See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/315364455

A Model of Successful School Leadership from the International Successful

School Principalship Project

Chapter · March 2017

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-50980-8_2

CITATIONS READS

26 11,456

1 author:

David Gurr
University of Melbourne
89 PUBLICATIONS 1,875 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by David Gurr on 28 November 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

How School Leadership Influences Student Learning: Evidence from the
International Successful School Principalship Project.

Dr David Gurr,
The University of Melbourne
2015

Unpublished paper used as the basis for writing:

Gurr, D. (2015) A Model of Successful School Leadership from the International Successful
School Principalship Project, Societies, 5(1), pp. 136-150. doi:10.3390/soc5010136. Open
access, free to download.
And
Gurr D. (2017) A Model of Successful School Leadership from the International Successful
School Principalship Project. In K.Leithwood, J. Sun, & K. Pollock (Eds) How School
Leaders Contribute to Student Success (Dordrecht: Springer), pp. 15-29.

Introduction
The International Successful School Principalship Project has been actively researching about
the work of successful principals since its construction in 2001. Stimulated by the success of
an earlier study (Day, Harris, Hadfield, Tolley and Beresford, 2000), Day wanted to explore
on a large scale the characteristics and practices of principals leading successful schools, and
so assembled a group comprising of researchers from seven countries: Australia, Canada,
China, Denmark, England, Norway, and Sweden. This group agreed to conduct multiple
perspective case studies focussed on the leadership of principals in successful schools. The
rationale for the project was relatively simple. Up to that time, what was known about
principal leadership relied too much on studies that only used principals as the data source,
and too much of the literature was derived from studies in North America and the United
Kingdom. Gathering the opinions of others in the schools (school board members, teachers,
parents and students), and doing this across several countries, was a way to extend and
enhance knowledge of the contribution of principals to school success. Findings from the
initial case studies from this group of researchers were published in a special issue of the
Journal of Educational Administration (volume 43, issue 6), and in an edited book
(Leithwood & Day, 2007a), as well as numerous individual papers (refer to the project
website at for some of these papers: http://www.uv.uio.no/ils/english/research/projects/isspp).
Further results from this phase of the ISSPP were published in another edited book (Jacobsen
& Ylimaki, 2011) in which combinations of countries were brought together to reflect on
several themes including instructional leadership, organisational learning, and culturally
responsive practices. During this time a survey was also developed that was intended to be
usable across countries. Several groups attempted to use the survey but poor response rates
for the UK, USA and the Melbourne, Australia groups led to unusable data, whilst the
Denmark and Norwegian groups incorporated some of the questions in other surveys they
were conducting, with results shared in non-English publications (Moos, Krejsler & Kofod,
2007; Møller & Fuglestad, 2006). Only the Tasmania (Australia) group conducted the full
survey as it was intended, achieving a worthwhile sample, and publishing results in several
academic papers which have been collected in Mulford and Edmunds (2009) (see Mulford,
Johns & Edmunds for detailed case study reports). Phase two of the project saw some groups
revisit their original principals five years later to see how personal and school success had
been sustained. Findings from this were reported in a third project book (Moos, Johansson &
Day, 2011). The final part of this phase was to capture some of the stories of success (Day &

1
Gurr, 2014). As the project by this stage had grown to include many more countries than the
original seven, a book of 15 stories of successful principals from 13 countries was published.
At time of writing this paper, more than 20 countries are represented by active research
groups, more than 100 case studies have been collected, and nearly as many papers, book
chapters and books published. The intent of this paper is to consider what this project can say
about how school leadership influences student learning. Because of the nature of the ISSPP
this will primarily be focussed on the work of principals. The paper proceeds by providing the
reader with an understanding of the scope and findings of the project through summaries of
the four project books (derived in part from Gurr & Day, 2014a). It then explores the link
between leadership and student learning though exploration of several models that have been
developed by some of the research groups in the ISSPP, before finally developing a
composite model. It is an unapologetically ISSPP self-referential paper which hopefully will
provide a way for the reader unaccustomed to this project to navigate their way through what
has been described by Brian Caldwell in the forward to the fourth book as “the most
comprehensive and coherent international comparative study of the principalship ever
undertaken’ (Caldwell, 2014, p. xxi)

ISSPP Methodology

Principals and schools have been predominantly selected using one or more of the
following methods:

- Evidence of student achievement beyond expectations on state or national tests,

where this evidence exists.
- Principals' exemplary reputations in the community and/or school system. This
could be gained through consultation with system personnel or other principals,
school inspection reports, and so forth.
- Other indicators of success that are context-specific, such as the overall
reputation of the school, awards for exemplary programs, etc.
The multiple perspective approach to conducting the cases means that there are
individual interviews with the principal, senior staff and school board members, group
interviews with teachers, parents and students, and collection of appropriate documents to
inform the cases. For the schools that were revisited to explore the sustainability of success,
observation of the work of the principal and the functioning of the school was also included.
Methodologically the ISSPP relies on a relatively open and grounded approach to
constructing interview protocols. Whilst no protocol is a-theoretical, the ISSPP does not rely
on a theoretical foundation for the questions, with interview questions covering areas such as:
the school ethos and context; principal’s vision, leadership priorities and plans for the school;
challenges for the school; defining school success; measuring success; accounting for school
success; principal role in school success and how they know they are successful; leadership
strategies; handling complex issues; principal relationships with members of the school
community; non-professional sources of support for the principal; principal succession.

The Four Project Books

The first project book of the ISSPP (Leithwood & Day, 2007a) comprised of country
reports from the initial group of seven countries (with Australia represented by Victorian and
Tasmanian research groups). Six of these countries utilised the methodology developed by the
ISSPP, whilst the Canadian group already had a very similar project underway, as did the
Tasmanian group from Australia. The view of Leithwood and colleagues (e.g. Leithwood,
Day, Sammons, Harris and Hopkins, 2006; Leithwood & Riehl, 2005) that successful school
leadership is transformational and comprises at least four core dimensions of setting direction,

2
developing people, developing the school and managing the instructional program, was found
to apply across many countries, despite their differing social, economic and educational
histories; the Canadian group’s study was explicitly framed around these concepts. However,
these core dimensions were extended through the identification of additional practices such as
use of strategic problem solving, articulating a set of core ethical values, building trust and
being visible in the school, building a safe and secure environment, introducing productive
forms of instruction to staff, coalition building, and the promotion of equity, care and
achievement (Leithwood & Day, 2007b). Principals seemed to exercise leadership that
included elements of transformational, instructional and values led leadership, a feature that
has kept reoccurring throughout the ISSPP research.
The second and third project books saw a move to cross-national thematic analysis,
with book two exploring instructional leadership, organizational learning and culturally
responsive practices across seven countries (the original countries, except for China and
Canada, but adding Cyprus; Ylimaki & Jacobson, 2011a), and book three the sustainability of
successful leadership in six countries (the original seven countries except for Canada; Moos,
Johansson & Day, 2011a).
In their summary of the second project book, Ylimaki and Jacobson (2011a) found that
successful leadership was: context sensitive in that global, national and local contexts need to
be considered to fully understand the behaviour of principals; best thought of as layered and
multidimensional, with, for example, instructional leadership influence distributed within a
school, and having multiple foci such as academic improvement, satisfying accountability
policies, and promoting democratic education; socially constructed from the interaction of the
life experiences and knowledge of principals with their work; and promoting sustainability of
success through the interaction of values, influence skills, and emotional and intellectual
qualities of leaders.
Reviewing the chapters from the third project book, and using a leadership for
democratic education framework, Moos, Johansson & Day (2011b) found several factors
which seemed to be important for sustained success including: diagnosis, discernment,
emotional understanding, self-renewing communication (negotiation and deliberation) and
distribution of influence through the use of teams, and negotiation and consensus building
strategies to build the ‘better argument’; personal qualities and beliefs such as resilience,
commitment to making a difference, and engaging the school and wider community;
balancing discourses (e.g. social justice and high achievement); utilising both
transformational and instructional leadership practices, with this especially important for
schools in challenging contexts; continuing their own professional learning (whether it be
through compulsory or voluntary programs); and, managing accountability expectations.
The fourth project book (Day & Gurr, 2014) contains 15 stories of principal leadership
success from 13 countries. The final chapter of this book (Gurr & Day, 2014b) provides a
synthesis of the chapters through the discussion of findings under the thematic headings of:
high expectations; post-heroic leadership; collaboration/collective effort/shared
vision/alignment; symbolic role; integrity, trust and transparency; people centred; the power
of ‘AND’: transformational AND instructional leadership; improving schools in challenging
circumstances; developing as a leader; personal qualities, beliefs and values (personal
acumen, qualities and dispositions, beliefs and values). In many ways these headings provide
a summary of the knowledge gained from the project to date, and so I will provide a more
detailed discussion of these, based on the final chapter of the book (Gurr & Day, 2014b), and
a professional paper I wrote to make these findings accessible to school leaders (Gurr, 2014).
High expectations are a consistent feature found when studying successful principals,
and, indeed, a consistent feature of more than 50 years of evidence from effective schools
research. The high expectations are both at a personal and collective level. Their expectations
are high yet reasonable, and they are constantly demonstrating and reinforcing this view of

3
the world. The expectations are also individualised and very much about helping individuals
to achieve their best, rather then focussed on meeting external accountability agendas.
In terms of conceptions of leadership, there is not a model that dominates the work of
these leaders, and this is an important and consistent finding of the ISSPP research. For
example, to take what possibly remain the two dominant views of educational leadership,
they are not transformational or instructional leaders, but show elements of both. They are
concerned to motivate and to support and develop staff, and they also concerned to ensure
improvement in teaching and learning. Whilst they typically aren’t the hands-on instructional
leader wished for in the eighties and perhaps evident again (an example is one of the ISSPP
principals, John Fleming, who is described in Hardy, 2006, Gurr, 2007, and Gurr, Drysdale &
Mulford, 2007 and 2010), they are great educational leaders, ensuring improvement in
curriculum, pedagogy and assessment by, most often, working with other school leaders to
influence teacher practice. For these successful school leaders, distributed leadership is
almost assumed as they will openly say that the success of their school is due to the
leadership of many, and they genuinely value the contribution of teachers, parent and
students; this was an important finding from the sustainability phase of the project described
in book three. Indeed, developing leadership in others is a focus of their work. In essence,
they develop a view of leadership that enables them to lead a school community successfully,
and are less concerned with the academic debates that rage about the impact of various
leadership styles. Nevertheless, when we look closely at their work, it is clear that across
countries and contexts there is support for the four core practices of setting direction,
developing people, leading change and improving teaching and learning, articulated in other
research (e.g. Leithwood, Day, Sammons, Harris, & Hopkins, 2006); even in a remote village
context in Kenya, these dimensions can be seen clearly in how a principal transformed a
school (Wasonga, 2014). There are also additional practices to these, as noted in the previous
discussion about book one.
In many cases there is evidence of heroic leadership, in, for example, the way
principals challenge the status quo, fight for the best opportunities for their students, and have
a positive and empowering view of what is possible for a school community, whatever the
circumstances. But it is heroic leadership that is inclusive (see Day & Leithwood, 2007 for
the initial highlighting of this), and which in a conference presentation (Drysdale, Goode &
Gurr, 2011a), and subsequent ISSPP paper (Drysdale, Bennett, Murakami. Johansson & Gurr,
2014), was described as post-heroic leadership. Whilst there is an obligation on principals and
others in leadership roles to exercise leadership, leading a school requires collaborative and
aligned effort by all. These leaders are often heroic, but they do not lead alone, and they are
concerned to foster collaboration. For example, whilst they typically have important symbolic
roles, and are generally the key story-tellers and sense-makers in their communities, they are
careful to involve the school community in establishing a compelling shared vision. Ensuring
the vision is lived is important, and typically the leaders act as both guardians of the vision
and champions of change.
Successful school leaders are people centred. They obviously get enormous satisfaction
from seeing students develop, but they are also concerned to develop the adults in a school
community and core to this is their interest and ability in building the capacity of teaching and
non-teaching staff to be better at what they do. This has been explained in a capacity building
model of successful school leadership based on Australian cases (Drysdale & Gurr, 2011) and
which emphases personal, professional, organisational and community capacity building, and
is illustrated well in the description of the leadership of Rick Tudor (Doherty, Gurr &
Drysdale, 2014)
A standout characteristic of the principals is the degree to which they are respected and
trusted by their school communities (see in particular; Day, 2011; Moos, 2014; Pashiardis &
Savvides, 2014; Wang, Gurr & Drysdale, 2014). Acting with integrity and being transparent
about their values, beliefs and actions, modelling good practice, being careful to ensure
fairness in how they dealt with people, involving many in decision making, are qualities and

4
practices that engender respect and trust. Because of this, the school communities rarely
challenge the principals if sometimes they have to make important decisions with little
consultation; the foundation of respect and trust meant that top-down decisions are accepted.
Their leadership characteristics, dispositions and qualities are developed over time.
Some had early leadership opportunities, but their success as a principal is generally crafted
through a blend of on-the-job learning, formal and informal professional learning, mentoring
or sponsorship by significant others, and some serendipity in the pathways to leadership. All
the principals were restless folk, seeking new ideas, new ways to do things, new opportunities
for their schools, and so they are always developing as professionals. The development of the
successful principals was a focus of both books two and three with dedicated chapters (e.g.
Gurr, Drysdale, Ylimaki & Jacobson, 2011; Gurr, Drysdale, Ylimaki & Moos, 2011;
Jacobson, Johansson & Day, 2011; Johnson, Moller, Ottesen & Pashiardis, 2011).
There are many personal qualities, beliefs and values that help principals be successful
leaders. Acumen, optimism, persistence, trust (behaving in a way that promotes the attribution
of trust in the leader by others, and also displaying trust in others), tolerance, empathy,
alertness (shown through high levels of physical and mental energy), curiosity, resilience,
benevolence, honesty, openness, respectful, and humbleness were some of the traits on
display. They have a strong ethic of care, empathy for others, value individuality and display
the transformation leadership quality of individual consideration, believe in freedom and
democracy, are good at balancing individual versus collective care, and so forth. Above all
they are driven by the desire to provide the best educational environment they can for all
students. Even in the most challenging contexts, they view challenges as obstacles to
overcome rather than problems that are insurmountable, and so they are always looking to
improve the learning environment. Perhaps using a spiritual, moral or social justice base, or
more simply from an understanding of what is possible in education, they have the courage to
what is right to help their students be the best they can. The chapters from the fourth book by
Merchant, Garza and Ramalho (2014), Minor-Ragan and Jacobson (2014), Raihani, Gurr and
Drysdale (2014), Torres-Arcadia and Flores-Kastanis (2014), Wasonga (2014) and Yaakov
and Tubin (2014), illustrate this courage well.
Having summarised findings from this large project, a helpful way to conceptualise the
way school leadership influences student learning is to consider the development of models or
schematic representations of the findings. The next section discusses models that have been
produced by various groups within the ISSPP.

Leadership Models
Australia
The Australian research groups have shown the most interest in producing models that
capture the research findings. This section presents three major views. The first a combined
model of the initial 14 cases, the second a revision of this incorporating understandings from
revisiting three of the principals in Victoria, and the third a combination of the initial model
based on Tasmanian cases combined with analysis of survey data of Tasmanian principals.
Combining a model derived from the findings generated by the Tasmanian case studies
of the ISSPP (refer to Mulford & Johns, 2004 for the original presentation of this model) with
those of the Victorian cases (refer to Gurr, Drysdale, Di Natale, Ford, Hardy & Swann, 2003,
for the original representation of this model), Gurr, Drysdale and Mulford (2006, 2007)
constructed a combined model that is presented in Figure 1 (this is a slightly modified version
that eliminates some errors in the original).

5
Figure 1: Australian Model of Successful Principal Leadership – Gurr, Drysdale and Mulford
(2006, 2007).

In this model, principals exert an influence on student outcomes (broadly conceived)

through a focus on teaching and learning (curriculum, pedagogy, assessment and reporting)
which is driven by their own values and vision, establishing an agreed school vision, using
elements of transformational leadership (individual support), and increasing school capacity
across four dimensions (personal, professional, organisational, and community), taking into
account and working within the school context, and using evidence-based monitoring, and
critical reflection that leads to change and transformation in the school. Level 1 Interventions
have the most impact on student outcomes. Level 2 interventions are focused on school
direction and culture (supportive, high expectation), and capacity building (through the areas
of individual, professional, organisational and community capacity building, with each area
specified with four parts – see Figure 2). Level 2 interventions have a more indirect impact on
student outcomes. In Level 3 principals were found to be responsive to these other influences,
and also to shape some of these by, for example, contributing to district and system level
policy development, and being in involved in networks and professional associations.
This final model is complex but provides several conceptual frameworks to allow
principals to locate their work. It indicates that they can impact both directly and indirectly on
student learning, but that mostly the impact is indirect. All the areas of principal leadership
highlighted in this paper are either explicitly mentioned or implied. An interesting aspect of
this model is that it can be applied to those school personnel holding other leadership
positions, especially those in coordinating roles (see Gurr & Drysdale, 2013 for a discussion
of this). For example, the 16 elements of the 4x4 capacity-building section are relevant for
anyone who has a supervisory role – if you want to exercise leadership, an important aspect is
helping to develop these capacities in those you work with.
More recently, Drysdale and Gurr (2011) have taken the initial work in developing an
Australian model of successful school leadership, combined this with more ongoing research
on middle level leadership (see Gurr & Drysdale, 2013) and sustainability of success (see
Drysdale, Goode & Gurr, 2009, 2011b), to produce the following model (Figure 2) which

6
focuses on the leaders qualities, school context, and capacity building as a key leadership
intervention. It shows how successful school leaders interact within a particular school
context to deliver strategic interventions aimed at improving student outcomes. The model
identifies both traditional outcomes (e.g. performance on tests such as the Australia-wide test
of literacy and numeracy, NAPLAN) and authentic outcomes (which may include, for
example, social, emotional, and spiritual outcomes). The leader can influence student
outcomes through interventions in teaching and learning (Level 1), school capacity building
(Level 2) and other influences (Level 3). For principals, it locates much of their work at level
2, helping to develop the adults in a school. They also often work at level 3 actively
responding to and influencing the wider context, and sometimes at level 1, depending to a
large extent on the school context, with school size a key determiner of the extent to which
they work directly with teachers in classrooms (principals of smaller schools tend to work
more closely with teachers directly). It is a model that also works for middle level leaders
who, depending on their role in terms of influencing teaching and learning, are more likely to
focus their work across levels 1 and 2 (Gurr & Drysdale, 2013).

7
direct and indirect instructional leadership).
School capacity building is the area in which principals and other school leaders
exert considerable influence. It is an area that can be broken into four areas:
personal, professional, organisational and community. These can be further divided
into four elements. This is illustrated in Figure 2.
We have Figure
called2this
Australian
the 4 XSuccessful
4 ModelSchool Leadership
of Capacity Model with
Building (Gurrthe and
school capacity
Drysdale
element expanded (Drysdale & Gurr 2011, p. 357)
2007). In the construction industry in Australia a piece of timber four inches by four
inches represents strength and is used for scaffolding and framing building
structures. We apply this metaphor to building the capacity of the school to deliver
better outcomes. This area offers leaders significant scope for a number of
interventions. The 16 elements of the capacity-building section are relevant for
most school leaders (principals, senior leadership team and middle-level leaders)
because an important aspect of leadership is working with people to help them to
develop relevant capacities.
The final area that impacts on student outcomes is Level 3, other influences. This
can include a range of environmental factors such as demographic changes that
impact on the mix of students attending, education system policy (e.g., the
introduction of the National Curriculum) and support (budgets, expertise, etc.),
and the level of community resources and facilities. Successful principals are able to
work with and influence these other influences as appropriate. Gurr and Drysdale
(2007) provide examples from the initial case studies of the interventions that
principals make at various levels.
Surrounding these are the school context (what the school is ! its vision and
mission, school culture, the organisational structures and processes, and the people
who inhabit the school including staff, students and parents) and the qualities,

4 x 4 Approach to Capacity Building

Personal Capacity Professional Capacity

Self Professional Professional Teacher

Management Networks Infrastructure Leaders

Individual Knowledge
Professional Creation & Team School–wide
Pedagogy Construction Building Pedagogy

Organisational Capacity Community Capacity

Shared Organisational Social Capital Community

Leadership Learning Networks
& Alliances

Organisational Safe Parent-School Relationship

Structures Environment Partnerships Marketing

Figure 2. 4 x 4 approach to school capacity building (Drysdale and Gurr 2010).

The final Australian models to be considered are those from Mulford’s research group in
Tasmania, which utilise case study and survey data. As mentioned above findings from the
five Tasmanian cases were represented in a model, and this is shown in Figure 3. This model
was presented in an updated form in Mulford and Silins (2011) as shown in Figure 4. The
updated model includes consideration of studies of the survey data (e.g. Mulford, Kendall,

8
 Kendall, Edmunds, Ewington & Silins, 2008), and of the case studies (e.g. Gurr, Drysdale &
Mulford, 2007). The differences are relatively minor but become important for the modelling
phase of Mulford and Silins work. For the survey all 195 government schools in Tasmania
(including primary, composite and secondary schools, but excluding colleges and special
schools) were invited to participate. 131 principal surveys were returned representing a 67%
rate. At these schools, teachers were also invited to complete a survey and 492 (12% of all
teachers) did so. The teacher survey covered: leadership characteristics, perceptions of
success, capacity building, accountability, values and beliefs, social goals in school, changes
83033 in schools;
176pg principal
4/11/04 10:35survey included
AM Page 79 all the teacher questions plus: principal work patterns,
learning and development, school decision making, perceptions of student background and
attainment, leadership tensions and dilemmas, open response school improvement questions.
Most questions used likert responses using a 1-5 scale. The categories and questions within
categories were constructed by the ISSPP based on the case studies conducted in the first
phase of the project, supplemented with the group’s wider knowledge with, for example,
Mulford bringing his experience from a previous survey-based project – leadership for
organisational leanring and improved student outcomes (LOLSO, see Mulford, Silins &
Leithwood, 2004).

Figure 3: The Mulford-Johns Model of Successful School Principalship (Mulford & Johns,
2004, p. 76).

9
 Figure 4: Revised Mulford-Johns Model of Successful School Principalship (Mulford &
Silins, 2011, p. 62).

re 1.
reliminary model of
ssful school
palship listing the
bles examined in
quent research

which is influenced by – and in turn influences – the context in which it occurs. This
context
From the includes
survey community
data, Mulford andand system/employer understandings,
Silins (2011) produced requirements
three models and
that explored
levels of and
principal support.
teacherFurther,
influencesthe on findings
the studentsuggest
learningthat successful
outcomes principalship
of academic achievement, is
underpinned by the and
social development corestudent
values empowerment,
and beliefs of the and principal. These values
then a combined model.and Thebeliefs
models
inform
accountedthefor
principal’s decisions
total variance and actions
of between 43 to 65 regarding
per cent,thewithprovision
between of individual
school variance
support
accountedandforcapacity
at higherbuilding, andtocapacity
levels (74 building
86 per cent) thanat the school
between level,(30
teachers including
to 50 pre school
cent).
No one and
culture effectstructure.
dominatesThe in the models, and
principal’s coreMulford
values and and Silins (2011,
beliefs, p. 80)with
together noted thethat
values
and capacities
For those of othertomembers
aiming of the
be successful school
school community,
principals feed directly
and constantly into the
improving
development of a shared
their schools, school vision,
the challenge whichsynergistic
is to create shapes theeffects;
teachingthe and learning, student
accumulation of a
and social capital outcomes of schooling. To complete the proposed
number of effects developed with others over time in the same direction, model is a process
even of
evidence based
though thismonitoring
direction may andchange
critical
as areflection, which can
result of feedback lead to change and
on performance…But
transformation.
success also Thedepends
contexton andwhich
the successful school life
areas of school principal’s valuesand
the principal formhisthe
or “why?”
her
of the model,
teachersthe individual
choose to focussupport
time andandattention.
capacity, As school capacity
we have clearlyanddemonstrated
school visioninand
missionour
theresearch,
“how?”, and success will be most
the teaching likely if student
and learning, the principal and his oroutcomes
and community her staff the
choose
“what?”. areas they
The evidence can monitoring
based actually influence
and critical– areas such on
reflection as the
school capacity
“why?”, “how?”
(including
and “what?” and decision-making),
the relationship among evaluation
themand formsaccountability, teacher
the final section values
of the model,and the
beliefs, and student social skills and empowerment.
“how do we know?” and “do we need to change?” elements.

10
To illustrate the complexity of this, the combined model is shown in Figure 5. What stands
out is the support for the three Australian models. From the outset, the Australian groups
envisaged student learning outcomes broadly, and whilst the selection of principals and
schools was based on a narrow definition of student learning (similar to that of much of the
school effectiveness research), once we were in schools, it was clear that success for the
school communities was broadly conceived. This model confirms the importance of taking
this broader view of learning, as empowerment, social development and academic
achievement are all well connected in the model, and enhanced social development has a
direct impact on academic achievement. Also confirmed is the central focus on teacher
development in Figure 1 to 4 through capacity building (broadly conceived as shown in the
16 elements element of Figure 1). Helping teachers to develop through programs focused on
capacity building, performance and development, and values and beliefs, will help lead to
improved academic achievement, empowerment and social skills in students, and the
improved social skills will further enhance academic achievement. Additionally, the impact
of contextual elements (e.g. school type, school size, school reputation, home environment,
degree of educational advantage) is shown, highlighting the importance placed on responding
to and influencing context in the Australian models. There is also support for the influence of
principals as persons that was evident in many of our Australia case studies that had long
serving (and much loved) principals – student empowerment can be enhanced by the
presence, over time and on a daily basis, of the principal (for example, refer to the story of
Rick Tudor in Doherty, Gurr & Drysdale, 2014). Principal values, beliefs and characteristics,
the demographic characteristics of principals and teachers, decision making autonomy of
principals, and leadership tensions and dilemmas were variables that did not impact
significantly on student outcomes.

11
Figure 5: Composite conceptualisation summarising significant teacher-level and
school/principal-level variables and their relationship to student empowerment, student social
development and student academic achievement (Mulford & Silins, 2011, p. 75).

Successful school
summarising significant
social development and
empowerment, student

Singapore
relationship to student

school/principal-level

principalship
variables and their
student academic

conceptualisation
teacher-level and

Under the supervision of Gurr and Drysdale, Wang (2010) conducted four multiple
achievement

perspective case studies of successful Singapore principals. Wang’s (2010) four cases resulted
Figure 8.
Composite

in a model (see Figure 6) that describes six elements in what was termed the 6E model:
75

educate (student and school outcomes); envision (setting direction); energise (developing
people), engage (establish good relationships and sharing of power); enable (develop self);
and embrace (engaging with the internal and external contexts). Whilst much of this model
can be found in other school leadership frameworks there was an emphasis in Singapore
principals on knowing oneself (especially understanding their educational philosophy, values
and beliefs), building on the legacy of past principals, and engaging with and influencing
contexts, whether this be the internal culture of the school, or the policy context of the school
system.

12
Figure 6: 6E Singaporean Model of Successful School Leadership (Wang, 2010, p. 267)

Figure 9.1 6E Singaporean Model of Successful School Leadership

Educate the whole

Internal factors child
- school culture
Developing - academic programmes External factors
- type of schools a shared vision - non-academic programmes - economic
- political
Develop people (Ministry of
- professional development, grooming leaders, Education
Cascading and articulating support structures, staff deployment, mentoring vision (TSLN),
the vision and coaching and initiatives
Build on the legacy of past principals

Setting targets and high School-wide systems and structures

expectations
Realise the shared vision
Student Outcomes
Principals’ personal qualities, School Outcomes
values and beliefs Quality relationships with stakeholders
- open to feedback from others -Teaching and non-teaching staff, students,
- cares for others SMC/SAC, parents, and others inside and outside the
- empathic school community
- respects others
- demonstrates commitment
- demonstrates initiative & creativity
- being resilient Empower stakeholders
- being fair -Distribution of power
- has family support -Shared decision making processes
- has a wide spectrum of
educational experiences
- performs multiple roles

267

Indonesia
Raihani has explored successful principals in Indonesia through three multiple perspectives
cases studies as part of the ISSPP (Raihani, 2007, 2008; Raihani & Gurr, 2006), and through
six multiple perspective case studies for research focused on education for a multicultural and
tolerant Indonesia (Parker & Raihani, 2009; Raihani, Gurr & Drysdale, 2014). Raihani’s
ISSPP research has developed a model of successful school leadership (Raihani 2007, 2008:
see Figure 7) that describes three foundations of principal leadership (perceptions of school
success, beliefs and values, and analysing contexts) which interact and support the
development of a shared vision which is enacted through setting improvement strategies,
building staff and organizational capacity, and fostering networks and collaborations to
influence student and school outcomes. Again, whilst much of this model can be found in
other school leadership frameworks, there was an emphasis in the Indonesian principals on
developing a broad range of outcomes. This was similar to the Australian model, and whilst
traditional academic student performance was very important, the principals also promoted
spiritual development in students, and the development of teachers. They also emphasised
upholding and promoting values important to the Indonesian community. In Indonesian
culture these values include amanah (the perception that what one does is entrusted by God
for the individual to maintain and fulfil) and IMTAQ (Iman dan Taqwa; showing faith and
piety); principals believed that their work as principal was an expression of amanah.

13
 82 David Gurr

is entrusted by God for the individual to maintain and fulfil) and IMTAQ (Iman dan Taqwa;
showing faith and piety); principals believed that their work as principal was an expression of
amanah.
Figure 7: An Indonesian model of successful school leadership (Raihani, 2007, p. 281)
FIGURE 3: AN INDONESIAN MODEL OF SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL LEADERSHIP

ANALYSING CONTEXTS:
Showing an ability, and inviting other school community members, to analyse and understand contexts both
internal and external to school, and to act accordingly.

SETTING STRATEGIES: demonstrating an ability in setting pre-

expectations of school success, their perceived school educational

conditional, academic, non-academic, evaluative strategies (strong

The principals’ and the school community’s assumptions and

influence of instructional leadership practices). OUTCOMES:

PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL SUCCESS:

Student Outcomes
academic (NEM; local
BUILDING PERSONAL & PROFESSIONAL CAPACITIES: & national academic
VISIONING: concerned with fostering PD of own-self and others by providing competition), and non
developing & examples, developing meaningful and simultaneous programs
academic (IMTAQ,
promoting a shared
other qualities, extra-
objectives.

vision, having high

expectations, curricular).
focused on School Outcomes
BUILDING SCHOOL ORGANISATIONAL CAPACITIES: concerned
directions. with creating supportive school culture and with redesigning school structure to teacher capacity, school
ease changes & improvement (cultural and participative / distributive leadership) conditions; leadership
& management.

CREATING SCHOOL NETWORKS, COLLABORATION,

PARTNERSHIPS: demonstrating ability in establishing linkages to
outside school stakeholders

BELIEFS AND VALUES:

Underpinning, enduring, strong, and shared religious, professional, relationship, and cultural beliefs and values of the
principals guidance, standards, and screening devices for any decision and action. Amanah and IMTAQ of religious values
appeared to be important driving values of their leadership.

(Raihani, 2007, p. 281)

Across these three models, establishing collective direction, developing people and improving
Cyprus teaching and learning are common and explicit, and implicitly there is a sense of being able to lead
change. All of these attributes are common to mainstream views of school leadership such as that
The developed
CyprusbygroupLeithwoodhave produced(e.g.a Leithwood
and colleagues framework et al., and
2006),aand
model of insuccessful
confirmed the early school
phases of the ISSPP (e.g. Leithwood & Day, 2007). Nuanced differences in leadership are found
leadership. Figure 8 shows a framework first developed in 2005 and subsequently published
in the emphasis on capacity building in the Australian model, on the development of self,
in Pashiardisacknowledgement
and Savvides (2011).legacy
of leadership Thisandwas based
engaging on context
with the four incase study schools.
the Singapore model, and This was
subsequentlyondeveloped
broad school into a model
outcomes of leadership
and cultural values in the described in Pashiardis,
Indonesian model. Savvides, Lytra
Whilst the leadership
and Angelidoumodels(2011)
have manyandsimilarities,
shown theindifferent
Figureemphases
9; this thatpaper incorporates
I have highlighted seem toaarise
fifth
fromcase study
school, although this school did not contribute to the model as it was not found to be as
successful as first anticipated.

14
 successful principals of these case studies.
On the one hand, all four principals utilized instructional strategies in
Downloaded by [The University Of Melbourne Libraries] at 23:06 30 Jan
order to create an effective learning environment. The principals set high
standards in their schools and actively supported teachers and students
toward their achievement. Teachers were treated as extended profession-
als and were actively encouraged to seek further professional development.
The principals
Figure 8: Domainsfurther educated
of practice for themselves, thus actively
successful school demonstrating
leadership the schools in
in rural primary
value of further education to the teachers.
Cyprus (Pashiardis & Savvides, 2011, p. 424). Student learning was promoted

INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

Vision building and communication

High expectations (for self, teachers, students)
Further development of the principal (e.g., attending seminars)
Professional growth of teachers (e.g., encouragement for
training)
Students' learning (e.g., praise and rewards)

Successful
school
leadership

ENTREPRENEURIAL LEADERSHIP

Involving the parents (e.g., school events, teaching)

Involving other external actors (i.e., community)
Projecting the school (e.g., by participating in community events)
Acquiring resources (funding for infrastructure)

FIGURE 1 Domains of practice for successful school leadership (color figure available
online).
Figure 9: An updated model of the domains of practice for successful school leadership in
550 primary schools in Cyprus (Pashiardis,
rural Educational Management
Savvides, Administration
Lytra & Angelidou,&2011,
Leadership
p. 550)39(5)

CONTEXT SCHOOL LEADERSHIP VARIABLES

VARIABLES

System level variables 1. PEOPLE CENTERED LEADERSHIP

! Centralization structures
Administrative (e.g.
selection and
appointment of
personnel
Curriculum (e.g. fixed
curriculum)
Financial ( e.g. allocation
of resources)
! Organizational
capacity/support systems (e.g.
support staff such as
educational psychologists,
training)
! Staff Rotation
! Role of school leadership in
the evaluation process of
education (e.g. no time to
observe lessons, no specified
role in evaluation process )
School level variables
Interpersonal relationships
Individual Consideration
Collaboration
Support
2. VALUES AND VISION
High expectations (self, teachers, pupils)
Passion and Commitment
Creative
Management Democracy and Participation (e.g. in decision making)
Building a clear vision SUCCESSFUL
Communication of vision (to school stakeholders) SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP
of
Competing
Values 3. PROMOTION OF LEARNING
Further development of the principal (e.g. attending seminars)
Professional growth of teachers (e.g. encouragement for training)
Students' learning (e.g. instructional leadership, praise and rewards

! School Level
(primary education)
! Location (rural) 4. NETWORKED LEADERSHIP

! School size (small) Involving the parents (e.g. school events

! Composition of student body Involving other external actors (i.e. community)
(SES, Ethnicity,Gender) Acquiring resources (funding for infrastructure))
! School resources (e.g. lack of
appropriate infrastructure)

Figure 1. Domains of practice for successful school leadership

The model shown in Figure 6 has five leadership domains: the four indicated under the
heading ‘school leadership variables’ and the fifth being an interplay between the principals’
perception
used the goodof school
the context
climateand their perception
to instigate of to
the teachers themodel
school needs,
their with thisstrive
commitment, manifesting
for learn-in
their creative management of these competing values. They describe their model
ing and need for excellence. The teachers of school E seemed satisfied with the lack of pressure as to
the
interplay of all
work but the thesehowever,
parents domainswere
leading to school
extremely success:
critical of the lack of commitment and hard work on
the part of the principal.
Moreover, it was apparent that the use of the fourth leadership domain, labeled as networked
leadership, is considered essential for successful school leaders in Cyprus. It was obvious that all
principals gave particular attention to the relations of the school with the local communities. All 15
principals created interactive networks with the local communities whereby community members
and parents were regularly invited to either attend or actively take part in school events. The stu-
dents on their part initiated community projects demonstrating their commitment to the local com-
 In conclusion, it seems that successful leadership arises not from the use of uni-
dimensional strategies but instead from a multi-dimensional, dynamic
combination of the aforementioned leadership aspects that were identified in
these case studies. People-centered leadership and clearly communicated values
and visions combined with a strong emphasis on the promotion of learning, the
use of networked leadership as well as the creative management of competing
values outline the elements of a comprehensive and indeed, successful kind of
leadership. (Pashiardis, et al., 2011, p. 551).

The paper highlights how principals have to navigate their work within a very controlled
system context (e.g. system controlled curriculum staff appointments, forced job rotations),
challenging school context (e.g. small, rural, lack of resources, changing populations), and
they do this successful through their focus on people (similar to some views of
transformational leadership), upholding of appropriate values and school vision (e.g. high
expectations, passion, participation), development of people (themselves, teachers and
focussing on student learning), involving the school and wider community, and being creative
in how they balance the competing system and local values.

Developing a new model

Across most of these models from the four countries, establishing collective direction,
developing people and improving teaching and learning are common and explicit, and
implicitly there is a sense of being able to lead change. All of these attributes are common to
mainstream views of school leadership such as that developed by Leithwood and colleagues
(e.g. Leithwood, et al., 2006), and confirmed in the early phases of the ISSPP (e.g. Leithwood
& Day, 2007a). Nuanced differences in leadership are found in the emphasis on developing
teacher capacity in the Australian models, on the development of self, acknowledgement of
leadership legacy and engaging with the context in the Singapore model, the broad school
outcomes and cultural values in the Indonesian model, and creative leadership needed to
balance competing values within constrained contexts in Cyprus. Engaging with and
influencing context seems important to most models, and as Day (2005, p. 581) noted early in
the story of the ISSPP, successful principals demonstrate the ability to:
…not be confined by the contexts in which they work. They do not comply,
subvert, or overtly oppose. Rather they actively mediate and moderate within a set
of core values and practices which transcend narrowly conceived improvement
agendas.
The survey-based model from Tasmania illustrates the importance of being able to influence
the home context (enhancing family educational culture and social capital as noted more than
a decade ago by Leithwood and Steinbach, 2003). Developing networks and partnerships, and
engaging all stakeholders are related to responding to the context, and these elements help
ensure that schools are connected and relevant places for the community. There are many
elements that articulate the characteristics and practices of the principals, and most of these
could be used to describe the work of school leaders more broadly, albeit that principals have
the most opportunity, the greatest responsibility and highest expectations that they will act as
leaders. In terms of the type of leadership, there is little specification about this, although the
four project books consistently identify that principals need to draw on a repertoire of
leadership ideas; this could be termed a portfolio approach to leadership in which wide
knowledge about leadership helps develop characteristics and practices that can be drawn
upon depending on need. Outcomes include student outcomes broadly conceived, and in the
Indonesian model, school outcomes such as teacher capacity, school conditions, and

16
leadership and management of the school were included. With these reflections in mind,
Figure 10 is provided as a way to envisage the learning gained from the ISSPP about how
leadership influences student learning.
Figure 10: An ISSPP model of successful school leadership

School vision, mission, culture, structure, people and processes

Engaging stakeholders
High expectations
WHY HOW WHAT

Level 3 Impact Level 2 Impact Level 1 Outcomes

Impact
Leader
Engaging with and Qualities, characteristics, competencies,
influencing contextual Student Outcomes
values and beliefs, attitude to change,
factors such as: Academic
creative management of competing values,
Within school – school type, achievement
experience, professional learning, visibility .
school size, community Teaching & Learning Social development
trust, in school, tenure in school, role.
educational advantage, Extra-curricular
composition of student Curriculum Empowerment
School Capacity
body, resources. Pedagogy Self-identity
Outside of school – Assessment Empowered, active
Personal Capacity Professional Capacity
governmental policies, Reporting and engaged
Understanding
systemic policies, Current Skills,
Professional
Networks
Professional
Infrastructure
Teachers as
Leaders Student involvement citizens
community expectations, Knowledge &
in leaning Lifelong learning
school accountability
Attitudes
X X Learning technologies Spiritual
Individual Knowledge
systems, country goals, Professional Creation & Team Building
School-wide Learning spaces
Pedagogy
societal changes Pedagogy Construction

(technical, economic,
educational, Organisational Capacity
X Community Capacity
School outcomes
Success/reputation
demographic, Shared Organisational Social Capital Community
Networks
Leadership Learning
philosophical). & Alliances Teacher capacity
Family - educational culture X X School conditions
and social capital Organisational Building a Safe
Parent-School Relationship
Partnerships Building
Structures Environment

Portfolio leadership
Networks, drawing on a range of
collaborations and theories/views
partnerships Transformational and
instructional leadership

Evidence Based Monitoring and Critical Reflection on Why, How and What, and the relationships among them, leading to continuation
and/or to Change/Transformation.

I have used Figure 1 as the base for this model because of the division between the
why, how and what of successful schools articulated by Mulford and Johns (2004), and the
use of impact levels from Gurr et al. (2003), moving from the least direct on learning
outcomes (level 3, wider context), to level 2 (leadership and management), and level 1
(teaching and learning) which, of course, directly impact on student outcomes. The use of
impact levels is helpful in locating the mainly indirect impact on student learning of principal
leadership across levels three and two, and the more direct impact of middle level leaders
across levels two and one. The context description in level three has been expanded and more
clearly describes the school, family and external contexts that leaders need to respond to and
influence. Networks, collaborations and partnerships have been added to the model and
located across levels three and two. Level two retains the emphasis on the capacity building
of teachers and others adults in the school, adds more detail about the characteristics and
practices of school leaders (whilst the principal is the main leader, these descriptors can apply
to all in leadership roles), and introduces the idea of a portfolio approach to using leadership
styles. At level 1 there is greater clarity about what is included in teaching and learning with
the addition of student involvement in learning, and the nature and quality of the spaces and
technologies that support teaching and learning. Outcomes include broad descriptions of
student learning outcomes, and the addition of school outcomes. Use of evidence based
monitoring and critical reflection remains across all levels. A new addition across levels is the
general nature of the school (the shared vision and mission, and culture of the school and the
structure, people and processes that make this), the engagement of stakeholders within and
outside the school, and the promotion of high expectations for all.

17
 This model will need more refinement, and ultimately verification through further
research. In the next phase of the ISSPP case studies are being collected of schools that are
underperforming, as well as further collection of cases of successful schools. A new survey
has been developed for principals, teachers, and students, with these surveys meant to be used
within the cases rather than more widely within a system. Analyses of the cases through the
conceptual lense of the model may establish the veracity of the model. The model also lends
itself to develop of a survey instrument. The caution is that the survey would most likely be
large, and require the smaller scale and intense effort demonstrated by the Tasmanian
research group to achieve a worthwhile sample. The immediate task though is to consider this
model in relation to other contemporary ideas about how leadership influences student
learning; but this is a task for another paper.

References

Caldwell, B.J. (2014) Forward, in C. Day & D. Gurr (Eds) (2014) Leading Schools
Successfully: Stories from the field (London: Routledge), pp. xxi-xxii.

Day, C. (2011) Building and sustaining successful principalship in an English school, in

Moos, L., Johansson, O., & Day, C. (Eds) (2011) How School Principals Sustain Success
Over Time: International Perspectives (Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer-Kluwer), pp. 91-
108.

Day, C. & Gurr, D. (Eds) (2014) Leading Schools Successfully: Stories from the field.
(London: Routledge).

Day, C. & Leithwood, K. (Eds) (2007a) Successful School Leadership in Times of Change
(Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer).

Day, C. & Leithwood, K. (2007b) Building and sustaining successful principalship, in C.

Day & K. Leithwood (Eds) Successful School Leadership in Times of Change (Dordrecht,
Netherlands: Springer), pp. 171-188.

Doherty, J., Gurr, D. & Drysdale L. (2014) The formation and practice of a successful
principal: Rick Tudor, Headmaster of Trinity Grammar School, Melbourne, Australia, in
C. Day & D. Gurr (Eds) (2014) Leading Schools Successfully: Stories from the field
(London: Routledge), pp. 85-97.

Drysdale, L., Bennett J., Murakami, E., Johansson, O., & Gurr, D. (2014) Heroic Leadership
in Australia, Sweden, and the United States, International Journal of Educational
Management, 28(7), pp. 785 – 797

Drysdale, L., Goode, H. & Gurr, D. (2009) An Australian model of successful school
leadership: Moving from success to sustainability, Journal of Educational Administration,
47(6), 697-708.

Drysdale, L., Goode, H. & Gurr, D. (2011a) The Heroic Leader – Myth Or Reality: Findings
From Current Research Of Successful School Principals. Paper presented at the European
Conference on Educational Research, Berlin, September 13-16, 2011.

Drysdale, L., Goode, H. & Gurr, D. (2011b) Sustaining School and Leadership Success in
Two Australian Schools, in Moos, L., Johansson, O., & Day, C. (Eds) (2011) How School
Principals Sustain Success Over Time: International Perspectives (Dordrecht,
Netherlands: Springer-Kluwer), pp 25-38.

18
Drysdale, L. & Gurr, D. (2011) The theory and practice of successful school leadership in
Australia, School Leadership and Management, 31(4), pp. 355-368.

Dugan, T. & Bennett, J. (2014) USA – The story of new principals, in C. Day & D. Gurr
(Eds) (2014) Leading Schools Successfully: Stories from the field (London: Routledge),
pp. 70-84.

Gurr, D. (2007) We can be the best. In Duignan, P. & Gurr, D. (Eds) Leading Australia’s
Schools (Sydney: ACEL and DEST), pp. 124-131

Gurr, D. (2014). Finding your leadership, Perspectives in Education, 2.

Gurr, D. & Day, C. (2014a) Leading schools, in C. Day & D. Gurr (Eds) (2014) Leading
Schools Successfully: Stories from the field (London: Routledge), pp. 1-6.

Gurr, D. & Day, C. (2014b) Thinking about leading schools, in C. Day & D. Gurr (Eds)
(2014) Leading Schools Successfully: Stories from the field (London: Routledge), pp. 194-
208.

Gurr, D. & Drysdale, L. (2013) Middle-level school leaders: potential, constraints and
implications for leadership preparation, Journal of Educational Administration, 51(1), pp.
55-71.

Gurr, D., Drysdale, L., Di Natale, E., Ford, P., Hardy, R. & Swann, R. (2003) Successful
school leadership in Victoria: Three case studies, Leading and Managing, 9(1), pp. 18-37.

Gurr, D., Drysdale, L. & Mulford, B. (2006) Models of Successful Principal Leadership,
School Leadership and Management, 26(4), pp. 371-395.

Gurr, D., Drysdale, L. & Mulford, B. (2007) Instructional Leadership in Three Australian
Schools, International Studies in Educational Administration, 35(3), pp. 20-29.

Gurr, D., Drysdale, L., & Mulford, B. (2010) Australian Principal Instructional Leadership:
Direct and Indirect Influences, Magis, 2(4), pp. 299-314.

Gurr, D., Drysdale, L., Ylimaki, R., & Moos, l. (2011) Preparing Instructional Leaders, in,
Ylimaki, R. & Jacobson, S. (Eds) (2011) US and cross-national policies, practices and
preparation: Implications for successful instructional leadership, organizational
learning, and culturally responsive practices (Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer-Kluwer),
pp. 125-152.

Gurr, D., Ylimaki, R., Drysdale, L., & Jacobson, S. (2011) Preparation for Sustainable
Leadership, chapter 11 in Moos, L., Johansson, O., & Day, C. (Eds) (2011) How School
Principals Sustain Success Over Time: International Perspectives (Dordrecht,
Netherlands: Springer-Kluwer), pp. 183-198

Hardy, R. (2006) Successful Leaders In Successful Schools: A case study of a government

primary school principal in Victoria, Australia. Unpublished Master of Education Thesis,
the University of Melbourne.

Jacobson, S.L., Johansson, O., & Day, C. (2011) Preparing school leaders to organisational
learning and capacity building, in R. Ylimaki, & S. Jacobson (Eds.) US and cross-national
policies, practices and preparation: Implications for successful instructional leadership,
organizational learning, and culturally responsive practices (Dordrecht, Netherlands:
Springer) pp. 103-124.

19
Johnson, L., Moller, J., Ottesen, E., Pashiardis, P., Savvides, V., & Vedoy, G. (2011)
Leadership preparation for culturally diverse schools in Cyprus, Norway, and the United
States, in R. Ylimaki, & S. Jacobson (Eds.) US and cross-national policies, practices and
preparation: Implications for successful instructional leadership, organizational learning,
and culturally responsive practices (Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer) pp. 153-178.

Leithwood, K., & Day, C. (2007b). What we learned: a broad view, in C. Day & K.
Leithwood (Eds) Successful School Leadership in Times of Change (Dordrecht,
Netherlands: Springer), pp. 189-203.

Leithwood, K., Day, C., Sammons, P., Harris, A. & Hopkins, D. (2006) Seven strong claims
about successful school leadership (Nottingham: National College of School Leadership).

Leithwood, K. & Steinbach, R. (2003) Successful leadership for especially challenging

schools, in B. Davies & J. West-Burnham (Eds) Handbook of Educational Leadership and
Management (London: Pearson Education), pp. 25-43

Merchant, B., Garza, E., & Ramalho, E.M. (2014) USA – Culturally-responsive leadership, in
C. Day & D. Gurr (Eds) (2014) Leading Schools Successfully: Stories from the field
(London: Routledge), pp. 174-183.

Minor-Ragan, Y., & Jacobson, S. (2014) USA – Her own words: turning around an under-
performing school, in C. Day & D. Gurr (Eds) (2014) Leading Schools Successfully:
Stories from the field (London: Routledge), pp. 9-18.

Møller, J. og Fuglestad, O.L (2006) (red.): Ledelse i anerkjente skoler (Oslo:

Universitetsforlaget).

Moos, L. (2014) Denmark – A strength of purpose: building credibility and trust, in C. Day &
D. Gurr (Eds) (2014) Leading Schools Successfully: Stories from the field (London:
Routledge), pp. 61-69.

Moos, L. Johansson, O. & Day, C. (eds.) (2011a): How School Principals Sustain Success
over Time. International Perspectives (Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer).

Moos, L. Johansson, O. & Day, C. (2011b): New insights: How successful school leadership
is sustained, in Moos, L. Johansson, O. & Day, C. (eds.) (2011a) How School Principals
Sustain Success over Time. International Perspectives (Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer),
pp. 223-230.

Moos, L, Krejsler, J. & Kofod, K. (2007) Mening i ledelse: succesfuld skoleledelse mellem
visioner og selvledelse (Frederikshavn: Dafolo Forlag).

Mulford, B., & Edmunds, B. (2009) Successful school principalship in Tasmania.

(Launceston, Tasmania: Faculty of Education, University of Tasmania).

Mulford, B. & Johns, S. (2004) Successful school principalship, Leading and Managing,
10(1), 45-76.

Mulford, B., Johns, S., & Edmunds, B. (2009) Successful school principalship in Tasmania:
Case Studies (Launceston, Tasmania: Faculty of Education, University of Tasmania).

Mulford, B., Kendall, L., Kendall, D., Edmunds, B., Ewington, J. and Silins, H. (2008),
Successful school principalship and decision making, Leading & Managing, 14(1), pp. 60-
71.

20
Mulford, B., & Silins, H. (2011). Revised models and conceptualisation of successful school
principalship for improved student outcomes, International Journal of Educational
Management, 25(1), pp. 61-82.

Mulford, W., Silins, H., & Leithwood, K. (2004). Educational leadership for organisational
learning and improved student outcomes (Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic).

Parker, L., & Raihani (2009). Policy Briefs: Governing Madrasah (Canberra: Australia
Indonesia Governance Research Partnership (AIGRP) - The Australian National
University).

Pashiardis, P. & Savvides, V. (2011) The Interplay between Instructional and Entrepreneurial
Leadership Styles in Cyprus Rural Primary School, Leadership and Policy in Schools,
10(4), 412-427.

Pashiardis, P., & Savvides, V. (2014) Cyprus – Trust in leadership: keeping promises, in C.
Day & D. Gurr (Eds) (2014) Leading Schools Successfully: Stories from the field (London:
Routledge), pp. 129-139.

Pashiardis, P., Savvides, V., Lytra, E., & Angelidou, K. (2011) Successful School in Rural
Contexts: The Case of Cyprus, Educational Management Administration and Leadership,
39(5), pp. 536-553.

Raihani (2007) Successful chool leadership in Indonesia: A study of the principals’ leadership
in three successful senior secondary schools in Yogyakarta. PhD thesis, The University of
Melbourne, Australia.

Raihani (2008) An Indonesian Model of Successful School Leadership, Journal of

Educational Administration, 46(4), pp. 481-496.

Raihani & Gurr, D. (2006) Value-driven school leadership: An Indonesian perspective,

Leading and Managing, 12(1), pp. 121-134.

Raihani, Gurr, D. & Drysdale, L. (2014) Leading an Islamic school in a multicultural setting
in Indonesia, in C. Day & D. Gurr (Eds) (2014) Leading Schools Successfully: Stories
from the field (London: Routledge), pp. 184- 193.

Torres-Arcadia, C., & Flores-Kastanis, E. (2014), Mexico – From fragmentation to

community: a journey of change, in C. Day & D. Gurr (Eds) (2014) Leading Schools
Successfully: Stories from the field (London: Routledge), pp. 31-43.

Wang, L.H. (2010) Successful School Leadership in Singapore. PhD. The University of
Melbourne, Australia.

Wang, L.H., Gurr, D. & Drysdale, L. (2014) Working together with others, in C. Day & D.
Gurr (Eds) (2014) Leading Schools Successfully: Stories from the field (London:
Routledge), pp. 149-160.

Wasonga, T. (2014) Kenya – From perdition to performance, in C. Day & D. Gurr (Eds)
(2014) Leading Schools Successfully: Stories from the field (London: Routledge), pp. 44-
58.

Yaakov, O.B., & Tubin, D. (2014) Israel – The evolution of success, in C. Day & D. Gurr
(Eds) (2014) Leading Schools Successfully: Stories from the field (London: Routledge),
pp. 19-30.

21
 Ylimaki, R., Gurr, D., Moos, L., Kofod, K., & Drysdale, L. (2011) Democratic instructional
leadership in Australia, Denmark, and the United States, in R. Ylimaki, & S. Jacobson
(Eds.) US and cross-national policies, practices, and preparation: Implications for
successful instructional leadership, organizational learning, and culturally responsive
practices (Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer) pp. 51-73.

Ylimaki, R.M & Jacobson, S.L. (eds.) (2011a) US and cross-national policies, practices, and
preparation: Implications for successful instructional leadership, organizational learning,
and culturally responsive practices (Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer)

Ylimaki, R.M & Jacobson, S.L. (2011b): Comparative perspective on organisational learning,
instructional leadership, and culturally responsive practices: Conclusions and future
Directions, in Ylimaki, R.M & Jacobson, S.L. (eds.) (2011a) US and cross-national
policies, practices, and preparation: Implications for successful instructional leadership,
organizational learning, and culturally responsive practices (Dordrecht, Netherlands:
Springer), pp. 179-190.

22

View publication stats