An investigation of the impact of leadership practices on student learning and development outcomes in Singapore schools

Abstract

Policymakers and the public in many developed countries have demanded for greater public school accountability in the hope of improving academic and non-academic school outcomes, as well as decreasing the achievement gaps among subpopulations of students (Heck & Moriyama, 2010). In response, there has been a growing conversation amongst educational practitioners and researchers on how educational leadership might be linked to effective teaching, and student learning and ‘achievement’ outcomes. Educational-effectiveness researchers have attempted to link (directly and/or indirect) existing research with theory about educational processes to identify contextual, school factors (including leadership), and classroom factors (including teacher effectiveness) to student learning and ‘achievement’ outcomes (Creemers, 1994; Creemers & Kyriakides, 2008; Heck & Moriyama, 2010; Leithwood & Mascall, 2008; Scheerens, 1990, 1992; Stringfield & Slavin, 1992; Teddlie & Reynolds, 2000). Also of interest are (i) possible differences in the contribution of the leadership practices, (ii) whether some practices are better performed by certain people or roles instead of others, and (iii) whether some strategic efforts to implement changes in the school’s instructional practices are more effective than others (e.g., Creemers & Kyriakides, 2008; Firestone & Martinez, 2007; Leithwood et al., 2004; Locke, 2003). <br><br> It is clear that the ‘Principal as the sole decision maker’ conception of leadership and bureaucratic organizational structures are no longer consistent with the new school leadership climate (Pearce & Conger, 2003). Proponents of this view have argued that a dispersed form of leadership is thought to enhance opportunities for the organization to benefit from the capacities of more of its members rather than a single leader (Leithwood & Mascall, 2008). Leithwood and Mascall (2008, p.530) further argued that in so doing, organizational members can develop “a fuller appreciation of interdependence and how one’s behavior affects the organization as a whole”. This clearly reflects the growing appreciation of the informal dimensions of organizations often among those who are not in positions of formal authority (Gronn, 2003; Tschannen-Moran, 2004; Wheatley, 2005). Evidently, leadership and school improvement are increasingly conceptualized as organization-wide phenomena (Manz & Sims, 1993; Ogawa & Bossert, 1995). The evidences from previous studies have provided the impetus for greater understanding of the links between leadership, teaching and learning. Clearly, these issues warrant greater empirical attention. More specifically, educators and researchers are interested in understanding of the following:<br> (i) Impact of educational policies and system structures on school leadership practices; (ii) Impact of leadership practices on teaching; (iii) Linkages of core leadership practices in schools (i.e., instructional leadership, distributed leadership, teacher leadership, and transformational leadership); (iv) Impact of leadership practices on student learning; (v) Impact of teacher variables (i.e., teaching competencies, engagement and job satisfaction) on student learning.