Session Information
26 SES 06 A, 20 Slides in 400 Seconds – Pecha Kucha Presentations of Educational Leadership Research
Pecha Kucha Session
Contribution
In various educational research traditions there is a growing evidence base regarding effective educational practices, comprising teaching, school, and leadership practices (e.g. Creemers & Kyriakides, 2010; Hallinger & Heck 1998; Hattie 2009; Leithwood, Day, Sammons, Harris & Hopkins 2006; Leithwood & Riehl 2003; Marzano 2003; Marzano, McNulty & Waters 2005; Muijs, Kyriakides, Van der Werf, Creemers, Timperley & Earl 2014; Reynolds, Sammons, De Fraine, Van Damme, Townsend, Teddlie & Stringfield, 2014; Robinson, Hohepa & Lloyd, 2009; Scheerens, 2016; Scheerens 2014; Scheerens, Luyten, Steen, & Luyten-Thouars 2007). From this growing evidence base we know a fair bit about what works – or, at least, should work - in educational practice. But how much do we know about what actually happens in school policy practice? And how does the latter relate to the former?
In a period of increasing decision-making responsibilities at school level and within the increasingly self-improving school system, there are quite a number of policy domains in which school leaders make decisions. But what are the actual policy preferences of school leaders in their autonomous space? Which school policy interventions, in which policy domains, are indeed started and why? And do these choices and preferences make sense from the perspective of the effectiveness knowledge base?
This study presents original data from a survey among Dutch secondary education school leaders (N=196) into school policy practice: which interventions do school leaders start, why these, and to what extent are research outcomes used in their considerations. The study starts with an analysis of the currently started school policy interventions and the extent to which these interventions relate to various school and school leader characteristics (e.g. school size, school type, years of experience, administrative responsibility). These findings are subsequently compared to three internationally authoritative school and school leadership effectiveness syntheses: Hattie 2009, Robinson et al. 2009, and Scheerens 2016. It is analysed if and how these syntheses prove suitable for analysing actual school policy practice for its expected effectiveness. Differences between the syntheses are explicated.
The itemized analysis reveals the encountered difficulties when comparing school policy practice to effectiveness syntheses. Both from the perspective of school leaders who are open to using effectiveness studies in their decision-making as from the perspective of researchers and policy makers who want to gain better insights into the (expected) effectiveness of actual school policy practice.
In the mentioned context of increasing decision-making responsibilities and school self-improvement, the findings of the study provide vital clues for policy makers and researchers in terms of common school policy domains, school leader decision-making and the overlap with and blind spots in available research evidence. As such, it identifies potential levers of school improvement, school effectiveness, and educational change. The study, furthermore, add insights to the reasons why educational practice, in this study personified by school leaders, may not always be driven by evidence use (alone) (adding to e.g. Ball, Maguire & Braun 2012; Behn 1988; Cooper, Levin & Campbell 2009; Datnow 1999, Datnow 2000; Galway & Sheppard 2015; Harris, Chapman, Muijs & Reynolds 2013; Honig & Coburn 2008; Honig & Rainey 2012; Hoyle & Wallace 2007; Kennedy 1997; Levin & Datnow 2012; Leithwood & Stager 1989; OECD 2007; Penuel, Farrell, Allen, Toyama & Coburn 2016; Sleegers, Wassink, Van Veen & Imants 2009; Spillane, Weitz White & Stephan 2009; Wassink 2004; Weick, Sutcliffe & Obstfeld 2005; Wildy, Forster, Loudon & Wallace 2004).
Method
Expected Outcomes
References
Ball, S. J., Maguire, M., & Braun, A. (2012). How schools do policy: Policy enactments in secondary schools: Routledge. Creemers, B. & Kyriakides, L. (2010) School Factors Explaining Achievement on Cognitive and Affective Outcomes: Establishing a Dynamic Model of Educational Effectiveness, Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 54:3, 263-294. Datnow, A. (1999). How schools choose externally developed reform designs. Report no. 35. Baltimore, MD. Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1998). Exploring the principal's contribution to school effectiveness: 1980‐1995. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9(2), 157-191. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning. A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York, NY: Routledge. Honig, M. I., & Rainey, L. R. (2012). Autonomy and school improvement: What do we know and where do we go from here? Educational Policy, 26(3), 465-495. Leithwood, K., Day, C., Sammons, P., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2006). Successful school leadership. What it is and how it influences pupil learning. Nottingham: University of Nottingham. Leithwood, K., & Riehl, C. (2003). What we know about successful school leadership. Laboratory for Student Success, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA. Levin, J. A., & Datnow, A. (2012). The principal role in data-driven decision making: using case-study data to develop multi-mediator models of educational reform. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 23(2), 179-201. Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works: From research to results. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Muijs, D., Kyriakides, L., Van der Werf, G., Creemers, B., Timperley, H., & Earl, L. (2014). State of the art – teacher effectiveness and professional learning. School Effectiveness and School Improvement: An International Journal of Research, Policy and Practice, 25(2), 231-256. Reynolds, D., Sammons, P., De Fraine, B., Van Damme, J., Townsend, T., Teddlie, C., & Stringfield, S. (2014). Educational effectiveness research (EER): a state-of-the-art review. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 25(2), 197-230. Robinson, V., Hohepa, M., & Lloyd, C. (2009). School leadership and student outcomes: Identifying what works and why. Best evidence synthesis iteration (BES). Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education. Scheerens, J. (2016). Educational effectiveness and ineffectiveness. A critical review of the knowledge base. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer. Scheerens, J. (2014). School, teaching, and system effectiveness: some comments on three state-of-the-art reviews,. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 25(2), 282-290.
Search the ECER Programme
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.