As Head of Mathematics in a rapidly growing Alberta charter school, I encountered a persistent leadership dilemma: centralized assessment development was overburdening a few individuals, limiting innovation, and reproducing inequitable power structures. Burnout was particularly acute among newer staff and teachers of color, who were underrepresented in leadership roles despite their qualifications and potential. This created a need to redistribute leadership in a more inclusive, capacity-building way. As Imani et al. (2023, p. 46) note, “Our teammate never gets to rise to their full responsibility, power, and potential” when delegation is withheld.

Building on Module 3’s systems thinking and Module 2’s emphasis on relational trust, I identified that the root of this challenge was not only structural but also cultural. Leadership was informally gatekept, often unintentionally, through norms of risk-aversion, control, and default assumptions about readiness. This mindset limited collective problem-solving and reinforced inequities. As Wagner et al. (2006, p. 140) emphasize, “when leaders begin owning these problems and taking responsibility for student achievement, they model a different and more productive way of approaching problems.” This adaptive challenge required not just technical fixes, but a deeper shift toward shared accountability and collective ownership of student learning.

The mathematics team comprised 8 teachers (4 early-career, 2 mid-career, 2 veterans). Roughly 25% identified as BIPOC, and 25% identified as women. Each teacher oversaw a grade level from 7 through 12. Informal power imbalances existed based on tenure, subject specialization, and past visibility in school-wide initiatives.

While the formal structure had grade-level leads, there were no clear protocols for decision-making or shared ownership. Feedback suggested a lack of psychological safety for early career and BIPOC teachers to fully participate in leadership activities. These equity issues were compounded by inconsistent communication, vague role expectations, and a history of reactive, rather than developmental support structures (Module 6).

• New teachers were not invited into leadership opportunities, often due to unspoken norms and perceptions of inexperience.
• Veteran staff often retained decision-making authority, unintentionally limiting distributed leadership and reinforcing existing hierarchies.
• Historic centralization around assessment design reinforced top-down control and disempowered emerging leaders.

As noted by Grissom et al. (2021), “Effective principals orient their practice toward instructionally focused interactions with teachers, building a productive school climate, facilitating collaboration and professional learning communities, and strategic personnel and resource management processes” (p. 92). Addressing these dynamics demanded a mindset shift from gatekeeping to capacity-building, rooted in equity and shared accountability.

Collaborative role definition amplifying BIPOC teacher voices through structured protocols.

Personalized leadership pathways using "Coaching Habit" questions instead of directive feedback.

Meeting Wise "Stacked Start" protocols ensuring equal participation across all stakeholders.