0.2 Lindahl, r. (april 2011). school leadership structures in  (Page 4/7)

An analysis of alabama’s school leadership structure initiatives

Clearly, the hierarchical, bureaucratic structure of leadership is firmly entrenched in Alabama’s schools. Such structures strongly resist change (Muijs&Harris, 2003; Murphy, 2005; Murphy, Smylie, Mayrowiz,&Louis, 2009). Not only must the structures be changed, but the culture of the school must also be changed; strong cultures strongly resist change (Allen, 1985; Deal, 1985; Harris, 2002; Lindahl, 2006; Wilkins&Patterson, 1985).

Those initiatives which focus on empowering a small number of teacher leaders, which Spillane (2006) referred to as shared leadership, call for less structural and cultural change than do the initiatives involving more widespread teacher leadership, which Spillane dubbed distributed leadership. Consequently, implementing the Alabama Teacher Leader Network program, which designated one formal teacher leader per pilot school, or programs such as the Accountability Roundtable, AMSTI, ARI, ARFI, and Teacher Mentoring program, all of which called for the designation of select teachers as coaches or mentors, should be relatively easy to implement. They call for a principal to share relatively little authority with one or two additional individuals in the school. Their focus is generally limited to a specific subject area. Release time, training, and additional compensation are provided to the new teacher leaders to perform their new duties. The remainder of the faculty are not called upon to alter their roles and can readily see the rather limited parameters of these new teacher leaders’ authority and responsibility, thus reducing resistance to the changes. However, this empowerment of a few teachers does relatively little to change the hierarchical structure and culture of school leadership. Although it may reap benefits and may prove to be a solid modification, it represents a relatively minor change in the status quo.

On the other hand, the Alabama Pathways initiative and the new teacher leader certification have the potential, over time, to change the school leadership structure to one of more distributed leadership. It is conceivable that through these initiatives, large numbers of teachers may prepare themselves as general teacher leaders, not for a specific role, such as a math or reading coach. As a critical mass is reached in schools of teachers prepared and disposed to exercise teacher leadership, far greater structural and cultural changes would be required, possibly leading to professional learning communities. Although it is feasible to provide the necessary release time (Muijs&Harris, 2003; York-Barr&Duke, 2004), continuous staff development (Muijs&Harris, 2003, 2007;), and additional resources (Murphy, 2005) and compensation to a few individuals, providing this to larger numbers of teacher leaders is highly problematic.

The principal’s role would need to undergo major changes (Murphy et al., 2009; Silins&Mulford, 2004; Silins, Mulford,&Zarins, 2002). Alabama’s current Standards for Instructional Leaders call for principals to “lead and motivate staff,” “work with staff and others to establish and accomplish goals,” “use a variety of problem-solving techniques and decision-making skills to resolve problems,” and “delegate tasks clearly and appropriately” (Alabama Department of Education, 2006, p. 25). All of these suggest top-down, hierarchical uses of authority. With more distributed leadership, the role of principal shifts to such tasks as to: “develop a shared vision based on community values; organize, focus, and sustain the conversations about teaching and learning; insist that student learning is at the center of the conversation; and protect and interpret community values, assuring a focus on and congruence with teaching and learning approaches” (Lambert, 2003, pp. 47-48). This is a considerable shift in approach, role, and skills.