分布式领导:政策与实践的规范理论

IF 2.7 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
T. Bush
{"title":"分布式领导:政策与实践的规范理论","authors":"T. Bush","doi":"10.1177/17411432231168115","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"As I noted in my previous editorial, distributed leadership has become the most popular model, judging by the number of manuscripts submitted to this journal. The model is essentially normative, based around beliefs, held by some policymakers and practitioners, that it is an appropriate way to lead and manage schools. I have become aware of its traction in societies as different as Japan and Spain, as an outcome of recent visits to Tokyo and Madrid. Distribution has powerful emotional appeal, as it seems to promise scope for teacher participation in goal setting and decision making. However, in practice, it may be just a ‘cover’ for delegation, to reduce principals’ workloads. Two versions of distribution are evident in the literature, emergent and allocative (Bush and Ng, 2019) but theorising about this model requires some fresh thinking. Meng Ting and Graham Nutbrown contribute to this process through their article, retheorising distributed leadership through epistemic injustice. They define epistemic injustice as a form of discrimination. They identify five ‘prominent models’ of distributed leadership; leader-plus, practicecentred, socio-cultural, school improvement and knowledge-power. Listing these five models shows the wide range of expectations and theorising of distribution, allowing scholars, policymakers and practitioners to find support for almost any approach deploying this model. They note Lumby’s (2019) comment about ‘leadership mythology’ disguising abuse of power. They advocate three approaches to address this issue, building trust, redistributing epistemic resources, and reconfiguring relational injustice. Another popular model is instructional leadership, shown by Robinson et al. (2008) to have the most impact on student outcomes of any leadership model. John James Juma and his colleagues examine the impact of this model in Kenyan secondary schools. Although there are various approaches to instructional leadership, the authors choose to focus on its controlling function, defined as monitoring, evaluation and supervision of educational achievements. These control aspects often dominate empowerment dimensions, such as modelling and mentoring (Bush, 2013), but a balanced approach is required to maximise the impact of this model. The authors surveyed the principals and 4 teachers from 41 schools in Rangwe Sub County, a total of 205 participants. Their findings show the prevalence of controlling function of instructional leadership but they note that staff development also influenced student outcomes. Lei Mee Thien and her colleagues also examine instructional leadership, linked to teacher professional learning, in Malaysian schools. The government’s focus on professional learning arises in part from Malaysia’s disappointing performance in international comparative studies, including the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). The authors surveyed 400 teachers in Penang, based on convenience sampling. They found that principal instructional leadership had no significant direct effect but there was an indirect effect through teachers’ trust in the principal and self-efficacy on teacher professional learning. Editorial","PeriodicalId":47885,"journal":{"name":"Educational Management Administration & Leadership","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Distributed leadership: A normative theory for policy and practice\",\"authors\":\"T. Bush\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/17411432231168115\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"As I noted in my previous editorial, distributed leadership has become the most popular model, judging by the number of manuscripts submitted to this journal. The model is essentially normative, based around beliefs, held by some policymakers and practitioners, that it is an appropriate way to lead and manage schools. I have become aware of its traction in societies as different as Japan and Spain, as an outcome of recent visits to Tokyo and Madrid. Distribution has powerful emotional appeal, as it seems to promise scope for teacher participation in goal setting and decision making. However, in practice, it may be just a ‘cover’ for delegation, to reduce principals’ workloads. Two versions of distribution are evident in the literature, emergent and allocative (Bush and Ng, 2019) but theorising about this model requires some fresh thinking. Meng Ting and Graham Nutbrown contribute to this process through their article, retheorising distributed leadership through epistemic injustice. They define epistemic injustice as a form of discrimination. They identify five ‘prominent models’ of distributed leadership; leader-plus, practicecentred, socio-cultural, school improvement and knowledge-power. Listing these five models shows the wide range of expectations and theorising of distribution, allowing scholars, policymakers and practitioners to find support for almost any approach deploying this model. They note Lumby’s (2019) comment about ‘leadership mythology’ disguising abuse of power. They advocate three approaches to address this issue, building trust, redistributing epistemic resources, and reconfiguring relational injustice. Another popular model is instructional leadership, shown by Robinson et al. (2008) to have the most impact on student outcomes of any leadership model. John James Juma and his colleagues examine the impact of this model in Kenyan secondary schools. Although there are various approaches to instructional leadership, the authors choose to focus on its controlling function, defined as monitoring, evaluation and supervision of educational achievements. These control aspects often dominate empowerment dimensions, such as modelling and mentoring (Bush, 2013), but a balanced approach is required to maximise the impact of this model. The authors surveyed the principals and 4 teachers from 41 schools in Rangwe Sub County, a total of 205 participants. Their findings show the prevalence of controlling function of instructional leadership but they note that staff development also influenced student outcomes. Lei Mee Thien and her colleagues also examine instructional leadership, linked to teacher professional learning, in Malaysian schools. The government’s focus on professional learning arises in part from Malaysia’s disappointing performance in international comparative studies, including the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). The authors surveyed 400 teachers in Penang, based on convenience sampling. They found that principal instructional leadership had no significant direct effect but there was an indirect effect through teachers’ trust in the principal and self-efficacy on teacher professional learning. Editorial\",\"PeriodicalId\":47885,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Educational Management Administration & Leadership\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Educational Management Administration & Leadership\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/17411432231168115\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Educational Management Administration & Leadership","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17411432231168115","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

正如我在之前的社论中指出的那样,从提交给本杂志的手稿数量来看,分布式领导已经成为最流行的模式。该模式本质上是规范性的,基于一些政策制定者和实践者所持有的信念,即这是领导和管理学校的适当方式。由于最近访问了东京和马德里,我已经意识到它在日本和西班牙等不同社会的吸引力。分配具有强大的情感吸引力,因为它似乎为教师参与目标设定和决策提供了空间。然而,在实践中,这可能只是委派的一个“幌子”,以减少负责人的工作量。在文献中有两个版本的分布是显而易见的,紧急和分配(Bush和Ng, 2019),但理论化这个模型需要一些新的思考。孟婷(Meng Ting)和格雷厄姆•努特布朗(Graham Nutbrown)通过他们的文章对这一过程做出了贡献,他们通过认识上的不公正重新理论了分布式领导。他们把认识上的不公正定义为一种歧视。他们确定了分布式领导的五种“突出模式”;领导+,以实践为中心,社会文化,学校改进和知识力量。列出这五个模型显示了对分布的广泛期望和理论化,使学者、政策制定者和实践者能够为部署该模型的几乎任何方法找到支持。他们注意到Lumby(2019)关于“领导神话”掩盖权力滥用的评论。他们提倡三种方法来解决这个问题:建立信任,重新分配知识资源,重新配置关系不公正。另一种流行的模式是指导性领导,Robinson等人(2008)表明,在所有领导模式中,指导性领导对学生成绩的影响最大。约翰·詹姆斯·朱马和他的同事研究了这种模式对肯尼亚中学的影响。虽然教学领导的研究方法多种多样,但笔者选择关注其控制功能,将其定义为对教育成果的监测、评价和监督。这些控制方面通常主导授权维度,如建模和指导(Bush, 2013),但需要一种平衡的方法来最大化该模型的影响。作者调查了Rangwe Sub县41所学校的校长和4名教师,共205名参与者。他们的研究结果表明,教学领导的控制功能普遍存在,但他们注意到,员工发展也会影响学生的成绩。Lei Mee Thien和她的同事还研究了马来西亚学校中与教师专业学习相关的教学领导力。政府对专业学习的关注部分源于马来西亚在国际比较研究方面令人失望的表现,包括国际学生评估项目(PISA)。作者在槟城调查了400名教师,基于方便抽样。研究发现,校长教学领导对教师专业学习的直接影响不显著,但教师对校长的信任和自我效能感对教师专业学习有间接影响。编辑
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Distributed leadership: A normative theory for policy and practice
As I noted in my previous editorial, distributed leadership has become the most popular model, judging by the number of manuscripts submitted to this journal. The model is essentially normative, based around beliefs, held by some policymakers and practitioners, that it is an appropriate way to lead and manage schools. I have become aware of its traction in societies as different as Japan and Spain, as an outcome of recent visits to Tokyo and Madrid. Distribution has powerful emotional appeal, as it seems to promise scope for teacher participation in goal setting and decision making. However, in practice, it may be just a ‘cover’ for delegation, to reduce principals’ workloads. Two versions of distribution are evident in the literature, emergent and allocative (Bush and Ng, 2019) but theorising about this model requires some fresh thinking. Meng Ting and Graham Nutbrown contribute to this process through their article, retheorising distributed leadership through epistemic injustice. They define epistemic injustice as a form of discrimination. They identify five ‘prominent models’ of distributed leadership; leader-plus, practicecentred, socio-cultural, school improvement and knowledge-power. Listing these five models shows the wide range of expectations and theorising of distribution, allowing scholars, policymakers and practitioners to find support for almost any approach deploying this model. They note Lumby’s (2019) comment about ‘leadership mythology’ disguising abuse of power. They advocate three approaches to address this issue, building trust, redistributing epistemic resources, and reconfiguring relational injustice. Another popular model is instructional leadership, shown by Robinson et al. (2008) to have the most impact on student outcomes of any leadership model. John James Juma and his colleagues examine the impact of this model in Kenyan secondary schools. Although there are various approaches to instructional leadership, the authors choose to focus on its controlling function, defined as monitoring, evaluation and supervision of educational achievements. These control aspects often dominate empowerment dimensions, such as modelling and mentoring (Bush, 2013), but a balanced approach is required to maximise the impact of this model. The authors surveyed the principals and 4 teachers from 41 schools in Rangwe Sub County, a total of 205 participants. Their findings show the prevalence of controlling function of instructional leadership but they note that staff development also influenced student outcomes. Lei Mee Thien and her colleagues also examine instructional leadership, linked to teacher professional learning, in Malaysian schools. The government’s focus on professional learning arises in part from Malaysia’s disappointing performance in international comparative studies, including the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). The authors surveyed 400 teachers in Penang, based on convenience sampling. They found that principal instructional leadership had no significant direct effect but there was an indirect effect through teachers’ trust in the principal and self-efficacy on teacher professional learning. Editorial
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Educational Management Administration & Leadership
Educational Management Administration & Leadership EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
8.20
自引率
19.40%
发文量
63
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信