AN institution’s direction is established by its leadership. Without leadership, institutions cannot achieve the vision needed for genuine transformation. A fundamental crisis in Pakistan’s education system requires solutions beyond expanding schools or improving textbooks. What truly underpins the problem, though less apparent, is the prevailing approach to conceptualizing, practicing and evaluating school leadership across the nation. The failure of school leadership in Pakistan can be understood and addressed through the theoretical frameworks of Distributed Leadership by James Spillane and Instructional Leadership by Philip Hallinger and Ronald Heck.
The organizational logic is instantly clear upon entering any government school in Pakistan. The headteacher holds concentrated authority. One person is responsible for all decisions regarding timetabling, teacher attendance, student discipline and curriculum emphasis. The school operates effectively when that individual possesses capability, presence and motivation. If that individual isn’t present, has moved on or is insufficiently prepared, which occurs distressingly often, the organization suffers. Educators await instructions that are not provided. Students cannot get back the learning time they lose.
This isn’t a personal flaw. The issue is structural. The Pakistani school system’s structure, both overt and subtle, relies on a single leader, which unfortunately leads to weakness throughout its entirety. The headteacher has a lot on their plate, including managing administration, enforcing discipline, communicating with the district education office and improving teaching quality across all classrooms. One person cannot excel at all of these tasks. Underperformance is an inherent feature of the system.
This model can be effectively corrected by James Spillane’s theory of Distributed Leadership. Spillane asserts leadership isn’t confined to one person; it’s a practice that can and ought to be distributed among many within an organization. His model suggests that leadership activity stems from the dynamic between leaders, followers and the environment, not from individual heroic acts. At its heart, the concept is disarmingly plain: leadership is what anyone does when they affect where the organization is headed. Thus, the headteacher’s function changes from being the single provider of institutional guidance to creating an environment where leadership skills can thrive among senior teachers, department heads and community members.
For Pakistan, it’s more than just a theoretical preference; In a system where headteachers are frequently transferred and where professional development is minimal, concentrating all institutional knowledge and decision-making authority in one person is extraordinarily costly. When schools distribute leadership by enabling teachers to make decisions, entrusting them with instructional oversight and cultivating internal professional learning communities, they become structurally more robust. The institution remains when the headteacher departs.
The lack of professional trust between administrators and teachers in Pakistan’s educational culture is another problem that distributed leadership addresses. Teachers in most government schools are treated as functionaries, not developed as professionals. According to Spillane, the headteacher-teacher relationship is characterized by mutual professional investment. A headteacher who empowers teachers is not weak for delegating; they are fostering lasting institutional resilience against various challenges.
The substantive problem is identified by Hallinger and Heck’s Instructional Leadership model, given Spillane’s diagnosis of the structural one. The researchers assert that school leaders’ most impactful influence on student achievement stems from a committed, ongoing emphasis on teaching and learning quality, rather than administrative duties.
Hallinger identifies three core functions of instructional leadership: defining the school’s mission around learning as the primary goal; managing the instructional programme through curriculum coordination, teaching supervision and student progress monitoring; and promoting a positive school learning climate by setting high expectations, protecting instructional time and maintaining visible engagement in classrooms.
Many government schools continue to face challenges in these three areas. Principals face evaluations based on administrative achievements, such as student enrollment numbers, upkeep of facilities and adherence to official regulations. Principals’ evaluations seldom incorporate instructional outcomes. Principals predictably focus on what’s being measured as a result. Administration garners attention. Pedagogy doesn’t.
In Pakistan, this discrepancy is disastrous. Hallinger’s findings show instructional leadership significantly impacts schools with high poverty rates, which aligns with most of Pakistan’s public schools. Children most in need of a principal prioritizing learning quality are underserved by a system that overlooks this crucial aspect in evaluations.
The distance between how schools are run and how much teachers actually teach is central to Pakistan’s education problems. It is the core of it. A leader of an educational institution cannot be effective if they lack pedagogical understanding, structured observation skills and the ability to engage in professional dialogue about teaching, even if the administrative aspects are flawless.
When combined, these two frameworks suggest a unified reform plan. Pakistan’s system for developing school leaders, encompassing their initial training, ongoing professional development and performance assessments, needs to be reorganized to prioritize both shared leadership and a focus on teaching and learning. Headteachers should act as learning leaders who cultivate others, rather than as senior administrators. Teacher professional development needs to be reimagined as continuous, school-based leadership growth, not just isolated training sessions.
These models are being explored by several provincial initiatives, some of which are backed by organizations focused on institutional capacity building. The architecture is theoretical but has been proven. What’s missing is the political determination to abolish the centralized system that prioritized administrative ease over educational standards.
Pakistan’s children can’t afford schools that are structured based on one person’s schedule for another generation. The ability for institutions to lead themselves is not an ambition. This is a true national emergency. Pakistan’s education system desperately requires leadership that provides consistent guidance and instruction, ensuring progress even if top officials overlook minor system adjustments.
—The writer is Commoner from 44th Common Educationist — Founder of WHI Institute.based in Sargodha.
