- Email: [email protected]
From change and challenge to new directions for school leadership
International Journal of Educational Research 29 (1998) 381—391
Chapter 8
From change and challenge to new directions for school leadership Bradley S. Portin* University of Washington, College of Education, Box 353600 Seattle, WA 98195-3600, U.S.A.
Abstract Reflecting on the countries represented in this issue, this chapter analyzes the topics and problems raised and suggests, through comparative analysis, new directions for school leadership. The role of the school site leader, be the headteacher or principal, is a role laden with more responsibility than ever before. One difference between the countries is the amount of attendant authority that is linked with devolved responsibility. To varying degrees in the four countries discussed, there are issues that present a quandary for school leaders, such as centralization of some key decisions (particularly concerning curriculum) and decentralization of managerial responsibility. These international themes have implications for policymaking and for those who prepare leaders and provide ongoing professional support. ( 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Leadership of schools holds a strategic position in school reform in many nations. For example, in the area of school governance — whatever the level of devolution the headteacher or principal holds a pivotal role of responsibility for working with governors, trustees, or site council representatives. In all cases, this designated leader, the principal or headteacher, retains specific and individual responsibility for the ongoing development of the school and its compliance with externally legislated reform plans. As is developed further in this chapter, part of a problem for school leaders is that headteachers and principals have retained a place of preeminence in school responsibility even as shared leadership is touted in reform efforts. The chapters in this issue indicate that this has resulted in these individuals simply taking on more and more when part of the answer to leader overload is developing more of the leadership capacity of other organizational members. The national settings for school leadership discussed in this issue indicates a growing tension for school leaders. There are competing and contrasting forces that act on
* Tel.: 001 206 543 1836; fax: 001 206 616 6762; e-mail: [email protected]. 0883-0355/98/$19.00 ( 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved PII: S 08 8 3-0 3 55 ( 9 8) 0 0 04 1 - X
382
B.S. Portin/Int. J. Educ. Res. 29 (1998) 381—391
the principals and headteachers in the United States, United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Belgium. On one hand, educational reform efforts reinforce the important role of the school principal or headteacher as the ‘chief executive’ (Hughes, 1976) of a complex and increasingly autonomous organization (as evidenced by local management initiatives). On the other hand, as Grace (1995) notes, ‘School leadership has become in an important sense, devalued’ (p. 156). How do we make sense of this quandary, understand the contemporary context with greater clarity, and also further extend the boundaries of school leadership theory so as to better enable practice? In the editor’s introduction, I invited readers to attend to three questions while examining the changes represented in the countries studied. f What are the apparent changes and stresses in headteacher/principal roles? f What is the impact of those changes? f What purposeful solutions and insights for future school leaders are suggested? These three questions are addressed in the following sections of this chapter. After reviewing the themes that arise from this inter-nation examination, this chapter concludes with suggestions for the development of leadership theory and question of practice for school leaders — present and future.
1. Problems and impacts across countries In the title of this section the notion of ‘problems’ is meant to describe the challenges, dilemmas, stresses, and de-motivators outlined by the authors across countries. ‘Impacts’ refers to the outcomes of policy decisions and school reform, particularly as they intersect with the role of the designated school leader: the principal or headteacher. Impacts may be linked directly to policy decisions, such as the decision to devolve the majority of school funding oversight from local education authorities (LEAs) to U.K. schools, or they may be experienced as second-order effects, such as the stress that principals and headteachers reported from longer work days resulting from greater site management responsibilities. In combination these chapters suggest three prominent problems and impacts experienced by principals and headteachers: the changing nature of their organizations; the nature of the shifts in their leadership roles; and the evolving characteristics of the interactions that occur in the school setting. 1.1. The changing nature of the organization In the context of a standards-oriented cultural ideology, the aims of schools appear to be shifting to a more limited mandate of preparing workers to meet needs expressed by business and industry. In three of the national settings, the authors speak of the market forces which play a prominent role in school reform. Education-as-commodity increasingly drives a standards-based, outcomes-driven orientation toward the central purposes of the school. Grace (1995) noted, ‘The combination of management and market preoccupations when placed alongside this change in the domain of values, may result in the final triumph of commodification over moral purpose in schooling’ (p. 156).
B.S. Portin/Int. J. Educ. Res. 29 (1998) 381—391
383
For school principals and headteachers, these changes are reported as shifting their focus from instructional leadership to site-management and presentation of the school to an external community. The nature of the organization, now threatened by possible adverse action due to poor performance on accountability measures and in school inspections, necessitates that the principals and headteachers spend increasing amounts of time managing the school’s image. A further change reported regards the nature of the organizational boundaries between school and community. In three of the countries (U.S./U.K./N.Z.), the traditional/historical role of the school has largely been autonomous. At one time, those outside of the school — parents and politicians — largely deferred educational matters to the educators in the school. This sense of professional deference has departed (and many would say, rightly so). The boundaries between the school and its operation can now be thought of as much more diffuse or permeable. The clearest example of the permeability of the boundaries between the school and external environment is found in the rise of local control of schools. In the United Kingdom (specifically England and Wales), this is represented in the expanded and empowered roles given to school governors following the 1988 Education Act. In New Zealand, the complete devolution from central control to newly derived trustee boards in each school has accomplished the same end. In the United States, the picture of local control is more mixed. Many schools, depending on which state, still remain under the umbrella of school district management, while new experiments in complete local control (such as in Chicago, or ‘charter schools’ being constituted in many states) are accomplishing much the same outcome, but not on a national scale. As a result of these permeable and diffuse organizational boundaries, principals and headteachers report spending increased time working with governing bodies and site councils. Their role, both as guide and servant to the boards, appears to require extended commitments of time and energy. 1.2. Shifting leadership roles Perhaps the most reported impact of changes in principal and headteacher roles across all countries is the perceived shift from leadership responsibilities to managerial functions. This shift is described in a number of ways, but the central theme is the predominance of managerial tasks found in the school’s maintenance and operation, as opposed to the primary tasks of leadership for teaching and learning. In New Zealand, this is reported, particularly, by those elementary principals in small schools who are having to abandon their teaching roles in order to cope with the managerial responsibilities of local control. In the countries represented in this issue, the principals and heads talk about their commitment to the central aim of the school: teaching and learning. However, as the principals in Washington state reported (Williams and Portin, 1997), they are finding less and less time to lead and/or participate in the instructional program when they are spending increasing amounts of time managing budgets, completing reports, and attending to managerial tasks that used to be largely centrally administered.
384
B.S. Portin/Int. J. Educ. Res. 29 (1998) 381—391
The same trend was found in a study of the U.K primary headship in the mid-1990s (Portin, 1995). Further study (Male and Merchant, 1995) has indicated that, owing to increasing managerial expertise, headteachers are finding ways to return to their instructional roots, but the managerial imperative continues to be burdensome. Most strikingly, in this issue Robertson and Harold report on the number of school principals who are leaving the profession, or are taking lesser posts within the school. Reported stress is high among school leaders. Whether due to the impact of sheer load and working more hours (noted by Harold and Portin), or the challenges that arise from blending personal identity with the progress of the school (noted by Robertson and Southworth), principals and headteachers present a beleaguered and weary picture. Their reported stress and sense of overload appear to be related to the scale of their ever-increasing responsibilities. In many respects, it might be seen that principals and headteachers in many countries are also trapped in what has been past practice. For those in-post through the period of reform, they have had to rely, to a large degree, on their past training in the headship/principalship. A dilemma that arises out of this perspective is that heads and principals are left with the single alternative to do all of the leadership and management that is required to run an effective school, only more; to rely on the same set of skills, only carry them out to a greater extent. A contrasting perspective is offered by Vandenberghe in his chapter. The new inspection system in Belgium had some unexpected positive benefits for principals. Focusing on the central role of the principal in the inspection, for example, resulted in an increased acceptance by the teachers of the principals’ leadership role. Consequently, Vandenberghe was able to conclude that the ‘professional interests of the principal can be strengthened by external authority and accountability’. In this case, the possibility of the principal introducing changes at both the school and classroom level would be enhanced. 1.3. Evolving characteristics of interaction In addition to the changing nature of the schools as organizations and the troublesome balance between leadership and management, the studies represented in this issue reveal a picture of new interactions both inside and outside of the school. There are new interactions with parents and community members who now hold positions of key responsibility as governors, trustees, or site council members. In their new roles as decision makers in the school they call upon the principal or headteacher to exercise political leadership in managing factional disputes and the conflicting interests which are naturally present in school communities. Thus, the political acumen of school leaders, as noted by Daresh in this issue, becomes a new interaction skill for many of these educators is a new area of leadership expertise. 1.3.1. Market-driven accountability In an important sense, there are new participants in the operation of the school. Parents assume new and important roles as ‘consumers’ in a market-driven system.
B.S. Portin/Int. J. Educ. Res. 29 (1998) 381—391
385
Principals in a Washington State study (Williams and Portin, 1997) report an increased attention to decisions which take into account matters of ‘customer satisfaction’. Customer satisfaction and a market orientation are precursors to a rising expectation for school accountability and this accountability changes the nature of the interactions that occur between the school and community. There are important examples of this. The first is the system of school inspections that are occurring, predominantly represented in the U.K. Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED) inspections of schools, and similarly suggested in the Belgian system of inspection initiated in 1991. These inspections are meant to be a comprehensive assessment of individual schools for the purpose of maintaining an assurance of high quality in the program, staff, facilities, and leadership. The results of the U.K. inspections are available to the local school community and may be widely publicized; particularly so when a school ‘fails’ an inspection. The results of an OFSTED inspection are even available on-line for any interested individual around the world. In Belgium, once the final inspection report is presented and discussed with the principal he or she is expected to develop an improvement plan and a set of follow-up activities. Related to OFSTED inspections, school performance measures are produced for comparative purposes in all of the countries discussed in this chapter. In Washington State, the results of statewide testing at particular grade levels are being published in the press in the form of rankings of school performance. The same occurs in the U.K. ‘league tables’ printed in the national press. The aim of this information is not only to assess performance and ‘school success,’ but also to provide parents with further information for choosing a school for their child. 1.3.2. Entrepreneurial partnerships In addition, schools in the United States, United Kingdom, and New Zealand report new partnerships with business and industry. These partnerships are often designed around the entrepreneurial needs of the school to attract new students (reported by Robertson) or to fill in the gaps in funding that have appeared in devolved budgets (reported by Portin). The nature of these new interactions are described, on occasion, in conflictual terms — a matter related, perhaps, to the political leadership of the school principal or headteacher. In all cases, the interaction with multiple constituencies has focused on responsiveness and accessibility. Each of the new stakeholders has interests in the performance of the school and, therefore, expects quick action on the part of the school principal or headteacher. One image that comes from this inter-nation analysis is that of the principal/headteacher ‘caught in the middle’ of competing values, demands, and interests. Vandenberghe notes in the Belgian context that the principal may be caught between both individual and school concerns, as well as the local school work plan (inspection-driven) and the external environment. For some school leaders, this creates an ethical dilemma: Where should they lend their support? To which constituency do they belong? Grace (1995) describes this collision of values by noting the essential ethical dilemma of headship as follows:
386
B.S. Portin/Int. J. Educ. Res. 29 (1998) 381—391
[S]hould they [heads] participate in a market culture for the material benefit of their schools and their pupils or should they remain loyal to their own personal and professional values at the risk of disadvantage for their schools? This dilemma of professional community versus autonomous advantage, which was one of the outcomes of a market for schooling, was compounded by government incentives to all schools to opt-out of control of the local state into a more autonomous grantmaintained status (pp. 143—144). For the New Zealand and U.S. principal and the U.K. headteacher, there appears to be a difficulty in determining what is ‘school’ and what is ‘not-school.’ When are they representing and responding to managerial/external interests and when to instructional/internal interests? When are they involved in implementing externally imposed reform and restructuring, and when are they leading their school in direction-setting for site-determined goals? Furthermore, it appears, as Vandenberghe notes, that this aspect of the ‘dilemma’ is occurring in a context of increased ‘vulnerability’ and ‘visibility’ for the school leader. Their paradox is a public paradox.
2. Inter-nation insights and opportunities for school principals and headteachers Arising from these three primary observations of the challenges and impacts encountered by principals and headteachers in four countries, several insights and opportunities were suggested by the authors. As a means of summary, let me suggest two prominent themes: reconceptualizing the school organization and reconceptualizing the role of principal/headteacher. 2.1. Reconceptualization of the organization As noted in the prior section, the nature of the school-as-organization has changed in meaningful and dramatic ways, the most important being the increased permeability of organizational boundaries. Given this change, a new set of skills is essential for those who would lead schools. Most importantly, leaders must learn to work within the domain of shifting influences and multiple actors in what is the ‘governance circle’ of the school. The primary implication for the reconceptualization of the organization lies in the preparation of preservice principals and the inservice support and development of practicing principals and headteachers. Daresh notes in this issue that professional preparation programs for school administrators need to take greater responsibility for developing the political acumen of the individuals who would become principals. Political acumen need not be viewed pejoratively as either manipulative or dominating forms of positional power. Instead, the skills needed here are a deep understanding of the micropolitical dimension of organizational governance, the means by which constituency interests and values are expressed, and an ability to take ‘soundings’ of the environment in order to inform site decision making.
B.S. Portin/Int. J. Educ. Res. 29 (1998) 381—391
387
In addition to political skills, the school leader of the future needs to understand and embrace the change process. Change is not temporary or episodic (Fullan, 1991), but is now part of the warp and woof of the organizational fabric. It is the ‘permanent whitewater’ (Vaill, 1989) of ‘turbulent policy environments’ (Vandenberge, 1995) and calls upon school leaders to understand, accept, and utilize change processes as tools of organizational growth and reflection. 2.2. Reconceptualization of the role: shifting perspectives Principals and headteachers often appear to rely on the same skills they brought to the profession when they began. As a result — and also due to the nature of school reform implementation — headteachers and principals have had little choice but to do what they have been doing, only more of it. A logical conclusion is that at some point in time they will encounter the limits of their output; no more hours can be found in the day within the limits of one’s existing skills to attend to the growing responsibilities of the school. New roles, such as Vandenberghe’s ‘project manager’ require new linking skills. In addition, the Belgian cases which Vandenberghe reports indicate a degree of variability in expressing newly expected skills — skills which may be absent from a school leader’s training or pre-existing skill set. Southworth suggests that addressing this challenge is a matter of leading differently, not more. Headteachers and principals have, in many instances, discovered ways of ‘working smarter’ — of delegating tasks and equipping others for leadership roles within the school. Sometimes this involves equipping teachers and staff in the school for new and expanded roles; in other instances it involves increasing the competence and capabilities of new participants in school governance from outside the school staff (i.e. trustees, governors, and site council members). In both instances, addressing the challenge of overloaded principals and heads means utilizing opportunities for distributed leadership (Handy, 1996; Williams, 1995) and rethinking where power should reside in the school. 2.3. Opportunities for distributed leadership For the time to come, principals and headteachers will play critically important roles in schools. As noted earlier, one challenge emerging from this comparative review is the limitation on principals’ capacity for leadership. As new arrangements for school leadership and site-based innovation and change are encouraged, as schools continue to grapple with the interconnectedness of many societal institutions, the role of distributed leadership throughout the school may become increasingly important. This type of leadership, noted by Handy (1996), ‘shifts around’ according to the task at hand and the organization’s stage of development. Although these notions of distributed leadership infuse the leadership literature in business and industry (Hesselbein et al., 1996), there are many opportunities for progress in the field of school leadership. Further research is needed to explore the benefits and challenges of distributed leadership. New roles for teachers, co-principalships, and other shared models have
388
B.S. Portin/Int. J. Educ. Res. 29 (1998) 381—391
been the subject of some studies (see, for example, Sacken, 1994). However, most models continue to place the principal at the apex of the pyramid, simply with more layers underneath. 2.4. New power relationships The results of what has been termed the ‘new managerialism’ (Grace, 1995), particularly as manifested in accountability reforms, can tend to equate managerial efficiency with school improvement. The development of the leadership capacity of schools is not simply a matter of more efficient staffing designs in the face of added local school responsibilities; instead, developing leadership capacity represents a shift in the way leadership is conceived in the school. Similarly, Vandenberghe notes in his chapter that increased pressure from the policy environment can tend to reinforce the principal’s centrality — even reinforcing transactional contracts between the leader and the led. As long as leadership is thought of as a singularity and largely vested in the individual leader — the principal or headteacher — then the chances of surmounting many of the difficulties outlined in this comparative issue are limited. The challenges faced by school leaders identified in this issue present an opportunity for the application of concepts and ideas such as transformational leadership (Burns, 1978) and the growing interests of ‘critical perspectives’ on school leadership (Foster, 1989a, b; Smyth, 1989, 1993; Watkins, 1986). Transformational leadership perspectives focus on change within the organization; on the way in which a school draws together around a core of shared values and common direction which, in turn, empowers all of the individuals in the school to be participants in meaningful leadership of the school. Leaders become followers to the mission of the school, drawing upon the exercise of responsible influence, rather than positional authority. Murphy (1992) notes of these leaders, ‘their base of influence must be professional expertise and moral imperative rather than line authority’ (p. 124). Through ‘critical’ leadership perspectives the principal or the headteacher steps down from a preferential position of authority to a position of servanthood to the values of the school community — servanthood which enables the autonomy of the group. A school community, no longer dominated by autocratic leadership, or even strongly tied to the facilitative leadership of the transformational leader, examines its own practice in school-centered change (Sirotnik, 1989; Wasley et al., 1997). Through critical reflection on practice and discourse from a ‘level playing field’ (related to the Habermasian ‘ideal speech condition’) the leader becomes the ‘Socratic gadfly’ (Starratt, 1993) enabling organizational power as a diffuse quality. In this position, the principal or headteacher is no longer at the apex of all that is necessary for the school’s success (Murphy, 1992, p. 124). Instead, the principal or head — while positionally responsible for much of what occurs in the school — exists as a collaborator in, and nurturer of, the central aims of the school. Building on the base of critical theory and empowerment, ‘critical leadership’ has become an increasingly apparent phrase used to describe one view of re-formed leadership (Southworth, 1995). Watkins (1986) notes, ‘a critical approach, then, to the concept of leadership focuses on the power dimensions which underlie the process of
B.S. Portin/Int. J. Educ. Res. 29 (1998) 381—391
389
reality construction and give force to the human agency of people in organizations’ (p. 33). For Foster, ‘leadership is change, not control’. Leadership ‘is a process of engaging others in the critical analysis of individual and social realities and of establishing standards through which learning can be achieved’ (Foster, 1989a, p. 14). Critical perspectives not only empower the broader organizational members for the purpose of shared leadership, but also empower the voice of principals and headteachers in a turbulent policy environment. This is illustrated in the forming of professional organizations for New Zealand principals. These organizations address not only principals’ needs, but serve as a platform for principals’ voices in the debate surrounding the shifting aims and purposes of public education. Again, the central theme of critical leadership is the establishment and pursuit of organizational structures and ends which enhance freedom and democracy. This is the ethical imperative articulated by Bottery (1992) and Codd (1989) and may help address issues of empowered leadership capacity in schools. 2.5. Moral leadership Critical leadership was briefly discussed in this section because I believe that the challenges presented in this inter-nation analysis reveal a further imperative for shared and empowered leadership — leadership which is truly ‘passed-around’. This stands in contrast with certain aspects of managerial perspectives in that the center of power is on the move. Critical leadership practice suggests the potential for moving beyond the singular leadership of principals only; a means of escaping the quandary principals and heads face of ‘doing it all, except more of it’. In the midst some reform efforts which limit school leaders to the tyranny of managerialism, the moral purpose of education remains a power foil to simple efficiency. As Burns states: The ultimate test of moral leadership is its capacity to transcend the claims of the multiplicity of everyday wants and needs and expectations, to respond to the higher levels of moral development, and to relate leadership behavior — its roles, choices, style, commitments — to a set of reasoned, relatively explicit, conscious values. (Burns, 1978, p. 46) A touchstone of leadership theory development remains the essentially moral action of education, of equipping students for future success and reasoned participation in society. In this regard, the call to moral leadership (Burns, 1978; Grace, 1995; Sergiovanni, 1995; Starratt, 1993) contributes to the ongoing development of transformational and critical leadership theory. 3. Concluding comments Emerging developments in leadership theory have always faced challenges in dealing with nettlesome problems. It is a challenge to leadership theorists to explain the exceptions, to predict the unpredictable and to propose models that are
390
B.S. Portin/Int. J. Educ. Res. 29 (1998) 381—391
transferable from leader to leader and leadership episode to episode. For those who research school leadership and contribute to educational leadership preparation programs it seems crucial that we remain centered on the important questions of leadership in schools. The value of this comparison across nations is that it reveals the promise that exists in challenging contexts with principals and headteachers who are committed to leadership for the long term. These new leadership imperatives are summed-up by Witherspoon (1997) The exercise of leadership throughout the 1990s and into the twenty-first century is particularly affected by the increased rate of change occurring in the environment, and an increased interdependence between the organization and its external constituencies related to the acquisition and control of resources2 In the future, leaders must become increasingly adept at understanding and initiating these partnerships and at establishing a variety of networks both in and outside the organization to create communicative relationships that will foster the achievement of individual, organizational, and community goals. One main reason why leaders must possess this ability is that our society, and organizations within it, are involved in a major transformation — a dramatic and irreversible change. Leaders must understand this phenomenon as they interact with organizational members now and in the future. (p. 42) Reconceptualizing the role of principals and headteachers include pragmatic concerns for distributing leadership, as well as rethinking the power relationships in the school. If distributed leadership is seen only as an efficiency concern it will remain hierarchically nested within the principal or head. If, however, distributed leadership includes a careful rethinking of the power relationships in the school, then, perhaps the transformation of school leadership might actually occur. This chapter set out to identify the cross-national themes that are occurring in the challenges and transitions in school leadership. One of the most pressing problems arising from this review is that of capacity-building for school principals themselves. Distributed leadership models presume that those who ‘distribute’ the leadership retain certain skills, attributes, and values. Particularly in the U.S./U.K./N.Z. context, the time and resources for principals and headteachers to come together to address these problems and to learn new models is limited, if existent. As schools change as organizations, as new patterns of internal and external interaction emerge, and as principals and heads reconceptualize their school and their role in it, extensive support will be necessary. In addition, innovative leadership preparation programs that address the deep challenges of leadership and expanded leadership roles in schools will be essential. Clearly, principals and headteachers will remain central to the continued guidance of schools during these turbulent years of reform. Whether or not their role in the years to come will become more or less challenging remains to be seen. What is apparent in the short term is that they will be in unique positions to guide reform, work with policymakers, and continue to provide an expanded leadership base to meet central teaching and learning needs.
B.S. Portin/Int. J. Educ. Res. 29 (1998) 381—391
391
References Bottery, M. (1992). ¹he ethics of educational management: Personal, social and political perspectives on school organization. London: Cassell. Burns, J. M. (1978). ¸eadership. New York: Harper Torchbooks. Codd, J. (1989). Educational leadership as reflective action. In J. Smyth (Ed.), Critical perspectives on educational leadership (pp. 157—178). London: Falmer. Foster, W. (1989a). The administrator as a transformative intellectual. Peabody Journal of Education, 66(3), 5—18. Foster, W. (1989b). Toward a critical practice of leadership. In J. Smyth (Ed.), Critical perspectives on educational leadership (pp. 39—62). London: Falmer. Fullan, M. (1991). ¹he new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press. Grace, G. (1995). School leadership: Beyond educational management. London: Falmer. Handy, C. (1996). The new language of organizing and its implications for leaders. In F. Hesselbein, M. Goldsmith, R. Beckhard (Eds.), ¹he leader of the future (pp. 3—9). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Hesselbein, F., Goldsmith, M., & Beckhard, R. (Eds.). (1996). ¹he leader of the future. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Hughes, M. G. (1976). The professional-as-administrator: The case of the secondary school head. In R. S. Peters (Ed.), ¹he role of the head (pp. 50—62). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Male, T., & Merchant, B. (1995, October). Chief executive or instructional leader: Experiences of principals and headteachers in the º.S. and º.K. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the University Council on Educational Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah. Murphy, J. (1992). ¹he landscapes of leadership preparation: Reframing the education of school administrators. Newbury Park: Corwin. Portin, B. S. (1995). Primary headship in a time of systemic change: Conceptions of leadership. Case studies of three Oxfordshire primary headteachers. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Oxford, England. Sacken, D. (1994). No more principals! Phi Delta Kappan, 75(9), 664—670. Sirotnik, K. A. (1989). The school as the center of change. In T. J. Sergiovanni and J. H. Moore (Eds.), Schooling for tomorrow: Directing reforms to issues that count (pp. 89—113). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Sergiovanni, T. J. (1995). ¹he principalship: A reflective practice perspective (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Smyth, J. (Ed.). (1989). Critical perspectives on educational leadership. London: Falmer. Smyth, J. (Ed.). (1993). A socially critical view of the self-managing school. London: Falmer. Southworth, G. (1995). ¸ooking into primary headship: A research based interpretation. London: Falmer. Starratt, R. J. (1993). ¹he drama of leadership. London: Falmer. Vaill, P. B. (1989). Managing as a performing art. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Vandenberghe, R. (1995). Creative management of a school: A matter of vision and daily interventions. Journal of Educational Administration, 33(2), 31—51. Wasley, P., Hampel, R., & Clark, R. (1997). The puzzle of whole-school change. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(9), 690—697. Watkins, P. (1986). A critical review of leadership concepts and research: ¹he implications for educational administration. Geelong, Victoria: Deakin University Press. Williams, R. C., & Portin, B. (1997). ¹he Changing role of the principal in ¼ashington state. Association of Washington School Principals, Olympia, WA. Williams, V. (Ed.). (1995). ¹owards 2000: Organization and relationships. London: Cassell. Witherspoon, P. (1997). Communicating leadership: An organizational perspective. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Chapter 8
From change and challenge to new directions for school leadership Bradley S. Portin* University of Washington, College of Education, Box 353600 Seattle, WA 98195-3600, U.S.A.
Abstract Reflecting on the countries represented in this issue, this chapter analyzes the topics and problems raised and suggests, through comparative analysis, new directions for school leadership. The role of the school site leader, be the headteacher or principal, is a role laden with more responsibility than ever before. One difference between the countries is the amount of attendant authority that is linked with devolved responsibility. To varying degrees in the four countries discussed, there are issues that present a quandary for school leaders, such as centralization of some key decisions (particularly concerning curriculum) and decentralization of managerial responsibility. These international themes have implications for policymaking and for those who prepare leaders and provide ongoing professional support. ( 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Leadership of schools holds a strategic position in school reform in many nations. For example, in the area of school governance — whatever the level of devolution the headteacher or principal holds a pivotal role of responsibility for working with governors, trustees, or site council representatives. In all cases, this designated leader, the principal or headteacher, retains specific and individual responsibility for the ongoing development of the school and its compliance with externally legislated reform plans. As is developed further in this chapter, part of a problem for school leaders is that headteachers and principals have retained a place of preeminence in school responsibility even as shared leadership is touted in reform efforts. The chapters in this issue indicate that this has resulted in these individuals simply taking on more and more when part of the answer to leader overload is developing more of the leadership capacity of other organizational members. The national settings for school leadership discussed in this issue indicates a growing tension for school leaders. There are competing and contrasting forces that act on
* Tel.: 001 206 543 1836; fax: 001 206 616 6762; e-mail: [email protected]. 0883-0355/98/$19.00 ( 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved PII: S 08 8 3-0 3 55 ( 9 8) 0 0 04 1 - X
382
B.S. Portin/Int. J. Educ. Res. 29 (1998) 381—391
the principals and headteachers in the United States, United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Belgium. On one hand, educational reform efforts reinforce the important role of the school principal or headteacher as the ‘chief executive’ (Hughes, 1976) of a complex and increasingly autonomous organization (as evidenced by local management initiatives). On the other hand, as Grace (1995) notes, ‘School leadership has become in an important sense, devalued’ (p. 156). How do we make sense of this quandary, understand the contemporary context with greater clarity, and also further extend the boundaries of school leadership theory so as to better enable practice? In the editor’s introduction, I invited readers to attend to three questions while examining the changes represented in the countries studied. f What are the apparent changes and stresses in headteacher/principal roles? f What is the impact of those changes? f What purposeful solutions and insights for future school leaders are suggested? These three questions are addressed in the following sections of this chapter. After reviewing the themes that arise from this inter-nation examination, this chapter concludes with suggestions for the development of leadership theory and question of practice for school leaders — present and future.
1. Problems and impacts across countries In the title of this section the notion of ‘problems’ is meant to describe the challenges, dilemmas, stresses, and de-motivators outlined by the authors across countries. ‘Impacts’ refers to the outcomes of policy decisions and school reform, particularly as they intersect with the role of the designated school leader: the principal or headteacher. Impacts may be linked directly to policy decisions, such as the decision to devolve the majority of school funding oversight from local education authorities (LEAs) to U.K. schools, or they may be experienced as second-order effects, such as the stress that principals and headteachers reported from longer work days resulting from greater site management responsibilities. In combination these chapters suggest three prominent problems and impacts experienced by principals and headteachers: the changing nature of their organizations; the nature of the shifts in their leadership roles; and the evolving characteristics of the interactions that occur in the school setting. 1.1. The changing nature of the organization In the context of a standards-oriented cultural ideology, the aims of schools appear to be shifting to a more limited mandate of preparing workers to meet needs expressed by business and industry. In three of the national settings, the authors speak of the market forces which play a prominent role in school reform. Education-as-commodity increasingly drives a standards-based, outcomes-driven orientation toward the central purposes of the school. Grace (1995) noted, ‘The combination of management and market preoccupations when placed alongside this change in the domain of values, may result in the final triumph of commodification over moral purpose in schooling’ (p. 156).
B.S. Portin/Int. J. Educ. Res. 29 (1998) 381—391
383
For school principals and headteachers, these changes are reported as shifting their focus from instructional leadership to site-management and presentation of the school to an external community. The nature of the organization, now threatened by possible adverse action due to poor performance on accountability measures and in school inspections, necessitates that the principals and headteachers spend increasing amounts of time managing the school’s image. A further change reported regards the nature of the organizational boundaries between school and community. In three of the countries (U.S./U.K./N.Z.), the traditional/historical role of the school has largely been autonomous. At one time, those outside of the school — parents and politicians — largely deferred educational matters to the educators in the school. This sense of professional deference has departed (and many would say, rightly so). The boundaries between the school and its operation can now be thought of as much more diffuse or permeable. The clearest example of the permeability of the boundaries between the school and external environment is found in the rise of local control of schools. In the United Kingdom (specifically England and Wales), this is represented in the expanded and empowered roles given to school governors following the 1988 Education Act. In New Zealand, the complete devolution from central control to newly derived trustee boards in each school has accomplished the same end. In the United States, the picture of local control is more mixed. Many schools, depending on which state, still remain under the umbrella of school district management, while new experiments in complete local control (such as in Chicago, or ‘charter schools’ being constituted in many states) are accomplishing much the same outcome, but not on a national scale. As a result of these permeable and diffuse organizational boundaries, principals and headteachers report spending increased time working with governing bodies and site councils. Their role, both as guide and servant to the boards, appears to require extended commitments of time and energy. 1.2. Shifting leadership roles Perhaps the most reported impact of changes in principal and headteacher roles across all countries is the perceived shift from leadership responsibilities to managerial functions. This shift is described in a number of ways, but the central theme is the predominance of managerial tasks found in the school’s maintenance and operation, as opposed to the primary tasks of leadership for teaching and learning. In New Zealand, this is reported, particularly, by those elementary principals in small schools who are having to abandon their teaching roles in order to cope with the managerial responsibilities of local control. In the countries represented in this issue, the principals and heads talk about their commitment to the central aim of the school: teaching and learning. However, as the principals in Washington state reported (Williams and Portin, 1997), they are finding less and less time to lead and/or participate in the instructional program when they are spending increasing amounts of time managing budgets, completing reports, and attending to managerial tasks that used to be largely centrally administered.
384
B.S. Portin/Int. J. Educ. Res. 29 (1998) 381—391
The same trend was found in a study of the U.K primary headship in the mid-1990s (Portin, 1995). Further study (Male and Merchant, 1995) has indicated that, owing to increasing managerial expertise, headteachers are finding ways to return to their instructional roots, but the managerial imperative continues to be burdensome. Most strikingly, in this issue Robertson and Harold report on the number of school principals who are leaving the profession, or are taking lesser posts within the school. Reported stress is high among school leaders. Whether due to the impact of sheer load and working more hours (noted by Harold and Portin), or the challenges that arise from blending personal identity with the progress of the school (noted by Robertson and Southworth), principals and headteachers present a beleaguered and weary picture. Their reported stress and sense of overload appear to be related to the scale of their ever-increasing responsibilities. In many respects, it might be seen that principals and headteachers in many countries are also trapped in what has been past practice. For those in-post through the period of reform, they have had to rely, to a large degree, on their past training in the headship/principalship. A dilemma that arises out of this perspective is that heads and principals are left with the single alternative to do all of the leadership and management that is required to run an effective school, only more; to rely on the same set of skills, only carry them out to a greater extent. A contrasting perspective is offered by Vandenberghe in his chapter. The new inspection system in Belgium had some unexpected positive benefits for principals. Focusing on the central role of the principal in the inspection, for example, resulted in an increased acceptance by the teachers of the principals’ leadership role. Consequently, Vandenberghe was able to conclude that the ‘professional interests of the principal can be strengthened by external authority and accountability’. In this case, the possibility of the principal introducing changes at both the school and classroom level would be enhanced. 1.3. Evolving characteristics of interaction In addition to the changing nature of the schools as organizations and the troublesome balance between leadership and management, the studies represented in this issue reveal a picture of new interactions both inside and outside of the school. There are new interactions with parents and community members who now hold positions of key responsibility as governors, trustees, or site council members. In their new roles as decision makers in the school they call upon the principal or headteacher to exercise political leadership in managing factional disputes and the conflicting interests which are naturally present in school communities. Thus, the political acumen of school leaders, as noted by Daresh in this issue, becomes a new interaction skill for many of these educators is a new area of leadership expertise. 1.3.1. Market-driven accountability In an important sense, there are new participants in the operation of the school. Parents assume new and important roles as ‘consumers’ in a market-driven system.
B.S. Portin/Int. J. Educ. Res. 29 (1998) 381—391
385
Principals in a Washington State study (Williams and Portin, 1997) report an increased attention to decisions which take into account matters of ‘customer satisfaction’. Customer satisfaction and a market orientation are precursors to a rising expectation for school accountability and this accountability changes the nature of the interactions that occur between the school and community. There are important examples of this. The first is the system of school inspections that are occurring, predominantly represented in the U.K. Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED) inspections of schools, and similarly suggested in the Belgian system of inspection initiated in 1991. These inspections are meant to be a comprehensive assessment of individual schools for the purpose of maintaining an assurance of high quality in the program, staff, facilities, and leadership. The results of the U.K. inspections are available to the local school community and may be widely publicized; particularly so when a school ‘fails’ an inspection. The results of an OFSTED inspection are even available on-line for any interested individual around the world. In Belgium, once the final inspection report is presented and discussed with the principal he or she is expected to develop an improvement plan and a set of follow-up activities. Related to OFSTED inspections, school performance measures are produced for comparative purposes in all of the countries discussed in this chapter. In Washington State, the results of statewide testing at particular grade levels are being published in the press in the form of rankings of school performance. The same occurs in the U.K. ‘league tables’ printed in the national press. The aim of this information is not only to assess performance and ‘school success,’ but also to provide parents with further information for choosing a school for their child. 1.3.2. Entrepreneurial partnerships In addition, schools in the United States, United Kingdom, and New Zealand report new partnerships with business and industry. These partnerships are often designed around the entrepreneurial needs of the school to attract new students (reported by Robertson) or to fill in the gaps in funding that have appeared in devolved budgets (reported by Portin). The nature of these new interactions are described, on occasion, in conflictual terms — a matter related, perhaps, to the political leadership of the school principal or headteacher. In all cases, the interaction with multiple constituencies has focused on responsiveness and accessibility. Each of the new stakeholders has interests in the performance of the school and, therefore, expects quick action on the part of the school principal or headteacher. One image that comes from this inter-nation analysis is that of the principal/headteacher ‘caught in the middle’ of competing values, demands, and interests. Vandenberghe notes in the Belgian context that the principal may be caught between both individual and school concerns, as well as the local school work plan (inspection-driven) and the external environment. For some school leaders, this creates an ethical dilemma: Where should they lend their support? To which constituency do they belong? Grace (1995) describes this collision of values by noting the essential ethical dilemma of headship as follows:
386
B.S. Portin/Int. J. Educ. Res. 29 (1998) 381—391
[S]hould they [heads] participate in a market culture for the material benefit of their schools and their pupils or should they remain loyal to their own personal and professional values at the risk of disadvantage for their schools? This dilemma of professional community versus autonomous advantage, which was one of the outcomes of a market for schooling, was compounded by government incentives to all schools to opt-out of control of the local state into a more autonomous grantmaintained status (pp. 143—144). For the New Zealand and U.S. principal and the U.K. headteacher, there appears to be a difficulty in determining what is ‘school’ and what is ‘not-school.’ When are they representing and responding to managerial/external interests and when to instructional/internal interests? When are they involved in implementing externally imposed reform and restructuring, and when are they leading their school in direction-setting for site-determined goals? Furthermore, it appears, as Vandenberghe notes, that this aspect of the ‘dilemma’ is occurring in a context of increased ‘vulnerability’ and ‘visibility’ for the school leader. Their paradox is a public paradox.
2. Inter-nation insights and opportunities for school principals and headteachers Arising from these three primary observations of the challenges and impacts encountered by principals and headteachers in four countries, several insights and opportunities were suggested by the authors. As a means of summary, let me suggest two prominent themes: reconceptualizing the school organization and reconceptualizing the role of principal/headteacher. 2.1. Reconceptualization of the organization As noted in the prior section, the nature of the school-as-organization has changed in meaningful and dramatic ways, the most important being the increased permeability of organizational boundaries. Given this change, a new set of skills is essential for those who would lead schools. Most importantly, leaders must learn to work within the domain of shifting influences and multiple actors in what is the ‘governance circle’ of the school. The primary implication for the reconceptualization of the organization lies in the preparation of preservice principals and the inservice support and development of practicing principals and headteachers. Daresh notes in this issue that professional preparation programs for school administrators need to take greater responsibility for developing the political acumen of the individuals who would become principals. Political acumen need not be viewed pejoratively as either manipulative or dominating forms of positional power. Instead, the skills needed here are a deep understanding of the micropolitical dimension of organizational governance, the means by which constituency interests and values are expressed, and an ability to take ‘soundings’ of the environment in order to inform site decision making.
B.S. Portin/Int. J. Educ. Res. 29 (1998) 381—391
387
In addition to political skills, the school leader of the future needs to understand and embrace the change process. Change is not temporary or episodic (Fullan, 1991), but is now part of the warp and woof of the organizational fabric. It is the ‘permanent whitewater’ (Vaill, 1989) of ‘turbulent policy environments’ (Vandenberge, 1995) and calls upon school leaders to understand, accept, and utilize change processes as tools of organizational growth and reflection. 2.2. Reconceptualization of the role: shifting perspectives Principals and headteachers often appear to rely on the same skills they brought to the profession when they began. As a result — and also due to the nature of school reform implementation — headteachers and principals have had little choice but to do what they have been doing, only more of it. A logical conclusion is that at some point in time they will encounter the limits of their output; no more hours can be found in the day within the limits of one’s existing skills to attend to the growing responsibilities of the school. New roles, such as Vandenberghe’s ‘project manager’ require new linking skills. In addition, the Belgian cases which Vandenberghe reports indicate a degree of variability in expressing newly expected skills — skills which may be absent from a school leader’s training or pre-existing skill set. Southworth suggests that addressing this challenge is a matter of leading differently, not more. Headteachers and principals have, in many instances, discovered ways of ‘working smarter’ — of delegating tasks and equipping others for leadership roles within the school. Sometimes this involves equipping teachers and staff in the school for new and expanded roles; in other instances it involves increasing the competence and capabilities of new participants in school governance from outside the school staff (i.e. trustees, governors, and site council members). In both instances, addressing the challenge of overloaded principals and heads means utilizing opportunities for distributed leadership (Handy, 1996; Williams, 1995) and rethinking where power should reside in the school. 2.3. Opportunities for distributed leadership For the time to come, principals and headteachers will play critically important roles in schools. As noted earlier, one challenge emerging from this comparative review is the limitation on principals’ capacity for leadership. As new arrangements for school leadership and site-based innovation and change are encouraged, as schools continue to grapple with the interconnectedness of many societal institutions, the role of distributed leadership throughout the school may become increasingly important. This type of leadership, noted by Handy (1996), ‘shifts around’ according to the task at hand and the organization’s stage of development. Although these notions of distributed leadership infuse the leadership literature in business and industry (Hesselbein et al., 1996), there are many opportunities for progress in the field of school leadership. Further research is needed to explore the benefits and challenges of distributed leadership. New roles for teachers, co-principalships, and other shared models have
388
B.S. Portin/Int. J. Educ. Res. 29 (1998) 381—391
been the subject of some studies (see, for example, Sacken, 1994). However, most models continue to place the principal at the apex of the pyramid, simply with more layers underneath. 2.4. New power relationships The results of what has been termed the ‘new managerialism’ (Grace, 1995), particularly as manifested in accountability reforms, can tend to equate managerial efficiency with school improvement. The development of the leadership capacity of schools is not simply a matter of more efficient staffing designs in the face of added local school responsibilities; instead, developing leadership capacity represents a shift in the way leadership is conceived in the school. Similarly, Vandenberghe notes in his chapter that increased pressure from the policy environment can tend to reinforce the principal’s centrality — even reinforcing transactional contracts between the leader and the led. As long as leadership is thought of as a singularity and largely vested in the individual leader — the principal or headteacher — then the chances of surmounting many of the difficulties outlined in this comparative issue are limited. The challenges faced by school leaders identified in this issue present an opportunity for the application of concepts and ideas such as transformational leadership (Burns, 1978) and the growing interests of ‘critical perspectives’ on school leadership (Foster, 1989a, b; Smyth, 1989, 1993; Watkins, 1986). Transformational leadership perspectives focus on change within the organization; on the way in which a school draws together around a core of shared values and common direction which, in turn, empowers all of the individuals in the school to be participants in meaningful leadership of the school. Leaders become followers to the mission of the school, drawing upon the exercise of responsible influence, rather than positional authority. Murphy (1992) notes of these leaders, ‘their base of influence must be professional expertise and moral imperative rather than line authority’ (p. 124). Through ‘critical’ leadership perspectives the principal or the headteacher steps down from a preferential position of authority to a position of servanthood to the values of the school community — servanthood which enables the autonomy of the group. A school community, no longer dominated by autocratic leadership, or even strongly tied to the facilitative leadership of the transformational leader, examines its own practice in school-centered change (Sirotnik, 1989; Wasley et al., 1997). Through critical reflection on practice and discourse from a ‘level playing field’ (related to the Habermasian ‘ideal speech condition’) the leader becomes the ‘Socratic gadfly’ (Starratt, 1993) enabling organizational power as a diffuse quality. In this position, the principal or headteacher is no longer at the apex of all that is necessary for the school’s success (Murphy, 1992, p. 124). Instead, the principal or head — while positionally responsible for much of what occurs in the school — exists as a collaborator in, and nurturer of, the central aims of the school. Building on the base of critical theory and empowerment, ‘critical leadership’ has become an increasingly apparent phrase used to describe one view of re-formed leadership (Southworth, 1995). Watkins (1986) notes, ‘a critical approach, then, to the concept of leadership focuses on the power dimensions which underlie the process of
B.S. Portin/Int. J. Educ. Res. 29 (1998) 381—391
389
reality construction and give force to the human agency of people in organizations’ (p. 33). For Foster, ‘leadership is change, not control’. Leadership ‘is a process of engaging others in the critical analysis of individual and social realities and of establishing standards through which learning can be achieved’ (Foster, 1989a, p. 14). Critical perspectives not only empower the broader organizational members for the purpose of shared leadership, but also empower the voice of principals and headteachers in a turbulent policy environment. This is illustrated in the forming of professional organizations for New Zealand principals. These organizations address not only principals’ needs, but serve as a platform for principals’ voices in the debate surrounding the shifting aims and purposes of public education. Again, the central theme of critical leadership is the establishment and pursuit of organizational structures and ends which enhance freedom and democracy. This is the ethical imperative articulated by Bottery (1992) and Codd (1989) and may help address issues of empowered leadership capacity in schools. 2.5. Moral leadership Critical leadership was briefly discussed in this section because I believe that the challenges presented in this inter-nation analysis reveal a further imperative for shared and empowered leadership — leadership which is truly ‘passed-around’. This stands in contrast with certain aspects of managerial perspectives in that the center of power is on the move. Critical leadership practice suggests the potential for moving beyond the singular leadership of principals only; a means of escaping the quandary principals and heads face of ‘doing it all, except more of it’. In the midst some reform efforts which limit school leaders to the tyranny of managerialism, the moral purpose of education remains a power foil to simple efficiency. As Burns states: The ultimate test of moral leadership is its capacity to transcend the claims of the multiplicity of everyday wants and needs and expectations, to respond to the higher levels of moral development, and to relate leadership behavior — its roles, choices, style, commitments — to a set of reasoned, relatively explicit, conscious values. (Burns, 1978, p. 46) A touchstone of leadership theory development remains the essentially moral action of education, of equipping students for future success and reasoned participation in society. In this regard, the call to moral leadership (Burns, 1978; Grace, 1995; Sergiovanni, 1995; Starratt, 1993) contributes to the ongoing development of transformational and critical leadership theory. 3. Concluding comments Emerging developments in leadership theory have always faced challenges in dealing with nettlesome problems. It is a challenge to leadership theorists to explain the exceptions, to predict the unpredictable and to propose models that are
390
B.S. Portin/Int. J. Educ. Res. 29 (1998) 381—391
transferable from leader to leader and leadership episode to episode. For those who research school leadership and contribute to educational leadership preparation programs it seems crucial that we remain centered on the important questions of leadership in schools. The value of this comparison across nations is that it reveals the promise that exists in challenging contexts with principals and headteachers who are committed to leadership for the long term. These new leadership imperatives are summed-up by Witherspoon (1997) The exercise of leadership throughout the 1990s and into the twenty-first century is particularly affected by the increased rate of change occurring in the environment, and an increased interdependence between the organization and its external constituencies related to the acquisition and control of resources2 In the future, leaders must become increasingly adept at understanding and initiating these partnerships and at establishing a variety of networks both in and outside the organization to create communicative relationships that will foster the achievement of individual, organizational, and community goals. One main reason why leaders must possess this ability is that our society, and organizations within it, are involved in a major transformation — a dramatic and irreversible change. Leaders must understand this phenomenon as they interact with organizational members now and in the future. (p. 42) Reconceptualizing the role of principals and headteachers include pragmatic concerns for distributing leadership, as well as rethinking the power relationships in the school. If distributed leadership is seen only as an efficiency concern it will remain hierarchically nested within the principal or head. If, however, distributed leadership includes a careful rethinking of the power relationships in the school, then, perhaps the transformation of school leadership might actually occur. This chapter set out to identify the cross-national themes that are occurring in the challenges and transitions in school leadership. One of the most pressing problems arising from this review is that of capacity-building for school principals themselves. Distributed leadership models presume that those who ‘distribute’ the leadership retain certain skills, attributes, and values. Particularly in the U.S./U.K./N.Z. context, the time and resources for principals and headteachers to come together to address these problems and to learn new models is limited, if existent. As schools change as organizations, as new patterns of internal and external interaction emerge, and as principals and heads reconceptualize their school and their role in it, extensive support will be necessary. In addition, innovative leadership preparation programs that address the deep challenges of leadership and expanded leadership roles in schools will be essential. Clearly, principals and headteachers will remain central to the continued guidance of schools during these turbulent years of reform. Whether or not their role in the years to come will become more or less challenging remains to be seen. What is apparent in the short term is that they will be in unique positions to guide reform, work with policymakers, and continue to provide an expanded leadership base to meet central teaching and learning needs.
B.S. Portin/Int. J. Educ. Res. 29 (1998) 381—391
391
References Bottery, M. (1992). ¹he ethics of educational management: Personal, social and political perspectives on school organization. London: Cassell. Burns, J. M. (1978). ¸eadership. New York: Harper Torchbooks. Codd, J. (1989). Educational leadership as reflective action. In J. Smyth (Ed.), Critical perspectives on educational leadership (pp. 157—178). London: Falmer. Foster, W. (1989a). The administrator as a transformative intellectual. Peabody Journal of Education, 66(3), 5—18. Foster, W. (1989b). Toward a critical practice of leadership. In J. Smyth (Ed.), Critical perspectives on educational leadership (pp. 39—62). London: Falmer. Fullan, M. (1991). ¹he new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press. Grace, G. (1995). School leadership: Beyond educational management. London: Falmer. Handy, C. (1996). The new language of organizing and its implications for leaders. In F. Hesselbein, M. Goldsmith, R. Beckhard (Eds.), ¹he leader of the future (pp. 3—9). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Hesselbein, F., Goldsmith, M., & Beckhard, R. (Eds.). (1996). ¹he leader of the future. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Hughes, M. G. (1976). The professional-as-administrator: The case of the secondary school head. In R. S. Peters (Ed.), ¹he role of the head (pp. 50—62). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Male, T., & Merchant, B. (1995, October). Chief executive or instructional leader: Experiences of principals and headteachers in the º.S. and º.K. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the University Council on Educational Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah. Murphy, J. (1992). ¹he landscapes of leadership preparation: Reframing the education of school administrators. Newbury Park: Corwin. Portin, B. S. (1995). Primary headship in a time of systemic change: Conceptions of leadership. Case studies of three Oxfordshire primary headteachers. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Oxford, England. Sacken, D. (1994). No more principals! Phi Delta Kappan, 75(9), 664—670. Sirotnik, K. A. (1989). The school as the center of change. In T. J. Sergiovanni and J. H. Moore (Eds.), Schooling for tomorrow: Directing reforms to issues that count (pp. 89—113). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Sergiovanni, T. J. (1995). ¹he principalship: A reflective practice perspective (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Smyth, J. (Ed.). (1989). Critical perspectives on educational leadership. London: Falmer. Smyth, J. (Ed.). (1993). A socially critical view of the self-managing school. London: Falmer. Southworth, G. (1995). ¸ooking into primary headship: A research based interpretation. London: Falmer. Starratt, R. J. (1993). ¹he drama of leadership. London: Falmer. Vaill, P. B. (1989). Managing as a performing art. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Vandenberghe, R. (1995). Creative management of a school: A matter of vision and daily interventions. Journal of Educational Administration, 33(2), 31—51. Wasley, P., Hampel, R., & Clark, R. (1997). The puzzle of whole-school change. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(9), 690—697. Watkins, P. (1986). A critical review of leadership concepts and research: ¹he implications for educational administration. Geelong, Victoria: Deakin University Press. Williams, R. C., & Portin, B. (1997). ¹he Changing role of the principal in ¼ashington state. Association of Washington School Principals, Olympia, WA. Williams, V. (Ed.). (1995). ¹owards 2000: Organization and relationships. London: Cassell. Witherspoon, P. (1997). Communicating leadership: An organizational perspective. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.