Purpose: Most empirical work using a distributed perspective to frame research on leadership practice uses the school as the unit of analysis, focusing on how leadership is stretched over people and aspects of the situation within schools. This study investigates leadership practice for elementary science, using a multilevel distributed framework, to understand the interrelationships among educational leaders operating at various levels—from classrooms, to schools, to educational systems, and, beyond, to the educational sector. Research Methods/Approach: Using an embedded, comparative case study design, we analyzed leadership practice for elementary science reform in 13 school districts in the U.S. as leaders worked to bridge from the Next Generation Science Standards learning ideals to classroom instruction. Data collection included interviews, observations, and documents. Findings: Leading elementary science reform involved three core components of leadership practice: (1) garnering attention for science in a situation that prioritized the instruction of English Language Arts and mathematics; (2) cultivating and channeling essential relationships not only within the system but also in the broader education sector to access the resources needed to (re)build an educational infrastructure for elementary science instruction; and (3) supporting the use of educational infrastructure in everyday practice in schools. Implications: This study makes the case for using a multilevel distributed leadership perspective to frame studies of leadership practice to understand how efforts at different levels interact in shaping the practice of leadership.
BanilowerE. R.SmithP. S.MalzahnK. A.PlumleyC. L.GordonE. M.HayesM. L. (2018). Report of the 2018 NSSME+. Horizon Research Inc.
2.
BanilowerE. R.SmithP. S.WeissI. R.MalzahnK. A.CampbellK. M.WeisA. M. (2013). Report of the 2012 National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education. In Horizon Research, Inc. (NJ1) (pp. 1–126). Horizon Research, Inc. http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED541798.
3.
BlankR. K. (2013). Science instructional time is declining in elementary schools: What are the implications for student achievement and closing the gap?Science Education, 97(6), 830–847. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21078
4.
BoldenR. (2011). Distributed leadership in organizations: A review of theory and research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13 (3), 251–269. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2011.00306.x
5.
BushT. (2013). Distributed leadership: The model of choice in the 21st century. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 4(5), 543–544. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143213489497
6.
CamburnE. M.HanS. W. (2009). Investigating connections between distributed leadership and instructional change. In HarrisA. (Ed.), Distributed leadership: Different perspectives (pp. 25–45). Springer Netherlands.
7.
CamburnE. M.RowanB.TaylorJ. E. (2003). Distributed leadership in schools: The case of elementary schools adopting comprehensive school reform models. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(4), 347–373. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737025004347
8.
CherbowK.McKinleyM. T.McNeillK. L.LowenhauptR. (2020). An analysis of science instruction for the science practices: Examining coherence across system levels and components in current systems of science education in K-8 schools. Science Education, 104(3), 446–478. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21573
9.
CobbP.JacksonK.HenrickE.SmithT. M. (2018). Systems for instructional improvement: Creating coherence from the classroom to the district office. Harvard Education Press.
10.
CohenD. K. (2011). Teaching and its predicaments. Harvard University Press.
11.
CohenD. K.BallD. L. (1999). Instruction, capacity, and improvement (CPRE Research Report No RR-043). Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED431749
12.
CohenD. K.PeurachD. J.GlazerJ. L.GatesK. E.GoldinS. (2013). Improvement by design: The promise of better schools. University of Chicago Press.
13.
CohenD. K.SpillaneJ. P.PeurachD. J. (2018). The dilemmas of educational reform. Educational Researcher, 47(3), 204–212. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X17743488
14.
DelpitL. (1995). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. The New Press.
15.
DimmockC.WalkerA. (1998). Towards comparative educational administration: Building the case for a cross-cultural school-based approach. Journal of Educational Administration, 36(4), 379–401. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578239810211554
16.
EmersonR. M.FretzR. I.ShawL. L. (1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes (Vol. 2). University of Chicago Press.
17.
FreireP. (2018). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Bloomsbury Publishing.
18.
GlesneC. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. Pearson.
GumusS.BellibasM. S.EsenM.GumusE. (2018). A systematic review of studies on leadership models in educational research from 1980 to 2014. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 46(1), 25–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143216659296
24.
HarrisA. (2004). Distributed leadership and school improvement: Leading or misleading?Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 32(1), 11–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143204039297
25.
HarrisA. (2009). Distributed leadership: What we know. In HarrisA. (Ed.), Distributed leadership: Different perspectives (pp. 11–21). Springer.
HaverlyC.LyleA.SpillaneJ. P.DavisE. A.PeurachD. J. (2022). Leading instructional improvement in elementary science: State science coordinators’ sense-making about the Next Generation Science Standards. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 59(9), 1575–1606. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21767
28.
HopkinsM.SpillaneJ. P.JakopovicP.HeatonR. M. (2013). Infrastructure redesign and instructional reform in mathematics: Formal structure and teacher leadership. The Elementary School Journal, 114(2), 200–224. https://doi.org/10.1086/671935
29.
LampertM.BoerstT.GrazianiF. (2011). Organizational resources in the service of school-wide ambitious teaching practice. Teachers College Record, 113(7), 1361–1400. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811111300706
LiuP. (2020). Motivating teachers’ commitment to change through distributed leadership in Chinese urban primary schools. International Journal of Educational Management, 34(7), 1171–1183. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-12-2019-0431
32.
LowenhauptR.McNeillK. L. (2019). Subject-specific instructional leadership in K8 schools: The supervision of science in an era of reform. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 18(3), 460–484. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2018.1453937
ManginM. M. (2005). Distributed leadership and the culture of schools: Teacher leaders’ strategies for gaining access to classrooms. Journal of School Leadership, 15(4), 456–484. https://doi.org/10.1177/105268460501500405
35.
MarxR. W.HarrisC. J. (2006). No child left behind and science education: Opportunities, challenges, and risks. The Elementary School Journal, 106(5), 467–478. https://doi.org/10.1086/505441
36.
McNeillK. L.LowenhauptR.CherbowK.LowellB. R. (2022). Professional development to support principals’ vision of science instruction: Building from their prior experiences to support the science practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 59(1), 3–29. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21719
37.
McNeillK. L.LowenhauptR. J.Katsh-SingerR. (2018). Instructional leadership in the era of the NGSS: Principals’ understandings of science practices. Science Education, 102(3), 452–473. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21336
38.
MilesM. B.HubermanM. A.SaldañaJ. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Sage.
39.
National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine. (2022). Science and engineering in preschool through elementary grades: The brilliance of children and the strengths of educators.Committee on Enhancing Science and Engineering in PreK through 5th Grade Board on Science Education and Teacher Advisory Council Division of Behavioral and Social Science and Education. The National Academies Press.
40.
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press.
41.
National Research Council. (2015). Guide to implementing the next generation science standards. National Academies Press.
42.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. National Academies Press.
PeurachD. J.CohenD. K.YurkofskyM. M.SpillaneJ. P. (2019). From mass schooling to education systems: Changing patterns in the organization and management of instruction. Review of Research in Education, 43(1), 32–67. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X18821131
45.
PeurachD. J.NeumerskiC. M. (2015). Mixing metaphors: Building infrastructure for large scale school turnaround. Journal of Educational Change, 16(4), 379–420. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-015-9259-z
46.
PrintyS.LiuY. (2021). Distributed leadership globally: The interactive nature of principal and teacher leadership in 32 countries. Educational Administration Quarterly, 57(2), 290–325. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X20926548
RowanB. (2002). The ecology of school improvement: Notes on the school improvement industry in the United States. Journal of Educational Change, 3(3), 283–314. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021277712833
49.
ScottW. R.DavisG. F. (2015). Organizations and organizing: Rational, natural and open systems perspectives. Routledge.
50.
SmithP. S. (2020). 2018 NSSME+: Trends in U.S. science education from 2012 to 2018. In Horizon Research, Inc (pp. 1–86). Horizon Research, Inc. http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED611301
51.
SpillaneJ. P. (2005). Primary school leadership practice: How the subject matters. School Leadership & Management, 25(4), 383–397. https://doi.org/10.1080/13634230500197231
52.
SpillaneJ. P. (2006). Distributed leadership. Jossey-Bass.
53.
SpillaneJ. P.DiamondJ. B.JitaL. (2003). Leading instruction: The distribution of leadership for instruction. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 35(5), 533–543. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022027021000041972
54.
SpillaneJ. P.HalversonR.DiamondJ. B. (2001). Investigating school leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 23–28. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X030003023
55.
SpillaneJ. P.HalversonR.DiamondJ. B. (2004). Towards a theory of leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(1), 3–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022027032000106726
56.
SpillaneJ. P.HopkinsM. (2013). Organizing for instruction in education systems and school organizations: How the subject matters. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 45(6), 721–747. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2013.810783
57.
SpillaneJ. P.MorelR. P.Al-FadalaA. (2023). Framing educational leadership as a multilevel distributed practice: A systemwide perspective. In TierneyR.RiviF.SmithG.ErcikanK. (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (4th ed, pp. 82–90). Elsevier Ltd.
58.
SpillaneJ. P.PeurachD. J.CohenD. K. (2019). Comparatively studying educational system (re)building cross-nationally: Another agenda for cross-national educational research?Educational Researcher, 33(6), 916–945. https://doi.org/10.1177/089590481986726
TianM.RiskuM.CollinK. (2016). A meta-analysis of distributed leadership from 2002 to 2013: Theory development, empirical evidence and future research focus. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 44(1), 146–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143214558576
61.
YinR. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.
62.
YlimakiR. M. (Ed.). (2013). The new instructional leadership: ISLLC standard two. Routledge.
