Distributed Leadership in Schools: Does System Policy Make a Difference?

Abstract

In a matter of a few short years, the idea of distributed leadership has evolved from a theoretical consideration of naturally-occurring social influence processes in school organization . . . to a mantra for reshaping leadership practice. More and more schools and school systems are attempting to develop distributed leadership. Increasingly, state education agencies and national education organizations are encouraging them to do it. (Louis et al., 2009) The challenge of developing schools with the capacity for continuous improvement has led to a rapidly emerging focus on fostering leadership at all levels of the education system. Nowhere is this more evident than in the press towards distributing leadership among a broader set of key stakeholders, especially teachers, in schools (Barth, 1990; Gronn, 2002; Lambert, 2002, 2003; Spillane, 2006). Paradoxically, the latest thinking suggests that the drive to develop distributed leadership in schools neither diminishes nor comes at the expense of the principal’s responsibilities for leadership. Indeed, scholars and policymakers alike assert that principal leadership remains a key driver for change and source of support for building leadership capacity among others (e.g., Childs-Bowen et al., 2000; Gewirtz, 2003; Lambert, 2002, 2003; Murphy, 2009; Stricherz, 2001). As Mayrowitz and colleagues AQ1 observe: “[P]rincipals occupy the critical space in the teacher leadership equation and center stage in the work redesign required to bring distributed leadership to life in schools.” This focus on the development of distributed, shared or collaborative leadership is especially evident in new policies and programs initiated at the school system and higher governmental levels (Barth, 1990, 2001; Clift et al., 1992; Fullan, 2006; Gronn, 2002; Harris, 2003; Lambert, 2002, 2003; Spillane, 2006; Spillane et al., 2004). In this chapter we explore the system-wide initiation of distributed leadership and its effects on school improvement. We examine these issues in the context of a state-level mandate in the USA to increase school accountability, enhance leadership capacity, and improve student learning. The specific policy context included the formation of school-community councils intended to engage a broad set of stakeholders in working with the principal to lead school-level improvements.