Abstract
Most of the discourse of educational leadership relates to schools, colleges and universities, and researchers often use these settings as units of analysis. They may be seen as ‘prime institutions’, central to the educational landscape, within their communities and beyond. However, these organisations may also be conceptualised as part of a wider system of schools, coordinated, and perhaps controlled, by a more senior level within the educational hierarchy. The ‘glue’ that holds such systems together, and provides a degree of coherence, is the district level. Collectively, despite their ubiquitous presence, the role of districts remains under-researched and weakly theorised.
In England, local education authorities, later described just as local authorities, had a substantial role for much of the 20th century in leading educational provision. The 1944 Education Act described education as a national service, locally administered. Local education departments, headed by chief education officers, or directors of education, played major roles in defining and coordinating community education provision. Local authorities were also political entities and political values and ideologies were influential in determining the nature of schooling and further education within their boundaries. This ‘middle tier’ was an important arena for educational policy-making, with accountability to local communities through the electoral process. It is important not to romanticise this period as a ‘golden age’, because there were often political and/or bureaucratic weaknesses, but they were successful in providing a local centre for educational development.
In the 21st century, as Steven Courtney and Ruth McGinity report in the first article in this issue, local authorities have become much less significant as schools were encouraged, or cajoled, to become academies, independent of local authorities. Subsequently, a new ‘middle tier’ emerged in the form of multi-academy trusts (MATs). These authors note that MATs are now the legal entity that provides educational services across numerous sites that may or may not have a geographical basis. They say that such MATs now constitute educational ‘systems’, led by an executive headteacher or chief executive officer (CEO). They report on a case study of a MAT in a coastal community, comprising four schools. They conclude that system leadership, epitomised by MATs, is a mechanism for depoliticization, with power located within unaccountable, para-statal institutions.
Further education in England has also experienced a substantial change in the new millennium, with significant impacts on college leadership. Stephen Corbett investigates the role of further education middle managers in a distinctive way, through the lens of human resource managers, addressing the question, what are the contemporary professional expectations of further education middle managers in England? The author surveyed one HR manager from each college with a 19% response rate. He comments that middle managers are responsible for translating the vision of senior managers into day-to-day operations. He identifies ‘four pillars’ of professional expectations and concludes that they could be used to develop a set of professional standards for further education of middle managers.
The next article is the first of four focusing on aspects of leadership in Europe. WA de Jong and colleagues examine how Dutch principals lead collaborative innovation. Drawing on two interviews with 22 principals of primary, secondary and vocational education, they identify a repertoire of 11 leadership practices within three broad leadership patterns and conclude that smaller schools are more likely to engage in collaborative innovation.
Franz Koranyi and Nina Kolleck also focus on collaboration in their paper on governance boards in German educational networks. They examine the role of philanthropic foundations in such networks, through a mixed methods study, including a large-scale survey of Federal foundations, and a case study of seven foundations in a south German municipality. They note that there is a significant difference between managerial leadership in schools, and leadership through meta governance in networked contexts, and conclude that further research is required to understand the legitimacy of philanthropic action in education.
The Norwegian National School Leadership Programme, for newly appointed principals, provides the backdrop to the article by Kirsten Foshaug Vennebo and Marit Aas. They draw on cultural-historical activity theory to examine leadership and change through a case study of one Norwegian school, using video data from group discussions. They report on tensions arising from the influence of teacher unions and conclude that tension-laden change processes require reflective and analytical skills and training.
Elina Fonsen and her colleagues discuss pedagogical leadership in Finnish early years’ education. They evaluate the quality of pedagogical leadership, using three measures, children's well-being, the nature of the learning environment, and pedagogical leadership, gathering data through observation of children's groups. They found that pedagogical leadership is crucial for the quality of pedagogy, noting the importance of a sense of purpose, collaborative activities and a collective focus on children's learning. They conclude that pedagogical leadership is a specific skill that requires knowledge about pedagogy, leadership and management.
Authentic leadership provides the theoretical background to the next article, by Izjak Berkovich and Batel Gueta. They argue that authentic leadership is dominated by integrity, moral purpose, and ethical conduct. They sampled 60 teachers involved in the Israeli ‘second chance’ programme for youths considered to be at risk. They asked teachers to respond to 16 statements about authentic leadership and found significant gender-based differences. When men feel authentic, they enact it in a more controlling manner than women.
The final article, by Fei Wang, discusses work intensity for school administrators in British Columbia, Canada. The author notes previous research reporting that principals work long hours and that their activities are fragmented and complex. The study investigates how principals react to policies and practices that are perceived to be counterproductive, through interviews with 18 principals. The results show that the participants deal with job challenges through working long hours, while ‘hindrances’ include role ambiguity and conflict, interpersonal issues and policy and organisational constraints. They conclude that support for principals needs to be contextualised to meet their individual needs.