QUÉ ES XEOMIN Y PARA QUÉ SE UTILIZA

The recognition of leadership as a distributed phenomenon in schools in both policy and practice has been characterised by the emergence of a body of literature that focuses on the notion and roles of middle leaders (Bennett, 1999; Wise and Bush, 1999; Blandford, 2006). This literature has identified the emergence of middle leadership, its evolving role in education management and its increasing importance in the realisation of education outcomes and school performance (Bennett, 1995; Earley, and Weindling, 2004; Hammersley-Fletcher and Strain, 2011). Middle leadership has been described as a label for teachers who oversee a subject, department and/or have a pastoral responsibility within an educational organisation (Gunter, 2001:106). Middle leaders in schools occupy a position in the leadership hierarchy between senior management and teachers. The term

is commonly used to refer to teachers who perform formal leadership roles that have both managerial and pedagogical responsibilities within the school, aside from the headteacher and senior leaders (Southworth, 2004; Busher et al. 2007).

Middle leadership focuses on formal leadership positions related to middle management and subject leadership, rather than on the broad capabilities of teachers to lead within the school organisation (Heng and Marsh, 2009). Middle leadership, then, epitomises a contemporary wave of leadership that operates alongside the broader concept of distributed leadership and needs to be understood and implemented accordingly in order to improve school performance and overall outcomes (Earley and Weindling, 2004; Hammersley-Fletcher and Strain, 2011).

Fleming and Amesbury (2013) explore what middle leadership within the primary school context entails. They observe that the term ‘leadership’ is a relatively new concept particularly within the primary school context. For decades, primary school headteachers and teachers did not consider themselves to be anything close to leaders. However, with time, as some research studies began to emphasise the importance of leadership in the improvement of school outcomes, the Department for Education and Employment (DFEE) and OFSTED began to embrace the notion that middle leadership can be pivotal in enhancing best practice and improving educational outcomes. As a result, the need for middle leaders in primary schools began to appear regularly in school improvement and development plans (Fleming and Amesbury, 2013). In a bid to improve school outcomes, teachers gradually began to take up a series of additional duties extending from their typical teaching duties in the classroom (Danielson, 2006). Although -posts of extra responsibility- among primary school teachers had existed for many years within various education systems, the term ‘middle leadership’ was hardly used or recognised until more recently.

The increased pressure on senior leaders in the 1980s and 90s provided the impetus for distributed leadership and thus both directly caused its emergence and defined its nature (Dinham, 2005; Muijs and Harris, 2005; Spillane, 2006). To corroborate this, Brown et al. (2000) note that societal, cultural, and legislative changes that took place in the late 1980s brought about the role played by middle leaders. More specifically, a movement towards the legislative recognition of middle-leadership began under Prime Minister Tony Blair, whose party produced a Green Paper in 1998 entitled Teachers: Meeting the Challenge of Change that established a vision to improve standards and recognised that this required ‘a broader leadership group’ (Secretary of State for Education and Employment, p.17). They aimed to do this through investment in training, recognition of different levels of teachers in the form of ASTs (Advanced Skills Teachers), and the incentivisation of excellence through a new appraisal and pay progression scheme. This appraisal scheme would also serve to identify bad practice in order to direct appropriate professional development.

Though the government did not “wish to impose any single model” on schools and had a view to fostering innovative schools, (Secretary of State for Education and Employment, P.13), the Teachers’ Training Agency (TTA), now known as the Teachers’ Development Agency (TDA), did begin to produce guidelines on various forms of middle leadership, which it admitted would vary between schools, based on the environment. For example, in the same year as the Green Paper, the TTA produced a paper on the National Standards for Subject Leaders (1998). This paper advocated a change in title from ‘curriculum coordinator’ to ‘subject leader’ in order to further develop “how experienced and effective coordinators provide leadership in their subject” (TTA, 1998:3). The TTA stressed both the leadership and managerial qualities needed in a subject leader. These include directing the vision for the subject through an ‘action plan’ (TTA, 1998:10), driving it forward by enthusing other teachers with that vision, using effective resources and managing them

efficiently with a mind to achieving good value for money, and leading and managing staff through both motivation and professional development, as well as effective delegation.

In addition to these leadership and management aspects, subject leaders should also demonstrate -high quality teaching in the subject- and understand ‘the main strategies for improving and sustaining high standards of teaching, learning and achievement’, in other words they should be good practitioners. The TTA document does not stress administrative duties. It does, however, encourage the efficient use of ICT to aid in subject management. This is directly related to the Government’s wish to “help relieve teachers of the bureaucratic burden” through technology (Secretary of State for Education and Employment, 1998:13). In any case, the elements advocated by the TTA here offer a similar picture to that offered by Fleming of good middle leadership in 2000. What must be discussed, however, is whether these practices and the skills advocated by the national standards for subject leadership, as well as those in other areas such as Special Educational Needs Coordinators (SENCOs), were effectively put in place, and whether they gained any success.