Abstract
There are many models of educational leadership (Bush, 2011) and they move in and out of fashion almost as fast as clothes or mobile communication devices. The current favoured model is distributed leadership, featured in a special section of Volume 41(5) (September 2013). Instructional leadership is also regaining its former significance as research increasingly connects enhanced learner outcomes to leaders’ engagement with classroom practice. It differs from most other models in focusing on the direction of influence rather than how influence is exercised. It has waned in importance until recently because of two fundamental flaws. First, it focused on principals/headteachers, to the exclusion of other leaders and teachers. Second, it emphasised teaching rather than learning. However, in the 21st century, it has been rebadged as ‘leadership for learning’, with a wider perspective on who might exercise instructional leadership. Given the recognition that leadership is about influence, not formal authority, instructional leadership could emanate from many different sources and be seen as one aspect of a distributed approach.
The recent emphasis on instructional leadership is based largely on research and practice in decentralized or partly decentralized contexts, where the demands of the hierarchy are modest and principals have substantial scope to determine how to lead and manage their schools. However, centralized education systems remain widespread, for example, in Africa, Asia and Eastern Europe. One such example is Thailand, and Philip Hallinger and Moosung Lee, in the first article in this issue, show how difficult it is for principals to operate as instructional leaders in such contexts. This is partly because they are civil servants, ‘who function as line managers within the hierarchy of a highly centralised, national system of education’. I was aware of similar expectations on recent visits to the Philippines and to Thailand’s neighbour, Malaysia. As Hallinger and Lee point out, instructional leadership remains ‘outside the main job description of the principal’ in such contexts. Their article traces the impact of the National Education Act (NEA) 1999, which introduced new system expectations for principals to act as instructional leaders. Drawing on surveys of principals conducted before and after the NEA, the authors conclude that ‘the predominant orientation of Thai principals remains largely unchanged’. They argue that more systematic and substantial steps are required to train and support principals in making this change in their role.
The second article, by Chi Wai Chan, examines the leadership styles of kindergarten principals in Hong Kong and makes similar points to those of Hallinger and Lee. She notes that Chinese principals are expected to be autocratic and to practice a ‘bureaucratic style of management’. The author carried out a survey of kindergarten teachers and found that most perceived their principals to be practising empowerment and participation, rather than the bureaucratic style noted above. She comments that the small size of kindergartens, and their ‘simple organizational structures’ may have contributed to the participative style of such principals.
Continuing the focus on principals, Ellen Reames, Frances Kochan and Linxiang Zhu consider factors influencing their retirement decisions in the southern USA. They note that research shows that the principal’s job has become ‘increasingly complex and stressful’, increasing demands on their time and energy. They note that reported shortages of principals in parts of the USA are matched by similar problems in Australia, New Zealand and the UK. Drawing on a survey of all principals in one state, they found that the main reasons for them to consider leaving the profession all relate, directly or indirectly, to national or state mandates, or pressures from the school system. In contrast, their main reasons for choosing to stay focused on positive relationships with the community, colleagues, students and families. They conclude that changing the role of the principal to be a facilitator, collaborator and team player, rather than ‘the person in charge’, may serve to lessen demands on them and keep them in their schools.
In the fourth article, Cornelius van der Vyver, Philip van der Westhuizen and Lukas Meyer ask whether South African principals fulfil their caring role towards teachers. The authors conducted a survey of primary school principals and teachers in 83 schools in North-West province. Their findings indicate that workplace factors, including their physical working environment, contributed most towards teachers’ positive ratings for caring leadership and management, despite the fact that most schools are situated in historically disadvantaged communities. In contrast, teachers experienced inadequate psychological care from principals, who were perceived not to demonstrate a sincere interest in the personal well-being of teachers. The authors also note a significant discrepancy between principals’ own evaluation of their care and teachers’ experience of it. They conclude that training is required to help principals to improve this aspect of their work.
The fifth article, by Marlies Honingh and Edith Hooge, examines the relationship between school leader attitudes and teacher participation in primary and secondary schools in the Netherlands. A recent review concluded that the ‘professional space’ of Dutch teachers needs to be legally enshrined. In this context, the authors carried out secondary data analysis of a survey of more than 5000 teachers, with a satisfactory response rate of 32 per cent. The found that teachers who received support from their school leaders are more likely to engage in collaboration. They also note that there is more teacher collaboration in primary schools than those in the secondary sector. Where it does occur in secondary schools, it does so within subject departments.
In the sixth article, by Jane Rarieya, collaboration is linked to strategic planning in the very different context of Kenya. The author notes that strategic planning is ‘just catching on’ in this East African country and she reports on how one Kenyan secondary school engaged in this process. The Ministry of Education developed its own strategic plan in 2005, which was intended to cascade to the schools. Drawing on documentary analysis, and interviews in the case study school, the author concludes that school stakeholders ‘played disjointed roles’ in the strategic planning process and that some teachers were highly critical of the process, because they were excluded from the planning group.
Paul Grunes, Amanda Gudmundsson and Bernd Irmer apply the Mayer and Salovey model of emotional intelligence (EI) to Australian schools. They examined the usefulness of EI as a predictor of leadership style and perceived leadership outcomes, drawing on survey data from 144 leaders and 432 peers, followers and supervisors. They conclude that EI is not a useful predictor of leadership style, and leadership outcomes, and recommend that it is not used as means of predicting transformational leadership styles.
The final article, by Chang Zhu and Nadine Engels, considers teachers’ and students’ perceptions of organizational culture at their universities. They studied six Chinese universities and there were more than 1000 responses to their survey. They report that culture differed significantly across the six universities, notably in relation to innovation. They also comment on differences between students and teachers, with the latter more positive about goals, innovation and structured leadership. They conclude that independent and critical thinking, and the ability to take risks, are negatively influenced by traditional Confucian culture which stresses obedience, rules, hierarchy and respect for authority.
This issue of the journal further illustrates the global significance of educational leadership and management, with article from eight countries across five continents. Understanding and appreciating international research enables all of us to view our own leadership practice in a wider context.