Also, it seems likely that different patterns
of leadership distribution throughout districts and schools, for example, might be associated with different levels of effects on students.
Second, bureaucratic structures do not determine how patterns
of leadership distribution will be enacted through any given bureaucratic structure.
The analysis in Section 1.3 builds on past theory and research to explore the nature and patterns of
leadership distribution in schools, focusing on sources of leadership influence and the relation of leadership influence to student performance.
It would be a logical error to infer that leadership as it is distributed and practiced for one leadership scenario, such as leading a new reading initiative, would necessarily be similar to
leadership distribution across other scenarios, such as changes made in the science curriculum.
Our evidence about
leadership distribution contributes to an ongoing conversation among researchers and practitioners aimed at determining implications for school improvement.26
Among our cases, Forest Elementary provides the clearest example of a school in which the overall pattern of
leadership distribution corresponded to an additive pattern, at least in a formal, bureaucratic sense (teachers attributed little actual influence to those in formal positions of leadership responsibility).
The Middle Leaders Program connects system leaders with teachers working in these roles, and allows us to examine and reflect
upon leadership distribution and succession planning.
If Jaques is correct, current expectations about the extent to
which leadership distribution is both possible and desirable in schools will need to be severely modified.
The task of encouraging more
leadership distribution in schools should be viewed, first and foremost, as the task of nurturing principals «dispositions toward such leadership.
Ultimately, however,
leadership distribution for direction setting is shaped by how the principals view and enact their roles within the context of state and district policies, priorities, and leadership traditions, as illustrated in the following contrasting examples.
It shows, for example, that the differences between high performing and low performing schools can be attributed to different degrees of
leadership distribution.
Recent scholarship suggests that
leadership distribution may moderate the effects of principal turnover on school culture.
Gronn (2002) refers to holistic and additive models of
leadership distribution.
We, however, consider two explanations for the apparent lack of any relationship related to distributed leadership: changes in leadership personnel, and within - school variation in
leadership distribution.
No general claims about the relationship between student learning and school
leadership distribution can be made on the basis of evidence derived from qualitative research at five schools.
From the resulting matrix, we selected five schools for qualitative analysis of
leadership distribution.
The leadership distribution scenario at London Elementary corresponds well to the concept of planful alignment across core leadership practices (Leithwood, Mascall, et al., 2007).
That said, other evidence (see Sections 1.1, 1.2) does suggest that principals «sharing of leadership with others in planful, yet diverse, patterns of
leadership distribution is probably a worthwhile way to approach improvement in student learning.
Our observations made by way of these lenses yield a richer understanding of
leadership distribution than we could have attained via a narrower approach.
Rather,
leadership distribution patterns are affected by the goals that school personnel associate with certain tasks.