Summary (Распределение профессионального лидерства в общеобразовательных организациях)

NATIONAL RESEARCH UNIVERSITY HIGHER SCHOOL OF ECONOMICSINSTITUTE OF EDUCATIONKatsiaryna M. KuksoPROFESSIONAL LEADERSHIP DISTRIBUTIONIN GENERAL EDUCATION ORGANIZATIONSPhD Dissertation Summary for the purpose of obtainingDoctor of Philosophy in Education HSEAcademic Supervisor:Professor Konstantin M. Ushakov,Doctor of ScienceMoscow - 2018The dissertation was prepared in Institute of Education, National Research University Higher Schoolof Economics. Location: 16 Potapovsky per., Building 10, Moscow, Russia, 101000. Mailingaddress: 20 Myasnitskaya ul., Moscow, Russia 101000Publications:Bysik N., Evstigneeva N., Isaeva N., Kukso K., Harris A., Jones M. A missing link? Contemporaryinsights into principal preparation and training in Russia // Asia Pacific Journal of Education.

2015.Vol. 3. No. 35. P. 331-342.Ushakov K.M., Kukso K.M. Advantages of Social Network Analysis in Educational Research //Russian Education and Society. 2015. Vol. 57. No. 10. P. 871-888.Kukso K.M. Territorial educational complexes of Moscow: was it possible to create newconnections? // Science and School. 2017. №. 4. P. 122-130.Conferences:European Conference of Educational Research (ECER) 2015 Education and Transition Contributions from Educational Research (Budapest), September 7-11, 2015. Report: ProfessionalLeadership Distribution Patters (Evidence from Russia).American Educational Research Association (AERA) 2016 Annual Meeting "Public Scholarship toEducate Diverse Democracies" (Washington), April 7-12 2016.

Report: A missing link?Contemporary insights into principal preparation and training in RussiaAutumn Conference 2015, MSSES (Moscow), September 28-30, 2015. Report: Knowledgedistribution in professional networksXII Annual Conference „Trends in Education Development. Leadership in School and Pre-SchoolEducation: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow” (Moscow), February 19-20, 2015. Report:Professional Influence Distribution within School Management Teams.XIII Annual Conference " Trends in Education Development: Who is Teaching the Teachers andWhat?" (Moscow), 18-19, 2016. Report: Educational Complexes: are Teachers Learning More?IntroductionIn the Russian Federation, the period of institutional reforms has been completed at large: theUnified State Exam, per capita financing, and the transition of schools to Federal State EducationalStandards were implemented.

Over the past decade the substantial growth in financing volumes andlarge-scale efforts aimed at reforming state educational institutions have led to some growth in theposition of Russia in international comparative studies of PISA, TIMMS, PIRLS 1. However, at themoment it is difficult to deny considerable economic restrictions, which do not allow to keep thesame high level of public investment into school infrastructure, teachers’ human capital and anattractive image of school job positions in the eyes of the most talented university graduates 2.Under the economic constraints, it seems important to look for such approaches to schoolreforms, which would be aimed at improving the quality of teaching and allow achieving amaximum increase in the quality of school education with limited costs.

As one of the key factorscontributing to the enhancement of the educational system effectiveness, the internationalcomparative study conducted by McKinsey3 sees reforms directed mainly at the improvement of thelesson quality. "No reforms can be implemented until what happens in class changes" (M. Barber).At the same time, costly institutional reforms, necessary for managerial and financial reasons, do notbring a tangible increase in educational outcomes 4.One of the possible ways to improve the lesson quality is to use school internal professionalresources.

The resources of professional structure, or the totality of the relationships of teachers withone another while addressing issues related to teaching, should be referred to such, just to name afew.One of the key factors of professional development at the expense of internal resources is thedistribution of professional leadership within the collective. The distributed professional leadership1Сomparative analysis of PISA and TIMSS tests results in Russian and European Countries / Т. Е.

Khavenson,Y.D.Kersha; National Research University «High School of Economics», Institute of Education. М. : NRU HSE, 2017.— 32 p.2Akindinova N. V., Kuzminov Ya., Yasin E. G. Ekonomika Rossii: pered dolgim perekhodom // Voprosy ekonomiki. –2016. №. 6. P. 5-35.Froumin I. D. et al. Obrazovatel'naya politika i dolgovremennye tendencii //Social'naya politika v Rossii: dolgosrochnyetendencii i izmeneniya poslednih let/Otv.

red.: YA.I. Kuzminov, L.N. Ovcharova, L.I. Yakobson.–M.: Izdatelskiydom NRU HSE. 2015. P. 239-289.3Barber М., Murshed M. How to reach a stable high quality of school education. Lessons of the analysis of the bestsystems of school education in the world // Educational Studies (Voprosy Obrazovaniya). 2008. №. 3. P. 7-60.4Ibidis defined as a practice of constant interaction necessary for solving teaching-related issues withinthe collective, which is channeled not through the administration, but through informal professionalleaders. In the theory of social capital (P.

Bourdieu, J. Coleman), the organization is seen not simplyas a group of employees, each of whom possesses a certain level of human capital, but as a set ofprofessional ties between them5 6. Each teacher has not only some formal job position, but also acertain social capital, that is (s)he is included into the structure of interactions. In this regard, aquestion arises as to how these interactions are distributed within the organization, whether it isdone evenly and if there are "centers" of these interactions.

It becomes necessary to identify teacherswho are most active and valuable from the point of view of these interactions and whom we willhenceforth refer to as "professional leaders".However, by now Russian schools rely primarily on formal administration structures, that isprofessional interaction is built around the administrative vertical axis, the heads of schoolmethodological associations or departments. At the same time, the potential and the resource ofleading educators who do not have formal leadership status are virtually not used.

In this paper, anattempt is made to examine in detail the formal (that is, reflected in official powers) and informal(that is, reflected in sustainable models of professional interactions) structure of educationalorganizations, which together represent a real structure of the organization 7. The school is seen as anorganization with multiple leadership, both formal and informal. However, the distribution ofinformal leadership still remains a subject-matter, which has not been researched enough.

The useand management of this resource cannot be effective unless it is given a due scrutiny.Understanding of the role and characteristics of distributed professional leadership in generaleducation organizations can be a basis for developing of teachers’ internal potential throughprofessional exchange of experience. The problem, therefore, is in insufficient empirical researchand application of the informal leadership potential in the management and development of generaleducation organizations.56Bourdieu P.

The Forms of capital // Economic Sociology. 2002. Vol. 3. №. 5. P. 60-75Coleman J. S. Social capital in the creation of human capital // American Journal of Sociology. 1988. Vol. 94. Р. 95120.7Ushakov К. М. Diagnostics of the current structure of educational organization // Educational Studies (VoprosyObrazovaniya). 2013. №. 4. P. 46-60.BackgroundLeadership in organization management is one of the most popular topics in management. Thecentral problems of leadership are highlighted in the works of R. Beyls, W. Bennis, M. Weber, P.Drucker, A. Zaleznik, K. Levin, R. Mann, R.

Stogdill, F. Fiedler, M. Follet, K. Hollander. This topichas been dealt with by such Russian researchers as S.A. Alifanov, G.K. Ashin, T.Y. Bazarov,I.P.Volkov, N.V. Lomova, R.L. Krichevsky, B.D. Parygin and others.A separate group of research is represented by the scholars who describe the role of leadershipin the educational context.

In the Russian academic environment, the subject-matter of leadership inschool management was presented in the writings of V. V. Davydov, A. G. Kasprzhak, V. Y.Krichevsky, L. D. Kudryashova, V. S. Lazarev, A.M. Moiseev, S.D. Neverkovich, A.I. Panarin,M.M. Potashnik, L.I. Umansky, K.M. Ushakov, P.V. Khudominsky, T.I. Shamova, and others.Among the most significant foreign authors we should mention M. Barber, B. Bass, T.

Bush,C. Day, K. Leithwood, R. Marzano, B. Evolio, A. Harris, F. Hellinger, R. Heck, and others.Understanding of leadership is very diverse in theoretical and empirical work. In this study,we focus on a narrow aspect of professional instructional (or methodical) leadership. Thefoundations of this approach are laid down in the works of M.

Barber, K. Leithwood, E. Hargreaves,M. Fullan, and others. Leadership practice as a professional support of teachers is positivelycorrelated with teaching quality in school (K. Day, P. Sammons, D. Hopkins and others).An equally important aspect of the analysis of organizational leadership is articulated in thequestion about research methods most suitable for specific situations of leadership. Methodologicalproblems of leadership research are discussed in the works of J. Spillane, K. Leithwood, A. Harris,C. Bonacich.The next methodological problem is that the research conducted in Russia is focusingprimarily at the principals' attitudes about their managerial style. At the same time, real practices ofteachers' interaction remain underexplored.

This contradiction can be removed by using the socialnetwork analysis method to research professional interactions. Social network analysis allows toinvestigate existing practices of interaction - and as a consequence, to identify informal professionalleaders. As the main works, which are using network methodology for the analysis of distributedleadership, it is possible to name the studies of K.