Middle leaders matter: reflections, recognition, and renaissance

More than two decades ago, empirical research into middle leadership roles in schools tended to focus largely but not exclusively upon subject leaders and heads of department (Harris, Jamieson, and Russ 1995; Harris 1999; Busher and Harris 2000). Fast forward to the present day and the contemporary literature on middle leadership has expanded to include a far broader variety of middle leadership roles, positions, and perspectives (e.g. Fitzgerald and Gunter 2006; Thorpe and Bennett-Powell 2014; Thorpe and Melnikova 2014; Ng 2015; Carter 2016; Irvine and Brundrett 2016; Kiat, Heng, and Lim-Ratnam 2016). While the contemporary literature is far from extensive, it offers empirically based accounts of the nature, practice, and influence of middle leaders in schools.

It is important to underline, however, that this evidence base is different from that associated with system level change or, as it has become known, ‘Leading from the Middle’. The idea of ‘Leading from the Middle’ has emerged as a strategy for system reform where the middle tier is recognised as being particularly important. For example, Fullan (2015, 1) argues that:

Leadership from the Middle can be briefly defined as: a deliberate strategy that increases the capacity and internal coherence of the middle as it becomes a more effective partner upward to the state and downward to its schools and communities, in pursuit of greater system performance. The goal of LftM is to develop greater overall system coherence by strengthening the focus of the middle in relation to system goals and local needs. Thus, it is not a standalone, but rather a connected strategy. This approach is powerful because it mobilizes the middle (districts and/or networks of schools), thus developing widespread capacity, while at the same time the middle works with its schools more effectively and becomes a better and more influential partner upward to the center.

In their work, Hargreaves and Ainscow (2015) propose that ‘Leadership from the Middle’ involves districts working collaboratively. They note:

one way to reduce bad variation among school districts is to promote collaboration among them so they share resources, ideas, and expertise and exercise collective responsibility for student success. In this leading from the middle approach, districts don’t just mediate and manage other people’s reforms individually; they become the collective drivers of change and improvement together. (Hargreaves and Ainscow 2015, 44)

These structural ideas about leading from the middle, certainly reinforce the centrality of distributed leadership and collaboration within system transformation (Harris 2014). They also underline just how important the middle tier is, within any system or structure, to generate positive change and improvement. So, what do we know about the practice and nature of those in middle level leadership roles in schools?

While far greater attention has been paid to headteachers, as formal leaders, in empirical studies, the available evidence suggests that middle leaders have a direct and positive effect on the quality of teaching and learning (Sammons, Thomas, and Mortimore 1997). It reinforces that middle leaders in school can positively influence teaching and learning processes by building strong professional learning communities where teachers can enquire and develop together (Harris and Jones 2010).

Overall, the research literature highlights that middle leaders play a pivotal role in securing better learning outcomes for students, resulting from their direct and positive influence on teachers’ classroom practice (Fleming 2013; Leask and Terrell 2014). Other than at the teacher level, most variation in school performance occurs at the subject, key-stage, or department level (Sammons, Thomas, and Mortimore 1997). In short, a significant part of the within-school variation can be found at the middle tier implying that this is a critical layer for support and development.

The literature also reinforces that the quality of middle leadership is heavily determined by the extent to which they have autonomy and responsibility to engage with teachers in supportive and innovative ways (Harris and Jones 2012; Engle et al. 2017). It also shows that the middle leadership role in schools is particularly challenging as it attracts pressure from both the top and the bottom of the organisation (Fullan 2010). This would suggest that middle leaders in schools need specific forms of support and development to maximise their potential (Fleming 2013).

Looking at a review of the literature on middle leadership, undertaken 10 years ago, serves to consolidate the importance of the middle leadership role in schools (Bennett et al. 2007). This review explored studies in the English language published between 1988 and 2005. The authors found that two key tensions were repeatedly identified in the literature: firstly, a tension between expectations that the middle leader role had a whole-school focus versus their loyalty to their department, and secondly, a tension between a growing culture of line management within a hierarchical framework versus a professional rhetoric of collegiality. The review concluded that middle leaders (subject leaders, middle managers, heads of department, curriculum coordinators) play a crucial role in developing and maintaining the nature and quality of pupils’ learning experience. Bennett et al. (2007) also highlighted that most of the available research tended to focus on secondary rather than primary schools and that there was no significant research on pastoral leadership. In addition, most of the available research on middle level leaders tended to be small scale in nature, taking the form of case studies or ‘snapshot’ surveys.

A decade later, while research on middle level leadership continues to be undertaken (e.g. Basset, 2016; Leithwood 2016), how far some of the identified gaps in the knowledge base have been filled is debatable. Overall, it seems that research attention focused on middle level leadership has faded a little. There could be many reasons for the demise of interest in middle leaders in schools. Firstly, the available literature may have covered all there is to say about middle leadership roles and responsibilities. Secondly, it is possible that middle leadership is no longer as engaging or interesting as other aspects of school leadership. Thirdly, the substantial contemporary literature on distributed leadership (Tian, Risku, and Collin 2016) and teacher leadership (Wenner and Campbell 2016) may just have overshadowed and supplanted any interest in middle leadership roles.

Yet, the educational landscape has shifted considerably, particularly in England, over the past 10 years. The expansion of Academies, Multi-Academy Trusts and the introduction of Free Schools has changed the structural relationships within and between schools. In view of such new working arrangements, it is debatable whether the bulk of the literature on middle leadership roles in schools remains applicable or indeed, relevant within school settings that have so dramatically altered. While the job demands of middle leaders could feasibly be the same, the context in which they work is now, radically different. Hence, a renaissance of research into middle level leaders in schools would seem both timely and important.

As editors, our aim is to publish relevant, interesting, and empirically pieces on school leadership and management. Therefore, in future editions we hope to publish more articles on the topic of middle leadership to contribute to this important knowledge base. In this latest edition, we have been very fortunate to include some new work on distributed leadership and teacher collaboration, which further strengthens the empirically informed, rather than ideologically motivated, discourse around shared, collegiate, and extended leadership practice. Hopefully, as the leadership field moves forward, a contemporary, empirical lens on leadership at all levels in schools and school systems will naturally follow.