The Ontario Leadership Framework: Successful School Leadership Practices and Personal Leadership Resources

Leithwood, Kenneth

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-50980-8_3

Cited by 54 publications

(98 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A considerable body of research supports the conception of school leadership included in this framework (e.g., Day et al, 2011; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2006, 2008; Leithwood & Louis, 2012; Leithwood & Riehl, 2005). The most detailed account of this “integrated model” (Printy, Marks, & Bower, 2009) and it’s theoretical roots is found in the Ontario Leadership Framework (Leithwood, 2012) recently judged to be the most comprehensive, evidence-based account of effective school leaders practices available (Hitt & Tucker, 2016). This conception of leadership consists of four domains and a total of 19 specific practices within those domains.…”

Section: Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Table 1 identifies the four domains of leadership practice—setting directions, building relationships and developing people, developing the organization to support desired practices, and improving the instructional program; the table also lists the specific practices included in each domain. Although not included in this study, this leadership model also includes three types of “personal leadership resources” (capacities and dispositions), cognitive, social and psychological resources (see Leithwood, 2012).…”

Section: Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

How School Leadership Influences Student Learning: A Test of “The Four Paths Model”

Leithwood

Sun

Schumacker

2019

Educational Administration Quarterly

Self Cite

190

147

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: This study tested a set of variables mediating school leadership’s influence on students referred to as “The four paths model.” Each path in the model includes variables with significant direct effects on student learning and which are malleable to practices included in an integrated model of effective school leadership. Research Design: Evidence for the study were responses to a survey by 1,779 teachers in 81 Texas elementary schools about the status of school leadership and all 13 variables on the four paths. Student achievement data were provided by results of state tests combining all subjects and all grades, while the count and percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch was used to estimate socioeconomic status. Confirmatory factor analysis, regression analysis, and structural equation modeling were used to analyze the data. Findings: Results uncovered a more nuanced and complex set of relationships among the four paths and their component variables than was specified in the original version of the model. School leadership significantly influenced student learning only through variables on one path, while variables on the other three paths influenced student learning only through their contribution to variables on that one path. Conclusions: Results point to the value of future research about the relationships among variables on the four paths, as well as efforts to identify latent variables among the observed variables in the study. Results of the study can be used by school leaders to more productively focus their school improvement efforts.

show abstract

Section: Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

How School Leadership Influences Student Learning: A Test of “The Four Paths Model”

Leithwood

Sun

Schumacker

2019

Educational Administration Quarterly

Self Cite

190

147

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…When described, these three capabilities resemble cognitive and social personal leadership resources. Similarly, Leithwood (2017) addressed leadership practices and personal leadership resources in relation to the Ontario Leadership Framework. In both works leadership practice and capabilities were brought together, but context was either assumed or scantly addressed.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, cognitive resources include problem solving expertise and domainspecific knowledge while social resources contains perceiving emotions, managing emotions, and acting in emotionally appropriate ways. The final category, psychological resources, houses optimism, self-efficacy, resilience, and proactivity (Leithwood, 2017). For the purposes of this analysis, personal leadership resources will be used.…”

Section: Personal Leadership Resourcesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Personal Leadership Resources as Mediator of Context and Leadership Practice: A Review and Conceptual Analysis

Hoogsteen¹

2020

ASSRJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hallinger (2018) contends that context has been treated as a 'given' in reviews of research and remains in the shadows of leadership. At the same time, Lee and Hallinger (2012) have described an emerging area of study focusing on the impact of organizational contexts. Several scholars in the field of educational leadership have gone as far as to say that context is causal. However, a recent review of empirical research by Leithwood, Harris, and Hopkins (2019) claimed that the ways in which leaders apply basic leadership practices demonstrate a responsiveness to, rather than dictation by, context. Furthermore, they note that a well-defined set of 'personal leadership resources' show promise of explaining a high proportion of variation of school leaders' practice. These two claims, while not diminishing the significance of context, demonstrate the importance of a leader's characteristics and leadership practice to leaders that are successful. To consider this latter point further, a review of literature is conducted to synthesize three areas in the field of educational leadership which, at least implicitly, are considered competing; context, leadership practice, and personal leadership resources. The review results in an adaptation of previous models from Bossert et al. (1982) and Hallinger (2018) that illustrates the convergence of the three leadership variables.

show abstract

“…Similar to the research on school leadership, the research on district leadership has suggested some common characteristics among successful district leaders and high-performing districts (e.g., Honig, 2012; Leithwood & Louis, 2011). Summarizing research evidence, primarily from the United States, about school system features that improve student learning, Leithwood (2013) identified four broad categories or dimensions of effective school system characteristics, each of which includes two to four more specific characteristics (12 in total). These four categories of characteristics, which constitute the District Effectiveness Framework, are as follows: (a) Core Processes, (b) Supporting Conditions, (c) Leadership, and (d) Relationships.…”

Section: Empirical Studies On Power Relationships and Decision Domainsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tight, Loose, or Decoupling? A National Study of the Decision-Making Power Relationship Between District Central Offices and School Principals

Xia

Shen

Sun

2019

Educational Administration Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Do school district central offices and school principals have the same level of influence on school decisions? What does the district–principal power relationship look like? These two questions are discussed but are rarely examined in the literature. Based on a nationally representative sample from the 2007-2008 Schools and Staffing Survey data, we explored these two questions. Specifically, we applied the paired samples t test to compare the district central offices’ and school principals’ influences and applied the multilevel modeling method to estimate the power relationship. We found that (a) on average, districts and principals had the same level of influence on establishing curriculum, whereas school principals had higher influence on the other six decision areas examined (performance standards, teachers’ professional development programs, evaluating teachers, hiring teachers, discipline policies, and school budget), and (b) a tight coupling power relationship between district central offices and school principals was identified for the three areas related to the technical core of schools (performance standards, establishing curriculum, and teachers’ professional development programs), a loose coupling power relationship was revealed for the personnel (hiring and evaluating teachers) and budget areas, while a decoupling power relationship was found for discipline policy decisions. Discussions and implications for school leadership and policy were included in this study.

show abstract

The Ontario Leadership Framework: Successful School Leadership Practices and Personal Leadership Resources

Cited by 54 publications

References 16 publications

How School Leadership Influences Student Learning: A Test of “The Four Paths Model”

How School Leadership Influences Student Learning: A Test of “The Four Paths Model”

Personal Leadership Resources as Mediator of Context and Leadership Practice: A Review and Conceptual Analysis

Tight, Loose, or Decoupling? A National Study of the Decision-Making Power Relationship Between District Central Offices and School Principals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About