Facing the ‘challenge’

Abstract

The overarching purpose of this study is to examine the prospects of school leadership for the development of intercultural education. The article focuses on the ways in which Greek-Cypriot headteachers conceptualize: diversity and intercultural education; and their school leadership roles in culturally diverse settings. To this extent, interviews were carried out with the headteachers of 20 primary schools, which presented high concentrations of immigrant students. In general, two main approaches concerning intercultural education were identified: cultural-deprivation and cultural-celebration. Headteachers, who fostered assimilation in their schools, adopted a transactional leadership style the goal of which was ‘unobstructed’ and ‘unproblematic’ operation of their schools. Conversely, headteachers, who ‘celebrated’ diversity in their schools, opted for the transformation of their school cultures by promoting immigrant parental involvement and community liaison. Nonetheless, there was a third category of headteachers, who held container concepts of diversity, pertaining to both cultural-deficit and cultural-celebration approaches. These headteachers proclaimed the transformation of their schools to accommodate diversity by creating collaborative networks in their schools. However, such suggestions seemed to be rhetorical, while in practice they seemed to seek assimilation.

Keywords

Cyprus education intercultural education intercultural policy school leadership

Introduction

Intercultural education is mediated by school leadership and thus by school leaders’ interpretations of diversity and intercultural education, which influence its implementation into practice (Leeman, 2003). The unique conditions prevailing in each school further shape the school-based curricula regarding intercultural education. Therefore, intercultural education meets or comes up against school politics and cultures. Notably, school leaders’ values and conceptualizations of intercultural education form the basis of a school’s philosophy, needs and priorities and, by extension, the school’s culture (Zembylas and Iasonos, 2010; Johansson et al., 2007). Sergiovanni (1984: 106) makes it more concrete: ‘leadership acts are expressions of culture’. Schein (1985: 316–317) argues that ‘culture is created in the first instance by the actions of the leaders; culture is embedded and strengthened by leaders’. Therefore, we need leaders able to create inclusive cultures at their schools by responding to diversity and changing the structures in order to promote practice that aims to include all students (Corbett, 1999).

Arguably, school leaders play a substantial role in realizing intercultural education in their schools. International research has suggested that the school climate (Leeman, 2003) and the school leader’s pedagogical vision, including his/her aims and acts of leadership (Adalbjarnardottir and Runarsdottir, 2006; Angelides, 2012) influence the ways in which intercultural education is directed at the school level. Leeman (2003: 31) asserts that ‘if schools want to give intercultural education a chance, they must opt for a focused development of vision and direct and guide intercultural education as a part of school policy’. Thus, this article explores the ways in which Greek-Cypriot headteachers (HTs) conceptualize: diversity and intercultural education; and their school leadership roles in culturally diverse settings.

School Leadership for Intercultural Education

School leaders and personnel, operating in intercultural settings, promote social reconstruction in order to meet everyone’s needs (Grant and Sleeter, 2007). Therefore, they do not restrict their focus to school transformation but they should also seek to restructure the cultural and political contexts of schooling (Leeman, 2007; Banks and McGee Banks, 2009). Intercultural school leaders may adopt a wider spectrum of socially driven and social-activist school policies and practices. Such policies include an anti-bias educational agenda, recruitment of minority teachers for mainstream schools, and the development of inclusive and collaborative school cultures. On a similar route, practices aim to apply critical-thinking and decision-making skills in order ‘to prepare students to become socially active citizens’ (Burnett, 1998: 4). School policies and practices are not exclusively oriented towards immigrant students’ academic success but they aim to have a much broader impact on society through a human-relations approach.

Leadership in intercultural school institutions is characterized by the plurality of cultural beliefs, affective assumptions and values, which inform school leaders’ actions (Collard, 2007). School leaders establish the links between cultural values and leadership practice drawing upon inclusive assumptions and frameworks. There is arguably the need for school leaders to ‘reflect on their educational beliefs, experiences and behaviours and to reconstruct them to competent intercultural agents’ (Collard, 2007: 746). Thus, successful leaders operating within diverse settings shall build intercultural competence meaning their competence to address varied cultural forces through learning from diverse cultures and by acknowledging the complexities of cultural interchange. Moreover, intercultural competence suggests the development of postmodern understandings of cultures stressing their dynamic nature as unstable mixtures of sameness and otherness (Banks and McGee Banks, 2009). As society shifts, identities are not monolithic, stable or of binary nature but are negotiated and renegotiated in a process of cultural syncretism. Intercultural leaders are no longer passive transmitters of inherited and unquestioned policies and practices. Furthermore, their decision making is informed by cultural sensitivity and intercultural communication with culturally diverse groups and individuals.

Shields (2004) explains that intercultural competence may happen through democratic participation in decision making and implementation of intercultural policies and practices. School leaders should foster shared dialogue between ‘other actors’, including teachers, students and the community, who are involved in developing and implementing such policies. Moral dialogue facilitates the development of strong relationships and challenges existing beliefs and practices that relate to difference and diversity. According to Shields, school leaders should become the catalysts for a moral dialogue in their schools and in the surrounding community. Thereafter, school policies for intercultural education are not the outcome of a single actor’s activity (that is, the school leader), rather than the outreach of such a dialogue among the school community. Pedagogical discussions will value the students’ lived experiences in order to overcome ‘the pathologies of silence about differences (including those of ethnicity and class) and work explicitly to replace deficit thinking with deep and meaningful relationships, we will have taken great strides toward achieving education that is socially just and academically excellent for more children’ (Shields, 2004: 128).

School leaders have to deal with various challenges both inside and outside the context of their schools when developing the school vision of intercultural policy. They have to become more attuned to the big picture, and much more sophisticated at conceptual thinking, and transforming the organization through people and teams by empowering and facilitating interchange within the school community. If the goal is developing and implementing more inclusive and just school-level policies, this convergence requires a new mind and action set for leading complex change. It consists of personal characteristics of energy/enthusiasm and hope, and other core components of leadership, such as moral purpose, understanding change, relationship building, knowledge creation and sharing and coherence making.

Intercultural Education and Leadership Styles

Zembylas and Iasonos (2010) argue for the interrelationship between intercultural education approaches and leadership styles. They thus draw a link between conservative multiculturalism and transactional leadership; pluralist multiculturalism and transformational leadership; and critical multiculturalism and critical and social justice leadership. They explain that school leaders, who share conservative multiculturalist views of diversity (meaning that they aim at assimilation), usually adopt transactional leadership styles by focusing on the smooth running of their schools and putting emphasis on administrative issues in order to maintain the system. Conversely, school leaders who favour pluralist multiculturalism (meaning that they ‘naively’ focus on the celebration of difference rather similarity), deploy transformation leadership styles. They thus work towards transforming the school culture in order to construct ‘a shared vision through respect, autonomy and the pursuit of higher goals are valued’ (Zembylas and Iasonos, 2010: 168). Zembylas and Iasonos conclude that school leaders, should foster critical multiculturalist approaches (meaning that they should interrogate power relations and structural inequalities) by collectively working towards values-led contingency models promoting a critical or social-justice leadership. Morrison et al. (2006) define this leadership style as the critical intervention of school leaders in order to pursue the values of social justice, inclusion and democracy.

In identifying the qualities and practices of intercultural leaders, Walker (2005) points to their focus on an agenda that fosters equality, justice and mutual respect. Intercultural leaders take action towards the implementation of values condemning social injustices, discrimination and poverty. Furthermore, their leadership styles acknowledge cultural differences instead of cultural deficits. The underlying assumption of the ‘deficit’ approach is that immigrant students have educational disadvantages in comparison to their local peers. Social-justice and equity values mobilize school leaders towards the transformation of their schools into ‘reflexive institutions’ (Collard, 2007: 751) through subverting the culture, the pedagogy, the curriculum and the structures of the school organization in order to empower marginalized students (Hickling-Hudson, 2003; Zembylas and Iasonos, 2010). Opfer (2006) argues that the shift towards intercultural school cultures is accompanied by definitions of equity rooted in the distribution of outcomes rather than the distribution of access.

As intercultural leadership aims at combating unjust school policies by promoting inclusion and equity, school leaders should be able: (1) to emotionally step out of the existing school structures; and (2) to sustain critical emotional reflexivity about the changes that are necessary to school policies and practices in order to place justice and equity at the centre of school leadership (Zembylas, 2010). Moving a step forward, we will argue that intercultural leadership should become conducive to collaborative and distributed leadership, meaning the development of teamwork not only within a leadership group but within the broader educational community (Spillane et al., 2004). Collard (2007) explains that sustainable development necessitates the development of collective teamwork and ethos.

According to Hickling-Hudson (2003), school leaders should foster the development of interculturally proactive schools by cultivating a strategy of community and family liaison. In Theodorou’s (2008: 254) terms, family liaison entails ‘a collectivist power-sharing approach to home–school relationship’ in order to allow for full parental participation in the decision-making process’. Nonetheless, Marschall (2006) cautions that the cultural sensitivity in family participation inhibits the involvement of less powerful groups including immigrants and minorities. In response, Hidalgo et al. (2004) suggest that different patterns of family influence may emerge from the different cultural groups influencing the partnership. Moreover, they indicate that the philosophies and practices of families and communities should be incorporated in the school structures.

School Leadership for Intercultural Education: The Greek-Cypriot Context

Cyprus is a young democracy that became an independent republic in 1960. Following the division of the island in 1974, the Turkish-Cypriots moved in the north, while the Greek-Cypriots relocated in the south. As the Greek-Cypriot government is recognized as the de jure government of the island, the current study focuses only on the Greek-Cypriot context. The growth of the tourist and business industries and the economic boom in the mid-1980s has gradually resulted in the mass influx of immigrant workers. Immigration issues first became intertwined in the educational agenda of the Ministry of Education and Culture (MEC) of Cyprus in 2001 (Hajisoteriou, 2010). As the state provides the right to all children to attend their neighbouring school, immigrant children may enrol in public schools, regardless of their parents’ legal, or illegal, immigration status. Despite these efforts, literature contends that public schools still remain ethnocentric and culturally monolithic (Angelides et al., 2004; Hajisoteriou, 2010).

The MEC adopts the rhetoric of intercultural education and inclusion as the preferable educational response to immigration (Papamichael, 2008). The MEC discourse of intercultural education suggests the establishment of a democratic school that includes and does not exclude, meaning the provision of equal educational opportunities for access, participation and success for all students (MEC, 2010). The MEC envisions the creation of an educational system that respects diversity and cultural, linguistic and religious pluralism. However, Greek-Cypriot research asserts that there is a gap between policy rhetoric and practice (Angelides et al., 2004; Panayiotopoulos and Nicolaidou, 2007). Although the official state policy includes humanistic manifestations of respect for human rights, justice and peace, in practice immigrant students are considered to be in need of assimilation in order to overcome their perceived deficiency and disadvantage (Papamichael, 2008).

Beyond ideological impediments, the literature identifies a series of structural barriers that impede the development and implementation of leadership for intercultural education in schools. First and foremost, the highly centralized character of the educational system adds to the slow-down of intercultural policy change (Hajisoteriou, 2010). As school-based curricula are rather weak, intercultural policies have to be introduced by the central stakeholder, and thus the central state, through a top-down approach. Similarly, Trimikliniotis (2001) explains that the centralization of Greek-Cypriot education presupposes the centralized design and top-down implementation of intercultural policies. Accordingly, the MEC has to explicitly instruct school leaders. In addition, Greek-Cypriot literature problematizes the centralized provision of both the curriculum and the syllabus. The ‘prescription’ of the curriculum by the MEC hinders the devolution of leadership for intercultural education to the school level (Trimikliniotis, 2001; Hajisoteriou, 2010).

Most of the Greek-Cypriot HTs participating in Zembylas and Iasonos’s (2010) study were uncertain and insecure about how to react to the situation derived from increased immigration. As a result, they adopted a combination of assimilationist approaches and transactional leadership styles. Accordingly, they perceived their Greek-Cypriot culture as superior to other cultures, while they portrayed all ‘foreigners’ as ‘a bad influence on the Cypriot society’ (Zembylas and Iasonos, 2010: 172). Drawing upon transactional leadership, those HTs emphasized the need for homogeneity in order to sustain the smooth operation of their schools.

In such a context, this research aims to examine the development of school leadership for intercultural education at the level of Greek-Cypriot primary schools. Over the course of this article, we seek to discuss the conceptualizations of intercultural education and the pertinent leadership styles deployed by HTs in their schools. In the next section, we describe the methodology employed to address our research agenda.

Methodology

Cyprus has six districts, namely: Nicosia, Limassol, Larnaca, Famagusta, Paphos and Kyrenia. However, only the first five districts are under control by the Cypriot government. In order to identify potential participants, we conducted contact visits to various primary schools that presented high percentages of immigrant students, across these five districts. Within each district we selected four schools, thus a total of 20 schools. The selection of schools was based on which schools had the highest enrolment of immigrant students and those in which the HT had consented to participate. The schools were located in mixed local areas, which had a heterogeneous cultural profile.

We carried out interviews with the HTs of the selected schools. The final sample included 12 female and 8 male HTs. All participants were more than 50 years’ old. The interview schedule referred to issues such as HTs’ conceptualizations of diversity and intercultural education that guided the leadership of their culturally diverse schools and the development of pertinent school cultures. All HTs were interviewed once, for approximately one hour. The interviews were audio-recorded and fully transcribed. The main research instrument and thus the interviewers were the researchers themselves.

In the event, a total of 20 interviews were carried out, which were inserted in a thematic analysis cycle. We, first, read our data in order to understand them better and in parallel we kept notes about our thoughts. Second, we began examining our data for groups of meanings, themes, assumptions and behaviours and tried to locate how these were connected within a theoretical model (Creswell, 2003). Third, we continued the process of analysis and we divided the data into categories. Each part was named. In the fourth stage we put all the names together in big groups to create areas of analysis. Finally, in the fifth and sixth stages of analysis, given that the categories were set and they seemed to be connected to the research questions, we began looking at our data in order to substantiate these categories with raw data.

We examined and triangulated our data from multiple angles and different perspectives to establish the trustworthiness of the data, continually looking for alternative possibilities and different explanations, trying to develop a richer understanding of them (Creswell, 2003).

Findings

Drawing upon the previously described data collection and analysis, we identified the conceptualizations of diversity and intercultural education and the leadership styles, which were adopted by headteachers (HTs) in leading their culturally diverse schools. In the following sections, we analyse the themes that emerged from our analysis and we substantiate them with data.

Conceptualizing Diversity and Intercultural Education

The participant HTs were asked to provide their understandings of diversity, which underlie their school objectives regarding intercultural education. In general, two main approaches concerning intercultural education were identified: the cultural-deprivation approach and the cultural-celebration approach. More specifically, 9 out of 20 HTs frequently cited goals supporting an assimilationist approach to diversity aiming towards providing immigrant students with cultural and other experiences that would ‘compensate for their cognitive and intellectual deficits’ (Banks, 1988: 100). In contrast, seven HTs argued for the development of school policies that aimed to highlight and celebrate cultural diversity. It is noteworthy that four HTs combined conflicting propositions in their responses, arguing for both cultural-deprivation and cultural-celebration approaches. Leeman and Ledoux (2005) would argue that those HTs held container concepts of intercultural education, as they perceived as important everything that seemed to relate to intercultural issues.

In more detail, of the 20 HTs interviewed, 9 favoured a cultural-deprivation approach to intercultural education. These HTs despite of district and gender conceptualized immigrants’ presence in the society, in general, and in their schools, in particular, as a problematic situation, which they had to overcome:

A lot of our people lost their jobs because foreigners are low-paid and they are satisfied with little money…. In the end, we will become aggressive. (Mrs Christina – HT in Nicosia)

The biggest problem for our education system is to receive big numbers of immigrants. All these children get in a classroom, where they cannot respond. (Mrs Popi – HT in Paphos)

There is a great influence on the composition of the student body due to the presence of immigrants. Some immigrant children bear racist behaviours from their family environment and they may develop delinquent behaviours. (Mr Christos – HT in Larnaca)

These HTs condemned immigrant students’ ‘deprived’ backgrounds and family practices because they may bring polarization within their schools. In addition, the underlying assumption proposed by some of the HTs is that immigrant students have educational disadvantages in comparison to their local peers. They asserted that school practices are limited in what they can do to promote immigrant students’ success because of the culture and language into which they are socialized:

Teachers worry because, even if they want to, they cannot operate in their classrooms. These classrooms [highly diverse] are difficult classrooms. Immigrant children are often mischievous. They need help to learn the language. Teachers find it difficult and children do not learn easily. (Mr Spyros – HT in Famagusta)

Whatever we do, some of them refuse to learn. For example, we have Gypsy children, who attend the school for one day and then they are absent for four days…. I also observe that children who come from Britain have a negative attitude towards learning Greek…. Some other children prefer to draw or not do anything in the classroom. (Mrs Eytychia – HT in Nicosia)

These HTs asserted that the socialization practices existing among immigrant groups often impede students’ verbal and cognitive development and, by extension, their school and social success. They thus ‘blamed’ immigrant students for their problems and academic failure. Banks and McGee Banks (2009) would contend that those HTs did not question institutional practices and power dynamics that may lead to immigrant students’ marginalization and failure. Opfer (2006) argues that school actors who fail to be aware of power relations do not take any action to reduce prejudice.

Conversely, there were seven HTs, who approached intercultural education from a cultural-celebration perspective, and four HTs who ‘paradoxically’ appeared to consider the cultural-deprivation and cultural-celebration approaches as complementary ways of thinking about intercultural education. Evidence for cultural-celebration is found in the following themes: HTs’ beliefs about the maintenance of cultural difference; and the ‘enrichment perspective’ pointing to HTs’ claims that the existence of diverse, fixed and community-bound cultures promotes the enrichment of society:

I like the metaphor of the lemon placed between tomatoes. All the others are the tomatoes, who know each other, have the same culture, the same conditions and the same ‘smell’. Then you find one lemon in the middle that does not have any relation with the others. The lemon should not become a tomato; tomatoes should not become lemons either. Each one should maintain his/her personality. We should manage to coexist. (Mr Thomas – HT in Famagusta)

In the past, before having immigrants, we were segregated from the outside society…. Now we have experienced how they think, how they act. We should all realize that this is better for our society. (Mr Yiannis – HT in Larnaca)

These HTs recognized that cultural differences exist between communities and claimed that in a certain social setting all cultures can coexist. To this extent, they appeared to argue that different communities have separate, self-contained and unified cultural identities. However, they fell short in clarifying the kind of relationship that should exist between the different cultural groups of the school. Banks and McGee Banks (2009) would contend that such approach may lead to the assumption that each community demonstrates a single homogenous and enduring culture that is independent of interaction with other groups or the economic and political context.

All HTs participating in our study were far from critical approaches to diversity and intercultural education. The critical approach challenges power relations and inequalities in order to achieve social change. This approach seeks to restructure the cultural and political contexts of schooling by promoting a social justice agenda (Opfer, 2006). Nonetheless, Zembylas and Iasonos (2010) explain that the critical approach is often too idealistic and does not provide for realistic practices to promote social change. They (2010: 167) thus argue that ‘the highly political nature of this approach makes it more difficult to be accepted by teachers and school leaders’. Although, none of the HTs participating in our research referred to issues of social change and social justice, when specifically questioned about their school objectives, they all argued that they aimed towards the development of mutual respect and understanding among their students:

They should learn to respect the foreigner … Respect is a goal of the curriculum, meaning a democratic school, a school that accepts the other, that is open and humane. (Mrs Pavlina – HT in Famagusta)

Our goal is to prepare the humane school, where children learn to respect each other through acceptance, coexistence and mutual respect; all these are values of Christianity. (Mr Petros – HT in Nicosia)

All our interviewees, despite of district and other characteristics, drew upon the principles of coexistence and respect for difference to define the goals of intercultural education. These HTs argued that mutual respect and understanding entailed the humanistic and democratic elements of schooling. Thus, they appeared to adopt a human-relations approach that intended to establish positive communication and respect among their culturally diverse students and smooth relations.

In short, most HTs suggested that the development of a humane school aimed to reduce prejudice and to develop in students, attitudes and values such as tolerance, cooperation and friendship. Arguably, they perceived the development of a humanistic school in response to their concerns about inter-group relationships. They explained that in the context of a humanistic school, the school staff should establish positive communication among their culturally diverse students; reduce prejudice and smooth immigrant students’ relations with their Greek-Cypriot peers. In addition, many of the participant HTs argued for the development of democratic schooling. These HTs pointed out that democratic values, and particularly democratic participation and active citizenship, had a high profile in their schools. To this end, they prioritized equal treatment by propagating equal access, opportunity and treatment. In conclusion, most of the HTs argued that the democratic school should be organized in such a way that will provide to all children the opportunity to achieve all the goals of education. Furthermore, the humane school should respect human dignity; it is a school where no child is excluded, censured or scorned.

It is interesting that all interviewees adopted the notion of ‘democratic and humane’ school. It may be that during the year of data collection (2011/12) the MEC put in practice a ‘new’ national curriculum on a pilot basis. The humane school and the democratic school entail the two pillars of the ‘new’ curriculum. As defined in the official curriculum, the democratic school includes and caters for all children, regardless of any differences they may have, and helps them prepare for a common future (MEC, 2010: 6). Furthermore, it guarantees equal educational opportunities for all. In contrast, the humane school respects human dignity. It is a school where no child is excluded, censured or scorned. It celebrates childhood acknowledging that this should be the most creative and happy period of the human life (MEC, 2010: 6). When the participant HTs of our study were asked to define the notions of humane and democratic schooling, they were unable to differentiate between the two terms. However, they referred to their goal of nurturing immigrant students, while offering them open loving acceptance and make schooling a happy experience for them.

Arguably, HTs’ humanistic approach towards diversity and intercultural education formed the basis on which they conceptualized school leadership in culturally diverse settings. In the following section, we present HTs’ understandings of their leadership roles in their culturally diverse schools.

Conceptualizing School Leadership in Culturally Diverse Settings

During the interviews, HTs discussed the ways in which their leadership roles differ in culturally diverse settings. In general, two main leadership styles were identified: the transactional style and the transformational style. HTs who shared cultural-deprivation understandings of diversity appeared to adopt a transactional approach in leading their schools. Whereas, HTs who shared cultural-celebration views on diversity appeared to adopt a transformational leadership approach pointing to the need to change the school cultures and structures in order to accommodate diversity. The two leadership styles appeared to be tentative and overlap in the case of the HTs who held container concepts of diversity (pertaining to both cultural-deprivation and cultural-celebration approaches). Here, because of space limitations, we only draw a distinction between the two categories to help the reader understand their different connotations.

Nine of the participants HTs, regardless of gender or district, were less willing to recognize the influence of diversity on their leadership roles. On the basis of their cultural-deficiency conceptualizations of diversity, they argued that there was no need for differential leadership in favour of immigrant students:

They [immigrants] are taught what the other students are taught; they behave as the other children behave. Our school does not mark them out because of their language, religion and culture. (Mrs Popi – HT in Paphos)

Most immigrant students who enrol in our school were born in Cyprus; they speak our language fluently. Our school does not treat differently students with immigrant parents. Their differences have gradually disappeared and now the school operates smoothly. (Mrs Despo – HT in Famagusta)

These HTs did not recognize the distinctive situation in which their schools found themselves as a result of immigrant students’ presence. Their leadership style took a business-as-usual approach, as they did not acknowledge their students’ socio-cultural background in the goals guiding their school policies. Zembylas and Iasonos (2010: 167, 175) would claim that these HTs adopted a transactional leadership style, meaning that they were focused ‘on the smooth running of the school’, as they preferred ‘to maintain organizational harmony at their school without the “problems” … that are usually associated with multicultural schools’. These HTs appeared to contradict themselves; we have already discussed that they perceived immigrants as a ‘problem’ for the society and their schools. However, they seemed to argue that as immigrant students were a ‘problem’ they would rather ignore as they could not deal with it.

Therefore, when they were specifically asked to explain the reasons for their choice not to differentiate their school policies in terms of intercultural education, HTs favouring a transactional approach asserted that they could not play active roles in the implementation of intercultural education and thus, they could not make a difference for immigrant students:

Intercultural education is a matter of political decisions and not school programmes…. Although the Ministry has declared intercultural education as its general policy, I feel that there was no official support to schools to implement this goal. (Mr Christos – HT in Larnaca)

I would be able to differentiate the organization of my school unit if I had the right to select my personnel, so that I could match specific teachers with specific students…. I do not have extra funds or time to provide to my personnel, so that they can do more things for immigrant students. (Mrs Christina – HT in Nicosia)

These HTs explained that according to the education system and national policy, their leadership roles did not include responsibilities such as hiring and appointing teachers to schools and classrooms and/or distributing time and resources to the teachers of their school. Previous research in the field claims that the highly centralized character of Greek-Cypriot education constraints school leaders’ work towards the development of school-based policies and curricula for intercultural education (Pashiardis, 2004; Hajisoteriou, 2011).

Conversely, HTs who presented cultural-celebration views on diversity, they seemed to suggest that they had to transform their school policies and practices in order to face the ‘challenge’ of increased diversity in their schools.

The HT is the one guiding, encouraging teachers to open-up themselves to diversity issues…. If the HT is open to ideas and provides teachers with the opportunity to try different things by encouraging them, this will happen. HTs, who are narrow-minded or racist, stop a lot of these issues with their attitude. (Mr Thomas – HT in Famagusta)

Today, the school cannot be monocultural. Taking into consideration the diversity of our children, the school should always find the way to encompass and broaden their experiences. In the past, we perceived all children’s experiences as the same or at least similar in terms of their cultural, social and family context. Now, the school has to differentiate the way it treats and teaches students, to accept their opinions and their diversity. (Mrs Eleni – HT in Paphos)

These HTs clearly stated that diversity was not a ‘burden’, rather a resource to take advantage of. According to one HT, ‘the fact that a lot of HTs complain and protest about the large numbers of immigrants in their schools is unacceptable’ (Mr Yiannis – HT in Larnaca). More specifically, Mr Yiannis argued that although the MEC does provide the necessary support, all HTs have to ‘see what they can do to find solutions and face the challenges at the school level’. Similarly, Mr Petros (HT in Larnaca) claimed that his goal was to aspire to teachers that their school ‘should always have an open hug for immigrant students and embrace their differences’.

HTs who followed the cultural-celebration approach to diversity, but also HTs who held container concepts of diversity, suggested the need to ‘transform’ their schools in order to encompass diversity. Previous research has indicated that transformational leaders manage structures but, at the same time, they seek to impact upon the school cultures in order to change them (Leithwood and Jantzi, 2005). Transformatinal leaders focus on the people around them, on their relationships, their values, beliefs, feelings and attitudes. Furthermore, transformational models of leadership have significant effects on organizational conditions and on teachers’ and parents’ engagement in schools and leadership (Leithwood and Jantzi, 1999). Similarly, these HTs who participated in our research, asserted that their schools needed to operate in more collaborative forms. They conceptualized collaboration in terms of fostering cooperation between the learning community including teachers and students, networking with other professionals and fostering immigrant parental involvement. In the following section, we discuss practices related to the ‘transformation’ of culturally diverse schools (as suggested by these HTs) such as developing collaborative school cultures.

Creating Collaborative School Networks

In general, HTs arguing for a transformational leadership approach pointed to the need to create collaborative cultures in their schools. Some HTs exemplified collaboration in terms of inter-school networks for school personnel to discuss and exchange of ideas with colleagues from other schools which face ‘similar challenges’. Moreover, they explained that HTs from different schools should collaborate in order to organize intra-school seminars in order to promote their teachers’ professional development in intercultural education:

Schools should collaborate in order to organize seminars and exchange ideas and suggestions. We should not expect that each school can find the solutions to these issues on its own. (Mr Yiannis – HT in Larnaca)

We cooperate with other schools which have high percentages of immigrant students. We exchange visits and we share best practices regarding the ways in which we can facilitate our immigrant students’ inclusion. (Mrs Pavlina – HT in Famagusta)

These HTs pointed to the need to create small school networks in order to promote teacher professional development in intercultural education; and positively impact the development and implementation of intercultural education within their schools. Research in the field indicates that school networks may become the vehicles for achieving school improvement in the field of intercultural education through processes of cultural and attitudinal change, exchange of good practice and creation of new knowledge as the basis of better practice (Chapman and Aspin, 2003; Hadfield and Chapman, 2009). We may argue that HTs’ claims for collaboration with other schools indicated their vision for the development of their immigrant students.

Nonetheless, these HTs argued for the development of collaborative networks between the teachers of their school. They explained that they promoted collaboration between their teachers through fruitful and thought-provoking discussions during personnel meetings:

I often set student behaviour and delinquency as a topic for discussion in school meetings, but we should also set multiculturalism per se as a topic. (Mr Nicos – HT in Paphos)

We have included in the agenda of our personnel meetings some topics regarding foreign-language-speaking students. We exchange ideas regarding the ways in which we can take the best advantage of support teaching for Greek-language learning. (Mr Angelos – HT in Nicosia)

Some HTs indicated that during their meetings with their personnel, but also in other instances, they advised and encouraged their teachers to network with other professionals such as psychologists, special teachers and language-support teachers, in order to promote their immigrant students’ inclusion:

I encourage my teachers to collaborate with the support teachers, who are responsible for the Greek-language classes to other-language speaking students, in order to select and develop pertinent educational materials … to collaborate in planning the language-support classes in order to sustain immigrant students’ inclusion. (Mrs Martha – HT in Larnaca)

In some cases that we had serious behaviour problems, we developed the Team of Direct Intervention and we asked from a psychologist to come and discuss with us and talk with the children about this issue. (Mrs Maria – HT in Famagusta)

These HTs appeared to conceptualize cooperation as a response to the ‘problems’ faced or caused by immigrant students, including behaviour and language issues. Particularly, their arguments for collaboration with other professionals were focused on aiding their students to overcome language issues in order to attain the national language standard. Despite their favourable views to the celebration of diversity, they seemed to indicate behaviour and language as potential barriers to immigrant students’ inclusion.

It is noteworthy that HTs, who suggested the development of collaborative school networks, were the ones who also argued for a transformational leadership. We may argue that these HTs aimed to ‘transform’ their school cultures by creating small internal collaborative networks of teachers (Angelides, 2010), in which parents could also participate (as we discuss below). Some researchers call these small networks social networks (Pitts and Spillane, 2009). Successful networks have the potential to re-culture the environments within which school leaders are operating to create more collaborative and multi-agency endeavours (Chapman and Aspin, 2003).

HTs, who supported the development of collaborative school networks, indicated also that immigrant parents should be included in the collaborative endeavour. They thus went on to describe school–family networks as a further element of the collaborative networks of their schools. Although the participant HTs conceptualized immigrant parental involvement in different ways, they most commonly referred to immigrant parents’ participation in assemblies, workshops or cultural events that usually took place in the context of their schools:

I brought immigrant parents in the school and we carried out some events together and in collaboration with the rest of the parents [local parents]. They were pleased to participate. (Mr Nicos – HT in Paphos)

We invited mothers to come to our school and read fairy tales in their languages to our children. Listening to various languages, the local children may understand the position of their non-Greek-speaking peers; Greek sound as Chinese to them. They gradually accept the difficulties that their peers face. (Mrs Pavlina – HT in Famagusta)

These HTs appeared to suggest immigrant parents’ participation in (inter)cultural activities. International research suggests that the organization of (inter)cultural events in schools may foster (inter)cultural knowledge among and between culturally diverse groups of students (Banks and McGee Banks, 2009). Indeed, schools, their personnel and students should become aware of the diverse cultural backgrounds brought in their schools. However, we are concerned about the folkloristic dimension of such school events, as described by some of the interviewees and, specifically HTs who held container concepts of diversity:

When we celebrated the Day of Languages, parents brought their tradition costumes and photographs from their motherlands and they talked about their countries. The children enjoyed that day a lot. (Mrs Andri – HT in Nicosia)

We brought immigrant parents in the school to talk about their culture, their country, to sing and cook for us … We should learn how they celebrate their national days. (Mr Petros – HT in Nicosia)

These HTs seemed to understand immigrant parental involvement in terms of on-site school festivals including folk dancing and music and traditional costumes and cuisines. The addition of folk content to school policies regarding parental involvement places increased attention to the cultural differences of local and immigrants, instead of their commonalities. Banks and McGee Banks (2009) would argue that the focus on differences through the study of folk-life, spuriously leads to the conclusion that we can predict individuals lived experiences or identities on the basis of their group membership. Such an approach, disregards other socio-economic, psychological and institutional factors, which influence immigrants’ inclusion, while it inhibits intercultural interaction.

Despite their favourable stance towards school–parent collaboration, most HTs asserted that immigrant parents were often distancing themselves from the school. They explained that although the school was willing to support and collaborate with immigrant families, this rarely was the case in practice:

They hardly ever come to school as they have difficulties in communicating with the teachers. Quite often you see the children translate to their parents what we say. (Mrs Margarita – HT in Larnaca)

You cannot blame them. They have jobs where they are employees. They feel insecurity with their jobs…. It is very hard to ask them to come to our school during their working hours. (Mr Petros – HT in Nicosia)

In identifying the influencing factors and barriers, these HTs argued that immigrant parents’ rare visits to their schools followed from their low socio-economic situation, deprived educational background and limited proficiency in the Greek language. Similarly, international research has shown that immigrant parents present lower levels of school involvement in comparison to local parents (Marschall, 2006). Hill et al. (2004) draw an interconnection between low parental involvement and immigrant parents’ income, educational level and ethnicity. They go on to explain that socioeconomic difficulties, such as transportation, child-care arrangements and tight work schedules, often inhibit immigrant parental involvement. Moreover, Lareau and Shumar (1996) add other contributory factors, such as immigrant parents’ lack of proficiency in the official language, limited cultural knowledge about school rules and lack of higher education.

Drawing upon our previous discussion, we may argue that most of the HTs, who participated in our study and particularly the ones who held container concepts of diversity, offered restricted conceptualizations of parental involvement as on-site physical presence and adaption to school cultures and demands. Previous research in the field has revealed that Greek-Cypriot school actors appear to perceive immigrant parents as ‘disinterested’ and uninvolved, while they draw upon a cultural-deficit perspective. (Hadjitheodoulou-Loizidou and Symeou, 2007; Theodorou, 2008). Nonetheless, Hidalgo et al. (2004) suggest that different patterns of family influence may emerge from the different cultural groups influencing the partnership. Moreover, they indicate that the philosophies and practices of families and communities should be incorporated in the school structures.

Conclusion

In the context of increased immigration towards a country, HTs are called upon to develop appropriate leadership roles within culturally diverse school settings. The corporate findings of this research indicate that the ways in which HTs conceptualized diversity influenced their leadership roles regarding intercultural education. In more detail, HTs who deployed the cultural-deficit approach to diversity appeared to promote a transactional model of leadership. In this way, they aimed to sustain the so-called ‘unobstructed’ and ‘unproblematic’ operation of their schools, through the cultural assimilation of their immigrant students in the dominant cultural norms of their schools. In contrast, HTs, who adopted cultural-pluralist manifestations, seemed to lend support to transformational leadership and thus school change in order to respond to cultural diversity.

We may argue that conceptual clarity and theoretical agreement on intercultural education was hard to find not only across headteachers; some headteachers contradicted themselves. HTs, who held container concepts of diversity pertaining to both cultural-assimilation and cultural-celebration premises, seemed to utilize theoretical discourses of intercultural education that were far removed from their daily practice in their schools. In addition, all participants were distant from social justice leadership and critical multiculturalism. They thus failed to examine the institutional barriers, structural inequalities and power dynamics that influenced immigrant students’ inclusion within the school settings (Banks and McGee Banks, 2009). Cambron-McCabe and McCarthy (2005: 201) urge school leaders to ‘critically inquire into the structures and norms that result in inequitable schooling for many students and to undertake an advocacy role to influence educational policies to achieve social justice’. Nonetheless, refraining from conservative towards emancipatory leadership is a daunting task (Ryan, 2003) that bears implications on preparing school leaders for social justice critique and activism (Cambron-McCabe and McCarthy, 2005).

In order to dismantle institutional barriers, school leaders should be aware not only of structural issues, but also of issues related to the organization of the curriculum and the allocation of resources (Leithwood and Riehl, 2005). Trigg-Smith (2011: 37) argues that ‘as organizational structures vary in the instructional tradeoffs they create, leaders have to understand these tradeoffs if they are – to build effective models of classroom organization’. Therefore an investigation of structural issues should not ignore the ways in which school leaders may influence pedagogy and learning. Democratic participation in decision making may enhance dialogue among the broader school community about the structural, cultural and pedagogical changes needed in order to achieve inclusion (Shields, 2004).

Despite the above observations, the government’s drive towards intercultural education has acted as an additional barrier to the development of the coherent intercultural policies at the school level (Hajisoteriou, 2011). The government regarded intercultural education as part of its drive towards the creation of a ‘Euro-Cyprian Society’ (Committee for Educational Reform, 2004: 1). However, previous research has shown that the government left the formulation and implementation of concrete intercultural initiatives to the discretion of the schools and their personnel (Panayiotopoulos and Nicolaidou, 2007; Papamichael, 2008; Hajisoteriou, 2010). It is noteworthy, though, that the centralized character of the Greek-Cypriot educational system does not allow the development of school-based curricula (Angelides, 2012). Accordingly, although the government argued for the development of intercultural education policies, monocultural practices could still be operationalized in Greek-Cypriot schools.

Efforts to develop more intercultural leadership practices through school leaders’ professional development are often not encouraging, as such programmes usually focus on the effectiveness and efficiency of schools (Zembylas and Iasonos, 2010). For the sake of effectiveness, school leaders are encouraged to ‘avoid and evade dilemmas’ regarding social justice concerns by adopting ‘a sweep-it-under-the-rug management style’ (Marshall and Parker, 2006: 194). Lumby (2006: 151) explains that school leaders are oriented to ‘manage’ diversity ‘from its intended aim of increasing equity, to a conceptual sleight of hand for sidestepping uncomfortable issues’ by deleting any ‘other’. Whereas, Rusch (2004: 43) argues that professional development programmes should allow school leaders to ‘debate about emotional and value-laden issues such as privilege, meritocracy, affirmative action, gender, race, ethnicity and sexuality’. However, official preparation programmes tend to submerge such issues that are sensitive and controversial, while they are supposed to bring change by patronizing method recipes.

Drawing upon Riehl (2000), we suggest that preparation programmes should rather enable school leaders to foster new definitions of diversity; develop and implement inclusive practices in their schools; and build connections between their schools and communities. School leaders should thus be provided with opportunities for inquiry and action-oriented strategies. Nevertheless, previous research in the Greek-Cypriot context has indicated that the adoption of out-of-school seminars as a means to promote school leaders professional development in intercultural education is inadequate and problematic (Hajisoteriou, 2011). The aforementioned observations beget questions about the provision of alternative methods for school leaders’ professional development regarding intercultural education.

According to the findings of this research, we suggest that the creation of collaborative internal school networks may lead school leaders to participate with others in a process of inquiry and reflection in order to generate new ‘knowledge’. Wenger (1998) talks about ‘communities of practice’ and describes the transfer and the creation of knowledge within a workplace. The members of a community of practice transfer knowledge and ideas from one member to another through the processes of ‘negotiation’ during which common meanings are created. In this way, new knowledge is generated. This knowledge is put into practice and is inevitably modified because it is influenced by new experiences and new contexts.

Collaborative networks may influence the decision-making processes in culturally diverse school settings. Network leaders develop leadership skills by chairing network meetings and by leading the network’s action plans. Small networks are led by informal leaders who interact with formal leaders in order to push their school forward. Therefore, the existence of collaborative networks can lead to more decentralized decision making, a fact that might be helpful for responding in a more efficient way to diversity issues.

It is notable that networks are assembled as a school development instrument as they become ‘learning consortiums’ (Fullan, 1991), within which school leaders may operate both as learners and partners in the construction of knowledge, as we have seen above. Involvement in collaborative networks helps school leaders and other school actors to exchange opinions as far as learning is concerned; share values, beliefs, language; learn from each other regarding issues of their work and provide a social context for this work (Allee, 2000).

School leadership in intercultural schools, then, will not follow simplistic patterns and conservative tendencies but will be approached as social learning that will be developed in these collaborative networks (Wenger, 1998). In the long term, and if different schools network with each other, they will share good practices and discuss emerging problems.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

This project was co-funded by the Republic of Cyprus and the European Regional Development Fund of the EU through the Research Promotion Foundation.

References

Adalbjarnardottir

Runarsdottir

(2006) A leader’s experiences of intercultural education in an elementary school: changes and challenges. Theory into Practice 45(2): 177–186.

Allee

(2000) Knowledge networks and communities of practice. OD Practitioner: Journal of the Organizational Development Network 32(4). Available at: http://www.odnetwork.org/odponline/vol32n4/knowledgenets.html.

Angelides

(2012) Forms of leadership that promote inclusive education in Cyprus schools. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 40(1): 21–36.

Angelides

(2010) The efficacy of small internal networks for improving schools. School Leadership & Management 30(5): 451–467.

Angelides

Stylianou

Leigh

(2004) Multicultural education in Cyprus: a pot of multicultural assimilation? Intercultural Education 15(3): 307–315.

Banks

(1988) Multiethnic Education. Theory and Practice, 2nd edn. Newton, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Banks

McGee Banks

(eds) (2009) Multicultural Education: Issues and Perspectives. Needham Heights, MA: Wiley.

Burnett

(1998) Varieties of multicultural education: an introduction. ERIC Digest 98. Available at: http://ericdigests.org/1995–1/multicultural.htm (accessed 5 November 2010).

Cambron-McCabe

McCarthy

(2005) Educating school leaders for social justice. Educational Policy 19: 201–222.

10.

Chapman

Aspin

(2003) Networks of learning: a new construct for educational provision and a new strategy for reform. In: Davies

West-Burnham

(eds) Handbook of Educational Leadership and Management. London: Pearson.

11.

Collard (2007) Constructing theory for leadership in intercultural contexts. Journal of Educational Administration 45(6): 740–755.

12.

Corbett

(1999) Inclusivity and school culture: the case of special education. In: Prosser

(ed.) School Culture. London: Paul Chapman.

13.

Creswell

(2003) Research Design. Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Method Approaches. London: SAGE.

14.

Epstein

(2010) School, Family, and Community Partnerships: Preparing Educators, and Improving Schools. 2nd ed. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

15.

Fullan

(1991) The New Meaning of Educational Change. London: Cassell.

16.

Grant

Sleeter

(2007) Doing Multicultural Education for Achievement and Equity. New York: Routledge.

17.

Hadjitheodoulou-Loizidou

Symeou

(2007) Promoting closer ties and cooperation between the school, the family and the community in the framework of intercultural education. International Journal about Parents in Education 1(0): 63–72.

18.

Hajisoteriou

(2010) Europeanizing intercultural education: politics and policy making in Cyprus. European Educational Research Journal 9(4): 471–483.

19.

Hajisoteriou

(2011) Listening to the winds of change: school leaders realizing intercultural education in Greek-Cypriot schools? International Journal of Leadership in Education DOI:10.1080/13603124.2011.605473, pp.1–19.

20.

Hickling-Hudson

(2003) Multicultural education and the postcolonial turn. Policy Futures in Education 1(2): 381–401.

21.

Hidalgo

Siu

Epstein

(2004) Research on families, schools, and communities. A multicultural perspective. In: Banks

McGee Banks

(eds) Handbook of Research on Multicultural Education, 2nd edn. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

22.

Hill

Castellino

Lansford

. (2004) Parent academic involvement as related to school behavior, achievement, and aspirations: demographic variations across adolescence. Child Development 75(5): 1491–1509.

23.

Lareau

Shumar

(1996) The problem of individualism in family school policies. Sociology of Education 69: 24–39.

24.

Leeman

YAM

(2003) School leadership for intercultural education. Intercultural Education 14(1): 31–45.

25.

Leeman

Ledoux

(2005) Teachers on intercultural education. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice 11(6): 575–589.

26.

Leithwood

Jantzi

(1999) Transformational school leadership effects: a replication. School Effectiveness and School Improvement 10(4): 451–479.

27.

Leithwood

Jantzi

(2005) A review of transformational school leadership research 1996–2005. Leadership and Policy in Schools 4: 177–199.

28.

Leithwood

Riehl

(2005) What we know about successful school leadership. In: Firestone

Riehl

(eds) A New Agenda: Directions for Research on Educational Leadership. New York: Teachers College Press.

29.

Lieberman

Wood

(2003) Sustaining the professional development of teachers: learning in networks. In: Davies

West-Burnham

(eds) Handbook of Educational Leadership and Management. London: Pearson.

30.

Lumby

(2006) Conceptualizing diversity and leadership: evidence from 10 cases. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 34(2): 151–165.

31.

Marschall

(2006) Parent involvement and educational outcomes for Latino students. Review of Policy Research 23(5): 1053–1076.

32.

Marschall

Parker

(2006) Learning from leaders’ social justice dilemmas In: Marshall

Oliva

(eds) Leadership for Social Justice: Making Revolutions in Education. New Jersey, NY: Pearson Education, Inc.

33.

MEC (2010) Curricula: Pre-Primary, Primary and Middle Education. Nicosia: Ministry of Education and Culture. [In Greek]

34.

Morrison

Lumby

Krishan

(2006) Diversity and diversity management: messages from recent research. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 34(3): 277–295.

35.

Opfer

(2006) Evaluating equity: a framework for understanding action and inaction on social justice issues. Educational Policy 20(1): 271–290.

36.

Panayiotopoulos

Nicolaidou

(2007) At crossroads of civilizations: multicultural educational provision in Cyprus through the lens of a case study. Intercultural Education 18(1): 65–79.

37.

Papamichael

(2008) Greek-Cypriot teachers’ understandings of intercultural education in an increasingly diverse society. The Cyprus Review 20(2): 51–78.

38.

Pashiardis

(2004) Democracy and leadership in the educational system of Cyprus. Journal of Educational Administration 42(6): 656–668.

39.

Pitts

Spillane

(2009) Using social network methods to study school leadership. International Journal of Research and Method in Education 32(2): 185–207.

40.

Reason

Bradbury

(eds) (2001) Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

41.

Riehl

(2000) The principal’s role in creating inclusive schools for diverse students: a review of normative, empirical, and critical literature on the practice of educational administration. Review of Educational Research 70(1): 55–81.

42.

Rusch

(2004) Gender and race in leadership preparation: a constrained discourse. Educational Administration Quarterly 40(1): 16–48.

43.

Ryan

(2003) Leading Diverse Schools. Netherlands: Klumer Academic Publishers.

44.

Schein

(1985) Organizational Culture and Leadership: A Dynamic View. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

45.

Sergiovanni

(1984) Cultural and competing perspectives in administrative theory and practice. In: Sergiovanni

Corbally

(eds) Leadership and Organizational Culture. Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press.

46.

Shields

(2004) Dialogic leadership for social justice: overcoming pathologies of silence. Educational Administration Quarterly 40(1): 109–132.

47.

Spillane

Halverson

Diamond

(2004) Towards a theory of leadership practice: towards a distributed perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies 36(1): 3–34.

48.

Theodorou

(2008) Just how involved is ‘involved’? Re-thinking parental involvement through exploring teachers’ perceptions of immigrant families’ school involvement in Cyprus. Ethnography and Education 3(3): 253–269.

49.

Trigg-Smith

RAC

(2011) Investigating headteachers’ impact on grouping practices: justifying an analysis on how headteachers incorporate ideas of equity into grouping practices. Educate, Kaleidoscope Special Issue 2011, 28–44.

50.

Trimikliniotis

(2001) Problems due to Pontians’ enrolment in primary education: Preliminary research and report. Nicosia: Cypriot Association of Sociologists. [In Greek]

51.

Walker

(2005) Priorities, Strategies and Challenges. In: Walker

Dimmock

Stevenson

. (eds) Effective Leadership in Multiethnic Schools. Nottingham: National College for School Leadership.

52.

Wenger

(1998) Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

53.

Zembylas

(2008) The politics of shame in intercultural education. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice 3(3): 263–280.

54.

Zembylas

(2010) The emotional aspects of leadership for social justice. Implications for leadership preparation programs. Journal of Educational Administration 48(5): 611–625.

55.

Zembylas

Iasonos

(2010) Leadership styles and multicultural education approaches: an exploration of their relationship. International Journal of Leadership in Education 13(2): 163–183.