Purpose – This paper aims to present a research-based model of leadership for learning. It argues that the field has made substantial progress over the past 40 years in identifying ways in which leadership contributes to learning and school improvement. Four specific dimensions of leading for learning are presented: values and beliefs, leadership focus, contexts for leadership, and sharing leadership. Design/methodology/approach – The paper employs a review methodology but focuses especially on evidence from several recent empirical studies. While the author argues that progress has been made, limitations – especially with respect to linking leadership practice to different contexts – are noted. Findings – The paper finds that significant progress has been made in identifying the means by which leadership impacts on learning. Research limitations/implications – The key limitation in this research lies in the difficulty in linking leadership to its context. While progress is also beginning to be made in this area, it remains a limiting factor in interpreting the findings from this body of research. Practical implications – The above limitation means that individual school leaders must still apply the findings both with caution and with an understanding of their own particular school context. Originality/value – The paper extends prior reviews by its inclusion of findings from a series of important studies that have emerged since 2008.

Research on educational leadership and management has resulted in the accumulation of increasingly persuasive findings concerning the impact school leadership can have on school performance. Indeed, there is a growing consensus that there exists a generic set of leadership practices (e.g. goal setting, developing people) which must be adapted to meet the needs and constraints that describe different school contexts. However, to date, researchers have yet to develop a theory or report comprehensive findings on this challenge. This paper explores several types of school contexts (institutional, community, socio-cultural, political, economic, school improvement) and what we have learned about how they shape school leadership practice. The analysis leads to several conclusions and recommendations. First, it affirms, elaborates and extends the assertion made by scholars of the importance of examining leadership in context. Second, the need to contextualize leadership highlights deficiencies in modal research methods that focus on mean effects and either ignore context effects or relegate them to the shadows. Finally, the field needs to refine current research methods and explore new approaches that enable us to better study how successful leadership responds and adapts to different contexts.

Fifty years of theory and research offer increasing levels of support for the assertion that principal leadership makes a difference in the quality of schooling, school development, and student learning. In the current context of global education reform, however, recent inquiries have focused on identifying how teams of school leaders contribute to school improvement and student learning. This paper reports findings drawn from a series of empirical analyses that assessed the effects of collaborative leadership on school improvement capacity and student learning in a large sample of US primary schools over a four-year period. Our findings support the prevailing view that collaborative school leadership can positively impact student learning in reading and math through building the school's capacity for academic improvement. The research extends this finding, however, by offering empirical support for a more refined conception that casts leadership for student learning as a process of mutual influence in which school capacity both shapes and is shaped by the school's collective leadership.

This systematic review used “science mapping” as a means of understanding the evolution of research in educational administration (EA). The review sought to document the size, growth trajectory, and geographic distribution of EA research, identify high impact scholars and documents, and illuminate the “intellectual structure” of the field. Although science mapping has been applied widely in science, medicine, and social sciences, it is still new in the field of education. The authors identified 22,361 peer-reviewed articles published in 22 Scopus-indexed EA journals between 1960 and 2018. The authors used VOSviewer, Excel, and Tableau software to analyze the data set. The review found that the EA knowledge base has grown dramatically since 1960 with an accelerating rate growth and increasing gender and geographic diversity during the past two decades. Using co-citation analysis, the review identified canonical documents, defined as highly influential documents whose impact has been sustained for a period of several decades. The review also identified four key Schools of Thought that have emerged over time focusing on Leadership for Learning, Leadership and Cultural Change, School Effectiveness and School Improvement, and Leading Teachers. More broadly, our findings highlighted a paradigm shift from “school administration” to “school leadership” over the course of the six decades. Another significant finding identified “leadership for student learning and development” as the “cognitive anchor” of the intellectual structure of the EA knowledge base. The authors conclude that science mapping offers a new and useful means of unpacking the historical development of fields of study.

Although there has been sizable growth in the number of empirical studies of shared forms of leadership over the past decade, the bulk of this research has been descriptive. Relatively few published studies have investigated the impact of shared leadership on school improvement. This longitudinal study examines the effects of distributed leadership on school improvement and growth in student math achievement in 195 elementary schools in one state over a 4-year period. Using multilevel latent change analysis, the research found significant direct effects of distributed leadership on change in the schools’ academic capacity and indirect effects on student growth rates in math. The study supports a perspective on distributed leadership that aims at building the academic capacity of schools as a means of improving student learning outcomes.