Abstract
As the principal’s role has become more complex and complicated, there has been increasing advocacy for ‘teacher’ and ‘distributed’ leadership by policy advocates and some researchers. Against this international backdrop, this chapter focuses on how principals re-negotiate leadership responsibilities in a context where new management structures have been created at the national level, while internal school dynamics vary considerably. It deals with how principals re-negotiate leadership responsibilities amidst a changing school dynamic where policy rhetoric advocates a ‘distributed’ leadership role while legal requirements and more practical considerations constrain the enabling of colleagues to take on responsibility for leadership in a collaborative manner. The chapter provides further testimony that school culture and traditions, the inter-personal skills and leadership capital of the principal are critical in terms of the extent to which tinkering with existing provision rather than systematically building sustainable leadership capacity within schools continues to be a work in progress.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
There were two types of ‘posts of responsibility’- A and B. An additional allowance, in additional to basic salary was provided to post-holders. These posts were allocated solely on seniority. Thus the longest serving members of staff of a particular school—after the principal and Vice-Principal, and depending on total enrolment, would receive an A post and in return would undertake particular duties assigned to that post. Examples of such positions were—the school library, taking responsibility for sport, for organising the cleaning of the school while in more recent times such responsibilities might include being responsible for computers within the school etc. B posts, though worth approximately 50 % of the financial reward for an A, often carried similar duties. In primary schools the official position was that—‘while fulfilling post of responsibility duties could not be allowed to interfere with a teacher’s classroom responsibilities, neither was a teacher obliged to work outside normal school hours’. Such a formula was a recipe for inertia notwithstanding the fact that individuals made significant contributions, but such ‘rules’ resulted in enormous variation from one school to the next depending on precedent and leadership, while there was a tendency also on the part of younger staff to leave ‘responsibilities’ to those with ‘posts’—a kind of internal apartheid. Nevertheless, many younger teachers made significant contributions, particularly in the area of extra-curricular activities. Presently, the additional financial allowances attaching to these positions, all of which are index linked and part of calculations for pension entitlements, have been frozen and those who retire from such positions are not being replaced, thus a hollowing out of recently created structures is undermining a distributed leadership perspective while putting greater pressure on those who hold such responsibilities including deputies and principals. Allowances, since January 2010, are: A- €8,520 and B- €3769. The number of A & B positions in any school depends on enrolments and total number of teachers (see Circular 07/03). To put this in perspective, in March 2009, it was calculated that 53 % of primary teachers held a ‘post’ of some description, while this percentage included principals and deputies. Since then, due to austerity, 14 % of Assistant Principal positions have been frozen (751) and 38 % (2,276) of Special Duties positions have suffered a similar fate as they have been vacated.
- 2.
Use of the term ‘manager’ should be noted here since in 1973 primary schools did not have Boards of Management. Rather, typically, a local school manager was the local Parish Priest, thus the school was hugely dependent on his disposition and his attitude to finance as to whether or not ‘local contribution’ to State education was generous or miserly.
- 3.
The Report of the Benchmarking Body in 2007 made some adjustments to allowances paid to primary principals as follows: the allowance for principals in schools with 1–7 teachers was increased to €12,261 annually, while it had been €9,328 for schools with 1–5 teachers, thus these categories were merged, while for the largest schools, those with 36 teachers or more, were awarded an allowance of €31,580, increased from 29,833 (for further details, see Author 2007).
- 4.
At the time of the reform, it was widely believed among principals that, as a result of their agitation for greater remuneration for principals, given devolution of responsibility and decision-making, that the Ministry of Finance was willing to provide the bulk of the additional resources to reward principals, but that this was vetoed by the teacher unions in favour of distributing the finances across the profession, something with appeal to a broader membership. However, some years later, and under the rubric of ‘benchmarking’, an opportunity provided through one of several ‘national agreements’ negotiated between Government, trade unions and the private sector, principals received substantial pay increases by being ‘benchmarked’ against managerial positions in the private sector.
- 5.
In the first of these two agreements, public sector unions signed up to pay cuts of between 5–10 %, and agreed not to undertake any industrial actions, while in the second, productivity agreements were reached, particularly regarding supervision, in return for no pay cuts for the duration of the agreement.
- 6.
Circular 07/2003 specifically states that: “the Deputy Principal is required to assist the Principal teacher in the day-to-day organisation and supervision of the school. In addition to his/her teaching duties the Chairperson should assign the Deputy-Principal specific duties. Before assigning such duties to the Deputy-Principal the Chairperson should discuss the matter with the Principal teacher” (Appendix to the circular).
- 7.
Boards of Management were not established in the primary education system until the mid 1970s. Prior to this, schools were managed almost exclusively by the local clergyman, as evidenced in earlier chapters. In a much more secular and pluralist Irish society, having close to 90 % of the country’s primary schools managed under the patronage of the local Bishop in whose dioceses the school is located is perceived as increasingly anachronistic. During the term of the present Minister for Education and Skills, school Governance has become a focus of attention. In this regard, see Coolahan et al. 2012.
- 8.
Due to pressure exerted by teaching principals through both IPPN and INTO, some respite was provided for teaching principals whereby depending on school size they were entitled to a specified number of release days annually whereby substitute cover would be provided thus enabling them to attend to other responsibilities, particularly policy formulation amongst others. However, if all other colleagues are engaged in teaching, this leaves the principal isolated, with little or no opportunity for collaboration without disrupting teaching.
- 9.
I recall sitting in a staffroom approximately 15 years ago during teaching practice supervision in a large suburban disadvantaged school, having a cup of tea and sharing a conversation with the then Vice-principal and other teachers. A knock came to the open staffroom door, and, as I was nearest the door, I answered the call. Present was a salesperson of books wishing to speak with the teacher who had responsibility for the school library. When I turned to the teachers to inquire as to who held this post, the question drew a blank initially and only after repeated false starts were they able to identify the person concerned as a collective process of trial and error. As these reforms were being implemented, along with approximately 20 primary principals we undertook an analysis of the responsibilities assigned in as many schools for ‘A’ and ‘B’ posts. What became abundantly evident was a complete lack of consistency—in some schools, special duties teachers had been assigned more onerous responsibilities than those who were now assistant principals in others.
- 10.
A dilemma frequently referred to by principals was in describing a set of duties that entailed ICT; such duties were often perceived as favouring younger staff members thus discriminatory against more senior colleagues, with potential for contestation and appeal.
- 11.
Messages being received by principals during this policy implementation phase were suggesting that responsibilities could not be determined in a manner that would put some staff at a disadvantage, especially more senior staff, but this too may be understood as (a) a further attempt to maintain the established culture of promotion strictly on the basis of seniority, and (b) being more difficult to develop capacity and the school’s capability to enhance aspects of curriculum, teaching and learning, if the person with the greatest expertise in the area could not be allocated these responsibilities. Where teachers felt aggrieved by the outcome of such internal competitions, the process could be appealed and when principals realised that this practice was being availed of freely, many became more cautious in their approach whereby continuity rather than change was likely to be favoured.
References
Achinstein, B. (2002). Community, diversity and conflict among schoolteachers the ties that blind. New York: Teachers College Press.
Anderson, G. L. (2009). Advocacy leadership toward a post-reform agenda in education. London/New York: Routledge.
Author. (2007). Report of the public service Benchmarking body. Dublin: Government Publications.
Ball, S. (2008a). The legacy of ERA, privatization and policy ratchet. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 36(2), 185–199.
Ball, S. (2008b). Performativity, privatisation, professionals and the state. In B. Cunningham (Ed.), Exploring professionalism (pp. 50–72). London: Institute of Education.
Coghlan, M., & Desurmont, A. (2007). School autonomy in Europe policies and measures. Brussels: Eurydice.
Coolahan, J., Hussey, C., & Kilfeather, F. (2012). The forum on patronage and pluralism in the primary sector. Dublin: Department of Education & Skills.
Day, C., & Gu, Q. (2010). The new lives of teachers. London/New York: Routledge.
Day, C., Sammons, P., Stobart, G., Kingston, A., & Gu, Q. (2007). Teachers matter connecting lives, work and effectiveness. New York: McGraw Hill/Open University Press.
Deal, T. E., & Peterson, K. D. (2009). Shaping school culture pitfalls, paradoxes, & promises (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
DES. (1999). Report of the Working Group on the role of the primary school principal. Dublin: Government Publications.
DES. (2003). Appointments to posts of responsibility circular 07/03.
Department of Education. (1973). Responsibilities and duties of principal teachers and teachers in charge of national schools.
Goodson, I. F., Moore, S., & Hargeaves, A. (2006). Missions, memory, and meaning teacher nostalgia and the sustainability of reform: The generation and degeneration of teachers. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(1), 42–61.
Government of Ireland. (1998). Education (No. 2) Bill. http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1998/en/act/pub/0051/
Green, J. (2011). Education, professionalism and the quest for accountability hitting the target by missing the point . London: Routledge.
Gronn, P. (2009). Hybrid leadership. In K. Leithwood, B. Mascall, & T. Strauss (Eds.), Distributed leadership according to the evidence (pp. 17–40). London/New York: Routledge.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1998). Exploring the principal’s contribution to school effectiveness: 1980–1995. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9(2), 157–191.
Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times. London: Cassell.
Hargreaves, A., & Fink, D. (2005). Sustainable leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hargreaves, A., & Goodson, I. F. (2006). Educational change over time: The sustainability and nonsustainability of three decades of secondary school change and continuity. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(1), 3–41.
Hargreaves, A., & Shirley, D. (2012). The global fourth way the quest for educational excellence. Thousand Oaks: Corwin and Ontario Principals’ Council.
Harris, A. (2008). Distributed school leadership developing tomorrow’s leaders. London/New York: Routledge.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations software of the mind. Intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival. New York/London: McGraw Hill.
Ireland, G. O. (2010). Public service agreement 2010–2014. Dublin: Government Publications.
Jackson, D. (nd). Distributed leadership ‘spaces between the pebbles in the jar’. Retrieved August 12,2013, from http://networkedlearning.ncsl.org.uk/knowledge-base/research-papers/distributed-leadersip-the-space-between-the-pebbles-in-the-jar.pdf
Kohn, M. (2008). Trust self-interest and the common good. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lawn, M., & Grek, S. (2012). Europeanizing Education governing a new policy space. Oxford: Symposium Books.
Leithwood, K., & Mascall, B. (2008). Collective leadership effects on student achievement. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(4), 529–561.
Leithwood, K., Mascall, B., & Strauss, T. (Eds.). (2009). Distributed leadership according to the evidence. London/New York: Routledge.
Leithwood, K., Patten, S., & Jantzi, D. (2010). Occupying the principal position: Examining relationships between transformational leadership, social network position, and schools’ innovative climate. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(5), 671–706.
Lieberman, A. (2008). How do teachers learn to lead? In C. Sugrue (Ed.), The future of educational change (pp. 204–218). London/New York: Routledge.
Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (2004). Teacher leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy dilemmas of the individual in public service. New York: Russell Sage.
Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
LRC. (2013). LRC proposals public service stability agreement 2013–2016. The Haddington road agreement. Dublin: Labour Relations Commission.
Lynch, K., Grummell, B., & Devine, D. (2012). New managerialism in education commercialization, carelessness and gender. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
MacBeath, J., & Dempster, N. (Eds.). (2009). Connecting leadership and learning. London/New York: Routledge.
Moolemaar, N. M., Daly, A. J., & Sleegers, P. J. C. (2010). Occupying the principal position: Examining relationships between transformational leadership, social network position, and school’s innovative climate. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(5), 623–670.
Nias, J. (1989). Primary teachers talking a study of teaching as work. London: Routledge.
Nias, J., Southworth, G., & Yeomans, R. (1989). Staff relationships in the primary school. London: Cassell.
Pont, B., Nusche, D., & Hopkins, D. (2009a). Improving school leadership, Volume 2: Case studies on system leadership. Paris: OECD.
Pont, B., Nusche, D., & Moorman, H. (2009b). Improving school leadership, Volume 1: Policy and practice. Paris: OECD.
Robinson, V., Lloyd, C., & Rowe, K. (2008). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 635–674.
Spillane, J. (2006). Distributed leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Spillane, J., & Diamond, J. B. (Eds.). (2007). Distributed leadership in practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sugrue, C. (2009). From heroes and heroines to hermaphrodites: Emancipation or emasculation of school leaders and leadership? School Leadership and Management, 29(4), 361–372.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Sugrue, C. (2015). More Leaders: Dissipated or Distributed Leadership?. In: Unmasking School Leadership. Studies in Educational Leadership, vol 20. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9433-6_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9433-6_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-017-9432-9
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-9433-6
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)