Current Event #1
John Olson
S ED 625
9/20/06
The article, Individual and Collective Leadership in School Science Departments,
(Ritchie, MacKay, and Rigano) (Research in Science Education 2005) was a comparison
study on the individual and collective leadership styles of two secondary schools. The
study was addressing the important role of specialist teachers as the “central and
immediate unit of organization in secondary schools.” The study used data from lesson
observations, interviews and questionnaires as they related to teacher’s preparation of
curriculum. The article was addressing the desirability of evolving “individualistic”
leadership styles into a more “collective” style. In this format, the appointed leader
remains autonomous in their leadership role, but uses the various strengths of the staff
within the department to facilitate staff participation in leadership roles. The study
focused on a small community of teachers, 15 participants working at two schools. The
study while small in scope went to great depth in detail and evaluation of the leadership
styles at each school.
One of the strengths of this article was the inclusion of anecdotal examples. Many of
them were very clarifying as to what the article was trying to address. In terms of the
department heads of the two schools, “Both of the leaders shared a common set of
individual leadership roles.” Other topics addressed included philosophy of science
education, the introduction of new ideas, administrative actions within departments and
the convening of meetings.
The study gave specific examples of how the leaders managed their staff to most
successfully accomplish these goals. One department chair mitigated a conflict she had
encountered with an experienced teacher. She did not challenge him directly, but teamed
a progressive thinking teacher with that teacher whose views were “less progressive.”
The study revealed that working with a peer influenced the willingness of the
experienced teacher to become more open to consider new possibilities. Having had a
difficult, “experienced teacher” in our department who was an unwilling participant, I
admire that leader’s ability to bring some resolution to her conflict.
The recruiting of new teachers with new ideas was another point that was illustrated in
the article. Regarding “early career” teachers, one teacher in the study commented that,
“they bring fresh ideas, in terms of how we might approach things that are already in
place.” This seems to be a valid statement. Two early career teachers have joined our
department in the last three years, and they have an enthusiasm and a willingness to try
new things, that has brought a new energy to the curriculum at our grade level.
One of the major weaknesses in this article was that it did not initially address who the
audience of the research was until the end of the article. “While we did not intend to
speak directly to school leaders like science coordinators and principals through this
article, there are several implications of this research and related studies for
practitioners. ” To have this disclaimer at the end of the study seems to contradict the
premise of the opening sentence of the study, “The activities of secondary science
teachers are coordinated typically through departments chaired by a designated or
appointed teacher leader (i.e.: head of department.)” It is unclear exactly who would
benefit from the findings of this article if not the persons in these leadership roles. The
study made several points, but did not include any actual recommendations that might be
of benefit to the reader.
Although the study seemed fairly well planned and executed, it focused on only two
schools. Although this gave a very intimate snapshot of the individual/collective
leadership at the two schools, it is really too small a sampling to consider the
philosophies of these two departments to be an accurate sampling of what is or should be
going on in general education in terms of leadership styles in a department setting.
The implications from this research are worth consideration. California’s shift to
teaching specific sets of standards at each grade level gives merit to the ideas put out for
consideration by this study. “We can no longer assume that science departments will be
insulated from other curricular developments and innovations.” In the science
department at our school, there has been an attitude of independence in terms of what to
cover and when to cover it. There has been a significant shift to standards based lessons,
pacing calendars, benchmark testing and writing prompts that did not exist four years
ago. Many of the experienced teachers are still balking at some of the changes, whereas
the new teachers on staff are embracing the value of these new guidelines and tools.
This article addresses some very important ideas in terms of collective leadership. For
myself, it raises some significant questions about my role as grade level department chair.
When I took on the role of department chair, the job description was mainly that of
ordering and managing equipment and supplies. Under a new principal, the role has
shifted to one of instructional leader. Many of the examples in the articles are
encouraging, as some of the techniques used by the leadership in the study have worked
successfully for our department. Specifically, we have worked on the collaborative
development of a writing prompt, grade level evaluations of benchmark test results,
sharing of curriculum, and have had ongoing articulation in terms of lesson plans and
activity ideas. In each of these endeavors, different team members have taken on various
leadership roles. The fact that this article has caused me to reflect on my own strengths
and weaknesses as a department leader has made it a useful if not intimidating endeavor.