Distributed Leadership and its Relationship with School Culture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Distributed leadership in schools is formed and developed by the interactions that take place between the various informal and formal leaders in schools. Distributed leadership is effective when it is accepted by staff who are motivated to collaborate for the improvement of their school. School culture is important in this regard, as it sets the tone for attitudes, perspectives, dress code, and behaviour of leaders, staff, students and even community. In turn, distributed leadership can also affect the culture through the development and maintenance of norms, traditions, and myths. Thus, a reciprocal relationship between distributed leadership and school culture needs to be examined. \nThe purpose of this project was to explore the perceptions of a school’s administrative and teaching staff regarding the extent at which leadership has been distributed, as well as the perceived relationship between distributed leadership and their school’s culture. A qualitative method was used, and was framed in a case- study format, consisting of seven in-depth, semistructured interviews with open-ended questions conducted with two administrators and five teachers in one elementary school in a faith-based publicly funded school board in Ontario. \nFindings from the administration and staff were analyzed according to the following themes: 1) organizational structures, 2) support and development, 3) collaboration, 4) motivation, 5) challenges, and 6) in/out groups. Data analysis revealed that administrative staff believed that for their model of distributed leadership to function, they were very dependent on whether or not the staff could be motivated to participate and volunteer the time and skills needed. Additionally, the administration seemed to rely more heavily on certain staff than others, creating a situation for in and out-groups at the school. Such in and out-groups at the school were found to have both positive and negative effects. With regard to the teachers, collaboration and \nii \nmotivation were two themes that played the most important role in the implementation and continued development of distributed leadership at Weston Catholic Elementary School [pseudonym]. Additionally, the teachers noted that with distributed leadership there was a greater focus on teacher freedom and their strengths and skills when it came to volunteering or other assigned roles. Finally, the data analysis pointed to a positive and beneficial relationship between distributed leadership and the school’s culture. By creating the distributed leadership model, teachers were provided with a variety of leadership opportunities, which in time, seemed to blossom into more impactful and formalized leadership roles.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".