. The
instruments were field-tested with teachers, and meetings with respondents led to
subsequent changes in the wording of questions to improve clarity. The finalized
instruments were mailed to individual schools and were typically completed by all
teachers during a school staff meeting. Each survey was accompanied by a blank
envelope that could be sealed to ensure confidentiality, so that none of the principals
had access to the teachers’ responses.
Surveys were administered in the winter of 2005–6, and again in the spring of
2008. This paper is based on surveys from 4,491 teachers in 43 districts in 157
schools, with a response rate of 67% in 2005–6, and 3,900 teachers in 40 districts in
134 schools, with a response rate of 55% in 2008. The method of survey
administration, which involved filling out surveys during a faculty meeting, makes
a completely accurate response rate difficult, largely because of incomplete staff lists
at the building level. However, because of the method of administration, it was more
typical to get a large bundle of surveys (presumably a high within-school response
rate) or none at all. In addition, a few schools that participated in 2005–6 dropped
out for 2008 and were replaced. Because we use data from both surveys, our N of
schools is thus reduced to 106 when missing achievement data are factored in. The
106 schools include 50 elementary schools, 34 lower secondary schools (middle or
junior high schools), and 19 upper secondary schools/high schools. The remaining 3
schools had unusual grade structures (K–8).
The analysis in this paper combines some measures from the first survey
(principal leadership variables) with some from the second survey (measures of trust
322 K.S. Louis et al.

and an improved measure of focused instruction). Measures of student achievement

were derived from school-level scores on the states’ tests used for measuring
adequate yearly progress (AYP) in response to No Child Left Behind, while grade
levels (which were recoded to elementary/secondary) were ascertained from state
data bases. School poverty was estimated by the percentage of students eligible for
Free and Reduced Price lunch (from state data bases).5

Variable construction
Each of the variables reflecting the components of our framework were measured in
the teacher survey using multiple items in the surveys. Scaled variables were
developed using extensive exploratory scaling techniques, primarily factor analysis,
to ensure that items that were expected to scale loaded on the same factor. All
variables were computed using the individual teacher responses, and all have a
reliability score (alpha) of .7 or better (Table 1). Variables were then aggregated to
the building level, in order to combine them with student achievement data, which
was only available for buildings.

Focused instruction
The instruction variable that we use in this paper reflects our previous analysis that
suggested that teachers may, in their own work, be bridging the scholarly debates
between constructivist and direct instruction by developing strategies that are
designed to incorporate elements of both. Our initial analysis of instruction in the
2005 survey did not anticipate this result, which was based on factor analysis
(Wahlstrom & Louis, 2008). In the second survey, we added additional items that we
thought might load on this factor, and the subsequent factor analysis affirmed the
coherence of the augmented variable. The measure of instruction is, thus, from the
second survey.6

Teacher’s professional community

A single variable was developed to examine the nature of teacher’s relationships with
each other. It is based on a factor analysis of items that measure professional
community and were derived from previous instruments (Bryk et al., 1999; Lee &
Smith, 1995; Louis & Marks, 1998). While four distinct factors that were consistent
with previous studies of professional community emerged (Wahlstrom & Louis,
2008), the items were all highly correlated, and it was decided for the purposes of this
paper to use a single composite (additive) scale. Data measuring professional
community were taken from the 2005 survey. The building level correlation between
professional community scores in 2005 and 2008 was .93, indicating that this is a
stable organizational characteristic.

Shared leadership
The shared leadership variable was developed based on a factor analysis of a longer
battery of teachers’ ratings of their principal’s behaviors from the 2005 survey
(Wahlstrom & Louis, 2008).
 School Effectiveness and School Improvement 323

Instructional leadership
The 2005 survey measure of instructional leadership was modified in the 2008 survey
to include new items that were based on both our own and other’s work in this area.
The main change was to incorporate several additional items that tapped specific
principal behaviors.

Trust in principal
We became more interested in exploring trust as the study developed, and the second
survey added measures taken from the instruments developed by Tschannen-Moran
(2004) to the 2008 survey. As expected, the items scaled well. (See Table 1 for scale
items for this and all other scaled survey variables.)

Student achievement
Data used to measure student achievement across schools were collected from state
websites. These data were school-wide results on state-mandated tests of language
and mathematics at several grade levels over 5 years (2003 to 2007). For purposes of
this study, a school’s student achievement was represented by the percentages of
students meeting or exceeding the proficiency level (usually established by the state)
on language and math tests. These percentages were averaged across grades and
subjects in order to increase the stability of scores (Linn, 2003), resulting in a single
achievement score for each school for a given year. In this analysis, we used the 2005
mathematics test results, based on two assumptions: (a) that building level
instruction is more likely to be consistent in mathematics because of long-term
efforts by US professional associations to develop standards (Newmann &
Associates, 1996) and (b) that the 2005 data were collected in a year when the
fewest states in our sample had made recent changes to the tests, thus increasing the
likelihood that they would be slightly more stable.7

Analysis
Paired-sample t tests were used to compare mean ratings on the variables to
determine whether there were differences between buildings (not tabled). Hierarch-
ical multiple regression was used to examine the moderating effects of school level
(elementary or secondary) on some relationships in our framework. We then used
structural equation modeling (SEM; using the SPSS AMOS program) to examine the
direct and indirect effects of leadership on achievement. Although we report data for
mathematics achievement, we conducted similar analyses using the state literacy test
scores, with similar results to those reported below.

Findings
We initially assumed that the effects of leadership on student achievement are largely
indirect, operating through other variables. We examined this assumption through
correlations, which are presented in Table 2. The results indicate that student math
achievement scores are significantly associated with focused instruction, professional
community and teachers’ trust in the principal but are not significantly associated
324 K.S. Louis et al.

Table 1. Scaled items for analysis.

New Variable Alpha Survey Items

Focused .77 3–16 My instructional strategies enable students to
Instruction construct their own knowledge.
3–17 I maintain a rapid pace of instruction in my classes.
3–18 Disruptions of instructional time are minimized.
3–19 Most students in my class are capable of taking
charge of their own learning in age-appropriate ways.
3–20 I focus on developing a deep knowledge of the
core subjects that I teach.
Professional .85 2–4 Most teachers in our school share a similar set of
Community values, beliefs, and attitudes related to teaching and
learning.
2–8 In our school we have well-defined learning
expectations for all students.
2–11 Our student assessment practices reflect our
curriculum standards.
3–15 Teachers support the principal in enforcing school
rules.
3–16 How many teachers in this school feel
responsible to help each other improve their
instruction?
3–17 How many teachers in this school take
responsibility for improving the school outside their
own class?
3–18 How many teachers in this school help maintain
discipline in the entire school, not just their
classroom?
3–20 How often in this school year have you invited
someone in to help teach your class(es)?
3–21 How often in this school year have you had
colleagues observe your classroom?
3–22 How often in this school year have you received
meaningful feedback on your performance from
colleagues?
3–23 How often in this school year have you visited
other teachers’ classrooms to observe instruction?
3–24 How often in this school year have you exchanged
suggestions for curriculum materials with colleagues?
3–25 How often in this school year have you had
conversations with colleagues about the goals
of this school?
3–26 How often in this school year have you had
conversations with colleagues about development of
new curriculum?
3–27 How often in this school year have you had
conversations with colleagues about managing
classroom behavior?
3–28 How often in this school year have you had
conversations with colleagues about what helps
students learn best?
Shared Leadership .78 The department chairs/grade-level team leaders influence
how money is spent in this school.
Teachers have an effective role in school-wide decision
making.

(continued)
 School Effectiveness and School Improvement 325

Table 1. (Continued).
New Variable Alpha Survey Items
Teachers have significant input into plans for
professional development and growth.
School’s principal(s) ensures wide participation in
decisions about school improvement.
How much direct influence do students have on school
decisions?
How much direct influence do school teams (depts.,
grade levels, other teacher groups) have on school
decisions?
Instructional .82 My school administrator clearly defines standards for
Leadership instructional practices.
How often in this school year has your school
administrator discussed instructional issues with you?
How often in this school year has your school
administrator observed your classroom instruction?
How often in this school year has your school
administrator attended teacher planning meetings?
How often in this school year has your school
administrator made suggestions to improve classroom
behavior or classroom management?
How often in this school year has your school
administrator given you specific ideas for how to
improve your instruction?
How often in this school year has your school
administrator buffered teachers from distractions to
their instruction?
Trust in Principal .90 When teachers are struggling, our principal provides
support for them.
Our principal ensures that all students get high quality
teachers.
If my principal promised to do something, s/he would
follow through.
In general, I believe my principal’s motives and
intentions are good.
I feel free to discuss work problems with my principal
without fear of having it used against me later.

with principal behaviors (instructional leadership and shared leadership), which

provides support for our assumption. Trust in the principal and professional
community, on the other hand, are both associated with student math achievement,
which suggests that relationships among adults may be important factors
determining how well students perform. In our sample, students in elementary
schools perform better than students in secondary schools on state benchmark tests.
If we look at the remaining cells in the correlation matrix, it is clear that the
measures of predictor variables are rather highly correlated. Our data support other
studies, for example, in suggesting that many measures of teachers’ quality of work
life (trust, professional community, experiences of strong leadership) are lower in
secondary schools (Louis & Marks, 1998). In addition, it is apparent that teachers
whose experiences with other adults are positive on one of our dimensions tend to
have similarly positive responses on the others. In sum, while the results are
 326

Table 2. Correlations among variables in the model (N ¼ 103).

2004–05
Mean math Building Building
K.S. Louis et al.

proficiency Building Mean Mean Building Mean

for that Focused Instructional Building Mean Mean Shared Professional
building Instruction Leadership T2 Trust T2 Leadership Community
2004–05 Mean math proficiency for that building 1

Building Mean focused instruction summed .269** 1

.006
Building Mean Instructional Leadership T2 7.071 .310** 1
.475 .001
Building Mean Trust T2 .249* .436** .490** 1
.011 .000 .000
Building Mean Shared Leadership .170 .330** .106 .256** 1
.052 .000 .276 .007
Building Mean Professional Community .198* .510** .420** .451** .597** 1
.023 .000 .000 .000 .000
Bldg Level 0 ¼ Elem 1 ¼ Mid/Jr/Sr 7.216* 7.315** 7.166 7.252** 7.209* 7.540**
.013 .001 .086 .009 .014 .000

**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
 School Effectiveness and School Improvement 327

confirmatory, they suggest a need for further analysis to investigate how the
relationships among the variables may combine to affect teachers’ classroom
practices and student learning.
We therefore went on to conduct several stepwise regression analyses to address
the two questions laid out at the beginning of this paper. First, we extended the
results of earlier investigations (Louis & Marks, 1998; Wahlstrom & Louis, 2008),
looking at the relationship between principal behaviors and characteristics and
teachers work (Table 3). Using a three-model approach, we first examined the
relationship between professional community and focused instruction, adding
principal behaviors and characteristics in Model 2 and finally adding school level,
which has been shown to affect both professional community and instruction in
previous studies (Louis & Marks, 1998). The results suggest that professional
community and trust in the principal are the only significant predictors. In addition,
until building level is added in Model 3, professional community seems to bear more
weight than trust (the change in the relationship in Model 3 is presumably accounted
for by the negative relationship between being a secondary school and trusting the
principal). At first blush, therefore, it appears that it is relationships among adults in
the school, whether principal–teacher or teacher–teacher, that seem to lead to
stronger focused instruction.
To answer the second question, which asks what effects principal leadership has
on student achievement, we again used a three-model approach (see Table 4). We
first looked at the instruction–learning relationship in Model 1, then added
professional community (teacher–teacher relationships) as a second step, and finally
adding both building level and leadership characteristics in a third stage (Table 3).
The overall results indicate that instructional practices have a significant effect on
achievement (Model 1), but that this effect is diminished when we introduce teachers’
professional community (Model 2) and is further diminished when we look at school
level and school demographic characteristics (Model 3).

Table 3. Regression of focused instruction on professional community and principal

leadership.

Standardized Coefficients Significance Model

F/Sig.
Model Beta t Sig. Change R(R2)
1 (Constant) 9.471 .000
Prof. Community .510 6.102 .000 .37.24*** .51(.26)
2 (Constant) 9.138 .000
Prof.Community .337 3.173 .002
Prof. Community .119 1.076 .284
Instruc. Leadership .041 .422 .674
Trust in Principal .239 2.432 .017
Shared Leadership .096 1.014 .313
12.15* .56(.32)
3 (Constant) 8.141 .000
Prof. Community .280 2.285 .024
Instruc. Leadership .051 .524 .601
Trust in Principal .233 2.358 .020
Shared Leadership .113 1.167 .246
Building Level 7.092 7.946 .346
9.9 .57(.33)
328 K.S. Louis et al.
Table 4. Regression of math achievement on model variables (standardized regression
coefficients, building means, N ¼ 103).

Standardized Coefficients Significance

Model F/
Model Beta t Sig. Sig. Change R(R2)
1 (Constant) 71.372 .173
Focused Instruction .267 2.785 .006
7.76** .27(.07)
2 (Constant) 71.624 .107
Focused Instruction .208 1.887 .062
Prof. Community .119 1.076 .284
4.46* .29 (.08)
3 (Constant) 7.695 .489
Focused Instruction .179 1.597 .114
Prof. Community .108 .761 .449
Bldg Level 7.154 71.398 .165
Instruc. Leadership 7.315 72.816 .006
Trust in Principal .243 2.102 .038
Shared Leadership 7.059 7.534 .594
3.74** .44(.19)
Sig  .01 *.
**  .001**.

The regression models furthermore show that adding professional community to

the simple instruction–achievement model barely raises the percentage of variance
explained. However, when the leadership variables are added in Model 3, there is a
large increase in the R and R2, which suggests that principal leadership, even if it is
indirect, is important. Both trust in leadership and instructional leadership exhibit
significant regression coefficients, while building level and shared leadership are
insignificant. Overall, adding leadership variables and the building level control
variable more than double the percentage of variance in math achievement that is
explained.
While the regressions support our assumption that leadership affects student
learning, we assumed that it was unwise to overinterpret the regression coefficients
due to the relatively high levels of multicolinearity among the predictor variables. In
addition, the results of the two regressions raise as many questions as they answer:
Why, for example, does principal instructional leadership have an insignificant effect
in the regressions that look at instruction as the dependent variable, while exhibiting
a strong effect when the dependent variable is student achievement? We therefore
moved to test our assumptions through structural equation modeling, guided by a set
of possible interpretations of the regressions, as well as the literature reviewed above.
Figure 1 presents the model that illustrates the least complicated approach to
answering the two questions that motivated our inquiry. The model makes several
simplifying assumptions:

(1) We do not yet know enough to examine a causal relationship among the
three measures of leadership behavior/characteristics. They are, thus,
positioned, along with the dichotomous variable reflecting the building level
(elementary/secondary) at the left side of the model.
 School Effectiveness and School Improvement 329

Figure 1. Path model of the effects of leadership on student achievement.

(2) We then assume, based on existing research, that leadership behaviors and
characteristics may create the conditions for professional community to
develop among teachers rather than there being a reciprocal relationship.
(3) We assumed that instructional leadership might have a direct relationship
with classroom practices, since our measures incorporate discussions of
practice between teacher and principal. Shared leadership and trust, however,
were assumed to have an indirect relationship with classroom instructional
practice, since none of the items included in the scales reflect pedagogy.
(4) We assumed that professional community would not have a direct effect on
students because students experience classrooms but not the conversations
that occur among teachers.

Additional model assumptions will be discussed in our interpretations of results,

which follow.
The maximum likelihood method was used for the path analysis. Goodness of fit
between the model and the data was assessed via three fit indices: the goodness-of-fit
index (GFI), normed fit index (NFI), and the comparative fit index (CFI). GFI, NFI,
and CFI values greater than .9 indicate that the model is a good fit with the data
(Bentler & Bonett, 1980). The CFI is particularly critical, since it is a useful statistic
with relatively small samples (Bentler, 1990). The values of the GFI (.952), CFI
(.924), and the NFI (.900) all meet the suggested criterion. Taken together, these
results indicate that the fit between the model and the data is adequate.8 We interpret
the findings of the path analysis as follows:

. Instructional leadership was assumed to have both direct and indirect effects
on instruction, since the measure included principals’ visits to classrooms and
other behaviors that might involve direct recommendations or advice about
change in instruction. Our model suggests, however, that, although principal
330 K.S. Louis et al.

instructional leadership has significant effects on teachers’ working relation-

ships (professional community), its effects on instruction are limited.
. Shared leadership was not assumed to have a direct effect on instruction, but
rather an indirect effect through professional community as a locus for teacher
leadership around improvement. The model confirms this indirect relationship.
. Trust, which represents the emotional and professional bond between the
principal and teachers, was assumed to have strong effects on teacher–teacher
relationships. The model suggests, however, that its impact on professional
community is limited compared to leadership behaviors.
. Building level, as expected, has a strong effect on professional community
(with elementary schools being advantaged) and an equally strong direct effect
on achievement (again an elementary school advantage), but no significant
effect on focused instruction. This latter result was not expected and suggests a
need for further investigation to understand the dynamics of professional
community, instruction, and achievement in high schools.
. Professional community has significant indirect effects on achievement due to
its strong relationship to focused instruction.

Summary and discussion

This analysis provides a relatively comprehensive empirical ‘‘test’’ of the notion that
a number of leadership variables (e.g., instructional leadership, shared leadership)
and trust in the principal, when considered together, are positively related to student
learning. Our work suggests that shared leadership is one important means of
creating a learning organization in which efforts are focused on ways in which
increasing instructional capacity can influence student learning. We found several
critical differences between elementary and secondary schools that are particularly
important in developing a theory of effective school leadership. In particular, the
exercise of leadership for student achievement appears to be much easier in
elementary rather than in secondary settings.
Although we can make a straightforward summary of the findings, we also note
that they are complex and suggest a need for further analysis. First, the emotional
side of school leader behavior, which we have examined as teachers’ trust in the
school leader as ethical, caring, and competent, has been shown in previous studies
to have a strong relationship to student outcomes. In our study, however, its relative
significance diminishes when we take into consideration reported leader behaviors,
as measured by our constructs of instructional leadership and shared leadership. We
are not prepared, based on a single study and a simple path model, to discount the
importance of the emotional side of leadership. Because trust is highly correlated
with other key measures in this study, we are inclined to say that our findings require
additional exploration and, perhaps, more elaboration about the way in which
emotions and behaviors interact. This should build on existing work on the emotions
of leadership but also incorporate attention to more instrumental leadership actions
(Hargreaves, 2002; Leithwood & Beatty, 2007; Little, 1996; Zembylas, 2003).
Shared leadership and instructional leadership are both important, but they are
indirectly related to student achievement. In addition, both seem to gain their
influence because they have strong relationships to the way in which teachers
organize themselves into professional communities characterized by strongly held
norms and values, reflective discussions about instruction, and a sense of collective
 School Effectiveness and School Improvement 331

responsibility for student learning. This finding is hardly surprising when we

consider the arguments for shared leadership, which generally focus on expanding
the sphere of responsibility and creativity to meet pressing school needs. The largely
indirect effects of instructional leadership are, however, equally significant. While
principals may engage in classroom visits and model good teaching by working with
individual teachers, individual interventions (which would have emerged as a direct
effect on good classroom practice) seem less important than detailed investigations
of elementary schools suggest (Spillane, 2005; Stein & Nelson, 2003).
The finding is important because these two forms of leadership are often regarded
as alternative strategies to reach the desired end of student learning. Those
advocating instructional leadership emphasize the need to maintain a singular focus
on classroom practice as the key to raising student achievement and point to the
important role of the school leader as a model. Others who look at shared leadership
and teacher leadership point to the importance of creating a learning organization in
which all eyes are focused on leadership for learning. Our data suggest that these are
complementary approaches, and that both may be necessary. Thus, using a larger
and more diverse sample, we affirm Marks and Printy’s (2003) work, which
emphasizes the importance of combining leadership foci (in their case, transforma-
tional and instructional).
The findings with respect to differences between elementary and secondary
schools are particularly important as we begin to develop theories of effective school
leadership. Our results, as we have noted, are far from definitive, but what is clear is
that the job of influencing student achievement is far easier in elementary schools
than in secondary settings.
Before discussing the implications of this study, we hasten to note a few of its
limitations. First, although the sample is large and comprehensive, it is limited to a
single country. There is a great deal of evidence to suggest that the exercise of
leadership and its effects are deeply embedded in national as well as organizational
cultures. Second, there are clearly limitations to the use of SEM, which include both
its requirements to assume causality (where mutual interdependence may be a more
realistic assumption) and the distinct possibility that omitted variables might
influence the overall model. Some of these might be addressed through a longitudinal
design (see, e.g., Heck & Hallinger, 2009) or through case studies.9 Third, there are
clearly variables missing from the SEM model that might be important. We plan, for
example, to explore the importance of district and student demographic
characteristics in further analyses.

Implications for policy and practice

We have argued that there is a need for additional research to examine the specific
leadership behaviors that are most effective in supporting student learning. However,
even without additional investigations, there are four clear implications
First, both teachers and those with formal administrative responsibilities need to
acknowledge and act on the increased importance of collective and shared work around
instruction. Professional community is too frequently considered an administratively
initiated program to encourage teachers to analyze student achievement data and
turn it into increased test scores. Our analysis suggests that the reality is more
complex. Not only do teachers need to work together around instruction and student
332 K.S. Louis et al.

learning, but administrators need to be part of that process. While this may be as
simple as having principals participate in professional development activities for
teachers, or as difficult as reorganizing the formal authority structure of the school, it
requires a substantial rethinking of the ‘‘bright line’’ that all-too-often separates
administration and teaching.
Second, it is important to provide significant additional support for secondary
school leaders to establish the kind of instructional leadership that is ‘‘workable’’ in
their larger and more complex settings. It is unlikely that real improvements in the
climate for principal–teacher collaboration and improved achievement in secondary
schools will occur simply because of increased pressure. Because most districts have
only a small number of secondary schools, their ability to refocus energies and
supply the support for change is limited. We suggest that states or even regional/
national entities will need to be involved. Because we know from international
studies such as the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and the
Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) that US secondary
schools (particularly high schools) are the weakest link in the US educational system,
and they show limited evidence of improving under current accountability policies,
we suggest that this must be a priority for school reform.
Third, school leader preparation and professional development programs should
continue to emphasize both the ‘‘softer’’ (emotional) and ‘‘harder’’ (behavioral)
aspects of leadership. Although our results suggest that principal behaviors are more
important than emotional factors like trust, they are empirically part of a bundle
that is difficult to separate. Although trust without supporting instructional and
shared leadership may be of little consequence for students, our data suggest that
teachers’ relationships with each other and their trust in the principal cannot be
easily disaggregated.
Fourth, while there is increased emphasis on the responsibility of principals for
student test scores, it is important to remember that their primary focus within the
school must be on instructional and shared leadership. Increasing teachers’
involvement in the difficult task of making good decisions and introducing improved
practices must be at the heart of school leadership. There is no simple short-cut.

Notes
1. This analysis was supported by a grant from the Wallace Foundation. The funding agency
bears no responsibility for the contents of this paper.
2. See Ogawa and Bossert (1995) for a discussion of the relationship between broader
patterns of leadership as an organizational property.
3. This view of shared leadership reflects an emerging consensus among current scholars and
distinguishes our approach from scholars who blend shared leadership with instructional
leadership (Marks & Printy, 2003).
4. Principal surveys and qualitative data around instructional leadership are being analyzed
in other papers and reports (see Louis et al., 2010, for the broadest review).
5. While teachers are associated with principals, we do not have individual student
achievement scores and are therefore unable to use a hierarchical analysis like hierarchical
linear modeling.
6. Two other factors emerged on our initial efforts to examine instruction, which are
described in a previous paper (Wahlstrom & Louis, 2008). While not reported here, we
initially attempted to use them in this investigation. However, neither of the other
instructional factors is associated with the measure of student achievement used in this
paper, nor with other measures available to us. We therefore have chosen not to report
these findings.
 School Effectiveness and School Improvement 333

7. Because of changes in state tests and state cut scores on stable tests, and the inability to
obtain tests at the student level from many states, we were unable to look at changes in
test scores over the 5-year period, which was our original intention.
8. The RMSEA is .45, which is considerably higher than the suggested value of .05.
9. We have, elsewhere, drawn on our case study data to illuminate some of the differences
between instructional leadership in elementary and secondary schools (Louis et al., 2010,
pp. 74–90), but the interview data from teachers are relatively thin.

Notes on contributors
Karen Seashore Louis is the Robert H. Beck Professor in the College of Education and
Human Development at the University of Minnesota. Recent books include Organizing for
School Change (2006), Professional Learning Communities: Divergence, Depth and Dilemmas
(with Louise Stoll, 2007), and Building Strong School Cultures: A guide to Leading Change
(with Sharon Kruse, 2009). In 2009, she received the Campbell Lifetime Achievement Award
from the University Council for Educational Administration.
Beverly J. Dretzke, PhD, is a Research Associate in the Center for Applied Research and
Educational Improvement, College of Education and Human Development, University of
Minnesota. Her current work is focused on program evaluation in the areas of professional
development of teachers, arts-integrated reading instruction, and high school reform
initiatives.
Kyla L. Wahlstrom, PhD, is the Director of the Center for Applied Research and
Educational Improvement in the College of Education and Human Development at the
University of Minnesota. Her research interests focus on educational leadership,
professional development of teachers, and the politics of organizational change. Her study
of the effect of later starting times for high schools has influenced policy discussions across
the United States.

References
Allington, R.L. (2001). What really matters for struggling readers: Designing research-based
interventions. New York, NY: Longmans.
Anderson, G. (1998). Toward authentic participation: Deconstructing the discourses of
participatory reforms in education. American Educational Research Journal, 35, 571–603.
Bentler, P.M. (1990). Fit indexes, Lagrange multipliers, constraint changes and incomplete
data in structural models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 163–172.
Bentler, P.M., & Bonett, D.G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of
covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588–606.
Brophy, J. (1986). Teacher influences on student achievement. American Psychologist, 41,
1069–1077.
Bryk, A., Camburn, E., & Louis, K.S. (1999). Professional community in Chicago elementary
schools: Facilitating factors and organizational consequences. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 35, 751–781.
Bryk, A.S., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. New
York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Burch, P., & Spillane, J.P. (2003). Elementary school leadership strategies and subject matter:
Reforming mathematics and literacy instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 103,
519–535.
Camburn, E., Rowan, B., & Taylor, J.E. (2003). Distributed leadership in schools: The case of
elementary schools adopting comprehensive school reform models. Educational Evaluation
and Policy Analysis, 25, 347–373.
Cascadden, D.S.T. (1998). Principals and managers and leaders: A qualitative study of the
perspectives of selected elementary school principals. Journal of School Leadership, 8, 137–
170.
Chrispeels, J.H., Castillo, S., & Brown, J. (2000). School leadership teams: A process model of
team development. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 11, 20–56.
Cohen, D.K., Raudenbush, S.W., & Ball, D.L. (2003). Resources, instruction, and research.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25, 119–142.
334 K.S. Louis et al.

Daly, A.J., & Chrispeels, J. (2008). A question of trust: Predictive conditions for adaptive
and technical leadership in educational contexts. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 7, 30–
63.
Day, C., Sammons, P., Hopkins, D., Harris, A., Leithwood, K., Gu, Q., . . . Kington, A.
(2009). The impact of school leadership on pupil outcomes. Nottingham, UK: National
College for School Leadership.
Driscoll, J.W. (1978). Trust and participation in organizational decision making as predictors
of satisfaction. The Academy of Management Review, 21, 44–56.
Fenstermacher, G., & Richardson, V. (2005). On making determinations of quality in
teaching. Teachers College Record, 107, 186–213.
Friedkin, N.E., & Slater, M.R. (1994). School leadership and performance: A social network
approach. Sociology of Education, 67, 139–157.
Goddard, R.D., Sweetland, S.R., & Hoy, W.K. (2000). Academic emphasis of urban
elementary schools and student achievement in reading and mathematics: A multilevel
analysis. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36, 683–702.
Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading educational change: Reflections on the practice of instructional
and transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education, 33, 329–351.
Hallinger, P. (2005). Instructional leadership and the school principal: A passing fancy that
refuses to fade away. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4, 221–239.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (1998). Exploring the principal’s contribution to school effectiveness:
1980–1995. School effectiveness and school improvement, 9, 157–191.
Halverson, R., Grigg, J., Prichett, R., & Thomas, C. (2007). The new instructional leadership:
Creating data-driven instructional systems in school. Journal of School Leadership, 17, 59–
194.
Hargreaves, A. (2002). The emotional geographies of teaching. Teachers College Record, 103,
1056–1080.
Harris, A. (2002). Effective leadership in schools facing challenging contexts. School
Leadership & Management, 22, 15–26.
Harris, A. (2008). Distributed leadership: According to the evidence. Journal of Educational
Administration, 46, 172–188.
Heck, R., & Hallinger, P. (2009). Assessing the contribution of principal and teacher
leadership to school improvement. American Educational Research Journal, 46, 659–689.
Hord, S., & Sommers, W. (2008). Leadership and professional learning communities:
Possibilities, practice and performance. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Huber, S.G. (2004). School leadership and leadership development: Adjusting leadership
theories and development programs to values and the core purpose of school. Journal of
Educational Administration, 42, 669–684.
King, M.B., & Newmann, F.M. (2001). Building school capacity through professional
development: Conceptual and empirical considerations. International Journal of Educa-
tional Management, 15, 86–93.
Kirschner, P.A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R.E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction
does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based,
experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41, 75–86.
Knapp, M. (1995). Teaching for meaning in high poverty classrooms. New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.
Lee, V.E., & Smith, J. (1995). Effects of high school restructuring and size on early gains in
achievement and engagement. Sociology of Education, 68, 241–270.
Leech, D., & Fulton, C.R. (2008). Faculty perceptions of shared decision making and the
principal’s leadership behaviors in secondary schools in a large urban district. Education,
128, 630–644.
Leithwood, K. (2001). School leadership in the context of accountability policies. International
Journal of Leadership in Education, 4, 217–235.
Leithwood, K., & Beatty, B. (2007). Leading with teacher emotions in mind. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin.
Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2008). Seven strong claims about successful school
leadership. School Leadership & Management, 28, 27–42.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (1999). Transformational school leadership effects: A replication.
School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 10, 451–479.
 School Effectiveness and School Improvement 335

Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2000). The effects of transformational leadership on

organizational conditions and student engagement with school. Journal of Educational
Administration, 38, 112–129.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2005). A review of transformational school leader research:
1996–2005. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4, 177–199.
Linn, R. (2003). Accountability: Responsibility and reasonable expectations. Educational
Researcher, 32(7), 3–13.
Little, J.W. (1996). The emotional contours and career trajectories of (disappointed) reform
enthusiasts. Cambridge Journal of Education, 26, 345–359.
Louis, K.S. (2006). Changing the culture of schools: Professional community, organizational
learning, and trust. Journal of School Leadership, 16, 477–489.
Louis, K.S. (2007). Trust and improvement in schools. Journal of Educational Change, 8, 1–24.
Louis, K.S., Leithwood, K., Wahlstrom, K., Anderson, S., Mascall, B., Michlin, M., . . .
Thomas, E. (2010). Learning from districts’ efforts to improve student achievement. Report
to the Wallace Foundation (draft). Retrieved from http://education.umn.edu/CAREI/
Leadership/Reports.html
Louis, K.S., & Marks, H. (1998). Does professional community affect the classroom?
Teachers’ work and student experiences in restructuring schools. American Journal of
Education, 106, 532–575.
Malen, B. (1994). Enacting site-based management: A political utilities analysis. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 16, 249–267.
Marks, H., Louis, K.S., & Printy, S. (2002). The capacity for organizational learning:
Implications for pedagogy and student achievement. In K. Leithwood (Ed.), Organiza-
tional learning and school improvement (pp. 239–266). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Marks, H.M., & Louis, K.S. (1997). Does teacher empowerment affect the classroom? The
implications of teacher empowerment for instructional practice and student academic
performance. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19, 245–275.
Marks, H.M., & Printy, S. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An
integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 39, 370–397.
Marzano, R., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. (2005). School leadership that works. Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Matthews, P., & Sammons, P. (2005). Survival of the weakest: The differential improvement of
schools causing concern in England. London Review of Education, 3, 159–176.
McLaughlin, M.W., & Talbert, J.E. (2001). Professional communities and the work of high
school teaching. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Mosenthal, J., Lipson, M., Torncello, S., Russ, B., & Mekkelsen, J. (2004). Contexts and
practices of six schools successful in obtaining reading achievement. The Elementary
School Journal, 104, 343–367.
Newmann, F.M., & Associates. (1996). Authentic achievement: Restructuring schools for
intellectual quality. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
O’Donnell, R.J., & White, G.P. (2005). Within the account era: Principals’ instructional
leadership behaviors and student achievement. NASSP Bulletin, 89(645), 56–71.
Ogawa, R., & Bossert, S. (1995) Leadership as an organizational quality. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 31, 224–243.
Pounder, D.G. (1999). Teacher teams: Exploring job characteristics and work-
related outcomes of work group enhancement. Educational Administration Quarterly,
35, 317–348.
Printy, S.M., & Marks, H.M. (2006). Shared leadership for teacher and student learning.
Theory Into Practice, 45, 125–132.
Riley, K., & McBeath, J. (2003). Effective leaders and effective schools. In N. Bennett, M.
Crawford, & M. Cartwright (Eds.), Leading and managing for effective education: Effective
educational leadership (pp. 173–185). London, UK: Paul Chapman.
Scribner, J.P., Sawyer, R.K., Watson, S.T., & Myers, V.L. (2007). Teacher teams and
distributed leadership: A study of group discourse and collaboration. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 43, 67–100.
Serva, M.A., Fuller, M.A., & Mayer, R.C. (2005). The reciprocal nature of trust: A
longitudinal study of interacting teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 625–648.
336 K.S. Louis et al.

Silins, H., & Mulford, B. (2004). Schools as learning organisations – Effects on teacher
leadership and student outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 15, 443–
466.
Smith, T.M., Desimone, L.M., & Ueno, K. (2005). ‘‘Highly qualified’’ to do what? The
relationship between NCLB teacher quality mandates and the use of reform-oriented
instruction in middle school mathematics. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27,
75–109.
Smylie, M.A., Conley, S., & Marks, H.M. (2002). Exploring new approaches to teacher
leadership for school improvement. In J. Murphy (Ed.), The educational leadership
challenge: Redefining leadership for the 21st century (pp. 162–188). Chicago, IL: University
of Chicago Press.
Smylie, M.A., & Wenzel, S.A. (2003). The Chicago Annenberg challenge: Successes, failures,
and lessons for the future. Final technical report of the Chicago Annenberg Research Project.
Chicago, IL: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
Spillane, J., Hallett, T., & Diamond, J.B. (2003). Forms of capital and the construction of
leadership: Instructional leadership in urban elementary schools. Sociology of Education,
76, 1–17.
Spillane, J.P. (2005). Primary school leadership practice: How the subject matters. School
Leadership & Management, 25, 383–397.
Stein, M.K., & Nelson, B.S. (2003). Leadership content knowledge. Educational Evaluation
and Policy Analysis, 25, 423–448.
Tarter, C.J., Bliss, J.R., & Hoy, W.K. (1989). School characteristics and faculty trust in
secondary schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 23, 294–308.
Taylor, B., Pearson, D., Clark, K., & Walpole, S. (2000). Effective schools and accomplished
teachers: Lessons about primary-grade reading instruction in low-income schools. The
Elementary School Journal, 101, 121–165.
Tschannen-Moran, M. (2004). Trust matters: Leadership for successful schools. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Wahlstrom, K., & Louis, K.S. (2008). How teachers perceive principal leadership. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 44, 498–445.
Wayne, A.J., & Youngs, P. (2003). Teacher characteristics and student achievement gains: A
review. Review of Educational Research, 73, 89–122.
Wiley, S.D. (2001). Contextual effects on student achievement: School leadership and
professional community. Journal of School Change, 2(1), 1–33.
Wilson, S.M., & Peterson, P. (2006). Theories of learning and teaching: What do they mean for
educators. Washington, DC: National Education Association.
Wiske, S. (Ed.). (1998). Teaching for understanding: Linking research with practice. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Witziers, B., Bosker, R., & Kruger, M. (2003). Educational leadership and student
achievement: The elusive search for an association. Educational Administration Quarterly,
39, 398–425.
York-Barr, J., & Duke, K. (2004). What do we know about teacher leadership? Findings from
two decades of scholarship. Review of Educational Research, 74, 255–316.
Youngs, P. (2001). District and state policy influences on professional development and school
capacity. Educational Policy, 15, 278–301.
Youngs, P., & King, M.B. (2002). Principal leadership for professional development to build
school capacity. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38, 643–670.
Zembylas, M. (2003). Interrogating ‘‘teacher identity’’: Emotion, resistance, and self-
formation. Educational Theory, 53, 107–127.
Copyright of School Effectiveness & School Improvement is the property of Routledge and its content may not
be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.