Keywords

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

The English School System

In writing of school leadership research in England, it is necessary first to establish the dominant policy context in which schools and their leaders have been working. In the last 10 years, they have experienced an unprecedented emphasis nationally upon the twin government agendas of school effectiveness and improvement as defined by measurable student attainment outcomes at different stages of their schooling and increased autonomy (with accountability). In pursuit of this focused agenda, governments imposed a national curriculum, external school inspections, annual school improvement plans, target setting in classrooms, increased parental choice, local management of schools and, alongside this, increased bureaucracy, intensity of work, less teacher autonomy, more transparency of teaching and learning and more contractual accountability. There has also been a strong focus on social justice, equity and citizenship and community engagement in which schools are seen as key players. Furthermore – in 2001 – the Labour Government established a National College for School Leadership (later to be renamed the National College for Teaching and Leadership but usually referred to as the ‘National College’). Its remit, in recognition of the crucial role which head teachers would play in the implementation of the national agenda of raising standards in schools, was and remains to provide training and development for leaders at all levels in the system.

In addition, a key shift within the English school system, particularly since the turn of the millennium, has been an increase in the number of schools working together in both formal and informal arrangements. Of particular significance was government legislation passed in the Education Act of 2002 that allowed up to five schools to collaborate under a single governing body and leadership structure (known as ‘hard federations’) or operate in a more informal partnership while retaining their individual autonomy in terms of school leadership and governance (known as ‘soft federations’) (DfES 2004c).

The English state school system comprises over 21,000 schools serving the needs of the 8.1 million students who attend compulsory full-time education between ages 5 and 16. The government of the United Kingdom (UK) has a designated Department for Education (DfE), which is responsible for education and child protection for all children and young people up to the age of 19 and which is also directly responsible for all state-funded schools in England (DfE 2012a). Between the ages of 5 and 11 years, children attend primary school before moving up to secondary school until they are 16 years old after which they can choose to either leave the compulsory system or stay in full-time education by attending a sixth form college to study general and/or applied subjects in preparation for higher education (i.e. university) or a further education institution (i.e. technical college) to study vocational courses in preparation for the workplace.

State schools, which comprise 92 % of all schools in England, share a number of commonalities. For example, each state school has a governing body, a voluntary group made up of parents, school staff members, local government personnel and members of the community who meet regularly to establish the strategic direction and clarity of vision for the school, oversee the management of the school budget and hold the head teacher accountable for the performance of the school. Governing bodies are responsible for appointing and, if necessary, dismissing the head teacher and also provide critical support to them and their school leadership team (DfE 2013a). Moreover, all state schools in England are subject to regular inspection by the Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted). As the organisation responsible for inspecting and regulating schools (and children’s services), Ofsted forms a key component of the accountability structures under which schools operate and is a powerful and influential presence in the school system. Although an independent and nonministerial body, Ofsted reports its findings back to parliament and makes them publically available through its website. Ofsted usually inspects every school on an approximate 3-year cycle (unless the school is facing particular challenges, in which case a more intense programme of inspection and intervention may be required). At the end of the inspection, the school is given a grade from 1 (outstanding) to 4 (inadequate) to indicate their effectiveness in four areas: achievement of pupils, quality of teaching and learning, behaviour and safety of pupils and leadership and management and, if necessary, informed of any steps they must take to improve (Ofsted 2013). If the school is not judged to be adequately serving the needs of its pupils and the wider community, this can result in the head teacher leaving their post and a prolonged period of close scrutiny for the school. Conversely, a positive Ofsted inspection rating can result in a school being handed more freedom and space to innovate and the opportunity to share their practice and widen their impact by partnering and supporting lower-performing schools.

Since the turn of the century, particularly the last 4 years, the school system in England has been through a period of significant restructuring that has seen the emergence and expansion of two new types of school:

Academies

were established in 2002 by New Labour but expanded by the current coalition government in 2010. Academies differ from the schools described above in that they enjoy complete freedom from LA control, are able to set their own staff pay and conditions and are not required to follow the national curriculum (so long as the one they provide is ‘broad and balanced’ and encompasses the core subjects of maths, science and English). Academies are also funded directly from central government, rather than their LA, and therefore receive more money to cover the cost of services the LA traditionally supplied. Many academies have been set up in place of underperforming schools with the help of a sponsor (e.g. business, universities, charities, religious bodies) that become accountable for the school’s performance and instil a new vision and leadership structure and style to raise aspirations and change the culture of failure (DfE 2013b). The UK government is currently encouraging all state schools to convert to academy status, and there are now over 3500 open academies in England with many more applications in the system (DfE 2014a).

Free Schools

are state-funded, nonprofit making, independent schools that enjoy the same freedoms as academies regarding funding, staff employment terms and conditions and the curriculum they can teach. However, they are different in that they must be completely new schools (or existing independent schools wishing to become state-funded), are not required to employ qualified teachers to deliver their curriculum and can, in theory, be set up by anyone as long as they meet the strict criteria set out by the government. Therefore any business, charity, university or community group (i.e. parents, teachers) could apply to open a free school in a suitable location of their choice (e.g. old school, community hall, church space), although they must first go through a robust application process overseen by the Secretary of State (DfE 2014b). As of September 2013, 174 free schools had opened in England (GOV.UK 2013).

Teaching School Alliances

Many of the schools that have converted to academy status are members of chainsFootnote 1 or trustsFootnote 2 operating under varying degrees of collaboration, and those schools that are not part of such arrangements are encouraged to work with other schools in their locality and, depending on how well they are performing, either provide support to or be supported by partner schools (DfE 2013a). The latest facet of the government’s self-improving school system is teaching schools. The concept underpinning this initiative is that the best schools in the country, those judged to be ‘outstanding’ by Ofsted, can apply to become teaching schools. These take on a more central role in ‘clusters’ or ‘alliances’ of schools in the training and development of preschool teachers, school-to-school support, identification and development of leadership potential, peer-to-peer professional and leadership development, designate and broker specialist leaders of education (SLEs) and research and development.

The first teaching schools opened in 2011, and it is envisaged that there will be an established network of around 500 across the country by the start of the 2014–2015 school year forming a number of Teaching School Alliances (TSAs) – groups of schools working collaboratively and supported by one or more teaching schools (DfE 2013c). Taken together, it is these contexts that have influenced both the direction and focus of much of the English research on school leadership.

The Role of the Head Teacher in England

The role of the head teacher in England is a complex and multifaceted one that will ultimately differ according to the geographical, social and economic context of the area in which their school is situated while shifting in line with the wider political context shaping the national school system. The National Standards for Headteachers (DfES 2004a) provides a broad framework within which the role of the head teacher can be broadly understood. The framework outlines the following six interconnected areas that encompass the requisite knowledge and professional attributes of the head teacher role:

  • Shaping the future. This involves articulating a clear vision that is shared, understood and enacted by all school stakeholders; working with the school community to operationalise the vision into an action plan for school improvement; facilitating creativity and innovation; and strategic planning that accounts for the wider contextual factors of the school community.

  • Leading learning and teaching. This involves ensuring a school-wide focus on student attainment and the use of data to monitor progress and identify areas of intervention; positioning learning at the centre of strategic planning and resourcing; establishing high expectations and whole-school target setting; implementing strategies for high standards of student behaviour and attendance; ensuring inclusion, diversity and access; and monitoring and evaluating teaching practice, challenging underperformance and promoting improvement.

  • Self-development and collaborative working. This involves treating all school stakeholders equitably, fairly and in a respectful and dignified manner; developing a collaborative learning culture in the school and engaging with other schools to foster learning communities; delegating and distributing responsibility across the workforce; reviewing own practice and taking responsibility for personal development; and managing own and staff workload to facilitate and promote a healthy work/life balance.

  • Organisational management. This involves developing and implementing improvement strategies and policies to facilitate the development of school and facilities; ensuring school policy and practice are aligned to local and national policies and initiatives; managing the school finances and resources (both human and physical) effectively and efficiently; recruiting and deploying staff; establishing strategies for professional development and performance review of staff; and managing the organisation according to curricula, health and safety and legal requirements.

  • Securing accountability. This involves establishing clearly defined, understood and regularly reviewed accountabilities for all staff members; working with governors to objectively advise, support and provide them with information to assist them in their obligations; and developing and presenting a clear and comprehensive account of the school’s performance to external school stakeholders (i.e. governors, parents, the wider community).

  • Strengthening community including. This involves developing a school culture that accounts for the diverse characteristics of the school community; ensuring learning is linked to the wider community; developing community-based learning experiences for pupils; collaborating with other agencies to facilitate the academic, spiritual, moral, cultural and social development of pupils and their families; fostering relationships with parents and carers to improve student achievement; and supporting the development of the education system by collaborating with other schools to share best practice and other initiatives. (Adapted from DfES 2004b).

Many of the standards set out above are logical aspects of the role of a school leader and constitute what one would expect a head teacher to be responsible for. There is also considerable crossover between the various components of the role, many of which are interdependent. Furthermore, while head teachers in England are ultimately responsible for the areas outlined above, the scale and diversity of the role mean they will typically distribute leadership and management across their workforce while maintaining a strategic oversight. For example, the vast majority of head teachers in the secondary school sector (and an increasing number in the primary school sector) employ school business managers to take charge of those aspects of the school not directly related to teaching and learning such as operational management (e.g. finances, resources, buildings and premises, grounds maintenance) (Southworth 2010).

Five Strands of Research

The literature discussed within this chapter concerns school leadership research undertaken in England over the last 20 years. We have chosen this chronological period for historical reasons given the emergence of leadership as the dominant discourse within the English school context during the mid-1990s. For instance, the introduction in 1997 of the first formal leadership qualification for school principals, the National Professional Qualification in Headship (NPQH), represented the government’s first genuine commitment to educational leadership (Bush 2008) and also reflected changes in the role and responsibilities of the head teacher as a result of the earlier 1988 Educational Reform Act whereby ‘professional leadership’ was now seen as a key component of the role (Lodge 1998; Bolam 1997). As highlighted earlier, this was followed in 2000 by the opening of the National College for School Leadership which served to further raise the profile of school leadership and school leader preparation in England. The sheer volume of empirical and theoretical leadership research to emanate from England within this timeframe precludes an all-encompassing synopsis within this chapter. Instead, five interconnected strands of research have been selected for discussion that we believe provide a broad range of perspectives on school leadership in England and afford a balanced interpretation of the context within which school leaders in England operate.

The first strand of leadership research grew as a result of Government interventions in the early years of the new millennium to promote school improvement through, for example, increasing training and development opportunities for school leaders and beginning to differentiate between conditions for learning in schools serving more advantaged communities and those serving socioeconomical disadvantaged communities. The policy level emphasis upon identifying particular needs spawned a strand of research focusing on the conditions for leadership in schools in challenging circumstances as well as those schools who, regardless of social circumstance, improved and sustained improvement in student test scores.

A second strand of research on school leadership in England concerns the definition, identification and elaboration of the characteristics and behaviours of successful head teachers. This section will focus on the work of Day and colleagues from the University of Nottingham who have led research in this area of research, most notably with their 3-year national, mixed methods empirical study (the most extensive and detailed of its kind to date) of school leadership in England that used detailed case studies to explore the impact of the head teacher on student outcomes and identify the key dimensions of effective leadership (Day et al. 2009, 2011).

A third strand of research has been the development of theories of distributed leadership, a concept that implies the involvement of the many rather than the few in leadership tasks and is premised on ‘a collective approach to capacity building in schools’ (Harris 2005, p. 7). Much influenced by the work of North American researchers, such as Kenneth Leithwood and Philip Hallinger, distributed leadership shares many of the components of transformational and shared instructional leadership in that it concerns empowering individuals for the purpose of organisational improvement (Spillane 2001). This strand of research has grown in popularity over the past 15 years as evidence began to suggest that the notion of the single, or ‘heroic’, head teacher was becoming untenable due to the increasing volume and diversity of leadership required at school level as implied by the growing complexity of schools as organisations (Spillane 2001; Hall 2013).

A fourth strand of leadership research is undertaken largely by educational sociologists who position themselves as critics, both of the effects of government policy upon schools, teachers and head teachers and fellow researchers who, in their view, do not distance themselves sufficiently from government policy in their work and, therefore, are accused of colluding with it (Thrupp 1999). For this group of researchers, the biggest effect of government upon the work of school leaders is to oppress creativity and independent thought (Thomson 2009), while the authenticity of leadership as it is defined by government and many other researchers operating in the different spheres discussed within this chapter is questioned (Gunter 2009; Hatcher 2005).

The fifth and final strand of research deals with the notion of leadership across multiple schools and agencies that has emerged in the English school context alongside the increase in interschool collaboration as a means of school improvement. This particular strand of research is perhaps the most underdeveloped of the five and is dominated by initial exploratory work in this area by David Hopkins and Rob Higham and subsequent empirical research commissioned by the National College into the impact of such collaboration on student outcomes. Although much of this work is ‘evidence’ and ‘advocacy’ (and, as such, the term ‘research’ itself in relation to this is disputed), we have chosen to include it here because it represents an important influencing strand.

What follows, then, is a brief and selective synthesis of the research carried out by English researchers which have made contributions to advancing knowledge of school leadership in what we consider to be five areas of particular significance:

  1. 1.

    The work of head teachers in schools in challenging circumstances

  2. 2.

    Effective successful school principalship in improving schools

  3. 3.

    Distributed leadership

  4. 4.

    Leadership policy effects

  5. 5.

    System leadership

In selecting these, there is no intention to belittle or denigrate the work of many others who continue, with integrity, to conduct research on other areas of importance to the further development of knowledge of school leadership and its contexts – for example, leadership preparation and development (see, e.g. Bush 2011; MacBeath 2011; Simkins 2012), leadership identities (see, e.g. Lumby 2011) and the role of the leader in school improvement and effectiveness (see, e.g. Harris et al. 2013).

The Work of Principals in Schools in Challenging Circumstances

Early empirical research in this particular area was undertaken by Maden (2001) who charted the life of schools in challenging socioeconomic circumstances over a 5-year period. Amongst the key findings from this study was the identification of shared leadership as a key contributory factor to such schools succeeding against the odds though Maden also called for more detailed case studies and in-depth accounts of effective schools in challenging circumstances and the leadership practices in these schools. A number of researchers responded to this call including Harris and Chapman (2002) who conducted a case study research to specifically explore the work of principals leading schools in challenging circumstances. The main findings from this research were that principals in such schools had an innate ability to cope with ‘unpredictability, conflict and dissent on a daily basis without discarding core values’, held a ‘set of personal and professional values that placed human needs before organisational needs’ and were ‘able to combine moral purpose with a willingness to be collaborative and to promote collaboration amongst colleagues, either through teamwork or by extending the boundaries of participation in leadership and decision making’ (p. 12). Further work in this area was undertaken by Chapman (2004) who developed a typology that explored the extent to which leadership is dispersed within schools facing challenging circumstances and identified distributed leadership ‘as a mechanism for capacity building and generating improvement’ (p. 101) in these schools. He also underscores the importance of nuanced and targeted programmes of intervention for schools in challenging circumstances.

John MacBeath and his colleagues in the University of Cambridge have also contributed to knowledge in this area, through their research about ‘schools on the edge’ (MacBeath et al. 2007) in which they investigated eight English secondary schools in challenging circumstances which had been ‘selected and recruited … as a test bed for examining improvement’ (p. 4). Their investigation is firmly located in and reported through their analysis of the English policy landscape in which schools, they claim, ‘find themselves trapped in the force field of turbulent communities and uncompromising government policy’ (p. 4). One of their nine conclusions is a similar, but more nuanced, view of the kinds of leadership needed for schools in challenging circumstances to that of Chapman. This might include ‘heroic’ leadership in the initial phase of development of schools in challenging circumstances but will need to move beyond this in the longer term through forms of distributed leadership.

These and other research in England and elsewhere (Harris et al. 2006; Reynolds et al. 2001) are illustrative of an increasing amount of literature that focuses on principals who ‘turnaround’ schools which are experiencing difficulties or failing to improve standards, particularly schools in challenging or disadvantaged urban contexts. Turnaround is one thing; sustaining turnaround is, however, another. It involves the application of layered leadership in managing transition as distinct from change. Research by Day (2007) provides an example of leadership and management of transition in an elementary school in England that was threatened with closure but in the space of 8 years was then identified as being ‘outstanding’ by Ofsted. The principal could not be described as ‘charismatic’ or ‘heroic’ in the classical sense of their meanings. However, her work is illustrative of how successful principals model and draw differentially upon combinations of attributes and strategies which are ‘fit for purpose’ at their time of use to first ‘turnaround’ the school and then sustain an improvement trajectory.

Effective Successful School Leadership in Improving Schools

While much less has been written in the English context on school improvement (e.g. Harris et al. 2003; Hopkins 2001, 2007; Higham et al. 2009), there has been relatively little systematic research conducted on a national scale. Once exception to this is ‘IMPACT’, a 3-year empirical, mixed methods, multi-perspective research project on the impact of heads in academically improved and effective primary and secondary schools upon pupil outcomes.

Figure 12.1 above illustrates eight key dimensions of effective leadership identified by the English IMPACT research (Day et al. 2008, 2009). The inner circle illustrates the core focus of leaders’ attention, the inner ring their core strategies and the outer ring the actions they take in support of these strategies. The building of trust is an intrinsic part and embedded within each of the core strategies and an essential part of the actions in the outer ring.

Fig. 12.1
figure 1

Dimensions of a successful leadership (Day et al. 2010)

Full size image

Defining the Vision Values and Direction

Effective heads have a very strong and clear vision and set of values for their school, which heavily influences their actions and the actions of others, and establish a clear sense of direction and purpose for the school. These are shared widely, clearly understood and supported by all staff. They are a touchstone against which all new developments, policies or initiatives are tested.

Improving Conditions for Teaching and Learning

Heads identify the need to improve the conditions in which the quality of teaching can be maximised and pupils’ learning and performance enhanced. They develop strategies to improve the school buildings and facilities. By changing the physical environment for the schools and improving the classrooms, heads confirm the important connection between high-quality conditions for teaching and learning and staff and pupil wellbeing and achievement.

Redesigning the Organisation Aligning Roles and Responsibilities

Heads purposefully and progressively redesign their organisational structures, redesigned and refine roles and distribute leadership at times and in ways that promote greater staff engagement and ownership which, in turn, provide greater opportunities for student learning. While the exact nature and timing will vary from school to school, there is a consistent pattern of broadening participation in decision-making at all levels.

Enhancing Teaching and Learning

Successful heads continually look for new ways to improve teaching, learning and achievement. They provide a safe environment for teachers to try new models and alternate approaches that might be more effective. Where this is the case, staff respond positively to the opportunity. It affects the way they see themselves as professionals and improves their sense of self-efficacy and job satisfaction. This, in turn, has a positive impact on the way they interact with pupils and other members of staff.

Redesigning and Enriching the Curriculum

Heads focus on redesigning and enriching the curriculum as a way of deepening and extending engagement and improving achievement. Academic attainment is not in competition with personal and social development: the two complement one another. The heads adapt the curriculum to broaden learning opportunities and improve access for all pupils, with the emphasis on ‘stage not age’ learning. Many of these changes are in line with government initiatives. In primary schools, there is particular emphasis on greater flexibility and continuity between Key Stage 1 and Key Stage 2, while in secondary schools the focus is on personalised learning and providing different pathways towards vocational qualifications. Building creativity and self-esteem features heavily in the curriculum, as does a focus on developing key skills for life. There is recognition that when pupils enjoy learning, they are more effective learners. Heads also emphasise on the provision of a broad range of extracurricular activities, including lunch time and after-school clubs, as well as activities during school holidays.

Enhancing Teacher Quality (Including Succession Planning)

Heads provide a rich variety of professional learning and development opportunities for staff as part of their drive to raise standards, sustain motivation and commitment and retain staff. They place a high premium on internally led professional development and learning, and teachers and support staff are also encouraged to take part in a wide range of in-service training (inset) and are given opportunities to train for external qualifications. This combination of external and internal continuing professional development (CPD) is used to maximise potential and develop staff in diverse areas. Succession planning and targeted recruitment are features of effective heads.

Building Relationships Inside the School Community

Heads develop and sustain positive relationships with staff at all levels, making them feel valued and involved. They demonstrate concern for the professional and personal wellbeing of staff. The relationship between heads and senior leadership teams (SLTs), in particular, is one of trust and mutual respect.

Building Relationships Outside the School Community

For all heads, building and improving the reputation of the school and engaging with the wider community are essential to achieving long-term success. They and their SLTs develop positive relationships with community leaders and build a web of links across the school to other organisations and individuals. Strong links with key stakeholders in the local community benefit the school.

Common Values

Successful heads achieve improved performance not only through the strategies they use but also through the core values and personal qualities they demonstrate in their daily interactions. As Fig. 12.1 illustrates, they place pupil care, learning and achievement at the heart of all their decisions.

Distributed Leadership

Distributed leadership is a concept which is very much ‘in vogue’ with researchers, policymakers, educational reformers and leadership practitioners alike (Hammersley-Fletcher and Brundrett 2005; Storey 2004), and there is a growing confidence that this contributes to the effectiveness of the school. However, as yet there seems to be little, if any, empirical data which links this to improved influence on pupil outcomes. Moreover, while there seems to be widespread interest in the idea of ‘distributing leadership’, there are competing and sometimes conflicting interpretations of what distributed leadership actually means. The definitions and understandings vary from the normative to the theoretical, and, by implication, the literature supporting the concept of distributed leadership remains diverse and broad based (Bennett et al. 2003).

Spillane (2001) defines distributed leadership as shifting of focus away from individual traits and ability to conceptualise leadership as a practice that is dispersed between leaders, organisational members and the situations they operate in, whereas Fletcher and Kaufer (2003) describe distributed leadership as a set of direction-setting and influence practices potentially ‘enacted by people at all levels rather than a set of personal characteristics and attributes located in people at the top’ (p. 22). This accumulation of allied concepts means that distributed leadership has sometimes been used as a shorthand way to describe any form of devolved, shared or dispersed leadership practice in schools. It is this catch-all use of the term that has resulted in both the misrepresentation of the idea and the common misunderstanding that distributed leadership means that everyone leads (Bennett et al. 2003).

According to its advocates, interest in distributed leadership has grown as the work of the school leader has increased in volume and diversity to the extent that the role has become an unrealistic undertaking for a single individual (Spillane 2001). In addition, the expansion of different forms of imposed collaboration between and across schools in England such as executive leadership models that traverse two or three schools in federation or partnership arrangements further implies that distributed forms of leadership are becoming more commonplace in the English school system (section “System leadership” on system leadership discusses this in more detail.)

In his work, Gronn (2000) sees distributed leadership as an emergent property of a group or a network of interacting individuals. Here, leadership is a form of concerted action which is about the additional dynamic that occurs when people work together or that is the product of conjoint agency. The implication, largely supported by the teacher development and school improvement literature, is that organisational change and development are enhanced when leadership is broad based and where teachers have opportunities to collaborate and to actively engage in change and innovation (Hopkins 2001; Harris 2008; Little 1990; MacBeath 1998). Links have also been made between distributed leadership and democratic leadership (Woods 2004) and the literature with teacher leadership (Harris 2004b).

Gronn (2003) distinguishes between two distinct forms of distributed leadership that he labels ‘additive’ and ‘holistic’. Additive forms of distribution describe an uncoordinated pattern of leadership in which many different people may engage in leadership functions but without much, or any, effort to take account of the leadership efforts of others in their organisation.

Gronn has suggested that concertive forms of distributed leadership may take three forms:

  • Spontaneous collaboration: ‘From time to time groupings of individuals with differing skills and knowledge capacities, and from across different organizational levels, coalesce to pool their expertise and regularize their conduct for duration of the task, and then disband’ (2002, p. 657).

  • Intuitive working relations: This form of concertive distributed leadership emerges over time ‘…as two or more organizational members come to rely on one another and develop close working relations’ and, as Gronn argues, ‘leadership is manifest in the shared role space encompassed by their relationship’ (2002, p. 657).

  • Institutionalised practice: Citing committees and teams as their most obvious embodiment, Gronn describes such formalised structures as arising from design or through less systematic adaptation.

The extent and nature of coordination in the exercise of influence across members of the organisation is a critical challenge from a holistic perspective. Interdependence between two or more school staff members may be based on overlapping roles and responsibilities: for example, all teachers in a school may assume responsibility for student discipline in spaces outside the classroom. Interdependence also may be based on complementarity of skills and knowledge.

Harris suggests that: ‘it would be naïve to ignore the major structural, cultural, and micropolitical barriers operating in schools that make distributed forms of leadership difficult to implement’ (2004a, p. 19). She suggests that there are three major barriers to distributing leadership. First, Harris argues that distributed leadership can be considered threatening to those in formal power positions, not only in terms of ego and perceived authority, but also because it places leaders in a vulnerable position by relinquishing direct control over certain activities. Second, Harris argues that current school structures, such as department divisions or rigid top-down hierarchies which demarcate role and responsibility, prevent teachers from attaining autonomy and taking on leadership roles. Finally, Harris suggests that top-down approaches to distributed leadership, when not executed properly, can be interpreted as misguided delegation.

While the empirical evidence surrounding the nature of distributed leadership in practice remains limited (Bennett et al. 2003) reflecting the fact that this theoretical perspective is still in its infancy, the concept is gaining more prominence in the contemporary leadership literature. Indeed, a recent research project, sponsored by the prestigious Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) undertaken by Hall et al. (2011), utilised a case study design to describe and critically analyse the means by which distributed leadership has become embedded in the social practices of five schools in England and some of the accompanying tensions and dilemmas this has had for educational leaders and practitioners within those schools. Their findings suggest that distributed leadership remains a contested arena with varying understandings of the concept within and between schools. They also identified that those individuals operating in more senior positions (i.e. school leaders) formed stronger professional attachments to notions of distributed leadership compared with their more junior colleagues (i.e. teachers). Furthermore, they highlight what they believe to be the inherent contradiction of distributed leadership as a concept that implies increased school leader and teacher agency but sits uncomfortably ‘alongside the traditional managerial practices rooted within a strictly controlled hierarchy’ (Hall et al. 2013) that characterise the ways in which most schools in England are organisationally structured. While many of the fiercest critics of distributed leadership operate within the sphere of critical leadership and policy studies discussed in the following section and much of this critique is theoretically based, the study by Hall and colleagues is worth highlighting as it is one of the few research studies that has ventured to empirically explore the enactment of distrusted leadership.

Distributed leadership remains disputed territory, underscored by a recent special edition of the British journal Educational, Management, Administration and Leadership (EMAL) that focused entirely on the concept and featured well-informed papers from advocates (Harris 2013) and opponents (Lumby 2013; Gunter and Hall 2013) of distributed leadership. However contested distributed leadership may be, the area is also underdeveloped and, like any new theoretical perspective, urgently requires further empirical testing, not only to establish whether any link with student learning outcomes exists but also to generate sharper operational images of effective practice. Undoubtedly, the effects and impact of distributed leadership on school and student outcomes will depend upon the forms and patterns distribution takes and how those forms and patterns are determined. The current research base has not explored this in any depth even though the patterns of distribution may inevitably affect the outcomes (Harris 2004a, b, 2005).

Leadership Policy Effects

The high frequency interventionist policies of successive governments in England since 1988 when the first Education Reform Act was implemented and the tensions for school leaders which these have created in schools and other public services have been well documented (e.g. Day 2003; Ball 2001). Amongst the negative consequences of centrally imposed initiatives have been an increase in teachers’ work time, low morale and a continuing crisis in teacher recruitment and retention, partially in those schools which are in challenging socioeconomic contexts. Alongside (though not necessarily associated with) these has been an increase in dissatisfaction of their school experiences by a significant number of pupils. These are expressed in increases in absenteeism, behavioural problems in classrooms and in the less easily measurable but well-documented alienation from formal learning of many who remain. Ball (1997) and others have described this central drive for quality and improvement as being embedded in three technologies – the market, managerialism and performativity – and placed them in distinct contrast to the post-war public welfarist state. He and others identify a ‘new public management’ in which schools are opened to market pressures (through parental choice), given greater financial autonomy and expected to improve on a yearly basis in terms of both teacher and pupil performance (through independent external inspection and pupil target setting and testing across four key phases, annual performance management reviews of individual teachers and associated annual school development plans and self evaluation.) Indeed, many scholars writing within this sphere argue that the distributed leadership movement is symptomatic of such government-driven managerialism under the guise of empowerment. Hatcher (2005) argues that ‘the evidence demonstrates the subordination of transformational and distributed leadership to government-driven managerialism’ (p. 261), while Hartley (2010) suggests distributed leadership:

… as presently viewed, is a means to an end whose purpose is organizational, not personal, ‘development’ … It is mainly about accomplishing the organizational goals which comprise the instrumental tasks and targets set by officialdom. (p. 281)

All this, it is argued, places increasing pressures upon those who lead and manage schools to produce ‘added value’ to pupils’ learning and achievement. ‘Performativity’, it is suggested, is:

A mode of regulation that employs judgements, comparisons and displays as a means of control, attrition and change. The performances (of individual subjects or organisations) serve as measures of productivity or output, or displays of ‘quality’, or ‘moments’ of promotion or inspection. As such they stand for, encapsulate or represent the worth, quality or value of an individual or organisation within a field of judgement. (Ball 2001, p. 4)

Amongst the harshest critics has been Helen Gunter who theorised leadership in education, through the use of Bourdieu’s theory of practice, as ‘an arena of struggle’ (Gunter 2001, p 4). In applying this to reforms in English schools which promote site-based performance management and training rather than professional learning, Gunter draws attention to what she finds is a distortion of the ‘educational nature of professional work’ (ibid, p. 92) and to what Bourdieu terms, ‘illusion of freedom … the misplaced belief in illusory freedoms. Freedom is not something given: it is something you conquer – collectively’ (Bourdieu 1990, p. 15, cited in Gunter 2001, p. 153). This critique was complemented in the research carried out, for example, by Michael Fielding (2001). Gleeson and Husbands (2001), in an edited volume, also identify and critique the increasing preoccupation by government with pupil, teacher and school performance and its consequences for the reshaping of the teaching profession and, therefore, the nature of the leaders’ role(s). In one of the chapters in this book, Husbands identifies a key issue:

In the hands of gifted headteachers and team leaders, working in school cultures where improvement and development are well established, performance management policies will probably consolidate already successful practice. In schools where insufficient attention is still given to strategies for improvement and development, performance management may contribute to short-term gains … [only] … , following from the Hawthorn effect. (Husbands 2001, p. 16)

In a more recent publication, Thomson (2009) highlights the risky business of headship in English schools. Using stories of head teachers’ everyday work and drawing upon her own previous experience of headship, she revisits the ‘contemporary pressures, dilemmas and tensions’ (p. 2), felt by heads who are not always happy with their roles and who find themselves presenting the illusion of control to policymakers, parents, the community as well as staff and students, no matter how uncertain they themselves may feel. Thus, like Ball (2001) and Gunter’s (2001) earlier work, that of Thomson critiques a policy system which results in a narrowing of the educational function, identified by Shulman (1998) as being, ‘the exercise of judgement under conditions of unavoidable uncertainty’ (p. 9) to one in which measurable performance outcomes become the primary objective.

System Leadership

System leadership is the concept of leaders operating across more than one interrelated organisation in order to bring about change and improvement at systemic level. This type of leadership has come to be applied to the educational context in England of late as schools are increasingly engaged in collaborative activity, both formally and informally, with other schools and outside agencies. The school leaders that operate at the fulcrum of such arrangements are referred to as system leaders (Hopkins 2009). While interschool collaboration, certainly of the more transient nature, is by no means a new phenomenon (see, e.g. Lomax and Daley 1995), it is the specific role of the school leader within such collaboration that has developed and risen to prominence in the English school system in recent years. Hopkins and Higham (2007) conducted the first mapping exercise of system leadership in English schools establishing a taxonomy of system leadership roles that included head teachers leading school improvement partnerships, head teachers partnering a school facing challenging circumstances in order to bring about improvement, head teachers operating as community leaders to lead beyond their schools with other agencies and services to support wider child welfare and community cohesion, and expert leaders who operate as change agents to provide knowledge, support and the mobilisation of best practice within a formal school improvement programme. The DfE has labelled such individuals as National Leaders of Education (NLE) through their programme of the same name that provides a formal means of harnessing the capacity of these leaders to improve schools in challenging circumstances (DfE 2013c).

Perhaps given the relatively recent nature of such formal interschool collaboration in England, there has to date been very little empirical research undertaken that specifically focuses on the emerging notion of leaders operating between and beyond schools. Rather, the role of the school leader within interschool collaboration and partnership tends to be nested in the wider literature in this area, much of which focuses on system leadership of the type associated with federations of schools. For example, Arnold (2006) utilised a case study design to explore the range and nature of interschool collaborations in eight local authorities across England. The research highlights a number of opportunities for schools entering into such arrangements such as sharing knowledge and best practice, collective planning, wider career structures for staff and increased learning opportunities for students while also underscoring the key role of the leader and the means by which they distribute leadership in relation to the effectiveness of an interschool collaborative arrangements:

It is clear that the quality of leadership is central to the success of a partnership, particularly in the case of federations which have an executive head. The evidence suggests that the heads themselves view the role not in terms of a ‘superheadship’ but as one which orchestrates the skills of others and draws them into the decision-making process. (p. ii)

Similarly, following a comprehensive review of the interschool collaboration literature, Atkinson et al. (2007) identified a number of factors they deem influential to effective interschool collaboration including the strength of existing relations between potential partner schools, the establishment of a clear and shared vision of what the partnership will entail, adequate support (i.e. through staff capacity, resourcing, funding and external support structures), a need to involve all stakeholders in the arrangement (to build commitment) and strong leadership of the partnership.

As highlighted earlier, there the area of system leadership is relatively underdeveloped in comparison to other areas of school leadership research discussed in this chapter. However, there have been some notable studies. For example, Higham and Hopkins (2007) undertook case study research to explore the characteristics of ten federations of high-performing lead schools partnering one or more underperforming schools in order to bring about educational improvement. A strong and resilient leadership team was typical of all ten federations with two models of senior leadership emerging most prominently. Firstly, those federations comprising one lead school and one partner school tended to employ an executive head teacher operating across both schools with an associate or deputy head teacher based at each site. In this model, the executive head teacher was closely involved in the day-to-day leadership of both schools. Second, those federations with two or more schools also employed an executive head teacher operating across all the schools in the partnership but tended to have a head of school at each individual site with more autonomy than the associate or deputy role found in the first model. This allowed the executive head teacher in this model to play a more overarching, strategic leadership role, with less operational responsibility than the executive leader operating across two schools. The second model in particular draws strongly on the notion of distributed leadership discussed earlier with the executive head teacher ‘building the capacity of others to take on wider leadership roles’ and ‘taking responsibility for developing a distributed leadership team capable of transforming practice’ (p. 306.)

In one of the few empirical research studies to look at the impact of interschool collaborative arrangements on student outcomes, Chapman et al. (2011) conducted a quantitative analysis of national pupil data to compare federations of schools that had been designed to raise performance in low-attaining schools (n = 73) with a matched sample of nonfederated schools (n = 73). While they could not prove causality, their findings ‘indicate school federations are a potentially useful mechanism to support raising the performance of weaker schools … Furthermore, the relationship appears stronger where the collaboration between schools is strongest, such as in federations as opposed to the more loosely coupled collaborative, and in federations with an executive head rather than in those without’ (Chapman and Muijs 2014, p. 214.) Again, the importance of leadership to the effectiveness of such collaborative activity is underscored.

The continued restructuring of the school system in England has created the conditions for system leadership roles to become increasingly commonplace leading to a reconceptualisation of educational leadership, as it is traditionally understood. According to Hopkins (2008), system leaders are driven by a moral purpose concerned with improving teaching and learning practice beyond their own settings and ‘developing their schools as personal and professional learning communities’ while ‘striving for equity and inclusion though acting on context and culture’ (p. 23.) Similarly, Chapman and Muijs (2014), discussing the work of executive leaders, describe a shift from institutional to educational leadership where school leaders have a ‘moral purpose linked to the well-being of the wider community rather than just any individual school’ (p. 216.)

How Does Research in England Add to International Knowledge of School Leadership?

The research reported in this chapter reinforces, adds to and nuances research developments internationally on school leadership. Because of the long-term intensive centrally driven government reform environment in England in which decentralisation of responsibilities of schools combined with more rigorous systems of centralised results and equity-driven accountabilities have been combined, much research has focused upon both the impact of this upon principals’ work. Thus, the positive and negative consequences of policy initiatives have been well researched, as we have seen in the first, second and fourth strands illustrated in this chapter. The detailed ‘playing out’ of their responses, then, has been perhaps the subject of more detailed empirical research in England than in any other country as a consequence of the intensive reform environment. A second consequence is that as innovative systems of governance and new configurations have been developed in pursuit of greater school autonomy, researchers in England have been drawn in to this agenda, also, though it is still too early to provide authoritative research evidence of success or failure. A third consequence has been twin focuses of major research projects on associations between the work of principals and pupils progress and achievement. This had led to new empirically based knowledge on, for example, schools’ (and principals’) phases of development and increased knowledge through the use of mixed methods research on what the ‘indirect’ influences of principals are and how successful principals build and sustain success through timely combination and accumulation of strategies, informed by their educational values and qualities. Work of this kind, combining the quantitative and the qualitative, provides an original contribution to knowledge of successful principalship internationally and ‘depolarises’ current claims, for example, that ‘instructional’ leadership is more likely to lead to improvement in pupils’ results than ‘transformational’ (Robinson et al. 2009).

There is much, also, that is similar between research in England and research in other countries. Similarities include (i) a desire in part of researchers, as independent public intellectuals, to give voice to concerns about policies themselves, seeing them not necessarily as, ‘a closed preserve of the formal government apparatus of policy making’ (Ozga 2000: 42), but rather as, ‘…jumbled, messy, contested, creative and mundane social interactions’ with teachers being, ‘written out of the process or rendered simply as ciphers who “implement”’ (Ball et al. 2012: 2); (ii) a concern that the school curriculum which principals lead and manage is becoming more narrow, as the emphasis upon measurable pupil results grows; and (iii) an almost obsessive drive amongst groups of researchers to promote forms of distributed leadership as exemplifying participative, so-called democratic leadership approaches. Research in England has, then, both similarities and dissimilarities with research in other countries, the latter being largely connected with the different stages of policy development in which countries find themselves.

Finally, it is difficult to identify what research may be ‘missing’ in England, since so much is produced. It would be more accurate to observe what research there is ‘more of’ and what is ‘less of’. Certainly, ‘more of’ is research related to policy developments. ‘Less of’ is research which has as its focus principals’ values (except as a by-product of successful principals’ research), principals’ work and lives, especially those who lead schools and academies which are judged by government as underperforming and longitudinal research which tracks the differences to the whole education of the school pupils over at least a 5-year period. In terms of methodologies, also, understandably but regretfully, there is not enough of research which combines quantitative and qualitative approaches to unearth intricate relationships between the what, the why, the how and the consequences for pupils of principals’ leadership.

Reflecting further on the body of research discussed in this chapter, it is possible to identify some distinctive characteristics of the school leadership landscape in England that subsequently contribute to the international knowledge in this area. Of particular note is the notion of leaders operating across multiple settings as implied by the increasing number of schools involved in formal collaborative arrangements such as federations and chains. These particular structural arrangements are still relatively new features of the school system, and, as the growing body of literature on system and interschool leadership suggests, the work of the leaders within such arrangements is yet to be fully understood. Nevertheless, the research in this particular area has identified a diversity of roles and responsibilities associated with leading across multiple schools (Hopkins and Higham 2007), while there are emerging findings that such models of leadership, specifically involving an executive principal operating in an overarching leadership position, can have a positive impact on student outcomes (Chapman et al. 2011). This then raises the prospect of a shift from institutional to educational leadership where leaders take responsibility for the educational outcomes and wellbeing of students and staff beyond the single school setting to multiple schools across wider geographical areas (Hopkins 2008; Chapman and Muijs 2014). Indeed, as Hopkins and Higham (2007) attest, the concept of system leadership ‘is premised on the argument … that sustainable educational development requires educational leaders who are willing to shoulder broader leadership roles, and who care about and work for the success of other schools as well as their own’ (p. 158). Undoubtedly, the research community has more work to do in this area, but if such a shift is occurring, then the implications for school leaders may be considerable as contemporary models of executive leadership emerge that require a different set of skills and attributes than traditional models of individual school leadership. Such models imply a greater emphasis on developing people and change agency and community relations, sharing best practice and school-to-school partnership in addition to the strong moral purpose synonymous with those wishing to lead schools at any level (Hopkins and Higham 2007).

Conclusion

The pace and volume of educational reform overseen by successive and cross party governments over the last quarter of a century have, arguably, intensified under the current Conservative-Liberal Coalition. Where previous governments had tinkered with deregulation and market forces, the new government has freed up the system to a previously unseen extent (Hatcher and Jones 2011; Stevenson 2011) in a series of policy initiatives aimed at creating a ‘self-improving system’ (Hargreaves 2010, 2012). Throughout this period, the work of the school leader has increased in both volume and diversity so that principals are no longer responsible for leading solely with a single setting but increasingly between multiple schools and with external agencies and service providers (PwC 2001, 2007; Chapman et al. 2009). Furthermore, while the decline of local authorities and the simultaneous advent of the academies and teaching school programmes have handed schools more autonomy, at the same time they are facing more stringent and punitive accountability measures and higher levels of governmental and public scrutinisation than ever before (Gunter 2011; Glatter 2012). As such, it is easy to see why the notion of distributed leadership has become part of the dominant school leadership discourse in England, as it would appear to represent a logical solution to the ways in which the role of the school leader has developed and evolved in recent years. Moreover, the research literature on leadership in schools facing challenging circumstances (section “The work of principals in schools in challenging circumstances”) and effective school principalship in improving schools (section “Effective successful school leadership in improving schools”) identifies the phased distribution of leadership as a key facet of the work of head teachers (Chapman 2004; Day et al. 2009). Alongside this, research has highlighted the importance of leadership trust (Day et al. 2011) and resilience (Day and Gu 2014). The notion of system leadership (section “System leadership”) also implies a natural dispersion of leadership responsibility across multiple schools and between schools and external agencies (Hopkins 2008). Yet distributed leadership remains a contested arena with questions raised over the authenticity of the concept and means by which it is understood and utilised in schools (Hall et al. 2011) forming part of a lively and wider debate over school leadership in England that seems unlikely to be resolved any time soon.

Yet, this also serves to illustrate that leadership research is alive and well in England and that, paradoxically, this is at least in part the result of the government’s policy emphases upon raising standards in schools. Far from being the ‘secret gardens’ which they once were, schools’, teachers’ and head teachers’ work is now the subject of the most intensive scrutiny by the public, by government itself and by researchers. All wish to understand it more in order to help its improvement. Even from the limited viewpoint which this chapter represents, research in English schools demonstrates clearly that there is no single model of head teachers’ qualities, dispositions, strategies or practices which can be easily transferred as a template to ensure the success of others.