This paper explores key insights arising from a series of collaborations between colleagues in the UK and Kazakhstan over a period of 9 years. The partnership involved the co-design and development of strategies on facilitating teacher leadership. Following on from the leadership research was a specific collaboration between the authors of this paper which focused on the development of ‘non-positional teacher leadership’. This work began with a doctoral study in which a programme was provided for several schools in Taraz (Kanayeva, 2019). This was followed by a pilot study and a national programme known as the Teacher Leadership in Kazakhstan project, which then were followed by other projects with a focus on teacher leadership in rural schools (Qanay & Frost, 2020; Qanay et al., 2021).  It is significant that these projects were funded by NGOs and transnational organisations rather than the government which had funded most of the collaborative activities.

The frame for this has two dimensions: one is Kazakhstan’s policy of modernisation and internationalisation, and the other is the discourse on ‘the hazards of policy borrowing’ (Philips & Ochs, 20023). These two dimensions intersect throughout the whole period of collaboration referred to above, but for the purposes of this paper, the authors focus on the development of non-positional teacher leadership. In this paper, the authors explore the question of the extent to which it is possible to deploy practices developed in the UK in a country such as Kazakhstan, the implications for fidelity and scaling-up are considered but more importantly, the challenge of transposing a constructivist practice into a post-Soviet society with notable cultural differences.

The study exploited an action research approach, which has been a dominant mode of inquiry in the sustained period of research and development referred to above. Again, this is not to say that this study features accounts of teachers’ action research, rather the authors themselves have engaged in action research as a way of ensuring a balance between critical inquiry and meaningful action, leading to tangible change. The programmes which ran from October 2019 to March 2025 included a series of school-based group sessions in each school, one-to-one meetings between facilitators and participants and networking events hosted by schools. Through collaborative action with urban and rural schoolteachers and school administrators and comprehensive data collection using one-to-one interviews, participant observations and document analysis. The study sought to create new knowledge about support for teacher leadership and demonstrate that it could be done despite circumstances that seemed unusually challenging.

Our experience so far confirms the importance of both systemic and systematic support if teacher leadership is to thrive. External control by local educational authorities and excessive bureaucracy limits autonomy. This poses a challenge to promoting bottom-up reform initiatives and the development of teacher leadership within schools. We now have further evidence to confirm the view that schools and teachers can lead innovation, when the right conditions are in place. However, strategies have to take account of existing perceptions of professional learning and the possibility of building leadership capacity in schools. The introduction of an approach to professional learning in which teachers are encouraged to construct their own learning (Schunk, 2012) is very challenging. Factors include teachers’ beliefs about learning, the conception of their roles in school and the lack of a conducive environment. Therefore, it is important to help teachers to make the transition to self-directed learning by establishing trust and enhancing their self-efficacy (Brookfield, 1986; Bandura, 1997). It is important to provide strong scaffolding at the initial phases of the facilitation process and then release it as the teachers started taking charge of their development projects (Heron, 1999). The scaffolding included such techniques as vignettes, feedback, critical friendship and reflection. While there have been positive signs in this early part of the three-year initiative, it is clear that the formation of teacher leadership identity is an ongoing process that requires time and systematic support as has been found elsewhere (Allen, 2016; Boylan, 2018).

Allen, D., (2016). The resourceful facilitator: teacher leaders constructing identities as facilitators of teacher peer groups. Teachers and Teaching, 22 (1), 70–83. doi:10.1080/13540602.2015.1023029 Bandura, A., (1997). Self-efficacy the exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman. Boylan, M., (2018). Enabling adaptive system leadership: teachers leading professional development. Educational management administration & leadership, 46 (1), 86–106. doi:10.1177/1741143216628531 Brookfield, S., (1986). Understanding and facilitating adult learning: A comprehensive analysis of principles and effective practices. Buckingham: Open University Press. Heron, J., (1999). The complete facilitator’s handbook. London: Kogan Page. Kanayeva (Qanay), G. (2019). Facilitating teacher leadership in Kazakhstan. Unpublished PhD thesis. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Faculty of Education. Philips, D. and Ochs, K. (2003) Processes of policy borrowing in education: some explanatory and analytical devices, Comparative Education, 39 (4), 451-456 Qanay, G., & Frost, D. (2020). The teacher leadership in Kazakhstan initiative: professional learning and leadership. Professional Development in Education, 48(3), 411–425. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2020.1850507 Qanay, G., Courtney, M., & Nam, A. (2021). Building teacher leadership capacity in schools in Kazakhstan: a mixed method study. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 27(2), 385–411. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2020.1869314 Schunk, D.H., (2012). Learning theories: an educational perspective. 6th ed. Boston MA: Pearson.