Distributed leadership in English schools in 2014

Abstract

For English primary schools, the framework of distributed leadership has been growing in status for a number of years and is now deemed to be the dominant model. However, the landscape has altered quite significantly for primary schools and their staff since the Coalition government took office in 2010, effecting fast-paced and wide-ranging reform. Therefore, it is a timely matter to consider whether a distributed model of leadership remains useful and appropriate for primary schools in 2014. In order to do so, this article identifies five defining features of the current context to use as a lens through which to scrutinise the distributed leadership model.

Keywords

Accountability curriculum distributed leadership teacher professionalism teacher quality

Introduction

‘Turbulence’ could be suggested as a byword for education in England in 2014. Larkin (2014), the incoming president of the National Association of Headteachers (NAHT), has analogised the current teaching profession as hurtling headlong into a perfect storm. A myriad of new government-led initiatives coupled with unprecedented levels of political interference are cited as an extremely challenging combination. For school leaders particularly, the impact is keenly felt (Farrar, 2012). This article aims to consider whether the leading paradigm of distributed leadership (DLS) remains appropriate in such testing times. This scrutiny is timely and important, as the following justification demonstrates.

Why leadership?

The current situation is undoubtedly a challenging era for English primary schools and academies due to the combination of increased autonomy (Basset et al., 2012), an unprecedented dearth of government guidance for the curriculum (DfE, 2014b), low levels of curriculum capacity among the teaching profession (Alexander, 2013) and high-stakes accountability (Hammersley-Fletcher and Strain, 2011). In the swirling waters of the modern education sector (Farrar, 2012; Larkin, 2014), the necessity of change is unquestionable. This brings leadership as an effective agent of change to the forefront, particularly in the face of critical issues (Pedler et al., 2004), superseding management and its concern with maintenance (Cuban, 1988). Some would suggest that good management is a very important aspect of a successful school (Southworth, 2009); yet, the importance of good leadership is a ubiquitous feature of virtually every report that the Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED) has prepared (OFSTED, 2003).

The principal business of primary schools is the teaching and learning of its pupils, and, indeed, ‘learning lies at the heart of school leadership and improvement’ (Southworth, 2009: 104). It is suggested that distinguishing features of school leaders are their desire and responsibility to enhance student learning (Dempster, 2009; Southworth, 2009), and that the impact of leadership is maximised when focused on students’ learning (Southworth, 2009). There is recognition that leadership drives improved performance (DEECD, 2008, cited in O’Gorman and Hard, 2013) and is ‘paramount to school effectiveness’ (Southworth, 2009: 92).

The combination of the acknowledged importance of leadership and the government’s clear intention to shift power to the front line (DfE, 2010) could suggest a good opportunity for schools to have a powerful impact on their pupils’ learning. However, one constraint is suggested to be the expectation of leaders to align their vision with centralised expectations (Hoyle and Wallace, 2005), as exemplified by the Department for Education’s (DfE’s) focus on high levels of accountability (DfE, 2010). Hoyle and Wallace (2005) suggest that this results in any visionary rhetoric being supplanted by a prosaic reality. Nevertheless, Harris (2013: 551) predicts that ‘meeting the educational needs of the 21st century will require greater leadership capacity than ever before’.

Why distributed leadership?

The aim of analysing leadership in the current context is certainly not simplified by the fact that it is a contested phenomenon (Bush et al., 2009; Pedler et al., 2004). The literature concerning educational leadership is deep and wide-ranging (Bush and Glover, 2003); yet, it is suggested that many suggested models are atheoretical in the sense that they lack explicit values and concepts (Bush, 1999, 2003). However, a broad brushstroke could be used to define key leadership features as: an independence from positional authority and intentionality (Bush et al., 2009; Pedler et al., 2004); influence (Yukl, 2002); and the concepts of vision (Bush, 2007), agency and purpose (Dempster, 2009).

DLS, as the model often viewed as the ideal in Western literature (Ho, 2010), has developed in status over the last 10 years in British educational leadership (Grint, 2011; Gronn, 2010; Harris and Spillane, 2008). It could be termed the prominent model in English primary schools (Hammersley-Fletcher and Strain, 2011; National College of School Leadership (NCSL), 2012b) and is deemed particularly pertinent for new models of schooling, including academy chains (Chapman et al., 2010). Bell and Bolam’s (2009) identification of the emergence of a new emphasis on a wider range of stakeholders supports the belief that ‘the power of one is giving way to belief in the power of everyone’ (Southworth, 2009: 94) and suggests that DLS is particularly important.

What is DLS?

Mirroring the concept of leadership as a whole, there are few clear definitions of DLS (Bennett et al., 2003; Hartley, 2007; Torrance, 2009). Indeed, Youngs (2009) states that it lacks critical conceptualisation. One difficulty is that the literature makes use of a range of terms to refer to DLS, from ‘collaborative leadership’, to ‘shared leadership’, to ‘devolved leadership’. This ‘presents a real danger that distributed leadership will simply be used as a “catch all” term to describe any form of devolved, shared or dispersed leadership practice’ (Harris and Spillane, 2008: 32), which Harris (2008) is concerned invokes conceptual confusion and overlap.

An overview of the broad features of DLS may exemplify the practicalities and realities of the model; yet, Leverett’s (2002) concise summary is a fair starting point, defining DLS as ‘building learning organizations and providing opportunities for all to give their gifts, to develop their skills and to have access to leadership that is not dependent on one’s ‘place’ in the hierarchy or formal organizational chart’. The focus of DLS is on interactions, rather than the actions of those in formal, or informal, leadership roles (Harris and Spillane, 2008). One central concept is task distribution (Robinson, 2008), which is associated with a move away from the ‘great man’ focus of earlier heroic leadership models to a network of interacting individuals and open boundaries instead (Bush et al., 2009, 2010; Youngs, 2013). Where leadership is divided and performed by many team members simultaneously or sequentially (Shamir, 1999), Harris (2013) emphasises that the aim is not simply to increase the quantity of leaders, but to increase the quality and capability that is achieved by harnessing the collective will and skill of many (Harris, 2011). Such a model encourages reciprocity between colleagues (Hammersley-Fletcher and Strain, 2011; Spillane, 2006), informality (Grint, 2005; Hammersley-Fletcher and Kirkham, 2007), trust (Gronn, 2011), interdependence (Harris, 2009) and collegial development (Grint, 2005; Harris, 2013). It is suggested that this may result in ‘concertive action’, whereby the outcome is greater than the sum of individual actions (Gronn, 2002, cited in Bennett et al., 2003).

The National College for School Leadership (NCSL, 2004) suggests that ‘distributed leadership’ is, in fact, an overarching umbrella term and that the following six subsets of DLS detail more precise models:

Formal – structural delegation of leadership, accompanied by an expectation of delivery.

Pragmatic – reactionary, often in response to external pressures.

Strategic – orientation towards long-term goals.

Incremental – sponsored growth, linked to both a professional development model and a leader’s ease with DLS.

Opportunistic – assumed, rather than conferred, leadership by willing staff.

Cultural – a spontaneous, collaborative, fluid model, exemplifying shared agency.

Forrester and Gunter (2009) take a slightly different tack by categorising DLS models according to the most influential people within them:

Directive approach – dependent upon the headteacher’s purpose and aims.

Directed approach – the same as the directive approach but also strongly influenced by external stakeholders, such as governors.

Inclusive approach – led by the headteacher but with a significant contribution from the school community.

Distributed approach – specific tasks are delegated internally.

Further to this conceptualisation of types of DLS are the obvious questions of what should be distributed (Southworth, 2009) and how it should be done (Harris, 2008). Southworth (2009) believes that distributing ‘learning-centred leadership’ to result in as many leaders as possible making a positive difference to classroom practice is the natural answer. Such practice would, indeed, support the ‘moral purpose’ of education: to facilitate learning as a means through which individuals can change their lives (Dempster, 2009).

Ultimately, Harris (2009) asserts that DLS is not intrinsically ‘good’ or ‘bad’, but that its effectiveness is dependent upon its specific embodiment in a particular context, whereby influencing factors may include organisational structure and agency, social and cultural context, source of change, team dynamics, and more informal leadership (Bennett et al., 2003).

Leadership in 2014

Building upon this understanding of DLS in order to consider whether it is appropriate in 2014 necessitates a scrutiny of emerging issues specific to these times. Five such defining features will be addressed in the following section: academy status; the shortage of teachers; accountability; a team-oriented and networked system of support; and teacher quality.

The first defining feature of these times is academy status. In 2010, there were no primary academies, now they number almost 2000 and are unequivocally favoured by the government, who believe that they raise standards (Nash, 2014). This is evidenced by the threat of forced academisation should schools fail to meet floor standards from 2015 onwards (DfE, 2014c). One of the tenets of these publicly funded independent schools is the disapplication of the statutory status of the primary national curriculum (DfE, 2014d), and this is a critical issue when considering the model of DLS.

The Cambridge Primary Review (Alexander, 2010) argued that the fundamental curriculum problem in primary schools was one of curriculum capacity, expertise and leadership and identified an urgent need to raise the level of discussion and conceptualisation of curriculum debate and practice. Such a situation suggests that a DLS model, dependent upon teacher knowledge and expertise, is inappropriate and may allow greater scope for external agencies to impact on schools without robust filtering (Hammersley-Fletcher and Strain, 2011). In reality, this could take the form of commercial schemes of work forming the basis of curriculum planning, without thorough critique. This is a tempting solution, particularly in light of teachers’ excessive workloads, but risks leading to poorer student outcomes. Ultimately, guidance from an expert, knowledgeable, confident leader may instead be necessary to ensure good standards. However, when considering how to proceed in the light of the new curriculum, Wilson (2014) suggests that there needs to be a whole-school approach to closing attainment gaps. Essentially, equity for all should be achieved by being integral to a whole-school vision ‘driven by effective leadership at all levels’ (Wilson, 2014: 22).

A second feature of the current era is the looming shortage of teachers. Since the schools-led initial teacher training scheme, School Direct, was initiated in 2012, it has created turbulence and instability within the initial teacher education sector (Taylor, 2014), particularly for the primary phase, and has significantly contributed to a situation of ‘a teacher supply crisis of a magnitude not seen since the early 2000s’ (Howson, 2014). Added to this is the existing problem highlighted by Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector Sir Michael Wilshaw (2012) of the ‘national scandal’ that approximately 40% of teachers leave within the first five years of their career. Keates (2012), the General Secretary of the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers (NASUWT) union, attributes this figure to very high levels of demoralised and deprofessionalised teachers. The problem was undoubtedly exacerbated by a unsettling tension between the recent Secretary of State for Education Michael Gove and the profession, as exemplified by the National Union of Teachers’ (NUT’s) vote of no confidence in him (Shepherd, 2013).

A model of DLS – in which shared responsibilities encourage reciprocity between colleagues and an open culture (Hammersley-Fletcher and Strain, 2011) – could help combat some of this negativity pervasive in the teaching profession. This is perhaps particularly apt for primary schools and academies, where informal collaboration is deep-seated (Hammersley-Fletcher and Kirkham, 2007). Furthermore, DLS has the scope to develop feelings of empowerment (Hammersley-Fletcher and Strain, 2011), which support feelings of making a positive difference, identified as one of the top three elements that teachers most love about their career (ComRes, 2013).

Conversely, teacher satisfaction could be adversely affected by a model of DLS as there are claims that it can be both divisive (Hammersley-Fletcher and Strain, 2011) and ineffective due to individual leaders exercising disproportionate influence over a school’s leadership (Bush et al., 2010). Furthermore, Robertson (1996) suggests that DLS diverts efforts from teaching to new technical tasks, and one cause of teachers’ dissatisfaction are the very systems that divert their time and energy from the all-important task of teaching and leading learning (Keates, 2013). Furthermore, extra responsibilities are assumed following the distribution of leadership, and recent strike action over matters such as workload and pay (NUT, 2014) indicate that such matters were of high importance within the profession in 2014. During the 1980s and 1990s, ever-increasing workload pressures for school leaders necessitated a shift towards a more distributed model (Dunford, 2007; Earley et al., 2002; Harris and Spillane, 2008), which has been sustained in subsequent years (NCSL, 2012b). However, an integral issue is the lack of recognition given in terms of pay or status to reflect the additional workload intrinsic to such DLS models (NCSL, 2012b).

Workload pressures are similarly an issue central to the difficulties in recruiting headteachers. This is a modern problem, illustrated by the fact that 40% of primary headship posts are re-advertised as they remain unfilled following an initial round of recruitment (NCSL, 2012a). A DLS model that tempers unsustainable pressures on headteachers by providing support from staff may help to address this issue. Another strategy to improve the situation, which looks likely to peak within the next five to 10 years (Hobby, 2014), could be to foster greater interest in leadership and to create a sense of possibility by giving potential heads more opportunities to lead at earlier stages in their careers (NCSL, no date). Essentially, treating leadership as something that stretches far beyond any one leader’s professional lifetime, moving away from heroic and everlasting leadership, is essential for the successful succession planning of school leadership (NCSL, 2006) and could be achieved with a thoughtful model of DLS.

A third feature of the present education sector is the ‘increasingly pervasive preoccupation with accountability’ (Hammersley-Fletcher and Strain, 2011: 871), as embodied by an updated OFSTED framework (OFSTED, 2014) and more challenging floor targets (DfE, 2014c). The culmination of such stringent output regulation is specific pressure on headteachers, which the NCSL (2012b) attributes, in part, to the conviction, apparent through policy, that local leadership has the ability to raise standards. Teaching unions support claims that headteachers are under relentless pressure from a number of sources (Hobby, 2013), and the fundamental personal responsibility felt makes it difficult for them to ‘let go’ of their control (Southworth, 2009: 1). Essentially, a model of DLS may not sit comfortably with headteachers who feel the pressure of their ultimate responsibility for school standards. Reticence to distribute leadership may stem from a belief that it is synonymous with abdicating responsibility (Southworth, 2009), rather than a strategy for school improvement (NCSL, 2004). Such a belief may be particularly influential in schools that have historically operated within a heroic leadership model as OFSTED (2008) recognises that overcoming resistance to change is one factor that may present barriers to leadership within schools. The need for leaders to be more outward-looking within a DLS model than they may have previously been (PWC, 2007) may compound this problem. A tempting incentive to do so may be found in data which show that schools categorised by OFSTED as ‘satisfactory’ or ‘unsatisfactory’ were ‘less likely to have teachers who had been encouraged to contribute to school leadership in the last 12 months’ (NCSL, 2012b: 68), suggesting that a DLS model may aid schools in the ubiquitous aim of being labelled ‘good’ or better.

A key feature of school accountability is attainment at Key Stage 2 National Curriculum Tests (SATs) (OFSTED, 2014), and OFSTED (2008) suggests that worries around a detrimental impact of action on pupils’ test scores may present a specific barrier to school leadership. There is a suggestion that, in such a case, it may be distributed leadership that is not the fitting model and, instead, a technical-rational approach to school management might be more suitable for schools (Bush et al., 2009; Glatter, 1999; Gunter, 2005). It is suggested that, as opposed to DLS, a framework of technical rationality whereby clear goals and objectives are defined, leading to the operationalisation of strategies for their efficient attainment (Starratt, 2001), might be more fitting. However, there is also empirical evidence to support the tenet that DLS makes a ‘positive difference to organisational outcomes and student learning’ (Harris and Spillane, 2008: 32). In fact, Dempster (2009) suggests that DLS benefits staff performance in a range of ways, including capacity, motivation and commitment. Given the correlation between good classroom practice and improved student outcomes (Bush et al., 2009), any improvements in staff performance can only serve to achieve greater success concerning current data-driven accountability measures.

The fourth indicator of contemporary schooling is the team-oriented and networked system of support, which Miller and Bentley (2002) predicted over a decade ago. They were proved to be correct by ‘the establishment of a network of Teaching Schools at the heart of the vision for a self-improving schools system, owned and driven by schools themselves’ (Farrar, 2012: 5). This developing initiative is clearly heralded as the future, as evidenced by the DfE’s (2014a) stated goal of having 600 teaching schools contributing to a school-led self-improving system by March 2016. Such an approach is reflected in other initiatives too, such as the aim to create approximately 30 Mathematics Education Strategic Hubs (MESHs) by 2015. These hubs are designed to provide professional development for mathematics teachers, characterised by school-to-school support and supported by £11 million of DfE funding (NCETM, 2013). The federation of schools was a project designed to raise standards (OFSTED, 2011) and operated on a similar basis. Policies such as these, where the focus is on schools working collaboratively, are welcomed by headteachers, with 87% believing that they contribute to raising student outcomes (NCSL, 2012b).

As the parameters of schools continue to broaden, as characterised by this growing responsibility to support others, and, incidentally, fulfil a larger role in initial teacher training (DfE, 2014a), so an unnegotiable need for school leaders to develop trusting, productive relationships with others develops (Coleman, 2011). It is clear that with such demands, it is unsustainable for top leaders to assume sole responsibility for their school’s leadership and management. Instead, schools must develop leadership capacity among the wider school staff (NCSL, 2012b), an aim with which a model of DLS is congruous (Wenger et al., 2002) as it develops the capacity of staff performance (Dempster, 2009), meaning that they are better equipped to support others.

A fifth distinguishing aspect of education in 2014 is the DfE’s rhetoric around teacher quality, as demonstrated by Michael Gove’s (2013) assertion that ‘we have the best generation of teachers ever in our classrooms’, when in post as Secretary of State for Education. Thus, it seems important to maximise such depth and strength within the current teaching population. A model of DLS could be uniquely well placed to do so through enacting Bush et al.’s (2010) suggestion that individual leaders need to know how to identify and locate expertise within their school for maximum impact. The effective implementation of a DLS model could allow the optimal configuration of leadership roles and responsibilities in schools in order to have a positive impact on school standards. This is perhaps particularly important as it is suggested that a leader’s influence is often only possible through indirect means (Dempster, 2009; Southworth, 2009), so the importance of the practice of staff with more direct influence on children’s learning is heightened.

Conclusion

This article has considered the model of DLS in light of five key characteristics of English primary education in 2014. Overall, DLS seems well suited to the current context, as well as the foreseeable future, of English primary schools and there is a case to be argued that there is a sincere necessity for this model to thrive. Recent changes in the English education system have been fast-paced and unpopular, as demonstrated by the statistic that only 8% of parents judge the Coalition government to have had a positive impact on the education system (NUT and YouGov, 2013). Blower (2012), the General Secretary of the NUT, judges the Coalition government’s dismantling of the education system as extraordinarily damaging, with others summarising the accelerated programme of centralisation as also being destructive (Muir, 2014).

In addition to the five themes within this article, there are other new initiatives that contribute towards the modern façade of primary education. Some are identified as being particularly ruinous, including the gradual undermining of the role of higher education institutions in initial teacher education (Brighouse, 2013) and the curtailment of the requirement for all teachers even to hold a teaching qualification (NASUWT, 2014). The new primary curriculum (DfE, 2013) is also denigrated by some as demanding too much from children who are too young, and ignoring the critical skills of thinking, problem-solving, critical understanding and creativity (Bassey et al., 2013). The combination of these, alongside the five original themes, means that teachers in schools, and their leaders, have an ever-more important role to sustain the profession’s power in challenging times. The protection of children’s learning and teachers’ professionalism is in their hands.

Strong leadership that supports creative approaches to curriculum planning, such as an area-based philosophy (Thomas, 2012), is critical. As an intrinsic element of this approach, embedding learning in the local community ensures that learning is relevant to the children. Preventing the demise of learning to a simple benchmark in order to judge the efficiency of teachers and a return on investment (MacBeath and Dempster, 2009) is essential, and schools must be equipped to do so. It is essential to capitalise on the opportunities given to plan a school curriculum which ensures that children enjoy productive, relevant years at primary school, despite the constraints of the national curriculum, the Year 6 grammar test and the grinding down of teachers’ enthusiasm and energy. Nothing is so important, and DLS seems a sound place to start.

Footnotes

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

References

Alexander

(ed.) (2010) Children, their World, their Education: Final Report and Recommendations of the Cambridge Primary Review. London: Routledge.

Alexander

(2013) Curriculum Freedom, Capacity and Leadership in the Primary School. Nottingham: NCSL.

Bassett

Lyon

Tanner

. (2012) Unleashing the Potential of Academies. London: Reform and The Schools Network.

Bassey

Wrigley

Maguire

. (2013) Letters: Gove will bury pupils in facts and rules. Available at: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/letters/lettersgove-will-bury-pupils-in-facts-and-rules-8540741.html (accessed 2 April 2013).

Beare

Caldwell

Millikan

(1989) Creating an Excellent School: Some New Management Techniques. London, UK: Routledge.

Bell

Bolam

(2009) Teacher professionalism and CPD: Contested concepts and their implications for school leaders. In: Bush

Bell

Middlewood

(eds) The Principles of Educational Leadership and Management. London: Sage.

Bennett

Wise

Woods

. (2003) Distributed Leadership: A Review of Literature. Nottingham: National College for School Leadership.

Blower

(2012) NUT: ‘There is no justification for the systematic dismantling of the English education system’. Available at: http://www.politics.co.uk/opinion-formers/national-union-of-teachers-nut/article/nut-there-is-no-justification-for-the-systematic-dismantling (accessed 30 May 2014).

Brighouse

(2013) Government induced crisis in Initial Teacher Education. Available at: http://www.newvisionsforeducation.org.uk/2013/04/15/government-induced-crisis-in-initial-teacher-education/ (accessed 30 May 2014).

10.

Bush

(1999) Crisis or crossroads? The discipline of educational management in the late 1990s. Educational Management and Administration 27: 239–252.

11.

Bush

(2003) Theories of Educational Management (3rd edn). London: Sage.

12.

Bush

(2007) Educational leadership and management: Theory, policy and practice. South African Journal of Education 27 (3): 391–406.

13.

Bush

Glover

(2003) School leadership: Concepts and evidence. Available at: http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/4904/1/download%3Fid%3D17370%26filename%3Dschool-leadership-concepts-evidence-summary.pdf (accessed 15 May 2014).

14.

Bush

Bell

Middlewood

(eds) (2009) The Principles of Educational Leadership and Management. London: Sage.

15.

Bush

Bell

Middlewood

(eds) (2010) The Principles of Educational Leadership and Management (2nd edn). London: Sage.

16.

Chapman

Lindsay

Muijs

. (2010) Governance, leadership and management in federations of schools. School Effectiveness and School Improvement 22 (1): 53–75.

17.

Coleman

(2011) The significance of trust in school-based collaborative leadership. International Journal of Leadership in Education 15 (1): 79–106.

18.

ComRes (2013) Teachers’ Satisfaction and Wellbeing in the Workplace. London: NASUWT.

19.

Cuban

(1988) The Managerial Imperative and the Practice of Leadership in Schools. New York, NY: State University of New York Press.

20.

Dempster

(2009) What do we know about leadership? In: MacBeath

Dempster

(eds) Connecting Leadership and Learning; Principles for Practice. Oxon: Routledge, pp. 20–31.

21.

DfE (Department for Education) (2010) The Importance of Teaching. Norwich: TSO.

22.

DfE (2013) National curriculum in England: Primary curriculum. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-curriculum-in-england-primary-curriculum (accessed 5 June 2014).

23.

DfE (2014a) Teaching schools: A guide for potential applicants. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/teaching-schools-a-guide-for-potential-applicants (accessed 20 May 2014).

24.

DfE (2014b) National curriculum and assessment from September 2014: Information for schools. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/300743/NC_assessment_accountability_quals_factsheet_Mar_2014__010414_.pdf (accessed 29 May 2014).

25.

DfE (2014c) Reforming assessment and accountability for primary schools: Government response to consultation on primary school assessment and accountability. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/297595/Primary_Accountability_and_Assessment_Consultation_Response.pdf (accessed 1 October 2014).

26.

DfE (2014d) Types of school. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/types-of-school/academies (accessed 26 August 2014).

27.

Dunford

(2007) School leadership, the challenges being faced by English secondary schools. Centre for Strategic Education Seminar Series 168, Centre for Strategic Education.

28.

Earley

Evans

Collarbone

. (2002) Establishing the Current State of School Leadership in England. London: DFES.

29.

Farrar

(2012) Foreword from Interim Chief Executive of the National College of School Leadership) for the ‘Review of the School Leadership Landscape’. Nottingham: NCSL.

30.

Forrester

Gunter

(2009) School leaders: Meeting the challenge of change. In: Chapman

Gunter

(eds) Radical Reforms: Perspectives on an Era of Educational Change. Oxford: Routledge.

31.

Glatter

(1999) From struggling to juggling: Towards a redefinition of the field of educational leadership. Educational Management and Administration 27(3): 253–266.

32.

Gove

(2013) Speech: The importance of teaching. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/michael-gove-speaks-about-the-importance-of-teaching (accessed 15 May 2014).

33.

Grint

(2005) Leadership: Limits and Possibilities. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

34.

Grint

(2011) A history of leadership. In: Bryman

Collinson

Grint

. (eds) The Sage Handbook of Leadership. London: Sage, pp. 437–454.

35.

Gronn

(2010) Where to next for educational leadership? In: Bush

Bell

Middlewood

(eds) The Principles of Educational Leadership and Management (2nd edn). London: Sage, pp. 70–85.

36.

Gronn

(2011) Hybrid configurations of leadership. In: Bryman

Collinson

Grint

. (eds) Sage Handbook of Leadership. London: Sage, pp. 435–452.

37.

Gunter

(2005) Conceptualizing research in educational leadership. Educational Management Administration and Leadership 33(2): 165–180.

38.

Hammersley-Fletcher

Kirkham

(2007) Middle leadership in communities of primary school practice: Distribution or deception? School Leadership and Management 27(5): 423–435.

39.

Hammersley-Fletcher

Strain

(2011) Power, agency and middle leadership in English primary schools. British Educational Research Journal 37(5): 871–884.

40.

Harris

(2008) Distributed leadership through the looking glass. Journal of Education Administration 46(2): 1–3.

41.

Harris

(2009) Distributed leadership: Evidence and implications In: Bush

Bell

Middlewood

(eds) The Principles of Educational Leadership and Management (2nd edn). London: Sage, pp. 55–69.

42.

Harris

(2011) System improvement through collective capacity building. Journal of Education Administration 49(6): 624–636.

43.

Harris

(2013) Distributed leadership: Friend or foe? Educational Management Administration and Leadership 41(5): 545–554.

44.

Harris

Spillane

(2008) Distributed leadership through the looking glass. Management in Education 22(1): 31–34.

45.

Hartley

(2007) The emergence of distributed leadership in education: Why now? British Journal of Education Studies 55(2): 202–214.

46.

DCW

(2010) Leadership for school improvement: Exploring factors and practices in the process of curriculum change. Early Education and Development 22(2): 263–284.

47.

Hobby

(2013) Schools ‘struggling to recruit head teachers’. Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-22554938 (accessed 3 October 2014).

48.

Hobby

(2014) Headteachers’ union leader: Pushy parents are fuelling recruitment crisis. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/mar/02/headteachers-pushy-parents-recruitment-crisis-schools-naht (accessed 3 October 2014).

49.

Howson

(2014) School Direct failing to tackle teacher shortages, report warns. Available at: http://news.tes.co.uk/b/news/2014/09/25/school-direct-fails-to-tackle-teacher-shortage.aspx (accessed 1 October 2014).

50.

Hoyle

Wallace

(2005) Educational Leadership: Ambiguity, Professionals and Managerialism. London: Sage.

51.

Keates

(2012) Ofsted chief: Two-fifths of teachers quitting within five years is ‘scandal’. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/jan/15/ofsted-chief-teachers-quitting-scandal (accessed 15 May 2014).

52.

Keates

(2013) Survey shows that nearly half of teachers have seriously considered leaving the teaching profession in the last 12 months. Available at: http://www.nasuwt.org.uk/Whatsnew/NASUWTNews/PressReleases/ComResPoll (accessed 15 May 2014).

53.

Larkin

(2014) A message from Gail Larkin, the incoming President of the NAHT. Available at: http://www.naht.org.uk/welcome/naht-events/conferences/annual-conference-2014/ (accessed 13 May 2014).

54.

Leverett

(2002) Distributive leadership to foster equity. National Clearinghouse for Comprehensive School Reform (NCCSR) Newsletter 3(7).

55.

MacBeath

Dempster

(2009) Connecting Leadership and Learning: Principles for Practice. Oxon: Routledge.

56.

Miller

Bentley

(2002) ‘Unique Creation’ Possible Futures: Four Scenarios for 21st Century Schooling. Nottingham: NCSL.

57.

Muir

(2014) We need Directors of Schools Standards to Make Academies Work for All. Available at: http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/04/we-need-directors-schools-standards-make-academies-work-all (accessed 16 March 2015)

58.

Nash

(2014) Lord Nash speaks about unlocking the power of academies. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/lord-nash-speaks-about-unlocking-the-power-of-academies (accessed 1 October 2014).

59.

National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teacher (NASUWT) (2014) Local delegates voice concern about the numbers of unqualified teachers. Available at: http://www.eadt.co.uk/news/local_delegates_voice_concern_about_the_numbers_of_unqualified_teachers_1_3566240 (accessed 30 May 2014).

60.

NCETM (2013) NCETM to lead new initiative to raise maths standards in schools and colleges. Available at:https://www.ncetm.org.uk/news/43329 (accessed 20 May 2014).

61.

NCSL (no date) Leadership succession: An overview – Securing the next generation of school leaders. Nottingham: NCSL.

62.

NCSL (National College for School Leadership) (2004) Distributed leadership: Action pack. Available at: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140719134807/http://www.nationalcollege.org.uk/distributed-leadership-action-pack.pdf

63.

NCSL (2006) Leadership Succession: An Overview. Nottingham, UK: NCSL.

64.

NCSL (2012a) A guide to recruiting and selecting a new headteacher. Nottingham: NCSL.

65.

NCSL (2012b) Review of the School Leadership Landscape. Available at: http://www.ioe.ac.uk/Review_of_School_Leadership_landscape_2012_Dec.pdf (accessed 5 June 2014).

66.

NUT (2014) Stand up for education. Available at: http://www.teachers.org.uk/campaigns/protect-teachers (accessed 5 June 2014).

67.

NUT and YouGov (2013) NUT/YouGov survey: Parents express confidence in teachers but no confidence in government education policies. Available at: http://www.teachers.org.uk/node/17949 (accessed 30 May 2014).

68.

OFSTED (Office for Standards in Education) (2003) Leadership and Management: What Inspection Tells Us. London: OFSTED.

69.

OFSTED (2008) Curricular innovation in schools. Available at: file:///C:/Users/rg28/Downloads/Curriculum%20Innovation%20in%20schools%20(1).pdf (accessed 5 June 2014).

70.

OFSTED (2011) Federated schools see improved outcomes – OFSTED. Available at: http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/news/federated-schools-see-improved-outcomes-ofsted (accessed 20 May 2014).

71.

OFSTED (2014) The Framework for School Inspection. Manchester: OFSTED.

72.

O’Gorman

Hard

(2013) Looking back and looking forward: Exploring distributed leadership with Queensland prep teachers. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood 38(3): 77–84.

73.

Pedler

Burgoyne

Boydell

(2004) A Manager’s Guide to Leadership. Berkshire: McGraw Hill.

74.

PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC) (2007) Independent Study into School Leadership. London: Department for Education and Skills.

75.

Robertson

(1996) Teachers’ work, restructuring and post-Fordism: Constructing the new ‘professionalism’. In: Goodson

Hargreaves

(eds) Teachers’ Professional Lives. Oxon: Routledge.

76.

Robinson

VMJ

(2008) Forging the links between distributed leadership and educational outcomes. Journal of Educational Administration 46(2): 241–256.

77.

Shamir

(1999) Leadership in boundaryless organizations: Disposable or indispensable? European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 8(1): 49–71.

78.

Shepherd

(2013) Teachers union passes vote of no confidence in Michael Gove. The Guardian, 25 March. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/mar/25/teachers-vote-no-confidence-michael-gove?INTCMP=SRCH&guni=Article:in%20body%20link (accessed 30 May 2014).

79.

Southworth

(2009) Learning-centred leadership. In: Davies

(ed.) The Essentials of School Leadership (2nd edn). London: Sage Publications, pp. 91–111.

80.

Spillane

(2006) Distributed Leadership. California, CA: Jossey-Bass.

81.

Starratt

(2001) Democratic leadership theory in late modernity: An oxymoron or ironic possibility? International Journal of Leadership in Education 4(4): 333–352.

82.

Taylor

(2014) School Direct reforms caused ‘instability and turbulence’, admits teacher training chief. Available at: http://news.tes.co.uk/b/news/2014/04/01/government-moves-to-limit-destabilising-effect-of-school-direct-on-universities.aspx (accessed 1 October 2014).

83.

Thomas

(2012) Rethinking the importance of teaching: Curriculum and collaboration in an era of localism. Available at: http://www.thersa.org/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/570716/RSA-Re-thinking-the-importance-of-teaching.pdf (accessed 25 March 2013).

84.

Torrance

(2009) Distributed leadership in Scottish schools: Perspectives from participants recently completing the revised Scottish Qualification for Headship Programme. Management in Education 23(2): 63–70.

85.

Trowler

(2003) Education Policy (2nd edn). London: Routledge.

86.

Wenger

McDermott

Snyder

(2002) Cultivating Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

87.

Wilshaw

88.

Wilson

(2014) Closing the Gap with the New Primary National Curriculum. Nottingham: NCTL.

89.

Youngs

(2009) (Un)Critical times? Situating distributed leadership in the field. Journal of Educational Administrations and History 41(4): 377–389.

90.

Youngs

(2013) Distributed leadership – The complexity of distributed forms of leadership in practice. Available at: http://nzli.co.nz/file/Conference/Presentations/the-complexity-of-distributed-forms-of-leadership-in-practice.pdf (accessed 5 June 2014).

91.

Yukl

(2002) Leadership in Organizations (5th edn). New Jersey, NJ: Prentice-Hall.