1-4 of 4 Results  for:

  • Keywords: instruction x
  • Educational Administration and Leadership x
Clear all

Article

Leadership Practices and Managerial Accountability in Italy  

Angelo Paletta, Christopher Bezzina, and Genc Alimehmeti

The changes that are affecting public education imply the need to incorporate into principal’s leadership practices two opposing forces: on the one hand, the accountability systems, which require responsibility for centrally managed achievement testing, compliance with standard procedures of self-evaluation, planning teaching improvement, and reporting of the results; and on the other hand, the expectations that come from within the school, namely those of teachers, students, families, and other stakeholders. This presents the challenge of coproducing authentic learning (problem solving, soft skills, civic knowledge, and citizenship) that is not easily measurable and therefore difficult to bring to light, rationalize, systematize, and report. Principals react differently to the demands of centralized policy-making initiatives. Some see them as opportunities for growth and only formally adopt them, whereas others entrench themselves into particular practices aimed at focusing on the immediate, on being conservative and minimizing risk taking and setting less ambitious goals that can take their schools forward. Managerial accountability can end up “colonizing” the organizations (and those who lead them), with the consequence that time and attention is devoted to what is being measured or observed by the central administrative systems. The “colonized” leaders develop or bend their managerial practices primarily in response to the expectations of accountability systems. On the opposite side, accountability systems can produce the effect of “decoupling”: the actual activities are separated from the rituals of accountability requested by the central or local government. In this case, school principals conform only formally to the demands of accountability systems. Other school leaders can capture opportunities from an accountability system, integrating it into a comprehensive management approach that balances opposing requests and organizational principles into a “systemic” model. Thus, the accountability practices in the field of education introduced in Italy can leave both a positive or negative impact on the way school principals lead their organizations. Studying the impact that the introduction of such policies can have on individuals as a result of the way leaders execute such directives are deemed important as they shed light on the link between policy and practice, and help us gain deeper insights into the so-called theory and practice divide. The move toward greater forms of accountability presents an ideal opportunity for policy makers and educational leaders working at different levels to appreciate the importance of systemic leadership and engage in a discourse that enlightens its value to school improvement initiatives. Rather than focusing on the self, on merely following directives and working independently, the school principal that is able to understand how things and people are connected and can come together to transform their schools can make a difference to school development and school improvement. Bringing policy makers and implementers together can help in understanding the realities faced by educators at the school level, the former often oblivious to the challenges educators face on a day-to-day basis.

Article

School Culture and Educational Leadership  

Paula kwan and Yi-Lee Wong

Two commonly researched leadership practices in the education literature—instructional and transformational—can be linked to Schein’s multilevel model on organizational culture. There is a mediating effect of school leadership on the school structure and school culture relationships. The literature related to this subject confirms that the culture of a school, shaped by its principal, affects the competency and capacity of teachers; it also recognizes that school leadership practices affect student academic outcomes. Some studies, however, attempt to understand the impact a school principal can make on its student culture. If school culture is an avenue for understanding the behaviors and performance of school leaders and teachers, then student culture is a platform for understanding the affective and academic performance of students.

Article

Leadership and Supervision  

Sally J. Zepeda, Ahmed M. Alkaabi, and Mark D. Tavernier

Supervisory leadership must be enacted as a daily and persistent practice to support teachers’ efforts to educate children, despite the constant influx of accountability demands and requirements from internal and external forces that often distract from the core function of teaching and learning. As a field, supervision has progressed from autocratic practices used to inspect and control teachers to more developmental and differentiated forms to support teachers’ own wish to evaluate, understand, and improve their practices. The tensions between supervision as a support and the summative aspects of evaluation continue to polarize the teacher–supervisor relationship. Supervisory leadership is a collaborative process that builds cultures of trust and risk-taking. Supervisory leadership connects supervision, teacher evaluation, and professional development to support teacher growth and development. Embedded in these processes are the principles of adult learning and career-stage theory to accommodate various needs to foster cognitive development and enhance instructional practices.

Article

Theories of Educational Leadership  

Gabriele Lakomski and Colin W. Evers

From its beginnings in the 1940s, leadership research has been conducted as a scientific activity, with the aim of discovering the essence of leadership that, once found, would provide social–organizational benefits. However, no essence has been discovered, and research continues undeterred. Leadership theories old and new rely on the conception of science, known as logical empiricism, to support their claims. The identification of logical empiricism with science, however, is a mistake as empiricism is no longer considered valid, a mistake perpetuated in contemporary education leadership theories that present their accounts as alternatives to science. A better account of science, “naturalistic coherentism,” is able to advance the theory and practice of education leadership by growing knowledge, not by denying it.