Department-Head Leadership for School Improvement

ABSTRACT

This review of research was prompted by the widespread belief that at least in a significant number of secondary schools, department heads are an underutilized, if not untapped, source of instructional leadership, the type of leadership critical to secondary-school improvement initiatives. Forty-two methodologically diverse empirical studies were used to inquire about department and department-head contributions to secondary-school improvement. Results indicate that department and department-head effects on students are consistently positive, practically meaningful and larger than school effects. Well-functioning departments are powerful centers for improvement. But significant hurdles to effective department-head leadership often minimize its effect, for example, some secondary teacher cultures, some teacher union policies, and some heads’ own conceptions of their roles and responsibilities. Conditions enabling successful department-head leadership are identified.

Notes

^1. A table summarizing the sources, methodological features, and focus of the empirical evidence included in the review is available from the author.

^2. See Sammons, Anders, and Hall (2013) for this general argument applied to early-years education.

^3. These estimates depended on the age of the students. Effects were more significant with older students.

^4. Measured by 1992/1996 NAEP Assessments.

^5. Per-pupil expenditures had weaker but still significant relationships, but this was not the case for the other school-level variables measured, including pupil-teacher ratios, class sizes, and the proportion of all school staff who are teachers.

^6. Some of the studies providing evidence for this summary did not attempt to distinguish effective practices from those typically carried out by department heads. But those typical practices were usually required by the role; they were “necessary” but not “sufficient” for exercising significant leadership. So the “necessary” as well as the “sufficient” practices have been included in the Table 1 summary but with a strong emphasis on what practices add value to the “necessary” ones.

^7. The five categories or dimensions include aetting directions, building relationships and developing people, developing the organization, improving the instructional program, and securing accountability.

^8. These are the cognitive, social, and psychological attributes that underlie the enactment of successful leadership practices.

^9. National Educational Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS:88)

^10. Robinson et al. (2009)

^11. The absence of a community conception of secondary-school organizations has, at its worst, seemed to place us between the veritable rock and hard place; the rock is bureaucratic micromanagement, the hard place is unaccountable individual autonomy.

Additional information

Funding

This work was possible thanks to the support of the Leadership Development and School Board Governance Branch of the Ontario Ministry of Education, Canada.