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