A Review of Evidence about Equitable School Leadership

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

• The topic of the study is a crucial area of research interest.
• It is 58 pages…So it will be better to be reduced in terms of size.
• A concise and factual abstract is required. It should be between 150 and 250 words. The abstract should state briefly the purpose of the research, the principal results, and major conclusions.

• The limitation of the study should be added.
• In depth analysis and a more critical discussion of literature view is recommended. It can be more elaborated to reflect the researcher’s own contribution.

• Subdivision of the Article: Divide your manuscript into clearly defined and numbered sections (e.g., 1., 2., 3., etc.). Subsections should be numbered 1.1, 1.2, etc., and sub-subsections should be numbered 1.1.1, 1.1.2, etc..

• A model can be added as a contribution from the researcher.

Author Response

This letter provides a point-by-point response to each of the paper’s three reviewers. Reviewers 1 and 3 were generally positive and clear about their advice. I have incorporated much of that advice into the revised paper as I indicate more precisely below.

            Reviewer 2’s advice was very difficult to understand. I do respond to his suggestions in this letter but cannot be certain I understood most of them. I think if you read his/her review yourself you will appreciate my dilemma.

            In the remainder of this letter, text in bold is usually the verbatim text of the reviewers while the unbolded text is my response.

           

Reviewer One:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

1. The topic of the study is a crucial area of research interest

.

2. It is 58 pages…So it will be better to be reduced in terms of size.

 

There are several reasons I have not followed this advice:

• I selected Education Sciences specifically because its policy allows for the publication of papers the length of this one.

 

• My desire to publish the paper at its current length is influenced by my goal of providing clear and specific guidance about how the leadership framework used to guide the review could be revised to better reflect how leaders might improve equity in their schools. For each of the practices in the leadership framework, I wanted to describe how it needed to be enacted when equity was a central goal. Examples of what that would look like seemed useful, as well, to make the nature of these equitable practices very clear. Section One of the results, in particular, provides a synopsis of relevant results for each of the practices in the leadership framework and either one of two examples of how these practices were enacted in different research contexts. The literature in the other Sections of results is described much more concisely.

 

• Reviewer 1 also suggests “more ‘indepth analysis and a more critical discussion of literature view is recommended. It can be more elaborated to reflect the researcher’s own contribution”. This suggestion seems contradictory to the earlier suggestion to reduce the size of the paper

 

3. A concise and factual abstract is required. It should be between 150 and 250 words. The abstract should state briefly the purpose of the research, the principal results, and major conclusions.

            Such an abstract was submitted to the journal at the same time as I submitted the paper. The reviewer either did not see the abstract or it was not sent it along with the paper for review.

 

4. The limitation of the study should be added.

 

            I have not added a distinct section on limitations. However, five limitations have been added to other sections of the text.

• Line 235-16 has been added about possible limitations of the search strategy.
• Lines 316-17, in the original paper notes the author as the only analyst of the studies as a limitation
• Line 1752 has been added about the very brief description of the results of the 19 studies that did not include evidence about the outcomes of the leadership practices they report.
• Lines 1807-1809 identify the reviews very brief analysis of leadership dispositions as a limitation since such dispositions are now being viewed as an increasingly important feature of successful leadership.

 

5. Subdivision of the Article: Divide your manuscript into clearly defined and numbered sections (e.g., 1., 2., 3., etc.). Subsections should be numbered 1.1, 1.2, etc., and sub-subsections should be numbered 1.1.1, 1.1.2, etc..

 

All sections and subsections have now been numbered as the reviewer recommends.

 

6. A model can be added as a contribution from the researcher.

 

            The paper is a review of literature intended to deepen an existing model of successful leadership not to provide an additional model. That existing model is described in some detail in the Framework section of the paper. The paper then (a) provides evidence about how the practices and dispositions in the existing model can be enacted when greater equity is a goal and (b) identifies a significant number of additional practices and dispositions that could potentially expand the model. But I leave this potential expansion for future work.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Introduction o theorical part :

whats the meneaning of "SES"? I haven't found the meaning of these acronyms.

The first part is to much dense. Insome case its dicicult to continue reading don't loose.

abotu the methodologial parta, where is??? the author in 202-203 line specifically indicate "is not amenable to more quantitative review methods". well I considere thta is a research quantitative, cause the researcher used a method to find the information, the other hand the index to fin the article not be clear, the say they used Web of Sicence, Eric.... the mut indicate all the index journal data base, not think that the reader can imagine. the other hand didn't talk how article find in Eric, how in WOS, and the otther data base.

Neither included some aspect relevent, as the authors country or editorial conutry.

I can't find the variables that they used tocarry out the researche.

The article must improve in method part.

Author Response

This letter provides a point-by-point response to each of the paper’s three reviewers. Reviewers 1 and 3 were generally positive and clear about their advice. I have incorporated much of that advice into the revised paper as I indicate more precisely below.

            Reviewer 2’s advice was very difficult to understand. I do respond to his suggestions in this letter but cannot be certain I understood most of them. I think if you read his/her review yourself you will appreciate my dilemma.

            In the remainder of this letter, text in bold is usually the verbatim text of the reviewers while the unbolded text is my response.

Reviewer Two:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In response to this reviewer’s comments, I replicate (word for word - spelling by the reviewer) each of the comments followed by my response.

Introduction o theorical part :

1. whats the meneaning of "SES"? I haven't found the meaning of these acronyms.

            SES is an acronym for Socio Economic Status. The use of the acronym is common in all other English language journals in which I publish. However, I have now spelt out the acronym the first several times it appears in the paper and returned to the acronym after that.

2. The first part is to much dense. Insome case its dicicult to continue reading don't loose.

            I am at a loss to identify what is too dense and difficult to read in the introductory section. So I have not changed any of the text in the first part. The reading difficulty of the text is pretty uniform throughout the paper.

3. abotu the methodologial parta, where is??? the author in 202-203 line specifically indicate "is not amenable to more quantitative review methods". well I considere thta is a research quantitative, cause the researcher used a method to find the information,

            I think the first part of this question asks where to find the methods section of the paper. All of the methods are described in the major section of the paper entitled Review Methods; this section has subsections entitled Search Procedures, Nature of the Evidence, Analysis of Evidence and Reporting Styles.

            The second part of this question, if I understand it correctly, objects to the claim that the review “is not amenable to more quantitative review methods”. The full paragraph in which this text appears is as follows:

This is a narrative review of research largely because the available evidence is not amenable to more quantitative review methods. Nonetheless, the review aims to be as systematic and transparent as possible about sources of evidence, how those sources were selected and how knowledge claims from the review were justified.

.            So, I am making a distinction among types of reviews (a distinction that is quite common in top tier English language education journals (such as the Review of Educational Research) between reviews that consist of meta-analyses of quantitative studies and reviews that aim to capture the results of mostly qualitative studies such as this one which I label, as is common in the review literature, a “narrative” review.                                                                                                             Please note that in the paragraph above, I do indicate my intent to be “systematic” and “transparent” in analyzing the evidence. While the reviewer seems to saying that she/he considers that to be a quantitative method, that is not a conventional term to apply to a systematic narrative review of qualitative evidence.

4. the other hand the index to fin the article not be clear, the say they used Web of Sicence, Eric.... the mut indicate all the index journal data base, not think that the reader can imagine. the other hand didn't talk how article find in Eric, how in WOS, and the otther data base.

            I think (but cannot be certain) that the reviewer is suggesting that all search engines used in the search be named. The original paper does name and describe the search process in detail. The examples of other search engines (Web of Science. Eric) are examples of search engines I did not use. I think this recommendation is based on a misunderstanding since there seems no good reason to comprehensively name all sources not used.

5. Neither included some aspect relevent, as the authors country or editorial conutry.

            Apologies, but I do not understand this statement.

6. I can't find the variables that they used tocarry out the researche.

            The Framework section of the paper describes the variables used to guide the research. This section begins by describing the theory underlying the conception of leadership used to guide the research. This is followed by a description of the leadership practices or behaviors aligned with that theory along with previous reviews of empirical evidence supporting the effects of those practices. A description of the leadership dispositions included as part of the leadership framework come next. So, the variables guiding the review include all of the leadership practices and dispositions included in the leadership model or framework outlined in the Framework section.

7. The article must improve in method part.

The reviewer appears not to know where in the paper to find the Methods description. It appears as Section 3. Review Methods and includes subsections labelled Search Procedures, Nature of the Evidence, Analysis of Evidence and Reporting Styles. I am uncertain what else the reviewer was expecting and what parts of the Review Methods need to be improved.

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper offers original findings through an analysis that is clearly framed, guided by explicit reference to a framework focusing on successful school leadership. This provides a solid foundation for examining themes that emerge in the review of the studies that meet the selection criteria for consideration in the paper, in order to address questions that highlight practices that contribute to equity in schools. The discussion is well-framed and clearly presented, advancing findings that are significant for an understanding of relations between school leadership and equity.

In order to enhance the potential contributions offered through the analysis some clarification of core concepts and relationships employed in the paper would be helpful. In particular, it is not clear whether the central focus is on the relationships between equity and leadership or on the ‘guiding framework’ itself. There is a lot going on in the analysis – the discussion is rich with concepts and examples – so a few additional markers at key points would be helpful in maintaining a clear, consistent focus throughout. In the absence of this clarification, some ambiguity emerges concerning which elements are most pertinent, and on what basis particular themes are given attention relative to those considered less relevant.

Given the core focus of the discussion, the definitions and clarification of notions of both leadership and success warrant inclusion in the body of the text rather than placement within a footnote. Similarly, greater attention is need to address issues of equity, including how equity is understood in the analysis and what indicators or dimensions are employed to indicate the presence or absence of equity in the analysis. This is especially important given that successful leadership is defined with reference to the goals of the organization (which in some cases may not be aligned with equity or with practices that foster equitable treatment and outcomes).

Some attention or brief acknowledgement should be made to potential problems that might arise out of the selection of cases from the literature that, paradoxically, point in contrasting directions to one another. On the one hand there is the potential for selection bias in that the criteria employed to select cases may contribute to the identification of articles or case studies that are already aligned with the guiding framework employed for the analysis; on the other hand, where studies do not fit the framework, it is important that consideration be given to a discussion of the criteria that might be necessary in order to consider modifying the framework. With regard to the former, the use of snowball sampling poses some risks that studies selected draw from common sets of references and sources while work that may be framed through alternative conceptual orientations or paradigms may be missed. With regard to the latter, by contrast, one notable case is described in lines 1634-5, where it is observed that, “Of the 29 practices identified by this review, at least a third can be found in the guiding Framework.” This means that an even larger proportion - about two-thirds - are not part of framework. What does this mean for the framework itself? On a more specific level, the addition of a brief note to indicate how entries were selected for the Appendices would be helpful – especially with respect to “Guiding Concept/Theories” (i.e., from keywords? other?).

Finally, on a more minor note, the discussion is clear throughout other than a few missing or misplaced words, letters, and punctuation marks (e.g., lines 922-3 – “Limiting consideration here to the alignment and allocation of teachers and school-level leaders, the most critical of the resources available to improve equity in schools.”)

Author Response

This letter provides a point-by-point response to each of the paper’s three reviewers. Reviewers 1 and 3 were generally positive and clear about their advice. I have incorporated much of that advice into the revised paper as I indicate more precisely below.

            Reviewer 2’s advice was very difficult to understand. I do respond to his suggestions in this letter but cannot be certain I understood most of them. I think if you read his/her review yourself you will appreciate my dilemma.

            In the remainder of this letter, text in bold is usually the verbatim text of the reviewers while the unbolded text is my response.

Reviewer Three:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper offers original findings through an analysis that is clearly framed, guided by explicit reference to a framework focusing on successful school leadership. This provides a solid foundation for examining themes that emerge in the review of the studies that meet the selection criteria for consideration in the paper, in order to address questions that highlight practices that contribute to equity in schools. The discussion is well-framed and clearly presented, advancing findings that are significant for an understanding of relations between school leadership and equity.

1. In order to enhance the potential contributions offered through the analysis some clarification of core concepts and relationships employed in the paper would be helpful. In particular, it is not clear whether the central focus is on the relationships between equity and leadership or on the ‘guiding framework’ itself.

The following text has been added to the introductory section of the paper to help provide more clarity (lines 59-65):

More specifically, the paper:

1. reviews evidence about how the core leadership practices and dispositions included in a well-developed educational leadership framework (described below) are enacted when improving equity in a school is the objective;
2. identifies leadership practices and dispositions contributing to more equitable schooling not yet included in that leadership framework but potentially valuable additions to the framework should it be revised.

There is a lot going on in the analysis – the discussion is rich with concepts and examples –

So a few additional markers at key points would be helpful in maintaining a clear, consistent focus throughout. In the absence of this clarification, some ambiguity emerges concerning which elements are most pertinent, and on what basis particular themes are given attention relative to those considered less relevant.

2. Given the core focus of the discussion, the definitions and clarification of notions of both leadership and success warrant inclusion in the body of the text rather than placement within a footnote.

A definition of both leadership and equity, as used in the paper, has now been placed in the Introduction section of the paper (lines 67-85).

3. Similarly, greater attention is needed to address issues of equity, including how equity is understood in the analysis and what indicators or dimensions are employed to indicate the presence or absence of equity in the analysis. This is especially important given that successful leadership is defined with reference to the goals of the organization (which in some cases may not be aligned with equity or with practices that foster equitable treatment and outcomes).

The meaning of equity and success in achieving equity in the paper varies depending on the categories of research included in each of four sections of the Results:

1. Section One Results (begins line 376)                                                                         To clarify the meaning of equity and success in the 29 studies reviewed in this section a sentence has been added (line 380) as follows: “In most studies, student achievement was the measure of school and student success.” This is followed on lines 389-392 with text explaining that it was the achievement of students typically underserved by schools because of inequitable treatment: Students included in the study schools were often minoritized and economically challenged, as well as speaking a language at home other than the language of instruction. Religion, ethnicity and (dis)ability or “special needs” were other forms of student diversity in the study schools.
2. Section Two Results (begins line 1248)                                                                         The academic achievement of typically underserved students is also the measure of equity and success for the large-scale quantitative studies with evidence of outcomes reviewed in this section.
3. Section Three Results (begins line 1351)                                                                         Evidence reviewed in this section consists of 12 reviews of literature predating studies examined in this review. These reviews are framed by different theories of social justice, inclusion and equity and selected empirical evidence is cited to illustrate the nature of successful leadership according to each of the theories. I have not added further text to in this section because the meaning of success seems pretty clear as is.
4. Section Four Results (begins line 1767)                                                                         Nineteen individual studies of equitable leadership without evidence of outcomes are reviewed in this section. There is no measure of success in these studies because they are entirely descriptive studies. These studies report the views of practicing school leaders who percieve themselves to be – an are perceived by others as – “social justice leaders”. Similar to the reviews in Section three, these results are framed by several different conceptions of what social justice/inclusive/equitable leaders do. As with the previous section, I have not added further text to this section because the meaning of success seems pretty clear as is.
5. Some attention or brief acknowledgement should be made to potential problems that might arise out of the selection of cases from the literature that, paradoxically, point in contrasting directions to one another. On the one hand there is the potential for selection bias in that the criteria employed to select cases may contribute to the identification of articles or case studies that are already aligned with the guiding framework employed for the analysis; on the other hand, where studies do not fit the framework, it is important that consideration be given to a discussion of the criteria that might be necessary in order to consider modifying the framework. With regard to the former, the use of snowball sampling poses some risks that studies selected draw from common sets of references and sources while work that may be framed through alternative conceptual orientations or paradigms may be missed.

            This potential risk has been added as a limitation on 237-38. But whether or not it materializes depends on whether the authors of those earlier publications cited only work consistent with their prior beliefs. In any event, especially the earlier reviews of literature largely framed by alternative approaches to social justice, inclusion and equity go some distance to ensuring that the paper casts a wide conceptual net (Reviews of Research Without Evidence of Outcomes, line 1349 and following). The 19 studies of social justice leadership with evidence of impact that are reviewed in Section Four Results (beginning line 1754) also help mitigate this potential problem.

Lines 194 to 199 in the existing text note a related concern about “not “forcing” the results of the research into “boxes” predetermined by the Framework. The paper then notes that this was more complicated than it might seem because of the part that contexts play in shaping the nature of leaders’ work. Lines 196 to 223 in the existing text, explain this complication in more detail.

6. With regard to the latter, by contrast, one notable case is described in lines 1634-5, where it is observed that, “Of the 29 practices identified by this review, at least a third can be found in the guiding Framework.” This means that an even larger proportion - about two-thirds - are not part of framework. What does this mean for the framework itself?

            Yes, the initial leadership framework did not include a number of practices identified by the review. Identifying those additional practices was a key goal of the review (see new text lines 63-65) as well as the original text lines 131-133:

This review aims to determine what other practices (or adaptations of practices) equity-oriented leaders need to enact in order to create more inclusive, socially just experiences for diverse groups of students in their schools.

With respect to the text noted by the reviewer (lines 1647-48), the additional practices noted but not found in the original leadership framework are the major focus of the Key Results in the Conclusion to the paper, recommending they be added to subsequent revisions of the leadership framework (see lines 1884 and following).

Indeed, Results sections of the review entitled Reviews of Research Without Evidence of Outcomes, and Individual Studies of Equitable Leadership without Evidence of Outcomes are all major sources of both practices and disositions not included in the leadership framework.

7. On a more specific level, the addition of a brief note to indicate how entries were selected for the Appendices would be helpful – especially with respect to “Guiding Concept/Theories” (i.e., from keywords? other?).

            A footnote has been added to Appendix A: Guiding Concepts/Theories as follows:

These are the concepts/theories explicity identified by the study authors’

8. 8. Finally, on a more minor note, the discussion is clear throughout other than a few missing or misplaced words, letters, and punctuation marks (e.g., lines 922-3 – “Limiting consideration here to the alignment and allocation of teachers and school-level leaders, the most critical of the resources available to improve equity in schools.”)

The problem sentence identified by Reviewer 3 has been edited as follows:

 

The alignment and allocation of teachers and school-level leaders is the most critical of the resources available to improve equity in schools.

As well, the entire paper has been reviewed to ensure problems such as these are addressed.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I belivethat the authors does a good review