Studies have conceptualized distributive leadership based on the school improvement model—whereby distributive leadership, decentralization, and teacher autonomy result in school improvement. Similarly, scholars argued that this practice tends to be an objective worth emulating. Consequently, this article examines the practice of distributive leadership, teacher autonomy, and school effectiveness in a decentralized context, in northwest Nigeria. Adopting the quantitative method, this descriptive survey analyzed a sample of 310 teachers. The paper found that both coherent leadership and support and supervision exert a significant direct effect on curriculum autonomy (β = 0.19, p < .05; β = 0.31, p < .05) and general autonomy (β = 0.31, p < .05; β = 0.31, p < .05), respectively. While contributing to the demand for more literature from emerging and nonapparent research contexts, this study explained that policies that work well in one country may not be implemented and/or yield similar outcomes across national borders.
AgezoC. K. (2010). Why teachers leave teaching: The case of predentary institutions in Ghana. International Journal of Educational Reform, 19(1), 51–69. https://doi.org/10.1177/105678791001900104
2.
AlamG. M. (2020). Quality assurance for private universities in Bangladesh: A quest for specialised institutional governance, management and regulatory mechanism. International Journal of Comparative Education and Development, 22(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCED-01-2019-0006
3.
AlamG. M.BashirK.AbdulkadirS. (2024). Viability of distributive leadership and teacher autonomy for effective schools in developing nations: A case study from Nigeria?Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 1–20. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/17411432241270376
4.
BashirK.AlamG. M. (2024). Compatibility of distributive leadership, teacher autonomy and school effectiveness in Nigeria. International Journal of Management in Education, 18(4), 355–375. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMIE.2024.10062559
5.
BashirK.AlamG. M. (2024). Does distributed leadership fit the paradigm transformation of secondary school effectiveness in Nigeria?International Journal of Management in Education, 18(1), 70–90. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMIE.2024.135181
6.
BassB. M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(1), 9–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/135943299398410
7.
BektaşF.KılınçAÇGümüşS. (2022). The effects of distributed leadership on teacher professional learning: Mediating roles of teacher trust in principal and teacher motivation. Educational Studies, 48(5), 602–624. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2020.1793301
8.
BellibasM. S.LiuY. (2018). The effects of principals’ perceived instructional and distributed leadership practices on their perceptions of school climate. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 21(2), 226–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2016.1147608
9.
BushT. (2018a). Prescribing distributed leadership: Is this a contradiction?Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 46(4), 535–537. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143218768403
10.
BushT. (2018b). Leadership and context: Why one-size does not fit all. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 46(1), 3–4. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143217739543
11.
BushT.GloverD. (2014). School leadership models: What do we know?School Leadership & Management, 34(5), 553–571.
12.
BushT.NgA. Y. M. (2019). Distributive leadership and the Malaysia education blueprint: From prescription to partial school-based enactment in a highly centralized context. Journal of Educational Administration, 57(3), 279–295. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-11-2018-0206
13.
ChenD.NingB.BosW. (2022). Relationship between principal leadership style and student achievement: A comparative study between Germany and China. SAGE Open, 12(2), Article 21582440221094601. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221094601
14.
ChengY. C. (2022). School effectiveness and school-based management: A mechanism for development (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003267980
15.
CrawfordM. (2012). Solo and distributed leadership: Definitions and dilemmas. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 40(5), 610–620. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143212451175
16.
CreswellJ. W.Plano ClarkV. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage.
17.
Döş, İ. (2014). Some model suggestions for measuring effective schools. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116(2), 1454–1458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.415
18.
DayC.SammonsP.GorgenK. (2020). Successful school leadership. Reading. Education Development Trust.
19.
EdmondsR. (2020). Characteristics of effective schools. In The school achievement of minority children (pp. 93–104). Routledge.
20.
FlessaJ.BramwellD.FernandezM.WeinsteinJ. (2018). School leadership in Latin America 2000–2016. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 46(2), 182–206. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143217751728
HallingerP. (2018). Surfacing a hidden literature: A systematic review of research on educational leadership and management in Africa. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 46(3), 362–384. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143217694895
25.
HarrisA.DeFlaminisJ. (2016). Distributed leadership in practice: Evidence, misconceptions and possibilities. Management in Education, 30(4), 141–146. https://doi.org/10.1177/0892020616656734
HartleyD. (2010). Paradigms: How far does research in distributed leadership ‘stretch’?Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 38(3), 271–285. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143209359716
28.
HuffmanJ. B.HippK. A. (2001). Creating communities of learners: The interaction of shared leadership, shared vision, and supportive conditions. International Journal of Educational Reform, 10(3), 272–281. https://doi.org/10.1177/105678790101000305
29.
HulpiaH.DevosG.RosseelY. (2009). Development and validation of scores on the distributed leadership inventory. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69(6), 1013–1034. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164409344490
30.
JamesonJ.RumyantsevaN.CaiM., et al. (2022). A systematic review, textual narrative synthesis and framework for digital leadership research maturity in higher education. Computers and Education Open, 3(12), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2022.100115
31.
KrejcieR. V.MorganD. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30(3), 607–610. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447003000308
32.
LeithwoodK.HarrisA.HopkinsD. (2020). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership revisited. School Leadership & Management, 40(1), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2019.1596077
33.
LezotteL. W.SnyderK. M. (2011). What effective schools do: Re-envisioning the correlates. Solution Tree Press.
34.
LinQ. (2022). The relationship between distributed leadership and teacher innovativeness: Mediating roles of teacher autonomy and professional collaboration. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 948152. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.948152
35.
LiuS.KeeleyJ. W.SuiY.SangL. (2021). Impact of distributed leadership on teacher job satisfaction in China: The mediating roles of teacher autonomy and teacher collaboration. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 71(12), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2021.101099
36.
LiuL.LiuP.YangH.YaoH.ThienL. M. (2024). The relationship between distributed leadership and teacher well-being: The mediating roles of organisational trust. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 52(4), 837–853. https://doi.org/10.1177/17411432221113683
37.
MifsudD. (2023). A systematic review of school distributed leadership: Exploring research purposes, concepts and approaches in the field between 2010 and 2022. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 52(2), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220620.2022.2158181
38.
MunnaA. S. (2022). Instructional leadership and role of module leaders. International Journal of Educational Reform, 32(1), 38–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/10567879211042321
39.
NaidooJ. (2005). Education decentralization in Africa: Great expectations and unfulfilled promises. In BakerD.WisemanA. W. (Eds.), Global trends in educational policy (pp. 99–124). Emerald Group Publishing. Limited. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1479-3679(04)06004-9
40.
National Policy on Education (NPE). (2013). Nigerian Educational Research and Development Council. Federal Republic of Nigeria.
41.
Osarenren-OsaghaeR. I.IraborQ. O. (2018). Educational policies and programmes implementations: A case study of education funding, universal basic education (UBE) and teacher education. International Journal of Educational Administration and Policy Studies, 10(8), 91–102. https://doi.org/10.5897/IJEAPS2016.0457
42.
ÖzdemirM.BuyukgozeH.AkmanY., et al. (2023). Distributed leadership and teachers’ emotional labour: The mediating role of teacher autonomy. Journal of Educational Administration, 61(4), 405–422. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-06-2022-0092
43.
PearsonL. C.MoomawW. (2006). Continuing validation of the teaching autonomy scale. The Journal of Educational Research, 100(1), 44–51. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.100.1.44-51
44.
PizaC.ZwagerA.RuzzanteM.DantasR.LoureiroA. (2020). Supporting teacher autonomy to improve education outcomes: Experimental evidence from Brazil. Policy Research Working Paper No. 9371. Washington, DC: World Bank. http://hdl.handle.net/10986/34419
45.
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
46.
SalokangasM.WermkeW.HarveyG. (2020). Teachers’ autonomy deconstructed: Irish and Finnish teachers’ perceptions of decision-making and control. European Educational Research Journal, 19(4), 329–350. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904119868378
47.
SchoferE. (2019). The growth of schooling in global perspective. In DominaT.GibbsB. G.NunnL.PennerA. (Eds.), Education and society: An introduction to key issues in the sociology of education (pp. 7–22). University of California Press. https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520968301-003
48.
SpillaneJ. P.DiamondJ. B. (2007). Distributed leadership in practice. Teachers College, Columbia University.
49.
SupovitzJ. A.D’AuriaJ.SpillaneJ. P. (2019). Meaningful & sustainable school improvement with distributed leadership. University of Pennsylvania Scholarly Commons, CPRE Research Reports.
50.
ThienL. M.ChanS. Y. (2022). One-size-fits-all? A cross-validation study of distributive leadership and teacher academic optimism. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 50(1), 43–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143220926506
VangriekenK.GrosemansI.DochyF., et al. (2017). Teacher autonomy and collaboration: A paradox? Conceptualising and measuring teachers’ autonomy and collaborative attitude. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67(10), 302–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.06.021
54.
WermkeW.Olason RickS.SalokangasM. (2019). Decision-making and control: Perceived autonomy of teachers in Germany and Sweden. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 51(3), 306–325. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2018.1482960
