From Successful School Leadership Towards Distributed Leadership

Abstract

This chapter explores the cultural and societal background for the development of school leadership and presents findings from research into effective or successful school leadership. The findings often point to the need for a distribution of leadership, but are not specific when it comes to the forms and relations that distributed leadership can and ought to take.

Leadership and thus all relations and interactions in schools should resonate the core purpose of schooling, which is – let us not forget – to educate children and young people for democratic citizenship because they will take over society when we get too old.

In the Danish part of the “International Successful School Principal Project” involving eight nations, we see that leaders and principals are being positioned and position themselves centrally in relations, interactions and communications with many people inside and outside of schools and that they therefore have to find many new ways of influencing the schools. What is new is that very often leaders interact in teams of leaders and with teams of teachers. They act like spiders in webs when they balance their influence with the influence of other people.

Appendices

Appendix

A Brief Description of the Context: Danish Educational Culture in Transition

The 20th century Danish comprehensive school evolved out of the development of the Danish welfare state (a largely Social–Democratic project) and a consensus-building dialogue across political parties. The school was looked upon as a vehicle for promoting equal opportunities and as a place for acquiring knowledge, skills and values that prepare the student for life in a broader sense. That was done with reference to the concept of Bildung, traditional egalitarian and nation-building school ideas and inclusive welfare thinking.

Since the beginning of the 1990s, however, the Danish comprehensive educational system has been undergoing a process of thorough transformation under the influence of strong international currents: neo-liberal currents have linked educational thinking very closely to the economy and to neo-conservative trends of back-to-basics, more subject-oriented teaching, re-introduction of testing at all levels of primary school, pressure to harmonise within the European Union, inspiration from and fear of PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment), individualization and so forth. The meaning of leadership, professionals and learning are thus under profound change (Krejsler, 2005; Moos 2003).

For example, the responsibility for finances and administration of the ‘Folkeskole’ (primary and lower secondary school, students aged 6–16) was devolved to municipalities and from there to schools. The traditional site-based management was redefined when schools were made financially autonomous and accountable.

The school leader now manages very large parts of the budget in collaboration with School Boards, which have a parental majority membership. The Acts, and therefore the responsibility for objectives of the schools, remain in the hands of Parliament/the Ministry of Education but the interpretations and administration of the curriculum – which is fairly broad in its demands – are given to municipalities (which very often leave it unattended) and to schools themselves. At present the New Public Management (NPM) push away from focusing on processes towards focusing on outcomes and on accountability is gaining momentum. In Denmark the schools must post the results of school leaving tests on the Ministry’s web site. The government issues binding national ‘goals’ (usually every 2 years) that are much tighter and more prescriptive than the curriculum used to be and has also introduced plans for more testing of students (in grades 2, 4 and 6 in addition to the end of school test in grade 9). There is also a focus on economic incentives like merit pay for teachers. In addition there is a focus on top-down management and at the same time decentralization. Administrators and politicians look to industry and the private sector for inspiration. As an illustration one could mention a new postgraduate diploma in leadership that is intended to be relevant to leaders in industry, public service as well as in education.

School leaders, it seems (Moos et al., 2000) are caught in the cross-fire between first, the national objectives for schools, which focus on liberal education (the ‘Bildung/Dannelse’ of children to become citizens in a democratic society); second, the local authorities’ demands for financial accountability; and third, the school culture – teachers used to be very autonomous and were therefore not eager to be managed or led by the ‘new, strong, visible’ school leaders described by Government.