Contemporary Issues in Leadership Paper: Distributive Leadership and School Improvement

Introduction of the Leadership Issue

Educational leaders bring about reform. School executives create the culture, conditions and supports to enable teachers to do their best. In the current educational context, schools are becoming increasingly diverse racially, economically and culturally, while teaching staffs remain predominantly Caucasian, female, and middle class (Yamamoto, Gardiner, & Tenuto, 2014). Currently on average, 25 percent of our students fail to graduate high school, and as many as 60 percent of college freshmen need remedial education. Additionally, millions of jobs are unfilled for lack of qualified applicants (Hatcher, 2005). Thus, even given the pressure of accountability and widespread failure to educate many students, in most schools successful change is not occurring, which means that what we have been traditionally doing is not working.

Research is clear that the classroom teacher is the most important person in ensuring that students learn (Rose, 2007). However, teachers who were effective in the past may not be as effective in today's educational context (Yamamoto, Gardiner, & Tenuto, 2014). For example, if good teachers have been at a school for several years and if the school has recently undergone significant demographic changes, these teachers may not be experiencing the level of student success that they had in the past. However, since these teachers were successful in the past, they may believe that their teaching strategies are effective and thus attribute the lack of student success to what they perceive as the students' deficits (Green, 2013). For teachers to be successful with all their students, it may require them to examine and change their attitudes toward their students, their equity consciousness, or their instructional strategies such that they are responsive to the needs and cultures of current students, employing, for example, culturally responsive pedagogy (Rose, 2007). School leaders are typically the individuals charged with assisting teachers in the change process. However, trying to help teachers change attitudes and practices is a daunting task and one that has proven almost impossible when left to only one or two leaders in a school (Hatcher, 2005).

One solution that has been offered to increase the leadership capacity at a school is to distribute the leadership more broadly among principals and teacher leaders (McKennzie & Locke, 2014). A great deal of attention in the educational literature has been paid to the impact of principals as leader and managers on student learning outcomes. Research suggests there is some evidence identifying the positive influence of principals on student and school performance (Green, 2013). In this regard, teacher leaders may include department chairs at the secondary school level, grade-level team leaders in elementary schools, and/ or teacher leaders who are assigned to assist new or struggling teachers.

Defining Distributive Leadership

Distributing leadership, or distributed leadership to improve teacher practice is frequently seen as creating a more democratic workplace (Fusarelli, Kowalski, & Petersen, 2011). Distributed leadership is also considered efficient, spreading the responsibility for school improvement among more leaders, resulting in less energy and time being required of one person. Distributive leadership model of school governance is the process by which communities of decision makers recognize and accept both the obligation and the right to participate in the educational decisions which most affect their lives and gather together to improve schooling for all children (Fusarelli, Kowalski, & Petersen, 2011).

Jones, Harvey, Lefoe and Ryland (2013) concluded that Distributed Leadership for learning and teaching is a leadership approach in which collaborative working is undertaken between individuals who trust and respect each other’s contribution. It occurs as a result of an open culture within and across an institution. It is an approach in which reflective practice is an integral part enabling actions to be critiqued, challenged and developed through cycles of planning, action, reflection and assessment and re-planning. It happens most effectively when people at all levels engage in action, accepting leadership in their particular areas of expertise (Yamamoto, Gardiner, & Tenuto, 2014). It requires resources that support and enable collaborative environments together with a flexible approach to space, time and finance which occur as a result of diverse contextual settings in an institution. Through shared and active engagement, distributed leadership can result in the development of leadership capacity to sustain improvements in teaching and learning.

Research concludes that academics support the distributed leadership approach and saw it as conceivable in practice (McKennzie & Locke, 2014). However, the following are important factors to support the effective working of this distributive leadership approach:

     * Good levels of trust must be built and maintained

     * Accountability and risk should be distributed in line with the leadership tasks, as must the rewards

     * A common vision is necessary

     * Leaders must be visible and credible

     * The status level of leadership needs to be raised to the same status as academics

     * Leaders need to learn to let go and not keep too tight a rein on their followers

Pros vs Cons of Distributive Leadership

Distributed leadership is evident in schools where teachers and principals share leadership functions including facilitating grade level curriculum meetings, coordinating professional development opportunities, and serving as school representatives on district-wide sub committees (McKennzie & Locke, 2014). Distributed leadership has the advantage of increasing initiative, creativity and spontaneity and therefore individuals have the power to influence events. However, as accountability stays with the leader, individuals are shielded both from the risks and the rewards. As important as a collective working approach to this method is the need for a clear vision. The biggest upsides with shared leadership, according to is the shared responsibility in decision making, problem solving and ease of workload. The frequency of bad decision taken by the leader is definitely decreased due to then ability to bounce of ideas between the co-leaders. By having multiple designated leaders, the leadership can be equally shared.

There were a few positive aspects to working in a distributed leadership team (Yamamoto, Gardiner, & Tenuto, 2014). Collaboration was modeled for staff members and students, and new leaders were formed. There was more presence and influence within the campus as the group presented a cohesive front when issues arose. Decisions were more informed and many times errors were avoided due to the fact that everyone in the team kept a close eye on operations.

Negative aspects are also experienced. Working in a team required more time and effort. Leadership does not come naturally to all. Each person had his or her own personality, and these sometimes will clash. Territoriality can arise between departments or programs. There is a need to share more information, which required filtering, organizing and planning ahead. The sequence of communication had to be respected; it is important to speak with the group before informing the faculty as a whole.

Author’s Perspective on Distributive Leadership and School Improvement

Leadership distribution is complex. When investigating sites with distributed structures, Martinez, Firestone, Mangin and Polovsky (2005) discovered that multiple, competing visions were present in some organizations. This finding goes against the assumption that a common understanding of goals and strategies exists naturally when leadership is distributed. Leaders must be prepared to develop and promote shared visions and paths and to constantly revisit and modify them as needed. The author found that cultural and structural conditions are not in tune with a distributed approach, there are conflicting priorities, formal leaders are incapable of tapping into others’ potential, the right people aren’t linked with the right task, or there is a lack of coordination. All of these factors may impede effective leadership sharing.

The role of the principal within a distributed leadership model is no longer one of absolute authority (McKenzie & Skrla, 2011). Distributed leadership implies sharing of power and decision making and therefore, at times, the principal may not have either positional or expert authority. If the distributed leadership model is one premised on the broad-based involvement of staff in decision making and forward planning, then the role of the principle has to change. The changed or redefined principal’s role will be chiefly concerned with creating the conditions for others to lead rather than leading from the front. This is not to suggest that the principal no longer sets the strategic direction for the school but rather to argue that the role is now to orchestrate the talent and leadership capability of others to move the school forward (McKenzie & Skrla, 2011). This shift in the principal’s role is significant in a number of ways.

First, it requires some relinquishment of power and authority which will be difficult for some principals to undertake. Second, it requires a shift away from leadership as position to leadership as interaction. Anything principals do will be more important than the role they occupy. Third, it requires a high degree of reciprocal trust to negotiate successfully the fault lines of formal and informal leadership practice. Inevitably, there will be those with formal and paid responsibility to fulfill a leadership role. There will also be those with ability, talent and capability to lead who are not in formal leadership positions. Effective principals will be able to harness both and will ensure that the blend of distributed leadership practice and activity contributes to school development and improvement.

Recent evidence has shown that distributed leadership contributes to the development of academic capacity and also contributes indirectly to student learning outcomes (Harris, 2004). These findings, and other studies, provide growing empirical support for the development of broader, more distributed leadership capacity within, between and across schools. The central challenge now is to develop, foster and actively encourage new, diverse and distributed models of leadership that can transform schools and school systems (McKennzie & Locke, 2014).

Conclusion

Distributed leadership, or the expansion of leadership roles in schools, beyond those informal leadership or administrative posts, represents one of the most influential ideas to emerge in the field of educational leadership in the past decade (Green, 2013).The research evidence highlights that without the support of the principal, distributed leadership is unlikely to flourish or be sustained. Evidence shows that effective principals orchestrate the structural and cultural conditions in which distributed leadership is more or less likely. They play a key role in leadership distribution and are a critical component in building leadership capacity throughout the school. At the school level, to varying degrees all change flows through the principal’s office.

References

Fusarelli, L. D., Kowalski, T. J., & Petersen, G. J. (2011). Distributive Leadership, Civic

Engagement, and Deliberative Democracy as Vehicles for School Improvement.

Leadership and Policy in Schools, 10, 43–62.

Green, Reginald L (2013). Practicing the Art of Leadership: a Problem-Based Approach to Implementing the ISLLC Standards (Fourth Edition).Allyn and Beacon, Boston, MA.

Harris, A. (2004). Distributed leadership and school improvement. Educational Management Administration & Leadership. 32(1), 11-24.

Hatcher, R. (2005). The distribution of leadership and power in schools. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 26(2), 253-267.

Jones, S., Harvey, M., Lefoe, G., Hadgraft, R., and Ryland, K. (2013) Enabling distributed leadership: a conceptual model, Workshop, International Leadership Association Oceania Conference.

Martinez, M. C., Firestone, W., Cecilia, M., Mangin, M., & Polovsky, T. (2005). Leadership Alignment: the challenge of distributed leadership. American Education Research Association, 1-43.

McKennzie, K. B. & Locke, L. A. (2014). Distributed Leadership: A good theory, but what if leaders won’t, don’t know how, or can’t lead? Journal of School Leadership, 24, 164-188.

McKenzie, K., & Skrla, L. (2011). Using equity traps in the classroom to reach and teach all students. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Rose, G. C. (2007). The role of principal empowerment within a site-based management environment: empirical testing of a structural model. Journal of Educational Exchange 8, 207–233.

Timperley, H. (2005). Distributed leadership: developing theory from practice. Journal of curriculum studies, 37(4), 395-420.

Yamamoto, J. K, Gardiner, M. E., & Tenuto, P. L. (2014). Emotion in leadership: Secondary school administrators' perceptions of critical incidents. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 42(2); 165–183.