De-mystifying the 'Cinderella' leadership model: Premia in the practice of curriculum leadership

Curriculum leadership: A synthesis of concepts

The term curriculum leadership has emerged as ideationally ambiguous in the literature, primarily because the fields of educational leadership and curriculum have been theorised separately, with limited follow-up emphasis on conceptual synthesis (Uljens and Ylimaki, 2017). While over a century of research attention has not produced consensus on ‘how the two fields can optimally serve and complete one another’ (Bogotch et al., 2017: 304), the current discourse offers theoretical markers for possible trajectories of investigation. Uljens (2024: 180) proposes that while curriculum leadership is a much ‘narrower concept’ than other leadership formulations, it can be undertaken by a broader gamut of actors at, at least, three levels:

The macrolevel – policy makers, curriculum specialists and advisory committees at national level, exercising influence on the curriculum design process;

While the ‘multilevel mediation’ of curriculum leadership has also been acknowledged elsewhere (Mäkiharju and Hilli, 2024: 5), this article is focused on microlevel contexts only. At this level, instructional leadership and teacher leadership are germane to the exploration because it has been observed that the lack of research attention to curriculum leadership may be attributable to their overlap with it (Harris et al., 2020).

Instructional leadership is principally concerned with improving teaching and learning (Shaked, 2024) – since both of these activities are deeply interconnected with curriculum (Moore, 2012), it is not unexpected that the lines between instructional leadership and curriculum leadership have become blurred. But, the ad hoc blurring of boundaries should be tempered by noting that the extant body of scholarship on instructional leadership has tended to centralise the principal in terms of who enacts it (Hallinger, 2003; Hallinger et al., 2020), to the point that Neumerski (2013: 314) suggests that principal leadership and instructional leadership have become ‘synonymous’. However, interpreting instructional leadership through this positional lens may be influenced by the dominance of North American perspectives in the scholarship historically (Bush, 2023; Hallinger and Kovačević, 2019), which narrowly grounds instructional leadership on the technical aspects of teaching and learning (Bush, 2015). In the last decade, research from other parts of the world, in particular Asia, has shifted the discourse on instructional leadership toward a more distributed approach that emphasises relationships and influence in leadership for learning (Ng Foo Seong, 2019). Bush (2023) suggests that this theoretical coupling of leadership and learning can also be referred to as pedagogical leadership, seemingly alluding to a broader understanding of instructional work which underscores the role that those other than the principal can have in it. This broader approach accords with the OECD's (2017: 42) promotion of the ‘pedagogical core’ of the school and ‘learning leadership’, which emphasises the school dynamics and relationships that impact learner experiences. While curriculum enactment can be seen to be encapsulated within this core (Paniagua and Istance, 2018), it would appear to be a subset of it rather than encompassing it entirely. What is clear though, is that the historical preoccupation with the principal being the instructional leader has evolved to include individuals at multiple levels who can provide instructional leadership. This spotlights the role of teachers.

Teacher leadership assumes a key role for teachers in curriculum enactment (Harris et al., 2020) and in ‘the core functions of teaching and learning’ (York-Barr and Duke, 2004: 255). It is recognised internationally as an ‘essential starting point’ for schools of the future, including in relation to curriculum innovation (OECD, 2023: 32) and the design of effective learning environments (Paniagua and Istance, 2018). For example, in Singapore, teacher leaders demonstrate to colleagues how ‘to customise and adapt the curriculum to help…in responding to students’ needs’ (OECD, 2024: 85) – reinforcing the connection between curriculum and pedagogy, and the teacher's epistemic role in forging the nexus. In their systematic literature review of teacher leadership, which replicated and extended York-Barr and Duke's (2004) seminal work, Wenner and Campbell (2017) deduce teacher leadership as general influence that goes beyond individual classrooms – although the narrowness of this definitional criterion is contested by Nguyen et al. (2019: 61) who conceive it as also enactable within classrooms. While teacher leaders often assume roles as curriculum leaders (Cheung and Yuen, 2016), teacher leadership also transcends curriculum leadership and encompasses influence over policy-making and decision-making more broadly (Wenner and Campbell, 2017).

Building on these analyses, curriculum leadership emerges as a concept that intersects with both teacher leadership and instructional leadership, yet does not fully align with either. Rather, it encompasses distinct elements of each role, occupying a specific, yet partial, dimension within both models. Figure 1 provides a simplified, non-comprehensive visual, for conceptual purposes only, to illustrate where the overlap might be and to aid in defining what curriculum leadership is, at school-level. The overlap is likely closer to the pedagogical functions of instructional and teacher leadership, rather than the managerial or organisational functions, but is not limited only to pedagogy.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Relationship between curriculum leadership and instructional/teacher leadership.

Towards a definition of curriculum leadership

Curriculum leadership is narrow (Uljens, 2024), with a restricted focus, primarily referring to the methods, content and aims of schooling (Mäkiharju and Hilli, 2024) and how they are mediated through curriculum. Often, it involves critical reflection in balancing teaching pedagogies and disciplinary knowledge with learners’ needs (Uhlenwinkel et al., 2017), and in this way, can be framed as a form of praxis (Bogotch et al., 2017). Taking into consideration that leadership is often construed as influence (Yukl, 2013), curriculum leadership can be understood as exerting influence over what and how curriculum is enacted. Since influence is inherently interpersonal and relational (Burak and Bashshur, 2013; Haslam et al., 2020), this suggests that it relies on a collaborative approach (Harris, 2011; Hauge et al., 2014; Spillane et al., 2015). Crucially though, collaboration in schools is a phenomenon that has to be facilitated or enabled (Moynihan and O’Donovan, 2021) and, sometimes, the curriculum expertise of those who are not in principalships is underutilised (Tapala et al., 2021). In light of this, conceptualisations of curriculum leadership should, at least, be ‘receptive to the idea of bottom-up’ manifestations (Ho, 2010). Developing that analysis, Mäkiharju and Hilli (2024: 5) particularise curriculum leadership as dynamic and ‘processual’ (Mäkiharju and Hilli, 2024: 5), with any teacher capable of exercising it, regardless of whether they are a formal leader or not (DeMatthews, 2014; Shan and Chen, 2022). Indeed, a reassertion of the notion of the ‘teacher as a curriculum leader’ is fundamental in reclaiming the essence of teacher professionalism (Mitchell et al., 2022: 169), which the standards-based education policy trend has somewhat diminished (Sachs, 2016). While principals may have ‘mediational functions’ over how teacher curriculum leadership (Law et al., 2010: 301) or ‘collective’ curriculum leadership (Ritchie et al., 2007: 151) or ‘community’ curriculum leadership (Traver-Martí et al., 2021: 568) is enacted, the evidence illustrates that coordinating curriculum receives less principal attention than other aspects of their role (Gomiole et al., 2024).

Study context

To investigate how curriculum leadership operates across different positional levels in schools, this inquiry utilised the Stay Safe programme as a research probe. Stay Safe is a child safety education programme (MacIntyre and Lawlor, 2016) that is mandatory for every primary and special school in the Republic of Ireland. It is split over four levels to cater for learners between the ages of 4 and 12, and sits within the Social, Personal and Health Education (SPHE) curriculum in the Irish context. Although Stay Safe aspires to cater for the ‘wide diversity of learners and learning styles’ in all schools, it embraces the fact that some learners may need more ‘targeted individual adaptations’ (MacIntyre and Lawlor, 2016: 3). However, ambiguity exists on how to negotiate these adaptations for learners with general learning disabilities, in the context of a mandatory framework that requires the programme's ‘implementation’ (Government of Ireland, 2019: 20), and offers no guidance on the level of adaptation permissible. Calibrating this level can cause interpretative tension between principals, on the one hand, who have to ensure maximum compliance with policy guidelines, and teachers, on the other hand, who are faced with the reality of many learners not being able to access key learning at the classroom coalface (Morrissey, 2021). These conditions made Stay Safe the ideal instrument for interrogating how different levels of leadership influence enactment. Three special schools for learners with general learning disabilities were selected as cases. There were four units within each case:

Examination of the school's SPHE curriculum policy

Sampling procedure

A two-stage sampling procedure was employed. The first stage identified the cases (schools) for examination; the second stage identified the units (participants) outlined at points C and D above.

Stage 2

When the three schools were selected, snowball sampling was employed to identify the curriculum coordinator and the teachers. In practice, this meant each principal approaching the curriculum coordinator and inviting them to participate. The principal was also required to approach three or four teachers with experience of enacting the curriculum under investigation and invite them to participate. Where prospective participants indicated an interest, their contact details were provided to the researcher. The researcher then made direct contact with these prospective participants, providing detail on the project and what participation would mean for them. This yielded three (n = 3) curriculum coordinators (one from each school) and ten (n = 10) teachers. In total, there were sixteen participants (n = 16) across the three research sites (n = 3), all of whom were registered teachers with the Teaching Council of Ireland. Participation was on the basis of informed consent; participants could withdraw from the study at any time and assurances of confidentiality were provided. All data were fully anonymised in the research write-up. To maximise confidentiality, where necessary, certain information provided by participants was removed from the dataset altogether, where it could potentially have identified the participant or the school. Additionally, since this research focused on three special schools for learners with general learning disabilities (a specific subset of schools within an already small pool), the reportage of demographic details has been minimised, to further mitigate the risk. In any event, the most important demographic information, for the purposes of this paper, is the positional role occupied by each participant, because the focus was on probing how curriculum leadership was enacted at different levels. This information is outlined in Table 1, together with the identifiers used to report the data in this paper.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Overview of participants.

Role	Identifier	Gender
School A
Principal	P.A	Female
Curriculum coordinator	C.A	Female
Focus group participants (n = 4)	T.A1	Female
	T.A2	Male
	T.A3	Male
	T.A4	Male
School B
Principal	P.B	Male
Coordinator	C.B	Male
Focus group participants (n = 3)	T.B1	Female
	T.B2	Female
	T.B3	Female
School C
Principal	P.C	Female
Curriculum coordinator	C.C	Female
Focus group participants (n = 3)	T.C1	Female
	T.C2	Female
	T.C3	Female

Interview procedures

All semi-structured interviews and focus groups took place online via Zoom, were audio-recorded only and then transcribed verbatim. Zoom has repeatedly been shown as an effective medium for conducting research interviews and focus groups (Archibald et al., 2019; Gray et al., 2020) – including with vulnerable groups (Lim and Kaveri, 2024). It enabled participants to engage with this study remotely, in some cases from their homes, which Oliffe et al. (2021: 3) argue brings ‘therapeutic value’ and comfort to participants, stimulating them to talk more freely, thereby enriching the data corpus. This was important in circumstances where participants may have been speaking about issues that arose in their schools. Each interview lasted approximately 60 minutes, while each focus group was approximately 90 minutes in duration. Audio recordings were retained until transcription was completed and then destroyed.

Data treatment and analysis

Before conducting interviews and focus groups, each case school's SPHE curriculum policy was preliminarily screened to identify salient issues that might need to be probed further with participants. This screening provided signposts as to how teachers engaged with the curriculum in each school and frequently identified the curricular roles/tasks that different levels of personnel undertook. Data emerging from the screening informed the subsequent development of interview and focus group schedules, ensuring that questions were targeted towards critical aspects of curriculum leadership. The policy documents and transcriptions were then coded using NVivo software, facilitating the identification of patterns and themes, which were then used to address the core research question. Braun and Clarke's (2021) widely used step-by-step guide for thematic analysis was employed to structure the analytical procedure.

The deputy principal

In all three schools the deputy principal (DP) emerged as highly influential over the curriculum – on both the principal and the teachers. The DP provided credibility to the principal when they wanted to introduce curricular change:

…if it was me on my own, I would have to be asking teachers … to pilot this for me because I'm not in a classroom. Where the deputy was able to … do that as a natural part of classroom routine…. I think this is why it's important to have the DP who is a practitioner in the classroom, leading it in many ways, with me, because they can say you know ‘I’m finding it easier in my planning’, because if it's just me here in the office they’ll say ‘it's alright for you up there in the office’ (P.C).

The curriculum coordinator

In School B, the SPHE coordinator was not the DP, unlike the other two case schools; instead, they occupied an assistant principal post on the ISM team. It is difficult to quantify the extent to which this more reduced management status impacted on how the role of curriculum coordinator was undertaken. The role appeared to have reduced visibility, with some participants in the focus group not fully sure who the curriculum coordinator was. This may have been linked to the fact that the current coordinator was only in the role for 6 months. There was also a sense that the coordinator did not have a leadership role because they were not someone who interacted with classes beyond the senior side of the school where they were teaching. This contrasted starkly with the curriculum coordinator in School A, who was also a teacher in the senior end, but whose influence, visibility and authority were readily apparent across the full span of classes. Since the curriculum coordinators in School A and School C were DPs, they met with the principal on a regular basis – their relationships were ‘underpinned by professional conversations’ (C.A). These relationships provided them with more access to ‘link with the principal’ (C.C) around curricular ideas that they wanted to progress. In School B the curriculum coordinator had no regular formal access to the principal, beyond discussion at ISM meetings. Instead, their role revolved around:

Organising resources

While the curriculum coordinators in the other two schools also completed these tasks, they additionally had a significant role in how the curriculum was enacted in classrooms. The curriculum coordinator in School B did indicate, however, that the person occupying the role prior to them ‘developed his own programmes’ (C.B) for the school – suggesting that time-in-role might impact how curriculum leadership can potentially be undertaken. Despite more influence appearing to accrue with more managerial status, there was still space for unpromoted teachers to exert influence.

Classroom-level leadership

Teachers asserted that their classroom role in differentiating the curriculum and managing the pupils and other adults in relation to its enactment, was tantamount to a significant leadership role. This often involved accepting and rejecting suggestions for how the curriculum should be enacted and deploying special needs assistants (SNAs) in a targeted way to support its enactment:

I have three SNAs…. So I think really the leadership role comes in here saying ‘okay guys, this is what we're doing today, this is how we're doing it, this is the language that needs to be used around it, or this is the topic for this week’ (T.A3).

Leadership as influence through accumulated teaching experience

A premium was placed by all participants on experience in special education. Teachers with this experience were seen to bring value to the curricular decision-making process, were seen to know what approaches worked best for learners with learning disabilities and were highly influential towards their less-experienced colleagues:

…it would be foolish of me … if I didn't go and consult or seek advice … from people that are here 25 or 30 years…. You'd be very foolish not to take advantage of the experience that is here and built up over many years (C.B).

Guiding influence: Principals shaping curriculum leadership

This research demonstrated that those within the formal school management structure could exercise more influence over how curriculum is enacted – although some chose not to exercise it. In School A, where the principal exercised considerable control over the curriculum, the adaptation engaged in by teachers was buttressed by professional learning – because the principal insisted on this. This professional learning conceivably raised the likelihood of any resultant curriculum adaptation being more robustly informed. This arguably vindicates the assertion that leadership from above can improve the expertise and agency of unpromoted teachers (Darling-Hammond and McLaughlin, 2011; King, 2011). There was evidence in at least one of the case schools (School C) that, on some occasions, the principal was unable to make the ‘shift’ (Harris, 2012:) and let go of leadership when it came to making significant curricular decisions – a crucial characteristic of authentic distributed leadership (Hairon and Goh, 2015; Lumby, 2016). While this principal articulated that teacher voices had been captured, in reality these voices were corralled in the direction of the decision that the principal had already made. While the actions of the principal were informed by professional learning they had undertaken, teachers were simply following direction, acting as ‘technicians carrying out someone else's policy’ unbeknownst to themselves (Priestley et al., 2011: 269) – pointing, perhaps, to the possible presence of the ‘dark side of distributed leadership’ (Harris and DeFlaminis, 2016: 143), in relation to curriculum. So, while there was an awareness of the importance of teacher voices, in certain scenarios those voices were not actively listened to.

The principal premium

The formal positional status of the principals enabled them to exercise more influence over how the curriculum was enacted, in line with what the broader body of scholarship has established in respect of the power attached to the role (Bush, 2018; King and Stevenson, 2017; Lumby, 2016). The principal could cultivate and curtail teacher leadership depending on the organisational culture that they promoted in the school – with curtailment potentially limiting the impact of bottom-up influences on curriculum leadership (Ho, 2010). Curiously, this research also established that positional proximity to the principal also increased influence. For example, both of the curriculum coordinators who were deputy principals (School A and School C) had far more influence over how the curriculum was enacted, than the SPHE coordinator who was lower on the management hierarchy, as an assistant principal. This reinforces the notion that some curriculum coordinators or department heads may be underutilised in curriculum leadership (Tapala et al., 2021). The assistant principal had to rely on their own teacher leadership exercised through collaboration and brokerage (Harris, 2012) with colleagues on the ISM team to influence curriculum enactment. The positional closeness of the DPs to the principal on the management hierarchy brought access to the fulcrum of school power; this access brought influence over whole-school curricular policy-making. Depending on the culture and structures established in the school, teachers could also exercise some influence, with those most experienced exerting the most influence.

The experience premium

The more years’ experience teachers had in special education, the more curricular credibility it provided them with. This accords strongly with Shawer's (2010) suggestion that the more experience a teacher has, the more likely they are to adapt or change the curriculum entirely. The accrued credibility of experienced teachers brought influence among colleagues in terms of curriculum enactment at classroom-level, although generally it was mediated informally, in an unstructured manner. This may be due to the teachers’ lack of a management role and protected time within their workloads to engage in formal conversations about curriculum, lending support to arguments made elsewhere in relation to curriculum leadership barriers (Cheung and Yuen, 2016). The informal mediation rendered it a slightly weaker force of influence than the leadership exercised by those with ‘positional authority’ (MacBeath et al., 2018: 90). Nevertheless, it does underscore how experienced teacher leaders can utilise ‘horizontal’ relationships to channel their leadership potential over the curriculum (York-Barr et al., 2005: 211), by adopting dialogic approaches (Nazareno, 2013). A point to note about the overlap between premia, however, is that many of those in positional authority here were also very experienced in the special education domain. Thus, disentangling the influence accruing because of their experience and the influence accruing because of their positional authority is difficult. It will be up to future research to determine whether an inexperienced principal can leverage the same influence over curricula as the principals taking part in this study.