26. Educational Leadership
Paper
Pedagogical Leadership as a Shared Responsibility? Exploring Conceptions, Positions, and Expectations Across and Between Leadership Levels
Malin Benerdal, Helene Ärlestig
Centre for Principal Development, Department of Political Science, Umeå university, Sweden
Presenting Author: Benerdal, Malin;
Ärlestig, Helene
Principals’ tasks are often described as complex. In Sweden as in many other countries, principals need to combine the national responsibility to lead teaching and student learning with municipal governance and administrative task such as resources and personnel. Swedish principals have a large impact on how to organize school activities, decide on resources, and school development initiatives (Ärlestig et al. 2016). Principals’ role includes close cooperation with teachers and the local educational authorities (LEA) (i.e. private school organizers as well as the 290 municipalities). The pressure to increase students’ academic results combined with a shortage of qualified teachers has rendered to more work and the number of deputy principals and other administrative support personnel has increased to assure that principals secure enough time on teaching and learning issues. However, despite country context studies show that principals still find it hard to combine quality assessment, managerial work, different steering logics and a focus on students’ teaching and learning (Leo et al 2020).
Pedagogical leadership is at the core of the principal assignment as stated in the Educational Act (SFS 2010:800). At the same time, pedagogical leadership is a broad concept, and is sometimes perceived as elusive (Svedberg, 2019). ‘Pedagogical leadership’ overlaps with what is internationally referred to as leadership for learning, instructional leadership, or supervision (see e.g., Shields, 2010; Townsead & Macbeat, 2011; Glickman et al, 2016; Seashore Louis & Thessin, 2019). They have in common that the focus is on teaching and student learning, but they differ regarding how controlling, investigative, or inclusive the leadership should be. Uljens and Smeds-Nylund (2021) describe pedagogical leadership as interrelated at all governance levels. They describe pedagogical leadership as investigative and as a strive towards creating conditions for each level to independently develop its work in supporting students' learning and their learning environment. Thus, conducted at several levels and involved different actors. In Forsstein Seisser’s study (2017) where principals’ understanding of pedagogical leadership was explored and challenged this led to changes in principals’ practice. By visualising and discussing expectations, possibilities, and challenges the principals experienced a more shared way of working with pedagogical leadership. In this paper, the aim is to understand how pedagogical leadership is understood and enacted within a school organization. We focus on several levels of leadership, and in this explorative study we ask:
- How, and in what ways, is pedagogical leadership understood, enacted, and desired?
- What differences can be discerned regarding conceptions, and expectations regarding pedagogical leadership from different actors and roles?
- How, and in what ways, can different understandings and expectations of pedagogical leadership and roles work together to strengthen the focus on student’s development and learning?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe paper draws on a participatory case study in one medium-sized Swedish municipality, where the school district leaders initiated a study in collaboration with us, as researchers, on how principals, deputy principals, and administrative support understand and work as pedagogical leaders. All compulsory principals and deputy principals, administrative support, district leaders, and some teachers participate in the study.
Before data-collection, an initial meeting was held with all the functions mentioned above and the researchers, except for the teachers. This meeting was treated as an information forum as well as a forum for discussion on questions, strategies, hopes, and fears concerning the participatory study.
Recently after the meeting, surveys were sent out to all informants. Different surveys were created for different functions, covering district leaders (3), principals (13), deputy principals (27+), operational managerial support personnel (5), and teachers (150+). The questions and statements were asked to respond to topics such as how they understand pedagogical leadership, their role, and responsibility in relation to pedagogical leadership, and their expectations of others to pedagogical leadership. The survey also included statements regarding their and others’ assignments as well as trust and support. Prior to the survey all participants were informed about the project and consented to participate, that they had the right to withdraw, as well as how data would be stored and used (in line with the Swedish research council, VR 2017). The research process was iterative to come close to the setting and use the findings from the survey to inform the interviews and the overall research process.
As a second step, focus-group interviews with all actors in school leadership positions will be conducted in early spring 2023. They will be recorded and transcribed and provide insights into how different understandings of pedagogical leadership are created and enacted to various positions. The analysis will be conducted exploratively and qualitatively via thematic content analysis (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005) involving several steps, including continuous discussions and interpretations between the authors on emerging categories and second-order themes. In the second level of analysis, we have the ambition of using theoretically informed concepts to come to terms with how the differences could be understood as well as to suggest how the different understandings and expectations of pedagogical leadership and roles could work together to strengthen the focus on student’s development and learning. The results will be discussed with all participants in late May for triangulation.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsOur tentative findings indicate that pedagogical leadership is depicted in many different ways. There is not one solemn understanding, even though the context could be regarded as quite similar for all the participants in the study as it covers one municipality. This could be important to bear in mind in future studies.
From the initial data collection we also see that different roles, actors, or functions place different weights on different aspects of pedagogical leadership. There has recently been a reorganization where the number of deputy principals and administrative support has increased. The lack of qualified teachers and other issues hinder the various roles in creating a mutual understanding of what is meant by pedagogical leadership even if everyone is determined to support student learning. They feel captured in everyday administration which reduces the time for working with the teachers on issues that can create a sustainable improvement of teaching and student learning. Even if pedagogical leadership is seen as important and there are new leadership positions there has been no mutual process on how to understand and execute pedagogical leadership. Our next step will be to categorize various understandings of pedagogical leadership to identify gaps between what school leaders see as their responsibility and their expectations of others. Results will be presented during the conference in Glasgow.
ReferencesForssten Seiser, A., (2017). Stärkt pedagogiskt ledarskap: rektorer granskar sin egen praktik. Diss. Karlstad: Karlstads universitet.
Glickman, C., Gordon, S. & Ross-Gordon, J. (2016) Supervision and Instructional Leadership. NY: Pearson.
Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative health research, 15(9), 1277-1288.
Leo, U., Persson, R., Arvidsson, I., & Håkansson, C. (2020). External expectations and well-being, fundamental and forgotten perspectives in school leadership: a study on new leadership roles, trust and accountability. In Re-centering the critical potential of Nordic school leadership research (pp. 209–229). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55027-1_12
Seashore Louis, K., & Thessin, R. (2019). The role of districts and other agencies in supporting school leaders’ instructional leadership. NY: Emerald.
Shields, C. (2010). Transformative Leadership: Working for Equity in Diverse Contexts. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(4), 558–589. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X10375609
Svedberg, L. (2019). Pedagogiskt ledarskap och pedagogisk ledning: Teori och praktik. Studentlitteratur.
Townsead, T. & Macbeath, J. (2011) International handbook of Leadership for learning. Dordrecht: Springer.
Uljens, M. & Smeds-Nylund, A. (red.) (2021). Pedagogiskt ledarskap och skolutveckling. (Upplaga 1). Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Ärlestig, H, Johansson, O., Nihlfors, E. (2016) Swedish School Leadership Research An important but neglected Area. In H. Ärlestig, C. Day, O.Johansson (eds.) A Decade of Research on School Principals (Vol. 21, Studies in Educational Leadership). Cham: Springer International Publishing
26. Educational Leadership
Paper
Exploring Educational Leaders’ Experiences with Mentoring – Relationships and Impact on Leadership Practices.
Niamh Deignan
University of Galway, Ireland
Presenting Author: Deignan, Niamh
This doctoral research study explores the ways in which leaders within second level education in Ireland are experiencing mentoring and coaching and in how far (and in what ways) it impacts their leadership identities and leadership practice. It is clear from this research and literature (Riley, 2015) that a lack of consideration exists in the support and training provided for principals on how to develop their leadership identities and responsibilities. While compulsory leadership training exists for all principal teachers in Ireland ongoing provisions that assist principals by incorporating the necessary practical supports and supportive frameworks in developing fundamental leadership ideologies within their school are frequently lacking (CSL Report, 2015). Significant evidence from international research recognises mentoring and coaching supports as positive influences on productivity and longevity in the career of school leaders and as important contributors to the development of leadership proficiencies as well as the improvement of school culture (Riley, 2009; Searby, 2009; McCallum & Price, 2010; Gurr, 2015). Given the additional challenges that the Covid-19 pandemic has created for educators and learners in building human connection (Soskil, 2021), mentoring supports for educational leaders provides valuable opportunities in reconnecting and rebuilding our education system. The Centre of School Leadership in Ireland firmly identifies mentoring and coaching as integral components to all school leadership programmes and has introduced mentoring supports since 2016. However, the impact of mentoring supports for educational leaders in Ireland has, so far, not been researched. This study explores the following research questions:
“What are the expectations, experiences and motivations of mentors and mentees in/for school leaders(hip) in Ireland. What mentoring approaches are currently used and what are the implications of mentoring experiences for practices in second-level school leadership in Ireland?
With coaching and mentoring services still in its infancy for newly appointed and existing school principals in Ireland, the findings from this research identify expectations and experiences of mentors and mentees as well as benefits and challenges related to mentoring relationships among school leaders. Additionally, this research can support the design and delivery of mentoring programmes and/or guidelines that seek to enhance professional development for school leaders. With a growing consensus that leadership in schools must focus on teaching, learning and people (CSL Report, 2015), findings from this research also identify the wide spectrum of professional supports available for educational leaders which nearly all participants regarded as ad-hoc, disjointed and lacking any system-wide framework. The urgent need for diverse supports is further compounded by the pace of change for school leaders and challenges that include the aftermath of a global pandemic, the cost-of-living crisis, restrained leadership roles, positions and resources, school accountability and self-evaluation, curricular reform, addressing disadvantage, diversity within school communities and child wellbeing and welfare. Findings from this study explore in depth the impact that mentoring experiences have on bridging the gap for newly appointed school leaders in Ireland in order to support them in dealing with the complexity and extensive nature of the expectations of their leadership roles.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedDefined as ‘the class of research where the researcher mixes or combines quantitative and qualitative research techniques, methods, approaches, concepts or language into a single study’ (Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2004, p.17) mixed methods is presented ‘as the third research paradigm in educational research’ where ‘both quantitative and qualitative research are important and useful’. This research uses mixed methods in order to corroborate the results from different methods and thus follows Greene et al.’s (1989) five major purposes’ for conducting mixed methods research, namely; triangulation, complementarity, initiation, development and expansion of research findings. Defined as a three phase exploratory sequential mixed methods design (Creswell & Creswell, 2018), this research began with a qualitative phase consisting of interview data and analysis. The findings of this initial phase will contribute themes to be explored and tested further in a subsequent quantitative phase.
During the presentation the PhD researcher will provide an overview of the study design and findings from the semi-structured qualitative interviews conducted with second-level principals who engaged with the CSL mentoring programme both as mentees and mentors. Interview questions from the semi-structured interviews were designed with the research question and sub questions in mind and informed from the literature review conducted in the area of leadership mentoring in education. The qualitative strand was identified as the most suitable for initial findings as a result of the absence of empirical research conducted in this area specific to the Irish context and post-primary leadership. All interviews were transcribed verbatim and reflective thematic analysis techniques were employed to identify and reflect on key themes (Braun and Clarke, 2021) In keeping with the overarching topic of educational leadership, this research pays special attention to the themes of professional development, attraction and retainment of educational leaders in addition to the theme of research into leadership in schools in challenging circumstances.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsFindings from the qualitative phase of the interviews are outlined under the following themes; mentoring structure, training and supports for educational leaders, the nature of the mentoring relationships, complexity of needs with a specific focus on newly appointed principals and the impact of mentoring experiences on the wider school community. Many of the described experiences indicate informal mentoring relationships which do not follow a more formal structure promoted by mentoring programmes and literature. Key qualities of a good relationship identified include trust and confidentiality, the mentor’s ability to listen deeply while ‘bracketing’ their own experiences and thoughts about problems as well as respecting each other’s professionalism. Productive mentoring relationships described as collaborative were recognised as highly beneficial. They were seen to support the development of positive professional behaviours and directly linked to enhanced leadership effectiveness and identity. Some challenges noted in the research that negatively impact on both mentee and mentor experiences included challenges within the relationship over their own role and responsibility in sustaining mutual commitments to the programme, a lack of clear guidelines as to the diversity of needs of the mentee, the administrative experiences of the mentor and unrealistic expectations and assumptions from both parties in the mentoring relationship. These mentoring experiences were seen to hinder development of leadership identity, increase feelings of isolation and indicate additional consequences to newly appointed principals willingness to engage in alternative leadership support programmes thereafter.
References•Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). Thematic Analysis: A Practical Guide. London: Sage
•CSL (2015) A Professional Learning Continuum for School Leadership in the Irish Context: Centre for School Leadership Report. Available at: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zY8v7ae4KAM_lmjlJ4j2eAGn8uMmRnDx/view (Accessed: 19 June 2019).
•Fletcher, S.J., and Mullen, C.A. (2012) The sage handbook of Mentoring and Coaching in Education. Thousand Oaks, C.A.: Sage Publications.
•Hollingworth, L., Olsen, D., Asikin-Garmager, A. and Winn, K.M. (2018) ‘Initiating conversations and opening doors: How principals establish a positive building culture to sustain school improvement efforts’, Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 46(6), pp.1014-1034.
•Irby, B.J. (2020) ‘Vision and mission of mentoring and coaching focused on school leaders’, Mentoring and Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 28(2), p.99-103.
•Lackritz, A.D. (2019) ‘Leadership coaching: a multiple-case study of urban public charter school principal’s experiences’, Mentoring and Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 27(1), p.5-25.
•Miscenko, D., Guenter, H. and Day, D.V. (2017) ‘Am I a leader? Examining leader identity development over time’, The Leadership Quarterly, 28(5), pp.605-620.
•McMillan, D.J., McConnell, B. and O’Sullivan, H., (2014) ‘Continuing professional development – why bother? Perceptions and motivations of teachers in Ireland’, Professional Development in Education, 42(1), pp.150-167.
•Parylo, O., Zepeda, S.J. and Bengtson, E. (2012) ‘The different faces of principal mentorship’, International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, 1(2), pp.120-135.
•Qian, H., Walker, A. and Bryant, D.A. (2017) Global trends and issues in the development of educational leaders. In: Crow MDYGM (ed.) Handbook of Research on the Education of School Leaders. 2nd edn. New York, NY: Routledge.
•Service, B., Dalgic, G.E. and Thornton, K. (2016) ‘Implications of a shadowing/mentoring programme for aspiring principals’, International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching Education, 5(3), pp.253-271.
•Silver, M., Lochmiller, C. R., Copland, M. A., & Tripps, A. M. (2009) ‘Supporting new school leaders: Findings from a university-based leadership coaching program for new administrators’, Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 17(3), pp.215-232.
•Stander, A.S. and Stander, M.W. (2016) ‘Retention of Educators: The Role Of Leadership, Empowerment and Work Engagement’, International Journal of Social Sciences and Humanity Studies, 8(1), pp.1309-8036.
•Sugrue, C. (2011) ‘Irish teachers’ experience of professional development: performative or transformative learning?’, Professional Development in Education, 37(5) pp.793-815.
•Wise, D., & Cavazos, B. (2017) ‘Leadership coaching for principals: A national study’. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership In Learning, 25(2), pp.223-245.
26. Educational Leadership
Paper
Characteristics of Municipal Educational Leadership in Iceland: A Cross-case Study
Sigríður Margrét Sigurðardóttir1,2
1University of Akureyri, Iceland,; 2University of Iceland
Presenting Author: Sigurðardóttir, Sigríður Margrét
Research on educational leadership signifies its importance regarding school success, such as prosperous professional development and lucrative student’s outcome and wellbeing (Hargreaves and Shirley, 2022; Leithwood et al., 2019; Leithwood & Louis, 2012). They also manifest the importance of leadership practices of districts and municipalities. They highlight the importance of both political (municipal council, school boards) and professional actors (superintendents, other specialists), accentuating that all those parties need to build up a governance mindset for the enhancement of coherence and leadership of all (Campbell & Fullan, 2019). At the same time, it is argued that leadership development needs to be sensitive to environmental and cultural factors as well as to focus on distributed leadership and instructional leadership (Harris & Jones, 2021). Such desirable leadership practices at the local level have been described by Louis et al. (2010) as focusing on setting directions, developing people, refining and aligning the organisation, and improving teaching and learning programmes.
As a Nordic country in Europe that despite certain New Public Management tendencies has a tradition of “strong state and local authorities, clinging to comprehensive education, collaborative and deliberative leadership and cohesive schools” (Moos, 2013, pp. 222), Iceland provides an interesting case for exploring such local level leadership. In Iceland, municipalities are responsible for the operation of the compulsory schools and are in 98% instances also the schools’ owners. Alongside, they are responsible for ensuring the schools with appropriate school support services. The services must provide various support for children in preschools and compulsory schools and their parents. In line with international research emphasises (see Leithwood and Louis, 2012) the services must also "focus on promoting schools as professional organizations that can solve most of the issues that arise in schoolwork and provide school staff with guidance and assistance in their work as appropriate" (Reglugerð um skólaþjónustu sveitarfélaga við leik- og grunnskóla og nemendaverndarráð í grunnskólum No. 444/2019, Article 2).
Little research has focused on municipal educational leadership in Iceland, including that of the school support services. However, in a national survey research (Sigurðardóttir et al., 2022) on school support services educational leadership practices, this leadership was measured against desirable leadership practices at the local level (see Leithwood et al., 2008, 2020; Louis et al., 2010). The results indicate limited leadership and sparse initiatives on the municipal’s school support services behalf, especially regarding school improvement and staff development (Sigurðardóttir et al., 2022).
Although that survey provides important information on the leadership at the local governance level, it lacks deeper insights on those leadership activities and the way that they play out in the different municipal contexts. Thus, the study presented in this paper describes what characterizes municipal leadership practices in different Icelandic contexts by using the organization and leadership of school support services as a frame and reference.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedSeven municipalities of different size, structure and geographical location were chosen as cases for analyses. The data was gathered in three steps. First, documents were attained from the municipalities and their schools’ homepages regarding policy and leadership emphasis concerning school support services. Second, superintendents were interviewed who run school offices that provide school support services, as well as school office department heads and/or other specialists in five municipalities; in total 19 people. The interviews were taken in March and May 2019. Third, compulsory school principals in those seven municipalities were interviewed, as well as principals in two other municipalities that did not have access to a school office. Those interviews were taken in December 2020. A cross-case analysis (Stake, 2006) was used to identify patterns and shapes of the leadership practices.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe preliminary findings indicate common characteristics, such as limited leadership at the local level, regarding professional development by principals and teachers. However, a strong motive to do better was apparent. A lack of long-term policy, effective communication, lack of common vision between actors, and a lack of relevant human resources, seem the major hindrances that need to be overcome. The municipality that stood out as having the most developed leadership practices was also the only one that claimed to be systematically developing their practices towards a professional learning community. In other municipalities where a political agent or a professional agent was in charge, leadership capacity was nominal, and a systemic approach to leadership barely visible. Also, generally leadership concerning school support was to a large extent limited to clinical support to students.
The paper concludes with discussions about the importance of municipal context when examining municipal leadership practices and establishing foundations for the development of leadership capacity. This is of utmost importance regarding access to appropriate human resources. The findings provide a valuable insight into the complexity of educational leadership at a local level, and the importance of coherence in that regard. The study is limited to one educational system and seven cases, and therefore cannot be used for generalizations about municipal educational leadership in other contexts. However, due to the small population of most Icelandic municipalities, this study can be useful for reflection in other European and non-European countries that face challenges when developing educational leadership in their rural environments.
ReferencesCampbell, D., & Fullan, M. (2019). The governance core. School boards, superintendents, and schools working together. Corvin.
Hargreaves, A., & Shirley, D. (2022). Well-being in schools: Three forces that will uplift your students in a volatile world. ASCD.
Harris, A., & Jones, J. (2021). Exploring the leadership knowledge base: Evidence, implications, and challenges for educational leadership in Wales. School Leadership & Management, 41(1–2), 41–53. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2020.1789856
Leithwood, K. & Louis, K. S. (eds) (2012) Linking leadership to student learning. Jossey-Bass.
Leithwood, K., Sun, J., & McCullough, C. (2019) How school districts influence student achievement. Journal of Educational Administration, 57(5): 519–539. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-09-2018-0175
Louis, K. S., Leithwood, K., Wahlstrom, K. L., & Anderson, S. E. (2010). Learning from leadership: Investigating the links to improved student learning. Final report of research to the Wallace Foundation. http://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/school-leadership/key-research/Documents/Investigating-the-Links-to-Improved-Student-Learning.pdf
Moos, L. (2013). Wrap up of the argument. In L. Moos (Ed.), Transnational influences on values and practices in Nordic educational leadership: Is there a Nordic model? (pp. 213–223). Dordrecht: Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6226-8
Reglugerð um skólaþjónustu sveitarfélaga við leik- og grunnskóla og nemendaverndarráð í grunnskólum No. 444/2019
Stake, R. E. (2006). Multiple case study analysis. The Guilford Press.
26. Educational Leadership
Paper
Distributed Leadership: Lived Experiences of Irish Post-Primary School Principals and Deputy Principals
Niamh Hickey1, Patricia Mannix - McNamara1,2, Aishling Flaherty1
1University of Limerick, Ireland; 2Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Norway
Presenting Author: Hickey, Niamh;
Mannix - McNamara, Patricia
While distributed leadership has no universally accepted definition, it is largely accepted as a form of shared leadership that is spread across leaders, followers, and the situation (Spillane 2005). The model has been regularly researched over the last twenty years and has been the cause of much debate among the educational leadership academic community. Its elusive nature has added to challenges in researching the topic as this has led to theorists talking past each other causing misunderstandings (Mayrowetz 2008). Distributed leadership has been described as a potential case of “old wine in new bottles” (Spillane 2005, 149) and concerns have been raised about the suitability of the shared model in the bureaucracy of schools (Hartley 2010). Nonetheless, it has become the most frequently implemented school leadership theory internationally and is commonly accepted as good practice among researchers, practitioners, and policymakers alike.
The distributed leadership model has recently become embedded in Irish policy (Barrett 2018; Department of Education 2022), like many other countries internationally. Yet, little is known about post-primary school leaders’ lived experiences of this shared model of leadership. The aim of this study was therefore to explore the lived experience of post-primary school principals and deputy principals of distributed leadership as set out in policy.
As this paper is part of the first author’s doctoral thesis, this aim was achieved using a conceptual framework developed as part of her doctoral thesis. This comprises interacting elements relating to features of distributed leadership, policy, and practice. The policy element of the conceptual framework relates to two government documents discussing school leadership; Leadership and management in post-primary schools (Barrett 2018) and Looking at our school 2022: A quality framework for post-primary schools (Department of Education 2022). The practice element of the conceptual framework comprises school culture, context, and situation including organisational routines, structures, and tools as outlined by Spillane (2005). Lastly, the characteristics of distributed leadership relate to various concepts found within research that aid in explaining aspects of distributed leadership. This includes building leadership capacity, power and empowerment, accountability, division of labour, sustainability, and trust. This conceptual framework helped to inform the research questions as well as aid in data analysis.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedSemi-structured interviews were conducted with fifteen principals and deputy principals currently working in Irish post-primary schools to achieve the aim of this study. Snowball sampling was utilised to recruit participants and participation was fully voluntary. This included the invitation of principals and deputy principals currently enrolled in leadership professional development courses at the researchers’ host institution as well as a request for teachers enrolled in these courses to invite the principals and deputy principals in their schools. An invitation to participate was also shared on Twitter, whereby interested parties were invited to fill out an expression of interest form. The researchers subsequently followed up on expressions of interest with an information sheet, research privacy notice, and consent form which participants were required to sign prior to conducting an interview. Recruitment resulted in a total of fifteen participants, six of whom were principals and nine of whom were deputy principals.
Interviews were conducted online using Microsoft Teams and were video/audio recorded. Recordings were then transcribed and anonymised and participants were assigned pseudonyms. Transcripts were returned to participants for interviewee transcript review, whereby participants were given the opportunity to make edits to their transcript. Two participants made minor amendments to their scripts. An iterative approach to interviewing was utilised, whereby the researchers reflected on each interview after it had been conducted, to explore what went well and what could be improved for the next interview. Feedback was also sought at the end of each interview and suggested changes were implemented where appropriate.
Reflexive thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke 2008) was used to analyse the data. As intended by the authors, the steps outlined by Braun and Clarke (2008) were utilised as an intuitive and evolving guide, more so than a static map (Braun, Clarke, and Hayfield 2022). Transcripts were first coded in their entirety, followed by a second coding of transcripts from question to question. The researchers engaged in a reflexive process throughout this study to further investigate and report on the researchers’ positionality and identify potential bias. All three researchers are qualified post-primary school teachers and hence have experience within the context. One of the researchers held a leadership position in school.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsResults indicated that participants in principle, largely agreed upon the value of distributed leadership practices and were either actively implementing the model or trying to implement it within their schools. Building positive relationships was deemed integral to the success of the schools in question and participants noted the shared vision of building leadership capacity among the school community. School structures, including both internal and external influences to these structures, were reported to influence the distribution of leadership. Accountability, including the ultimate accountability of senior leaders, and the pressure of inspections were reported to influence school leaders’ attitudes towards their work. Lastly, the complexity of school leaders’ and teachers’ roles and identities were described as influential to the distribution of leadership practices.
This study is of significant importance as it provides an overview of the lived experiences of senior school leaders regarding distributed leadership practices as set out by Irish policy. Findings indicate value in reconceptualising the structure of distributed leadership within the Irish post-primary school context, particularly that of middle leadership. This study is also important at an international level as it describes the challenges and benefits as currently faced by school leaders in implementing distributed leadership which may resonate with other contexts. In order for distributed leadership to be effectively implemented, the results of this study outline the need to focus on building positive relationships, to focus on building school personnel’s identity as leaders, and to reimagine the ultimate accountability of school leaders and the role of inspections. This could potentially lead to a more authentic engagement with distributed leadership which could aid school communities to realise its full potential.
ReferencesBarrett, Alphie. 2018. "Leadership and Management in Post-pimary Schools." In, edited by Department of Education and Skills, 1-30.
Braun, Virginia, and Victoria Clarke. 2008. "Using thematic analysis in psychology." Qualitative research in psychology 3 (2):77-101.
Braun, Virginia, Victoria Clarke, and Nikki Hayfield. 2022. "‘A starting point for your journey, not a map’: Nikki Hayfield in conversation with Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke about thematic analysis." Qualitative research in psychology 19 (2):424-45.
Department of Education. 2022. "Looking at Our School 2022: A Quality Framework for Post-Primary Schools." In, edited by Department of Education. Dublin: Stationery Office.
Hartley, David. 2010. "Paradigms: How far does research in distributed leadership ‘stretch’?" Educational Management Administration & Leadership 38 (3):271-85.
Mayrowetz, David. 2008. "Making sense of distributed leadership: Exploring the multiple usages of the concept in the field." Educational Administration Quarterly 44 (3):424-35.
Spillane, James P. 2005. Distributed leadership. Paper presented at the The Educational Forum.
|
