school leadership for learning launch - presentation by montserrat gomendio - 20-09-16

1

School leadership for

LearningInsights from TALIS 2013

Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after accounting for socio-economic status Fig II.3.322 Background: TALIS 2013

…representing more than 4 million teachers in over 30 coun-tries and economies…

Over 100 thousand randomly selected lower secondary teach-ers and their school leaders from over 6500 schools

…took an internationally-agreed survey about the working condi-tions and learning environments in their schools…

…principals respond to questions about their background, their practices, support and development, their relationships with teachers and other stake-holders and the leadership in their schools

TALIS 2013 – 38 systems

*Note: TALIS 2013 only runs in a sub-national entity in the following countries: Belgium (Flemish Community), Canada (Alberta), United Arab Emirates (Abu Dhabi) and United Kingdom (England). This map is for illustrative purposes and is without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory covered by this map.

TALIS 2013 Participants 2014

Leadership for learning at the

school

Instructional leadership• Refers to the efforts of the principal in supporting instruction and learning in their

school• Index includes the frequency that principals: take action to support co-operation

among teacher to develop new teaching practices, take action to ensure that teachers take responsibility for improving their teaching skills, take action to en-sure that teachers feel responsible for their student’s learning outcomes.

Distributed leadership • Acknowledges the collective effort of improving school quality by taking into ac-

count the involvement of other relevant stakeholders. • Index includes the level of principals agreement on whether: the school provides

staff with opportunities to actively participate in school decisions, provides parents or guardians with opportunities to actively participate in school decisions, and provides students with opportunities to actively participate in school decisions.

5

55 Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after accounting for socio-economic status Fig II.3.355 Defining instructional and distributed leadership

6

66 Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after accounting for socio-economic status Fig II.3.366

Principals’ engagement in instructional leadership in lower secondary education. International average compare with the U.S. average

020406080

100International Average United States

Perc

enta

ge

7


Engagement in instructional leadership in lower sec-ondary education across TALIS systems

Mal

aysi

aAb

u D

habi

(UAE

)Sh

angh

ai (C

hina

)Ch

ileRo

man

iaBu

lgar

iaSe

rbia

Slov

ak R

epub

licSi

ngap

ore

Albe

rta

(Can

ada)

Braz

ilM

exic

oKo

rea

Pola

ndIs

rael

Russ

ian

Fede

ratio

nAu

stra

liaLa

tvia

Engl

and

(UK)

Geor

gia

New

Zea

land

Czec

h Re

publ

icAv

erag

ePo

rtug

alNe

ther

land

sCr

oatia

Italy

Icel

and

Spai

nFr

ance

Swed

enEs

toni

aNo

rway

Denm

ark

Finla

ndFla

nder

s (Be

lgiu

m)

Japa

n

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Take action to ensure that teachers feel responsible for their students' learning outcomesTake action to ensure that teachers take responsibility for improving their teaching skillsTake action to support co-operation among teachers to develop new teaching practices

Cum

ulat

ive

perc

enta

ge

8


Instructional leadership, by principals’ training in instruc-tional leadership in lower secondary education

Spai

n

Rom

ania

Denm

ark

Norw

ay

Braz

il

Mex

ico

Bulg

aria

Czec

h Re

publ

ic

Russ

ian

Fede

ratio

n

Port

ugal

Slov

ak R

epub

lic

Esto

nia

Finla

nd

Aver

age

Fran

ce

New

Zea

land

Serb

ia

Croa

tia

Pola

nd

Isra

el

Italy

Latv

ia

Fland

ers (

Belg

ium

)

Aust

ralia

Engl

and

(UK)

Neth

erla

nds

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

11.0

12.0

13.0

Principals received training in instructional leadership Principals received no training in instructional leadership Series4

Ave

rage

sco

re o

n th

e in

stru

ctio

nal l

eade

rshi

p sc

ale

Notes: The figure includes only those countries and economies in which at least 10% of the principals indicated that they participated in training or a course in instructional leadership and at least 10% of the principals indicated that they did not participate in such a training or course.

9

99 Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after accounting for socio-economic status Fig II.3.399 Principals’ engagement in distributed leadership activities in lower secondary educa-

tion. International average compare with the U.S. average

020406080

100International Average United States

Perc

enta

ge

10

1010 Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after accounting

for socio-economic status Fig II.3.31010

Engagement in distributed leadership in lower sec-ondary education across TALIS systems

Latv

iaSh

angh

ai (C

hina

)Po

land

Kore

aEs

toni

aGe

orgi

aSe

rbia

Russ

ian

Fede

ra...

Norw

ayFla

nder

s (Be

lgiu

m)

Braz

ilCz

ech

Repu

blic

Croa

tiaPo

rtug

alAl

bert

a (C

anad

a)Ne

w Z

eala

ndSp

ain

Aust

ralia

Mex

ico

Engl

and

(UK)

Rom

ania

Icel

and

Aver

age

Bulg

aria

Chile

Denm

ark

Abu

Dha

bi (U

AE)

Neth

erla

nds

Sing

apor

eFr

ance

Mal

aysi

aSl

ovak

Rep

ublic

Swed

enFin

land

Italy

Isra

elJa

pan

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

This school provides staff with opportunities to actively participate in school decisionsThis school provides parents or guardians with opportunities to actively participate in school decisionsThis school provides students with opportunities to actively participate in school decisions

Cum

ulat

ive

perc

enta

ge

11



Distributed leadership, by principals’ professional development activities, in lower secondary education

Net

herla

nds

Engl

and

(UK)

Kore

aSh

angh

ai (C

hina

)M

exic

oIc

elan

dSp

ain

Sing

apor

eSl

ovak

Rep

ublic

Bulg

aria

Abu

Dhab

i (UA

E)Ro

man

iaBr

azil

Serb

iaIta

lyAv

erag

eDe

nmar

kM

alay

siaFi

nlan

dN

ew Z

eala

ndAl

bert

a (C

anad

a)Ja

pan

Swed

enCz

ech

Repu

blic

Flan

ders

(Bel

gium

)Cr

oatia

Esto

nia

Latv

iaIsr

ael

Fran

ceAu

stra

liaPo

rtug

alRu

ssia

n Fe

dera

tion

Chile

Nor

way

Pola

ndGe

orgi

a

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Professional network, mentoring or research activity Courses, conferences or observational visits Other professional development

Diff

eren

ce in

sco

res

on th

e di

strib

uted

lead

ersh

ip s

cale

Profiles of school leadership across

educational systems

Integrated leaders

• Strong focus on instructional as well as distributed leadership. • Spend considerable time on curriculum and teaching related tasks in school. • Most use student outcomes to develop the school’s educational goals or programmes and a professional development plan for his/her

school.

Inclusive leaders

• Strong focus on distributed leadership, but a weak focus on instructional leadership. • Spend little time on curriculum and teaching related tasks in school. • Some use student outcomes to develop the school’s educational goals or programmes and a professional development plan for his/

her school.

Educational leaders

• Strong focus on instructional leadership, but a weak focus on distributed leadership. • Spend much time on curriculum and teaching related tasks in school. • Most use student outcomes to develop the school’s educational goals or programmes and a professional development plan for his/her

school.

Administrative leaders

• Weak focus on instructional as well as distributed leadership. • Spends some time on curriculum and teaching-related tasks in school. • Many use student outcomes to develop the school’s educational goals or programmes and a professional development plan for their

school.


for socio-economic status Fig II.3.31313 Four types of school leadership

14



Percentage of principals in TALIS exercising integrated, inclusive, edu-cational or administrative leadership

50%

17%

23%

10%Integrated leadership

Inclusive leadership

Educational leadership

Administrative lead-ership

15



Countries and economies’ classification according to the overall leadership type of their principals

Mainly integrated leaders Mainly inclusive leaders Mainly educational leadersAbu Dhabi (United Arab Emirates) Croatia England (United Kingdom)

Alberta (Canada) Denmark Israel

Australia Estonia Italy

Brazil Finland Japan

Bulgaria Flanders (Belgium) New Zealand

Chile France Norway

Czech Republic Iceland Slovak Republic

Georgia Netherlands

Korea Portugal

Latvia Spain

Malaysia Sweden

Mexico

Poland

Romania

The Russian Federation

Serbia

Singapore

Shanghai (China)



Countries and economies’ classification according to the overall leadership type of their principals (cont.)

9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.09.0

9.5

10.0

10.5

11.0

11.5

12.0

12.5

13.0

13.5

Japan

FinlandFlanders (Belgium)

Denmark EstoniaSweden

FranceSpain

Italy Croatia

New Zealand

PortugalThe Netherlands The Czech Republic

LatviaGeorgia

PolandAustraliaIsrael Slovak Republic Brazil

Russian FederationKoreaAlberta (Canada) SerbiaEngland (UK)

RomaniaBulgaria Mexico

Shanghai (China)Singapore

Chile

Abu Dhabi (UAE)

Malaysia

Degree of distributed leadership

Deg

ree

of in

stru

ctio

nal l

eade

rshi

p

Iceland

Countries and economies with mainly integrated leaders

Countries and econom-ies with mainly educa-

tional leaders

Countries and economies with

mainly inclusive leaders

Impact of School

leadership

Reflective dialogue

Teachers perception about the quality of the feed-back re-ceived

Deprivatised practice

Teachers provide

feedback following direct ob-

servation of the

classroom teaching of a colleague

Collaborative professional

activity

Teachers report on the fre-

quency with which they engage in

sharing ma-terials, dis-cuss and work with colleagues

Shared sense of purpose

Teachers perception on whether the school has a cul-

ture of shared re-sponsibility and mutual

support

Collective fo-cus on stu-

dent learning

Teachers description

on the feedback content

(e.g. stu-dent per-formance, behaviour

and as-sessment)

18


for socio-economic status Fig II.3.31818 Professional learning communities’ factors

19



Deprivatised practice factor, by country and econ-omy, in lower secondary education

Kore

aNe

w Z

eala

ndNo

rway

Neth

erla

nds

Engl

and

(UK)

Russ

ian

Fede

ratio

nAu

stra

liaDe

nmar

kJa

pan

Shan

ghai

(Chi

na)

Latv

iaFin

land

Port

ugal

Esto

nia

Sing

apor

eRo

man

iaAv

erag

eIta

lyCz

ech

Repu

blic

Swed

enAl

bert

a (C

anad

a)Sl

ovak

Rep

ublic

Bulg

aria

Serb

iaM

exic

oSp

ain

Braz

ilGe

orgi

aIs

rael

Croa

tiaIc

elan

dCh

ileM

alay

siaAb

u D

habi

(UAE

)Fr

ance

Pola

ndFla

nder

s (Be

lgiu

m)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Ave

rage

per

cent

age

of te

ache

rs re

ceiv

ing

feed

back

follo

win

g cl

assr

oom

obs

erva

tion

by th

eir p

eers

20



Association between types of leadership and professional learning communities' dimensions, across educational levels

Reflective dialogue



Collaborative activity

Collective focus on student learning

Instructional leadership + + + +

Distributed leadership +

Instructional leadership + +


Instructional leadership +


Primary education

Lower secondary education

Upper secondary education

Notes: + = positive effect; - = negative effectSigns in bold font indicate significant effects at p < 0.01; grey signs indicate significant effects at p < 0.05Results of association are controlled for other school and teacher characteristics that might influence these relationships.

21



Association of integrated leaders and countries with mainly integrated leaders with professional learning communities’ dimensions, in comparison with other types of leadership and country profiles


Reflective dialogue





Integrated leaders (ref. category)

Educational leaders - - - -Inclusive leaders - -

Administrative leaders - - - -Country Profile: Mainly integrated leaders (ref.

category)Mainly inclusive leaders - - -

Mainly educational leaders

22



Association of students’ socio-demographic characteristics with professional learning communities' dimen-sions, on lower secondary education


Reflective dialogue





0% of students with special needs (ref. category)

1-10% of students + + +11-30% of students + + +31-60% of students

more than 60% of students + -0% of low SES students (ref.

category)

1-10% of students +11-30% of students + +31-60% of students + +

more than 60% of students + +

23



Association of teachers’ characteristics with professional learning communi-ties' dimensions, on lower secondary education


Reflective dialogue





Self-efficacy in the classroom - + - +Self-efficacy instruction + - + + +Self-efficacy in student engagement + - + + +

24


for socio-economic status Fig II.3.32424 Other relevant variables

Non-significant, weak or inconsistent associations with professional learning communities were found for the fol-lowing variables:

• School size• School autonomy• School type

Classroom disciplinary climate

Teachers’ description of student’s behaviour in

the classroom.

Teacher-student relation-ships

Teachers’ description on the quality of relation that the teaching staff

has with their students.

25


for socio-economic status Fig II.3.32525 Learning climate factors

26



Classroom disciplinary climate scale, by country and economy, lower secondary education.

Japa

nGe

orgi

aSh

angh

ai (C

hina

)Ro

man

iaAb

u D

habi

(UAE

)Ru

ssia

n Fe

dera

tion

Croa

tiaSe

rbia

Pola

ndDe

nmar

kEs

toni

aIta

lyEn

glan

d (U

K)Ne

w Z

eala

ndM

exic

oBu

lgar

iaCz

ech

Repu

blic

Isra

elAv

erag

eAu

stra

liaAl

bert

a (C

anad

a)La

tvia

Norw

aySw

eden

Mal

aysia

Fland

ers (

Belg

ium

)Fin

land

Kore

aFr

ance

Neth

erla

nds

Slov

ak R

epub

licIc

elan

dPo

rtug

alSi

ngap

ore

Spai

nCh

ileBr

azil

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

11.0

12.0

13.0

Ave

rage

sco

re o

n th

e cl

assr

oom

dis

cipl

inar

y cl

imat

e sc

ale

27



Association between types of leadership and positive learning envi-ronment dimensions, across educational levels


Classroom disciplinary

climate

Positive teacher-student

relationships

Instructional leadership






Lower secondary education

Upper secondary education

Primary education

28



Association of students’ socio-demographic characteristics with learning environment dimensions, lower secondary education



Positive teacher-student relationships

0% of students with special needs

1-10% of students - +11-30% of students -31-60% of students -

more than 60% of students - +0% of low SES students

1-10% of students

11-30% of students -31-60% of students - -

more than 60% of students - -

29



Association of teachers’ characteristics with learning environment dimen-sions, lower secondary education




Self-efficacy in the classroom + +Self-efficacy instruction - +Self-efficacy in student engagement + +

30



Association of school’ characteristics with learning environment dimensions, lower secondary education




300- or fewer students

301-600 students - -601-1200 students - -

more than 1200 students - -

Discussion

32


for socio-economic status Fig II.3.33232 Context, School leadership and professional learning communities

• The link between principals' leadership and students achievement is rarely direct.

• Principals' actions are mediated by a series of school factors which include teacher quality.

• Principals' have the means of improving teacher quality through actions such as fostering a professional learning community.

33



Context, School leadership and professional learning communities (cont.)

• However, the association between leadership, professional learning communities and student achievement should be considered carefully: – In schools with several or many less-competent teachers, actions such as

providing feedback, observing each other’s classes or engaging in teacher col-laboration may lead to the diffusion or the perpetuation of bad practices.

– On the other hand, in schools with a highly qualified teaching workforce, pro-fessional learning communities may do very little to improve the practices of an already exceptional workforce, but it can help to sustain their level of excellence.

• More research is needed to understand how principals, professional learning communities and student achievement operate in different contexts.

Conclusions

35


for socio-economic status Fig II.3.33535 The importance of school leadership

In this report we were able to show the link between different types of school leadership and professional learning communities.

• Distributed leadership Greater sense of purpose in the schools

• Instructional leadership Greater levels of collaboration between teachers

• Integrated leadership Most favourable approach for PLC

• Although a large number of principals demonstrate forms of integrated leadership, some school leaders mainly rely on instructional leadership or distributed leadership. For developing professional learning com-munities, a integrated role for the school leader seems appropriate.

Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after accounting for socio-economic status Fig II.3.33

636 How can systems support school leadership?

Policies supporting school leadership should consider:• requiring principals to participate in training and in-service

professional development instances that include leader-ship;

• guiding principals and teachers in creating a culture of shared responsibility based on collaboration and support;

• “freeing” hours of administrative work for principals in order to engage with teachers’ work or assigning a specific staff member to this task;

• opening up opportunities for the participation of teachers in school decisions; and

• supporting teachers in their professional development needs in order to boost their sense of self-efficacy.

Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after accounting for socio-economic status Fig II.3.337 “School leadership for Learning” authors:

• The report has been prepared by researchers from the Groningen Institute for Educational Research (GION):

Lyset Rekers-Mom-barg

Marij Veldman

Ralf Maslowski

Under the oversight of the OECD Secretariat

Roel Bosker

Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after accounting for socio-economic status Fig II.3.33

838 TALIS 2013 partnership

TALIS is a partnership be-

tween

an international research consor-

tium

Governments in 38 countries and economies European

Commission

Teachers’ unions