Benefits Of Distributed Leadership Education Essay

Benefits Of Distri neverthelessed leading Education Es takeLeadership is non separately d consent to the Head instructor, the head of department or, in the condition dayroom the teacher. If it is, nobody is look at anything at al iodine told ab reveal tether. The inaugural tackle about lead is that it is sh bed. (Brighouse and wood, 199945)Most often administrative attractership is viewed as contrasting from any kinds of leaders in work. The exponents might be opposite since closely managerial roles be completed outside(a) the inculcaterooms while teachers leaders is exercised deep down the mobroom. Nevertheless in rail, teachers, administrators, Learning Support Assistants (LSAs), p bents and disciples finish every(prenominal) in every last(predicate) work to secureher towards the benefit of Distributed Leadership (DL). That is why Sergiovanni states that,If lead is a practice percentaged by many then it mustiness be distributed amon g those who argon in the right place at the right epoch and among those who have the ability. (2006189-190)In this section, literature go forth be bone upd and cogitate round the following questionsWhat are the benefits of distributed leadership in a inessential train?To what extent is leadership grappled out among all(a) in all stakeholders in sunflower discipline?How far can distributed leadership facilitate selecting?How useful to the grooms forward motion and advantage can distributed leadership be?What are the benefits of distributed leadership in a secondary winding schooltime?A victoryful leader is classified as such(prenominal), when s/he manages to involve others in the assist of leadership. According to Sergiovanni, when principals share leadership, they pull out to a giganticer extent power in outcome (2006185). DL likewise enables those problematic to develop their own leadership skills.With DL, Principals are oerhauling their colleagues by boo sting their self-confidence, and to involve their own closes (Nicholls, 2000). Recently, Mifsud found that Maltese Heads application shared end- fashioning to ensure widespread ownership (20087). Thus all teaching- stave (Teachers and LSAs) allow become much autonomous, while abiding with the School Development pattern (SDP) and curriculum. Sharing leadership with all stakeholders involves dedicating time to achieve good results (Brighouse and timber, 1999). The tenuous type of collegiality (Bush, 199552) works its outmatch, when the institution is formed by a minor(ip) military come on of staff. Having a large fall of teaching-staff will surely make DL difficult. Although in our schools linguistic context we have a large add of staff, DL can still work since the teaching-staff is divided into smaller groups. Likewise, Brighouse and woods say that, The smaller the school or teaching unit, the more leadership, as well as work, can be shared (199945).According to Lei thwood et al DL aids teachers to be satisfied with their work, increases their sense of professionalism, stimulates organisational change, increases efficiency and encourages cross-interactions between teaching-staff (1999115). Although, worldly and worldly wall that en hopeing teachers with self-autonomy and potency makes them expression satisfied, motivated and confident and they are likely to give their ut roughly in their job (199429) this sometimes may excessively lead the teaching-staff to overpower the Principal like it happens in our school. Yet, world-weary and Kirby (1992) found that when teachers are empowered by dint of autonomy, their attitudes and performance will get come apart. Moreover, even when leadership is shared among teaching-staff and students, this produces an attitude of respect between them, particularly when they are so directly heterogeneous. Having a democratic leader eases throw out attentive listening from subordinates, which in turn w ill alike help improve relationships.When teachers working in democratic schools but had previous experiences in other schools which have authoritarian leaders were interviewed temporal and bored (1994) reason out that teachers classroom autonomy enable them to have class curb. An autocratic hyphen bring forwarded by Brighouse and Woods north pole-north pole leadership will lead teachers to work to rule and nonhing more (199951). In contrast having a democratic style called north pole-south pole where leadership is shared among all stakeholders, will unlock enormous surges of energy and effort among professionals (Brighouse and Woods 199951). They also argue, that communion leadership will relieve Heads form some leadership underline. Thus DL, leads to sharing of function which will not remain a burden on the Heads shoulders. Until lately, according to Cauchi Cuschieri (2007), leadership in Maltese church building Secondary Schools was seen as the Head teachers job. but, the style used nowadays is oft more DL amongst stakeholders. In our school this is not the case, since from its founding, it was believed that DL enables sharing ideas and duty which last leads to the schools improvement.Duke et al, (1980) established, that the school is democratic atomic number 53 when the teaching-staff, is conglomerate in the offset of ratiocination make. Likewise, Blase and Blase argue that increasing teacher access to decision fashioning is essential to empowering teachers (199433). Also, church servicefields secondary school hold shows, that teachers feel the learn to get into in the schools care as it gives damp results in the decision making process (Bush, 1995). Finally, when a decision is taken, it is the teaching-staffs office to put it into action. So, being involved leads the staff to make a decision (Bush, 1995).Rivalland (1989 cited in Wolf residuumale 199257) bring ins a number of benefits that can be achieved from parental exponen tiation in schoolsThey work for a better wining environment since it is for their own childs interestWhatever is needed to be done in school, and whatsoever parents are able to do, they do it and they offer themselves as human resources to the schoolThey create the scholarship connection between schools and students respective piazzasWith their presence in school, they will become aware of what the school needs from time to time.Although, Wolfendale (1992) argues, that having parents involved in the take up and formulation of schools behaviour and discipline policy will give a good result this may not be applicable in our school since it seems that the Parents and Teachers Association (PTA) tackles lonesome(prenominal) social events and personalised concerns of parents. However, this will be investigated later(prenominal) on in this study.King states that students leadership is mostly exercised in the prefectorial system (1973141). However, this does not seem to be the exc ept solution for our school, since leadership is also exercised done the students council. It is received that the ultimate responsibility of decision-making in schools is in the hands of the Principal. Nonetheless, as Frost claims Schools can also be enriched by students contributions to decision-making and curriculum development (2008356). Moreover, when students are consulted in real matters such as finance they are taught some of the problematic lessons of democracy (Colgate, 1976123). Prefects and councillors are students particularly elect to help in school chasteness and decision making. If their appointment is conquestful they may also serve as role models for other students (King, 1973).Contrary to all the benefits of involving all stakeholders, one has to say that collegiality is an intense activity since it entails work after school hours. Likewise, Smylie and Denny (1990) argue that the meshing of the teaching-staff in leadership may be time consuming and may hav e an effect on the students needs. The time for training and the funding allocated for these functions are not enough, argues White (1992). These problems make DL more difficult to succeed. However since all teaching-staff in our school have free periods during the day, this may not be a problem. Adding to this, having a large number of participants might create problems in communication, even when having a wide range of different views from all participants (Bush, 1995).To what extent is leadership shared among all stakeholders in Sunflower School?Leadership is not a one man job, because to be successful this must be shared. Moyo writes thatThe concept of distributed leadership is the idea of sharing leadership amongst all stakeholders. These stakeholders, as stated earlier include head teachers, middle(a) leaders, teachers, parents and students. (201025)It is not leadership if a person orders, requires, seduces, or threatens another(prenominal)s compliance, (Sergiovanni, 2006192) . So true leadership is when it is shared among all those having the ability to be involved in it. besides, Brighouse and Woods emphasise thatOne person may be aboriginal but leadership is shared among pupils, teachers and other staff and members of the community (199948).Likewise, Leithwood et al (1999) refers to DL as a key element of many SDPs.Until recently the Head teacher in Maltese schools was seen as the schools ultimate potence (Mifsud, 2008). Rather than having an autocratic school, having a democratic one entails having a DL (Bush, 1995). With quislingism, and exchange of ideas, problems can be solved collegially, while individual qualities are authentic further (Leithwood et al, 1999). This is what Bush calls collegiality (199552), and claims that there are two different types of collegiality, one is the restricted, meaning that a number from the staff are chosen to participate in the process of decision making, while the other called subtle is the process which in volves everyone equally (Bush, 199552). Teachers, LSAs, parents and students who are enormously committed to children and school disembodied spirittime (Brighouse and Woods, 199949) are perfect for participating in DL, because they are more approachable, more trusted, and their main goal is school improvement.In one of the interviews carried out in Blase and Blases (1994) study, a teacher describes best what a shared organisation principals attitude should be like, that is, to guide not to dictate. Teachers interviewed could make comparisons of past and present principals. Although its ideal to involve everyone in the process of decision making, in the context of our school, there should be a person that leads both(prenominal) the talk overion, and assumes responsibility for victorious the final decisions, which should be the Principal or a delegate. About this, Blase and Blase state that principals are compelled to assume full responsibility over all school matters (199478). D unford et al also contain that whilst the Head will remain the leader, others will need to add a leadership role to their management responsibilities (20005).Weick (1976, cited in Blase and Blase 1994135) claims that now schools have developed into organisations, in which administrators and teachers work separately and independently. This does not appear to be our schools situation, as the stakeholders all seemed to be involved in teamwork. In contrast, Blase and Blase (1994) query presents principals under study as being open to others opinions, collegiality and DL. When this issue of DL was introduced, most Senior Management Team (SMT) members were being involved. contestation this Dunford et al (2000) say that particularly having more SMT members in a secondary school, leads to the shared responsibility and the establishment of different roles.Leithwood et al (1999121) in their study found that teachers were most likely involved in school supply and school structure and organ isation while the principals leadership is more cerebrate to management issues. In our school this is not the case as in school planning the Principal is the Chairperson. Normally, plenty think that teacher leadership is exercised only at heart the classroom. However, in democratic schools like ours, teachers are involved in all aspects of the school, even when taking decisions. Blase and Blase also state that,Successful shared institution principals show trust in teachers capacity for responsible involvement in both school-level and classroom-level decision making. (199427)Similarly Leithwood et al argued that there are two forms of teacher leadership one is the formal style for leadership of class control, or an at large(p) oneBy sharing their expertise, volunteering for new projects and bringing new ideas to the school support their colleagues to carry out their classroom duties, and by assisting in the improvement of classroom practice, (1999117).Brighouse and Woods (1999 ) concluded that because teachers are leaders in classes they dont like to be followers, and so expect to participate more in school leadership. Moreover, they also say thatSuccessful Heads are men and women with ideals and the ability to share those ideals with those whom they lead. (199954).Therefore, done the sharing and openness of ideas, leadership is shared and decisions taken will hold much more. However, in the context of our school, if leadership is to be shared and if teachers are to work in different groups, they are to be monitored either by the Principal or assistant principal. Moreover Leithwood et al, (2000) claim that the number of people involved in DL varies according to different tasks.Most efficacious distribution of leadership functions would vary the numbers of people providing leadership in response to the complexity of the tasks to be performed-more in the case of complex tasks and few in response to simple tasks (200758).enquiry shows that in Malta, Pract ically all schools have teachers involved in one team or another (LIE, 2009176). The benefits of DL indicate that Maltese schools are trying to work hard on it.Since 1980, the Education Act in England ensured parental representation on school governing bodies (Wolfendale, 199262). Likewise, the Maltese Education Act that was reformed in 2006 states that the Maltese Directorate for Educational Services,Should promote, encourage and monitor the democratic governance of schools through School Councils with the active participation of parents, teachers and students. (GOM, 20067)Thus the PTA and Students Council were introduced in Maltese Schools so that they may participate actively in school leadership and decision making. As Wolfendale (1992) said, the aim for parents participation is to represent other parents, to discuss common interest issues and to inform other parents of decisions taken through written circulars or school meetings. It is also described as a gathering for teache rs and parents to meet and engage in social and perhaps fundraising activities (Wolfendale, 199274). Furthermore, research in Malta confirms that parents are indeed involved in policy decision making and practice (LIE, 2009).Parents are everlastingly keen to participate in school leadership for the benefits of their own children and for the schools improvement (Wolfendale, 1992). In our school, this may not be the situation, since there are those who are passive and do not participate in any activities or meetings even if it regards their own childs interests. In most of the Maltese schools or colleges, only a small percentage of parents are involved through the PTA committee, while others get involved only through activities organized by the school or the PTA. Some parents are called upon by the schools to offer their expertise where necessary (LIE, 2009175). However, Wolfendale (1992) tuberositys, that sometimes teachers do not feel the benefit of parental involvement in school. Harding and Pike (1988 cited in Wolfendale, 199259) declare focuss in which parents can be directly involved in the school. This can be done throughPersonal contact with the school and staffWritten communicationPTA or other parental groups within the schoolTheir involvement in school matters and learning.In contrast, in patriarchal schools the rate of parental involvement in the PTA is higher than in the secondary. This most probably happens because secondary schools are much larger in number and more teachers are involved, so the rapport between parents and teachers may not be that strong. These issues have been called by Wolfendale as difficulties to set up and abide by teacher-parent initiatives in secondary schools (199258).The development of the School Development Plan was one of the main activities where DL was exercised in Maltese schools with the intention of including all stakeholders in planning and discussion. As the aim was for the schools improvement and improved le arning for all students, it was noticed that students were not included in any of the discussion. This issue was later tackled firstly by a students school council (LIE, 2009) and then by an Ekoskola committee, which takes contend of the environment (Bezzina, 2007).Since, students are the final achievers of the educational institution, they should have space and opportunities to share their views and talk about their needs. bell and Harrison (1998) state that it is of mutual magnificence for the school to work in collaboration with students and encourage them in teamwork. Likewise, Brighouse and Woods (1999) stress the importance of involving children in leadership roles within the school, to make them more responsible and prepare them for the world of work.However, there are two types of student leaders and these must be clearly distinguished. There are those called bullies, who use their power to intimidate others and as a result push away all other students. The other group is called unofficial leaders (Brighouse and Woods, 199948), who somehow always attract others. Moreover, they may be trusted and given a number of leadership duties to carry out as they are seen by teachers as capable and responsible pupils. To distinguish between these kinds of leaders, the school can organise a socio-gram test at the beginning or at the end of the scholastic year.How far can distributed leadership facilitate learning?Leithwood et al (1999) argue that there is a challenge between leadership practice, and the research that points out ways in which leadership chance upons students and their learning. In contrast, Spillane claims that What matters for instructional improvement and student act is not that leadership is distributed, but how it is distributed (2005149). However, Leithwood et al (2006b) maintain that after classroom teaching, leadership is next to influence students learning. Lately, Leithwood and Massey emphasised that Leadership is a major cause for the improvements in student achievement. (201079)Principals and other SMT members are encouraged to work hard towards creating a better environment for better learning. This means that they are to ensure that the school atmosphere is good both for teachers to work in and for students to learn. This does not refer only to the physical environment, but also to the distribution of leadership and teachers autonomy.Principals acceptance of trust and DL within their school means that they let the teaching-staff choose their ways and means of teaching that is best applicable for the students under their responsibility (Blase and Blase, 1994). This also can be done through encouraging teamwork between teachers and LSAs. Similarly, Bezzina claims that Only by involving all stakeholders and respecting differences can we give birth to new ideas (200686) and thus create a better atmosphere for better learning. Moreover, Brighouse and Woods highlight that DL and collaboration among all staff will r esult in raising the achievement of pupils (199983).Christopher Bezzina conducted a case study in one of the Maltese Church schools, where the academic achievement was not so high. The schools Head, having had experiences in different schools introduced the issue of DL for better learning. Teaching-staff, parents and students were encouraged to participate in the schools matters and decision making programmes. The result was successful concluding that quality improvement initiatives placed a great emphasis on the leadership of the organisation (Bezzina 200823). Thus, one can conclude that having DL in a school has a great impact on learning.According to Moyo, DL has an effect on students learning through teachers, who are the closest leaders in contact with students and their learning But in order to achieve this, teachers need to be involved and motivated by the leadership, (201023). Teachers having a personal view of DL, help children to learn more. This is done by involving them in leadership practice inside and outside the classroom. Brighouse and Woods (1999) note that even the type of teacher-student relationship has an influence on students learning. Moreover, having autocratic leadership style in class does not help in creating a learning atmosphere for students. The teacher with good student relationship encourages pupils to never give up, and aim high in life for the time to come.As stated by Blase and Blase (1994), teachers autonomy is when they are free to decide their own ways and means, to carry out their work. In Malta, teachers autonomy is mostly linked with the classroom where they are free to devise their lesson plans, with their own resources, while also having autonomy to students control, which Blase and Blase (199473) call it disciplinary matters. This kind of DL will also influence students learning. too this type of autonomy in the classroom, new methods and techniques should be tried and encouraged. This so called innovation facilitat es learning for all students, as education becomes not in effect(p) one size fits all, but adapted especially to the pupils needs (Blase and Blase 199475) through the organisation of differentiated learning. In school, this entails teamwork, reinforces collegiality and sharing of the resources within. For teachers to improve students learning, they must first share their ideals with others and then work together towards that ideal. It is the job of the management to bring those ideals together into common set of objectives, (Brighouse and Woods, 199954).Parents are considered as the first educators, great contributors of all aspects of learning, and always interested in helping their children to learn better. Wolfendale (199260) argues that, parents as educators, can make a significant contribution to childrens learning of reading and literacy skills. Moreover, Leithwood et al argue thatNo matter what the student population, involving parents to begin with in the teaching of thei r own children is most likely to contribute to childrens learning (2006a102).The study by HMI (Her Majestys Inspectors) showed that Parents involvement in schools, lead to students success (1991, cited in Wolfendale, 199256). Its interesting to study ways in which parents can help both teachers and students in relation to learning. However, one must also take note of the relationship that exists between parents and teachers and not cause any job meddling.Usually, we only think of academic results when it comes to students learning. However, research shows that through their participation in leadership, students micturate more friendship and acquire new skills. These skills are needed for their future in society. Frost claims that students participation in leadership also helps them acquire other non-academic achievements greater self-esteem, heightened self-confidence, interpersonal and political skills, and self-efficacy when students have opportunities to exercise responsibility (2008356).When given certain leadership roles, students set their own targets for learning through that experience (Brighouse and Woods, 1999), which might also be of help to other students. Brighouse and Woods (1999) argue that a teacher can give responsibility to students to help those in need in a certain matter. Through each others support, those that have less academic abilities will achieve and learn more. Research shows that pupils have so much to say about their learning, and as such they should be consulted for the benefit of their learning, and the methodology used by teachers in class (Morgan, 2011).How telling to the schools improvement and success can distributed leadership be? rat sees schools as living systems whereLeadership is distributed across the various cells that affect a school such as students, teachers, parents, unions, social services, County Hall, and local communities. (201044)Bezzinas study carried out in a Maltese Church School revealed, that when tea chers were involved in DL the majority of staff felt responsible for determining the way forward (200824). He then concluded that school improvement and success can be achieved, with hard work, sacrifice and commitment expressed by the Head teacher, the aged(a) leadership team, pupils, parents and teachers, (Bezzina, 200826). LIE maintains that when a policys decision making process involves all stakeholders in a school including, SMT, teachers, students and parentsThen the determine which are held dear by the school will be on the road to success because they would have been owned by all (2009176)Brighouse and Woods (199945) confirm that research done in the past and again lately by OFSTED shows that, leadership in schools is the key factor in improvement and success. They also argue that,A key ingredient to school success is the extent to which the values of school life are shared among all the members of the community, (Brighouse and Woods, 199955)According to Telford (1995) co llaboration between all stakeholders within a school brings about school improvement. She argues that the following points which lead to school improvement affect both the individuals within the school and the institution itselfDevelopment of the educational potential of students, professional development of teachers, good organizational health, institutionalization of vision (Telford, 1995, cited in Bell and Harrison 199814).It is interesting to note that it is much easier for principals to control goals rather than humans. To gain control for the accomplishment of a goal, leadership must be shared (Sergiovanni, 2006). microscopical (1981, cited in Sergiovanni, 2006186) found that when principals work through collegiality with teachers, the school will improve. It is of importance to equalize the principal and teachers opinions in a discussion, since no one should be preferred to the others as everyone is sharing from his/her own knowledge, for the schools best interest (Blase an d Blase, 1994). Similarly, Nicholls (2000) argue that leadership is best carried out when a number of people having the equivalent values and aims challenge each other for getting better results. In other words, one can say that school leadership is best fulfilled when all those involved in the institution, share their thoughts without being considered as superior to one another. Thus, including group activity liberates leadership and provides the framework we need for widespread involvement in improving schools (Sergiovanni, 2006186).In successful schools, when a debate crops up on school improvement, the staff should work on Involving pupils, parents and governors (Brighouse and Woods, 199983). Likewise, Davies and Davies (2010) also claim that it is crucial to involve others in school leadership as it leads to school improvement and success. Moreover, they say thatEngaging all the staff in discussions about where the school is, where it needs to go and hence the skills and knowl edge we need to learn to achieve progress is a uniting factor. (Davies and Davies, 201015)divided up leadership might bring about changes which are required for school improvement to take place. The best change is usually one generated from something or someone within the school because itRecharges energy in participants and embraces the greatest likelihood of improvement in teaching and learning styles, simply because it is so localised, (Brighouse and Woods, 199960).Changes for school improvement are gained faster, when teachers are involved in the process of decision making (Bush, 1995). Furthermore, Brighouse and Woods, (1999) argue that when change for school improvement is required, time has to be allocated in the schools diary, since the staff needs time to work on the carrying out process. In their study Leithwood et al concluded that teachers consider their participation in leadership, as a step for the school to be more effective and innovative (1999121). Moreover, when t eachers are involved in the decision making they are less likely to have adverse reactions to principals expectations.According to Dunford et al (2000) when the decision making process involves those who are closest to its impact it gives a arbitrary attitude towards school improvement. In addition, they say that if secondary schools want to be effective, leadership must be shared at least among senior staff. Furthermore, Sergiovanni (2006) emphasises that in schools where power is shared among principals, teachers, parents and others, work is done autonomously towards schools aims for school improvement. Likewise, Nicholls (2000) claims, that a shared vision is indispensable for school improvement.Trusting teachers through empowerment may lead principals to achieve their desired goals without imposing them. Building trust is critical to empowering teachers, (Blase and Blase, 199429). They also claim that this shows that the principal demonstrated great doctrine in them and valued them as experts and professionals, (Blase and Blase, 199477). Teachers involved in different leadership roles are expected to work for the improvement of the decision-making process (Leithwood et al, 1999). This collegial process of involving others in the decision making process is exercised through discussion and shared power in the institution.In a collegial, collaborative environment, principals consistently trim back on enabling others to examine and redesign schools for improved learning, and teachers learn to share power and work as a team. (Blase and Blase, 199433)Leithwood et al (2007) concluded that when DL is implemented and when opportunities are offered, staff will be much more motivated to work towards school improvement.From their research Leithwood et al established that on the loose(p) leaders had more involvement with creating high-performance expectations and motivating others than formal school leaders, while formal leaders had more to do with identifying and a rticulating a vision. (200757)With informal leaders we can include both parents and pupils. When students are at home most of them speak about their school experience with their siblings and through this parents get to know their thoughts and feelings. Hence, parents might be another link between schools and children. maternal(p) involvement in schools may bring about changes which will finally lead to school improvement. Similarly, Wolfendale argues that, parental opinion can be mobilized to bring about significant changes (199263).ConclusionSchools success lies in the skills and attitudes of the professional staff, not merely within the leadership capabilities of the principal. (Blase and Blase, 199428)Thus DL is needed for ontogeny and development because the Principal sometimes is in need of other staff members to solve certain problems. According to Bezzina, DL calls for an extension of that power vertically downwards to involve all members of staff, (2000305). Moreover, the final result of school success is a job that belon