Educational leadership and market values: A study of school principals in Iceland

Abstract

This article reports on the findings of a larger case study about the impact of values on educational leaders in Iceland. The environment of Icelandic schools has changed considerably in recent years. These changes have affected schools and changed the nature and scope of principals' work. Scholars have argued that these changes are primarily market driven and have made schools subject to market pressures. Ten principals, five women and five men, were interviewed and asked how recent changes had affected their roles. They were also asked to share information about difficult decisions they had made during this time. Moreover, in all the ten schools, one mid-level administrator was interviewed. This article shows that Icelandic principals work in a changing and unstable environment, where values of school stakeholders often compete for recognition. It highlights the conflicting demands principals were faced with and the difficult issues they had to resolve in a competitive environment. Many of the conflicts involved core activities of teaching and learning against various other new services. Their narrative shows that they focus on their role as pedagogical leaders and see care as a core value in their practice. This holds true regardless of gender.

Keywords

values principals market pressure

Introduction

The Icelandic school environment changed substantially towards the end of the 20th century. The role of the school principal was altered through new national legislation, new municipality expectations, and international trends in education. These changes entailed requirements for enhanced coordinated services, increased financial responsibility, more explicit goal-setting, expanded accountability and firmer supervision of school operations. The genesis of these changes on the Icelandic educational system can be traced to a conference on government administration held in the autumn of 1995, one of many that would address these issues in the years to come. The conference, ‘A New Order of State Management. Deliberate Steps to Progress’, was hosted by the Minister of Finance.

At the conference, Bjorn Bjarnason, then Minister of Education, gave a talk titled ‘Education at the Turn of the Century’ in which he expressed his view that ‘the teaching profession, and to some extent the school system’ had not evolved at the same speed as other components of society. He stated:

A few years ago discussing educational issues at a conference like this one would have been unheard of. The educational system was thought to be based on factors other than competition, streamlining, and quality assessment. Times have changed. Discussions of quality assurance take place in schools, and questions arise whether market forces or the authorities should be in charge of schools. (Bjarnason, 1995)

In another presentation given at the conference, Ruth Richardson, former Minister of Finance in New Zealand, stated that the public sector in New Zealand was now being run like the private sector. She reiterated this emphasis in an interview in the newspaper, Morgunbladid, on 23 November 1995. The introductory paragraph of the interview said of Richardson: ‘… she is tough as nails, and never wavers in her belief of liberalism and market views’ (Jónsson, 1995). Through this coverage of Richardson’s presentation, the Icelandic authorities seemed to be suggesting that the adoption of market values was a universal trend, which Icelanders should be encouraged to pursue.

This conference was an indicator of the changes that were to occur in Icelandic society and within the country's educational system over the next 15 years. Soon the discourse surrounding efficiency, competition and results became prominent in Iceland, as it did elsewhere in the Western world. Slowly but surely, Icelandic school principals in effect became managing directors of their institutions, with full financial responsibility (Hansen et al., 2004). This development required that additional time be spent on issues relating to finances and operations, which gradually made it more difficult for principals to focus on the pedagogical dimensions of leadership, with a primary emphasis on teaching and learning (Hansen et al., 2004).

This article addresses leadership and values during this time of change characterized by market discourse, which places emphasis on competition, standardization and efficiency (Bottery, 1998; Finnbogason, 1996; Gold, 1996; Gudbjornsdóttir, 2001; Hansen et al. 2004; Sergiovanni, 1998; Skúlason, 2008, 2009). The article is based on doctoral research, carried out among school principals in Reykjavík during the years 2005–2008. The primary goal of the research was to shed light on the influence of principals’ values on their actions and decisions (Begley, 2004, 2005). The article focuses on the views of school principals who were asked about their position on the scope and nature of the changes that had taken place in their work environment in the last 5–10 years. They were also asked to share their experience of taking difficult decisions in this environment.

In order to put these questions in a theoretical context, they are examined in light of changes that have taken place in the work environment of the schools, both through the legal framework and through a change in emphasis at the municipal level. The values of individuals and groups are also addressed, and how these values translate into management and leadership. The discussion reviews the main findings, highlights key learning points and proposes further research on the subject.

Icelandic Social and Educational Context

Iceland is one of the smallest independent nations of the world. The island is 103,000 km² in area with a total population of only 325,000. Icelanders have a distinct language and culture of mostly Nordic and Celtic origin. Iceland is a republic with a parliamentary democracy. Until the middle of the 20th century, Icelanders were mainly farmers and fishermen. While the fishing industry remains the main source of income, other sectors, such as tourism and information technology, have come to play an important role in the Icelandic economy. In the late 1990s, the Icelandic economy flourished and Iceland began to produce financial entrepreneurs, some of whom had become known in international circles. For the first time in Icelandic history, the discourse of the market became prominent, both in the private sphere and the public (Finnbogason, 1996; Gudbjornsdóttir, 2001; Skúlason, 2008, 2009).

Concurrent to this development in Iceland, a growing emphasis on the market was experienced elsewhere (Begley, 1999; Blackmore, 1999; Bottery, 1998; Gold, 1996; Gold et al., 2003; Gewirtz, 2002; Gewirtz et al., 1995; Grace, 1997; Hodgkinson, 1991; Thrupp and Willmott, 2003) and education was increasingly being seen as ‘a national debate, emphasising outcomes, a very technical view and efficient management, taking into account market norms of western economies’ (Gudbjornsdóttir, 2001: 236). Within the educational system, the emphasis on achievement and efficiency grew, and competition became a key concept (Skúlason, 2008).

Moreover, beginning in the late 1980s, the school legal framework underwent changes parallel to those of the Icelandic economy, reaching its peak with new legislation on compulsory schooling in 1995 (Hansen et al., 2004; Lárusdóttir, 1997–1998). In addition to new legislation, other changes took place at the municipal level, with new emphasis on the increased services being asked of schools, including individualized learning, inclusive enrolments, after-school programmes, warm meals at lunch and access to leisure activities (Annual Educational Report of the City of Reykjavík, 2004; The 1998 Educational Policy Statement of the City of Reykjavík). In many instances, these new services could not be provided in the main school building. Altogether, these changes involved new leadership roles inside and outside the school.

The dawn of the 21st century in Iceland also saw financial institutions exerting an increasing influence on the lives of general citizens, adults as well as children. For one, Landsbankinn distributed their booklet, the Sprouts (Sprotarnir ¹), to Icelandic homes, promoting ‘financial services tailored for children under the age of six’ (emphasis added). A website address provided more information about this programme, in which Sprouts were described as ‘fun characters who are smart about their money’, and children were encouraged to save money with the promise of gifts. The booklet is not dated, but evidence suggests that it was first distributed at the end of 2005 and the website address was still active in the spring of 2010. Concerns about the use of such overt tactics by financial institutions to gain acceptance and credibility among students were raised in a report published by the Parliamentary Research Committee in late 2010.

The Influence of Market Values: Competition and Standardization

The above suggests that, since the mid-1990s, Iceland, like many other Western countries, has been very strongly influenced by pervasive market discourses. For instance, in England, the emphasis of a market ideology on schooling can be traced back to the 1988 compulsory school legislation, described by Ranson (1990) as heralding a change in values from a commitment to ‘justice and fairness’ towards a consumer democracy. Later, Gewirtz (2002) introduced a dual system, or two types of discourses in regard to school management. The first system, welfarism, focuses on public service, while the second system, new public management, focuses on customer service. Welfarism directs management approaches and values towards what is in the best interest of people, the common good, such that, in the context of schooling it emphasizes a core focus on teaching and learning. However, new public management directs management approaches towards issues associated with finances, operations and various service components. It is this second system that became the more prominent influence upon schools over the past 20 years.

Similarly, Hamilton (1998) pointed out that contemporary trends in education in the USA are reminiscent of developments that took place there in the early 20th century. It was then that the so-called scientific management theory, attributed to Frederick W. Taylor, led to a situation that Callaghan (1962) described as ‘the cult of efficiency’. During this time, schools succumbed to mounting pressure of becoming more efficient in their operations, and adopted ideology intended for the business world. The values most honoured during this time were ‘dollar values’, and the educational administrators based their work on these values (Callaghan, 1962: 72). Now, over half a century later, an emphasis on market values has been reborn largely through the influence of strong conservative politicians, such as Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan (Gísladóttir, 2010; Skúlason, 2009).

In Iceland, Gudbjornsdóttir (2001: 12) points out that education is increasingly being based on the market rules of Western economies, and schooling has become ‘a service to consumers’. This viewpoint is also indicated in the report of the Parliamentary Research Committee (2010), which proposes that the state came under fire in the beginning of the 21st century. In the opinion of the authors of the report, ‘this view of the state entails that citizens become consumers in a market, who bring about prosperity through their consumption habits’ (Parliamentary Research Committee, 2010: 9).

However, if a society focuses on its citizens as consumers, education becomes a commodity for sale and each school must compete against other local schools for ‘customers’, or enrolments, as in a free market environment (Bottery, 1998; Gold, 1996; Sergiovanni, 1998; Court, 2004). Such competition among schools is not solely the domain of physical and quantifiable objects, such as student academic achievements, teacher qualifications or levels of financial assets, it also covers various qualities that are not as tangible. For instance, schools can compete with each other in terms of their ability to respond more attentively to parental concerns or perceptions of their capacity to provide a more supportive pastoral care environment for students. In a competitive environment, consumers compare the products and services they receive to those offered by others in order to make sure they are getting the best deal.

While such competition-based environments make sense in business contexts involving commercial organizations that sell products of tangible, measurable and readily comparable quality, in educational environments the outcome is far more problematic. In education, not only is the product far less clearly defined, as just described by reference to its tangible and intangible qualities, but also, in a systemic educational-system, like that in Iceland, the tendency is for the school districts to promote a standardized, ‘one best way’, form of education in its schools. Rather than allowing for the creation of difference between its schools, school districts strive to create sameness by explicitly requiring all of its schools to rally their resources in a common direction. Such requirements appear in the form of mandatory accountabilities. In order to assess how successfully the set requirements are being met, the school district sends out surveys to its schools and parents in order to monitor the progress. Hence, in school systems, performativity and standardization are far more prominent than individualism and difference.

Competition, standardization, performativity, efficiency, effectiveness and similar concepts, are often grouped under the umbrella of ‘the market’, ‘market discourse’ or the ideology of the market (Blackmore, 1999; Gewirtz et al., 1995; Finnbogason, 1996; Gudbjornsdóttir, 2001; Hansen et al., 2004; Lawton, 1992; Skúlason, 2008, 2009; Ranson, 1990; Reay and Ball, 2000). All these concepts suggest a specific view of education, of educational systems and of management and leadership, which values education as a product for sale and sees schools as business places that can be easily changed so as to maintain market share.

Importantly though, Sergiovanni (1998) points out that if people plan to change schools they must first answer the question of what kind of institution schools are. If schools are viewed as a market system then surely market forces, like choice and competition, must rule. In such systems there are those that win and those that lose, because each party is out to get their own (Sergiovanni, 1998). Some schools will prosper while others might close. Such emphases reflect commonplace business values and those who support this view must ask themselves whether it is the best foundation for schooling. However, if education is valued not as a commodity for sale but as a student-centred process of learning for, and about life, then the quality of educational provision is derived from the needs, purposes and interests of students, parents and teachers in each school, rather than merely from the wishes of the educational authorities at the state or local level (Sergiovanni, 2006). In this way, schools ‘can remain rigorous and true without being standardized’ (p. 243); they can be accountable without being controlled.

In other words, fundamental to any discussion about what constitutes quality education is a consideration of what is valued in its contribution to society. Moreover, this discussion shows that there is no common understanding, no united perspective, as to what is valued in education. Indeed, there is clear evidence of a value contestation in Western societies between a market-based perspective and a student-centred, character-based perspective. This paper places the school principal at the intersection of these two contrasting perspectives and seeks to explore how this impacts their role. In a workplace environment marked by such competing values, which values influence the principal’s leadership role the most? How do school principals negotiate their way through the varying demands created by such social value contestations?

Values and Leadership

Political changes in education policy in Iceland, as elsewhere, have caused changes in the field. As mentioned earlier, many scholars believe these changes reflect a value base different from that of the past (Begley, 1999; Blackmore, 1998 Gewirtz, 2002; Grace 1997; Guðbjornsdóttir, 2001; Hatcher 2004; Sinclair, 1999; Thrupp and Willmott, 2003). When an ideology is implemented in the field, a conflict often arises between the different discourses of interested parties as pertains to views and values. In an environment where values compete for favour, one can assume that leaders, such as school principals, who are at the intersection of such conflicts, must deal with situations where different values compete.

Writers such as Begley (2004) and Branson (2006) claim that beneath all notions about leadership are highly influential beliefs and values that determine which ideas, ideologies and theories prevail at any given time. These beliefs and values are manifested in policy documents, legal texts, curricula, speeches and management training programmes, and are reflected not only in the words and actions of individuals or groups but also in those concepts that become pervasive in the dominant discourse of the time. This means that policy founded on beliefs and values privileging output, efficiency and competition is likely to have commensurate influence on the role of leaders, such as school principals, and this would be markedly different than if the policy had been founded upon beliefs and values aligned with caring and collaboration.

Thus, it can be understood how legislative documents and other materials that formulate policy are in general laden with values. Despite this awareness, when a legislative policy is implemented in the field, there is often conflict between the different discourses of interested parties as pertaining to its inherent beliefs and values. The embedded beliefs and values in policy documents are rarely followed up with interpretation or guidelines, but are left to those in the field to interpret. In Icelandic schools in particular, it is mainly the principal who is responsible for the interpretation and implementation of educational policy (Finnbogason, 2004), but often with limited thought given to how the beliefs and values contained in the new education policy are to be aligned with those already present in the school community (Robson, 2011). Therefore, knowledge and understanding of the nature and influence of values is imperative for principals.

Begley (2004: 6–7) uses onion rings as a metaphor to graphically shed light on the layers of a person’s psyche and its interconnectivity. Begley‘s onion-ring model of the psyche outlines six layers: action, which is the outermost layer and represents the observable actions and speech of an individual; the second is attitudes; the third layer is values; the fourth is understanding; the fifth is motives; and the sixth is self. Values are seen to be located deep in a person’s psyche.

Furthermore, values are personalized products of social interaction and everyday experiences, which individuals adopt and make their own. Often, early life experiences trigger individuals to adopt particular values (Branson, 2006). These experiences will influence ‘life in general and administration in particular’ (Begley, 2004: 7). We generally consider values to be related to that which we deem desirable (Hodgkinson, 1978). They are related to points in our life that we consider important, and they affect behaviour (Begley, 2004; Finnbogason and Gunnarsson, 2006). However, values are most often ‘unconscious dimensions of a person’s inner Self’ (Branson, 2005: 472).

Hodgkinson (1991) sees values, morals and ethics as central to leadership and administration and encourages leaders to reflect upon their values, to be aware of them and to know where they stand on important moral and professional issues so that they can act accordingly. A call for leaders to adopt a clear view of their own values has therefore been voiced, so that they are better able to work in more cooperative and productive ways (Branson, 2005, 2006). Finally, knowledge of the values that leaders base their views of individuals, leadership and education on has been considered a prerequisite towards understanding their own leadership behaviour as well as the reaction of others to the same behaviour (Hall, 1996). This view of values is seen to be of support to school principals in their daily work, as well as when solving complicated problems or taking decisions (Begley, 1999; Hodgkinson, 1978). Hence, school principals are increasingly encouraged to become conscious and reflective of their own values and those of others (Begley, 1999, 2004; Branson, 2005, 2006; Cheng, 2002; Gold, 1998; Hall, 1996; Willower, 1999).

While values can be of different types, such as social values and moral values, in this article the focus is on the values of leaders, and the concepts values and life-values are used interchangeably depending on the context.

Methodology

The research was qualitative and data were primarily gathered through 30 semi-structured interviews with school leaders, supplemented with analysis of written documents. Two kinds of written documents were analysed: printed or online materials from schools, such as school curricula and handbooks; and public materials from the state or municipality, such as legislation, regulations, work plans and annual reports. The materials from the schools were important in order to gain a deeper understanding of their operations, views, work practices and the apparent values that lay at the heart of school operations. They also indicated to what extent the views of the interviewees were reflected in the schools’ written documents. Public materials regarding education provided information on school environment, emphases and the reigning discourse on school matters, and on education administration at the state and municipal levels.

Ten school principals in Reykjavík were interviewed; five women and five men. Two 60-minute interviews were carried out with each participant. In addition, one mid-level administrator from each school was interviewed. Therefore, a total of 20 school leaders were interviewed. The school principals were selected by systematic sampling, as an emphasis was placed on them having at least five years of professional experience, and having worked as school principals during the time period the research focused on. The gender balance was made equal to accurately reflect the equal proportion of men and women in the larger population of working school principals. A case study approach was chosen where the school principals were viewed as separate topics with a shared intersection in a given phenomenon, that is, values of school principals (Creswell, 1998).

Interviewees were asked about the scope and content of the changes that had taken place in the professional environment of schools in the last 5–10 years, and were asked to speak about difficult decisions they had taken during this time period. This was done with reference to the key purpose of this article, which was to identify the values expressed by the participants when speaking of changes in their professional environment, and those that formed the foundation for decisions they had taken (Begley, 2003, 2004; Gold, 1998; Hodgkinson, 1991). The interviewees were neither asked directly about their values nor were they presented with lists of values and asked to put them in an order of preference. Instead, the interviewees were allowed to name or reveal their values in other verbal contexts in the course of the interviews. Sequential interviews, and particularly narratives involving critical incidents (vignettes) or value conflicts, are more likely to disclose a person’s value orientation than mere descriptions or lists of values. With such an approach it is possible to achieve more depth and ‘roundness of understanding in these areas’ (Mason, 2003: 65).

The interviews were recorded, transcribed, analysed and arranged in groups. The material was then sorted into main themes, with a view to the research questions and the content-based relationships that emerged in the data.

Results

Results show that the school principals perceived that the scope of their work had greatly increased. Now they were, among other things, fully responsible for school finances, running the cafeteria and after-school programmes, and some mentioned requirements for new competencies in the fields of IT and computers and knowledge regarding preparation of financial plans. Furthermore, there was a stringent requirement for exact goal-setting at all levels (state, municipality and school levels), which was closely and thoroughly monitored. Such work was time consuming and this restricted the autonomy of some of the principals.

The school principals believed recent developments had also changed the nature of their work, in the sense that now additional time was spent on issues related to finances and operations, such as budgeting, after-school programmes and leisure activities, thereby allowing less time for pedagogical components – those that concern the students, their welfare, teaching and learning. They wanted to be pedagogical leaders and put care for students above all else but found it increasingly difficult to balance their priorities. The principals expressed the view that it was desirable to enjoy independence when shaping the school’s operations, and they sought to be authentic in their leadership.

The narratives of the school principals showed that they often found themselves at the intersection of the different viewpoints and values of the schools’ interested parties. Many of these intersections revolved around teaching and learning versus operational issues, distribution of power versus centralized control and professional independence versus supervision. The views and emphasis of the school leaders in this research tended to fall in line with what Gewirtz (2002) calls welfarism, where the discourse revolves around the internal working of the school and attention is focused on students, teaching and learning, and general well-being; components that she calls ‘professional standards’. School principals, whether male or female, took a deep interest in being able to focus on the inner workings of the school, to provide leadership for teaching and learning, and to ensure the students had access to an encouraging and safe learning environment.

The findings in relation to the value conflicts induced within the school leaders are grouped into three themes and presented under the following subheadings: Instructional leader or operations manager, pedagogical leader in a competitive environment, and autonomous or compliant leader. These themes are indicative of what seems to be an inherent tension between important yet contradicting roles and tasks that principals are now faced with.

Educational Leader or Operations Manager

Some of the new duties took up more of the principals’ time than they would have liked. Almost all of the interviewees mentioned, for example, how difficult and time-consuming the provision of a meal service had been. This service component is an example of an operational assignment that required time that the school principals would rather have elected to use for study-related projects. Bergthóra, a vice principal, believed that the hot meal programme ‘had the most impact on the principal’s job of all’. In other cases, the organization and staffing of meal times were the responsibility of vice principals.

With the increase of unskilled, non-professional staff in the schools, such as hall monitors, support representatives, cafeteria staff and after-school programme staff, the composition of the school work force has changed. The interviewees reported that in general there were more absences among this group as opposed to teachers, and the problems that arose were of a different nature. For instance, Gunnthóra, a school principal, said that she spent a significant amount of time meeting with non-professional staff because of conflicts that arose among them, and on communicating information to parents about the services provided by these employees. She was also unhappy that she could no longer use the talents of the school secretary to take care of traditional secretarial projects, because ‘my secretary, for instance, is far less useful to me because she is always counting money … because of the school cafeteria and various things’. She did admit though that this is hardly news, in light of how society overall has developed towards a preoccupation with money.

Hallthóra, a vice principal, said that sometimes she felt like the job controlled her, rather than the other way around. She is an experienced leader and teacher, which is where her true interests lie, as the following quote indicates:

This winter I suddenly got the feeling that I was some sort of cosmic saviour. From morning ‘til night I provided ‘first aid’ while my real interests are teaching and learning. This is almost like a train station.

Vice principal Borgthór mentioned that he often felt that the education authorities were not always fully cognizant of what schooling is all about. Schools are not comparable to other institutions and ‘the time that goes into improving teaching methods … is the number one priority’.

Ingthór, an experienced principal, said he’s had a burning interest in pedagogical matters from the start, and views himself as a pedagogical leader. There are, in his mind, after all, strong ties between being a good teacher and a good leader. ‘I would most definitely not be doing this job if it weren’t for the fact that I dream of improving the world just a little bit, and that’s the truth of the matter.’ His view of what makes a person a good teacher or leader is expressed in the following words:

When someone walks up to you in Krónan,² a woman with two small children, kisses you on the cheek, and says that no other teacher ever compared to you … this is what warms you inside and makes you so determined that you made some sort of difference.

Steinthóra, who started in her current position as school principal in the city in the late 1990s, expressed a similar view of the role. She described herself as a pedagogue and she seemed to be happier with the development and policy formation of the municipality in the last few years than her colleagues. She said:

I am determined to listen to the children through their hearts, and I listen for whether their heart beat is calm and regular … I know my duties, and I know there are many out there who are not child advocates, and the children must be able to trust the school …

Steinthóra said she had always been of the opinion that the work of teachers and school principals is laden with great and broad responsibilities, and that it is her responsibility that all the needs of students are met. She mentioned an example of a little girl knocking on her door, just as she was heading to a meeting with teachers about a development project that was being implemented. Steinthóra said she hesitated for a few seconds before she decided that the child took priority over the teachers’ meeting, though she would no doubt be scolded for showing up late. This concern for children guides her way, and impacts her priorities and emphases. Her narrative about her job is centred on the children, concern for them and their well-being. To further explain, she adds that ‘I am the children’s school principal’ and feels she must be accountable to them.

This concern is also expressed in the words of the youngest interviewee, Vígthór, when he speaks of a teacher who suffered psychiatric problems. Vígthór had come under pressure from parents and teachers alike to terminate the contract of the teacher in question, but he was convinced of his quality as a teacher, and sought all possible ways to ‘not hurt the person’, while acknowledging that the students would always be his primary concern.

Interviewees agreed that the nature of their role had changed considerably in recent years and that this development had made them feel more compelled to be the operations manager of the school at the expense of being the instructional leader.

Similar findings to these were reported in a study (Hansen et al., 2004) in which school principals stated that their roles had changed from being primarily focused on leadership with an emphasis on teaching and learning, to a focus on the management of finances and operations. Both male and female principles believed that this change had made it harder for them to tackle matters such as curriculum work, professional development and pedagogic leadership. Gudbjornsdóttir (2001) reported similar findings in research carried out among school principals on the increased emphasis on operational components versus leadership.

Pedagogical Leader in a Competitive Environment

Competition in varying forms has become a substantial feature of schooling in recent years (Bottery, 1998; Gold, 1996; Sergiovanni, 1998). One example is where schools compete to attract financial sponsorship from the limited number of companies interested in financially supporting schools in exchange for access to advertising space within the school community. Also, there can be competition for teacher appointments, not only between schools but more recently, between a school and its local businesses or industries. Borgthór, one of the vice principals, mentioned that his school got a bank to support exceptional students so they could enrol in distance learning with a junior college. ‘Yes, the bank has a link on our website in exchange for supporting us. They got to send service representatives here twice during the year to introduce certain financial options.’ Borgthór further explained that:

This is perhaps because our society has become so market driven, that we have gotten used to registering our children for sponsored football programmes, e.g., I’m helping out at a football programme offered by X and Y, and my child walks around the whole neighbourhood labelled by X.

In difficult financial times it is understandable how schools can become tempted to accept financial support from businesses, so as to allow them to obtain a better position in competition with other schools for students and resources. For the businesses, the partnership with the school is a worthwhile investment as it is in its interest to reach teenagers, in the hope that they will become future customers. A programme like Sprouts, described earlier, targets an even younger demographic, relying on parents rather than school staff when it comes to determining whether, and to what extent, financial institutions have access to children as potential customers. Certainly, such corporate sponsorship of schools developed gradually and it is uncertain whether the principals, parents, teachers and others were cognizant enough of the ethical issues and influence that the corporate world can have on young minds through unrestricted access to the schools. This would suggest that, in such circumstances, parents, school personnel and educational authorities need to openly discuss the inherent values and ethical matters related to a privately held company in the open market getting involved in public schooling.

There are other forms of competition that can have an impact on schools. In times of economic expansion there can be a high demand for well-educated people for a variety of jobs. In some countries, such as Iceland, a tertiary teacher qualification is highly regarded in many professional fields such that a qualified teacher can be offered employment in a variety of professions. Hafthór became a school principal in the early 1990s in a rapidly growing suburb of Reykjavík. Despite it being a difficult time, he found the job interesting right away, and saw a great challenge in the opportunity of shaping the operations of a new school. ‘You become the creator of all things, the service, you set the tone for what the school should stand for.’ However, Hafthór had become tangibly aware of how difficult it was to hire teachers. He said there were times when he felt pressure from some of his own teachers, who indirectly told him that they had various options and he could not fully count on them to return to teaching the next school year. When asked how he felt during this time, Hafthór said, ‘I was terrified of losing my teachers.’ Prompted further on the subject, Hafthór said he was in part afraid of losing teachers because he did not have the resources required to offer them rewards beyond their contracted pay. At the same time he was looking for new teachers. One autumn, Hafthór hired four new teachers the weekend before school started, and none of them reported to work the following Monday. Asked about the reason for this, Hafthór thought it most likely that the people he hired had been unqualified. When reflecting on the matter later, Hafthór said he was uncertain about their qualifications, but his doubts were not strong enough to stop him from hiring the teachers, given the difficult circumstances that he and the school were facing.

Competition does not solely revolve around staff, but also in regard to the teaching provisions offered by a school, especially anything beyond the legally required minimum services. For example, schools can compete with each other in how they are able to support students in their senior years of study through the particular college-level courses they choose to offer.

Furthermore, competition can also occur in relation to school size. Gunnthóra explained that the formula used by the municipality to allocate money gave the larger schools a competitive advantage. Her narrative, involving class size, sheds light on how an emphasis on educational leadership and caring for students can give way to the demand of keeping the school’s finances in balance.

Gunnthóra, who is in her 50s, had been a teacher at the school for many years before becoming the school principal. She had been the principal for 10 years, and not been in a management position prior to becoming school principal. She remembers ‘the good old days’ when class size was determined by the educational authorities and where those guidelines were followed with great precision. At the time of the interview this had changed, and now it was up to school principals to determine how students were arranged into classes or learning groups. The year before, 28 students had started in Grade 1 (students aged six years), which was five students more than the previous guidelines suggested. In Gunnthóra’s opinion, there were too many students for one teacher, but too few to be able to justify splitting them into two classes with 13–14 students and two teachers. Her decision, therefore, was to put the entire group in one class. This saved a sum of money equal to a teacher’s annual salary. When Gunnthóra was asked to support her decision she said, ‘Well, I don’t really see that I had a choice, you only have so much money to work with … ’

Gunnthóra’s words imply that while she did not think she had a choice in the matter, she was also not comfortable with the decision. When asked how she felt about the decision she said:

Yes, yes … I thought it was a very difficult decision to take … I know that it is going to negatively affect the teaching and possibly even the students. They will not receive as much attention [from the teacher] … you are putting a great load on the respective teacher, a lot of responsibility that he may have trouble handling.

It turned out that the year before, when Gunnthóra was on sabbatical, the school’s debt situation had markedly worsened, to the point where it was assumed it would take many years to bring it back into balance. This situation meant that there was less room to come to terms with situations like those that arose with Grade 1. In Gunnthóra’s opinion, her school, like others of a similar size, were disadvantaged compared to the larger schools, which were able to offer better educational provisions, such as smaller classes.

These principals’ narratives indicate that they experienced various aspects of competition with respect to their school leadership role associated with the provision of teaching services, the hiring of teachers and the organization of learning groups. Moreover, the growing competitive nature of their school’s local environment leaves them with the impression that the essential pedagogical dimensions of their school are being compromised. In the minds of the participants in this research, they are being forced to choose between meeting the demands of having to compete in the market environment or concentrating on what is the best learning environment for the students.

An Autonomous or a Compliant Leader

The legal environment in Iceland, as encapsulated in the Compulsory School Act 1995, supports school independence. However, in reality the situation can be quite different. School principals in this research often mentioned the emphasis that is now being placed on standardized services. Some think that setting exact targets, monitoring and demands for standardization limit their freedom for action. Ásthór mentioned: ‘This is the reality of our time. There is both extensive planning carried out annually, as well as a constant requirement to be filling out all sorts of lists that are then used to compare what you are doing with what your fellow principals are doing’. He added that the principals in town were trying to omit certain pieces of text, such as ‘all schools must’ and ‘all teachers shall’. Such emphases can remove the unique position that schools are encouraged to illustrate in their school curricula. Ásthór is one of a group of principals who often believe there is not much left of the independence schools once had, because school activities are constantly being standardized and coordinated to fit into comparable moulds. Ásthór said:

I think it is a rich part of wanting to be a school principal, or wanting to be a teacher, that you are trusted, that you are allowed, that you have your own professional leadership. Part of wanting to be a leader is to be in charge of where things are going, which is naturally less and less the case with this extensive organization, and you become more of a paper pusher …

When asked whether or not he was implying that the supervision and monitoring was restricting his independence as a pedagogical leader, Ásthór said he tried to behave ‘as if I have independence’. As a further explanation, he added that he tries not to be bothered if his school is not on a list of schools offering a specific service. ‘I simply explain what the reason is, which is where my responsibilities lie, and I take responsibility.’ It appears that Ásthór is calling for freedom for professional accountability, to which state supervision often attributes little value (Court, 2004).

Principal Sigthóra mentioned that in her school there are various traditions in place that she fully intended to maintain, ‘but there were some things that all principals were intended to do, and they just did not necessarily apply in our situation’. She said that while most principals objected to these standardized requirements, ‘it was only three years ago that we made our objections known’. Examples of standardized services or practices that schools were pressured to adopt included preferred theories and methods associated with discipline problems, especially bullying, individualized and cooperative learning strategies, managing the school cafeteria, implementing an after-school programme, maintaining financial plans, and methods for cataloguing attendance and testimonies.

Similarly, principal Gunnthóra said she was caught between the school’s interested parties when trying to justify the implementation of new teaching methods, ‘which I don’t necessarily agree with … but there is no escape’. This has become her standby reasoning in the school community when pressured to justify something. She said this is the hardest part of the job, to be at the intersection of different viewpoints, and even being in the position of ‘defending them to myself … because maybe I’m not even sufficiently convinced’. Initially, when and how schools responded to requests was monitored through various methods, including reports and written surveys. When asked about independence of schools following the Compulsory School Act 1995, vice principal Thór says: ‘I think it’s fair to say that the independence is under close supervision.’ Court (2004: 176) calls these emphases in the education systems ‘centralized decentralization’.

This close supervision was not only found at the municipal level. Parents also monitored what was happening in the school and could raise expectations with the principal. Vice principal Borgthór mentions an example of when parents demanded that they be allowed to review the school cafeteria bookkeeping due to a suspicion that teachers at the school in question were being allowed to eat in the cafeteria free of charge, thereby costing the parents more money. Jónthór, another vice principal, referred to this parental monitoring too, and described it as being under the ‘watchful eye’ of parents.

The participants in this study were beginning to feel more like executive officers than the leaders in their school community. They were often left feeling like followers rather than initiators, implementers rather than creators. Having the autonomy of leading the school community towards a better educational future now seemed to have been replaced by the requirement of becoming compliant managers, ensuring that the school was functioning according to the expectations of others.

Discussion

The main goal of the research was to shed light on the effect life-values had on the actions of school leaders during a period of change characterized by market influences. Interviewees were asked about their stance on the changes that had taken place in the school environment in the previous 5–10 years, and were asked to share their experiences of taking difficult decisions in this environment. Invariably, their responses were strongly influenced by their own personal values.

Caring is the value that is most frequently displayed in the words of the interviewees. The emphasis that Steinthóra placed on her responsibility towards the child, the student that knocked on her door, is an indication of the priority the child takes. In a similar way, Ingthór’s tale reflects his interest in teaching and learning, as he considers which matters are the most important. Care for the child was also evident in Gunnthóra’s story about class size. It has been suggested that the value of caring is an important prerequisite for successful leadership in schools (Branson, 2005).

Participants also emphasized responsibility, independence and authenticity in their work. The leaders considered it important that they be allowed to select work practices and ideologies that are appropriate for their schools, and enjoy independence to take initiative and creativity in forming a vision and school practices. As Steinthóra pointed out, accountability is, in the view of the school leaders, first and foremost about the abovementioned, in addition to being responsible towards the child, the student. The student, and his or her welfare, is honoured in their narratives. Teaching and learning is that which is closest to the hearts of the leaders, the component of the job that they say they would like to direct their energy and professional knowledge towards. All of those interviewed wanted to be leaders for a professional work environment in the school and take the lead on development and improvements in teaching and learning. The strong emphasis that principals put on the pedagogical dimension of their role is understandable in light of the fact that most of them come from the ranks of teaching.

The main factors of change reported by the principals can be categorized as operational and service components, which primarily reflect the external framework of the school operations, and pedagogical components related to internal activities. Examples of operational components are hot meals, budgeting and after-school services, whereas examples of pedagogical issues are teaching and learning and staff development.

Operational Components

Changed emphases have, among other things, led to schools now being responsible for new, extensive services, which have an impact on both the content and nature of the principals’ work. Their narratives suggest that before they had been able to shape their role and order their priorities in such a way that it was all about the child, the student, whereas now it was more about the school, the organization.

The way many of the principals expressed themselves indicates that the changing scope and nature of their role had taken much of the joy out of their job. Some of them felt like the detailed target setting on many levels did not allow them to show initiative or develop traditions and work procedures that suited their particular schools. This had a negative impact on their motivation and left them with the feeling of being ‘pawns’, rather than ‘origins’ or persons who perceive their behaviour as being determined by external forces rather than by their own choosing (Sergiovanni, 2006: 315). Most of them mentioned that financial management, an area in which they had little professional training, took up time they would have preferred to spend on educational and pedagogical matters. All of them complained about the amount of time spent on operational issues, such as hot meals, after-school services and budgeting, at the expense of pedagogical and instructional duties.

If the above perspectives are collated, they indicate that many of the new projects and service components that principals were tackling had, in their opinion, been more operational than educational, and had taken time and energy away from projects that they considered to be more relevant. Moreover, they perceived their role as leaders of a professional work environment being significantly compromised.

Gunnthóra was unhappy with how much of the school secretary’s time was dedicated to financial management of various sorts, but also felt she did not have the necessary human resources to reallocate those responsibilities. She herself regretted the loss of time spent on operational matters at the expense of internal work. Vice principal Borgthór agreed and said it was important to not lose sight of the fact that teaching and learning should always be a priority. The views of Gunnthóra and Borgthór reflect the views presented in the aforementioned research of Hansen et al. (2004) among school principals, who felt their roles had changed from that of leadership with an emphasis on teaching and learning to financial management and operations. The increased emphasis on the operational components, versus the leadership components, was also evident in the research of Gudbjornsdóttir (2001) among school principals at all school levels, and in the more recent research of Sveinsdóttir (2009: 50), where some of the school principals she interviewed said ‘too much time goes into evaluation and preparing reports’.

This changing role, as described by school principals, is also in line with the operational and financial environment discussed in the literature (Finnbogason, 1996; Jónsson, 2007; Skúlason, 2008, 2009). Skúlason (2008: 12), for one, has pointed out that market ideology has ‘in actuality focused more on operational structures and almost entirely bypassed any questions on the content and actual quality of education’.

It should be borne in mind that the service components under discussion here have been a natural part of school operations in neighbouring countries for a number of years. All of the interviewees, with the exception of one, were in agreement that the after-school programmes and offering of hot meals served the best interests of the students. They were, therefore, not against the services being offered, but rather the effect that the managerial responsibilities associated with them had on their opportunities to direct their time and effort to educational tasks. This is despite the introduction of middle leader positions in schools in 2001 as a structural means to support principals in their endeavour to prioritize pedagogical matters over the operational demands (Hansen et al., 2008). This research indicates that the implementation of this new organizational structure in schools, for which principals were made responsible, may not have led to the intended school improvement, and needs to be readdressed. Finally, an additional factor contributing to the difficulties principals described, was that they were faced with too many changes while not being allowed the necessary adjustment period to implement them in their schools.

Professional Components

Many of those interviewed also considered themselves as having limited scope to exercise independence, taking initiative on policymaking and school practices, owing to both pressures and requirements from parents and municipalities on coordinated and standardized service offerings, and being supervised by municipalities to ensure services were being offered. Ásthór’s and Sigthóra’s words regarding exact goal-setting at all levels of the administration, which were then constantly followed up on with evaluation and monitoring, suggest that this dissuaded the initiative and desire for action of some leaders. Gunnthóra described a similar situation, when she felt compelled to introduce teaching methods that she was not certain were for the better. The emphasis placed on the coordinated services of schools could therefore have reduced the possibilities of schools in taking advantage of the independence that the Compulsory School Act No. 66/1995 speaks of. In this context, it has been suggested that if too many requirements are made to standardize all jobs into rigid systems, the danger is that the initiative and drive for action among staff will be lost (Moxley, 2000).

The development from a centrally controlled school system to a dispersed one was confirmed with the Compulsory School Act 1995. Among other things, the goal was to bolster the primary schools by moving the responsibility and implementation of schooling closer to the field (Hansen et al., 2010). Although this legal environment for schools speaks to independence, the reality can be quite different, as the words of Ásthór and Sigthóra suggest. This compliments research carried out in twenty primary schools in three states in the USA, where Portin (2004) found that some school principals considered themselves impeded from providing the pedagogical leadership they wanted to, because of the involvement of the educational authorities in the school curriculum. Circumstances like these can result in leaders experiencing both internal and environmental conflict with the emphases they would like to place in the schools.

Leaders’ emphasis on having the freedom to shape and mould school activities was in conflict with environmental requirements for coordinated services, the increase of operational service components, such as after-school programmes and hot meals, bureaucratic components, such as financial planning, mandatory reports and surveys, prescribed goal-setting, and overtly strict supervision and evaluation processes. The time spent on these components made it difficult for the principals to be authentic in their work. Authenticity requires that the individual be given a chance to work in accordance with the views and values that have been agreed upon in consultation with interested parties (Bhindi and Duignan, 1997; Bredeson, 2005). Ingthór was, for example, introducing an ideology where the primary emphasis was placed on the leader working in an authentic manner. In his words: ‘The key to the ideology is that you must be authentic.’ According to Hodgkinson (1991), authenticity is the cornerstone of ethically based management.

These views of school principals are in conflict with the views and emphases that Gewirtz (2002) calls new public management, one of two ideologies and reigning discourses on school management, one which she considers focuses more on finances, operations and various service components than welfare matters. Gewirtz further argues that, in some instances, these ‘professional viewpoints’ have to give way to the operational, such as in Gunnthóra’s case, who decided to put all the six-year-old students together in one class, even though she felt the decision could harm both students and teachers.

This discussion does not suggest that leaders are ensconced in the discourse that is representative of free market ideology, competition, efficiency and accountability, although their work was influenced by these emphases because of the constant interplay found within the school environment, between schools and their external environment. The values and views of the school principals, in a similar fashion, bear little resemblance to the concepts emphasized by the minister of education at the time, during the aforementioned conference on new state administration, competition, streamlining and quality evaluation. His predictions did, however, come true, in that they made room for themselves and became prevalent in the discourse of the next decade, 1995–2005. Borgthór’s comment on the unique position of schools as institutions, and the importance that the authorities respect this position, is illustrative of the view that the leaders had of their schools and their roles. Leading scholars in the field of educational administration have held such views in high esteem for many years (Sergiovanni, 1998, 2000).

The Influence of Values on Principals’ Actions

The principals who share their experiences have come under pressure from various school stakeholders: parents, teachers and local education authorities. When they were caught at the intersection of different viewpoints, they seem to have first and foremost had an inner dialogue. Although they exchanged views with colleagues on issues, such as Gunnthóra regarding her class-size matter, it is clear that in the end they made their own decisions. During their day-to-day work, their emphases and views of their role seem to guide their priorities, such as when Steinthóra decided to talk to the little girl while the entire group of teachers waited for her.

While it is important that the school principal creates agreement between interested parties in the various school arenas, it is no less important that the principal be able to live in agreement with his or her own emphases and decisions, and to be authentic in their leadership. The narratives of some of the school principals suggest that they found this challenging. Regardless of the principals’ views on the changes, they all agreed that the requirements for new services were merciless. In their view this was all done in the name of autonomy, which some principals referred to as ‘virtual independence’, where goals were set and followed up on with stricter monitoring, which gave the leaders little individual freedom for action or initiative. Similar findings were reported in recent research (Robson, 2011) with primary school principals in England. The results indicated that while all the principals recognized change as important for school development, they found it difficult to implement school reform unless it fit the ideas of the educational authorities. Therefore, in their opinion, schools enjoyed very limited autonomy to initiate change. The present study suggests that the work environment of school principals was rich with contradictions regarding their role and that of the school. Such conditions are a breeding ground for value clashes.

Conclusion

This article describes Icelandic research that explored the views of school principals regarding changes in the professional environment of schools during the years 1995–2005, and highlights the difficult decisions they took during this time period. The participating principals agreed that these changes had been significant and had greatly impacted their work, both in scope and nature. More specifically, the findings from this research indicate that many of the changes involved operational and bureaucratic components, rather than pedagogical components, like instructional leadership. This took considerable time and energy that they would have preferred to spend on educational matters. Contrary to the growing pressures associated with the socio-political environment influenced by neoliberalism, the participating principals’ interests lie in being the leaders of a professional work environment aligned with schooling, teaching and learning. Their narratives underline their care for and responsibility towards the child, the student, and his or her welfare.

The time period focused upon in this research was one of great economic expansion in Iceland, a period that appeared to indicate future national economic prosperity, but which later proved to be a false hope, as the country’s economy plummeted into collapse (Buiter and Sibert, 2009; Gísladóttir, 2010). However, during this particular time period, an increased emphasis on market-based initiatives impacted schools and their operations as performativity and competition became endemic and schools came under pressure from both private companies and school stakeholders. It is debatable whether the changes discussed reflect the values of business and the market. However, without question, they did not focus on the core purpose of schooling; teaching, learning and care.

Pertinent to this article, however, is the awareness that the impact of this brief period of national economic prosperity has left the Icelandic nation at a crossroad. Scholars and laymen alike contemplate the national situation and seek explanations of what went wrong in the events leading up to the financial collapse at the end of 2008. Values are prominent in this discussion. Questions are asked as to whether older, tried and tested values were lost, and other, possibly less desirable values, had come in their place. Furthermore, there is a desire to look forward and to come to an agreement on the values that should guide the resurrection and future of Icelandic society. This was the main task of the 2010 Icelandic National Forum, which involved a group of 1000 Icelanders, chosen randomly from the national register, to discuss, and make recommendations about, the development of a new constitution for Iceland.

This same critical discussion must make its way into the schools, and involve everyone who is concerned with the achievement of quality education. This research has shown how schools are in continuous interplay with their socio-political environment, such that trends and movements in society impact upon educational policymaking and schools. Essentially, schools and education are the collaborative project of interested parties. When successful, these parties, including parents, staff, students and municipalities, form a learning-society around the operation of the school. They therefore have great responsibility, which lies both in showing progressiveness and a constant desire for improvement, but of no less importance is the need to be evaluating and critical toward national policies, emphases and practices that have the potential to undermine the core values of schooling. This is where school principals can play a key role.

The single-country focus of this study, and the limits of the methodology, do not allow for generalizations. It does, however, report on school leaders who can play such an essential critiquing role, who are clear about their vision for their schools and have the commitment to look for ways to uphold their values against external pressures. Some, but not all, of the interviewees managed to shape their positions to fit their aspirations and to align their values with their actions. In recent years, this is exactly the practice that scholars on leadership have been promoting. They have encouraged leaders to have the courage to take individual paths of searching and questioning policies and practices in the complex environment of schools and school systems. Moreover they have emphasized the importance of basing school leadership actions on informed choices and critical thinking. These words of wisdom apply equally to school leaders, to policymakers and to politicians. For a small nation like Iceland, it is particularly important to approach new policies, ideas or ideologies, whether in education or elsewhere, with caution, and to consider whether they apply in the Icelandic context and culture before adopting and implementing them. If the conclusion is, after deliberation and dialogue, that such new ideas or policies do not reflect the vision and values of the nation and its institutions, leaders need to have the courage and moral strength to openly acknowledge this inconsistency.

The results of this study indicate that this is precisely what the interviewees endeavoured to achieve. They had a desire to be true to their vision and values, to be authentic in their leadership, but at times they found this difficult because of pressure to compete and to comply with externally imposed norms and standards; some of which they questioned or were opposed to. The research results also suggest that the current leadership development programmes, which most contemporary Icelandic school principals have gone through, do not adequately address financial and operational issues of the kind the participants were faced with. One of the issues that needs to be addressed is what successful, ethically based, educational operations-management leadership looks like, and how such a role could be created in a financially focused (and constrained) environment. Regardless of who is allocated these new duties, the necessary knowledge and skills to carry them out must be accessible within the schools or else, educational authorities offer schools advise and assistance to carry them out successfully. This is a challenge that educational authorities as well as educators and trainers of school leaders in Iceland must address.

A second important issue arising from this study is how contemporary principals can prepare for leading in the increasingly complex and turbulent world in which schools operate. The literature on leadership and values suggests that knowledge about values, how they influence our choice of behaviours, and how they are linked to ethical behaviour would be beneficial to leaders. This perspective emphasizes the importance of the philosophical dimension of leadership. Hence, courses on values, ethical leadership and authentic leadership are now being offered in many universities. One of the main purposes of such a programme is to support acting and aspiring leaders in their efforts to be authentic and ethical in their leadership and in being capable of developing sound judgement and of acting ethically. The acquired knowledge and skills in values and ethical leadership should not only benefit school leaders but also the students, who are to be the future leaders of the country. In Iceland the introduction of such educational-leadership development programmes is being deliberated. A recommendation from this research is that such a programme is not only advantageous, but rather it is essential. Such a programme would mirror sentiments now prevalent in Icelandic society that the nation’s future sustainability is to be value-led. Iceland, like school leadership, is far stronger when all of its activities are consistently founded upon known and applied values.

Footnotes

Notes

References

Begley

(1999) The place of values in theories of administration. In: Begley

(ed.) Values and Educational Leadership. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 117–119.

Begley

(2004) Understanding valuation processes: exploring the linkage between motivation and action. International Studies in Educational Administration 32(2): 4–17.

Begley

(2005) The dilemmas of leadership: perspectives on the moral literacy of principals from Ontario and Pennsylvania. Paper presented at the conference of The American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec.

Begley

Johansson

(2003) In pursuit of authentic school leadership practices. In: Begley

Johansson

(eds) The Ethical Dimension of School Leadership. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 1–12.

Bhindi

Duignan

(1997) Leadership for a new century: authenticity, intentionality, spirituality and sensibility. Educational Management & Administration 25(2): 117–132.

Bjarnason

(1995) Nýskipan í ríkisrekstri – menntun vid aldahvorf [A new order of state management. education at the turn of a century]. Paper presented at the conference A New Order of State Management. Deliberate Steps to Progress, Reykjavík, Iceland. Available at: http://www.bjorn.is/greinar/nr/579/2010.

Blackmore

(1998) The politics of gender and educational change: managing gender or changing gender relations. In: Hargreaves

Lieberman

Fullan

Hopkins

(eds) International Handbook of Educational Change. London: Kluwer Academic, 460–481.

Blackmore

(1999) Troubling Women: Feminism, Leadership and Educational Change. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Bottery

(1998) Professionals and Policy: Management Strategy in a Competitive World. London: Cassell.

10.

Branson

(2005) Exploring the concept of values-led principalship. Leading and Managing 11(1): 14–31.

11.

Branson

(2006) Structured self-reflection as a cornerstone of ethical leadership development. Paper presented at the 11th Annual Values and Leadership Conference ‘The Moral Agency of the Educational Leader’, Victoria, Canada, 5–7 October.

12.

Bredeson

(2005) Building capacity in schools: some ethical considerations for authentic leadership and learning. Values and Ethics in Educational Administration 4(1): 1–8.

13.

Buiter

Sibert

(2009) The collapse of Iceland's banks: the predictable end of a non-viable business model. In: Felton

Reinhart

(eds) The First Global Financial Crisis of the 21st Century. Part II June – December 2008. Available at: http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/2498

14.

Callaghan

(1962) Education and the Cult of Efficiency. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

15.

Cheng

(2002) The changing context of school leadership: implications for paradigm shift. In: Leithwood

Hallinger

(eds) Second International Handbook of Educational Leadership and Administration. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 103–132.

16.

Court

(2004) Talking back to new public management versions of accountability in education: a co-principalship’s practices of mutual responsibility. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 32(2): 171–194.

17.

Creswell

(1998) Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design. Choosing Among five Traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

18.

Finnbogason

(1996) Skólastarf og markadslogmálin. Valddreifing, aukid valfrelsi og einkavaeding [Schooling and principles of the market. Decentralization, choice and privatization]. Uppeldi og Menntun 5(1): 63–76.

19.

Finnbogason

(2004) Med gildum skal land byggja-gildagrunnur skólans. [Society should be founded on values-the value base of schools]. Uppeldi og menntun, tímarit Kennaraháskóla Íslands 13(2): 169–183.

20.

Finnbogason

Gunnarsson

(2006) Trú og gildi í tilvistartúlkun unglinga: Nokkrar niðurstoður úr rannsókn á gildismati íslenskra unglinga. [Faith and values in teenagers perception of existence: Some findings from a study on the values of Icelandic teenagers]. Ritroð Guðfræðistofnunar 23: 43–69.

21.

Gewirtz

(2002) The Managerial School: Post-Welfarism and Social Justice in Education. London: Routledge.

22.

Gewirtz

Ball

Bowe

(1995) Markets, Choice and Equity in Education. Buckingham: Open University Press.

23.

Gísladóttir

(2010) Háskaleg og ótímabaer samfélagstilraun [Dangerous and untimely societal experiment]. Tímarit Máls og Menningar 71(1): 4–16.

24.

Gold

(1996) Women into educational management. European Journal of Education 31(4): 419–433.

25.

Gold

(1998) Head of Department. Principles in Practice. London: Cassell.

26.

Gold

Evans

Earley

Halpin

Collarbone

(2003) Principled principals. Values-driven leadership: evidence from ten case studies of ‘outstanding’ school leaders. Educational Management & Administration 31(2): 127–138.

27.

Grace

(1997) School Leadership. Beyond Education Management. An Essay in Policy Scholarship. London: Falmer Press.

28.

Gudbjornsdóttir

(2001) Ordraedur um árangur, skilvirkni og kyngervi vid stjórnun menntastofnana [Discourses on effectiveness and success in the management of educational institutions]. Uppeldi og Menntun 10(1): 9–45.

29.

Hall

(1996) Dancing on the Ceiling: A Study of Women Managers in Education. London: Paul Chapman.

30.

Hamilton

(1998) The idols of the market place. In: Slee

Weiner

(eds) School Effectiveness for Whom? Challenges to the School Effectiveness and School Improvement Movements. London: Falmer Press, 13–20.

31.

Hansen

Jóhannsson

Lárusdóttir

(2004) Yfirfaersla grunnskólans til sveitarfelaga – Valddreifing eda midstyring? [The Transfer of schools from the state to municipalities – Decentralization or centralizing?]. Netla – Veftímarit [online]. Available at: http://netla.khi.is/greinar/2004/007/index.htm

32.

Hansen

Jóhannsson

Lárusdóttir

(2008) Breytingar á hlutverki skólastjóra í grunnskólum: Krofur, mótsagnir og togstreita [Changes in the external environment of schools: Requirements, contradictions and tension]. Uppeldi og menntun 17(2): 87–104.

33.

Hansen

Jóhannsson

Lárusdóttir

(2010) Faglegt sjálfstaedi skóla – vidhorf skólastjóra [Professional independence of schools]. Uppeldi og menntun 19(1–2): 51–69.

34.

Hatcher

(2004) Distributed leadership and managerial power in schools. Paper presented at the Society for Educational Studies and BERA Social Justice SIG Annual seminar ‘School Leadership and Social Justice’ London, 5 November.

35.

Hodgkinson

(1978) Towards a Philosophy of Administration. Guildford: Basil Blackwell.

36.

Hodgkinson

(1991) Educational Leadership: The Moral Art. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

37.

Jónsson

(1995) Vill fremur virdingu almennings en ást hans [Prefers peoples respect over their love]. Morgunbladid 23 November: 34–35.

38.

Lárusdóttir

(1997–1998) School self-evaluation. A framework. Report submitted for consideration with respect to the award of: Associateship of the Institute of Education, University of London, 1997–1998.

39.

Lawton

(1992) Education and Politics in the 1990s. London: Falmer Press.

40.

Mason

(2003) Qualitative Researching, 2nd edn. London: SAGE Publications.

41.

Moxley

(2000) Leadership and Spirit: Breathing New Vitality and Energy into Individuals and Organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

42.

Parliamentary Research Committee (2010) Addragandi og orsakir falls íslensku bankanna 2008 og tengdir atburdir [The proceeding and causes of the downfall of the Icelandic banks]. Rannsóknarnefnd Althingis samkvaemt logum nr. 142/2008. Reykjavík: Parliamentary Research Committee.

43.

Portin

(2004) The roles that principals play. Educational Leadership 61(7): 14–18.

44.

Ranson

(1990) From 1944–1988: Education, Citizenship and Democracy. London: Falmer Press.

45.

Reay

Ball

(2000) Essentials of female management. Women’s ways of working in the education market place. Educational Management & Administration 28(2): 145–159.

46.

Robson

(2011) Primary headteachers: new leadership roles inside and outside the school. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 39(1): 63–83.

47.

Sergiovanni

(1998) Organization, market and community strategies for change: what works best for deep change in schools. In: Hargreaves

Lieberman

Fullan

Hopkins

(eds) International Handbook of Educational Change. London: Kluwer Academic, 576–595.

48.

Sergiovanni

(2000) Leadership for the Schoolhouse. How is it Different? Why is it Important?, 1st edn. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

49.

Sergiovanni

(2006) The principalship. A reflective practice perspective, 5th edn. Boston, MA: Pearson.

50.

Sinclair

(1999) Doing Leadership Differently. Gender, Power and Sexuality in a Changing Business Culture. Melbourne, Victoria: Melbourne University Press.

51.

Skúlason

(2008) Menning og markadshyggja [Culture and managerialism]. Skírnir 182: 5–40.

52.

Skúlason

(2009) Hvers konar samfélag viljum vid? [What kind of society do we want?]. Tímarit Máls og Menningar 70(2): 5–12.

53.

Sophusson

(1994) Nýskipan í ríkisrekstri. Samningsstjórnun [A new order of state management. Service contracts]. Paper presented at the conference ‘A New Order of State Management. Deliberate Steps to Progress’, Reykjavík, Iceland.

54.

Sveinsdóttir

ThB

(2009) ‘Dálítid eins og ástrída’. Upplifun menntastjórnenda af starfi sínu, forystuhlutverki og efnahagskreppunni [‘Almost like a passion’. Principals’ perceptions of their work and leadership role and the economic crisis]. MA thesis, University of Iceland, School of Social Sciences.

55.

Thrupp

Willmott

(2003) Education Management in Managerialist Times. Beyond the Textual Apologists. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

56.

Willower

(1999) Values and valuation: a naturalistic inquiry. In: Begley

(ed.) Values and Educational Leadership. New York: State University of New York Press, 121–138.