With this paper we empirically address the relationship between distributed leadership and student achievement, and thereby focus on the assessment (via a questionnaire) and effects of distributed leadership on student achievement. The empirical basis of the paper is a longitudinal survey (N=114) with principals and department heads from two German states and performance data from state-wide standardized proficiency tests. The information on school-based quality assurance measures (process variables) from the questionnaires is combined with the achievement data (outcome variables). We report descriptive statistics and apply multiple regression analyses to examine the relationship between school leadership activities and student achievement to further explore possible effects.

In Germany state-wide standard based proficiency tests were implemented about 10 years ago as one instrument of the test-based school reform. These tests aim to improve quality of schools and instruction. Schools are expected to improve or stabilise their performance in the tested subjects based on the test feedback (KMK, 2010). Moreover, this external test instrument contributes to evidence-based school and instructional improvement and thus ensures quality at the individual schools (school monitoring) (EMSE, 2008; KMK, 2012). In contrast to other educational systems like in the United States, where external tests have a longer tradition to serve for public monitoring of schools (Nichols, Glass, & Berliner, 2006), there are no rigorous consequences for German schools that have poor test results (low-stakes testing). Even though the states act independently in terms of most educational issues, over the last years different proficiency tests were introduced to foster the implementation of national educational standards in order to assess the German students competency levels in key school subjects (at school level). Our investigation is based on research on school leadership efficiency as the relationship between student achievement and school leadership and particularly on the distributed leadership concept. From this perspective school leadership responsibility is conceptualized according to the organizational responsibility of a school and its teaching staff. The assumption of an indirect leadership effect on the proficiency development of students and school quality is also supported in the current distributed leadership concept (i.e. Gronn, 2002; Harris, 2004; Spillane et al., 2001). The concept describes mechanisms of shared decision-making in schools as professional organizations and the implementation of responsibility in the organizational and personnel structure of the individual school. Hence, school leadership research should no longer focus on the principal as an individual person but on the organization-oriented actions within the school (i.e. school leadership). Even though the efficiency of distributed leadership is not sufficiently clarified so far, this leadership approach is generally acknowledged as effective. Initial studies indicate a positive impact of this leadership style on student achievement (see for an overview Huber, 2008; Heck & Hallinger, 2010), and on organizational outcomes and development (Harris, 2008). Within the specific context of standard-based proficiency tests the distributed leadership approach provides evidence for productive practices (in terms of school and instruction development) of principals in handling students test results (cf. Bonsen, 2010; Muslic et al, 2013). Moreover, school leadership is expected to have an indirect effect on school quality development (e.g. student achievement) by initiating and coordinating measures as well as delegating tasks and responsibilities to other school protagonists (i.e. Harris, 2004). Therefore, it can be seen as a deciding factor of school success.

Against this background two research questions are of particular relevance:

1) Does distributed leadership in schools have an impact on student achievement?

2) Do activities initiated by school leadership correspond with activities realized among teaching staff with leadership function (i.e. department head)?

Bonsen, M. (2010). Schulleitungshandeln. In: Altrichter, H. & Merki, K.M. (Eds.). Handbuch Neue Steuerung im Schulsystem. Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag, 277-295. EMSE - Netzwerk Empiriegestützte Schulentwicklung (2008). Nutzung und Nutzen von Schulrückmeldungen im Rahmen standardisierter Lernstandserhebungen/Vergleichsarbeiten. Zweites Positionspapier des EMSE-Netzwerkes. Nürnberg. Online: http://www.emsnetzwerk.de/uploads/Main/EMSEPositionsp2Rueckmeldungen.pdf. Gronn, P. (2002). Distributed leadership. In: Leithwood, K. & Hallinger, P. (Eds.). Second international handbook of educational leadership and administration. The Netherlands: Kluwer, 653-696. Hairon, S. & Goh, J. W. (2014). Pursuing the Elusive Construct of Distributed Leadership: Is the Search Over? Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 1–26. Harris, A. (2004). Distributed Leadership and School Improvement. Leading or Misleading? Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 32 (1), 11-24. Harris, A. (2008). Distributed Leadership: According to the Evidence. Journal of Educational Administration, 46 (2), 172-188. Heck, R. H. & Hallinger, P. (2010): Testing a longitudinal model of distributed leadership effects on school improvement. The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 867-885. Huber, S. G. (2008). Steuerungshandeln schulischer Führungskräfte aus Sicht der Schulleitungsforschung. In: Langer, R. (Eds.). `Warum tun die das?’ Governanceanalysen zum Steuerungshandeln in der Schulentwicklung. Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag, 95-126. KMK – Sekretariat der Ständigen Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (2010). Konzeption der Kultusministerkonferenz zur Nutzung der Bildungsstandards für die Unterrichtsentwicklung. Beschluss der Kultusministerkonferenz vom 10.12.2009. Köln: Wolters Kluwer. KMK – Sekretariat der Ständigen Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (2012). Vereinbarung zur Weiterentwicklung von VERA. Berlin: KMK. Muslic, B., Ramsteck, C., & Kuper, H. (2013). Das Verhältnis von Schulleitung und Schulaufsicht im Kontext testbasierter Schulreform. Kontrastive Fallstudien zur Rezeption von Lernstandsergebnissen im Mehrebenensystem der Schule. In: Ackeren, I. van, Heinrich, M., & Thiel, F. (Eds.): Evidenzbasierte Steuerung im Bildungssystem? Befunde aus dem BMBF-SteBis-Verbund. Die Deutsche Schule, 12. Beiheft, 96-119. Nichols, S. L., Glass, G. V., & Berliner, D. C. (2006). High-Stakes Testing and Student Achievement: Does Accountability Pressure Increase Student Learning? Education Policy Analysis Archives, 14, 1–175. Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2001). Investigating School Leadership Practice: A Distributed Perspective. Educational Researcher, 30 (3), 23-28.