EE811_1Exploring educational leadershipAbout this free courseThis free course is an adapted extract from the Open University course .This version of the content may include video, images and interactive content that may not be optimised for your device. You can experience this free course as it was originally designed on OpenLearn, the home of free learning from The Open University –www.open.edu/openlearn/education-development/exploring-educational-leadership/content-section-0There you’ll also be able to track your progress via your activity record, which you can use to demonstrate your learning.

Copyright © 2018 The Open UniversityIntellectual propertyUnless otherwise stated, this resource is released under the terms of the Creative Commons Licence v4.0 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/deed.en_GB. Within that The Open University interprets this licence in the following way: www.open.edu/openlearn/about-openlearn/frequently-asked-questions-on-openlearn. Copyright and rights falling outside the terms of the Creative Commons Licence are retained or controlled by The Open University. Please read the full text before using any of the content. We believe the primary barrier to accessing high-quality educational experiences is cost, which is why we aim to publish as much free content as possible under an open licence. If it proves difficult to release content under our preferred Creative Commons licence (e.g. because we can’t afford or gain the clearances or find suitable alternatives), we will still release the materials for free under a personal end-user licence. This is because the learning experience will always be the same high quality offering and that should always be seen as positive – even if at times the licensing is different to Creative Commons. When using the content you must attribute us (The Open University) (the OU) and any identified author in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Licence.The Acknowledgements section is used to list, amongst other things, third party (Proprietary), licensed content which is not subject to Creative Commons licensing. Proprietary content must be used (retained) intact and in context to the content at all times.The Acknowledgements section is also used to bring to your attention any other Special Restrictions which may apply to the content. For example there may be times when the Creative Commons Non-Commercial Sharealike licence does not apply to any of the content even if owned by us (The Open University). In these instances, unless stated otherwise, the content may be used for personal and non-commercial use.We have also identified as Proprietary other material included in the content which is not subject to Creative Commons Licence. These are OU logos, trading names and may extend to certain photographic and video images and sound recordings and any other material as may be brought to your attention.Unauthorised use of any of the content may constitute a breach of the terms and conditions and/or intellectual property laws.We reserve the right to alter, amend or bring to an end any terms and conditions provided here without notice.All rights falling outside the terms of the Creative Commons licence are retained or controlled by The Open University.Head of Intellectual Property, The Open University This free course, Exploring educational leadership, provides a brief introduction to the field of educational leadership. It explores the relationships between management and leadership, the scope of the field and different world views that underpin educational leadership research and practice. You will also learn about some key concepts such as agency, power and authority. You will explore the differences between concepts, models and theories, and be introduced to some questions that will help you evaluate different educational leadership theories and models.This OpenLearn course is an adapted extract from the Open University course EE811 Educational leadership: agency, professional learning and change, which is the first course in the Leadership and management route within the Masters in Education qualification. Studying this short course will give you a flavour of what to expect if you decide to progress to postgraduate study on EE811.After studying this course, you should be able to:discuss different views of leadership identify key concepts related to leadership (e.g. agency, power)explain what ‘agency’ meansexplain some alternative views of ‘power’explain the difference between a theory and a model.There has been a tremendous amount written about being a leader, how to be a good leader, how to offer effective leadership and many other permutations of those words. We have all experienced the leadership of others in our professional and personal lives, and will have a view about which leadership actions, behaviours and strategies might be required in a given situation. In our professional lives as educators, we have also experienced being managed and may ourselves manage the work of others. However, what is meant by ‘leadership’, ‘leading’, ‘administration’ and ‘management’ can vary across organisations, situations, times and culture.In the USA and Canada, the term ‘administrator’ is synonymous with ‘manager’, and some senior administrators will have strategic leadership responsibilities. In the UK and Australia, there has been growing recognition since the 1990s of the requirement for people in management roles to have leadership qualities. Over time the names of roles have changed to reflect the amount of leadership expected. For example, ‘heads of department’ in schools became ‘middle managers’ and then ‘subject leaders’, and ‘senior management teams’ have become ‘senior leadership teams’ (Gunter, 2004).It is important to note that we are not suggesting that people are either leaders or managers, but rather that most roles are an amalgam of the two and that the proportions may vary according to the context or situation. It may not be helpful to force a distinction between leaders and managers as that narrows down the focus of attention to individuals and the ways in which roles are named and defined rather than the activities that take place. One view is that leaders work with people to change behaviours, attitudes and values, whereas managers work with a steady state within the setting, maintaining the performance of people, inanimate objects and systems (Cuban, 1988). From this perspective, for example, a subject leader may manage the resources to support a change in teaching method that they have been leading their colleagues to consider.This course adopts a critical perspective and argues that educational leadership and management are contested concepts. For example, we can question Cuban’s (1988) view that leadership and management are linked to role designations such as ‘team leader’ or ‘lead worker’ because although these people are expected to lead, others without designated titles can also show leadership. It is also important to think critically about the ways in which definitions of leadership are used at different times and in different places. This situated approach to understanding leadership means that we recognise that leadership varies with the contexts and cultures in which it operates. Leadership can involve spontaneous and/or planned activity. It can emerge in response to a situation that arises, or as a result of long-standing vision for the future. As you work through this course, you will start to develop your own understanding of leadership within your setting.Activity 1Allow approximately 60 minutesRead the three contrasting ideas below.The first two quotations are from the broader field of leadership studies in the USA and the last from the field of educational leadership in the UK.Leaders are ‘persons who, by word and/or personal example, markedly influence the behaviours, thoughts, and/or feelings of a significant number of their fellow human beings’ (Gardner and Laskin, 1995, p. 8)Leadership is ‘a process of social influence in which one person is able to enlist the aid and support of others in the accomplishment of a common task’ (Chemers, 2000, p. 27).Leadership is a process of influence leading to the achievement of desired purposes. Successful leaders develop a vision for their schools based on their personal and professional values. They articulate this vision at every opportunity and influence their staff and other stakeholders to share the vision (Bush and Glover, 2003, p. 5).Note down your thoughts about these differing views of leadership. You might find it useful to discuss your views with a colleague.

Figure 1 Educational leadershipThis picture is made up of the various terms that are used in the field of leadership studies presented both vertically and horizontally. The terms include: leadership, theory, pedagogic, charismatic, distributed, instructional, teacher, transactional, visionary and many others

A sense of the scope of the field of study is provided in Figure 1. You are not expected to be familiar with all of these terms at present, but you will return to some of them as you move through the course.Educational leadership sits within the extensive field of leadership studies, which draws from many disciplinary areas including psychology, sociology, anthropology, organisation studies, business studies and the social sciences. Over time, multiple theories of leadership have been developed, each one retaining influences from the discipline in which it originated. For example, examining the behaviours and traits of individual leaders continues to be an area of study for those drawing on a background of psychology, whereas researchers emerging from a business studies background may focus on how leaders respond to change within and around their organisations. Making sense of the multiple theoretical approaches to leadership is, therefore, challenging. This is further complicated by the commercial and policy literature which advocates particular approaches to leadership and leading which may, or may not, be drawn from empirical research.Educational leadership is a particular area of study within this broader field of leadership. During the 1980s and 1990s, the education sector, particularly in the UK, began to engage with this range of leadership and management concepts. Additional ideas about educational leadership were developed, for example instructional, pedagogic and teacher leadership. Leadership remains a contentious area of scholarship, and in the literature, you will find competing and contradictory references to multiple leadership types, theories, styles and models.Activity 2Allow approximately 30 minutesThe following animation outlines in summary the varying approaches which have been taken to understanding leadership. As you watch the video, identify the main models of leadership it mentions and how each might be distinguished from the other.NARRATORIn this animation, we’ll be exploring four distinct ways of thinking about leadership – positional, distributional, transactional, and transformational. This is a contentious area of scholarship, and in the literature you will find competing and contradictory references to multiple leadership types, theories, styles, and models. This is because leadership incorporates a considerable range of actions and activities, all of which are underpinned by distinct values and beliefs. Everyone working in an educational context could be involved in some form of leadership activity – that is, any activity that involves influence in the knowledge, views, behaviours, or practices of others. If we argue that everything we say and do is premised on the desire to influence others, the potential range of behaviours regarding leadership is vast. It’s no wonder theories continue to develop new ideas about leadership as a phenomena and find it hard to agree on a single model of what it is and how it is best understood. In providing an overview of leadership discourses, Simon Western points out that different leadership models emerge from and dominate distinct historical, situational, or economic periods, but in the contemporary situation, they coexist within organisations, individual leaders, and leadership teams. No single leadership model has the capacity to close down discussion by asserting leadership as categorically one thing in preference to another thing. As Richard Bolden points out, models of leadership may be used descriptively, to describe things as they are or, normatively, to describe things as they should be. You may also view a leadership model as a heuristic device that helps you to think. None of these models will be found in any context or in any person as a discrete entity. It’s more likely that at certain times aspects of leadership practice can be interpreted through the lens that these models provide. Some theorists suggest that rather than asking ‘What is leadership?’, it is analytically more beneficial to ask, ‘What happens if we think about leadership in this way or in that way?’. For example, if we understand leadership as any activity which is premised on the desire to influence the knowledge, belief, behaviour, or practices of others, this implies that we view leadership as primarily about the individual, the power invested in them, and their capacity to persuade others to comply with their wishes. This is a somewhat individualised view of leadership that locates agency as embodied by an individual, perhaps by virtue of sheer force of character or by the position they occupy in an institution. We may contrast positional leadership with a very popular notion of distributed leadership. Only a few members of an organisation will have a designated leadership role. However, most of us will make some contribution towards organisational goals. Under such, leadership may be viewed as a shared or distributed phenomenon. The concept of distributed leadership recognises that good ideas can come from anyone within an organisation, and as all human beings are endowed with agency, all human beings may therefore take the initiative and develop new practices. Helen Timperley considers distributed leadership to be desirable, as it builds capacity within an institution and allows for the development of intellectual and professional capital. Comprising of dynamic interactions between multiple individuals, the role of the leader and follower are viewed as interchangeable; determined by the nature of the task and the situation. While distributed leadership is the model of choice for many leadership scholars, it does have its critics. The dynamic interflow of ideas, tasks, and responsibilities in which leadership and followership are interchangeable hints at a utopia that few of us would recognise. This imagined utopia is remarkably silent about the use and abuse of power about exclusions from leadership based on race and gender. Jacky Lumby goes as far as to suggest that this silence amounts to ethical complicity. The effect of distributed leadership as a theory is to mask contestation, discrimination, and conflict in organisations. Instead, perpetuating an iniquitous status quo, she dismisses distributed leadership as fashion or fad. This would seem to push us back towards a positional view of leadership instead of viewing leadership as a capacity bestowed on or denied to individuals. In Unit 4.3, Kath McPherson and Alan Borthwick make the distinction between leadership behaviour, which is potentially embodied by an individual, and positional leadership, in which someone has a designated role that requires them to lead others. For example, a head teacher, college principal, or head of department. To say someone holds a leadership position within an organisation does not allow us a great deal of insight into their approach to leadership. And so the model needs to be refined further, allowing us to understand the different ways in which any leader may choose to conduct themselves in their designated role. Transactional and transformational leadership are by far the two most well-established models providing this sort of insight. Transactional leadership is an approach where you influence the behaviour of a follower for rewards or disciplines depending on the adequacy of the follower’s performance. This approach to leadership has two main factors – contingent reward balanced by management by expectation. Contingent rewards requires subordinates to reach prescribed levels of performance, whereas management by expectation allows for intervention if standards are not met. This is a variation on the classical ‘carrot and stick’ approach to leadership. Some people might feel uncomfortable to imagine a transactional approach to managing professional teachers, many of whom feel a deep sense of commitment to working with pupils and students. Transformational leadership might intuitively feel a more appropriate model. In many ways, transformational leadership is very similar to democratic leadership. Both involve a deep respect for the dignity of individuals and their cultural traditions – a proactive facilitation, open inquiry, and active critique. The transformational leader inspires and motivates followers, demonstrating the importance of and fostering a desire to improve and to achieve. They are charismatic, optimistic, and excited about achieving goals. They generate a shared belief in a strategic vision. They mentor followers and attend to their individual needs. If the transactional leader leads with the head, the transformational leader leads with the heart. Transactional leadership is efficient, transformational leadership is effective, but you need to be careful as these are artificial ideal types of constructs. In fact, all leadership models can be dismissed a little more than stereotypes. If questioned, most leaders would prefer to describe themselves as transformational and at times, they probably are. However, if we are to observe their day-to-day practices, we might well observe a transactional approach. Most leaders are both depending on the circumstances or the situation they are in. The value of these models is determined by how we use them. Their analytical value changes according to whether we view these models as descriptive, normative, or heuristic. In this animation, four main models of leadership have been introduced – positional, distributional, transactional, and transformational. Other closely related models have been mentioned, such as democratic leadership, while yet other models, such as delegated leadership or strategic leadership, haven’t been explored at all. It’s possible to identify more than 20 different leadership models – authentic, servant, ethical, situational, pragmatic, professional, eco. The list goes on. It seems as if some leadership scholars have taken the notion of leadership, placed an adjective in front of it, and coined a new model, an approach that has been referred to as adjectival leadership. This approach has led to a field of study that is hotly contested and is rich with theory, philosophy, and empirical research. The challenge for you as an emerging scholar is to critically analyse the literature and find ways of using different ideas to understand the world in which you live.

Please note: ‘Unit 4.3’ in the video refers to part of the Open University course not included in this OpenLearn course.The core purpose of educational leadership is necessarily related to the purpose of education in the setting and context in which it takes place. For example, for Swaffield and MacBeath (2013), educational leadership is ‘for’ learning and has moral purpose for the ‘wider good’ (p. 15). This purpose is linked to issues of equity and social justice, which are underpinned by our views about the ideal ways in which society should work. However, researchers and educationalists have many different ‘world views’ or personal preferences and beliefs about what individuals can do and the way that knowledge is developed and applied in practice. These inform the paradigm that is being adopted, which in turn shapes the research questions that are asked and the way that the activity of research is approached (the methodology).Research paradigms that you may have heard of include positivist, interpretivist, critical/constructivist, feminist and postmodernist. We will not be going into the detail of these world views here, but as you study this course you are encouraged to think critically about a range of contrasting and contradictory ideas. To do this, it is helpful to clarify your own world view and beliefs about how change is achieved. We hope that you will find that the ideas presented in this course challenge your thinking, and will help you to refine and develop your ideas about educational leadership and management.To consider what a ‘world view’ might be, it is helpful to reflect on your own ideas about how the social world operates; how individuals can act, how human relationships create a ‘real’ world, and how culture and power influence our actions (the concept of ontology). Importantly, in education we also need to consider our views about knowledge, how it is developed, and how it can be shared and extended through learning and teaching. This is a view on epistemology (the study/theory of knowledge). For example, Westernised views of knowledge are often deeply embedded in the scientific tradition (explicit knowledge) whereas some Eastern concepts of knowledge are embedded in intuition and storytelling, which is a more tacit concept of knowledge (Nonaka, 1994). Importantly, in relation to both sets of views, Burgess et al. (2006) point out that ‘These beliefs are basic in the sense that they must be accepted simply on faith (however well argued); there is no way of establishing truthfulness’ (p. 54).Agency is a concept that has long dominated Western thought in sociology, economics, philosophy and psychology. The agency of individuals can be defined as the ‘capacity for autonomous social action’ (Calhoun, 2002) and it is often contrasted with social structures that can be seen as determining human behaviour, e.g. religion, social class, economics and family.The ‘structure–agency’ debate has dominated discussions in sociology since the 1970s, particularly in relation to the capacity of individuals and groups (‘collective agency’) to change the context (or social structures) within which they exist. Moving beyond those oppositional views, Anthony Giddens (1984) argued that individuals have the capacity for reflective thought about their actions and use this knowledge to both create and change the structures within which they live, which is known as ‘structuration theory’. For Giddens (1984), structures and human agency are therefore interdependent. The concept of agency has been further developed by Archer (2000) and others. How we understand agency shapes how we understand the potential for change and autonomy for those engaged in leadership activities, which is important in the study of educational leadership.One approach to thinking about agency is that of Biesta and Tedder (2007). They propose an ‘ecological’ understanding of agency, where agency by individuals is understood as an achievement rather than an essential characteristic. The achievement of agency emerges from the transactions between individuals within their environment at a given time and place. This is helpful in understanding how social actions can be agentive in some situations and not others, and that an individual’s achievement of agency will fluctuate over time.Watch the following video about the importance of identity and how it relates to agency.NARRATORIdentity is an important concept in social science, because it impacts on how people behave. In the context of this module, that could be how they might respond to professional development opportunities or how they might react to change. Your identity is your sense of self. Because we are complex social beings, we have multiple identities which intersect and shape each other. Personal identity is fundamental. It is the concept you develop about yourself that evolves over the course of your life. It is based on things like your racial identity, your appearance, where you grew up, but also your values, your beliefs, and the sorts of things you do in your life. It is shaped by past experiences, relationships, the choices that you make, and how you spend your time. It is helpful to think in terms of social identity – your sense of who you are based on the social groups to which you belong. Professional identity is your sense of who you are in your professional role. It is based on your attributes, beliefs, values, motives and experiences. In this module, ideas about identity are underpinned by three assumptions. Identity is socially constructed – it emerges from and is constructed by life’s experiences, the influence of significant others, education, cultural norms and values. Identity is fluid – it changes with time and place according to interactions which take place. Identity is socially situated – how you see yourself depends on the context that you are in at the time. Your sense of identity is shaped by the world around you, but paradoxically your sense of identity also shapes that world over time. Your multiple identities give you a sense of purpose, self-efficacy, motivation and commitment. Your sense of identity will therefore impact on how you behave. Identity is linked to agency. All humans are able to exercise agency in a formation of our identities by selecting and rejecting influences and experiences to incorporate into our identity. In Unit Two, Priestley, Biesta and Robinson argue that personal and professional identity interact with aspects of contexts, such as the cultural values, social structures, relationships, and resources. And that agency emerges from that interaction. They call this an ‘ecological approach to agency’, and through their research have provided policymakers with a framework for considering how the ecologies of teaching may impact on teacher decision making and teacher action. This perspective is helpful if you are investigating distributed leadership and seeking to understand the extent to which people feel able to acquire and exercise agency. In Unit Nine, Day, Kington, Stobart and Sammons take a different perspective in their investigation of how variations in the work and lives of teachers affect pupils. They suggest that identity is formed as people take action in different sociocultural settings. This action is known as exercising agency. They find that teachers’ identity may be more or less stable and more or less fragmented depended on life, career, or situational factors. The implication is that in order to ensure that policy initiatives designed to support recruitment and retention are successful, the initiative needs to support teachers in building a stable and coherent sense of self. Both studies make a contribution to knowledge about how change impacts on teachers. Both studies see identity as socially constructed, fluid, and socially situated, but they have slightly different perspectives on how this relates to agency.

Please note: ‘Unit 2’ and ‘Unit 9’ in the video refer to part of the Open University course not included in this OpenLearn course. Also, the reference to ‘module’ in this video refers to the Open University course EE811 Educational leadership: agency, professional learning and change.How we understand social structures and individual agency closely relates to the way we think that power operates in society. Stephen Lukes’ (1974) theory of power is one of the best known. He examined political power and argued that there are three dimensions or faces to the exercise and understanding of power:a one-dimensional view, where power is explicitly evident in decision-making, for example where votes can be counted for and against a decisiona two-dimensional view, where power is visible and also invisible to some of the community, for example decision-making and agenda setting undertaken by small elite groupsa third dimension, where power is largely invisible and shapes agendas, perceptions and preferences, for example the power of advertising or the media more generally.Lukes’ dimensions deal with the application of power by individuals, but power is also closely tied to the notion of authority, particularly for people with leadership positions.Max Weber (1956) distinguished between power and authority. For Weber, power is obtained and exercised through coercion, and typically without the consent of those on whom it is being exercised. Power (in this sense) is then not perceived or experienced as legitimate by those on whom it is exercised. On the other hand, according to Weber (1956), authority is exercised through consent, and the exercise of this authority is therefore seen as legitimate by those who are subordinate to this authority. Therefore, those in formal leadership positions have the authority to make decisions and set agendas, which corresponds with Lukes’ ([1974] 2005) definition of the exercise of power.In thinking about power, it is important to move away from the notions of power characterised as negative and held by individuals, and to think of power as a process existing within society. For example, hegemonic power is built into the structures of society through a long-term historical and political process of consent and coercion. This results in ‘normative’ expectations of ways that people should behave. ‘Normative’ describes what should and should not be done in particular sorts of practical circumstances, and why. When people depart from normative expectations they are usually asked to explain or justify their actions. These expectations are supported by hierarchical structures in society, such as legal systems, religious and educational organisations. Normative expectations of the place in society of particular groups of people, for example women, those from a particular ethnic background, or those from a particular caste, can lead to systematic disadvantage for individuals belonging to these groups. Change can occur when individuals and groups challenge these normative expectations, but penalties and punishment can also result from challenges to those in positions of power.An alternative view of power was proposed by Foucault (1977), who argued that power in society is played out in day-to-day relationships through discourse and knowledge. The distinctiveness of Foucault’s ideas lay in his rejection of traditional, hierarchical views of power (as reflected, to an extent, in the ideas of Weber), where power is perceived as being ‘possessed’ by certain individuals or groups who then use it to impose their will on the subordinate ‘powerless’. Foucault suggested that this reified notion of power (power as a kind of object) is mistaken, arguing instead that power is best understood as being fluid and dynamic. He argued that power emerges through the interactions and relationships of groups and individuals within particular social or organisational contexts and structures.Foucault saw power as an abstract phenomenon, which can be positive or negative, repressive or productive. Power is constantly recreated and operates through an individual ‘discipline of the self’. Individuals see themselves as unique and self-directing, and make choices, but, Foucault argues, these choices are made only within the discourses and knowledge that are available to them. The ideas that prevail in particular social contexts become the dominant discourse and the common social assumptions. Power and authority reside in those who have the knowledge and the authority to make changes to the dominant ways of thinking. One logical development of Foucault’s ideas is that those with no formal authority can also exercise power in society. This is sometimes described as having social influence. Influence fits closely with Foucault’s ideas of power being played out through immediate social relationships, as individuals and groups coalesce around ideas and values presented by individuals. Rational argument, persuasion and the attractiveness of ideas are all aspects of influence. Personal charisma is also closely associated with the ways in which influence is generated between individuals. Leadership emerges as followers are attracted to the particular ideas of individuals and groups, and move to support them through agreeing with and disseminating their views. Leaders exist because the group gives them the power and legitimacy to do so.Many schools are based on historic organisational structures that shape certain aspects of their leadership. Strongly hierarchical structures tend to be very bureaucratic, with clearly articulated leadership and management layers, and clearly delineated responsibilities at each layer (Bush, 2002). Authority is derived from the power associated with particular positions within these hierarchies, and in most such organisations, tasks and policies are passed down through the layers for implementation. This notion of hierarchical power is associated with Max Weber, the founder of organisational sociology. Weber’s theories offer an important way of understanding how power and authority are differentiated and exercised within organisations, and why organisations are typically structured in the way that they are. Some, particularly smaller or more informal organisations, for example an out-of-school club, may have looser organisational or group arrangements and an approach known as ‘collegiality’, where all of the team are involved in decision-making (Bush, 2002). Where there is a lot of consensual decision-making, the processes can take a long time, but there is said to be a stronger sense of ownership of the decisions among the team. Leadership here derives authority from shared agreements on goals and the way in which individuals work towards a common goal, perhaps akin to the power of influence discussed earlier, or power embedded in culture and tradition, as discussed by Fairbairn-Dunlop (2014).In practice, few organisations have distinct structures, and different leadership approaches may be practised in different parts of the same organisation. Power can work through both hierarchical authority and through discourses and knowledge-sharing between individuals. Leaders may draw their power from the authority that is linked to their place in an organisational hierarchy and/or may draw on the power associated with their expert knowledge. Those who are not in designated leadership roles may exert influence on others through the power of persuasion and interpersonal relationships, by proposing new ideas for practice or alternative ways of working.Therefore, the institutional features of organisations and the relationships between the people within them need close attention when we are discussing leadership, as the environment of a setting may or may not facilitate particular types of learning or leadership. Billett (2006) argues that the workplace is made up of particular ‘social practices that afford experiences to participate and learn’ (p. 45). ‘Affordances’ (the support and opportunities for learning) are shaped by the way that organisations reproduce themselves, power relations within and between organisations, and the motivations and intentions of individual learners. For example, the expanding size of many educational organisations, the increase in decisions and speed of decision-making required has led to a growth in what are termed ‘delegated leadership’ and ‘distributed leadership’. In short, delegated leadership is where the leadership of tasks is given to people who would not normally have that as part of their role, requiring a top-down analysis of what requires doing. Distributed leadership is where people are encouraged to show leadership for tasks that they perceive as needing attention, as a result of bottom-up analysis (Woods et al., 2004).Activity 3Allow approximately 1 hourThe video below introduces the North Bedfordshire Federation of Schools case study, which illustrates many of the issues that were introduced above: agency, leadership, authority and organisational structures.Watch the video, and familiarise yourself with the case study. Notice where the issues of leadership agency, professional development and change are discussed. Note: ‘Ofsted’ in this video refers to the UK government agency ‘Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills’.Narrator:The middle school heads, in particular, had to spend a great deal of effort explaining how the Federation would work in practice.Janine Waring (Head teacher, Harrold Priory Middle School):‘What does it look like, feel like? What’s it going to be like on a day-to-day basis? What difference is it going to make to me as a teacher?’ were the kinds of questions that staff were asking. So for them it was about helping them to see that there would be benefits for them as well in terms of maybe workload, quicker drivers for change, quicker impacts for success, a lot more collaboration and consistency between the Key Stage 3 curriculum and moving on to Year 9.Narrator:The head teachers also have to learn to collaborate with senior staff from the different schools in weekly meetings to harmonise key issues such as the curriculum, assessment systems, recruitment and finance. It’s not all been plain sailing.John Clemence:It’s probably been the favourite phrase in the Federation, when you’re having these conversations between the three of us: ‘Oh, we do that already’. And you’re thinking, ‘No you don’t, you know’. Or the other way round: ‘There’s a problem here’, … ‘Well there wasn’t a problem when they were with us’. You know, so you’ve got to, you’ve got to go past that. That’s what a mature group of people does.Mike Lavelle:There is that surrendering that, you know, I want to get my own way. But also, I’m now in a position where I’m working alongside head teachers, meeting weekly and having a challenge presented every week. It’s a good professional place to be.John Clemence:Because the way we’ve done it and we have communicated and we have in effect consulted and we have ...Narrator:During the setting up of the Federation, the heads also had to keep the local authority on side.Chris Hilliard:There is a duty to consult and schools therefore do consult the local authority to see whether we have particular views on it. But certainly in the case of this Federation, you know, [there is] clear commitment to raising standards and aspirations as far as the youngsters are concerned, keenness for the schools to work together, also to work with the local authority. There are obviously potential advantages if one were to look at it from the perspective of – which we should do – the perspective of the individual youngsters. What it means is that we’ve got curriculum continuity right the way across the three middle schools: and therefore, you’ve got that curriculum continuity being reflective, hopefully, in terms of achievement and attainment. And therefore, you’ve got an even stronger base point for when those youngsters are going through to Sharnbrook Upper School.Narrator:Despite the local authority’s support for the idea of the Federation, they were at the same time planning their own reorganisation. They wanted to scrap all their middle schools and move to a two-tier system. It threatened to undermine Sharnbrook’s Federation plans.John Clemence:We went out to consultation for Federation. I think it was about a month before the local authority went out to consultation to the population of Bedford and Bedford Borough to say not only are we going to reorganise the system, but we’re going to close your school, your school, your school. All the middle schools would be closed including our three feeder schools. And we had gone out to consultation on Federation. So one, we had to overcome the confusion that caused but also we were selling the message at the time which was about using the Federation to whatever system we have to make it work even more effectively.Narrator:When, in September 2009, the Federation finally got the go ahead, it was not quite as hoped. In the confusion over reorganisation, Margaret Beaufort decided not to join, believing instead that its interests would be better served by trying to federate with its own feeder primaries. John Clemence was disappointed.John Clemence:Now they made a decision on the basis that they felt that because there was by that point they had been signalled a closure notice on the school, that the local authority had implemented on the basis of the reorganisation, they, and that meant not only were they closed as a school, they would disappear, in effect. Because their building would be taken over by a primary school, it’s not that they would become primary, they were gone. So they felt their future at that point was more linked to setting up some kind of Primary Federation with its feeder schools. And they wanted to spend their energies on that. That was what we were told. So, ‘No’ to the Secondary Federation. In the meantime, the Primary Federation didn’t get off the ground at all because they weren’t interested, the other schools. So they went into a kind of a vacuum really.Narrator:Meanwhile with the Federation of three schools up and running, Margaret Beaufort began to struggle in the 2009–10 academic year and received a poor Ofsted report.Hugh Carr-Archer:They went into, you know, category 3 out of 4, satisfactory. And that was a real knock to their pride. I won’t pull any punches. When Margaret Beaufort School got a satisfactory Ofsted, it had three lower schools nearby that fed it that had got outstanding Ofsted. It had Lincroft Middle that had got three consecutive outstanding Ofsteds and it had Sharnbrook Upper with four consecutive outstanding Ofsteds. And they asked, even though they were in the same Trust, they asked none of us for any advice or any help and they created their own action plan. Now some might call it brave; some might call it stupid. So they have had this sort of shock. They thought they could do it themselves. The head teacher left for another job. The governing body decided, in my opinion rightly, that they couldn’t do it themselves.Narrator:By June 2010, the new coalition government’s cuts in public spending led to the shelving of Bedford’s reorganisation plans due to projected costs of £340 million plus, which they could no longer afford. Now, finally, Margaret Beaufort joined the Federation.Hugh Carr-Archer:So let me start with the new governors from Margaret Beaufort Middle School. I want to welcome new governors now. Margaret Beaufort Middle School joining the Federation: you know, we sort of held the ring for you for a year and, and now you’re here, we’re delighted.Narrator:With Margaret Beaufort on board, the Federation was ready to harmonise the middle schools feeding into Sharnbrook. But a key issue for the heads will be to establish a Federation identity whilst preserving the individuality of the four schools. They will also need to find answers to the complaints that the leadership is too top-down.

So far we have introduced a range of ideas that can help you to ask questions about different theories of leadership and management. The next step is to apply and use these, and to develop some of the academic skills that will support you in thinking critically about complex ideas in educational research, and in your own practice.Both theories and models are built up of concepts. The concept of the ‘leader’ in the educational research literature often contrasts the ‘power of one’ (Harris, 2003, p. 14) with the concept of ‘leadership’ in other more collegiate, shared or distributed models. In setting up this dichotomy, issues about recommendations for practice, democracy in organisational structures and how power and authority are connected to leadership all move the discussion from the theoretical to the practical. Thinking about how this may be applied to practice has political and moral implications.John Storey, working in the field of business studies, suggests an alternative way of conceptualising the field of leadership. He describes a ‘leadership constellation’ (Storey, 2010, p. 20) which draws out the enduring themes and concerns of leadership research across the various theories. Storey argues that context, perceived leadership need, behavioural requirements and capabilities, and development methods are the four interrelated critical factors for considering the adequacy of any leadership theory.Theories seek to answer particular questions, and, in making theoretical claims, use particular concepts and evidence to make an explicit and logical argument. Ideally, a theory shows enough of its own working that others can follow its reasoning, be convinced by its usefulness and can deploy it in new contexts. So, although all theories are put forward at particular times and in particular places, their purpose is to have at least some degree of relevance in situations beyond the setting in which they were first crafted.Models, on the other hand, tend to provide a framework for looking at specific issues. Models also use concepts to explain ideas but may not provide empirical evidence to support these claims. Models are underpinned by an overall world view.Understanding how theories and models are constructed, through examining the key concepts and underlying views of the world that underpin them, can help us to deal with the variety of perspectives that exist. When trying to evaluate theories and models, we need to ask questions based around three areas:How coherent are the ideas presented? Are the concepts explained and is the way in which the different concepts relate to each other clear?How well do these ideas work in different nations, cultures and types of organisations (large, small, old and new)? Do they ‘travel’ well across space and time?How well evidenced is this theory or model? What types of evidence are used to support it?Rather than adopting simple definitions and models of educational leadership and management, we argue that these are contested concepts that can be challenged when you think critically. Key questions that help us to adopt a critical approach to thinking about educational leadership are those that ask what the theories presented have to say about individual agency, power, views of knowledge and context. In adopting a critical approach to thinking, we need to closely examine the concepts used by theorists, and evaluate their ideas, evidence and underpinning world view. Even so, the relationship between educational leadership and management theory is not straightforward, and the relationship between theory and practice is also complicated.Middlehurst (2008) outlines seven reasons why educational leadership is a contested concept. She goes on to explain that ‘General theories do not provide a specific tool kit that can be applied successfully in every circumstance, and apparently well-tailored leadership competence models do not identify consistently successful behaviours or successful individuals’ (p. 133). Middlehurst suggests that the relational nature of leadership goes some way towards explaining that. The article makes it clear that there is no single leadership solution or style that suits everyone and every situation, and that there has generally been a move away from a belief in the ‘heroic’ leader who was born with certain charismatic charms that enabled them to lead others, regardless of the situation, towards a belief that leadership can be shown by a whole range of people.The study of educational leadership and management encompasses an extensive body of work drawing on a number of different disciplines. In this course, we have discussed the overlap and indistinct boundaries between the terms ‘leadership’ and ‘management’, and have suggested that it is not always helpful to separate the two.In this free course, Exploring educational leadership, you were introduced to the concepts of agency, power and the context of education to the leadership question. These concepts are useful in thinking critically across the broad range of different theories and approaches to educational leadership.This OpenLearn course is an adapted extract from the Open University course EE811 Educational leadership: agency, professional learning and change, which is the first course in the Leadership and management route within the Masters in Education qualification.Archer, M. (2000) Being Human: The Problem of Agency, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Biesta, G. J. J. and Tedder, M. (2007) ‘Agency and learning in the lifecourse: towards an ecological perspective’, Studies in the Education of Adults, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 132–49. Billett, S. (2006) ‘Constituting the workplace curriculum’, Journal of Curriculum Studies, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 31–48.Burgess H., Sieminski, S. and Arthur, L. (2006) Achieving your Doctorate in Education, Sage, London.Bush, T. (2002) ‘Educational management: theory and practice’, in Bush, T. and Bell, L. (eds) The Principles and Practice of Educational Management, London, Sage, pp. 15–33.Bush, T. and Glover, D. (2003) School Leadership: Concepts and Evidence, Nottingham, National College for School Leadership.Calhoun, C. (2002) (ed.) Dictionary of the Social Sciences, Oxford, Oxford University Press.Chemers, M. (2000) ‘Leadership research and theory: a functional integration’, Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 27–43.Cuban, L. (1988) The Managerial Imperative and the Practice of Leadership in Schools, Albany, State University of New York Press.Fairbairn-Dunlop, P. (2014) ‘The interface of Pacific and other knowledge in a supplementary education site’, Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, vol. 44, no. 6, pp. 874–94.Foucault, M. (1977) Discipline & Punishment: The Birth of the Prison, Penguin, London (this edition 1991).Gardner, H. and Laskin, E. (1995) Leading Minds: An Anatomy of Leadership, New York, Basic Books.Giddens, A. (1984) The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration, Cambridge, Polity Press.Gunter, H. (2004) ‘Labels and labelling in the field of educational leadership’, Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 21–41.Harris, A. (2003) ‘The changing context of leadership. Research, theory and practice’, in Lukes, S. (1974) Power: A Radical View, London, Macmillan (this edition 2005). Middlehurst, R. (2008) ‘Not enough science or not enough learning? Exploring the gaps between leadership theory and practice’, Higher Education Quarterly, vol. 62, no. 4, pp. 322–39.Nonaka, I. (1994) ‘A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation’, Organization Science, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 14–37.Storey, J. (ed.) (2010) Leadership in Organizations: Current Issues and Key Trends, 2nd edn, Florence, Routledge.Swaffield, S. and MacBeath, J. (2013) ‘Leadership for learning’, in Wise, C., Cartwright, M. and Bradshaw, P. (eds) Leading Professional Practice in Education, Sage, London/The Open University, Milton Keynes, pp. 9–24.Weber, M. (1956) Economy and Society, Berkeley, University of California Press (this edition 1978).Woods, P. A., Bennett, N., Harvey, J. A. and Wise, C. (2004) ‘Variabilities and dualities in distributed leadership’, Educational Management Administration & Leadership, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 439–57.This free course was written by Carol Azumah Dennis.Except for third party materials and otherwise stated (see terms and conditions), this content is made available under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 Licence.The material acknowledged below is Proprietary and used under licence (not subject to Creative Commons Licence). Grateful acknowledgement is made to the following sources for permission to reproduce material in this free course: ImagesCourse image: © Weekend Images Inc./E+/Getty ImagesEvery effort has been made to contact copyright owners. If any have been inadvertently overlooked, the publishers will be pleased to make the necessary arrangements at the first opportunity.Don't miss outIf reading this text has inspired you to learn more, you may be interested in joining the millions of people who discover our free learning resources and qualifications by visiting The Open University – www.open.edu/openlearn/free-courses.

Discussion 2018011700