(iv) Collaborative Leadership and Shared Responsibility

1. Introduction

The promotion of inclusion and belonging within schools requires more than policy declarations; it demands a shift in leadership practices. Traditional hierarchical leadership models often centralise decision-making in the hands of principals or senior managers, which can limit responsiveness to the diverse needs of learners (Leithwood et al., 2020). Shared leadership—also referred to as distributed or collaborative leadership—has emerged as a crucial framework for fostering inclusive educational environments, because it acknowledges the expertise of teachers, learners, parents, and community stakeholders in shaping equitable and participatory schools (Spillane, 2006; Harris, 2014).

2. Defining Shared Leadership

Shared leadership is characterised by the distribution of leadership tasks across multiple actors rather than residing in a single individual. Spillane (2006) conceptualises this as leadership practice “stretched over” leaders, followers, and the context of their interactions. In an inclusive school, this means teachers, special education coordinators, students, and even parents share responsibility for driving policies and practices that ensure belonging for all learners.

3. Shared Leadership and Inclusion

Inclusion is not only about integrating students with diverse backgrounds and abilities, but also about valuing diversity as a source of strength (Ainscow, Booth & Dyson, 2006). Shared leadership supports this by:

  • Democratising decision-making: Students, teachers, and parents are given a voice in shaping school practices, reducing the dominance of top-down directives (Harris & DeFlaminis, 2016).

  • Building collective responsibility: When teachers co-lead inclusive practices—such as differentiated instruction or collaborative problem-solving for learners with additional needs—they move beyond compliance to genuine commitment (Klar et al., 2016).

  • Fostering teacher agency: Teachers are empowered to lead innovations in pedagogy and curriculum adaptation, ensuring that inclusive practices are contextually responsive (York-Barr & Duke, 2004).

4. Mechanisms of Shared Leadership for Belonging

A school leader seeking to embed inclusion through shared leadership can operationalise this pillar through the following mechanisms:

  1. Collaborative Professional Learning Communities (PLCs): PLCs enable teachers to share expertise, analyse data on student progress, and co-create interventions for marginalised learners (Stoll et al., 2006).

  2. Student Voice and Co-Leadership: Engaging students in decision-making enhances belonging by validating their lived experiences and perspectives (Fielding, 2001). For example, student councils can shape anti-bullying policies or peer-mentoring schemes.

  3. Parental and Community Partnerships: Shared leadership extends beyond the school walls by involving parents and community organisations in curriculum co-design, policy feedback, and resource mobilisation (Epstein, 2010).

  4. Distributed Roles and Responsibilities: Leadership is not tied to formal titles. Teachers may lead on inclusive pedagogy, counsellors on wellbeing initiatives, and students on peer-support programmes (Gronn, 2002).

5. Challenges in Implementing Shared Leadership

While the literature highlights the benefits of shared leadership, challenges exist:

  • Cultural resistance: In contexts with strong hierarchical traditions, shared leadership may be perceived as undermining authority (Harris, 2014).

  • Capacity issues: Not all staff feel equipped to lead inclusive initiatives without adequate training (Leithwood et al., 2020).

  • Accountability tensions: Distributing leadership requires robust mechanisms to ensure responsibility is not diluted (Klar et al., 2016).

School leaders therefore need to adopt strategic frameworks (e.g., Kotter’s change model) to manage these challenges while sustaining momentum for inclusion.

6. Conclusion

Shared leadership is central to fostering inclusion and belonging in schools. It challenges the traditional leader-centric paradigm and instead promotes collective agency, participatory decision-making, and community engagement. By involving multiple voices—teachers, learners, parents, and communities—schools create not only more effective systems of support for diverse learners but also environments where all members feel valued and empowered.

References

  • Ainscow, M., Booth, T., & Dyson, A. (2006). Improving schools, developing inclusion. Routledge.

  • Epstein, J. L. (2010). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators and improving schools. Routledge.

  • Fielding, M. (2001). Beyond the rhetoric of student voice: New departures or new constraints in the transformation of 21st century schooling? Forum, 43(2), 100–110.

  • Gronn, P. (2002). Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(4), 423–451.

  • Harris, A. (2014). Distributed leadership matters: Perspectives, practicalities, and potential. Corwin Press.

  • Harris, A., & DeFlaminis, J. (2016). Distributed leadership in practice: Evidence, misconceptions and possibilities. Management in Education, 30(4), 141–146.

  • Klar, H. W., Huggins, K. S., Hammonds, H. L., & Buskey, F. C. (2016). Fostering distributed instructional leadership: A sociocultural perspective of leadership development in urban high schools. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 15(4), 426–447.

  • Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2020). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership revisited. School Leadership & Management, 40(1), 5–22.

  • Spillane, J. P. (2006). Distributed leadership. Jossey-Bass.

  • Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Wallace, M., & Thomas, S. (2006). Professional learning communities: A review of the literature. Journal of Educational Change, 7(4), 221–258.

  • York-Barr, J., & Duke, K. (2004). What do we know about teacher leadership? Findings from two decades of scholarship. Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 255–316.