Abstract
Principals are a ubiquitous feature of education systems across the world. Almost all schools are led by a head teacher or principal, and they are invariably recognised as key actors in the education system. For policy-makers, practitioners and researchers, the school is the prime unit for teaching and learning, while also giving a sense of identity for students, parents and teachers. In most countries, schools form part of an education hierarchy, usually headed by the ministry of education, with a ‘middle tier’ providing supervision and support. In England, the traditional middle tier was the local authority. In the 21st century, however, the system has fragmented and there are now alternative coordinating bodies, some of which are not geographically based.
This shifting landscape has led to changes in the nature of school leadership, with heads and principals often accountable to a professional superordinate, who may be called an executive head. Andy Coleman provides a systematic review of research on executive headship. The author states that executive headship is under-researched, although he was able to identify 76 articles for review. He notes that executive heads can have a ‘marked impact’ on reducing variation in pupil outcomes and concludes that they can also contribute to strategic direction, improving organisational culture and managing resources.
The principal remains an important leadership figure, and their role is enhanced where there is significant school autonomy. Richard Niesche and his colleagues report on principals’ perceptions of autonomy and leadership in four Australian states. Devolution increases the scope of leadership but the authors also note that there may be some negative outcomes, including increased workloads for principals, sometimes accompanied by stress, anxiety, and poor health and wellbeing. Drawing on interviews with eight current and former principals, they note mixed perceptions of autonomy. While some participants welcomed the increased flexibility and empowerment, others lamented the impact of their increased responsibilities and accountability on their ability to lead teaching and learning.
One of the many responsibilities of principals is to support teacher professional learning. Liang Huang, Yating Huang and Shike Zhou studied this issue through examination of findings from 255 secondary school principals and 2756 teachers, in four Chinese provinces, drawn from the 2015 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) data. The authors comment that principals ‘unequivocally’ assume a role in supporting and promoting teacher learning. They conclude by advocating providing autonomy to teacher leaders, to model good teaching practices and to support colleagues through mentoring and coaching.
Nedim Ozdemir and his colleagues explore the relationship between learning-centred leadership and student achievement in Turkey, through student and teacher survey data in 79 lower secondary schools. The authors’ findings indicate the need for principals to build a collaborative culture focused on student learning, and to create professional communities to enhance teacher effectiveness and student outcomes. They also note the importance of parental involvement, a suggestion linked to Leithwood et al.'s (2010) family path towards student learning.
Becoming a principal usually involves adopting a new identity, significantly different from their previous, usually teaching, role. Andrea Carrasco and Maria Diaz examine this phenomenon through the case of a female leader (Maria) in Chile. They note that her leadership identity is a configuration of her personal (mother, wife and daughter) and professional (teacher and headmistress) life. They adopted a life history approach, with an autobiographical questionnaire, followed by 3 interviews, over a 6-month period. They conclude that Maria developed an identity that enabled her to transform her school into a more inclusive and socially just space.
Mary Derrington, Toni Jackson and John Campbell explore principals’ reactions to a survey of teachers’ evaluation beliefs in Tennessee, USA. The state introduced a high-stakes teacher evaluation policy, including multiple observations. The survey showed that teachers regard principal feedback as only marginally effective, consider that evaluation ratings are applied unfairly, and that too much of principals’ time is allotted to the evaluation process. The researchers conducted focus groups with principals to establish their reactions to the teacher data. They conclude that principals and teachers have contradictory beliefs about the practice and value of teacher evaluation.
The next two articles focus on professional networks in the very different contexts of Germany and China. Nina Kolleck examines the role of a cross-sector alliance in the Ruhr area of Germany, through interviews with leaders from various professional organisations involved in the network. She notes the significance of trust in influencing the success of such networks. The author concludes that trust does not always have positive connotations, as some participants were sceptical of relational trust, as it may lead to cronyism.
Yan Zeng and Leslie Lo report on how teacher leaders engage with a regional learning network, Master Teacher Studios (MTSs), in Shanghai. The MTS is an officially initiated teacher learning programme, that aims to cultivate more master teachers. The authors’ research focused on three MTS members, interpreted through the notion of ‘boundary crossing’, between schools and the MTS. They note the importance of leader identity for MTS and conclude that the MTS are ‘system teacher leaders’.
The next two papers explore aspects of leadership and governance in UK further education. Stephen Corbett examines the role of middle managers in colleges, noting the challenges of such roles, as participants have usually transitioned from teaching into leadership. He adopts a systematic review to consider a range of management theories. He claims that there is a ‘void’ in the competencies required to be an effective middle manager and concludes by stressing the importance of the context within which middle managers operate.
David James, Steve Garner and Gary Husband discuss the role of college governing boards across the four nations of the UK. The authors focused on two colleges in each of the four countries. Observation of governing board practice was the main means of data collection, and involved 84 board, committee or strategy meetings. This substantial dataset was triangulated by 41 interviews with a range of people within and beyond the 8 colleges. They conclude that governors in all four settings are expected to have a strong grasp of strategy and to make accountability a top priority.
Fiona Denney reports that women remain under-represented in senior roles in UK higher education, arguing that universities perpetuate a dominant white male culture. However, four women from ‘third space professional’ backgrounds were appointed as Pro Vice-Chancellors in research-intensive universities. The author's research focuses on these four senior leaders, with data collected through semi-structured interviews and documents. She notes that these women have created a unique journey to leadership but concludes that this does not really challenge the status quo, dominated by male academic researchers.
The final article in this issue also focuses on leadership in higher education. Sylvia Frisk, Britt-Marie Apelgren and Mette Sandoff explore the role of departmental leaders who focus on teaching and learning, through a case study of a Swedish university. The authors surveyed the 89 staff currently or previously holding such roles, with a response rate of 65%, triangulated with web-based data. They highlight the significance of this designated teaching and learning middle leader role, but conclude that it is difficult to assess its impact on departmental teaching and learning.