Collaborative Leadership Summary

These norms and culture are not universally standardized across the museum industry. Becca detailed a myriad of working conditions and a wide spectrum in regards to the amount leadership opportunity, which she observed at previous job sites. She notes that historically those working in other departments (i.e. curatorial work, collections, etc.) and museum leadership, looked down upon museum education. She offered various theories, including, educators’ association with “kids and crafts” seemed trivial, museum education is a less publicly visual job, society more broadly undervalues education, and that curatorial work climbed to the top because it has more public appeal, and curators often have PhDs. In some places this leads to curatorial work
and collections teams being prioritized over education, limiting their ability to lead.

However, Becca explained that as museums are experiencing more public popularity and as museum educators are starting to be promoted into more managerial roles, the status of museum education is improving. The industry trajectory is leaning more towards improving and foresting open communication, which will launch museum education onto an equal playing field within institutions, allowing educators to assume more leadership roles and responsibilities.
CHS models these best practice norms of communication, both between departments, and between higher level administration and other staff, which are important in regards to enabling educator leadership.
York-Barr & Duke (2004) explore the idea of three forms of collaborative leadership; instructional, participative, and parallel, to conclude that effective teacher leadership requires leadership not being “vested in one person” (261-2). CHS’s divide in leadership empowers educators. Additionally, Stoelinga (2008) found that “The alignment between formal and informal organizational structures and the extent to which pathways of communication exist between them is a critical factor in the enactment of teacher leadership positions” (116). Becca speaks about herself and upper level management being a united “we,” bound by a common goal. She explains, “at the end of the day we have a mission, it’s really making sure any type of program meets the mission and gets us to that long term goal that we’re hoping to do.” The formal leadership of CHS, by providing a common mission as a standard for alignment and maintaining open pathways of communication, cultivates an environment which fosters individuals at all levels to become informal
leaders.
Implications for Schools and Conclusion Although Becca must work within certain limitations she is largely free, as compared to other museum educators and many classroom teachers to be an educator leader. CHS’ willingness to listen, focusing mission, division of labor among levels, and risk-taking on behalf of their educators enables innovation and leadership to flourish. If schools wish to enable their teachers to lead they might follow CHS’s example. Principal’s should support their staff and be willing to take chances on new ideas, and can cull those ideas by tying them to a school goal or mission, as described by Weiner (2011). Teacher leadership will also depend on catering to communities and focusing on the needs of the families and students you service, something CHS already must do to sustain itself financially. Additionally, schools need to work to ensure that leadership is not vested in one person or group, and it rather spread throughout the hierarchy, which will attract competitive talent for employment. Becca is a leader because of her background, her continued work ethic, and a larger culture that allows her to assume such a role; schools may learn something from CHS’s ladder that listens.