Conference Agenda
Overview and details of the sessions of this conference. Please select a date or location to show only sessions at that day or location. Please select a single session for detailed view (with abstracts and downloads if available).
Please note that all times are shown in the time zone of the conference. The current conference time is: 19th Aug 2026, 20:15:36 EET
|
Daily Overview |
| Session | ||
26 SES 13 C: Research, Measurement & Methodological Approaches
Paper Session | ||
    | ||
26. Educational Leadership
Paper Designing and Validating a Leadership for Learning Practices Evaluation Instrument in an Estonian School Context Tallinn University, Estonia Presenting Author:School leadership plays a key role in school development and student learning (Leithwood et al., 2017). Leaders are expected to actively participate as ongoing learners alongside their staff, examining and adjusting their own practices and results to help the organization improve (Fullan, 2011). In order to support student learning in the best possible way in their schools, leaders, school governors and researchers require empirically trustworthy tools and resources for obtaining feedback on their work and advancing it accordingly (Goldring et al., 2009). Although effective leadership practices are in much demand around the world, they cannot be fully transferred from one system to another. The literature emphasizes the context-specificity of successful school leadership (Hallinger, 2011, 2018), a factor that must also be considered when selecting or developing assessment instruments for this purpose (Goldring et al., 2009). The Estonian education system offers a unique context in educational leadership research, as it is one of the best performing education systems in the world (OECD, 2023) while featuring a high level of school autonomy (OECD, 2019). Reinaru and Eisenschmidt (2026) have mapped the exemplary leadership practices of Estonian school principals in the area of leadership for learning (LfL). Reinaru and Eisenschmidt (2026) examined the LfL approach in an Estonian school context by exploring the practices experienced and exemplary school leaders claim to implement in their work. In accordance with previous work by Hallinger (2011) and Leithwood (2012), as well as the aims of local policy (Haridus- ja Teadusministeerium, 2021) and research, the study proceeded from four domains of practice that necessitate a leadership focus in order to positively influence student learning: (1) learner-centered goal setting, (2) curriculum development, (3) support for teachers’ professional learning, and (4) the formation of a supportive environment. The relevance of all these dimensions in an Estonian school context was highlighted, and a set of themes or practices was outlined for each (Reinaru & Eisenschmidt, 2026). This work aims to build on their research by designing and validating an LfL-practices evaluation instrument (LfL-EVAL) in an Estonian school context. Given that leaders’ influence on the ultimate goal of school – student learning – is mediated largely through teachers (Leithwood et al., 2020), the instrument is validated using teachers’ perceptions. LfL includes several elements (e.g., collaborative goal setting, supporting professional development) that have been found to promote teachers’ job satisfaction (e.g., Dicke et al., 2020; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2011; Tang et al., 2020; Toropova et al., 2021), which plays a significant role in other teacher and student-related outcomes (Wartenberg et al., 2023). Therefore in addition to psychometric validation, the study explores the relative and predictive properties of the instrument vis-à-vis teachers’ job satisfaction. The study contributes to the existing body of knowledge on the research of global school leadership practices, highlighting LfL in a specific contextual setting and offering a concise instrument for evaluating leadership practices and efforts. The study is guided by the following research questions: (1) What is the factor structure of the LfL-EVAL and its psychometric properties? (2) How is LfL-EVAL able to predict teacher job satisfaction on teacher and school level? Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used LfL-EVAL was developed following the construct method (Oosterveld et al., 2019) as an underlying framework of designing procedure. The study by Reinaru & Eisenschmidt (2026) along with the literature review in the current work provided the concept analysis, and contributed to the content validity of the developed instrument. In the item production stage themes emerged in the study by Reinaru & Eisenschmidt (2026) were used as a basis. The findings were not addressed robustly one-by-one; rather, they were combined with each other to create meaningful statements (items) that could be easily understandable for respondents. It was also noted that the themes had been derived from interviews with school principals and were now to be directed at teachers, with the objective of assessing their perceptions of leadership practices. Similar types of statements from established instruments used in earlier surveys (e.g. Eisenschmidt & Oppi, 2025; Vanari et al., 2025) were used as a reference. Before administering the instrument to the validation sample, the initial instrument was piloted with a small group of teachers. Further stages of scale construction and evaluation were carried out with the validation sample, which was administered a 20-item survey instrument. A teacher's overall job satisfaction was measured with four statements previously used by Eisenschmidt & Oppi (2025). The statements were addressing context, relationships, work arrangements and overall school leadership. Data were collected as part of the larger survey for teachers in November and December 2024. All schools across Estonia were invited to take part in the study. Participation was voluntary and anonymous however participation required payment. The sample consisted of 3853 teachers from 136 Estonian schools. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were conducted to identify and validate the factorial structure of the LfL-EVAL. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were calculated to assess variance attributable to teacher- and school-level clustering, after which linear mixed-effects models were employed to examine its predictive properties at both levels. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings First, based on the results of the EFA and CFA, a five-factor model was adopted for Lead-PI, which demonstrated strong model fit χ²(108) = 572, CFI = .999, TLI = .999, RMSEA = .060 and satisfactory internal reliability. The five factors represented following dimensions: leaner-centered goal setting (4 items; α = 0.88), curriculum development (4 items; α = 0.90), supporting professional learning (3 items; α = 0.80), building a supportive inner environment (3 items; α = 0.82) and building a supportive external environment (3 items; α = 0.87). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs; 20–27%) suggested that a substantial proportion of variance is attributable to the school level, indicating that the LfL-EVAL captures shared perceptions of leadership within schools. Second, the LfL-EVAL demonstrated significant predictive power in a multilevel setting when predicting teacher job satisfaction. The teacher level effect highlighted that teachers who feel individually more leadership contribution in learner-centered goal setting (β = 0.48, SE = 0.03 , t =15.37), supporting professional learning (β = 0.09, SE = 0.02, t =3.60) and building supportive inner (β = 0.29, SE = 0.02, t = 11.42) and external (β = 0.09, SE = 0.02, t = 4.09) environments in their school, report higher job satisfaction than peers. The school level effect highlighted that schools with higher average perceived contribution to the leaner-centered goal setting (β = 0.80, SE = 0.17, t = 4.68) and building a supportive inner environment (β = 0.20, SE = 0.08, t = 2.46) have more satisfied teachers overall. In sum, LfL-EVAL is a promising survey instrument for monitoring and conceptualizing Estonian school leadership. It can be used by researchers, policymakers, and leaders alike. Internationally, it complements the range of instruments based on the LfL approach by offering a concise instrument for evaluating leadership practices and efforts.. References Boyce, J., & Bowers, A. J. (2018). Toward an evolving conceptualization of instructional leadership as leadership for learning: Meta-narrative review of 109 quantitative studies across 25 years. Journal of Educational Administration, 56(2), JEA-06-2016-0064. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-06-2016-0064 Daniëls, E., Hondeghem, A., & Dochy, F. (2019). A review on leadership and leadership development in educational settings. Educational Research Review, 27, 110–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2019.02.003 Eisenschmidt, E., & Oppi, P. (2025). School culture profiles in relation to teachers’ work-related experiences and teaching practices. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2025.2556666 Goldring, E., Porter, A., Murphy, J., Elliott, S. N., & Cravens, X. (2009). Assessing Learning-Centered Leadership: Connections to Research, Professional Standards, and Current Practices. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 8(1), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700760802014951 Hallinger, P. (2011). Leadership for learning: Lessons from 40 years of empirical research. Journal of Educational Administration, 49(2), 125–142. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231111116699 Hallinger, P. (2018). Bringing context out of the shadows of leadership. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 46(1), 5–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143216670652 Leithwood, K. (2012). The Ontario leadership framework 2012. Retrieved from the Institute for Education Leadership Website: Http://Iel. Immix. ca/Storage/6/1345688978/Final_Research_Report_-_EN. Pdf. http://www.yrdsb.com/Careers/Documents/Ontario%20Leadership%20Framework.pdf Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2020). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership revisited. School Leadership & Management, 40(1), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2019.1596077 OECD. (2023). PISA 2022 Results (Volume I): The State of Learning and Equity in Education. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/53f23881-en OECD. (2025). Results from TALIS 2024: The State of Teaching. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/90df6235-en Oosterveld, P., Vorst, H. C. M., & Smits, N. (2019). Methods for questionnaire design: A taxonomy linking procedures to test goals. Quality of Life Research, 28(9), 2501–2512. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-019-02209-6 Reinaru, D., & Eisenschmidt, E. (2026). Exploring leadership for learning in an Estonian school context. Frontiers in Education, 10, 1718183. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1718183 Vanari, K., Eisenschmidt, E., & Granström, M. (2025). Leading changes in school culture: Insights from a three-year school improvement program. Studia Paedagogica, 30(3). https://doi.org/10.5817/SP2025-3-1 26. Educational Leadership
Paper Measuring Successful School Leadership: Psychometric Evidence From the Successful School Leadership Survey 1: Texas A&M University, United States of America; 2: University of Alabama, United States of America; 3: University of Toronto, Canada Presenting Author:Topic, Objective of the Study, and Research Questions This study examines the psychometric properties of the Successful School Leadership Survey (SSLS), an instrument developed by the second author of this paper and grounded in one of the most frequently cited successful school leadership (Author, 2017). The SSL framework conceptualizes leadership as a set of practices organized into four domains: setting directions; building relationships and developing people; developing the organization; and improving the instructional program. These domains integrate core elements of instructional, transformational, distributed, and learning-centered leadership traditions, as well as other prominent leadership models (Marks & Printy, 2003; Robinson et al., 2008). Accordingly, this study addresses three research questions:
Conceptual Framework: A substantial body of international research demonstrates that school leadership makes a significant contribution to student success, primarily through indirect pathways that influence teaching, learning conditions, and school culture (Hallinger & Heck, 1998; Heck & Hallinger, 2014; Author et al., 2020). Despite strong consensus on the importance of leadership, far less consensus exists on how to assess successful school leadership (SSL) practices or which aspects of SSL matter most across contexts. Addressing these questions requires psychometrically sound instruments capable of capturing leadership practices in ways that support both research and practice internationally. The pursuit of effective school leadership models dates back to the Effective Schools movement in North America in the 1970s. At least seven major school leadership models have since been developed, including instructional leadership, transformational leadership (Author, 1999), distributed leadership (e.g., Spillane et al., 2001), inclusive leadership (Ryan, 1999), and culturally responsive leadership (Khalifa et al., 2016). “Integrated” leadership models that capture essential elements of both instructional and transformational approaches have also been proposed (e.g., Marks & Printy, 2003; Marks, Printy, & Bower, 2009). To date, several overarching school leadership frameworks have been developed (e.g., Day et al., 2009; Author 2, 2012; Marzano et al., 2005; Murphy et al., 2006; Robinson et al., 2008; Sebring et al., 2017). However, very limited empirical evidence exists regarding the psychometric quality of instruments used to measure these leadership frameworks or models. The framework on which the SSLS is based (e.g., Author 2 et al., 2004; Author 2, 2012; Author 2, 2020) is among the most comprehensive of these frameworks (Hitt & Tucker, 2016). The SSLS has been developed and refined over more than two decades through multiple research syntheses and large-scale mixed-methods studies (Author et al., 2004; 2012; 2020). It has been widely used in international leadership research; however, relatively few studies have subjected the instrument to advanced psychometric analyses necessary to establish reliability, construct validity, measurement invariance, and predictive validity. This gap is particularly salient in European and international research contexts, where cross-cultural comparability and methodological rigor are central concerns. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used We employed a quantitative psychometric validation design drawing on survey data collected from the School Enhancement Project, a multi-year, multi-site, multi-million-dollar federal grant supported by the U.S. Department of Education. Our School Enhancement project aims to improve student achievement by developing leadership capacity in participating schools in two U.S. states and includes several components, such as virtual mentoring and coaching for school leadership teams and professional learning communities. Specifically, evidence addressing the three research questions was provided by 134 teachers from two southern school districts in the United States. The sample included 134 participants, of whom 113 were female (84.3%), 18 were male (13.4%), and 3 preferred not to report gender. Participants reported a wide range of teaching experience. The largest group reported more than 15 years of experience (n = 47, 35.1%), followed by those with 1–3 years (n = 38, 28.4%) and 4–10 years (n = 29, 21.6%). A smaller group reported 11–15 years of teaching experience (n = 20, 14.9%). With respect to educational attainment, 76 participants held a master’s degree, 55 held a bachelor’s degree, and 3 held a doctoral degree. The SSLS teacher version includes 22 items rated on a five-point Likert scale and measures four leadership domains aligned with the underlying framework. Multiple complementary analytic approaches were employed. First, internal consistency reliability and descriptive statistics were examined using SPSS. Second, polytomous latent trait modeling was conducted using a Many-Facet Rasch (MFR) model, allowing examination of item functioning, respondent characteristics, and leadership domains within a single measurement framework (Andrich, 1978; Engelhard & Wind, 2018). This approach supports invariant comparisons and the identification of potential item bias. Third, a second-order Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was conducted to test the theorized four-domain structure of the SSLS. Together, these methods provide a rigorous assessment of the instrument’s psychometric properties. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Preliminary findings indicate that the SSLS demonstrates very high internal consistency reliability (α = .98), with overall and domain-level coefficients exceeding accepted standards and ranging from .94 to .96. Rasch analyses indicate adequate model–data fit and minimal evidence of meaningful item bias across respondent characteristics, including teachers’ age, years of teaching experience, gender, and level of education. Two items exhibited distinctive response patterns. Item 11 (“Developing an atmosphere of caring and trust among staff”) showed greater variability, suggesting respondents interpreted this item differently compared to others. Item 3 (“Provide useful assistance to you in setting short-term goals for teaching and learning”) functioned as a muted item, with highly similar ratings across respondents. Results of the second-order CFA provide support for the theorized four-domain structure of the Successful School Leadership framework, with strong factor loadings across domains. Although model fit was constrained by the relatively small sample size, the hypothesized second-order model captured the observed covariance structure to a meaningful extent. These findings provide empirical support for the coherence of the framework and point to areas for further investigation using larger datasets. Collectively, the results provide evidence that the SSLS is a reliable and valid instrument for studying school leadership practices and their effects. The study highlights the value of integrating Rasch modeling with factor-analytic approaches and underscores the importance of rigorous measurement for advancing international leadership research. The SSLS shows strong potential for use in European and cross-national studies examining school leadership effectiveness. References Andrich, D. (1978). A rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika, 43, 561–573. Day, C., Sammons, P., Hopkins, D., Harris, A., …, Gu, Q., … Brown, E. (2009). The impact of school leadership on pupil outcomes. Department for Children, Schools and Families. Engelhard, G., & Wind, S. (2018). Invariant measurement with raters and rating scales. Routledge. Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (1998). Exploring the principal’s contribution to school effectiveness. Educational Administration Quarterly, 34(2), 157–191. Heck, R., & Hallinger, P. (2014). Modeling the longitudinal effects of school leadership on teaching and learning. Journal of Educational Administration, 52(5), 653–681. Hitt, D. H., & Tucker, P. D. (2016). Systematic review of key leader practices found to influence student achievement: A unified framework. Review of Educational Research, 86(2), 531–569. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315614911 Khalifa, M., Gooden, M. A., & Davis, J. E. (2016). Culturally responsive school leadership: A synthesis of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 1272–1311. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316630383 Marks, H. M., & Printy, S. M. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 370–397.https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X03253412 Marks, H. M., Printy, S. M., & Bowers, A. J. (2009). Leadership for organizational learning: A grounded theory. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45(4), 576–610. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X09339045 Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works: From research to results. ASCD. Murphy, J., Elliott, S. N., Goldring, E., & Porter, A. C. (2006). Learning-centered leadership: A conceptual foundation. Journal of School Leadership, 16(4), 349–385. Robinson, V. M. J., Lloyd, C. A., & Rowe, K. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 635–674. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X08321509 Ryan, J. (1999). Inclusive leadership and social justice for schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(2), 266–283. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X99352005 Sebring, P. B., Allensworth, E., Bryk, A. S., Easton, J. Q., & Luppescu, S. (2017). Organizing schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago. University of Chicago Press. Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2001). Investigating school leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 23–28. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X030003023 26. Educational Leadership
Paper Examining the Psychometric Properties of the International Successful School Principalship Survey 1: University of Alabama, United States of America; 2: Northern Arizona University; 3: University of Nottingham; 4: UCL Institute of Education Presenting Author:A substantial body of international research demonstrates that school leadership contributes significantly to student success, primarily through indirect influences on teaching, learning conditions, and school culture (Hallinger & Heck, 1998; Heck & Hallinger, 2014; Leithwood et al., 2020). Leadership is exercised by principals and other school-based actors whose responsibilities extend beyond individual classrooms. Given the central role of the principal in shaping school-wide conditions, this study focuses on principalship as the most pivotal form of school leadership. Despite broad consensus regarding leadership’s importance, debates remain concerning which practices matter most, how they are conceptualized, and how successful school leadership (SSL) can be measured reliably and validly across contexts. Addressing these issues requires psychometrically sound instruments capable of capturing leadership practices for international research and practice. A leading strand of principalship research is the International Successful School Principalship Project (ISSPP), distinguished by its inclusive conception of student success, encompassing academic, emotional, and social outcomes. Spanning more than 20 countries over two decades, the ISSPP is the largest and longest-running international research program on successful principalship. To date, the ISSPP has produced approximately 300 studies examining the “how,” “when,” and “why” of successful principalship. Its case studies follow a common protocol integrating qualitative data with survey data measuring principals’ practices across diverse national contexts. Findings from the ISSPP consistently indicate that while successful principals share common leadership practices, they enact these practices differently depending on context and career stage. Reported practices largely align with the four domains of the Basics of Successful Leadership (Leithwood et al., 2004), while emphasizing principals’ capacity to navigate multiple layers of contextual influence with contextual intelligence and political acuity. Successful principals are not only resilient themselves but also cultivate resilience among staff and within schools more broadly. These leadership practices—particularly those that foster trust, collaboration, and positive relationships across nested ecological systems—support school resilience, vitality, and adaptive growth. Together, these developments illustrate the increasing complexity of SSL, as principals draw upon a wider repertoire of context-sensitive strategies grounded in broad educational purposes and values. This study examines the psychometric properties of the International Successful School Leadership Principalship Survey (ISSPS), an instrument developed by the directors of the ISSPP. In this paper, success is defined as sustained improvement in student learning and related educational outcomes. The ISSPS is grounded in one of the most frequently cited and comprehensive leadership frameworks in the field (Leithwood, 2012), which conceptualizes leadership as a set of practices organized into four domains: setting directions; building relationships and developing people; developing the organization; and improving the instructional program. These domains integrate core elements of instructional, transformational, distributed, and learning-centered leadership traditions (Marks & Printy, 2003; Robinson et al., 2008). The ISSPS has been developed and refined in recent years as part of the ISSPP research design. Although the ISSPP protocol has been widely used in international leadership research, relatively few studies have examined the survey’s psychometric properties, particularly measurement invariance. This gap is especially salient in European and international research contexts, where cross-cultural comparability and methodological rigor are central concerns. Accordingly, this study addresses three research questions:
This study contributes to international debates on leadership theory, measurement, and evidence-informed school improvement in contexts of increasing system complexity and change. The findings support European researchers and policymakers in using robust, comparable tools to examine leadership effects across diverse educational systems while promoting sustainability and cross-system learning. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used This study employs a quantitative psychometric validation design drawing on survey data from a teacher sample. The teacher version of the ISSPS was administered to schools in 2024. The instrument includes 262 items rated on a five-point Likert scale and measures four leadership domains aligned with the underlying framework. Data were collected from five schools in two southern U.S. states. The sample comprised 76 teachers who rated their principal’s leadership, of whom 54 were female (71.1%) and 18 were male (23.7%). Most participants worked in rural settings (n = 61, 80.3%), with smaller proportions in semi-urban or suburban areas (n = 8, 10.5%) and urban areas (n = 5, 6.6%). Regarding teaching level, 10 participants taught in early childhood settings, 29 in primary schools, 40 in secondary schools, and three across all grade levels. Teaching experience ranged from 1 to 41 years. The majority reported two years or fewer of experience (n = 57, 75.0%), followed by 3–5 years (n = 4, 5.3%), 6–10 years (n = 3, 3.9%), 11–20 years (n = 7, 9.2%), and more than 20 years (n = 5, 6.6%). Multiple complementary analytic approaches were employed. First, internal consistency reliability and descriptive statistics were examined using the R packages psych, dplyr, and purrr. Second, polytomous latent trait modeling was conducted using a Many-Facet Rasch (MFR) model, allowing examination of item functioning, respondent characteristics, and leadership domains within a single measurement framework (Andrich, 1978; Engelhard & Wind, 2018). This approach supports invariant comparisons and identification of potential item bias. Third, a second-order Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was conducted to test the theorized four-domain structure of the ISSPS. Together, these methods provide a rigorous and internationally relevant assessment of the ISSPS, integrating classical test theory, item response theory, and structural modeling approaches. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Preliminary findings indicate that the ISSPS demonstrates high internal consistency reliability, with both overall and domain-level coefficients exceeding accepted standards. Item-level Rasch analyses show generally satisfactory model–data fit, with most items falling within recommended Infit and Outfit ranges and only limited, non-systematic misfit. These results suggest minimal evidence of meaningful item bias across respondents and support the instrument’s suitability for comparative analyses across contexts. Results from the second-order CFA confirm the theorized four-domain structure of the International Successful School Leadership framework. More results will be reported in the full paper. Overall school leadership is strongly reflected by each of the four first-order domains, with standardized loadings ranging from substantial to very high. Item-level loadings demonstrate consistently strong associations within domains, providing empirical support for the conceptual coherence and integrated nature of leadership practices captured by the framework. Collectively, these findings provide robust evidence that the ISSPS is a reliable and valid instrument for studying school leadership and its effects. The study highlights the value of combining Rasch modeling with factor-analytic and traditional confirmatory factor analysis and underscores the importance of rigorous measurement in advancing international leadership research. The ISSPS shows strong promise for use in European and cross-national studies examining leadership effectiveness, equity, and system improvement. References Andrich, D. (1978). A rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika, 43, 561–573. Engelhard, G., & Wind, S. (2018). Invariant measurement with raters and rating scales. Routledge. Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (1998). Exploring the principal’s contribution to school effectiveness. Educational Administration Quarterly, 34(2), 157–191. Heck, R., & Hallinger, P. (2014). Modeling the longitudinal effects of school leadership. Journal of Educational Administration, 52(5), 653–681. Hitt, D. H., & Tucker, P. D. (2016). Systematic review of key leader practices. Review of Educational Research, 86(2), 531–569. Khalifa, M., Gooden, M., & Davis, J. (2016). Culturally responsive school leadership. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 1272–1311. Leithwood, K., et al. (2004). How leadership influences student learning. Wallace Foundation. Leithwood, K., et al. (2012). Linking leadership to student learning. Jossey-Bass. Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2020). Seven strong claims revisited. School Leadership & Management, 40(1), 5–22. Marks, H. M., & Printy, S. M. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 370–397. Robinson, V. M. J., Lloyd, C. A., & Rowe, K. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on student outcomes. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 635–674. 26. Educational Leadership
Paper Investigating Leadership Demands and Aspirations: Perspectives of Early Career Teachers from England University of Derby, United Kingdom Presenting Author:This qualitative study forms part of a wider international research project examining early career teacher (ECT) experiences globally through the International School Leadership Development Network (ISLDN). The England-focused strand will explore how ECTs understand and conceptualise educational leadership roles, including their own leadership aspirations. With principal leadership significantly influencing teacher retention (Kim, 2019) and evidence suggesting ECTs can function as teacher leaders when supported (Muijs et al., 2013), understanding ECT perspectives on leadership demands, aspirations, and career trajectories is crucial for retention and succession planning. Objectives: To understand leadership demands on early career teachers. To understand how leadership career trajectories are conceptualised. A critical exploration of the support given to early career teachers with leadership aspirations. Research question: How do teachers in their first one-to-two years of teaching perceive and act upon the leadership expectations and demands placed on them? The role of leadership in early career teacher development and retention has gained increasing attention in educational research. Kim (2019) demonstrates that principal leadership significantly influences early career teacher turnover, with supportive leadership practices reducing attrition rates during the critical initial years of teaching and supporting leadership development. King et al. (2019) provide valuable insights from Ireland and Scotland, revealing that pre-service and early career teachers benefit from explicit leadership learning opportunities, though such provision varies considerably across contexts, suggesting that early exposure to leadership concepts can shape teachers' professional trajectories and career aspirations. Similarly, Muijs, Chapman, and Armstrong (2013) challenge traditional assumptions about leadership readiness, demonstrating through their study of Teach First participants that second-year trainee teachers can indeed function as teacher leaders when provided with appropriate support and opportunities, questioning conventional career progression models and highlighting the potential for leadership capacity development from the earliest stages of teaching. Szeto (2022) extends this understanding by examining how leadership development among ECTs in Chinese schools within Hong Kong is fundamentally shaped by organisational culture, institutional support structures, and the leadership practices modelled by senior colleagues. Despite this growing international research body, significant gaps remain in understanding how ECTs in England conceptualise educational leadership and navigate leadership demands. The current educational landscape in England presents unique challenges including the ECT induction framework, diverse school structures, and evolving expectations around teacher leadership and career progression. This study is grounded in Pishghadam et al’s (2022) conceptual framework of teacher identity development. Positioned within this framework, it examines the construction of teacher identity and leadership, addressing three critical under-explored areas in the English context. Firstly, the limited understanding of the specific leadership demands that ECTs encounter within their daily practice and how these demands align with their preparation and expectations. Second, the leadership development opportunities, and how ECTs themselves conceptualise leadership career trajectories: whether they view leadership as desirable, achievable, or compatible with their professional identities. Third, the adequacy and effectiveness of support mechanisms available to ECTs with leadership ambitions, particularly given the high attrition rates in early career teaching. By exploring these dimensions through ECTs' own voices, this qualitative study will contribute valuable insights into the lived experiences of early career professionals navigating leadership expectations in English schools. The findings can inform policy development, enhance support structures, and potentially improve retention by better aligning leadership opportunities and demands with ECT needs and aspirations. As part of a global perspectives project, this research will enable comparative analysis with international contexts, enriching understanding of how different educational systems support or constrain early career teacher leadership development, ultimately contributing to more effective teacher development pathways and leadership succession planning in English education.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used Ethical clearance [ETH2526-0179] was obtained from the university ethics committee prior to the project starting. Once obtained, nine early career teachers in either year one or year two post qualifying all working in educational settings in England, were then recruited. Informed consent was obtained electronically before online interviews commenced. Recognising that ECTs occupy a professionally vulnerable position (Lasky, 2005), particular emphasis was be placed on ensuring participants understood their participation was independent from their employment and completely anonymous. Throughout the study, pseudonyms are used and geographical areas are kept as broad as possible. The qualitative method adopted for this study needed to follow a predetermined structure which aligned with the research aims, questions and structures of the larger project undertaken globally within the International School Leadership Development Network. Although the project is part of a global series of studies, this piece of research also stands alone in its foregrounding of a critical gap within existing research. Consistent with Peck and Mummery’s (2019) view that qualitative research benefits from an idiographic orientation which foregrounds the perspectives and uniqueness of each participant experience. By inviting the participants to reflect deeply into the phenomena of leadership, the study not only sought descriptive accounts of their leadership experiences but also critical reflection on their perceived readiness to contemplate career trajectories which may culminate in leadership roles within the English education system. The semi-structured format of the questions gave space for the participants to reflect on their own viewpoints and aspirations around leadership within their current professional context. As Ruslin et al. (2022) suggest, the openness of the semi-structured questioning for the researchers, help to facilitate the exploration of more nuanced inquiries, enabling a more critical understanding of, in this case, the phenomena of professional learning and leadership. To analyse the data, a thematic analysis approach was chosen, although Braun and Clarke (2020) argue that thematic analysis is best used for data sets greater than ten, the data gained from the interviews provided a wealth of information which was best suited to an analytic approach which focused not only on themes but also respected the unique positioning of the individuals. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings This study addresses three critical under-explored areas in the English context. First, there is limited understanding of the specific leadership demands that ECTs encounter within their daily practice and how these demands align with their preparation and expectations. Second, while research examines leadership development opportunities, less is known about how ECTs themselves conceptualise leadership career trajectories: whether they view leadership as desirable, achievable, or compatible with their professional identities. Third, there exists a gap in critically examining the adequacy and effectiveness of support mechanisms available to ECTs with leadership ambitions, particularly given the high attrition rates in early career teaching. Findings will contribute to international comparative analysis within the ISLDN project while informing development of more effective support mechanisms for aspiring teacher-leaders in England. The study will provide and contribute to evidence-based recommendations for school leaders and policymakers regarding leadership development pathways, potentially reducing early career attrition and developing sustainable leadership succession strategies. References Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). Can I use TA? Should I use TA? Should I not use TA? Comparing reflexive thematic analysis and other pattern‐based qualitative analytic approaches. Counselling and psychotherapy research, 21(1), 37-47. Kim, J. (2019) 'How principal leadership seems to affect early career teacher turnover', American Journal of Education, 126(1), pp. 101-137. King, F., McMahon, M., Nguyen, D., & Roulston, S. (2019). Leadership learning for pre-service and early career teachers: Insights from Ireland and Scotland. International Studies in Educational Administration, 47(2), 6-22. Lasky, S. (2005). A sociocultural approach to understanding teacher identity, agency and professional vulnerability in a context of secondary school reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(8), 899-916. Muijs, D., Chapman, C. and Armstrong, P. (2013) 'Can early careers teachers be teacher leaders? A study of second-year trainees on the Teach First alternative certification programme', Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 41(6), pp. 767-781. Peck, B., and Mummery, J. (2019). Recovering the "Individual" for Qualitative Research: An Idiographic Approach. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 20(3), 1-14. Pishghadam, R. A New Conceptual Framework for Teacher Identity Development, Golzar, J, and Miri, M.A. (2022). . Frontiers in Psychology. Ruslin, R., Mashuri, S., Rasak, M. S. A., Alhabsyi, F., and Syam, H. (2022). Semi-structured Interview: A methodological reflection on the development of a qualitative research instrument in educational studies. IOSR Journal of Research & Method in Education (IOSR-JRME), 12(1), 22-29. Szeto, E. (2022). Influence of professional cultures and principal leadership effects on early-career teacher leadership development in Hong Kong schools. Professional Development in Education, 48(3), 379-397. | ||