This PhD study investigates distributed school leadership through small-scale empirical research using interpretative enquiry with aspects of a grounded approach, reaching a depth of understanding. More specifically, it explores the experiences and perceptions of early career primary headteachers as they take forward a distributed perspective on school leadership and management through three headteacher case studies. Each headteacher’s voice is heard through a sequence of in-depth, semistructured and narrative style interviews. The study extends beyond self-reporting as staff perceptions of school leadership and management are elicited through a 360° analysis, a semi-structured questionnaire incorporating a sociometric analysis of leadership relationships, used also to explore the extent to which leadership is distributed within each school. Definitions of leadership and of distributed leadership are contested. The problematic nature of each is discussed in relation to competing educational rhetoric, school leadership literature and policy discourses. Various complexities are found to exist in defining and identifying distributed leadership, acknowledged as multi-faceted, involving those in both formal and informal leadership positions, teaching and support staff. Distributed leadership is context specific, socially constructed, negotiated and hierarchical in nature. It is found to be ‘in the gift of the headteacher’ with each head showing a commitment to and central concern for developing effective processes for staff engagement in meaningful school improvement efforts. Regardless, a distributed perspective was not found to develop naturally nor easily. It was purposefully planned for and continuously supported. It involved the development of teacher professional identity. It required the balancing of multiple and competing accountabilities. Tension was found to relate to the headteachers’ intentions to engage staff, when they bordered on perceived ‘new managerialist’ strategies or manipulation. This study contributes to understandings of the problematic nature of a distributed perspective on leadership by surfacing a range of conceptual confusions. The main conclusion, that distributed leadership is still ‘in the gift of the headteacher’, contributes to a limited empirical knowledge base. How the headteachers made sense of a distributed perspective, along with their motivations to do so, adds to limited empirical data for which the role of headteachers is not well understood. There exists a dearth of studies into the experiences and perceptions of headteachers within a distributed perspective, even more so in terms of those within their early years of headship. The need for further empirical research is recommended to better conceptualise leadership generally and distributed leadership specifically, leading to a more sophisticated understanding of how agency and structure work in practice. Further studies could challenge five generally held assumptions identified within the distributed leadership paradigm: that every member of staff is able to lead; that every member of staff wishes to lead; that the leadership role of staff is legitimized simply by the headteacher’s endorsement; that a distributed perspective occurs naturally; and that a distributed perspective is unproblematic. This research is timely as the teacher role is nationally reviewed (Donaldson, 2010; McCormac, 2011) and the GTCS redevelops the suite of national professional standards, constituting workforce reform. The conclusion to this study argues for a re-examination of the teacher role to reach consensus in defining what is required of teachers at each level of the school hierarchy, recognising formal and informal leadership roles based on conceptual clarity and role definition. It calls for openness and transparency in relation to principles for practice. Key recommendations are offered for policy makers, school leaders at all levels, leadership development programmes, theoretical development and future research.

This study provides an account of the agendas, participation and influence of management, teachers, students and parents at a primary school in Tigray, Ethiopia. A literature review revealed gaps in the knowledge of these stakeholders’ involvement in school leadership structures in the current national policy context. A broader review of the major traditions of school research informed the design of this ethnographic case study. Fieldwork at ‘Ketema School’ took place over an eight-month period in 2014, and involved participant observation, informant-led interviews, and the collection of institutional documents. Data collection focused on the meetings of various bodies, and the activities of a single class in Grade 6 and 7. Inductive analysis of the case data was supported by Atlas.ti. The study reveals a convergence of understandings about the purposes and processes of the school consistent with the state-authorised model of schooling for national development. Structures and processes of surveillance and control incentivise and normalise compliance with government directives. These include positions of distributed leadership and mechanisms of mutual surveillance and internal accountability through which teachers and students share responsibility for supervising peers and colleagues. For example, the student leaders of the ‘one-to-five’ networks perform an academic support and behavioural control function in relation to their peers; and gim gima is a practice of public critique used for exposing misconduct. Meetings and other participative spaces enable members of the school community to share their views on conditions in school according to their interests and priorities; however, these forums are dominated by management agendas, and school-level decisions are restricted by a strong external policy context. This study extends knowledge of school leadership practices in Ethiopia and informs wider debates around community participation, accountability and school autonomy in developing countries. Recommendations are made for sharing and strengthening democratic practices and for future research.

The purpose of the study was to assess Challenges of and Opportunities for Implementing the School improvement Programme in the Public secondary Schools of Iluababor administrative zone in Ethiopia. In the study a mixed research methodology was employed, specifically the sequential explanatory designs with a high priority on the quantitative and the sequential exploratory design and with less priority on the qualitative data. Out of 24 secondary schools, 12 secondary schools were selected by random sampling from six geographically clustered secondary schools. In the study (out of a total of 540 sample populations, 287 research participants were selected by random sampling/lottery method, 220 male and 67 female) were participated to fill the questionnaires. For interviews from six clusters (12 school principals, 12 district education experts, six secondary supervisors and four zone education experts) were selected by purposeful sampling to participate in the interviews sessions. Whereas, for focus group discussions ( 21 parent teachers‟ association (PTA) members; and 21 members of student councils) were as well selected by the purposeful sampling technique from three clustered geographical locations of the schools respectively. The collected data was analysed using statistical programme for social science software (SPSS) version 21. To analyse the data from questionnaires, descriptive statistical analysis like frequencies, percentile, mean values, and standard deviation were used. While, qualitative data generated from interviews, focus group discussions and document analysis were transcribed, coded and interpreted thematically. The findings indicated that with regards to the quantitative data analysis, the performances of the school improvement programme aggregate of the four domains summary of the mean values and standard deviations 287 (Mean = 2.82; SD = 0.74) showed that the indicators of practices among the school improvement programme domains were low in performance. The qualitative results as well confirmed the quantitative results. In this case, the mean value was above average and the standard deviation value was more tightly clustered around the mean. This means that the results were concurrent of each other and thus reliable. The findings revealed that, even though secondary schools put a lot of effort towards averting the challenges in school improvement, it could hardly bear fruit due to insufficient supplies of inputs and processes. This resulted in the school improvement programme performances lagging behind the set goals and targets. Additionally, the findings indicated that the major challenges in the implementation of the school improvement programme in secondary schools (9-10) were: weak collaboration among stakeholders, lack of capacity building, inefficient administrative services, limited commitment of school leadership and school governing bodies, poor school leadership and management, passive and inactive involvement of parents and local community, and, in the academic affairs, students were not successful in terms of attendance and the achievement of learners. Based on the findings, it is recommended that school principals, teachers, administrative staff, students, parents and local school communities be well equipped with basic knowledge and skills on the school improvement programme. This could help in fostering critical thinking and the problem solving capacity of the learners. In addition, school principals and the school governing bodies have to apply the recommended strategies in the study so as to alleviate the challenges in (grades 9-10) secondary schools. Above and beyond, the study suggested that in order to get better learners achievement, a strong team spirit should be established among school principals, secondary school supervisors, teachers, students, parents and local communities, and by expanding capacity building networks within the coming five years. Consequently, the schools management teams and other stakeholders of secondary schools (9-10) have to plan for continuous training and orientation on the nature, practice and significance of school improvement programme implementation. / Educational Leadership and Management / D. Ed. (Education Management)