Distributed leadership is a shared leadership among many known as distributed leadership. This literature review will address how distributed leadership is defined by researchers and how the aspect of vertical leadership is accessed within a distributed leadership model. Distributed leadership is not done by an individual or to people but instead is a group activity or an action that works through and within relationships.
Distributed leadership is a shared leadership among many known as distributed leadership. This literature review will address how distributed leadership is defined by researchers and how the aspect of vertical leadership is accessed within a distributed leadership model. Distributed leadership is not done by an individual or to people but instead is a group activity or an action that works through and within relationships.
Distributed leadership is a shared leadership among many known as distributed leadership. This literature review will address how distributed leadership is defined by researchers and how the aspect of vertical leadership is accessed within a distributed leadership model. Distributed leadership is not done by an individual or to people but instead is a group activity or an action that works through and within relationships.
Melissa G. Han California State University San Marcos/University of California San Diego Joint Doctoral Program-Cohort 10 May 2014 2
Introduction Leadership and management have been used interchangeably when discussing the changes schools need to implement in order to increase student achievement. Often principals are expected to function as both leader and manager in this process of change. Spillane and Kim (2012) state that to focus solely on the few traditional roles of leadership in an organization overlooks the informal relationships that are important to the leadership of effective change. This statement paints a different picture of leadership. What used to be the leadership of one is now the shared leadership among many known as distributed leadership. This literature review will address how distributed leadership is defined by researchers and how the aspect of vertical leadership is accessed within a distributed leadership model. Next, distributed leadership with student voice will be discussed through empirical research around youth-adult partnerships. Finally, a discussion of future implications will be addressed in relation to social justice and educational leadership. Distributed Leadership Literature Review Common hierarchal models designate the principal in a leadership position and teachers, staff, and students are to "follow the leader." Leadership thought is evolving and researchers now suggest that a variety of leadership roles can be integrated and accessed in a systemic manner within a distributed leadership model. Researchers have investigated whether the distributed leadership model helps school settings improve student achievement by creating a more equitable perspective where leadership is a balanced and collective social process among principals, teachers, staff, and students.
3
Distributed Leadership Defined According to Bolden (2011), Sun, Frank, Penuel, and Kim (2013), Spillane and Kim (2012), and Hulpia, Devos, and Van Keer (2011), distributed leadership is not done by an individual or to people but instead is a group activity or an action that works through and within relationships. This implies that leadership may be shared and transferred among all members where they pool their expertise to advance a common goal. This characteristic is what sets distributed leadership apart from other leadership models that have similar components. The empirical research highlights trust as the component found in the relationships and partnerships within a distributed leadership model. Bolden (2011) states there are key elements in distributed leadership that are shared across researchers. The literature around the concept of distributed leadership has been associated with collaboration, democracy and co-leadership. Bolden states there are three elements shared among them (p.257): 1. Leadership is an emergent property of a group or network of interacting individuals 2. There is openness to the boundaries of leadership 3. Varieties of expertise are distributed across the many, not the few Bolden further states that the distributed leadership model offers an alternative to the traditional heroic role of the individual, typically the principal, and opens up the possibility of distributing leadership among informal leaders such as teachers, parents and staff. The key contribution of distributed leadership is the recognition of a variety of forms of leadership in a more integrated and systemic manner that is meaningful to the experiences and goals of those enacting it. At its core, the effectiveness of distributed leadership is dependent on its partnerships. 4
Sun, Frank, Penuel, and Kim (2013) observed distributed leadership among teacher partnerships. They found that subgroups are important to the flow of information, especially in the creation of knowledge and innovation. Further, after surveying teachers from 30 schools in a mid-sized urban school district to determine who they turn to for instructional advice, the findings showed that teachers turn to various subgroups depending on need. They also found that principal support of these networks or connections between the subgroups strengthened the distributed leadership. This suggests that between-subgroup ties are important in the implementation of reform in schools. Networks are made up of subgroups, that is, groups of participants who typically have stronger ties to one another than to others in the overall network are critical to the functioning of the organization. Spillane and Kim (2012) also found that distributed leadership focuses on the interactions, interconnections, and interdependencies among people or subgroups. They examined how elementary school leaders were arranged in instructional advice and information seeking networks. They found that when teacher leaders increased other teachers access to expertise and support, they created a more collaborative work environment. The collaborative work environment was measured by collective responsibility, teacher-teacher trust, and alignment between standards and school programs. Spillane and Kim define collective responsibility as the extent to which school staff members take responsibility for helping one another, student behavior, and improving instruction in their school as a whole. Teacher-teacher trust is the degree to which teachers are willing to take risks and depend on with one another. Alignment between standards and school programs is the extent that staff members in their school are aligned between standards and school programs. 5
Since distributed leadership influences attitudes of others through intentional social interaction where leadership can be transferred, this suggests that all organization members have the potential to influence (Jackson & Marriott, 2012). They act to advance specific goals that represent the values, the wants and needs, and the aspirations of both leaders and followers. Spillane and Kim (2012) advance this notion by observing the distributed leadership model has less to do with power equalization and more to do with a perceived agreement across various roles in the school structure. Hulpia, Devos, and Van Keer (2011) found that who is providing support in an organization was less important than the quality of support being given. Their findings suggest that teachers who believe that their school is run by a cooperative leadership that has group cohesion, clear roles, and is goal-oriented, tend to feel committed to the school. Schools characterized with trust or mutual dependency, under those conditions were led by a leadership team that worked together in a cohesive and open way. This shows how distributed leadership helps people to connect in a meaningful way with the experiences and aspirations of leadership practitioners. Van Maele & Van Houtte (2009) state that since organizational members need to function out of collective goals, they are dependent on one another. In such situations of interdependence, trust may reduce uncertainty and enhance cooperation. The Role of Vertical Leadership in Distributed Leadership Although distributed leadership is characterized as being dispersed among the many rather than the few, Crawford (2012) and Pearce and Barkus (2014) argue that formal leadership roles typically found in traditional vertical leadership such as principals, have a significant place in distributed leadership. 6
Crawford (2012) suggests the issue is not whether vertical leadership or distributed leadership is more beneficial in impacting student learning. Rather the issues are: 1. When is leadership most appropriately shared? 2. How does one develop shared leadership? 3. How does one utilize both vertical and shared leadership to leverage the capabilities of knowledge workers? (p. 618) Crawford states that through critiquing when and how to use various leadership models empowers teachers to understand what is more beneficial for specific school needs. Pearce and Barkus (2014) articulates how to address the questions Crawford (2012) poses of when and how to use vertical leadership in a distributed leadership model. They state that since distributed leadership is a complex and time consuming process, it is beneficial to use distributed leadership with work that involves interdependence, creativity, and complexity. In employing a distributed leadership model in these cases, the vertical team leader, such as a principal, is responsible in designing and developing the team. The team leader carefully chooses the right team based on their technical, teamwork, and leadership skills. The team leader then articulates trust and confidence in the team to work towards the vision or purpose of the team. Pearce and Barkus (2014) emphasize that the team leader is to foster interaction among the team by clearly describing what shared leadership is, modelling appropriate leader behaviors, setting clear expectations, and evaluating performance. They are to also provide training in the skills that develop collaboration among various team member roles. The difference between what Pearce and Barkus describe in vertical leadership versus the traditional hierarchal top-down model in schools, is that the vertical leader is empowering the followers to be self-influencing 7
rather than controlled. In this model the team leaders goal is to replace herself by building up the team so that members may eventually interact without being directed. The vertical leader then transitions into maintaining and supporting the team. Pearce and Barkus describe the support of a vertical leader as one who asks for solutions; encourages initiative, goal setting, and problem solving; models productive conflict management; and is a willing recipient of influence. Both Crawford (2012) and Pearce and Barkus (2014) argue against a one size fits all type of leadership model and instead seeks how to access a hybrid of both vertical and distributed leadership model for schools. Distributed Leadership with Student Voice Much of the research around distributed leadership refers to the implementation of adult voice in school leadership. Serriere, Mitra, and Reed (2011), Gunter and Thomson (2007), Holt (2008), Mitra and Serriere (2012), and Koller and Schugurensky (2011) have taken a closer look at distributed leadership with student voice. Their empirical research addresses how teachers can use youth-adult partnerships to implement student voice in a distributed leadership model. Serriere, Mitra, and Reed (2011) argue in order to move beyond being obedient citizens and instead develop into engaged, justice-oriented citizens, children need to have opportunities to apply democratic values. They suggest youth-adult partnerships as a way to engage student voice in distributed leadership. Serriere et al. define youth-adult partnerships as relationships in which both youth and adults contribute to decision making processes, to learn from one another, and to promote change in places that affect youth. They propose a continuum where scaffolding is used to allow youth to slowly gain the skills to share leadership in a Vygotskian style of apprenticeship. They begin this relational process by watching and learning, and they slowly 8
acquire the expertise to take on leadership roles by working side by side with experienced youth and adult advisors. After interviewing three focus groups that represented various points on the youth-adult continuum they found that the mixture of student- and adult-led activities and discussions worked well to balance incorporating student voice with adults leading them to a definite and attainable goal. They called this the Catalyst or Transitional Vision. Serriere et al. state that relationships between youth and adults change in education when relevant and motivational opportunities are provided for students to connect the values of democracy with practical community problem solving. Gunter and Thomson (2007) took the youth-adult partnership further from students as consultants to students as co-researchers. In their study a focus group of high school students were interviewed about their school experiences. They focused their conversations on bullying. The focus groups reported that they felt safe with their friends, but only half said that teachers made them feel safe. The students then produced a PowerPoint report which they presented to the school staff. Students decided to use written dramatic scenarios and interviewed 13 staff members by asking how they would engage with these dramas around bullying. After the study, the student researchers found that what teachers may thought were appropriate interventions, students interpreted teacher reactions as not taking the issue seriously or missing what students see and experience daily. Due to this realization, students suggested both adults and students be involved in designing interventions and changes. This study showed a need for spaces of leadership where young people can speak up regarding what they consider to be important and valuable about their learning. Holt (2008) also chose to use student voice to give insight in his research on the barriers and supports of student success at school. Students were asked to photograph images of what 9
they perceived as barriers and supports to success in school. Through use of student voice in the data gathering, the supports and barriers were rooted in the experiences of students. They were then asked to participate in a student inquiry group discussion to have authentic dialogue about issues that impact their school lives, such as teaching for learning, relationships, and racism. Holt states by listening to student voices adults develop an understanding of the reality in the world in which these students live. Educators can then learn what makes a positive impact for student success or achievement in school. Mitra and Serriere (2012) continue the conversation of students as partners in education by proposing that youth be provided with opportunities to participate in school decision making that will shape their lives and the lives of their peers which will increase their attachment to schools. They observed what student voice looks like in elementary school, which is a rarity in research. They referred to research that verified that key developmental growth occurs from the end of elementary school to the beginning of high school. They state elementary aged students begin to think critically about the world around them and question injustices they see. Students develop strategic thinking, empathy and take the role of others. Their research measured a sense of civic responsibility among students where one must feel their actions can make a difference because they are heard and respected. A focus group of six fifth grade girls in Mitra and Serrieres (2012) study, named the Salad Girls, administered opinion polls and led All School Gatherings in an effort to diversify their schools salad menu options. The participants teacher, Mrs. O, and Principal S supported their endeavor by co-analyzing the data and coaching them in presentation skills so that adults may be able to hear and understand them. The adults essentially partnered with the students in how to use the democratic process which resulted with the district changing their salad options. 10
This growing sense of being heard developed into self-empowerment where students believed they had the right to question authority and to push for change. Koller and Schugurensky (2011) conducted a study where students were given the opportunity to push for district-wide change by serving as student trustees to represent their fellow students on the school board. They were required to speak with the interests of the students they represented in mind to improve the quality of their education. Students were nominated by their teachers and principals. After serving on the board, participants described themselves as caring individuals in addition to being activists for social causes. The data revealed that the activities, relationships, and contexts associated with the school board role appeared to provide the motivation for transformative learning and personal change. For student trustees, their roles provided an opportunity to learn and explore their attitudes and behaviors while experiencing personal growth. The research around student voice within distributed leadership all had participants that became more empowered and confident. They were ready to go beyond their circle and take action for the common good. Youth participation, especially when coupled with youth-adult partnership, becomes a process that engages young people in a respectful and meaningful way because it helps them understand themselves in relation to the world around them. Social Justice Implications Students have been lead and entrusted in the care of adults in education without being asked of their experiences. Educators make decisions for children instead of with them and give them less meaningful roles. Caton (2012) and Jackson and Marriott (2012) show how the absence of student voice can lead to consequences for students. Caton (2012) examined the 11
influence of the zero-tolerance policies on Black males educational experiences through the lens of critical race theory by using counter-storytelling or narratives. Caton provided a venue for racialized victims whose voices have been historically silenced in educational research to be heard. Counter-storytelling is a method of listening to voices that have been previously silenced to gain a better understanding of the realities of their world. Black high school students who had dropped out of school were interviewed to give insight on their stories and personal experiences of zero-tolerance policies. Caton found that Black males were more inclined to be suspended or expelled and set off the chain reaction of the school- to-prison pipeline due to feeling disconnected and a lack of trust of their school which led to academic underperformance. Caton also found that participants stressed the need for strong teacherstudent relationships in order for them to achieve academic success, adding that adolescent students need teachers who expressed interest in their lives beyond the classroom. Chris, a student, stated, Many of my teachers were not aware of my strengths because they did not spend time getting to know me (p. 1067). Chriss response raises a question about the school systems commitment to empowering this population to achieve their highest potential. Catons findings reveals a link between students sense of school belongingness and positive academic outcomes. Caton stresses the importance for schools to create an inclusive school climate rather than one that perpetuates the feeling of rejection. Jackson and Marriott (2012) also found that urban schools typically function out of a hierarchal leadership model. This model is characterized by the combination of a highly influential principal and the low influence of a teacher. Some of the most vulnerable student populations attend schools in which neither principals nor teachers claim influence over school policy decisions and are therefore characterized by the least desirable school leadership 12
conditions. The nature of teaching and leading in these schools is complex. The responsibility lies among all stakeholders to provide a positive, strong leadership model that challenges the deep, troubling inequities within the system. Under these conditions, distributed leadership is necessary in counteracting the negative effects of hierarchal systems that continue to affect the success of students in those communities. Educational Leadership Implications As research continues to reveal the widening achievement gap for Black and Latino students in education, Gregory, Cornell, and Fan (2011) state that a combination of high teacher connection and high teacher regulation predicts the greatest achievement gains for low-income adolescents. Students are most responsive to academic demands when they are made in the context of a supportive, encouraging relationship such as the ones established in youth-adult partnerships. Sun et al. (2013) states trust acts as the glue that binds interrelationships within distributed leadership. As members in an organization participate in its direction and enactment of its goals, they must actively contribute to sustaining the connections between reciprocity, trust, and commitment in their relationships. This includes all stakeholders, principals, teachers, parents, and students. Trust according to Sun et al. is built through honesty, openness, reliability, and competence. Without these essential components for trust, the foundation for school improvement will be underdeveloped in a distributed leadership model. The quality of supportive leadership is important in predicting teachers commitment therefore affecting student achievement, whereas who provides this leadership is not important (Hulpia, 2011). At least one school leader is recommended to support teachers and give them positive feedback. School leaders are more effective when approachable, visible, and focus on direct communication with teachers. This implies that those interactions are influenced by the 13
openness and trust modeled by the leaders. Hulpia states this can be done by providing time to meet, building teaching networks, and by providing a follow up of these networks. This has implications for teachers. Teachers influence is no longer simply in their own classrooms. The distributed leadership provides opportunities for teachers and principals to participate in school decision making, develop the same school goals, practice open communication, and have clear roles as they work collaboratively towards a common mission. As school leaders work towards these skills in building trust within distributed leadership relationships, they too will be able to invite students into those relationships. Summary Schools have the massive task of serving its students within complex situations and relationships. Research has shown that it is not enough to view leadership of this task in terms of a hierarchal model where an individual in a formal role solely holds the responsibility of that mission. Black and Latino students continue to feel disconnected from their schools and remain unheard resulting in a widening achievement gap. Distributed leadership redefines leadership as an action among the collective strength of many. School leader roles go beyond managing and instead are diversified into including youth-adult partnerships. These relationships, if built upon trust, shared goals, clear roles, and quality support, will be able to balance power and influence so that all students may be served well (Spillane & Kim, 2012).
14
References Bolden, R. (2011). Distributed Leadership in Organizations: A Review of Theory and Research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13(3), 251269. doi:10.1111/j.1468- 2370.2011.00306.x Caton, M. T. (2012). Black Male Perspectives on Their Educational Experiences in High School. Urban Education, 47(6), 10551085. doi:10.1177/0042085912454442 Crawford, M. (2012). Solo and Distributed Leadership: Definitions and Dilemmas. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 40(5), 610620. doi:10.1177/1741143212451175 Gregory, a., Cornell, D., & Fan, X. (2011). The Relationship of School Structure and Support to Suspension Rates for Black and White High School Students. American Educational Research Journal, 48(4), 904934. doi:10.3102/0002831211398531 Gunter, H., & Thomson, P. (2007). But, where are the children? Management in Education, 21(1), 2328. doi:10.1177/0892020607073399 Holt, Kevin Daniel. (2008). Bowling together or bowling alone: continuation high school students tell their stories. UC San Diego: b6636262. Retrieved April 22, 2014 from: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/6ps4n03b 15
Hulpia, H., Devos, G., & Van Keer, H. (2011). The Relation Between School Leadership From a Distributed Perspective and Teachers Organizational Commitment: Examining the Source of the Leadership Function. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47(5), 728771. doi:10.1177/0013161X11402065 Jackson, K. M., & Marriott, C. (2012). The Interaction of Principal and Teacher Instructional Influence as a Measure of Leadership as an Organizational Quality. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(2), 230258. doi:10.1177/0013161X11432925 Koller, D., & Schugurensky, D. (2011). Examining the Developmental Impact of Youth Participation in Education Governance: The Case of Student Trustees. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21(2), 350360. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00673.x Mitra, D. L., & Serriere, S. C. (2012). Student Voice in Elementary School Reform: Examining Youth Development in Fifth Graders. American Educational Research Journal, 49(4), 743 774. doi:10.3102/0002831212443079 Pearce, C. L., Barkus, B., & Pearce, C. L. (2014). The future of leadership: Combining vertical and shared leadership to transform knowledge work, 18(1), 4759. Serriere, S. C., Mitra, D., & Reed, K. (2011). Student Voice in the Elementary Years: Fostering Youth-Adult Partnerships in Elementary Service-Learning. Theory & Research in Social Education, 39(4), 541575. doi:10.1080/00933104.2011.10473466 16
Spillane, J. P., & Kim, C. M. (2012). An Exploratory Analysis of Formal School Leaders Positioning in Instructional Advice and Information Networks in Elementary Schools. American Journal of Education, 119(1), 73102. doi:10.1086/667755 Sun, M., Frank, K. a., Penuel, W. R., & Kim, C. M. (2013). How External Institutions Penetrate Schools Through Formal and Informal Leaders. Educational Administration Quarterly, 49(4), 610644. doi:10.1177/0013161X12468148 Van Maele, D., & Van Houtte, M. (2009). Faculty Trust and Organizational School Characteristics: An Exploration Across Secondary Schools in Flanders. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45(4), 556589. doi:10.1177/0013161X09335141