Ten claims about teacher leadership that merit rethinking

Abstract

This paper critically interrogates 10 dominant claims about teacher leadership that shape contemporary educational discourse. While often portrayed as universally empowering and beneficial, many claims rely on reductive assumptions that overlook power dynamics, cultural variation, and institutional inequities. Drawing on critical and international literature, the analysis reframes teacher leadership as a socially constructed and ethically situated practice. It challenges the notion that leadership is inherently inclusive or always positive, showing how it may reinforce exclusion or managerialism. The paper calls for a reimagining of teacher leadership rooted in equity, dialogue, and contextual responsiveness to foster more transformative leadership in schools.

Keywords

Teacher leadership equity power professional agency inclusivity

Introduction

Teacher leadership has gained prominence as a catalyst for school improvement and educational reform. In many countries, teachers are encouraged to take on leadership roles beyond their classrooms in order to drive change and support their peers (Pan et al., 2023). However, the concept of teacher leadership is often idealized and oversimplified (Smylie and Eckert, 2018; Wenner and Campbell, 2017). Despite decades of scholarship, it remains an evolving and context-dependent idea, lacking a single clear definition (Nguyen et al., 2020). Recent reviews have cautioned that the literature on teacher leadership may present an overly optimistic view, without sufficiently addressing contextual challenges, power dynamics, or equity concerns (Wenner and Campbell, 2017). Teacher leadership is a complex phenomenon that might manifest in both positive and negative ways (Ghamrawi et al., 2025b, 2025c; Savaş et al., 2025).

This paper critically examines 10 dominant claims about teacher leadership, highlighting how each can be misleading and reductive. Although the literature does not claim that teacher leadership is a uniform construct, reading across published accounts often creates the impression of a single, transferable model—one that is universally empowering, positive, and applicable across contexts. Such portrayals risk perpetuating a one-size-fits-all template that overlooks the varied ways teacher leadership is shaped by cultural norms, institutional structures, and socio-political realities. Drawing on current research, this paper offers alternative perspectives that challenge static definitions and generic frameworks. It invites a more critically reflective, contextually grounded, and pluralistic understanding of teacher leadership as a situated and evolving practice.

Claim 1: Instructional leadership is the ideal model for teacher leadership

Why it's false: This claim assumes a transmission model of expertise where the teacher leader is depicted as the instructional expert dispensing knowledge to passive recipients. Such a one-way, top-down approach mirrors Freire's (1970) “banking” model of education, which has been widely criticized for stifling dialogue and teacher agency. When teacher leaders function merely as mini-instructional managers who deliver content or directives, they reinforce hierarchical, monologic practices that can undermine genuine collaboration. In other words, instructional leadership in its classic, top-down form fails to tap into the dialogic, co-constructed, and reciprocal nature of effective teacher leadership. It frames leadership as an individual expert's activity rather than a collective process.

Reframed perspective: Rather than positioning teacher leaders as singular instructional experts, we should emphasize learning leadership—an ecology of inquiry and mutual growth. In this paradigm, leadership is enacted with teachers, not to them, through ongoing dialogue, joint problem-solving, and distributed expertise. Learning leadership transcends formal roles, centering ethical responsiveness, dialogic engagement, and relational trust as its core practices (Rayner, 2009). It shifts leadership from technical delivery to collaborative meaning-making. As Wood (2020) puts it, learning leadership is “a self-sustained on-the-spot training and trying model” that invites uncertainty and inquiry rather than certainty and control. This approach reframes teacher leadership as a reflective, situated, and participatory act grounded in professional trust and collective agency.

Accordingly, rather than labeling teacher leaders as instructional leaders, we reclaim teacher leadership as a form of learning leadership—grounded in dialogue, reflection, and shared expertise.

Claim 2: Teacher leadership has a universal set of roles, skills, and functions

Why it's false: This claim reflects an essentialist view that reduces teacher leadership to a fixed set of roles or competencies. In reality, teacher leadership is highly contextual—shaped by institutional structures, policy environments, school cultures, and individual identities (Domínguez-Castillo et al., 2024; Liu, 2021). It varies widely across and within schools: in one setting, it may involve curriculum innovation; in another, implementing mandates or mentoring peers. Even formal titles like department head differ in practice, while informal leaders often emerge through relational influence. As Ghamrawi et al. (2025a) argue, teacher leadership is relationally situated, co-constructed within specific school dynamics. Moreover, global conceptions of teacher leadership diverge significantly, with dominant frameworks rooted in Western paradigms (Domínguez-Castillo et al., 2024; Ghamrawi et al., 2025a, 2025b, 2025c). Treating it as a universal checklist obscures its fluidity and risks overlooking valuable, informal forms of leadership that don’t fit standardized models.

Reframed perspective: Teacher leadership should be seen as contextual, evolving, and socially constructed, not as a fixed role or checklist of skills. The key question is not “What should every teacher leader know?” but rather, “What kind of leadership is needed here, and how can it emerge?” Effective teacher leadership arises from local needs, relational trust, and dynamic school cultures, and is shaped by the interactions and identities of those involved. It is increasingly understood as a stance or mindset (Hunzicker, 2017)—a way of thinking and acting that varies across contexts. A teacher in a rural school might focus on community engagement, while one in an urban setting might lead through instructional coaching; both are valid, context-specific expressions.

Accordingly, rather than defining teacher leadership by fixed roles or skills, we reclaim it as a dynamic, contextually constructed practice—shaped by the specific people, purposes, and conditions of each school environment.

Claim 3: Teacher leadership is always positive

Why it's false: Teacher leadership is often idealized as inherently positive, but this assumption masks its potential drawbacks. Like all forms of leadership, it can reinforce exclusion, gatekeeping, and hierarchies, particularly when teacher leaders control access to opportunities or act as extensions of management (Ghamrawi et al., 2024a, 2024b, 2024c, 2025a, 2025b, 2025c; Smylie et al., 2002). Some may use the role for self-promotion, while others, despite good intentions, face role ambiguity, peer resistance, and burnout—especially in centralized or unsupportive systems (Savaş et al., 2025). Moreover, teacher leadership is embedded within existing power structures. When roles are occupied by dominant groups, they risk perpetuating inequities and silencing alternative voices. If the broader field of educational leadership is increasingly grappling with its destructive dimensions—including coercive control, emotional exhaustion, and the abuse of authority (Marchant-Pérez et al., 2024; Pfeffer, 2021; Sam, 2021)—then it is worth asking: what makes teacher leadership exempt from such critique? To presume teacher leadership is immune is to overlook how power, positionality, and institutional dynamics operate in all leadership domains (Ghamrawi et al., 2024a, 2024b, 2024c).

Reframed perspective: Teacher leadership is not inherently benevolent—it can exclude, dominate, or reproduce inequity if left unchecked (Pfeffer, 2021; Sam, 2021). Rather than celebrating all leadership uncritically, we must ask: Who benefits? Who is silenced? Ethical teacher leadership requires deliberate structures—peer feedback, rotational roles, and inclusive norms (Ghamrawi et al., 2025a, 2025b, 2025c). Schools must foster cultures where leadership is grounded in humility, trust, and shared responsibility (Ghamrawi et al., 2024a, 2024b, 2024c). Professional development should build critical awareness, ethical reflection, and relational skills (Sober, 2020). Ultimately, teacher leadership becomes just or unjust depending on how schools intentionally shape it.

Accordingly, rather than idealizing teacher leadership as inherently virtuous, we reclaim it as an ethically contingent practice—one that must be continually interrogated, supported, and grounded in humility, equity, and relational accountability.

Claim 4: Teacher leadership alleviates teacher burnout

Why it's false: The assumption that teacher leadership alleviates burnout (Naccache et al., 2025) could overlook the realities of workload and systemic pressure. In practice, teacher leaders often face increased responsibilities—mentoring, leading initiatives, organizing PD—on top of full teaching loads, with little adjustment or support. This added emotional labor and accountability can intensify stress rather than alleviate it. Without recognition or resources, teacher leaders may feel undervalued and overextended. Research shows that assigning leadership without structural accommodations leads to higher burnout levels (Savaş et al., 2025; Steinmetz, 2018; Trigueros et al., 2020). Simply adding leadership tasks to already demanding roles risks turning a strategy for retention into a pathway to exhaustion. For leadership to be sustaining, schools must implement supports like release time, peer networks, and emotional care (Liu et al., 2023).

Reframed perspective: Teacher leadership can accelerate burnout—not prevent it—when structural supports are absent; only with sufficient time, resources, and recognition can it truly enhance engagement and morale (Ghamrawi and Al-Thani, 2023). Schools must adjust workloads, offer mentorship, and compensate teacher leaders fairly (Sober, 2020). Clear role definitions and limits are essential; leaders should not be expected to do two jobs or say yes to everything. When schools support teacher leadership intentionally—with planning time, guidance, and boundaries—it becomes a source of growth rather than exhaustion. Otherwise, what's meant to retain teachers may drive them away.

Accordingly, rather than assuming teacher leadership alleviates burnout by default, we reclaim it as a double-edged sword—capable of either accelerating or alleviating burnout depending on the structural supports and conditions in place.

Claim 5: Teacher leaders are active ingredients of school reform

Why it's false: Teacher leaders are often portrayed as drivers of reform, yet in practice they could be instrumentalized to implement top-down mandates rather than shape change themselves (Arruda et al., 2002; Blasé and Blasé, 2002; Clarke, 2023). Rather than acting as co-designers, they serve as messengers of senior leadership-led initiatives—tasked with enforcing their decisions. Rosen's (2017) study highlights this dynamic: most teacher-led professional development was dictated by external agendas, leaving little room for autonomy. Such use limits teacher leaders’ agency and credibility, reducing them to local managers of externally imposed reforms. When disconnected from the design process, reforms risk overlooking classroom realities and teacher insights. Portraying teacher leaders as reform architects rings hollow unless they are genuinely included in shaping the change.

Reframed perspective: While the literature often affirms that teacher leaders are essential to school improvement (Wenner and Campbell, 2017; York-Barr and Duke, 2004), we reclaim this role as one that must be critically examined for its authenticity and depth. Rather than assuming that all teacher leaders drive reform, we must interrogate whether they act as genuine policy contributors or merely instrumental agents of senior leadership. Research has shown that in many systems, teacher leaders could be positioned to implement rather than design change, operating within tight boundaries set by external authorities (Ghamrawi, 2013a, 2013b; Rosen, 2017). This dynamic risks reducing teacher leadership to an implementation mechanism rather than a space for transformative influence.

Accordingly, rather than assuming teacher leaders drive reform by default, we reclaim their role as meaningful only when they are genuinely included in shaping decisions, not merely tasked with enforcing them.

Claim 6: Teacher leadership enhances school effectiveness

Why it's false: This claim reduces teacher leadership to a strategy for enhancing school effectiveness, typically measured by narrow metrics such as test scores, graduation rates, or inspection outcomes (Skourdoumbis and Rawolle, 2020). While studies suggest that teacher leadership may support improvement under certain conditions, its impact is often indirect—mediated by factors like school culture, trust, and teacher collaboration (Wenner and Campbell, 2017). Framing teacher leadership solely in service of school effectiveness reinforces a technocratic logic that values efficiency over ethics, and compliance over critique (Hargreaves and Shirley, 2009).

Reframed perspective: We need to broaden our understanding of why teacher leadership matters. Rather than valuing it solely for boosting test scores or narrow definitions of school effectiveness, we should recognize its capacity to advance equity, foster professional agency, and reimagine teaching and learning (York-Barr and Duke, 2004). Teacher leaders often drive initiatives—like mentoring new teachers, advocating for marginalized students, or implementing restorative practices—that may not reflect immediately in metrics but deeply impact school culture. They can also critically question “effectiveness for whom?” and work to challenge inequitable norms (Bradley-Levine, 2018). Supporting such leadership requires developing teachers’ critical consciousness and enabling them to lead reforms that prioritize inclusion and wellbeing over performance data (Sober, 2020).

Accordingly, rather than reducing teacher leadership to a lever for school effectiveness, we reclaim it as a transformative practice that advances equity, professional agency, and ethical purpose in education.

Claim 7: All teachers can become teacher leaders

Why it's false: This claim suggests that all teachers can lead, yet it overlooks systemic inequities that shape who gets access to leadership roles. Research shows that leadership opportunities are often limited by race, gender, institutional politics, and alignment with senior leadership (Beck et al., 2022; Grissom et al., 2021). Teachers of color, those in early-career positions, or those who critique dominant norms frequently face exclusion (Santoro, 2018). Even in schools that claim to support distributed leadership, appointments often reflect principal favoritism or existing power hierarchies (Beck et al., 2023). The idea that anyone can lead risks reinforcing a meritocratic myth, ignoring how gatekeeping and bias affect opportunity structures. Without deliberate attention to equity, teacher leadership remains disproportionately accessible to the most privileged.

Reframed perspective: A more accurate claim is that all teachers should have the opportunity to lead—but access is not equally distributed and must be intentionally broadened. Equity in teacher leadership requires active dismantling of gatekeeping practices. Transparent selection processes, inclusive mentoring, and attention to leadership diversity are essential (Beck et al., 2022, 2023). Schools should recognize varied leadership styles and rotate roles to avoid reinforcing hierarchies. Efforts must also address structural inequities in the teaching workforce itself. Only through such deliberate actions can the ideal of inclusive teacher leadership become a reality.

Accordingly, rather than idealizing teacher leadership as universally accessible, we reclaim it as an equity-driven practice—one that demands systemic change to ensure that leadership pathways are open, inclusive, and reflective of the full diversity of the teaching profession.

Claim 8: Teacher leadership metrics travel well across contexts

Why it's false: The assumption that teacher leadership models and tools developed in Western contexts can be seamlessly transferred across educational systems ignores vast cultural, structural, and policy differences (Webber, 2023). Most frameworks presume certain conditions—such as teacher autonomy, shared governance, and collaborative school cultures—that are not universally present (York-Barr and Duke, 2004). As Hammad et al. (2025) argue, this Western dominance narrows our understanding of how teacher leadership is enacted in centralized, hierarchical, or collectivist settings. Furthermore, standardized assessment tools and leadership scales, such as those by Katzenmeyer and Moller (2009), often reflect individualistic and performative indicators that may not align with relational or community-rooted forms of leadership. Applying these models globally risks pathologizing local practices and imposing foreign ideals under the guise of universality.

Reframed perspective: Teacher leadership must be understood as culturally situated and contextually constructed, not as a one-size-fits-all model. Dominant frameworks, largely shaped in Western contexts, often assume norms like teacher autonomy and flat hierarchies, which do not apply universally (Noman and Gurr, 2020; Noman et al., 2024). Imposing such models risks marginalizing local practices and values. Instead, schools should co-develop localized frameworks that reflect indigenous knowledge, relational dynamics, and governance structures (Ghamrawi et al., 2025a). Existing tools—like the Teacher Leadership Inventory or Distributed Leadership Readiness Scale—may miss culturally embedded forms of leadership such as moral influence or quiet mentorship.

Accordingly, we reclaim that teacher leadership cannot be meaningfully measured using standardized, Western-developed tools alone. Instead, assessment must be locally grounded, capturing culturally specific forms of leadership.

Claim 9: Teacher leaders emerge in positive cultures

Why it's false: It's tempting to assume teacher leadership thrives only in supportive, harmonious school cultures. While such environments can foster leadership, this overlooks a crucial reality: teacher leadership often emerges from crisis, conflict, or resistance. In many schools, teachers step up not because the culture is enabling, but precisely because it is not—leading change in response to toxic norms, inequitable policies, or administrative apathy. Ghamrawi et al. (2024c) documented how teacher leadership bloomed during moments of institutional crisis, only to diminish once the pressure subsided. Similarly, Bradley-Levine (2018) highlights how critical teacher leaders often operate in opposition, advocating for marginalized students and challenging entrenched systems. Leadership, then, is not merely a product of positivity—it is also an act of courage in adverse conditions.

Reframed perspective: Rather than reducing teacher leadership to a byproduct of harmonious environments, we must acknowledge its deeper roots in ethical commitment, critical awareness, and collective responsibility (Msila, 2022). Teacher leadership often emerges not despite adverse cultures but because of them—galvanized by unmet student needs, inequitable practices, or institutional inertia. Ghamrawi et al. (2024c) illustrate how such leadership frequently surfaces during crises, though it risks fading once normalcy returns. To move beyond episodic activation, schools should institutionalize spaces where critique and innovation are not just permitted but protected. This means fostering conditions where teacher leaders are valued not only for maintaining order but for challenging it when necessary—positioning them as catalysts for sustained cultural and systemic renewal.

Accordingly, we reclaim teacher leadership as a force that can arise both in supportive environments and through adversity. Its value lies in its capacity to challenge inequities and drive meaningful change—whether nurtured by positive culture or sparked by crisis.

Claim 10: Teacher leadership is inherently inclusive

Why it's false: The idea that teacher leadership is inherently inclusive ignores how leadership spaces are shaped by power and privilege. Research shows that marginalized teachers—especially those of color or from non-dominant backgrounds—are often excluded or silenced (Beck et al., 2022, 2023; Bradley-Levine, 2018). Teachers who advocate for equity or challenge norms may be seen as disruptive rather than as leaders (Santoro, 2018). Critical teacher leadership emphasizes that inclusion is not automatic—it requires conscious efforts to dismantle hierarchies, legitimize diverse voices, and embed equity in leadership practice (Bradley-Levine, 2021).

Reframed perspective: Teacher leadership should not be assumed to be inclusive—it must be made so through intentional equity work. Rather than viewing leadership as a neutral or universally accessible space, schools must cultivate conditions where diverse teachers are recognized as leaders, particularly those who challenge dominant narratives or advocate for justice (Bradley-Levine, 2018; Santoro, 2018). This involves rethinking how leadership is defined, valued, and distributed, ensuring that lived experience and cultural knowledge are treated as legitimate sources of expertise (Beck et al., 2022).

Accordingly, we reclaim teacher leadership as an equity-driven endeavor—one that must be consciously cultivated to recognize, include, and empower diverse voices, particularly those historically marginalized or silenced.

Conclusion

Teacher leadership is often portrayed through overly optimistic claims that obscure the complexities, inequities, and contextual dependencies embedded in its practice. This paper has interrogated 10 such claims, revealing that teacher leadership cannot be reduced to universal roles, standardized models, or inherently positive outcomes. Rather, it is shaped by institutional politics, cultural norms, and power relations that influence who leads, under what conditions, and toward what purposes. Recognizing teacher leadership as a contextually constructed and ethically contingent practice allows for a more inclusive, critical, and transformative vision—one that moves beyond technical implementation to deeper questions of justice, voice, and agency. Reclaiming teacher leadership in this way invites educators and systems to reflect, disrupt, and reimagine leadership as a collective endeavor rooted in equity, dialogue, and professional trust.

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Norma Ghamrawi

Funding

The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Open access funding provided by the Qatar National Library.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author biography

Professor Norma Ghamrawi is a full professor of educational leadership & management at the College of Education in Qatar University.

References

Arruda

Blasé

Clarke

(2002) Teacher Leadership in School Reform: Exploring the Central Role of Educators in Implementing Policy and Creating Change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Beck

Hinton

Butler

(2022) Truly open to all: Three ways to diversify teacher leadership. Phi Delta Kappan 104(2): 8–13. September Issue.

Beck

Hinton

Butler

, et al. (2023) Open to all: Administrators’ and teachers’ perceptions of issues of equity and diversity in teacher leadership. Urban Education 60(8): 2195–2222.

Blase

(2002) The dark side of leadership: Teacher perspectives of principal mistreatment. Educational Administration Quarterly 38(5): 671–727.

Bradley-Levine

(2018) Advocacy as a practice of critical teacher leadership. International Journal of Teacher Leadership 9(1): 47–62.

Bradley-Levine

(2021) Promoting Teacher Advocacy as Critical Teacher Leadership. New York, NY: Routledge.

Clarke

(2023) The subordination of teacher identity: Ethical risks and potential lines of flight. Teachers and Teaching 29(3): 241–258.

Domínguez-Castillo

Cisneros-Cohernour

Vega-Cauich

(2024) Elements, contexts, and attributes of teacher leadership identified by college professors in southeastern Mexico. International Journal of Educational Leadership and Management 12(3): 296–316.

Freire

(1970) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Herder and Herder.

10.

Ghamrawi

(2013a) Never underestimate the power of the sandwiched: Middle leaders and school culture. Basic Research Journal of Educational Research and Review 2(2): 29–41.

11.

Ghamrawi

(2013b) Leadership styles of school principals and their multiple intelligences profiles: Any relationship. International Journal of Research Studies in Education 2(2): 37–49.

12.

Ghamrawi

Abu-Shawish

Shal

, et al. (2024a) Destructive leadership behaviors: The case of academic middle leaders in higher education. International Journal of Educational Research 126: 102382.

13.

Ghamrawi

Al-Thani

(2023) Wellbeing leadership: Perceptions of pre-service school leaders. Heliyon 9(11). 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e21706.

14.

Ghamrawi

Shal

Ghamrawi

NAR

(2025a) Teacher leadership through an Arab lens: A contextual and culturally grounded reconceptualisation. School Leadership & Management: 1–26. 10.1080/13632434.2025.2585015.

15.

Ghamrawi

Shal

Ghamrawi

(2024b) Cultivating teacher leadership: Evidence form a transformative professional development model. School Leadership & Management 44(4): 413–441.

16.

Ghamrawi

Shal

Ghamrawi

(2024c) The rise and fall of teacher leadership: A post-pandemic phenomenological study. Leadership and Policy in Schools 23(3): 662–677.

17.

Ghamrawi

Shal

Ghamrawi

, et al. (2025b) Unleashing the potential of teacher leadership for ESD. Frontiers in Education 10: 1614623. DOI: 10.3389/feduc.2025.1614623.

18.

Ghamrawi

Shal

Ghamrawi

, et al. (2025c) Leading backwards in a forward era: Destructive middle leadership in the pursuit of Higher Education 5.0. Educational Management Administration & Leadership. 10.1177/17411432251396298.

19.

Grissom

Egalite

Lindsay

(2021) What great principals really do. Educational Leadership 78(7): 21–25.

20.

Hammad

Barakat

Morad

(2025) Perceptions of teacher leadership in Egyptian schools: A mixed-methods exploration. Leadership and Policy in Schools. 10.1080/15700763.2025.2503748.

21.

Hargreaves

Shirley

(2009) The Fourth Way: The Inspiring Future for Educational Change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

22.

Hunzicker

(2017) From teacher to teacher leader: A conceptual model. International Journal of Teacher Leadership 8(2): 1–27.

23.

Katzenmeyer

Moller

(2009) Awakening the Sleeping Giant: Helping Teachers Develop as Leaders. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

24.

Liu

Chen

Cheng

, et al. (2023) Understanding the relationship between teacher leadership and teacher well-being: The mediating roles of trust in leaders and teacher efficacy. Journal of Educational Administration 61(6): 646–661.

25.

Liu

(2021) Contextual influence on formal and informal teacher leadership. International Journal of Educational Research Open 2: 100028.

26.

Marchant-Pérez

Leitão

Nunes

(2024) Abusive leadership: A systematic review of the literature. In: Innovations for Healthcare and Wellbeing: Digital Technologies, Ecosystems and Entrepreneurship. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, pp. 423–455.

27.

Msila

(2022) Teacher leadership in times of disorder: Building effective leadership in a time of pandemic. In: INTED2022 Proceedings. Valencia, Spain: IATED, pp. 2313–2318.

28.

Naccache

Ghamrawi

Shal

, et al. (2025) The latent influence of teacher leadership: Alleviating teaching anxiety in the classroom. Management in Education: 08920206251343998.

29.

Nguyen

Harris

(2020) A review of the empirical research on teacher leadership (2003–2017) evidence, patterns and implications. Journal of Educational Administration 58(1): 60–80.

30.

Noman

Gurr

(2020) Contextual leadership and culture in education. In: Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.1234

31.

Noman

Kaur

Zhang

, et al. (2024) Leading to succeed: Contextual leadership practices of semi-urban school principals in China. International Journal of Leadership in Education: 1–20. DOI: 10.1080/13603124.2023.2298205.

32.

Pan

HLW

Wiens

Moyal

(2023) A bibliometric analysis of the teacher leadership scholarship. Teaching and Teacher Education 121: 103936.

33.

Pfeffer

(2021) The dark triad may be not so dark: Exploring why ‘toxic’leaders are so common—with some implications for scholarship and education. Psychoanalytic Inquiry 41(7): 540–551.

34.

Rayner

(2009) Making leadership learning visible: The role of post-compulsory education leaders in generating epistemological insight. Management in Education 23(2): 51–56.

35.

Rosen

(2017) Teacher leaders as professional development providers: Factors driving teacher learning opportunities. Journal of Education and Human Development 6(2): 1–15.

36.

Sam

(2021) What are the practices of unethical leaders? Exploring how teachers experience the “dark side” of administrative leadership. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 49(2): 303–320.

37.

Santoro

(2018) Demoralized: Why Teachers Leave the Profession they Love and how they can Stay. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

38.

Savaş

Arslan

Kılınç

AÇ

(2025) When teacher leadership backfires: Exploring the unintended consequences of teacher leadership in a centralized education system. Educational Management Administration & Leadership. (Advance online publication).

39.

Skourdoumbis

Rawolle

(2020) The Metrics of Teacher Effectiveness and Teacher Quality Research: Sidelining the Issues that Really Count. London, UK: Routledge.

40.

Smylie

Conley

Marks

(2002) Section four: Reshaping leadership in action: Exploring new approaches to teacher leadership for school improvement. Teachers College Record 104(9): 162–188.

41.

Smylie

Eckert

(2018) Beyond superheroes and advocacy: The pathway of teacher leadership development. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 46(4): 556–577.

42.

Sober

(2020) Defining Teacher Leadership. PROGRESS: Volume 30, No. 3 (April) . Virginia, US: Virginia Adult Learning Resource Center.

43.

Steinmetz

(2018) Self-efficacy and Its IMPACT on Teacher-leader Burnout (Publication No. 10936200). Doctoral Dissertation, University of La Verne, La Verne, CA. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.

44.

Trigueros

Padilla

Aguilar-Parra

, et al. (2020) The influence of transformational teacher leadership on academic motivation and resilience, burnout and academic performance. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17(20): 7687.

45.

Webber

(ed.) (2023) Teacher Leadership in International Contexts. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

46.

Wenner

Campbell

(2017) The theoretical and empirical basis of teacher leadership: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research 87(1): 134–171.

47.

Wood

(2020) Learning Leadership in Practice: The Power of Being Present. New York, NY: Routledge.

48.

York-Barr

Duke

(2004) What do we know about teacher leadership? Findings from two decades of scholarship. Review of Educational Research 74(3): 255–316.