Principals’ and Teachers’ Perceptions of Distributed Leadership in Four
High Achieving Bangladesh Schools
Abu Nayeem Mohammad Salahuddin
PhD Candidate
College of Education
University of Canterbury, New Zealand
Assistant Professor
Institute of Education and Research
University of Dhaka, Bangladesh
Abu.salahuddin@du.ac.bd
and
Associate Professor Lindsey Conner
College of Education
University of Canterbury, New Zealand
lindsey.conner@canterbury.ac.nz
1
Moving towards distributed leadership: School leadership and change in
Bangladesh
Abstract
This paper provides contextual information and specific findings about how principals in
Bangladesh lead their schools. While the rate of change in education can sometimes be
overwhelming in Bangladesh, school leadership still largely follows a hierarchical model.
The principal is often seen as the person who makes a school successful and they also act as
the gatekeepers to transform a school through change initiatives. School principals in
Bangladesh struggle with the practical realities of management in a school system that is
itself undergoing change. There is some recognition of the need to distribute some of the
power to teachers for successful school change. In this paper we explore to what extent the
urban principals in Dhaka city are moving towards distributed leadership for effective
change. Both qualitative and quantitative data provide insights into the extent to which four
principals use distributed leadership. This depended on their knowledge and application of
the ideology of distributed leadership. The findings have implications for the development of
principals as leaders in the future.
Key words: School leadership, school change, dimensions of distributed leadership
Introduction
One of the most complex and pragmatic tasks that school principals do is the everyday
management of the school and lead it to meet the commitments to society. Leadership
involves working with people and responding quickly to emerging situations. The individual
formal leadership role of a principal in a school is complex. In Bangladesh this involves
overseeing teachers’ presence through to making sure classes run smoothly. There is no
supporting Deputy Principal or a person who organises teaching substitutes as in many
western countries. As well as being accountable to a higher authority, a principal, is also
answerable to the parents and community members regarding students’ learning and other
school-related experiences. So, the work of a school principal in Bangladesh is very
2
demanding and the scope of their work is almost impossible to detail. Like other societies of
the world, schools in Bangladesh are often blamed for not developing students for a global,
economic society. There is a strong public call to make changes to schooling to keep pace
with modern global trends. Therefore, principals have a huge responsibility and are looking
for ways to make effective changes efficiently through their leadership to make their schools
successful.
International studies on school leadership show that effective leadership is basic to successful
school development and the enhancement of teaching and learning (Camburn, Rowan, &
Taylor, 2003). Apparently, the form of leadership required depends on the situation and
context of the school and may be historically and contextually driven. The preferred style of
the leader as an influencer of others’ actions is important but to do this effectively, the leader
needs to know and be aware of the choices they have for their own decision-making and
actions.
Distributed leadership has emerged as a leadership approach that produces successful school
performance in challenging contexts (Harris, 2002). As Bangladesh faces the challenge of
reformation of the secondary education sector, distributed leadership might provide a useful
focus for developing effective leadership in secondary schools. Distributed leadership is
where responsibility and leadership action is shared amongst a number of personnel. It
requires interaction among leaders, followers and situations (Spillane, 2006) and focuses on
the interrelations of people and their situations by taking account of individual’s expertise,
knowledge and skills. The aim of distributed leadership in schools is to enhance teaching and
learning by building teachers’ capacity to lead learning. Duignan (2006) posits that
distributed leadership has a clear purpose of whole school improvement through improving
quality teaching and learning where school leaders try to build a culture that engages every
3
teacher and student in the school in learning to make their school successful. This article
explores leadership in Bangladesh urban secondary schools and especially the extent to which
aspects of distributed leadership are used by four case study principals.
Methods
A case study approach (Yin, 1994) was used to explore the principals’ interpretation of
school leadership, their practice of it and their thinking on distributing their leadership
responsibilities. Mixed research methods were employed in this study, including interviews
and surveys to elicit twenty teachers’ opinions and ideas about how four schools were
operating. The four schools were selected from the top ten ranked schools in the Dhaka
Education Board in 2009-2010 Secondary School Certificate examination. The interviews
were analysed inductively whereas the survey data provided more objective information from
the teachers’ perspectives about how distributed leadership was practised in the participants’
schools. Twenty interested teachers (4x5=20) were selected randomly from the four
participant schools for completing the surveys. The survey utilised a 5 point (1 to 5) Likert
scale and was developed from the Distributed Leadership Readiness Scale (DLRS) Copyright
© 2004 by the Connecticut State Board of Education in the name of the Secretary of the State
of Connecticut (Connecticut State Department of Education, 2004). This instrument was
selected because it was specifically designed to measure distributed leadership, one of the
main foci of this study. Considering the contextual differences in this study compared to the
USA, only thirty five items out of forty from this scale were used that were relevant to the
Bangladesh context (Salahuddin, 2011).
Findings
Four principals from four urban secondary schools in Dhaka city were interviewed to
understand their leadership practices. Pseudonyms are used for all participants in reporting
4
the findings and ethical clearance was obtained prior to commencing this study. Principals
openly discussed their leadership purposes, styles and how they make decisions. The
questionnaire responses from teachers also contributed to the understanding of leadership
practices especially as to what extent they use distributed leadership in their schools.
Interview findings
The principals thought that leadership is complex and difficult to define, as principals in
Bangladesh tend to see themselves mostly as managers, rather than leaders. Principals in
Bangladesh are positional leaders who are appointed, according to the rules, after acquiring
certain teaching experience. But they indicated an awareness of the purpose of leadership.
For example, Blue Principal explained that the purpose of leadership at school is to inspire
the students and teachers for the betterment of both. He mentioned:
Good results come through good students and good teachers. Good students might turn
into bad students if they don’t study properly. And good teachers also may be the cause
if they cannot do their job properly. There the question of leadership comes- inspiring
the students to study properly, to be attentive to their lessons, make them understand
what the benefit comes into the senior students’ lives (from education).
All of the principals indicated that decision-making was a key leadership role for them. They
considered that the future of a school depends on the decisions that are made, and they
preferred to discuss ideas first so that there was more chance of making the right decision.
For example, Pink principal noted, “If any ideas come out from the ten people altogether,
some good decisions may then be accomplished by combining those ideas.” This principal
advocated for a democratic system. Similarly, Yellow principal believed in actively involving
students and teachers in decision-making. He mentioned how he met with groups several
times: “Persistent attempts are made until it becomes helpful for the learners or effective
support for achieving the targets and goals of the school.”
5
The principals believed in using different leadership styles in relation to time, situation and
context. They assumed that one specific leadership approach does not work effectively in all
situations. Blue principal indicated that he made disciplinary decisions himself using the
organisational statutes but that in most cases he employed participatory leadership
approaches where he considered everyone’s ideas for some situations as indicated by his
comments:
I try to follow participatory leadership that means I try to listen to all concerns and get
their (teachers’) opinions. But I consider what is the best for the collective group or for
the betterment of the institution. Our leadership is also distributed. I cannot do
everything myself. So, responsibility for various subjects is distributed among them.
It would appear that the principal is referring to task allocation, rather than a broader
definition of distributed leadership in his last statement. Other principals advocated for
democratic, distributive, co-operational and instructional leadership to reach their schools’
goals. They viewed their school as being like a classroom and distribute their work to
particular teachers as Yellow principal mentioned:
One should consider his school a classroom. A principal has to follow democratic
leadership in managing all teachers, students and supporting staff. Sometimes I follow
distributive leadership. Besides, co-operational leadership is followed and sometimes
instructional leadership is operated to achieve the goal.
Green Principal considered that her leadership is distributed among teachers so that she can
assign a specific teacher to a particular task. She mentioned, “Our leadership is distributed
among the teachers. We separately distribute the responsibility to particular teachers to take
accountability for one thing, for example only the academic side.” The principals made clear
that they used different leadership approaches to make their schools successful, and while a
number of principals referred to ‘distributed leadership’ this could perhaps be more
accurately described as delegating of tasks and responsibilities.
6
Questionnaire findings
Twenty teachers answered the questionnaire about distributed leadership. The items of the
distributed leadership questionnaire have been analysed by dividing into four dimensions: i)
Mission, vision and goals ii) School culture iii) Shared responsibility iv) Leadership
practices. The items in each dimension are shown in four different tables where the total
number of respondents, and the minimum and maximum value for each item is been
presented. The mean and standard deviation was calculated for each item and overall through
SPSS. The findings represent descriptive analyses of distributed leadership according to items
on the questionnaire rather than complex relations among the items and dimensions.
i)
Mission, vision and goals
A school can be effective if the stakeholders are aware of the mission, vision and goals of the
school, which are meaningful, useful and related to national values, ethics and goals. The
items in the survey related to school mission, vision and goals are presented in Table 1.
Table 1 Mission, vision and goals
N
Item
Min Max Mean S.D
The school has clearly written vision and mission statements.
20
3
5
4.15 0.671
Teachers understand and support a common mission for the school and can
describe it clearly.
20
3
5
4.40 0.598
If parents are asked to describe the school’s mission, most will be able to
describe the mission clearly.
20
1
5
3.90 1.252
If students are asked to describe the schools’ mission, most will be able to
describe it clearly.
20
2
5
4.05 0.945
20
2
5
4.60 0.940
20
2
5
4.40 0.821
20
4
5
4.85 0.366
School goals are aligned with the national educational statement.
The school uses a school improvement plan as a basis for progress.
Teachers and administrators (Head & Assistant Head) collectively
establish school goals and revise goals annually.
Overall Mean and S.D
4.34 0.799
Table 1 demonstrates that there was considerable variation in the responses to these items,
where the least value is 1 and highest value is 5. The mean for each of the items ranges from
7
3.90 to 4.85. Although the overall mean of 4.34 indicates the presence of a mission, vision
and goals in schools, the range of standard deviations (0.366 to 1.252) signifies that there is
variation in teachers’ thinking regarding the use and application of a good mission, vision and
goals in their schools. The teachers considered that parents and students had a low
understanding of about the school’s mission.
ii)
School culture
School culture is considered as the second dimension for distributed leadership (Elmore,
2000a) which contributes to student achievement as well as school effectiveness. The culture
of a school relates to the norms, values, beliefs of the teachers, students, parents and
community members of the school. If these stakeholders have similar understandings about
culture, there is more integrity and alignment of expectations and achievements. The
following table shows the items related to school culture.
Table 2 School culture
N
Item
There is a high level of mutual respect and trust among the teachers.
Min Max Mean
S.D
20
3
5
4.30
0.657
20
3
5
4.65
0.587
The school administrators (Head & Assistant Head) welcome teachers’
input on issues related to instruction and improving student performance.
20
3
5
4.45
0.759
The school supports using new instructional ideas and innovations.
20
3
5
4.55
0.686
The principal actively encourages teachers to participate.
20
3
5
4.75
0.550
The principal actively participates in his or her own professional
development activities to improve leadership in the school.
20
3
5
4.65
0.587
My principal and I jointly develop my annual professional development
plan.
20
2
5
4.45
0.826
My professional development plan includes activities that are based on
my individual professional needs and school needs.
20
3
5
4.55
0.686
20
2
5
4.15
1.137
20
4
5
4.80
0.410
20
4
5
4.75
0.444
4.55
0.666
There is mutual respect and trust between school head and the teachers.
Teachers actively participate in instructional decision- making.
The principal is knowledgeable about current instructional issues.
My principal’s practices are consistent with his or her words.
Overall Mean and S.D
8
As shown in Table 2, most of the teachers either agreed or strongly agreed on each of the
items. The overall mean of 4.55 indicates that the participants reported that activities related
to a strong school culture are present in their schools. The low SDs show that there is
consistency in their responses. Though teachers responded ‘neutral’ to ‘strongly agree’ for
most items, some chose ‘disagree’ on the items such as getting an opportunity to participate
in annual development plan and instructional decision-making.
iii)
Shared responsibility
The teachers’ opinion about their involvement in important school decision and policymaking processes was sought as part of this survey. Parents’ cooperation can also help the
principals to make the schools successful. If teachers, students and parents consider the
school performance is a joint responsibility, the school is more likely to achieve its goals.
Table 3 presents such responses related to shared responsibility from the teachers’
perspective:
Table 3 Shared responsibility
N
Item
Min Max Mean S.D
Teachers share accountability for students’ academic performance.
20
4
5
4.80 0.410
Government resources are directed to those areas in which student learning
needs to improve most.
20
2
5
4.00 0.725
The school is a learning community that continually improves its
effectiveness, learning from both successes and failures.
20
2
5
4.30 0.923
The school’s daily and weekly schedules provide time for teachers to
collaborate on instructional issues.
20
2
5
4.00 0.858
The school clearly communicates the ‘chain of contact’ between home and
school so parents know whom to contact when they have questions and
concerns.
20
3
5
4.60 0.598
School teachers and parents agree on the most effective roles parents can
play as partners in their child’s education.
20
4
5
4.65 0.489
The school makes available a variety of data (e.g. school performance) for
teachers to use to improve student achievement.
20
4
5
4.45 0.510
Decisions to change instructional programmes are based on assessment
data.
20
3
5
4.25 0.716
9
There is a formal structure in place in the school (academic council) to
provide teachers opportunities to participate in school level instructional
decision-making.
20
3
5
4.35 0.587
Overall Mean and S.D
4.38 0.646
In Table 3, the highest and lowest value for all items related to shared responsibility were 2
and 5. The mean value for the items range from 4.00 to 4.80 and the overall mean is 4.38.
This suggests that general teachers think that there is a shared responsibility in their schools.
There was greater variation in responses as indicated by the higher SDs. The teachers
indicated they share accountability for students’ academic performance. Schools provide data
of student performance and they use this to inform how they might change their teaching.
Some teachers think that resources are not allocated based on a needs analysis and they lack
time in their daily routine for collaboration on instructional issues.
iv)
Leadership practices
There are many leadership practices as part of the roles of principals. Table 4 indicates the
teachers responses to the items related to leadership practices. They show the extent to which
participants reported that school heads involve teachers in leadership:
Table 4 Leadership practices
N Min Max Mean S.D
Item
The school provides teachers with professional development aligned with the
school’s mission and goals.
20
4
5
4.70 0.470
Informal school leaders play an important role in the school in improving the
performance of professionals and the achievement of students.
20
3
5
4.70 0.657
The school has expanded its capacity by providing professional staff formal
opportunities to take on leadership roles.
20
4
5
4.40 0.503
Teachers who assume leadership roles in the school have sufficient school time
to permit them to make meaningful contributions to school.
20
2
5
4.15 0.745
Teachers who assume leadership roles in the school have sufficient resources to
be able to make meaningful contributions to the school.
20
2
5
3.75 0.716
20
3
5
4.30 0.733
20
3
5
4.35 0.587
20
3
5
4.70 0.571
Expert teachers fill most leadership roles in the school.
New teachers are provided opportunities to fill some school leadership roles.
Teachers are interested in participating in school leadership roles.
10
Overall Mean and S.D
4.38 0.623
Table 4 demonstrates how the participants responded to the items related to leadership
practices. The overall mean is 4.38, which according to the teachers, suggests that they are
interested in, and have opportunities to be involved in, leadership practices in their schools.
The SDs indicate that there is relative consistency in their responses. While the teachers are
interested in school leadership and schools provide them with opportunities, they often lack
the time and resources for meaningful contribution in these roles.
Discussion
There is no doubt that the leadership of principals is essential for school success (Hallinger &
Heck, 1996; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2000). In this study, the principals considered the purpose
of leadership was to improve their schools. They clearly understood the importance of school
leadership and they were able to operate their schools effectively. The bureaucratic system in
Bangladesh education, which binds them to do everything according to the rules, sometimes
hinders them from taking and making timely decisions or more radical decisions for
improving their schools (Salahuddin, 2011). Though they utilise democratic systems for
making decisions, where teachers and community members are able to be involved, they are
ultimately responsible for their schools. Sometimes principals do not feel they can do what
they would like to do, because they feel the need to comply with what is historically expected
of them. It may be difficult for them to dare to step outside the normal expected ways of
operating. Therefore changes in approaches to leadership may be constrained by cultural and
historical practices.
Decision-making is an important aspect of effective leadership (Mulford, et al., 2008). Due to
their position, principals in Bangladesh have the authority to implement rules and regulations
and make decisions accordingly (Ministry of Education of Bangladesh, 2011). All the
11
principals in this study suggested that to enable democratic decision-making, they sought
teachers’ opinions. In the participant schools for this study, decisions were not made until
teachers had opportunities to voice their concerns. This participation enhances democratic
decision-making of the secondary schools in Bangladesh and aligns with Duke, Showers and
Imber’s (1980) observation that schools became more democratic when there was increased
participation of teachers in decision-making.
There are different leadership approaches used in secondary schools in Bangladesh.
According to the principals, participatory, democratic, distributed, situational, co-operational
and instructional leadership approaches are employed by them in achieving school goals.
However, their definition of the terms may be different to the descriptions used in the more
extant literature. For instance, one principal cited her leadership as “distributed” because she
delegated responsibility to particular teachers, indicating that she viewed distributed
leadership as task distribution. Another principal described his leadership as “distributed”
because he distributed subject responsibility to his teachers. In the literature, distributed
leadership is defined as engaging teachers and students in leadership activities for school
development rather than confining it to task delegation (Duignan, 2006; Elmore, 2000a;
Harris, 2003; Spillane, 2006). However, the principals interviewed in this study considered
that distributed leadership means delegating tasks.
Teachers’ responses to the questionnaire resonated with what the principals’ indicated in
various ways. The teachers’ survey responses indicated that secondary schools in Bangladesh
have missions, visions and goals in that these are derived collaboratively. In distributed
leadership, developing a shared mission and vision with significant goals, is an important
point that focuses student learning (Neuman & Simmons, 2000). The perception of the
teachers was that parents and students do not necessarily understand the school goals, mission
12
and vision. This can be considered an important issue in secondary school improvement in
Bangladesh. Parents and students are important stakeholders; without their awareness and
participation in the spirit of the mission and vision, it is difficult for the school community to
reach school goals (Marks & Printy, 2003). There are many ways to raise awareness: one
could be to publish newsletters on the updated mission, vision and goals of schools and
distribute them among the parents and students or hold community-based meetings.
School culture, the second dimension of distributed leadership (Elmore, 2000b) includes the
ways that the principal, teachers, parents and community relate to each other and work
together. Beliefs, values and norms build the school culture (Sergiovanni & Starratt, 2007).
Teachers reported that activities related to beliefs, values and norms are practised in their
schools. Most of the teachers believed that their principals are knowledgeable about current
instructional strategies. According to the teachers, while the principals encourage them to
participate in leadership tasks and value their input on instructional ideas; they do not actively
involve them in instructional decision-making. This presents a contradiction. Since teachers
are the leaders in classroom teaching, they know the problems and possibilities in teaching
and learning better than others. As school culture is directed to influencing and impacting
students’ achievement (Elmore, 2000a) teachers’ active involvement in instructional
decision-making could enhance success in student learning and in developing a more
productive school culture in Bangladesh secondary schools.
Schools can progress rapidly when collaborative responsibility for this is undertaken together
by teachers, students and parents. Phillips (2003) notes that students’ achievement improves
when responsibilities for this improvement are shared. In this study, most of the teachers
responded that they shared responsibilities for students’ academic performance and their
schools provided data that could be used in changes that lead to improvement in students’
13
learning. They indicated that schools value parents’ role and input into their children’s
learning. A few teachers added that they lacked time to collaborate with each other on
instructional issues in their schools and that changes in teaching strategies are seldom based
on assessment data. They think that government resources are not directed to the most needed
areas of student learning, thereby creating a barrier to develop shared responsibility in
secondary schools.
‘Leadership practices’ was another dimension of distributed leadership covered by the survey
questions. Teachers reported that schools do provide formal opportunities for taking on
leadership roles and professional development programmes which are aligned with the
mission, vision and goals of schools. This can provide effective leadership which helps to
make the schools more successful (Copland, 2003). According to the survey, most of the
teachers are interested in participating in leadership roles, though they lack the necessary time
and resources for meaningful contribution to leadership. There are more opportunities
available for experienced teachers and a few for new teachers. In Bangladesh, older teachers
are generally considered as experienced as well as expert teachers in schools. The role of
informal school leaders is reported as an important factor in improving the professional
learning and student achievement in the survey. Sheppard (2003) implies that leadership
needs to be distributed among formal and informal leaders for school success. But without
sufficient time and resources, it is difficult for teachers to contribute meaningfully to
leadership roles. Principals could arrange for time and resources for teachers to contribute to
leadership roles, which could boost school success. There are staffing and resourcing
constraints that work against this.
The teachers’ survey responses indicate that each of the dimensions of distributed leadership
exist in the schools to some extent. Although the principals are not very aware of the different
14
approaches to leadership, they are able to delegate some tasks that help their schools to
operate effectively. This finding adds to an understanding of how experienced principals in
Bangladesh can manage their schools effectively without theoretical knowledge about
leadership models, and teachers seemed very pleased with the leadership style of their
principals. A grounding in some theoretical knowledge about leadership might help them in
understanding and practising leadership approaches and to better use teachers’ expertise.
Conclusion
The international studies on school leadership have shown how effective school leadership
operates in various settings. Given the extent of this research, it is surprising that in
comparison there is a relative lack of research on school leadership in Bangladesh. This study
provided some insights into how four principals and twenty teachers viewed their leadership
practices.
In Bangladesh, leadership is understood as the administrative or as a management role. There
is a vital need to understand how school leadership can be developed so that schools can
improve and be more effective in many ways. A key finding of this study was that the
principals had a limited understanding of the wider theory and applications of distributed
leadership.
The principals in this study used leadership effectively through being directly concerned with
improving teaching and learning or pedagogical leadership. In contrast, distributed leadership
as reported in the literature, empowers all teachers to take responsibilities, change and grow.
According to the participants in this study, distributed leadership is about delegating tasks to
teachers rather than building leadership capacity throughout the school. Principals could
consider how they can better utilise the expertise of the teachers in their schools in
collaborative ways, to build capacity for further success. The future development of
15
principals could include evidence from international studies about how distributed leadership
practices can lead to system-wide school improvement, since the issues are too big for
principals to do this by themselves. More movement towards distributed leadership by
principals could quickly achieve a remarkable improvement in secondary education of
Bangladesh.
16
References
Camburn, E., Rowan, B., & Taylor, J. (2003, Winter). Distributed leadership in schools: The
case of elementary schools adopting comprehensive school reform models.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(4), 347-373.
Copland, M. (2003). Leadership of inquiry: Building and sustaining capacity for school
improvement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(4), 375-393.
Duignan, P. (2006). Educational leadership: key challenges and ethical tensions. Australia:
Cambridge University Press.
Duke, D., Showers, B., & Imber, M. (1980). Teachers and shared decision making: the costs
and benefits of involvement, Educational Administration Quarterly, 16, 93–106.
Elmore, R. F. (2000a). Building a new structure for school leadership. Washington, DC: The
Albert Shanker Institute.
Elmore, R. F. (2000b). Hard questions about practice. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 22-25.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (1996). Reassessing the principal’s role in school effectiveness: A
review of empirical research, 1990–1995. Educational Administration Quarterly,
32(1), 5–44.
Harris, A. (2002). Effective leadership in schools facing challenging contexts. School
Leadership & Management, 22(1), 15-26.
Harris, A. (2003). Teacher leadership as distributed leadership: Heresy, fantasy or
possibility? School Leadership & Management, 23(3), 313–324.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2000). Principal and teacher leadership effects: a replication.
School Leadership and Management, 20(4), 415-434.
Marks, H. M., & Printy, S. M. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An
integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 370-397.
Ministry of Education of Bangladesh. (2011). Education Management. Retrieved from
http://www.moedu.gov.bd/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=244&Ite
mid=266
Mulford, B., Kendall, L., Kendall, D., Edmunds, B., Ewington, J., & Silins, H. (2008).
Successful school principalship and decision making. Leading and Managing, 14 (1),
60-71.
Neuman, M., & Simmons, W. (2000). Leadership for student learning. Phi Delta Kappan,
82(1), 9-12. Retrieved from http://www.nces.ed.gov/surveys/nsopf
Phillips, J. (2003). Powerful learning: Creating learning communities in urban school reform.
Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 18(3), 240-258.
17
Salahuddin, A. N. M. (2011). Perceptions of Effective Leadership in Bangladesh Secondary
Schools: Moving towards Distributed Leadership? Unpublished master’s thesis,
University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Sergiovanni, T. J., & Starratt, R. J. (2007). Supervision: a redefinition (8th ed.). Boston, MA:
McGraw-Hill.
Sheppard, B. (2003). If to do in schools were as easy as to know what were good to do.
Education Canada, 43(4), 1-4.
Spillane, J. P. (2006). Distributed leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Yin, R. (1994). Case study research: design and methods. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
18