FESE HandBook v03c 15112023 MEV- COMPLETO - Flipbook - Página 31
TONY BUSH / SCHOOL LEADERSHIP FOR WHOLE CHILD DEVELOPMENT
ership any differently9 to the time 8when heroic, individual leadership
was the focus of attention9.
A key issue in assessing the practice of distributed leadership is to
consider how it is distributed. Harris (2013: 546-547) argues that 8distributed leadership means actively brokering, facilitating and supporting
the leadership of others9.However, principals retain much of the formal
authority in schools, leading Hartley (2010: 282) to conclude that 8distributed leadership resides uneasily within the formal bureaucracy of
schools9.
The support for distributed leadership is because it may bring beneots that would not occur with singular leadership. Leithwood et al.
(2006) show that multiple leadership is much more effective than solo
leadership in improving student outcomes, a onding supported by Hallinger and Heck (2010). However, this body of research focuses on academic results and does not link to whole child development. This contrasts with Traver-Marti et al. (2021) who, as noted earlier, recommend
the adoption of distributed leadership and community participation in
developing inclusive schools in Spain.
As noted earlier, distributed leadership is conceptualized as an emergent and spontaneous phenomenon in western literature. However,
the support for this model in centralized contexts has led to a different
mode of distribution, with principals allocating tasks and responsibilities in a manner more often associated with delegation. Bush and Ng
(2019) showed that there is strong advocacy of distributed leadership in
Malaysia9s main policy reform document, the Malaysia Education Blueprint. However, they found that distribution was linked ormly to the
hierarchy in two ways. First, the focus is on leaders holding formal roles
in the structure. Second, the scope of distribution is limited in this centralized context, leading Bush and Ng (2019) to conclude that the model is one of allocative distributed leadership (Bolden et al., 2009). This
suggests an uneasy compromise between the free-nowing assumptions
of distributed leadership theory and the rigid requirements of the hierarchy. Their ondings are replicated in other centralized countries, for
example in Singapore, where Hairon and Goh (2015) discuss the related
notion of 8bounded empowerment9.
TEACHER LEADERSHIP
There are clear links between teacher leadership and distributed leadership. Grant (2006: 523) claims that there are three prerequisites for teacher leadership: First, a collaborative culture is required, with participatory
decision-making, and vision sharing. Second, a set of values is needed,
31
