Abstract
The literature on school leadership has been dominated by academics from the USA, the UK and Australia. More recently, there has been an increase in publications from Canada, New Zealand, South Africa and other English-speaking countries. However, articles from other countries are less frequent, although there has been a significant increase in submissions to EMAL from Asia in recent years. Language issues inevitably contribute to the limited contributions from authors whose first language is not English. It is gratifying, therefore, to be able to compile this special themed issue of EMAL, focusing on school leadership in Europe. The nine articles, from seven countries, make a significant contribution to our understanding of leadership across this continent.
The first article, by Tonje Constance Oterkill and Sigrun Ertesvag, discusses transformational and transactional leadership in Norwegian schools. These models are often linked (see Miller and Miller, 2001) and the authors utilise well-established instruments to develop a measure of these twin models, drawing on data from more than 1000 teachers in 45 schools involved in a school development initiative related to student behaviour. The authors conclude that measuring aspects of these models may be important in identifying a school’s capacity to implement a school-based intervention.
The next two articles examine aspects of the principal’s role in Greek schools. In the first such article, Vasiliki Brinia considers the role of the principal’s emotional intelligence in leadership. The author surveyed a random sample of teachers and principals, from primary schools in Athens, and received 301 teacher replies and 36 from principals. The author notes differences in responses from principals and teachers, because of the former’s high self-esteem, and the latter’s scepticism, leading to the tentative conclusion that emotional intelligence may be evident in these principals.
The second article on Greece, by Akrivoula Geraki, compares the roles and skills of secondary school principals, through a survey of 124 such principals, with an impressive 97% response rate. The author notes the challenges of balancing competing leadership roles, including managerial and instructional leadership, and argues that principals should adopt people-oriented transformational roles rather than the task-oriented roles typical of contemporary Greek leaders.
School leadership in Cypriot intercultural schools is the subject of the next article, by Christina Hajisoteriou. She interviewed heads of 20 primary schools with high concentrations of immigrant children. Drawing on Zemblyas and Iasonos (2010), she distinguishes between conservative multiculturalism, linked to transactional leadership, and pluralist multiculturalism, which suggests a transformational approach. She found examples of both approaches within her sample and concludes that developing communities of practice will enable schools to share good practice.
The next two articles provide rare insights into school leadership in Iceland. The first of these, by Steinunn Larusdottir, discusses the relationship between leadership and market values in this small state. The author traces educational reform since 1995, a process that led to a market orientation, linked to increased financial responsibility, expanded accountability and firmer supervision. Drawing on interviews with principals and administrators in 10 Reykjavik schools, the author notes that the scope of their work has increased, notably in respect of operational and bureaucratic components, at the expense of instructional leadership.
In the next article, Helen Wildy, Sigriour Siguroardottir and Robert Faulkner compare leadership of small rural schools in lceland and Australia. Both countries have large numbers of such schools. The authors conducted case studies of one school in each country, interviewing principals and other staff, using a narrative approach. They conclude that these principals are ‘contextually literate’, with a rich appreciation of place.
Studies of school leadership in Italy are very limited, so I welcome the opportunity to publish Roberto Serpieri’s and Emiliano Grimaldi’s article, which focuses on governance, evaluation and headship following school autonomy reforms. They ask if the reform has led to a quasi-market and if the head’s role has become managerial and entrepreneurial, issues which will resonate with academics and practitioners from many other countries. Drawing on policy documents, and interviews with key informants, they conclude that heads adopt only ‘ritualistic compliance’ with the new managerialist and performative accountability demands.
Edith Hooge and Marlies Honingh examine the role of school boards in monitoring educational quality in the Netherlands. School board members are appointed as trustees, and are not held to account through elections. All school board chairpersons were surveyed and the authors received 332 replies. While recognizing the limitations of self-reporting, the authors conclude that school boards are aware of the quality of school education, which they regard as a prerequisite for steering and improving the quality of education.
In the final article, Melissa Tuytens explores the implementation of teacher evaluation policy in Belgium (Flanders). From 2007, all teachers have to be evaluated every four years, by two evaluators superior in rank to the teacher. The author conducted a survey of teachers, with 610 respondents, and followed up with interviews of leaders in six schools. She concludes that, while all schools try to comply with the policy, teacher evaluation practice varies depending on whether leaders are positive or negative about it.