This paper explores key findings from a study that examined how distributed leadership affected school turnaround at an underperforming urban high school. The study considers the presence of leadership as a distributive process, which is bound by action and not by role. How leadership was distributed across all tiers of the school’s leadership structure was examined, ultimately resulting in dramatic turnaround. Additionally, the settings by which teachers, administrators, and support staff learned and thrived were examined; practices that these stakeholders believed made a difference for their students were also explored. Key to the site’s shift was the collective foci on students. Each interviewee built to create a collective voice, celebrating their teamwork and their freedoms, from the district level down to the classroom level. No one setting or practice was touted as the fix for school change. Rather, study participants recognized the power of multiple settings and spoke of the necessity of each. They highlighted their personal connections, both at the site and within the community, stating its impact on school growth. Thus, this paper considers the impact of leadership when it is spread across many capable members of a school site.
References
Aladjem, D. K., Birman, B. F., Orland, M., Harr-Robins, J., Heredia, A., Parrish, T. B., & Ruffini, S. J. (2010). Achieving dramatic school improvement: An exploratory study. Washington, DC: US Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service. Retrieved November, 27,
California Department of Education. (2013). [Graphic representation of Program Improvement Schools]. 2010-2011 Title I Program Improvement Status Statewide Summary of School. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ay/tistatesum12.asp
Cherubini, L. (2008). A grounded theory analysis of beginning teachers’ experiences: Illuminating leadership capacities. International Journal of Teacher Leadership, 1(1), 22-
Fullan, M. (2000). The three stories of education reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(8), 581-584.
Gronn, P. (2002). Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis. The leadership quarterly, 13(4), 423-451.
Huberman, M., Parrish, T., Hannan, S., Arellanes, M., & Shambaugh, L. (2011). Turnaround schools in California: Who are they and what strategies do they use?
Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Strauss, T. (2010). Leading school turnaround: How successful leaders transform low-performing schools. John Wiley & Sons.
Peurach, D. J., & Marx, G. E. (2010). Leading systemic improvement: Confronting complexity in turnaround schools. Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership, 13(3), 26-36.
Saunders, W., & Goldenberg, C. (2005). The contribution of settings to school improvement and school change: A case study. Culture and context in human behavior change: Theory, research, and applications, 127-150.
Senge, P. M. (1997). The fifth discipline. Measuring Business Excellence, 1(3), 46-51.
Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2004). Towards a theory of leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Journal of curriculum studies, 36(1), 3-34.
Spillane, J. P. (2012). Distributed leadership (Vol. 4). Wiley. com.
Wenger, E. C., & Snyder, W. M. (2000). Communities of practice: The organizational frontier. Harvard business review, 78(1), 139-146.
