0.2 Lindahl, r. (april 2011). school leadership structures in

Education leadership review, volume 12, number 1 (april 2011)

NCPEA Education Leadership Review is a nationally refereed journal published two times a year, in Winter (April), and Fall (October) by the National Council of Professors ofEducational Administration. Editor: Kenneth Lane , Southeastern Louisiana University; Assistant Editor: Gerard Babo , Seton Hall University; Founding Editor: Theodore Creighton , Virginia Tech.

Author

Ronald Lindahl , Alabama State University

Introduction

The hackneyed adage, “If Rip Van Winkle woke up today and went to school, he’d feel right at home,” continues to have considerable face validity, particularly in regard to the leadership structures of schools. The administrative structure of schools has traditionally been hierarchical and bureaucratic. It follows a scientific management (Taylor, 1916) approach to the separation of administrators’ and teachers’ responsibilities, with the administrator responsible for most major decisions and the teachers responsible for what Taylor referred to as the work.

However, in Alabama, various efforts have recently been implemented to alter this structure somewhat, calling for a dissolution of some of the lines between teachers and administrators and for the sharing of leadership in the school. This article examines those efforts against the backdrop of the professional knowledge base on shared leadership in schools.

An overview of the knowledge base on shared leadership in schools

The knowledge base on school leadership is primarily based on the heroic model of leadership. Many authorities have determined that the effectiveness of the principal is a key, if not the key, factor in a school’s performance (Lezotte, 1991; Carter, 2001; Cawelti, 1999; Hallinger&Heck, 2010; Harris, 2005). Recent studies in Alabama’s public schools (Carter, Lee,&Sweatt, 2009; Lindahl, 2010; Printy, 2010; Schargel, Thacker,&Bell, 2007) confirm the key role the principal plays in the academic achievement of schools. Leithwood and Jantzi (1999, 2000) found that principals’ transformational leadership had some effects on school conditions, which, in turn, influence student performance. However, there is a dearth of dynamic, successful principals. As Schargel et al. pointed out, “modest pay, long hours, uneven resources, problematic authority” (p. 6) and increased public accountability make the heroic, hierarchical model of the principalship unattractive to many fine educators. Yukl and Lepsinger (2008) also decried the complexity of the demands on principals.

One potential alternative to the heroic model of the principalship is teacher leadership. However, there is little evidence that teacher leadership has a pronounced influence on student performance. For example, Ogawa and Hart (1985) found that teacher leadership accounted for only 2% to 8% of the variation in student achievement. However, very recent research by Hallinger and Heck (2010) and Printy (2010) has concluded that collaborative school leadership can positively, indirectly impact student achievement.