UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER

SCHOOL OF ENVIRONMENT, EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT

MA in EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP

EDUCATION LEADERSHIP (EDUC70331)

1ST SEMENSTER 2014-15

Student ID: 9604941

Tutor: Professor Helen Gunter

Words: 2866

TEACHER LEADERSHIP

Abstract

The following study examines teacher leadership from four

specific aspects. The introduction refers to the importance

and necessity of teacher leadership followed by the section of

its definition. After the conceptual framework the third

section describes the relation between teacher leadership and

distributed leadership emphasising on the problematic nature

of ‘leaders-followers’ structure. The last section explores

how the phenomenon of teacher leadership functions in the

Greek educational sector and finally the essay concludes with

a general critical consideration derived from the preceding

evidence.

A. Introduction

There is a move towards teacher leadership the past three

decades focusing on educational reform and teacher

professionalism in many countries. The idea derived from a

discourse of professionalization in the USA in the 1980s and

1990s, in an attempt to reconsider teaching profession.

External powerful organisations such as World Bank, IMF, and

governments with neo-liberal ideologies influence the world of

education and inevitably challenge and reshape the teaching

profession regardless the lack of scientific evidence (Berry

2013). Research has shown that when teachers work in a

collaborative environment and share their expertise with peers

their students’ achievements (Rosenholtz 1991) and school

effectiveness improve (Harris and Muijs 2006). It’s a demand

of bold brand teacher leadership where teachers urge to

undertake new roles. There are two dominant roles in the

international literature, the pedagogical and organisational

leadership role with an emphasis on the second one (Gunter

1999). Barnett Berry (2013) introduce the term Teacherpreneurs:

‘’classroom experts who teach students regularly, butalso have time, space, and reward to spread their ideasand practices to colleagues as well as administrators,policy-makers, parents, and community leaders’’(p 310).

Nowadays education policies and pedagogical practices expand

the role of educators outside the classroom, and create an era

of a democratic leadership where teacher’s voice is heard.

(Gunter 1999).

York-Barr and Duke (2004) divide in four related categories

the reasons for advancing the concept and practise of teacher

leadership. First, there are benefits of employee

participation. Teachers create unions, where they take part in

leadership activities and decision-making, and they share in a

co-joint environment the same purposes for a more productive

and effective work (Harris and Muijs 2003). Second, the

concept of expertise about teaching and learning shows clearly

that is needed for instructional improvement and therefore for

making adequate decisions (Barth 2001). Third, the importance

of acknowledgment, opportunities and rewards for accomplished

teachers. Katzenmeyer and Moller, Libermann, O’Conor and Boles

reported that when teachers undertake leadership roles, they

feel more motivated and confident for their work, which

consequently enhances their educational performance (as cited

in Harris and Muijs 2003). Fourth, there are benefits to

students. Although there is little evidence about the effects

of teacher leadership on student learning, there are related

studies and researches that support these claims. Barth

(2001) asserts that a democratic teacher leadership affects

students’ outcomes. Also Ryan (1999), Marks and Louis (1997)

in their studies, found a strong link between collective,

participative professional community and student learning.

Considering Leadership as the art of mobilising organisational

change and progress, establishes teachers to the centre stage

of discussion. The concept and practise of teacher leadership

is a very broad and variable subject. In this essay the focus

will be on, the definition of teacher leadership and its

relation to distributed leadership with an emphasis on the

leadership dynamics between headteachers and teachers, as

those being examined by English and American authors.

Following these parameters, there will be a sort description

of teacher leadership, implemented in Greek education system.

B. How is ‘’Teacher Leadership’’ defined.

Several authors analysed and conceptualised, the term

‘’teacher leadership’’ by examining this emerging form of

leadership from different aspects. Very few of them though,

proposed a sort definition of teacher leadership. For example

Katzenmeyer and Moller define it in the following way:

‘’Teachers who are leaders lead within and beyond theclassroom, identify with and contribute to a community ofteacher learners and leaders, and influence otherstowards improved educational practice’’ (as cited inFrost and Harris 2010 p 480).

Harris (2005) classifies teacher leadership definitions into

two main categories. First and also most prevailing in the

literature is, teacher as instructional and participative leader. There

are conceptions of teacher leadership that highlight the use

of teachers’ expertise about teaching and learning to improve

school culture and enhance student learning (Wasley 1991).

Lambert (1998) Boles and Troen (1994), state that teachers

develop expertise by working collaboratively. That kind of

leadership is associated with the creation of collegial norms

among teachers with the distinct goal of school effectiveness,

improvement and development. From Harris and Muijs (2003) who

view teachers as central to the process of generating

organisational development and change through their

collaborative and instructional endeavours and efforts, Frost

and Durrant (2003) suggest that collaborative development work

improves learning and teaching. As a consequence to that kind

of interaction, teachers grow close relationships. That kind

of strong relationship is built on trust and rapport among

colleagues which tend to influence school culture (Little

1990). Besides the leading roles in the classroom such as

facilitators, coaches, mentors or trainers, teachers are also

provided with staff development and curriculum development

roles (Silva, Gilbert and Nolan 2000).

The second category associates teacher leadership with giving

teachers opportunities to lead. Leithwood (2003) separates teacher

leadership into two types according to formal or informal

roles that teachers exercise depending on their work in a

specific position and time. Some examples of formal roles in

regard to tittle and job description are, lead teachers

(coaches, consultants, chiefs of collegial instructional

teams), middle managers (heads of departments, subject leaders

and pastorals), co-ordinators and representatives (mentors,

co-ordinators of continuing professional development) in the

context of district, school, and association (Frost and Harris

2003). However, the new epoch of teacher leadership

reconceptualization demands a shift from those traditional

roles (Smylie and Brownlee-Conyers 1992). Teacher leadership

may also be exercised informally. Informal teacher leaders are

educators with an explicit instructional ability who are

considered as the unsung heroes in the classroom and develop

the school environment with their pioneer ideas (Whitaker

1995).

Teachers are increasingly assuming more leadership roles at

both the instructional and organizational levels which mean

that the school organisational climate is changing, in a way

that encourages and support leadership through the school (Ash

and Persall 2000). As a result of this new perspective of

leadership the hegemonic structure in schools tend to face

serious challenges. While the idea of teacher leadership is

not new, and yet not explicitly established, there are strong

theoretical and conceptual similarities with the form of

distributed leadership (Firestone 2007; Harris 2005).

On the following section, this essay will examine teacher

leadership through the prism of distributed leadership focused

on the tensions between leaders and followers.

C. Teacher Leadership and Distributed Leadership

Distributed leadership has garnered considerable attention in

the United States and abroad. This awareness amongst

educationalists dates from about early 90s. The two national

bodies in the USA the Council of Chief State School Officers

(CCSSO) and the National Policy Board in Educational

Administration (NPBEA) at the forefront of the reform movement

ensure that a range of key educational stakeholders have

“leaders working effectively in ‘multiple leadership’ or

‘distributed leadership’ teams” (Gronn 2002 p 653). Also in UK

the National College for School Leadership promotes Networked

Learning Communities program which acknowledge the power of

one, shared leadership, leadership teams and distributed

leadership (as cited in Frost and Harris 2010).

Spillane (2001) distinguishes three reasons where distributed

leadership is especially useful in giving noteworthy precision

in the field of teacher leadership. Firstly, it consolidates

the exercises of various fellows in a school who work at

directing and activating staff in the instructional

improvement. Secondly, it suggests a social distribution of

administration where the authority capacity is extended over

the work of multiple groups where the leadership practise

takes form through the cooperation of numerous pioneers.

Thirdly, it implies interdependency as opposed to dependency

enhancing various leaders to share responsibilities and

duties. Gronn (2000) has a similar perspective. He

conceptualise leadership as a collective phenomenon, and

distributed leadership as a way to ‘dethrone’ principals from

their school regime. He suggested that distributed leadership

infers an alternate power relationship inside the school where

the differences between followers and leaders haven’t yet

distinguished.

It is clear from the literature that teacher leadership has a

reciprocal relation to distributed leadership theory. It is

based on the idea that all organizational members can lead and

that leadership is a form of agency that can be distributed or

shared (Harris and Muijs 2003). Gronn (2002) supports this

interaction from his leadership point of view when he says

‘the potential for leadership is present in the flow of

activities in which a set of organisation members find

themselves enmeshed’ (p 331) and leadership is understood as

‘fluid and emergent, rather than a fixed phenomenon’ (Gronn

2000 p 324). The question is how is leadership distributed in

schools?

The figure below depicts forms of distributed school

leadership promoted by the top level education authority from

pre-primary to upper secondary education, in Europe (European

Commission/EACEA/Eurydice 2013 p 118).

It is clear that school leadership is shared to some extent,

but innovate approaches are rare. A brief interpretation of

the above scheme displays that redistribution of tasks among

formal leadership teams and informal ad-hoc groups are the

most prevailing practises, with an attempt to endorse

leadership distribution in the northern countries.

One reason to understand the difficulty on functional

distributed leadership and therefore how teacher leadership

actually, works in schools, is the persistence perception of

the head as a single power leader. The ‘top-down’ leadership

model which still prevails in schools doesn’t let any freedom

or space for autonomy and teachers are not encouraged on

taking leadership roles (Harris 2005). Yulk (1999) mentions

the hero paradigm, which refers to an individuals’ effective

leadership that motivates others to follow his/her vision and

mission. Also, This means that leadership is linked to one’s

power, authority and status. Gunter (2001) argues that the

hierarchical leadership in English schools sustains a top-down

approach of leadership that separates headteachers from

teachers.

In contrast, recent conceptions of leadership is not vested in

one person who is positioned in high up levels on the triangle

of hierarchy, but is viewed as a social influence process

where leadership is dispersed amongst people within schools.

From Duke, Heller and Firestone who suggest that someone must

be in control, Neuman and Simmons concluded that every member

of the education community has the responsibility and the

authority to take appropriate leadership roles as well as

Fullan declares, teacher leadership is not for a few, it’s for

all (as cited in Leithwood and Jantzi 2000). Sergiovanni

(2001) underpins that conception, and he argues that a group

of individuals are involved in the work of others are trusted,

are taking part in decision making, and are exchanging new

ideas and knowledge. In such a situation, school members have

a stake in the success of school. Arguments for distributed

leadership imply a different power relationship within the

school where the divisions between followers and leaders tend

to blur. MacBeath’s (2005) taxonomy promotes a dispersed

mechanism of authority which is not necessarily opposed to

headteacer leadership but is pertinent to examine, how

distributed leadership occurs is a school organisation. School

effectiveness and improvement does not support neither top-

down nor bottom up leadership. It is a matter of interaction

and participation at every level (Ruth and Persall 2000). The

emerged question of this perception, is how teachers and

principals understand and perform distributed leadership?

Research evidence in five schools in England shows that

despite the willingness of adopting this dynamic form of

leadership educational practitioners seem to articulate a

discursive conception of distributed leadership that is more

likely an informed delegation (Hall, Gunter and Bragg 2011).

Distributing responsibility and authority sets, a new scenery,

that places those in formal positions in a vulnerable

situation. In other words, sharing power diminishes the

control of heads and principals to their subordinates. Also

the difficulty on implementing distributed practises amongst

school members rise a financial barrier. In addition to

pedagogic responsibilities, teachers are now delegated with

leadership roles that change the structure of their status and

pay (Harris 2003).

It is inevitable to investigate teacher leadership outside the

policy context. Teacher leadership is strongly linked to

instructional leadership. This means that teachers’ practise

is related to define mission, manage curriculum and

instruction, supervise teaching, monitor student progress and

promote instructional climate. Consequently that notion leads

to teachers’ ostracism from command and control (Frost and

Harris 2010). To conclude, Teachers’ profession,

performativity and identity are also shaped by wider policy

contexts and agendas that promote different notions of the

nature of teacher leadership. Leadership is an elastic term

integral from the political and cultural environment and

should be examined as a living and dynamic organism shaped by

current social-political ideologies. The next section will be

followed by a brief description of how teacher leadership is

defined and approached in Greek educational context.

D. Teacher leadership in Greek education system

Educational organisations operate under an educational system

with specific structure and policies which are fundamental in

the management style of the organisation. Hence, the schools’

administration has to take into account the distinguished

features and practices adopted by the particular educational

system. The Greek educational system is characterised as

centralised and bureaucratic (Saiti 2009). The senior

authority, the Ministry of education has the supreme

supervision of primary and secondary education and controls

through an established interdependence between central and

local bodies all the educational facets. The scheme below

(Mpouris 2008 p 86) depicts the educational administration

levels in primary and secondary education.

Educational Administration Levels

↓

1) National

2) Regional

3) Prefectural

4) School

The school as the final recipient and decision-taker has a

limited role on broader issues such as pedagogy, learning,

staff training, organisation and administration. This minimum

degree of autonomy in decision-making is the ‘natural’

consequence of a centralised structured and controlled system.

In a smaller case, the administration body into the school is

composed by principal, principal assistant and teacher council

(all school teachers).

Ministry of Education

General Directorates

Independent Directorates

Regional Councils of Primaryand Secondary Education

Directorates and Offices of Education Prefectural Councils of Primary and

Secondary education

School principal Principal Assistant

Teacher Council

Teachers

In Greece the establishment of teacher council in 1985, was an

attempt to democratise the educational system. Besides its

collective work in pedagogical (didactics, education, teaching

and learning) and administrative (financial management,

operational issues, collaboration with community and parents)

parameters (Educational level 2002) which leave room for

autonomy, the reality comes to contradict this heretic

pragmatic.

Recent research has shown that teachers feel irrelevant and

inadequate on making decisions and they don’t affect

essentially the managerial pragmatics, teachers are processors

of decisions taken by administrative superiors. Additionally,

they don’t exploit decentralization possibilities autonomy and

participation opportunities that ‘teacher council’ offers,

because in many cases teachers tend to associate

administrative responsibilities with their principals. In

other words, while the ‘teacher council’ acts as a collective

governing body where teachers are actively involved in

meetings, they ignore the educational legislation and have not

realized the opportunities it gives them to jointly shape in a

national educational policy their own in-school policy

(Chatzipanagiotou 2010).

A consequence of that ignorance is to limit the scope of their

work in teaching and educational tasks. These views on the

role and responsibilities of the teaching staff into schools

can be interpreted if attributed in both, deficiency of basic

education in organization and management of schools and to the

lack of information in current educational leadership models.

On the other hand, educators with several years in the

educational field are not willing to broaden their

participation in the organization and administration of the

school, due to the lack of recognition of their work from both

the state and the society (Chatzipanagiotou 2010). It could

therefore be concluded that teachers have adopted an inert

strategy. However in order to develop the strategy of

participatory decision-making is necessary to expand the

autonomy of school and strengthen the connection with the

local community. Additional, to enable the school to take a

more active role in the formulation and conduct of government

should create an operating framework, which is based on the

principles and culture of cooperation (Saitis, Menon 2010).

E. Conclusion

The complex educational legislation, the rigid centralized

system and the urgency of everyday problems alienate the

vision and mission of educators and leave no room and power to

develop pioneer practises. The notion of distributed

leadership is related with the school autonomy and with the

imperative change of teacher’s profession. The new role of

teacher leader requires high degree of professionalism,

cooperation and trust in an environment which sets new

conditions for the teaching profession. With the teacher as

the final recipient of transmitted messages from public or

private sectors in macro and micro society, it seems that

their role has been challenged and reconceptualised

(Fitzgerald and Gunter 2008). Literature findings and

evidences are converging to an amalgam of a functional teacher

leader and a democratic teacher who is at the same time

responsible and accountable for implementing current policies

and active operational body in developing pedagogy. Only if

the school leadership adopts a distributed model instead of

the traditional top-down, and the teacher as a vocational

practitioner with an opinion and participation in educational

matters, will activate the core of the changes and the future

will belong in the school, which consequently would be in a

position to modulate the own-school policy, and intervene in

the wider scale of national education policy.

REFERENCES

Barth, R. S. (2001) Teacher leader. Phi Delta Kappan. 82 (6), 443-

449.

Berry, B. (2013) Teacherpreneurs: A Bold Brand of Teacher

Leadership for 21st-Century Teaching

and Learning. Science (New York, N.Y.). 340 (6130), 77-88.

Boles, K., and Troen, V. (1994) Teacher leadership in a professional

development school. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the

American Educational Research Association. New Orleans, LA.

Council of Chief State School Officers (2000) Leadership for

learning in the 21st century: Leadership for

student achievement, responsibility and respect.

http://www.ccsso.org/projects/projects.html

Educational level (2002) Duties and responsibilities of teachers council.

Available from:

http://edu.klimaka.gr/nomothesia/kathhkontologio/543-

nomothesia-kathikontologio-didaktiko-prosvpiko-syllogos-

didaskontvn.html. 16 October 2002.

European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice (2013) Key Data on Teachers

and School Leaders in Europe. 2013 Edition. Eurydice Report.

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

Firestone, W. (2007) Districts, Teacher Leaders, and

Distributed Leadership: Changing Instructional Practice.

Leadership and Policy in Schools. (6), 3-35.

Fitzgerald, T. and Gunter, H. (2008) Contesting the orthodoxy

of teacher leadership. Int. J. Leaderhsip in Education. 11 (4), 331-340.

Frost, D. and Harris, A. (2003) Teacher Leadership: towards a

research agenda. Cambridge Journal of Education. 33 (3), 479-498.

Frost, D. and Harris, A. (2010) Teacher Leadership: towards a

research agenda. Cambridge Journal of Education. 3 (33), 479-478

Frost, D., and Durrant, J. (2003) Teacher leadership:

Rationale, strategy and impact. School Leadership and Management.

23 (2), 173–186.

Gronn, P. (2002) Distributed Leadership. Second International

Handbook of Educational Leadership and Administration.

Springer International Handbooks of Education. (8), 653-696.

Gronn, P. (2000) Distributed properties: A new architecture

for leadership. Educational Management Administration and Leadership. 28

(3), 317-338.

Gunter, H. (1999) Teacher Leadership: Challenges and

Opportunities. Scottish Educational Review. 37 (1), 114-123.

Hall, D., Gunter, H., and Bragg, J. (2011) The Discursive

Performance of Leadership in Schools. Management in Education, 25

(1), 32-36.

Harris, A. (2005) Teacher Leadership: More than Just a Feel-

Good Factor? Leadership and Policy in Schools. 4 (3), 201-219.

Harris, A. (2007) Distributed leadership: conceptual confusion

and empirical reticence. International Journal of Leadership in Education:

Theory and Practice. 10 (3), 315-325.

Lambert, L. (1998) Building leadership capacity in schools. Alexandria,

VA: ASCD

Leithwood, K. (2003) Teacher leadership: its nature,

development, and impact on schools and students in Brundrett,

M., Burton, N. and Smith, R. (eds.) Leadership in Education. 103–

117, London: Sage.

Leithwood, K. and Jantzi, D. (2000) Principal and Teacher

Leadership Effects: a replication. School Leadership & Management.

20 (4), 415-434.

Little, J. W. (1990) The persistence of privacy: Autonomy and

initiative in teachers’ professional relations. Teachers College

Record. 91 (4), 509–536.

MacBeath, J. (2005) Leadership as Distributed: A matter of

practise. School Leadership and Management. 25 (4), 349-366.

Marks, H. M., and Louis, K. S. (1997) Does teacher empowerment

affect the classroom? The implications of teacher empowerment

for instructional practice and student academic performance.

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 19 (3), 245-275.

Mpouris, I. (2008) Programs of Training Education Managers. Athens:

Ministry of Education and Religious affairs.

Muijs, D. and Harris, A. (2003) Teacher Leadership—Improvement

through Empowerment? Educational Management Administration & Leadership.

31 (4), 437-448.

Muijs, D. and Harris, A. (2006) Teacher led school

improvement: Teacher leadership in the UK. Teaching and Teacher

Education. 22 (8), 961-972.

Rosenholtz, S. (1991) Teachers' workplace: the social organization of

schools. New York; London: Teachers College Press c1991.

Ruth, C., Persall, J. (2000) The Principal as Chief Learning

Officer: Developing Teacher Leaders. NASSP Bulleti. 84 (616), 15-

22.

Ryan, S. (1999) Principals and teachers leading together.

Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American

Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Saiti, A. (2009) The development and Reform of Scool

Administration in Greece. A primary school Perspective.

Ecucational Management Administration and Leadership. 37 (3) 378-403.

Saitis, C. and Menon, E., M. (2004) Views of Future and

Current Teachers on the Effectiveness of Primary School

Leadership: Evidence from Greece. Leadership and Policy in Schools. 3

(2), 135-157.

Sergiovanni, T. (2001) Leadership: what’s in it for schools? London:

Routledge/Falmer.

Silva, D. Y., Gimbert, B., and Nolan, J. (2000) Sliding the

doors: Locking and unlocking

Smylie, M. A. and Brownlee-Conyers, J. (1992) Teacher Leaders

and their Principals: Exploring the Development of New Working

Relationships. Educational Administration Quarterly. 28 (2), 150-184.

Spillane, J. Halverson, R. and Diamond, J. (2001) Towards a

theory of leadership practice: a distributed perspective.

Journal of Curriculum Studies. 36 (1), 3-34.

Wasley, P. A. (1991) Teachers Who lead: The rhetoric of reform and the

realities of practice. New York: Teachers College Press.

Whitaker, T. (1995) Informal teacher leadership – The key to

successful change in

York-Barr, J. and Duke, K. (2004) What do we know about

Teacher Leadership? Findings from two decades of scholarship.

Review of Educational Research. 74 (3), 255-316.

Yulk, G. (1999) An Evaluative Essay on Current Conceptions of

Effective Leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational

Psychology. 8 (1), 33-48.