Hairon Salleh

Policymakers and the public in many developed countries have demanded for greater public school accountability in the hope of improving academic and non-academic school outcomes, as well as decreasing the achievement gaps among subpopulations of students (Heck & Moriyama, 2010). In response, there has been a growing conversation amongst educational practitioners and researchers on how educational leadership might be linked to effective teaching, and student learning and ‘achievement’ outcomes. Educational-effectiveness researchers have attempted to link (directly and/or indirect) existing research with theory about educational processes to identify contextual, school factors (including leadership), and classroom factors (including teacher effectiveness) to student learning and ‘achievement’ outcomes (Creemers, 1994; Creemers & Kyriakides, 2008; Heck & Moriyama, 2010; Leithwood & Mascall, 2008; Scheerens, 1990, 1992; Stringfield & Slavin, 1992; Teddlie & Reynolds, 2000). Also of interest are (i) possible differences in the contribution of the leadership practices, (ii) whether some practices are better performed by certain people or roles instead of others, and (iii) whether some strategic efforts to implement changes in the school’s instructional practices are more effective than others (e.g., Creemers & Kyriakides, 2008; Firestone & Martinez, 2007; Leithwood et al., 2004; Locke, 2003).

It is clear that the ‘Principal as the sole decision maker’ conception of leadership and bureaucratic organizational structures are no longer consistent with the new school leadership climate (Pearce & Conger, 2003). Proponents of this view have argued that a dispersed form of leadership is thought to enhance opportunities for the organization to benefit from the capacities of more of its members rather than a single leader (Leithwood & Mascall, 2008). Leithwood and Mascall (2008, p.530) further argued that in so doing, organizational members can develop “a fuller appreciation of interdependence and how one’s behavior affects the organization as a whole”. This clearly reflects the growing appreciation of the informal dimensions of organizations often among those who are not in positions of formal authority (Gronn, 2003; Tschannen-Moran, 2004; Wheatley, 2005). Evidently, leadership and school improvement are increasingly conceptualized as organization-wide phenomena (Manz & Sims, 1993; Ogawa & Bossert, 1995). The evidences from previous studies have provided the impetus for greater understanding of the links between leadership, teaching and learning. Clearly, these issues warrant greater empirical attention. More specifically, educators and researchers are interested in understanding of the following:
(i) Impact of educational policies and system structures on school leadership practices; (ii) Impact of leadership practices on teaching; (iii) Linkages of core leadership practices in schools (i.e., instructional leadership, distributed leadership, teacher leadership, and transformational leadership); (iv) Impact of leadership practices on student learning; (v) Impact of teacher variables (i.e., teaching competencies, engagement and job satisfaction) on student learning.

Since the turn of the 21st century, the concept of distributed leadership situated within the context of school improvement has risen in importance. This is due to the growing demands on schools from a wide range of stakeholders within education contexts that are increasingly becoming more complex. Educational contexts are increasingly getting complex insofar as the changes accompanying educational reforms are characterized by intensity, rapidity, fluidity and uncertainty. Policymakers and the public are demanding greater public school accountability in the hope of improving academic and non-academic school outcomes, as well as decreasing the achievement gaps (Heck & Moriyama, 2010) through improvements in teaching and learning. It is therefore understandable that contemporary school leaders use up more time and energy in managing increasingly complex relationships, and resort to distributed leadership where leadership decisions are delegated and shared to other staff members beyond the purview of school principals.
In the Singapore context, delegation or sharing of leadership decisions to middle managers such as department heads (HODs) or subject heads (SHs) has been a common place for more than two decades, especially that pertaining to instruction. In this sense, distributed leadership is closely tied to instructional leadership insofar as the former allows instructional leadership practices to be delegated or shared to other staff members beyond school principals or vice-principals. The link between instructional leadership and distributed leadership has been observed (Lieberman & Miller, 2011; Spillane & Louis, 2002; Timperley, 2005). Hence, instructional leadership practices become more dispersed across the school organization, making it more effective to bring about enhancements in teaching and learning. However, over the last decade, leadership decisions pertaining to instruction have been delegated and shared to teacher leaders. This is a result of the growing demands placed on schools so much so that administrative decisions have to be passed on from senior to middle leaders, which result to middle leaders delegating or sharing their decisions on instructional matters to teacher leaders. These teacher leaders include Senior or Lead Teachers (STs and LTs), Subject and Level Reps, and Professional Learning Community Team Leaders – all of which are involved in making leadership decisions on instruction.

Community-based teacher learning in Singapore education started in 2000 with the introduction of Learning Circles, followed by other forms of community-based teacher learning platforms such as Action Research and Lesson Study. By 2010, the Ministry of Education embarked on a school- and system-wide approach to community-based teacher learning in the form of Professional Learning Communities (PLC). However, studies looking at its impact on student learning outcomes are non-existent locally. Internationally, research studies investigating the effects of PLCs specifically on student learning are not aplenty. In their literature review, Vescio et al. (2011) found that although 11 studies reporting impact of PLCs, only eight out of the 11 investigated the impact of PLCs on student learning with modest evidence (Louis & Marks, 1998; Suppovitz, 2002; Suppovitz & Christman, 2003; Phillips, 2003; Strahan, 2003; Hollins et al., 2004; Berry et al., 2005; Bolam et al., 2005). Since the publication of the literature by Vescio et al. (2011), three other studies investigating impact of PLCs on student learning outcomes have also been reported (Sigurðardóttir, 2010; Lomos et al., 2011; Williams, 2013).

A review of the literature reveals broadness in the conceptual and operational definition of the construct, Distributed Leadership (DL) (refer to discussions by Spillane, Gronn, Harris, Bennett, and Leithwood), making it elusive. The elusive nature of DL is due in part to the term 'leadership' which is contested among educational theorists; while the other, is due to the lack of attempts at trying to unpack and measure this construct. The purpose of this study is to unpack and discuss key dimensions of the construct of DL based on a nation-wide survey of school leadership in Singapore. Special care was taken in critically determining these dimensions and not areas or aspects where DL may be applied. In other words, we are more interested in the essence of DL rather than categories of distributed leadership practices, which most leadership researchers employ. This study is especially timely in view of the rising trend in school- based curriculum development and innovation towards growing expansion of student learning outcomes beyond the academic subjects such as the 21st century skills. The growing importance of school-based development and innovation calls for leadership practices that not only improve classroom teaching and learning, but also greater devolvement of decision- making power at the school and classroom levels. In the process of better understanding the DL construct, it is an imperative aim of much multivariate analysis is to reduce the dimensionality of the data collected. This is essentially desirable in the investigative stages of a research to provide a lucid interpretation of the data and theoretical measurement model building. This requires the use of a proper metric. As such, Exploratory Factor Analysis was performed on the Rasch (linearized) standardized residuals (see Linacre, 1998, 2006; Wright, 1994, 1996). The DL instrument consists of 25 items, and the sample involved schools leaders from Singapore (i.e., 224 Principals, 322 Vice-Principals and 686 middle-level school managers). The findings provided evidence that the Rasch residual-based factor analysis yielded 4 possible factors of DL. The discussion on these factors will be presented.

A review of the literature reveals broadness in the conceptual and operational definition of the construct on Distributed Leadership (DL), making it elusive. The elusive nature of DL is due in part to the lack of attempts at trying to unpack and measure this construct, and in part to the contested definition of the term 'leadership'. The purpose of this study is to unpack and discuss key dimensions of the DL construct. To understand the DL construct, multivariate analysis was used to reduce the dimensionality of the data collected. This was to provide a lucid interpretation of the data and build theoretical measurement model for DL. And this requires the use of a proper metric. As such, Exploratory Factor Analysis was performed on the Rasch (linearized) standardized residuals. The DL instrument consists of 25 items, and the sample involved schools leaders from Singapore (i.e., 224 Principals, 322 Vice- Principals and 686 middle-level school managers). It was a component of a larger instrument within a national study investigating school leadership practices in Singapore. The findings provided evidence, through a Rasch residual-based factor analysis, the presence of four possible factors of DL–bounded empowerment, developing leadership, shared decision, and collective engagement.