Around the world there is the growing recognition that teacher agency and professional influence are critical components in the pursuit of school and system improvement (Harris, Jones, and Huffman 2017; Campbell et al. 2018). The possibility and potential of teacher leadership remains a central issue within the international discourse about educational reform and change. This potential is reflected in a range of contemporary publications that forcefully argue that teachers should play a far more central role in decision making and policy formation. The central proposition is to ‘Flip the System’ (Evers and Kneyber 2015: Netolicky, Andrews, and Paterson 2018; Rycroft-Smith, & Dutaut,2018) so that teachers become the instigators, creators and implementors of educational change. This argument makes a great deal of sense. Teachers as the co-constructors of educational change and key contributors to policy making is an idea that is long overdue in many education systems. Where teachers are genuinely at the forefront of educational reform and co-constructing change, the net result can be both positive and empowering (e.g. Donaldson 2015). Conversely, where teachers are merely the recipients of top-down change, the passive tools of policy delivery, then the outcomes become far less promising. The vast literature on educational change reinforces, again and again, the centrality of teacher agency, collaboration and leadership as a core influence upon improved learner outcomes (Hargreaves and Ainscow 2015; Harris, Jones, and Huffman 2017; Datnow and Park 2018). Yet, much policy making still tends to factor out the teacher’s voice, preferring instead to take a steer from international organisations or think tanks that often have cursory knowledge about the contexts where the work of teaching and learning is taking place. While there are some universals about effective teaching that hold true irrespective of setting, culture or situation (Muijs and Reynolds,2017), it is also the case that good teachers are responsive to individual needs, are sensitive to the contexts in which they teach and care deeply about the young people in their charge. Policies are insufficiently fine grained to take account of such contextual variance which is why teachers and their collective professional voice should be a part of any decision making and policy making process. It has been argued elsewhere, that teachers are our best and most important resource in the pursuit of better outcomes for young people (Mourshed, Chijioke, and Barber 2010). While this is unquestionably the case, the way in which teachers contribute to the change and actively participate in ‘leading the change’has been shown tobe central to the success of any reform effort. Most recently, Donohoo (2018) has suggested that collective efficacy is an important explanation for such success. Collective efficacy is based on the belief that through collective actions educators can influence students’ results and enhance their achievements. In short, when teachers work together on a clear and common set of shared goals, there can be a lasting and significant impact on learner outcomes (Sharratt 2018).

中文翻译：

---

教师领导与教育变革

在世界范围内，人们日益认识到，教师机构和专业影响力是追求学校和系统改善的关键组成部分（Harris，Jones和Huffman，2017年; Campbell等人，2018年）。在有关教育改革和变革的国际讨论中，教师领导的可能性和潜力仍然是中心问题。这种潜力在一系列当代出版物中得到了反映，这些出版物有力地主张教师应在决策和政策制定中发挥更加重要的作用。中心命题是``翻转系统''（Evers和Kneyber，2015年：Netolicky，Andrews和Paterson，2018年; Rycroft-Smith，和Dutaut，2018年），以便教师成为教育变革的倡导者，创造者和实施者。这种说法很有道理。作为教育变革的共同建构者和政策制定的主要贡献者，教师这一观念在许多教育系统中早就应有。如果教师真正处于教育改革和共建变革的最前沿，那么最终的结果既可以是积极的，也可以是赋权的（例如，Donaldson 2015）。相反，在教师仅仅是自上而下的变革的接受者，政策交付的被动工具的情况下，结果将变得远没有希望。关于教育变革的大量文献一次又一次地强调了教师代理，协作和领导力的中心地位，这是对改善学习成果的核心影响（Hargreaves和Ainscow，2015年; Harris，Jones和Huffman，2017年; Datnow和Park，2018年）。但是，许多政策制定仍倾向于排除教师的声音，取而代之的是从国际组织或智囊团那里获得指导，这些组织或组织经常对有关教学工作的背景有粗略的了解。有效的教学有一些普遍适用的观念，不论其背景，文化或情况如何（Muijs和Reynolds，2017），但也有一种情况，那就是优秀的教师对个人需求有反应，对他们的教学和学习环境敏感。深切关心负责的年轻人。政策不够细致，无法考虑这种上下文差异，这就是为什么教师及其集体专业意见应成为任何决策和政策制定过程的一部分的原因。有人在别处争论过，教师是我们追求最佳成绩的最佳和最重要的资源（Mourshed，Chijioke和Barber，2010年）。尽管无疑是这样，但事实证明，教师为变革做出贡献并积极参与“领导变革”的方式对于任何改革努力的成功都是至关重要的。最近，Donohoo（2018）提出集体效能是取得这种成功的重要解释。集体效能基于这样的信念，即教育者可以通过集体行动来影响学生的成绩并提高他们的成就。简而言之，当教师们共同致力于一套清晰，共同的共同目标时，会对学习成果产生持久而重大的影响（Sharratt 2018）。尽管无疑是这样，但事实证明，教师为变革做出贡献并积极参与“领导变革”的方式对于任何改革努力的成功都是至关重要的。最近，Donohoo（2018）提出集体效能是取得这种成功的重要解释。集体效能基于这样的信念，即教育者可以通过集体行动来影响学生的成绩并提高他们的成就。简而言之，当教师们共同致力于一套清晰，共同的共同目标时，会对学习成果产生持久而重大的影响（Sharratt 2018）。尽管无疑是这样，但事实证明，教师为变革做出贡献并积极参与“领导变革”的方式对于任何改革努力的成功都是至关重要的。最近，Donohoo（2018）提出集体效能是取得这种成功的重要解释。集体效能基于这样的信念，即教育者可以通过集体行动来影响学生的成绩并提高他们的成就。简而言之，当教师们共同致力于一套清晰，共同的共同目标时，会对学习成果产生持久而重大的影响（Sharratt 2018）。Donohoo（2018）提出，集体效能是这种成功的重要解释。集体效能是基于这样的信念，即教育者可以通过集体行动来影响学生的成绩并提高他们的成绩。简而言之，当教师们共同致力于一套清晰，共同的共同目标时，会对学习成果产生持久而重大的影响（Sharratt 2018）。Donohoo（2018）提出，集体效能是这种成功的重要解释。集体效能基于这样的信念，即教育者可以通过集体行动来影响学生的成绩并提高他们的成就。简而言之，当教师们共同致力于一套清晰，共同的共同目标时，会对学习成果产生持久而重大的影响（Sharratt 2018）。