The (In)Formality of Teacher Leadership on the Edge of Chaos

• In Event: Looking Back, Looking Forward: Exploring Conceptual Frameworks of Teacher Leadership

Abstract

Over the past 20 years, teacher leadership research and practice has negotiated a continuum between informal teacher leadership and formal teacher leadership. Recently, there has been a drift towards a conception of “semi-formal” teacher leadership. This paper will: 1) trace the conceptual underpinnings of the informal vs. formal teacher leader debate; 2) examine the emergence of semi-formal teacher leadership; and 3) propose a promising conceptual framework to propel the field forward.

Amidst the ongoing debate regarding “whether leadership is a specialized role or
social influence process” (Hoy & Miskel, 2008, p. 419), this paper examines theories that guide both informal and formal teacher leadership. Informal theories of teacher leadership include socio-cognitive theories of individual teacher learning (Slavin, 2009); socio-cultural theories of learning within educational organizations (Little, 2002; Little, Gearhart, Curry, & Kafka, 2003); and sociopolitical/critical notions of flattened hierarchies and distributed power (Corrigan, 2013). In contrast, formal theories of teacher leadership find roots within scientific management theory (Taylor, 1914); role theory (Biddle, 1986, 2001); and cognitive framing (Goldstein, 2004; Spillane, Reiser, & Gomez, 2006).

Points of departure within this literature cluster around two themes: 1) The best ways to organize schools; and 2) The best ways to help teachers learn. In terms of school organization, proponents of informal teacher leadership seek to work against hierarchies and for the empowerment of “all” teachers, not just a select few. Many directly make the case that to teach is to lead, and that all teachers are de-facto leaders. In contrast, those arguing for more formalized teacher leadership point to structures (organizational, temporal, financial) that need to exist to help teacher leaders thrive within hierarchical systems. With more specified teacher leader roles, successful “models” of teacher leadership can then be expanded across school sites.

Amidst this historically bifurcated debate, we see two competing conceptions: informal roles may involve too much ambiguity and ambivalence (Storey, 2002), while formal roles may create too much structure and place teachers in quasi-administrative positions (Hatcher, 2005). Without any level of formalization, teacher leadership roles may remain too tenuous to be effective – yet to remove all formality may remove the structures enabling teacher leadership.

With this unresolved conceptual tension as a backdrop, recent research (Gordon et al., 2017; Kuhl, 2017) has depicted the emergence of semi-formal teacher leadership, a concept with little conceptual underpinnings. This paper concludes with a new conceptualization for semi-formal teacher leadership, drawing from rhizomatics (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987; Strom, 2015) and complexity theory (Cleveland, 1994; Lewin, 1999). This framework attempts to: 1) balance structure and ambiguity, as well as rules and autonomy; 2) facilitate dynamism within complex systems (like schools); and 3) increase the capacity for growth and learning amidst change.

Teacher leaders, in semi-formal roles, are essential processors of information amidst multiple “feedback loops.” They assist themselves, and others, in creating new information within specific and local contexts. Semi-formal teacher leadership helps schools move from the extremes of rigidness (too formal) and chaos (too informal) to a state of creative manageability within complex learning environments.

Author

• Jason M. Margolis, Duquesne University