There is an extensive research base revealing that the principal‟s office is considered as the central point from where every type of change flows through to the school. This interdependency is magnified in the area of distributed leadership (Harris, 2004a; Hartley,
83
2009; Leithwood et al., 2008; Maqbool, 2011; Raza, 2009). Distributed leadership is considered a useful and effective way of enhancing the performance of the organization and is strongly recommended in the literature as “the new kid on the block” (Gronn, 2006: p.1), “in vogue” (Harris, 2004a: p.13), and attracting “growing attention” (Hoyle and Wallace, 2005: p.192). However, „distributed leadership admits some confusion: its conceptual elasticity is considerable‟ (Hartley, 2009: p.202). The lack of conceptual clarity is a major issue that may make operationalization of this way of working problematic. Delegation and distribution of leadership, if not understood and implemented with clarity can contaminate the whole idea. Many school leaders in Pakistani schools conceptualize delegation of power, distribution of duties, and distributive leadership as being the same (Raza, 2009; Maqbool, 2011). There is limited evidence about the success of distributed leadership initiative or other related efforts to spread leadership to teachers (Lieberman and Miller, 1999; Murphy, 2002; Hartley, 2009; Maqbool, 2011). There are many reasons for this, but the most important is that leadership in schools is not conducive to shared conceptions of leadership. Distributed leadership rests on a transformation in the understanding about leadership and in the ways school principals enact their leadership roles. This repositioning of oneself as a leader is not an easy task for many principals, especially for those in the position for some length of time (Crowther et al., 2002). A distributed perspective of leadership requires reframing one‟s conception of schooling, from reliance on bureaucratic and “institutional lenses toward viewing schools as community- anchored organisations” (Murphy and Hallinger, 1998: p.268). It also highlights the need for new skills and the use of a new set of performances which still needs to be prioritised in the decision taking list of policy makers in countries like Pakistan (Riaz, 2008).
84
Analysts have been especially insightful in exposing how the norms needed to establish distributed leadership ethos in a school are inconsistent with the structure embedded in the hierarchical, bureaucratic architecture of schools (Harris and Lambert, 2003). The traditional school designs in Pakistan may discourage the exercise of leadership across role boundaries (Raza, 2009; Khan et al., 2009). The „factory‟ like models are still prevalent in many government schools in Pakistan, but with a realization about their limited capacity to meet the different needs within the schools, change can be observed (Rizvi, 2008; Raza, 2009). A recent inflow of information through use of technology and a myriad of proposed educational reforms from many parts of the world have initiated a move for decentralization and distributed leadership with a learning centred focus. However, it is understandable that like many experienced principals in different parts of the world, experienced principals in Pakistan also hesitate to let go of the hierarchal organizational models for fear of losing their control (Rizvi, 2008; Raza, 2009). With the changing times grows awareness, largely mounted in the West, that these traditional ways of leadership practices can no longer work with the current complexity of schooling (Day et al., 2005; Fullan, 2001; Sergiovanni, 1998 and 2001). Decentralisation of schools and in schools is considered a befitting strategy. It is argued that decentralization includes transfer of authority of decisions related to the curriculum, the means of teaching and learning, the use of facilities, supplies and equipment, deployment of human resources and the allocation of finances. A distributive aspect of leadership demands an involvement of all stakeholders in these procedures. However, such freedom is questioned quite often in the literature (Earley et al., 2002; Javed, 2005; Hartley, 2009; Rizvi, 2008), which contends that, far from decentralizing education systems, current reforms in different countries such as UK and Pakistan are moving toward more centralized control of schools.
85
Like LEA‟s in the UK, the structure of the government school system in Pakistan is based on a bureaucratic model. The Federal Ministry of Education retains the authority to formulate educational plans and policies in Pakistan, but with the 18th Amendment in the Constitution, more autonomy has been given to provinces particularly in education related matters (Full text of 18th Amendment, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, www.infopak.gov.pk), which can now make policies in the provinces and the districts by the respective provincial and local district authorities. While the rhetoric is about participation through distributed leadership, the reality is that still more power is being centralized through standardised tests, accountability and appraisals and structured curriculum (Rizvi, 2008; Maqbool, 2011). How much authority is (or should be) devolved to schools? How much autonomy do (or should) schools in Pakistan have when it comes to curriculum development, governance and staffing? To what extent is it possible to establish a socially co-constructed model of distributive leadership in schools in Pakistan keeping the contextual diversity in view?
Context sensitivity, being able to interpret and design the school and community interactions, requires a number of personal attributes (Dempster, 2009). According to him, interpersonal and interactive relationship grows deeper with experience and time. Sustainability is a big issue as distributed leaders do not arrive at their support from the school or as a result of their interpersonal skills – they are appointed by higher authorities who may not be school-based. School leaders‟ ability to study local demography, local politics and other socio-economic factors of the school and those involved with the school (especially staff and students) makes a difference in terms of its effectiveness. Therefore, the availability and quality of leadership
86
development programmes is considered important in different parts of the world (Bush, 2011; Rizvi, 2008; Leithwood et al., 2006). Literature from Pakistan indicates that extensive work is required in this area as presently there is no formal leadership development programme available to the majority of school leaders here (Raza, 2009; Khan et al., 2009; Maqbool, 2011).