[MUSIC] >> Welcome back, here we are again Steve. commenting on opening up some of the issues that have occurred in the fifth and sixth weeks. To return to the issue of leadership again, one of the recurring themes is this notion of quote, "distributed leadership", and we have talked a bit about that before. And I think there's a whole range of different understandings of what that means, distributed leadership, is it the person who goes "Here you are, here you are, here you are" and distributing something to you. Or for you, does it have a different kind of meaning? >> I think it has a number of meanings, and the first is in the formal sense. So, we have people in schools who have a particular position. Principal, deputy principal, head of department, coordinator, chair of the ICT committee and so on and we would see those as being formal leadership roles, where people are given responsibility for something. But the other aspect is the fact I mentioned very early on, that every teacher's actually a leader. And teachers exercise leadership in their own classroom but when they work with each other, because often leadership is a group function. So, it's a group of people working on something together. Now, your point about someone coming in and distributing leadership like playing cards, whenever a principal arrives at a school for the first time, leadership is already distributed, both formally and informally, so it's a matter of working with it and recognising it. But I do think there's a role for leaders to foster leadership. So, that they, for example, engage in, in staff development, talent spotting. In a number of the research projects I've been involved with, people have been reluctant leaders that have blossomed once someone gave them encouragement and support to move into a role. So, it's a mixture of formal, informal, yes, in some cases, a leader may distribute jobs. But on the other hand, it's much more effective, I think, when they encourage people to seek more responsibility. >> Yeah. And I think we've got some very, very good examples of that in some of the previous courses that we've talked about. But then, you make the statement somewhere I think that you can't have a good school without good leadership. And I'm thinking of a case, or cases actually, where you haven't got a particularly effective, or even a very competent headteacher. But at the same time, there is actually the leadership, I mean that seems like a bit of a conundrum. But in light of what you said about leadership is being distributed, about teaching leadership and so on, it is possible then, to have a good school, in fact, a school without necessarily having the big leader, if you like. As being-- being the most competent person. >> That's a matter of other people then moving into that space, and in fact that can happen, and the school can still have direction, and still be improving all to the good. But, on the other hand, if the school is just being administered, rather than being led, the performance could be quite reasonable but, it's going to be sub-optimal. >> So, it's a school being led, it can be led by not necessarily the senior management team or the principal. >> Yeah. >> But, I think it would be a bit exceptional but nonetheless you might have a core group of teachers who have such a strong and effective relationship that they're in fact leading school if you like. >> Or in fact leading part of the school and in something like a high school for example, you may have a variety of faculties English, math, science whatever. And some of them may be well led and others not, so what you then get is a situation where the school is good in parts but not as a whole. >> Yeah, for curant's sake. >> Exactly. >> It's probably true of most schools isn't it? Most schools are good in parts. You've got a very good English department, but not a great Maths department, but particularly in secondary. I think it's a much more likely in the secondary context, isn't it? >> Yeah, it is. >> For the school to be good in some parts, but not overall. That's maybe the nature of the beast, in secondary or high schools. >> I think in the absence of good leadership at the top though, what can happen is that you'll get different groups in the school pulling in different directions. And that's going to be problematic. >> You speak from experience? >> I do, I speak from research experience. And yeah, the schools can be divided on certain issues, unless there's someone at the top that can basically bring those ideas together and get a workable compromise, it could well be the school becomes split. >> Yeah. And we've seen many-- >> Yes. >> Examples of that too And that is so inimical to students' welfare, students' progress. >> Yes. >> Let me go into one of my little bugbears, if you like, is the term, quote, "instructional leadership". >> Yeah. >> I come across it now all the time. It's an Americanism, I think it's probably infiltrated into the Australian or New Zealand context as well, but why continue with what that term, which I know some people, well, certainly in the UK, people will never use that term or understand what it refers to. But some, okay, in the defense of instructional leadership, or perhaps you don't want to defend it. >> No, no, I'm happy to defend it. I think the label itself is an Americanism, as you say. Instruction's got a particular connotation. But, the reason I think I use it - because I've actually started a master instructional leadership course here, which is very popular - is to distinguish ourselves from existing leadership courses, and management type courses. Because my definition of instructional leadership is simply leading teaching, and learning. And when I look at a lot of leadership programs, I've been involved in a number of them in different universities, institutes and so on, a lot of them are about management. And we've been through various phases in educational leadership, but they neglect to have an expectation that the leader will not be an expert in all there is to the curriculum. But will certainly be well versed in evidence based teaching and learning. And I think that's the reason we use it, simply as almost like a point of disruption to some degree to some people's, you know, predispositions about leadership. So we actually spent a lot of time in terms of what we were going to call this new course to distinguish itself from some of the other ones. And, you know, a master of instructional leadership as opposed a master of management or ed management. We just wanted to make it distinctive. But, regardless of the label, I think it's very important, It's a bit like clinical teaching we use that term a bit too. But for me, it's about having a strong evidence base to what you do, that's grounded in good research. And that if the leader's not so much an expert in all areas of the curriculum, he or she can still direct people, if you like, in terms of where they're going and where to find the information they need. They have a strong emphasis on teachers' professional learning. I mean, the sort of things that I mentioned, the Vivian Robertson paper from the University of Auckland, for example, where she found from meta analysis and so on, whatever you call instructional leadership, the central focus on teaching and learning is more effective than other aspects of leadership. So, you know, it's one of those things I think Ken Leithwood describes it as adjectival leadership. Many different varieties. >> Yeah. >> And types that people put out an adjective in front of it. >> Yes. I think we've identified 26 or something like that. >> Yes, that's right. >> Of adjectival leadership >> Yes. >> When I went to Cambridge once about 14 years ago and we discussed how we would describe what we wanted to do. We talked about leadership for learning. >> Yes. >> Now I guess, we're probably on the same page here. >> I think we are. >> But it's a matter, I suppose, of the message that is trying to convey. So, we were trying to convey the message that all leadership, whether we're talking about a principal, whether we're talking about a teacher, all of leadership has to be focused on learning and learning is not just about the individual student learning. >> Mm. >> It's organisational learning, it's professional learning and so on. So, we're not split hairs or stand on the head of a pin. >> No. >> I will just I think, the kind when we elaborate, we look beneath that terminology. What essential messages we're trying to convey. Let me just as a final thing again where maybe going to run out of time here. But just take up the issue of accountability which is such a huge and contentious, or quarrelsome issue, isn't it? >> Hm. >> About what we mean by accountability. And one of the things you say is accountability is to the group, more than to the external proposed accountability measures. Group accountability, self accountability are powerful influences on the learning communities. And I couldn't agree more, but if you talk to teachers in England, for example, they're pretty clear despite the fact that they find that a very appealing idea that their accountability is upward and to, not so much the local authority, but on to the government. So, there's a very, very strong top down accountability. So, I mean, it's a refreshing thing but isn't it quite a difficult thing in a very top down kind of hierarchical, politicised environment. >> I think it's inescapable that accountability is increasing. But it's accountability, often, for the wrong sorts of things as well. And I'm just talking from the experience from some fairly big research projects I've been involved with, including a national one. Where the group itself is empowered in its learning and has high expectations as a group, and for each member of the group, that sets up an upward cycle. And I think it's aspirational, it's dynamic, it's got great potential. Where, however, there is an external accountability imposed, what this tends to engender is, let's tick the box. Let's do the minimum we have to do to get away from this, so we can get back to what we really want to do which is around teaching and learning. So, I think, look, it's a reality of where we are. And the focus is particularly on government schools around the world inescapable, the influence of testing and so forth. But certainly what makes people most satisfied and I think most productive is when they're working with their colleagues. High expectations for each other, high expectations for themselves, for their students, commitment to professional learning. Wanting to know more. Evidence based approaches. Being empowered to engage in things like action learning of projects that are important to the school or issues or problems. And I just see that having so much more potential and power than external accountability, which is a fact of life and we have to deal with it. >> Yeah, but it was quote and I'm trying to think of where it comes from, that you can't empower people, you can only provide the context in which they're able to empower themselves. >> Mm. >> And that sense of internal or lateral accountability is really what we're after, and I think again the principal of the school plays a role, not so much a directive role, but a role being a able to establish that kind of culture in which people feel accountable to one another. >> Yes. And that's what we're looking for even in an, I'm talking in a English environment where you have a very, very strong downward push on schools. But we see schools despite that being able to fly below the radar. >> Mm. >> And being able to establish that strong professional internal accountability. >> I think we've come reluctantly we're now to the end of this, Steve. And anything you want to add before we come to close here? >> I'll just take up your last point about the accountability. I think accountability works against professionals and works against autonomy and those sorts of collegial relationships so. I think it makes it even more important for teachers to have a very strong idea about what professional behavior is, what it means to be a part of a professional community, and now for people in leadership positions in some cases to resist as much as possible or, you know, at least minimise some of the intrusive aspects of external aspects - control, accountability - which are undermining professionals. >> Yeah, yep. Absolutely, couldn't agree more. >> Okay. >> Thanks very much, Steve, for taking the time to have these conversations. I think it's very helpful for people, and we do do get a lot of feedback from course members saying how much they enjoy these conversations, the ability to dig beneath some of the issues that have been raised. >> So, thank you again. >> My pleasure, thanks John. [MUSIC]
