99. Emerging Researchers' Group (for presentation at Emerging Researchers' Conference)
Paper
Contemporary Roles of Chairpersons, Principals and Teachers on Boards of Management in Primary Schools in the Republic of Ireland
Michael Buckley, Gavin Murphy
Trinity College Dublin, Ireland
Presenting Author: Buckley, Michael
Governance of primary schools in the Republic of Ireland is an area that is not well researched in the national educational research literature (cf. O'Sullivan and West-Burnham, 2012). According to a recent report from the former Department of Education Chief Inspector of schools, Dr Harold Hislop, “because of their voluntary nature, boards might not be adequately equipped for their significant responsibilities... The voluntary nature of school governance arrangements is not sustainable.” (Department of Education, 2022, p. 237). How individuals understand their roles on Boards of Management is, by extension, also not very well understood.
Therefore, this paper's aim is to explore primary school governance in the Irish context over the last ~20 years, mapping the research literature pertaining to it and distilling key contemporary issues through a comparative analysis with issues arising in other identified national contexts. For example, governance approaches in other OECD countries (e.g. England and Australia, given the substantial literatures on school governance in these other English-speaking contexts) will be explored and commented on regarding how the Republic of Ireland could learn from policy approaches taken in these countries. Additionally, preliminary data analysis from a sample of chairpersons, principals and teachers - three key actors on all primary school Boards of Management - exploring how they make sense of and enact their roles in the contemporary policy and practice context will be shared.
This study first documents the evolution of school governance in the Republic of Ireland through a scoping literature review distilling key issues over the last 20 years since the establishment of the monumental Education Act 1998. It also advances an overview and analysis of international school governance trends against which to situate the Irish 'case'. It then moves to present and synthesise empirical data from actors drawing on a dual conceptualistion of both role theory and sensemaking theory (cf. James et al., 2012).
Since the establishment of boards of management in Ireland in 1975, there has been a gradual separation of the education system and the Catholic Church. These two major power brokers, the State and the Catholic Church, acted as gatekeepers and controllers for the implementation of education policy in Ireland during the twentieth century (O' Buachalla, 1988), including in relation to school governance. In contrast to many countries, the Church's engagement in the education system has given a new layer to an already complex institution, creating difficulties and tensions along the way. This study maps and reviews school governance in Ireland since the establishment of the Education Act of 1998. Since then, a number of other laws/ Acts and policies have followed and presented school leadership and Boards with a ceaseless flow of mandates and regulations that govern every aspect of their work (Simmie, 2012). Therefore, the issue of sustainability of school governance arrangements is key in this presentation.
Given this backdrop, the main research question for is:
1. How do primary school board members (namely, chairpersons, principals and teachers) make sense of and carry out their role (including which supports are offered to them) on contemporary Boards of Management?
2. Which historical legacy issues (e.g. voluntary status of boards) need reform to ensure a more sustainable approach into the future?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis presentation's methodology involves:
1. A scoping review of the key policies and research literature pertaining to school governance and Boards of Management in the Republic of Ireland over a 20 year period
2. A narrative review of the international school governance literature, identifying key contemporary issues against which to situate the Irish case
3. Empirical data (semi-structured interviews) analysed deductively with a dual role theory/ sensemaking theory framework, as well as the issues identified in literature reviews (#1 and 2) to advance a case for future consideration of members' roles on primary school boards into the future. Two sub-samples (2 x n=3) from school Boards of Management from which a chairperson (n=1), a principal (n=1) and a teacher (n=1) will be drawn providing two cases allowing for a within case and between case analysis.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsKey expected findings include:
* A contemporary policy and research literature mapping of school governance in the Republic of Ireland.
* The necessity to consider historical legacy issues from previous governance arrangements and their implications for contemporary practices and sustainable futures.
* Issues pertaining to the ongoing separation of Church and State in school governance in Ireland, including equity, inclusion and diversity issues.
* The necessity to promote mutual understanding of the various roles on the Board of Management (e.g. chairpersons regarding the principalship if chairpersons have not been a recently practising principal).
* Implications for system leadership and the future of Boards of Management in Ireland.
* Critical interpretation of dominant global policy norms pertaining to school governance and caution that they can be implemented uniformly across international contexts and local schools (Wilkins 2019) without paying attention to local cultural contexts. Key issue is to be internationally aware, locally relevant, and ensure expertise on Boards which fundamentally calls into question the volunteer model.
* Potentially new roles for education stakeholders such as educational researchers and parents.
ReferencesDepartment of Education (2022) Chief Inspector’s Report 2016-2020. https://www.gov.ie/pdf/?file=https://assets.gov.ie/232560/fac408b3-689b-44cb-a8f1-3cb090018a05.pdf#page=null
James, C. (2012). A review of the literature on the role of the board chair: What are the messages for chairs of school governing bodies? CfBT Education Trust.
James, C., Jones, J., Connolly, M., Brammer, S., Fertig, M., & James, J. (2012). The role of the chair of the school governing body in England. School Leadership & Management, 32(1), 3–19.
Leechman, G., McCulla, N., & Field, L. (2019). Local school governance and school leadership: Practices, processes and pillars. International Journal of Educational Management, 33(7), 1641–1652.
Murphy, G. (2019). A systematic review and thematic synthesis of research on school leadership in the Republic of Ireland: 2008–2018. Journal of Educational Administration, 57(6), 675–689. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-11-2018-0211
Ó Buachalla, S. (1988). Education policy in twentieth century Ireland. Wolfhound Press.
O’Sullivan, H., & West-Burnham, J. (Eds.). (2011). Leading and managing schools. SAGE.
Simmie, G. M. (2021). The Pied Piper of Neo Liberalism Continues to Call the Tune in the Republic of Ireland: A Critical Discourse Analysis of Education Policy Texts from 2012 to 2021. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 19(2), 427–451.
Stevenson, L., Honingh, M., & Neeleman, A. (2021). Dutch boards governing multiple schools: Navigating between autonomy and expectations. School Leadership & Management, 41(4–5), 370–386.
Sugrue, C. (2015). Unmasking school leadership: A longitudinal life history of school leaders. Springer.
Wilkins, A (2015). Professionalizing school governance: the disciplinary effects of school autonomy and inspection on the changing role of school governors. Journal of Education Policy, 30(2), pp. 182-200.
99. Emerging Researchers' Group (for presentation at Emerging Researchers' Conference)
Paper
Fortifying Teacher Leading Through Distributing Pedagogical Leadership in Initial Teacher Preparation Programs
Peter Okiri1, Maria Hercz1,2
1University of Szeged, Hungary; 2Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary
Presenting Author: Hercz, Maria
Introduction
With the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic, global initial teacher preparation and development has shifted towards enhancing teacher leading in the pedagogical spaces (Heikka et al., 2021). Teacher leaders are responsible for creating a community of learning within their teams where leadership responsibilities are distributed among themselves (Heikka, 2014). The concept of distributing pedagogical leadership roles to teachers empowers teachers to enact leadership roles thereby improving the pedagogical functioning of the multiple professional staff (Heikka et al., 2021). Initial teacher education programs intend to prepare competent teacher leaders who can influence pedagogical leadership, learning, and learning needs, participate in collective decision-making, resources mobilization for teaching and learning as well as involvement in quality pedagogical improvement (Alsubaie, 2016; Contreras, 2016; Male & Palaiologou, 2015). Through the distribution of pedagogical leadership roles, future teachers are able to design ways of creating and evoking synergy within their pedagogical spaces, where collaborative and collective practices are developed within a focused relationship (Afalla & Fabelico, 2020; Jäppinen & Sarja, 2012). According to Contreras (2016) without proper preparation of high-performing future teachers with pedagogical leadership competencies in school management as well as necessary autonomy in decision-making, there can never be a good school or quality pedagogical improvement in the school. This paper there aimed at exploring the ways through which teacher leading is fortified at the initial stages of teacher preparation in the pre-service teacher education programs in Kenya.
Research Questions
The study was guided by the following questions:
1. How do pre-service teacher education professionals perceive the functions of distributed pedagogical leadership practice?
2. What are the roles of the principal in enhancing teacher leadership through distributing pedagogical leadership responsibilities?
3. What are the challenges faced in the enhancement of teacher leadership through distributed pedagogical leadership practice during initial teacher education preparation?
Theoretical framework
The study was guided by a theoretical framework as advanced by Heikka et al. (2021) and Contreras (2016). According to Heikka et al. (2021) distributing pedagogical leadership is involving teachers in enacting pedagogical leadership to foster curriculum reforms thereby improving the pedagogical functions among the teaching staff. Leadership in a community of practice is a combination of individual and collective responsibilities. This creates an interdependence that helps teachers reach the goals set. Distributed pedagogical leadership is the innermost characteristic of multiple professionals in a learning community where joint tasks and goals are shared (Heikka, 2014). Contreras (2016) opined that teacher leadership is the active participation of teachers in school management in order to generate ideas and ways of improvement and innovation in the community of learning in the school. Teachers and their pedagogical performance in class is the first factor of influences the students' learning (Contreras, 2016).
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedContext of the study
The study was conducted in a public pre-service teacher training college in Kenya.
Sample size
Data was collected from 257 teacher education stakeholders consisting of the principal, deputy principal, deans, heads of faculties and departments, teacher educators, and student teachers.
Method
A mixed method approach was employed with an explanatory sequential design used. Data was collected using quantitative inquiry (online questionnaires for teacher educators and student teachers) and qualitative inquiry, four (4) semi-structured interviews were conducted with the principal, deputy principal, the college registrar, and the dean of students.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsTeacher leadership was enhanced by empowering teachers to hold various leadership positions as distributed or delegated by the principal. Teacher leadership is highly dependent on the years of experience of the teachers as well as the guiding principles designed by the teachers' employer (Teachers Service Commission). Student teachers acquire pedagogical leadership skills through fellow students’ apprentices in their daily learning situations. Several challenges were cited as those that are faced during the fortification of teacher leadership in initial teacher education. they included limited leadership practice training, resistance and rejection among the stakeholders, limited time to implement curriculum, heavy workforce for teacher leaders, lack of synchronized coordination between the principal and the teacher leaders, lack of parental involvement as well as few teacher educators as compared to the students’ population. The mitigation measures employed included regular consultative meetings, involving as many teachers as possible in delegated leadership responsibilities, collaborative engagements, as well as engaging one teacher educator in more than one leadership responsibility.
ReferencesAfalla, B. T., & Fabelico, F. L. (2020). Pre-service Teachers’ Pedagogical Competence and Teaching Efficiency. Journal of Critical Reviews, 7(11), 223–228. https://doi.org/10.31838/jcr.07.11.36
Alsubaie, M. A. (2016). Curriculum Development: Teacher Involvement in Curriculum Development. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(9), 106–107. http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1095725
Contreras, T. S. (2016). Pedagogical Leadership, Teaching Leadership and their Role in School Improvement: A Theoretical Approach. Propósitos y Representaciones, 4(2), 231–284. https://doi.org/10.20511/pyr2016.v4n2.123
Heikka, J. E. (2014). Distributed pedagogical leadership in early childhood education [Academic dissertation]. Tampere university press.
Heikka, J., Pitkäniemi, H., Kettukangas, T., & Hyttinen, T. (2021). Distributed pedagogical leadership and teacher leadership in early childhood education contexts. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 24(3), 333–348. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2019.1623923
Jäppinen, A.-K., & Sarja, A. (2012). Distributed pedagogical leadership and generative dialogue in educational nodes. British Educational Leadership, Management and Administration Society, 26(2), 64–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/0892020611429983
Male, T., & Palaiologou, I. (2015). Pedagogical leadership in the 21st century: Evidence from the field. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 43(2), 214–231. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143213494889
99. Emerging Researchers' Group (for presentation at Emerging Researchers' Conference)
Paper
(Professional) Biographies and Implicit Knowledge of School Leaders (at Schools in Socially Disadvantaged Locations)
Franziska Proskawetz
University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany
Presenting Author: Proskawetz, Franziska
Project context
The research project is part of the content cluster School Development & Leadership of the project School makes you strong (German: Schule macht stark) (SchuMaS). SchuMaS is an interdisciplinary joint project that accompanies 200 schools in socially challenging situations in Germany. The overall goal of the project is to improve educational opportunities for socially disadvantaged pupils.
Theoretical framework
School leaders[1] are particularly important for school development processes because of their significant influence on the school (both on the school as an organisation and on its members) (Lichtinger & Rigger, 2022, p. 152). As so-called gatekeepers, they decide, for example, whether innovations find their way into the individual school (Bermann & McLaughlin, 1975; Rolff, 2012, p. 15). In particular, a resource- and strength-oriented (positive) leadership approach, which focuses on potentials and strengths instead of weaknesses of employees, represents added value for all involved, both for the employees and for the leaders themselves (e.g. Lichtinger & Rigger, 2022, p. 158). Connections between personality factors and positive leadership have already been proven (e.g. Lichtinger & Rigger, 2022, p. 156).
The key role that school leaders play in relation to school development processes shows the importance of research on the person of the school leader.
Research interest
The research project is to deal with the (professional) biographies of school leaders and to find out how access to the position of school leaders (especially at schools in disadvantaged locations) takes place.
- Where do the school leaders come from? What statements can be made about the habitus of origin of the school leaders?
- What orientations do they have with regard to their own school years? Which (former) student habitus is possibly still recognisable?
- How did they get into their professional position?
- Can (professional) school leader habitus be generated from the data?
Closely linked to this, the leadership style of the school leaders and, in connection with this, their self-image in school development processes are to be surveyed:
- What ideas do school leaders have about what schools must be like?
- What does school development mean to them? What experiences have they had with it?
- Where do they see needs (in relation to the school's internal development process), where hurdles and implementation problems?
- What tasks, goals and visions do they pursue at their school?
The results could be used to generate hypotheses on whether, for example, a certain leadership style is related to certain orientations (e.g. resource-orientation or deficit-orientation) or whether certain orientations can be explained by one's own biographical or professional biographical experiences.
[1] This refers primarily to school principals, but also to other school members with leadership functions.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe biographies will be collected with the help of narrative-based interviews (Schütze, 1983). Methodologically, the research project can be located in the field of qualitative-reconstructive social research. The analysis of the interviews is implemented by means of the documentary method of data interpretation according to Ralf Bohnsack (e. g. Bohnsack, 1989). The documentary method identifies tacit knowledge via the generation of self-running narratives and descriptions. The aim of the method is the reconstruction of orientation patterns. To generalise empirical results, they are formulated as types.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe presentation will provide an opportunity to discuss the design of the research project and initial findings from the interviews.
ReferencesBERMAN, P., MCLAUGHLIN, W. (1975). Federal Programs Supporting Educational Change: A Model of Educational Change (Bd. 1). Rand Corporations.
BOHNSACK, R. (1989): Generation, Milieu und Geschlecht – Ergebnisse aus Gruppendiskussionen mit Jugendlichen. Leske + Budrich.
LICHTINGER, U., RIGGER, U. (2022). Grundkurs Schulmanagement XXX. Schule wird gelingen mit Flourishing SE. Carl Link.
ROLFF, H.-G. (2012). Grundlagen der Schulentwicklung. In C. G. Buhren & H.-G. Rolff (Hrsg.), Handbuch Schulentwicklung und Schulentwicklungsberatung (S. 12–39). Beltz Verlag.
ROLFF, H.-G. (2016). Schulentwicklung kompakt. Modelle, Instrumente, Perspektiven. Beltz Verlag.
SCHÜTZE, F (1983). Biographieforschung und narratives Interview. Neue Praxis, 13(3), 283–293.
|
