No abstract

Background: Current federal, state, and local school accountability measures as well as policy initiatives that call for improved leadership have placed increasing demands on principals. Many districts face shortages of appropriate candidates for the job; popularly, this shortage is explained by the fact that simply too few hero-principals exist for all openings available, particularly in high-needs districts. An alternative to finding the perfect—and rare—candidate for an increasingly untenable position is to restructure the job itself. Purpose: This article examines 10 schools that have adopted alternative structures: schools with two principals, three principals, and rotating principals and a school with the principal’s duties distributed among teachers. These 10 sites provide examples of alternative ways of organizing school leadership with varying benefits and challenges. Research Methods: Data collection at the 10 schools included site visits conducted by a team of researchers, interviews with principals, teacher leaders, and district supervisors. Observational and interview protocols were adapted from the Northwestern University Distributed Leadership Study. These protocols focus on uncovering not only how school site leaders explain their decisions but also on providing evidence of what those decisions are. Interview and observational data were organized into thematic codes to permit cross-case comparison. Findings: We observed the idiosyncratic ways in which schools and districts approached the policy dilemmas associated with attempts to change the default administrative structure of principal and assistant principal. Some schools with coprincipals, for example, thrived; others struggled. Where local school sites participated actively with the policy-making process that produced these arrangements, the alternative seemed viable. Where alternatives were imposed without school input, implementation floundered. The findings analyze the origins of the reforms, school site roles, costs and benefits, the role of the district, and the long-term stability of the approach. Implications: In this article, we describe the experiences of 10 schools that have experimented with alternative arrangements for school site leadership. These experiences offer schools, districts, school boards, and researchers a series of questions to consider as they contemplate reforming the principalship itself rather than (or in addition to) preparing and searching for competent principals.

School site leadership has commanded the attention of researchers and policymakers in Anglo-American jurisdictions for at least two decades, but little is known about how many other parts of the globe have addressed this topic. This paper reviews published research and policy documents related to school leadership in Latin America between 2000–2016. Applying rapid mapping techniques used for scoping studies, we review 359 research and policy documents and give ‘coherent, meaningful shape’ to what we know and what we don’t know about school leadership in the region. Attention in research and policy to school leadership in Latin America was relatively slow to arrive: whilst it grew steadily in the first decade of this century it remains low compared to other regions of the world. We provide an overview of the school leadership policy environment in several countries, describing recruitment, selection, evaluation, and job responsibilities of principals; relevant leadership frameworks; and requirements for training or professional development. We speculate on what might explain the diverse ways that school leadership has been taken up in the region: degree of school system centralization; policy borrowing; stage of development; technocratic problem solving; and neoliberal accountability.

This article critically reviews two bodies of literature that potentially share common concerns, yet rarely overlap: distributed leadership and educational micropolitics. Alternative explanations for the split between these two analytical approaches to school organization are explored in sections on problem framing, methodology, and the marketplace of educational research and publishing. The article concludes that the separation between explorations of educational micropolitics and distributed leadership is both consequence and reflection of an increasingly prevalent managerialism required in the current policy context, which emphasizes smoothing out micropolitical conflict rather than examining it or learning from it.

Educational policies have increasingly promoted parental involvement as a mechanism for improving student outcomes. Few jurisdictions have provided funding for this priority. In Ontario, Canada, the province’s Parents Reaching Out Grants program allows parents to apply for funding for a parental involvement initiative that addresses a local barrier to parent participation. This study categorizes initiatives ( N = 11,171) amounting to approximately 10 million dollars (Can$) in funding from 2009 to 2014 and compares them across school settings. Although results show several key contextual differences, parents across settings identify relatively similar needs for enabling parental involvement, emphasizing parenting approaches for supporting well-being (e.g., nutrition, mental health, and technology use) and skills for home-based learning. However, Epstein’s widely used parental involvement typology conceals these prominent aspects of parental involvement. A modified model of parental involvement is presented that may serve as a guide for enhancing parent participation.