Abstract
The focus on leadership as a major influence on student outcomes and school improvement tends to diminish the attention given to the governing boards which, in some jurisdictions, play an important role in setting the direction of schools and colleges. They may be the only forum for linking internal and external stakeholders and, at minimum, provide an important buffering role between leaders and teachers, and those who make (legitimate or illegitimate) demands on educational organisations. Research on governance is essential for a full understanding of how schools and colleges operate in partly devolved contexts, such as England and Wales. The special section on governance in this issue brings together four important papers which, individually and collectively, provide valuable insights on this phenomenon.
The first paper in this section, by Michael Connolly, Catherine Farrell and Chris James, discusses the stakeholder model which characterises governance in many public, private and third sector organisations. The authors stress that the stakeholder model is underpinned by the view that institutions should be governed by those who have an interest in them. In schools, these are typically parents, staff, and the local community. Incorporating perspectives from such groups is seen as consistent with democracy and social justice. The stakeholder model is under pressure from skill-based models in England but the authors claim that the stakeholder model continues to have ‘merit’ and ‘authenticity’.
Jacqueline Baxter, in the second paper, notes that the 2012 Ofsted Inspection Framework places more demands on the substantial number (300,000) of volunteer school governors in England. Public attention to the enhanced role of inspection was heightened by the ‘Trojan Horse’ affair in Birmingham where schools were placed in ‘special measures’ or the ‘requires improvement’ category by Ofsted in response to alleged hardline Muslim ideology. The author draws on 50 inspector reports, and interviews with 12 head teachers, to explore the accountability of school governors. She concludes that many governing bodies are now adopting a managerial perspective linked to efficiency and effectiveness.
In the third paper in this section, Helen Young also addresses the accountability of school governing bodies, linked to the types of knowledge which are claimed and valued. She conducted qualitative research with four governing bodies, two primary and two secondary, in one local authority, including meeting observations, interviews and analysis of agendas and minutes. She discusses three types of knowledge; educational, lay and managerial, and concludes that lay knowledge is ‘easily marginalised and displaced by managerial knowledge’.
The final paper in this section, by Ron Hill and Chris James (in his second contribution to this issue), focuses on the role of chairs of governing bodies in the further education and sixth form college sectors. The authors interviewed 16 chairs of the governing bodies of such colleges to establish their role and responsibilities, their relationships with principals and governing body clerks, and their development needs. They report that that chairs require a broad range of expertise but that they do not perceive that knowledge and experience of education is a priority. They conclude that the responsibility of chairs is substantial, complex and multi-faceted and that their relationships with principals are crucial and similarly complex.
The next paper, by Thang Dinh, Philip Hallinger and Kabini Sanga, explores the influence of Confucian values on school leadership in Vietnam. They point out that Western contexts tend to dominate theoretical discourse in educational leadership and argue for the need to build a ‘global knowledge base’. They note that Confucian values, such as traditional morality, have been transmitted by families, schools and society for many centuries. Drawing on case studies of three state-run schools in central Vietnam, using interviews, observations, questionnaires and documentary analysis, they comment that high power distance (‘habit of obedience’) and collectivism, exemplified by group harmony, are key elements of Vietnamese school culture. They conclude that political values interact with socio-cultural values to create a multi-faceted context for principal decision-making.
Culture is also the focus of a case study of a Shanghai primary school, reported by Qian Haiyan, Allan Walker and Yang Xiaowei. They claim that a positive teacher learning culture is important to bring about successful change in schools and note that Shanghai leads the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) rankings. They report on how school leaders at the case study school have sustained teachers’ commitment to continuous learning. The school has 4500 students and 300 teachers on three campuses, and has won many awards and titles. The authors interviewed five leaders, including the principal, and five teachers, and report that the school’s open atmosphere facilitated teacher collaboration. They conclude that the school’s positive learning culture is dependent on a strong commitment to values within and across the leadership team.
In the next paper, Linda Evans examines the role of university professors as academic leaders, focusing specifically on expectations of the role and on preparation for it. Drawing on a substantial survey of professors, she notes that leadership development provision for professors is almost ‘non-existent’. She comments that professorship is the ‘Cinderella’ of educational leadership and concludes that universities can support professors by defining and articulating how they interpret academic leadership.
Julie A. Gaubatz and David C. Ensminger explore how secondary school department chairs in the United States (analogous to heads of departments in some other contexts) lead change in resistant environments. They note that these chairs hold an intermediate position between senior administrators and teachers. They interviewed six department chairs in the mid-west, three female and three male, and also examined documents related to the change process. They discuss the painful effects of ‘resistors’ and conclude with advice on how to respond to resistance, including the need for patience.
In the final paper, Lokman Tahir and his colleagues examine the isolation and loneliness experienced by some novice head teachers in Malaysian primary and secondary schools. They surveyed 180 novice heads, with an impressive 94 percent response rate, and interviewed ten such heads who had experienced isolation. They note that novice heads often experienced isolation but that this tended to be temporary. A major contributory factor was a feeling of rejection by their teachers. Four solutions to problems of loneliness were identified, including networking with other heads. The authors conclude by recommending that future heads should be attached to their future schools ahead of taking up their appointments, as a ‘school orientation programme’.