Distributed Leadership in Schools: The Case of Elementary Schools Adopting Comprehensive School Reform Models

Abstract

This is a study of distributed leadership in the context of elementary schools' adoption of comprehensive school reforms (CSR). Most CSRs are designed to configure school leadership by defining formal roles, and we hypothesized that such programs activate those roles by defining expectations for and socializing (e.g., through professional development) role incumbents. Configuration and activation were further hypothesized to influence the performance of leadership functions in schools. Using data from a study of three of the most widely adopted CSR models, support was found for the configuration and activation hypotheses. Leadership configuration in CSR schools differed from that of nonCSR schools in part because of the addition of model-specific roles. Model participation was also related to the performance of leadership functions as principals in CSR schools and CSR-related role incumbents were found to provide significant amounts of instructional leadership. Further support for the activation hypothesis is suggested by positive relationships between leaders' professional development experiences and their performance of instructional leadership.

Using social network methods to study school leadership

“…People in formally designated leadership positions and those without such designations can take responsibility for leadership work. Recent empirical work suggests that the work of leadership extends to multiple individuals beyond the school principal, including regular classroom teachers with no formal leadership designations (Heller & Firestone, 1995;Camburn, Rowan, & Taylor, 2003;Spillane, Camburn, & Paraja, 2007).…”

“…Though in no way undermining the role of the school principal, this recognition argues for thinking about leadership as something that potentially extends beyond those with formally designated leadership and management positions (Heller & Firestone, 1995;Ogawa & Bossert, 1995;Pitner, 1988;. Recent empirical work underscores the need for moving beyond an exclusive focus on formally designated leaders in studies of school leadership to identifying others who take responsibility for this work (Camburn, Rowan, & Taylor, 2003;Spillane, Camburn, & Pareja, 2007). Second, some scholars have called for attention to the practice of leadership in organizations as distinct from focusing exclusively on structures, roles, and positions (Eccles & Nohria, 1992;Gronn, 2003;Heifetz, 1994;Spillane, Halverson, & Diamond, 2004;Spillane & Diamond, 2007).…”

A Study of Teachers’ Perceptions of Involvement in Decision Making within Secondary Schools in Cameroon

“…The goal of sharing leadership with others, regardless of the form it takes, is to ensure that every stakeholder contributes to the success of a school based on his/her ability (Camburn et al, 2003;Day et al, 2003;Duigan, 1990;Elmore, 1999). Leadership is participatory or shared when important decisions that shape the lives of employees and the organization are jointly made by the leader, subordinates and other stakeholders (Somech & Wenderow, 2006;Katzenmeyer et al, 2001).…”

Leadership and Learning: Conceptualizing Relations between School Administrative Practice and Instructional Practice

“…Third, Camburn and colleagues surveyed teachers and formally designated school leaders in 120 elementary schools using a distributed framework, operationalizing leadership as a set of organizational functions. The study asked participants about leadership functions that fell into one of three categories-instruction, building management, and boundary spanning-and examined how responsibility for different leadership functions was arrayed by formally designated leadership position [14]. These three studies exemplify the sort of transparency in conceptual and study operation work that is essential for comparing across studies in efforts to measure and explicate the "how" of relations between administrative practice and student learning.…”