Enabling teachers to become pedagogical leaders: case studies of two IDEAS schools in Singapore and Australia

Abstract

This research paper is about the role of the principal in enabling teacher leadership for pedagogical innovations and school improvement studied in two Innovative Designs for Enhancing Achievements in Schools (IDEAS) schools in Singapore and Australia over a 3-year period from 2005 to 2007. The research reported is based on the developing relationship between principals and teacher leaders as they collaboratively engage in a process of whole school improvement. Both case study schools used the IDEAS school improvement program which originates from the Leadership Research Institute, University of Southern Queensland. The cases trace the facilitation of the IDEAS process in each school and highlights the centrality of teacher leadership in bringing about change in school-wide pedagogy and a process of school re-culturing. It underlines the fact that principals need to support the enabling of leadership among teachers by giving them the space, time and responsibility to make decisions about curriculum work and ensuring that these are aligned with new organizational structures and processes. The paper discusses how the schools were different and yet similar in many ways between the two countries, Singapore and Australia, with regard to the nature of the enabling processes for organizational revitalization and school capacity building. It draws out some implications for school leadership and school improvement.

Examining the Relationship between School Culture and Teacher Leadership

“…Accordingly, it can be said that teacher leadership behaviors in high schools increase in parallel with task-oriented, success-oriented, bureaucratic, and support-oriented culture. Factors that affect the development of teacher leadership include school principals supporting the staff in different aspects (Hart, 1994;York-Barr & Duke, 2004;Wenner & Campbell, 2016), giving teachers time to develop themselves (Chew & Andrews, 2010), the existence of learning communities in schools that ensure professional collaboration (Hunzicker, 2012;Chamberland, 2009), and an environment of trust and peace at school (Beachum & Dentith, 2004;Gordin, 2010;York-Barr & Duke, 2004). However, teachers' lack of time, poor communication, structural factors and personal characteristics (Wenner & Campbell, 2016), lack of shared vision (Brooks, Scribner, & Eferakorho, 2004), excessive workload, insufficient support (Adams & Gamage, 2008), and an authority and autonomy gap (Friedman, 2011) weaken teacher leadership.…”

“…In environments where teacher leadership is encouraged, practices towards ensuring collaboration among colleagues, school administrators' support, and a supportive work setting are significant (Demir, 2014). On the other hand, the elements that improve teacher leadership include principal support (Hart, 1994;York-Barr & Duke, 2004;Wenner & Campbell, 2016), teacher autonomy (Wenner & Campbell, 2016), providing teachers with time and resources (Chew & Andrews, 2010;York-Barr & Duke, 2004), common vision (Chamberland, 2009;Gaffney & Faragher, 2010;Muijs & Harris, 2006), sharing leadership (Brosky, 2011;Chamberland, 2009), school structure and processes (Beachum & Dentith, 2004), team leadership (Gaffney & Faragher, 2010), school-society relationships (Beachum & Dentith, 2004), learning communities (Chamberland, 2009;Gaffney & Faragher, 2010;Hunzicker, 2012), participation in decision-making and developing a common curriculum (Chew & Andrews, 2010), paying attention to trust, respect, and ethics at school (Beachum & Dentith, 2004;Gordin, 2010;York-Barr & Duke, 2004), well-defined tasks (Muijs & Harris, 2006), and a culture of constant development at school (Borchers, 2009). …”

“…These issues include lack of teachers' time, poor communication, structural factors and personal characteristics (Wenner & Campbell, 2016), heavy workloads and an obstructive work environment (Adams & Gamage, 2008), and an authority and autonomy gap (Friedman, 2011). The lack of a shared vision (Brooks, Scribner, & Eferakorho, 2004), concentrating leadership in a single person (Chew & Andrews, 2010), a lack of trust (Muijs & Harris, 2006), and teachers not being encouraged to engage in different activities may also reduce their levels of performing leadership behaviors (Danielson, 2006). It can thus be inferred that a strict hierarchical structure that is based neither on sharing nor friendship may weaken teacher leadership behaviors.…”

The Effect of Bureaucratic School Structure on Teacher Leadership Culture: A Mixed Study

“…Finally, the supportive working environment refers to working environments that encourage teacher leadership in which trust is essential, and cooperation and communication are at a good level (Demir, 2014). In this context, in schools in which there is a supportive working environment, teacher autonomy is high (Wenner & Campbell, 2016), time and resources are provided to teachers (Chew & Andrews, 2010;York-Barr & Duke, 2004), team leadership opportunities are offered (Gaffney & Faragher, 2010), and the involvement in the decision-making processes is encouraged (Chew & Andrews, 2010). In addition to these, attention is paid to ethics in schools (Beachum & Dentith, 2004;Gordin, 2010;York-Barr & Duke, 2004), the tasks are well-defined (Muijs & Harris, 2006), the quality of communication is increased (Harris & Muijs, 2005), and learning opportunities are created from mistakes (Barth, 2000).…”

Assessing the Helpfulness of School-Based Mentors in the Nurturing of Student Teachers’ Professional Growth on Teaching Practice

“…Hansen (2001:734) Therefore, it is necessary that student teachers should undergo the process of teaching practice, have a relationship that is characterised by trust and learn from the mentors in schools before they graduate. Chew and Andrews (2010) argue that a useful relationship between mentors and student teachers revolve around distributive leadership in which ownership and involvements are central. Such relationships allow student teachers to express themselves as individuals and exhibit a sense of shared purpose.…”