Open Research OnlineThe Open University’s repository of research publicationsand other research outputs

Making a difference: a study of effective middleleadership in schools facing challenging circumstancesOtherHow to cite:

Bennett, Nigel (2006). Making a difference: a study of effective middle leadership in schools facing challengingcircumstances. National College for School Leadership, Nottingham UK.

For guidance on citations see FAQs.

c© [not recorded]

Version: [not recorded]

Link(s) to article on publisher’s website:http://www.ncsl.org.uk/mediastore/image2/mad/research-mad-lit-review.pdf

Copyright and Moral Rights for the articles on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyrightowners. For more information on Open Research Online’s data policy on reuse of materials please consult the policiespage.

oro.open.ac.uk

2

www.ncsl.org.uk

Literature Review

HEADS OF YEARHEADS OF FACULTY

SUBJECT LEADERSCURRICULUM

CO-ORDINATORS

Making a DifferenceA study of effective middle leadership in schools facing challenging circumstances

Summary of a report for the National College for School Leadership

Nigel BennettCentre for Educational Policy, Leadership and Lifelong Learning,

Faculty of Education and Language Studies,The Open University. January 2006

1Literature review

Introduction 2

What are the key aspects of subject leadership highlighted in the literature? 3

Collegiality 3Accountability 4Authority and expertise 5

Conclusion: The role of the subject leader in schools facing challenging circumstances 12

References 14

This paper summarises our report(Bennett, 2005) on the role ofsubject leaders in secondaryschools facing challengingcircumstances. This brief summaryoutlines some key issues in therole of the subject leader and thepressures they face, and concludeswith some suggested guidelines for action for these postholders.

The key point that the report makesis that we can identify importantunderlying issues and problems that face all secondary school subjectleaders, but that they are more acuteand difficult to address in schoolsfacing challenging circumstances. Inparticular, the key issues that subjectleaders in such schools have to dealwith are concerned with the multipledifficulties faced by these schools,the negotiation of the subjectleader's broker role in the light of the strong moral leadership roleadvocated for the headteacher, andthe problems faced by staff who may be uncertain about the qualityand effectiveness of their practice.

2 Literature review

Introduction

Bennett et al (2003) identified two key tensions in the role ofthe subject leader, and three basic issues through which thesetensions were reflected.

The two tensions were

• whole-school expectations ofsubject leaders’ role versus theirloyalty to their department

• a growing line managementculture within schools versus aprofessional rhetoric of collegiality

These two tensions were worked out specifically in relation to threeimportant areas:

• collegiality

• accountability

• authority and expertise

In addition we explore the literature on:

• leadership as negotiation

• shared leadership

• power

• trust

• community of practice

Collegiality

Collegiality was interpreted in avariety of ways. Some were related to action and practice, and otherswere related to structure.

Collegiality as action and practice was concerned with questions ofhow much discussion within subjectdepartments was focused on the what and how of teaching, and therewas evidence that the term was oftenused as a synonym for individualautonomy. Collegiality as structurewas seen as a way of defending theindividuality of the departmentagainst the demands of the school’ssenior leaders and the perceived linemanagement structure through whichthese demands were expressed. Thistension generated important issues ofaccountability for the subject leader.

3

What are the key aspects of subject leadershiphighlighted in the literature?

Subsequent writing by Ribbins (2003)has provided a longitudinal casestudy which demonstrates how astrongly directive and interventionisthead of a design department drovethrough changes in teaching practicewhich included highly directivecurriculum changes and demands forteaching conformity. These ultimatelyproduced both good examinationperformances by the students and a culture of openness amongdepartmental staff about classroompractice, a willingness to be monitoredin the classroom and highdepartmental morale.

Accountability

The review found that most subjectleaders saw themselves as primarilyaccountable to their departmentalcolleagues and for defending theirsubject against curriculum demands,whereas senior staff saw them as accountable to the school and the governors for the department’sperformance. One consequence ofthis was that senior staff expectedsubject leaders to monitor the workof the teachers in their departmentand observe their classroom practice.This presented problems for manysubject leaders who felt that it castdoubts on the professionalism oftheir colleagues as teachers of theirspecialist subjects, and underminedthe climate of trust on which theirdepartmental collegiality rested. Only where subject leaders hadresponsibility for the work of non-specialists were monitoring andobservation seen as appropriate.

Writers such as Glover et al (1999)and Wise (2001) see the role of thesubject leader as ‘buffer and bridge’or ‘broker’, standing between theschool and the department. Like all middle managers – and here wedeliberately choose ‘manager’ ratherthan ‘leader’ – subject leaders haveto interpret policies made outside the department and filter demandsso that they become manageable and acceptable to their colleagues(see also Bennett, 1995).

‘Defence’ can also involve ‘advocacy’.Subject teachers may want to feelthat their needs and opinions have an influence on whole-schooldecisions. Glover et al (1999) andJames and Aubrey-Hopkins (2003)emphasise how important it is for thestatus and reputation of the subjectleader that they obtain sufficientresources for the department to doits work. James and Aubrey-Hopkinsalso see this as a crucial aspect bywhich individual subject leaderssustain their self-respect, andlegitimise their authority in their own eyes so that they feel they have the right to exercise the role.

4 Literature review

5

““

Authority and expertise

The literature suggests that a subjectleader’s capacity to do the job restson their subject knowledge andteaching competence, and the ability to model good practice. The basis on which individualteachers acknowledged their subjectleaders’ role and allowed them toexercise it was not their formalposition. Rather, the basis oftheir authority derived from their interpersonal skills, subjectknowledge and expertise as teachers.Interestingly, they did not necessarilyhave to be the best teacher of thesubject, but they had to be able tomodel what their colleagues saw as good classroom practice.

But this is a very simple way oflooking at a complex phenomenon.Just what do we mean by knowledge,competence and good practice?Subject knowledge and classroomcompetence do not necessarily go together.

Ogawa (2003) suggests thatcompetence rests on a combinationof ‘knowledgeability’ – theknowledge or certainty thatparticular actions will produceparticular results – and ‘capability’ – the ability to identify and choosebetween a number of alternativecourses of action so as to act in theway that seems most appropriate tothe situation. When knowledgeabilityand capability continue to deliverwhat is expected, teachers continueto work in a condition of certainty;when they do not, uncertainty aboutwhat counts as effective practicecreeps in. This may be why teachersworking outside their specialist areasand heads of department who are not getting good exam results(Sammons et al, 1997) welcomeguidance and direction.

If departmental members and subjectleaders value collegiality, how do theysquare off the ‘leading professional’with the sense of equality implicit in the collegial framework?

5

The review found thatmost subject leaders sawthemselves as primarilyaccountable to theirdepartmental colleaguesand for defending theirsubject against curriculumdemands, whereassenior staff saw them as accountable to theschool and the governorsfor the department’sperformance.

One way of resolving this is to see leadership as an activity orfunction that takes place within thedepartment rather than somethingdone by a particular individual. Seen as a function, leadership ‘flowsthrough’ the relationships within the department (Ogawa and Bossert,1996). When we talk about leadershipas a function rather than as oneperson’s role, we are allowing for the possibility that it moves betweenpeople or gets stretched over a rangeof individuals (Spillane et al, 2001).Such an approach to leadershipaffects profoundly the basis on which we judge a subject leader’scompetence, and gets furtherattention in the discussion ofteacher leadership below.

We should note, however, that even if leadership within a departmentbecomes a function rather than arole, the literature reveals strongpressures that foster fragmentation in the culture of the school. Teachers’sense of accountability to theirsubject is one, which is reinforced by the tendency of secondary schooltimetables to segment the students’experience into a kind of productionline (Metcalfe and Russell, 1997). The need to sustain legitimacy as a subject leader by defending theterritory tends to create departmentalsubcultures, especially if thedepartments can claim to besuccessful (for example, by gettingconsistently good exam results). Jones et al (2004) also point out,reinforcing the production lineanalogy, that departments often havephysical areas within the school thatcreate visible as well as intellectualboundaries and reduce the extent towhich staff communicate informallyacross subject areas.

6 Literature review

When we talk aboutleadership as a functionrather than as one person’srole, we are allowing forthe possibility that itmoves between people or gets stretched over arange of individuals.

Leadership as negotiation

Morley and Hosking (2003) viewleadership as a process of negotiationbetween particular individuals in particular settings. Rather thanpromoting best practice, thisnegotiation should be about creating a shared view of what the organisationis like, why that is the case and whatis planned for the future. Both ofthese views – dialogue and debateand negotiation – see the result asbeing agreed understandings of asituation and action to deal with it.Negotiation is a way of moving those involved from a situation ofuncertainty to one of certainty aboutthe what and how of teaching andlearning in the school. It is a constantprocess, which is why these writersalso emphasise the leader’s role in this task.

We should note two points about thisview of leadership as a negotiativeprocess. First, it introduces twoimportant elements into thediscussion: power and trust. Second,negotiation involves two or moreindividuals or groups who may havedifferent interests and values, andthus may lead to conflict instead of a shared view. This can weakenrelationships and create culturalfragmentation and uncertainty rather than integration. Avoiding this result, and keeping a balancebetween uncertainty and certaintyabout what is being done and how,are key leadership activities.

Shared leadership

In terms of shared leadership, theliterature on leadership in schoolsfacing challenging circumstances has focused on the role of theheadteacher. It emphasises theimportance of the head having astrong moral basis for their leadership,and refusing to accept actions thatcontradict it.

They can be ruthless in enforcingtheir moral stance. However, theyseek to persuade their staff to accept their vision and goals, and to promote dialogue, debate andcollaboration in achieving them.Leadership is a widely distributedfunction and this removes thedistinction between leaders andfollowers (Harris, 2002).

Teacher leadership

Teacher leadership is seen as a meansof promoting negotiation betweenteachers, generating higher levels ofparticipation and collaboration withinschools and reducing the potentiallydivisive effect of subject departmentsnoted above. It is seen as a vehicle forinnovation and for generating acontinuing review of practice, withleadership as a process of support andassistance as much as direction-setting.

7

However, we should note thatbecause teacher leadership does not rest on a hierarchical structure ofroles and responsibilities, it assumesvery high levels of trust betweenstaff, shared values and structuresthat create space for such negotiationto take place and provide anynecessary support. Without these,despite the claims of writers such as Lingard et al (2003) that teacherleadership raises staff morale, thenegotiative process at the heart ofteacher leadership practice can easilyresult in conflict and fragmentation,and there is some evidence of this(Blase and Blase, 1997; Smylie, 1997).Changing staff can also affect thedegree to which teacher leadership isaccepted (Burke and Mitchell, 2004).Creating structures of support andflexibility is the responsibility ofsenior staff, but subject leaders cando much to create flexibility withintheir own departmental areas.

We should also remember that theroots of teacher leadership lie in theUSA, where school principals are seenas middle managers within muchmore strongly directive local systems,and where, as non-teachingadministrators, they were movedbetween schools much morefrequently than teaching staff.Teacher leadership is presented inNorth America as a means of creatinga more participative, professionallybased decision-making process withinschools where traditionally there hasbeen little teacher participation inschool decision-making at all, andthereby creating the kind of longerterm certainty that frequent changesof school principals can undermine.Thus for example, in Patterson and Patterson’s (2004) study, teacher leaders are seen as takingresponsibility for substantial areas of whole-school policy-making andpractice, performing a mixture oftasks traditionally exercised bysubject leaders and senior staff inEnglish schools, and providing formsof professional support that would be promoted within departments by good middle leaders.

8 Literature review 8

“We should also rememberthat the roots of teacherleadership lie in the USA,where school principalsare seen as middlemanagers within muchmore strongly directivelocal systems, and where, as non-teachingadministrators, they weremoved between schoolsmuch more frequentlythan teaching staff.

“

Conflicts of interest

This summary has identified manyopportunities for conflict, andconflict involves the use of power(Hoyle, 1986; Ball, 1987). However,the teacher leadership literaturetends to present leadership asdistributed among the teachers so that they are perceived as equalswho assume leadership roles on thebasis of their particular expertise in a situation and in an environment of cultural integration. But just asnegotiation implies different valuesand interests, so we must rememberthat some participants are moreinfluential than others: there isalways what Hales (1993) refers to as ‘power disparity’. This is relativelysmall between subject leaders andothers, but very great between thehead and their colleagues. Heads can mandate action if they wish, and can remove staff, and appointteachers who share their values.

Teacher leadership writers accept thisimplicitly by identifying two crucialroles for headteachers. The first –moral leadership – has already been referred to. Secondly, as linemanagers with a whole-schoolperspective, heads can identify areas of practice that they believewould benefit from greater staffcollaboration. Bringing this about on anything more than a superficiallevel would require the kind ofnegotiation that we referred to earlier,and again, there is no intrinsic reasonwhy this work cannot involve, if not be undertaken through, subject leaders.

Much of the literature on educationalleadership discusses power in termsof power to persuade colleaguesrather than power over colleagues.However, any kind of power disparitythat is structurally created, such asthat between headteacher and staff,is ultimately ‘power over’.

9

Much of the literature on educational leadershipdiscusses power in termsof power to persuadecolleagues rather thanpower over colleagues.

For this reason, the role of subjectleaders as defenders of the interestsof their subject colleagues, referredto above, is crucial in reducing thedegree to which power over theirarea of responsibility is exercised by more senior staff.

Trust

Trust between the different parties or individuals involved is an essentialrequirement in conflict resolution.We need to be certain that peoplewill do what they undertake to do.One objection that subject leadersexpressed about monitoring andevaluating their colleagues’ work was that it undermined the basicprinciple of professionalism: trust ina person to do their work properlyand without supervision. This wasbehind the claim of collegiality bymany subject leaders.

The literature is clear that there is arelationship between the exercise ofpower and the development of trust.It is difficult to see how headteacherscan ‘require’ trust (Harris, 2002) oftheir staff; it is more likely that theresponse to opportunities to engagein collaborative activities within theconstraints of a very strong moralframework, as in her examples ofeffective headship in schools inspecial measures, will be compliancerather than trust, unless staff can bebrought in who share the values ofthat moral framework.

Communities of practice

Writers on organisations areincreasingly referring to communitiesof practice, and we should examinebriefly the difference between theseand collegial units. Communities of practice are seen as groups ofindividuals which are to a largeextent self-generated on the basis of shared values and a sharedunderstanding of what their workinvolves and how it should be done.

10 Literature review

Trust between thedifferent parties orindividuals involved is an essential requirement in conflict resolution. We need to be certain that people will do whatthey undertake to do.

11

Because of this shared understanding,they become important sources ofindividual members’ personal andprofessional identities. Leadershipwithin a community of practice is a function not a role, and plays theimportant part of supporting andencouraging colleagues. One possibledistinction between a collegium anda community of practice may be that although both may have a set ofshared values, a collegium is a groupof individuals who work primarily as autonomous individuals, whereasa community or practice is a group of individuals who work morecollectively. From this perspective,members of a community of practiceare more likely to discuss work andestablish agreed bases for practice,and find that these discussionsreinforce both their commitment totheir shared values and the degree to which their professional practice is consistent across the group.

Thus an effective community ofpractice is likely to rest upon adeeper level of trust between itsmembers – what Bottery (2003) calls ‘practice’ trust – than acollegium, in which members trust one another on the basis of their role: in this case, as a co-teacher of a subject.

12 Literature review

Conclusion The role of the subject leader in schools facing challenging circumstances

This discussion has shown thatsubject leaders working in schoolsfacing challenging circumstancesmust sustain a level of certaintyabout pedagogy in the professionalthinking of their colleagues whilstpromoting sufficient uncertainty tocreate a drive towards professionaldiscussion and the negotiation ofnew forms of shared practice, as a basis for ongoing improvementsin the quality of their students’learning.

At the same time, they must sustain orpromote an overall school culture ofintegration rather than differentiationor fragmentation. This is little differentfrom the subject leader’s role in anyother school. However, the issuesaround negotiation, power and trustare more acute in schools facingchallenging circumstances.

In our view, the central task of theeffective subject leader is to create a culture of trust within theirdepartmental teams that will make it possible to discuss issues of practicerather than sustaining these asindividual matters. This will be a slow process requiring that a level ofuncertainty exists about what countsas good practice so that individuals areprepared to discuss what they do inorder to find possible ways forward.However, too much uncertainty islikely to lead to a return to the oldways and resistance to change. Wesuggest that the following guidelinesfor action for subject leaders shouldhelp towards this end of creating trustand willingness to think collectivelyabout practice.

• Work to provide an environmentof stability and security withinwhich their colleagues can work,acting as a buffer, bridge andbroker to mediate betweendepartmental needs andexpectations and the widerdemands of the school’s seniorleadership. Being seen to defendthe interests of the subject willprovide them with credibility and status among their subjectcolleagues. However, ensuringthat colleagues are aware ofwider school expectations willmake it possible to align subjectteaching policies with those ofthe school as a whole.

• Work to promote a sharedapproach to pedagogical orcurriculum leadership within thesubject, so that leadership is seenas support rather than guidanceand direction, and whereindividual expertise, rather thanoffice, is valued and respected as a basis for such leadership.

13

This is not to deny subjectleaders’ accountability for theoverall quality of the work ofthe subject teachers; it is toacknowledge the range of skillsand expertise that is available forcolleagues to draw on as needed.

• Work to promote a view ofprofessional dialogue and supportas an opportunity to learn andimprove practice, by takingadvantage of the informalcomments on such topics assuccessful or unsuccessfulteaching work that routinelyoccur in staffroom conversations.

• Exploit situations of uncertaintyto encourage individuals tosupport – that is to say, provideleadership to – one another, and to promote collaborative or team-based responses.

• Create situations of uncertainty inorder to maximise opportunitiesfor learning, ensuring that theyare not so threatening that theycause colleagues to retreat intothe familiar.

Much of the work necessary to carryout these tasks involves the kind of continuous negotiation outlinedby Morley and Hosking (2003),encouraging colleagues to thinkabout their teaching and theirrelations with each other. The subjectleader also faces what is potentiallyan even more difficult task ofmaintaining this negotiative stance in relation to the wider schoolsetting, in their role as buffer, bridgeand broker, in order to ensure theoverall culture of integration referredto above without appearing toundermine the position of theirsubject colleagues. This is a complexactivity as it has to be undertaken in a situation of considerable powerdisparity in which the subject leaderis the weaker party, and because ofthe moral ruthlessness described byHarris as a characteristic of the headswho were successful in overcomingchallenging circumstances.

These suggested guidelines for action are not in any way originalinterpretations of the subject leaders’role, and nor are they panaceas.Indeed, at first sight they suggest that the tasks facing subject leaders in schools facing challengingcircumstances are only different indegree from those facing subjectleaders in any other kind of school.What is different, though, is theextent to which they have to promotesimultaneously the conditions ofsecurity and uncertainty that canencourage their colleagues toacknowledge a need for support andadvice without feeling inadequate orincompetent, and generate a climateof trust and rapport between theteachers of the subject that willpromote the move from anindividually focused collegium thatmay promote flexible and innovativepractice to a community of learnersthat will do so.

14 Literature review

References

Ball, S J, 1987, The Micropolitics of the School, London, Methuen

Bennett, N, 1995, Managing Professional Teachers: Middle Management in Primary and Secondary Schools, London, Paul Chapman Publishing

Bennett, N, 2005, The role of subject leaders in secondary schools facingchallenging circumstances: a report for the National College for SchoolLeadership, Nottingham, National College for School Leadership

Bennett, N, Newton, W, Wise, C, Woods, P A & Economou, A, 2003, The Role and Purpose of Middle Leaders in Schools, Nottingham, National College forSchool Leadership

Blase, J & Blase, J, 1997, The Fire is Back? Principals Sharing School Governance,Thousand Oaks, CA, Corwin Press

Bottery, M, 2003, The management and mismanagement of trust, EducationalManagement, Administration and Leadership, 31(3), 245-61

Burch, P & Spillane, J, 2003, Elementary school leadership strategies andsubject matter: reforming mathematics and literacy instruction, ElementarySchool Journal, 103(5), 519-35

Burke, D & Mitchell, I, 2004, Reflections on practice: an administrator’s 16-yearjourney to promote teacher leadership and learning. In J Chrispeels (ed)Learning to Lead Together: The Promise and Challenge of Shared Leadership,Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage, 80-103

Glover, D & Miller, D with Gambling, M, Gough, G, & Johnson, M, 1999, As others see us: senior management and subject perceptions of the workeffectiveness of subject leaders in secondary schools, School Leadership andManagement, 19(3), 331-45

15

Hales, C, 1993, Managing Through Organisation: The Management Process,Forms of Organisation and the Work of Managers, London, Routledge

Harris, A, 2002, Effective leadership in schools facing challenging contexts,School Leadership and Management, 22(1), 15-26

Hoyle, E, 1986, The Politics of School Management, London, Hodder and Stoughton

James, C & Aubrey-Hopkins, J, 2003, The leadership authority of educational‘middle managers’: the case of subject leaders in secondary schools in Wales,International Studies in Educational Administration, 31(1), 50-64

Jones, N, James, C & Dunning, G, 2004, An analysis of the experience ofdepartment boundaries and their management by subject leaders in secondaryschools in Wales. Paper presented to the seventh BELMAS InternationalResearch Conference, Oxford, 8-10 July

Lingard, B, Hayes, D, Mills, M & Christie, P, 2003, Leading Learning,Buckingham, Open University Press

Metcalfe, C & Russell, S, 1997, The role of subject leaders in monitoring the work of teachers in secondary schools: the quest for consistency? Paperpresented to the annual conference of the British Educational ResearchAssociation, York, 11-14 September

Morley, I E & Hosking, D-M, 2003, Leadership, learning and negotiation in asocial psychology of organizing. In N Bennett and L Anderson (eds) RethinkingEducational Leadership, London, Sage, 43-59

Ogawa, R T, 2003, Embracing uncertainty: organizing and leading to enhancethe knowledgeability and capability of teachers. In N Bennett and L Anderson(eds) Rethinking Educational Leadership, London, Sage, 27-42

16 Literature review

Ogawa, R T & Bossert, S T, 1997, Leadership as an organizational quality. In M Crawford, L Kydd & C Riches (eds) Leadership and Teams in EducationalManagement, Buckingham, Open University Press, 9-23

Patterson, J & Patterson, J, 2004, Sharing the Lead, Educational Leadership,April 2004, 74-8

Ribbins, 2003, A life in design. Keynote address to the annual conference ofthe British Educational Leadership Management and Administration Society,Yarnfield, September

Sammons, P, Thomas, S & Mortimore, P, 1997, Forging Links: Effective Schoolsand Effective Departments, London, Paul Chapman Publishing

Smylie, M, 1997, Research on teacher leadership: assessing the state of the art.In B Biddle et al (eds) International Handbook of Teachers and Teaching,Dordrecht, Kluwer, 521-92

Spillane, J, Halverson, R & Diamond, J B, 2001, Investigating school leadershippractice: a distributed perspective, Educational Researcher, 30(3), 23-8

Turner, C, 2003, A critical review of research on subject leaders in secondaryschools, School Leadership and Management, 23(2), 209-27

Wise, C, 2001, The monitoring role of the academic middle manager insecondary schools, Educational Researcher, 41(2), 333-42

National College for School LeadershipTriumph RoadNottingham NG8 1DH

T: 0870 001 1155F: 0115 872 2001E: ncsl-office@ncsl.org.ukW: www.ncsl.org.uk PB127a