ABSTRACT
The case for schools requiring lots of leaders was made in the previous chapter. Although the power of the headteacher has not diminished, and legislation during the 1980s has constantly emphasized the headteacher’s responsibilities, the task of school development is fundamentally a shared task. Furthermore, because the head is often called upon to deal with unexpected unplanned and varied issues his/her leadership is vulnerable to competing demands. The role of the deputy head was therefore considered since a partnership between head and deputy should reduce discontinuities in leadership if the head and deputy can substitute for each other. However, whilst heads can spend significant amounts of time engaged on a variety of ‘maintenance’ tasks which ensure that the school, on a day to day basis, works reasonably smoothly, the head is often protecting staff from any number of interruptions to and distractions from their teaching. The head is therefore enabling staff to proceed with the main purpose of the school, the education of the children. In which case one might ask who is leading, the head or staff? When the head is busy in dealing with parental concerns, building repairs, administration, case conferences, or lost coats (see Court, 1987) it is very likely that others are leading. Moreover, because a school is a collective, comprised of teachers, ancillaries, children, and voluntary helpers and because schools are organized on the basis of one teacher to a group or class of children, curriculum leadership is effectively devolved to each teacher.
