26. Educational Leadership
Paper
Leadership as a Profession in Early Childhood Education and Care Centre Leadership
Kirsi-Marja Heikkinen1, Raisa Ahtiainen1, Elina Fonsén2, Arto Kallioniemi1
1Helsingin yliopisto, Finland; 2University of Jyväskylä, Finland
Presenting Author: Heikkinen, Kirsi-Marja
The significance of Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) on children's development globally is widely acknowledged by policymakers. Leadership competence within ECEC has emerged as a pivotal factor impacting pedagogical quality and employee well-being, as indicated by an increasing number of studies (Cummings, Wong, and Logan 2021; Douglass 2019; Ruohola et al. 2022; Sirvio et al. 2023). However, achieving desired outcomes necessitates high-quality circumstances (Cortázar 2015; OECD 2022). With global issues such as systematic education gaps and expanding center sizes posing challenges to the professional development of ECEC leaders and the sustainability of effective leadership (Fonsén & Soukainen 2022; Gibbs 2021). Our research focuses on ECEC, the initial stage of the Finnish educational system (FNAE, 2022). In Finland, contextual changes in ECEC policies have sparked controversial expectations and conflicting goals regarding the fundamental mission and core of leadership for ECEC center leaders (Kupila, Fonsén, and Liinamaa 2023). Shifting ECEC oversight from the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health to the Ministry of Education and Culture in 2013 bolstered ECEC's position within the Finnish educational system. Subsequent reforms in the ECEC curriculum (FNAE 2016) emphasized leadership's responsibility for curricular content, further reinforced by the new ECEC Act (540/2018), mandating leaders to hold a master’s degree in education and possess adequate leader competence after the 2030 transition period. Consequently, ECEC center leaders in Finland face multifaceted competence requirements, driving the need for systematic qualifications (Siippainen et al. 2021). This contextual backdrop forms the basis of a study examining how ECEC center leaders position themselves within the evolving professional landscape and the future trajectory of their profession. Leadership within the ECEC domain is considered a multifaceted process within multi-professional working communities, intertwining educational theory, practical application, and interpersonal leadership development (Damiani, Haywood, and Wieczorek 2017; Sullivan 2005). It reflects a departure from traditional authoritarian leadership to a collaborative, egalitarian model aimed at fostering trust, autonomy, and communal learning within the working community (Hard & Jónsdóttir 2013; Lund 2021). This contemporary understanding requires leaders to balance formal authority with creating a supportive environment that encourages professional growth without undermining their position (Gibbs 2021; Hard and Jónsdóttir 2013). To understand ECEC center leaders' perceptions of their profession, the study employs Positioning Theory. This theory explores the dynamic and contextual nature of how individuals assume roles and statuses within their work environment (Bamberg, 1997). Bamberg (1997) sees positioning as a three-level process: the first level considers characters positioning in relation to one another within events, enabling observation of the foundation of leadership and examination of how ECEC center leaders position themselves within leadership roles. The second level examines a character’s position in relation to others included in the narrative, providing insight into how ECEC center leaders are situated within multi-professional working communities. The third level explores how characters position themselves in relation to themselves, shedding light on how ECEC center leaders perceive themselves as leaders and their responsibilities from a professional perspective. By examining leaders' positioning regarding their roles, relationships within the community, and self-perception as leaders, the study aims to illuminate the evolving landscape of ECEC leadership.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedResearch data, ECEC center leader essays (N=20), were collected in 2022 as pre-assignments of an 18-month in-service training at the University of Helsinki (UH). In Finnish written essays, leaders were instructed to use their own words to answer two statements concerning ECEC center leadership as a profession. We accomplished two step analysis process where we combined the structural method of Labov and Waletzky (1967) with Bamberg’s (1997) narrative positioning framework defined above to identify and compare core narratives wherein narrators recount and evaluate their experiences of ECEC center leadership. We began with content analysis in which we identified essays were written in three temporal sequences: past persona, present teacher, and future leader (Krippendorf, 2018). We then applied Labov and Waletzky's structural analysis to all individual essays within these temporal groups to identify its five categories: Abstract (A), Orientation (O), Complicating action (CO), Result (R), and Coda (C), which focuses on evaluation and considerations for the future (Labov and Waletzky, 1967). Inside the five formed categories we continued again with content analysis to compare their differences and similarities (Krippendorff, 2018). Based on this we identified four different type narratives to which we made positioning questions based on Bamberg's positioning levels: How leader position is acquired and managed? How leaders position to other people? How leaders positions to themselves as leaders? After reflecting the narratives with these positioning questions, we were able to determine the final positioning relative to leadership as a profession: professional leader, contextual leader, teacher leader and leader persona.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe findings of our study revealed diverse perspectives, highlighting similarities and differences among the narratives. There's a significant emphasis on cultural context shaping ECEC leadership, with some narratives defining it as a distinct profession tied to education and context. Professional and contextual leaders see leadership as a praxis, focusing on operational culture, vision, and the development of leadership structures. They position themselves as facilitators aligning with the needs of working communities. Meanwhile, teacher leader and leader persona narratives view leadership primarily as an administrative task, disconnected from the multi-professional community, focusing more on their role in implementing pedagogical practices. The study identifies contrasting views on how leaders perceive their work and how they envision their future as leaders. Teacher leaders and leader personas struggle with the present challenges, lacking a clear vision for the future, while professional and contextual leaders are motivated to invest in education and structural development for manageable work.
The research stresses the need for clarification and coherence in understanding ECEC leadership as a profession. It highlights challenges, including hierarchical role-based leadership, intensification, and the need for clear professional roles between ECEC leaders and teachers. The study advocates for systematic ECEC leadership education, starting from teacher education and continuing throughout a leader's career, emphasizing the importance of continuous training to support quality leadership. Overall, the study underscores the critical role of ECEC leadership in ensuring quality and the well-being of children, emphasizing the urgency to address barriers hindering its development and success. Although this study is conducted in Finnish context it is internationally beneficial and can be shaped in international contexts. ECEC systems do have similarities across borders and development of leadership as a profession needs cross sectional, scientific discussion to implement both national and global actions.
ReferencesAhtiainen, Fonsén & Kiuru. "Finnish early childhood education and care leaders’ perceptions of pedagogical leadership". Australasian
Journal of early childhood 46, no. 2 (2021)
Aubrey, Godfrey & Harris. "How do they manage? An investigation of early childhood leadership." Educational Management Administration & Leadership 41, no. 1 (2013)
Bamberg. "Positioning between structure and performance." Journal of
narrative and life history 7, no. 1-4 (1997)
Damiani, Haywood Rolling Jr & Wieczorek. "Rethinking
leadership education: narrative inquiry and leadership stories." Reflective Practice 18, no. 5 (2017)
Cortázar. "Long-term effects of public early childhood education on academic achievement in Chile." Early Childhood Research Quarterly 32 (2015)
Cumming, Wong & Logan. "Early childhood educators’ well-being, work environments and ‘quality’: Possibilities for changing policy and practice." Australasian Journal of Early Childhood 46, no. 1 (2021)
Dennis & O'Connor. "Reexamining quality in early childhood education: Exploring the relationship between the organizational climate and the classroom." Journal of Research in Childhood Education 27, no. 1 (2013)
Douglass. "Leadership for quality early childhood education and care." (2019).
Fenech. "Leadership development during times of reform." Australasian Journal of Early Childhood 38, no. 1 (2013)
Gibbs. "Leading through complexity in early childhood education and care."
Australasian Journal of Early Childhood 46, no. 4 (2021)
Hard & Jónsdóttir. "Leadership is not a dirty word: Exploring and
embracing leadership in ECEC." European Early Childhood Education Research
Journal 21, no. 3 (2013)
Heikkinen, Ahtiainen & Fonsén. "Perspectives on leadership in early childhood education and care centres through community of practice." SAGE Open 12, no. 2 (2022): 21582440221091260.
Labov & Waletzky. Narrative Analysis. In Essays on the
Verbal and Visual Arts, pp. 12-44. U. of Washington Press, 1967.
Lund. "‘We are equal, but I am the leader’: leadership enactment in early childhood education in Norway." International Journal of Leadership in Education (2021)
McVee. "Positioning theory and sociocultural perspectives." Sociocultural
positioning in literacy: Exploring culture, discourse, narrative, & power in diverse
educational contexts (2011)
Palaiologou & Male. "Leadership in early childhood education: The case for pedagogical praxis." Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 20, no. 1 (2019)
Peleman, Lazzari, Budginaitė, Siarova, Hauari, Peeters & Cameron. "Continuous professional development and ECEC quality: Findings from a European systematic literature review." European Journal of Education 53, no. 1 (2018)
Riessman. "Doing narrative analysis." Narrative Analysis. London: Sage Publications
(1993).
26. Educational Leadership
Paper
Coordinating Inclusion: A Study on the Roles and Impact of Inclusive School Leaders in Italian and Maltese Educational Contexts
Flavia Capodanno1, Erika Marie Pace1, Jonathan Borg2, Paola Aiello1
1University of Salerno, Italy; 2University of Malta, Malta
Presenting Author: Capodanno, Flavia;
Pace, Erika Marie
This study delves into the intricate realm of schools as complex organisations embedded in human relationships (Argyris, 1995; Daft, 2002; Brundrett, Burton & Smith, 2003), tasked with navigating societal challenges through a systemic approach. The research aims to examine the distinct role of inclusive school leaders to guarantee the provision of inclusive education within the Italian and Maltese educational contexts, both characterised by an inclusive system that promotes the eradication of a traditional divide between mainstream and special schools. These leaders, acknowledged as integral components of the school system (Pirola, 2015; Paletta & Bezzina, 2016; Bufalino, 2017; Agrati, 2018), actively collaborate with the school community to coordinate the provision of inclusive education in mainstream schools.
A qualitative approach employing semi-structured interviews was chosen to capture the perspectives of these middle leaders. The inquiry covers the leaders’ perceptions regarding:
- their function;
- the resources, both internal and external, that they believe contribute to their successful job performance;
- collaboration with other stakeholders;
- the salient factors for the creation of strong leadership teams;
- effective approaches to promote inclusion;
- prospects and areas for further improvement.
The study is grounded in the theoretical construct of distributed leadership, emphasising the efficacy of a collaborative model, contrasting with traditional hierarchical structures (Bennett et al., 2003). Distributed leadership embodies collaboration and organisational learning, signifying a transition from individual to shared and group knowledge. A model rooted in distributed leadership yields multifaceted improvements, fostering increased enthusiasm and collaboration among teachers, a propensity for change, and heightened effectiveness in decision-making processes (Hallinger & Heck, 2010; Alma Harris & Jones, 2017; Paletta, 2020). International studies underscore the link between distributed leadership and positive student learning outcomes, particularly through the actions of middle leaders bridging school leadership, classroom teachers, parents and other stakeholders (Leitwood, 2016; Bezzina et al., 2018; Fullan, 2015; Harris & Jones, 2017; Hargreaves & Ainscow, 2015). These middle leaders emerge as pivotal figures in promoting distributed leadership at both organisational and classroom practice levels. They play a central role in cultivating an organisational culture founded on inclusive principles and values such as trust, active participation, and a shared vision (Harris & Jones, 2019; De Nobile, 2018) to ensure quality education for all.
The research methodology, specifically the semi-structured interviews, draws inspiration from the Appreciative Inquiry approach (Cooperrider & Whitney, 2001). Appreciative Inquiry, recognised for positive outcomes in organizational and educational contexts (Cooperrider & Srivastva, 1987), aims to uncover strengths within an organisation to design constructive change. The positive, strength-based approach used in this design reframes the inquiry, promoting positive change based on existing practices and structures. This aligns with the philosophical consistency of Appreciative Inquiry with strength-based approaches in inclusive education (Dockrill Garrett, 2022), contributing to a holistic understanding of the inclusive school leader's role and fostering a culture of positive change within educational institutions.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedIn total, 16 semi-structured interviews were conducted between November 2023 and January 2024, ten of which in the Campania region (Italy) and six in Malta. All participants were female, worked within lower and upper secondary state schools and had at least three years of experience in their role as inclusive school leaders (Funzioni Strumentali per l’inclusione in Italy and Heads of Department for Inclusion in Malta). As for the Italian sample, two leaders were selected from each of the five provinces, one working in an urban area and one in a suburban area. Convenience sampling was employed, wherein leaders were selected based on their voluntary willingness to participate in the study.
The core interview questions were consistent across both the data collection phases, with a few additional questions tailored to each country’s organisational context. The first part of the interview explored the inclusive school leaders’ professional background and motivation to take on this role. The following questions were intended to collect data on their opinions regarding their role, internal and external resources, collaboration with stakeholders, factors for strong leadership teams, approaches to promote inclusion, and areas for improvement.
Transcriptions are being analysed following Braun & Clarke’s (2006) thematic analysis protocol as it provides an inductive and reflective approach, allowing themes to emerge from the data. The MAXQDA2020® software for qualitative and mixed methods data analysis is being used to code and categorise data systematically. The conference presentation will focus on the outcomes of the interviews carried out in Italy and in Malta, emphasising inclusive school leaders’ perspectives on internal and external resources vital for effective job performance.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsIn summary, the initial findings of this study reveal striking similarities in the opinions of inclusive school leaders, transcending cultural and organizational differences. Their primary role, universally acknowledged, centres around cultivating inclusive cultures deemed essential for enhancing policies and practices. Noteworthy factors contributing to this inclusive ethos include open communication, close collaboration with stakeholders, non-judgmental approaches, mutual trust, empathy, tolerance, professionalism, and staying abreast of current policies and practices.
The study underscores the significance of these commonalities as a foundation for fostering inclusive education philosophies. The identified elements form a comprehensive framework that, if embraced, has the potential to transform policies and practices to align more closely with the principles of truly inclusive education.
Furthermore, the investigation aligns with the broader discourse on distributed leadership, emphasising its relevance in effective school governance and the enhancement of students’ learning outcomes, particularly in the realm of equity. The unique perspective of framing the study through Appreciative Inquiry adds a distinctive dimension by reinforcing motivation toward positive, inclusive educational initiatives among inclusive school leaders.
This emphasis on strengths-based interventions, rather than focusing on challenges or resource constraints, signifies a paradigm shift with a dual aim: fostering increased social participation and a shift in teachers’ perspectives from deficit-based to asset-based models. In addition, by adopting an appreciative lens, the study not only enriches our understanding of the roles played by inclusive school leaders but also presents an opportunity to inform policies and practices for the advancement of a truly inclusive educational philosophy. The implications extend beyond the individual schools studied, offering insights that can potentially contribute to a broader, more equitable educational landscape.
ReferencesAgrati, L. S. (2018). The systemic thinking of the school middle-manager. Ideas for professionalization. Form@ re – Open Journal per la formazione in rete, 18(2), 48–61.
Argyris, C. (1995). Action science and organizational learning. Journal of Managerial Psychology 10, 20-26.
Bennett, N., Wise, C., Woods, P.A. et al. (2003). Distributed Leadership: A Desk Study. NCSL.
Brundrett, M., Burton, N., & Smith, R. (2003). Leadership in Education (1st ed.). SAGE Publications.
Braun V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101. doi: https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Bufalino, G. (2017). Leading schools from the Middle. Middle leadership in a context of distributed leadership. Formazione & Insegnamento, 15(3), 151-161.
Cooperrider, D. L., & Srivastva, S., (1987). Appreciative Inquiry in organizational life. In W. A. Pasmore & W. Woodman (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 1, pp. 129–169). JAI Press.
Cooperrider, D. L., Whitney, D., & Stavros, J. M. (2008). Appreciative inquiry handbook for leaders of change (2nd ed.). Crown Custom.
Daft, R. L. (2002). Management. Mason, Oh: Thomson Learning/South-Western.
De Nobile, J. (2018). Towards a theoretical model of middle leadership in schools. School Leadership & Management, 38(4), 395-416.
Dockrill Garrett, M. (2022). Applying Appreciative Inquiry to Research in the Field of Inclusive Education. Canadian Journal for New Scholars in Education, 13(1), 104-115.
Fullan, M. (2002). Principals as leaders in a culture of change. Educational leadership, 59(8), 16-21.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2010). Collaborative leadership and school improvement: Understanding the impact on school capacity and student learning. School Leadership and Management, 30(2), 95-110.
Hargreaves, A., & Ainscow, M. (2015). The top and bottom of leadership and change. Phi Delta Kappan, 97(3), 42-48.
Harris, A., & Jones, M. (2017). Middle leaders matter: reflections, recognition, and renaissance. School Leadership & Management, 37(3), 213-216.
Leithwood, K. (2016). Department-head leadership for school improvement. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 15(2), 117-140.
Paletta, A. (2020). Dirigenza Scolastica e Middle Management. Distribuire la Leadership per Migliorare l’efficacia della Scuola. Bononia University Press.
Paletta, A., & Bezzina, C. (2016). Governance and Leadership in Public Schools: Opportunities and Challenges Facing School Leaders in Italy. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 15(4), 524-542.
Pirola, L. (2015). Middle Management and school Autonomy in Italy: The Case of Teacher as Instrument Function. Journal of Educational, Cultural and Psychological Studies (ECPS), 11, 89-101.
26. Educational Leadership
Paper
Needs and Challenges for ECEC Centre Leaders from an International Perspective: Their Perception and Possible Solutions for Strong Leadership
Daniel Turani
German Youth Institute, Germany
Presenting Author: Turani, Daniel
Although leadership in early childhood education and care (ECEC) has increasingly been a focus of scientific interest and is currently high on the agenda of international institutions like OECD or EU and identified as a "key position”, it remains insufficiently explored compared to e.g. structural quality features of the ECEC landscape (Movahedazarhouligh 2023). The leadership role is characterised by multiple and complex tasks and serves as an interface between various stakeholders. With the continuous growth of both, sector and centres, the need for coordination, especially in management tasks, is increasing (Hujala et al. 2023; Turani 2022). Rising expectations from society, families, staff, providers etc. are putting pressure on ECEC and, consequently, on leaders to provide an adequate, high-quality offer of ECEC (Strehmel 2017).
To meet these expectations, leadership requires not only the relevant knowledge but also an efficient system of stakeholders, stability, support and planning (BMFSFJ/JFMK 2016).
Conversely, centre leaders often feel insufficiently appreciated by politics and society and are exposed daily to a variety of challenges and their consequences (e.g. staff shortage, diversification). This leads to negative effects on working conditions, health and satisfaction resulting in an excessive workload, stress and a lack of gratification (Viernickel et al. 2017).
While the role of leadership as a crucial actor in a "competent system" (Urban u. a. 2011) in ECEC has been recognized, and their tasks and various challenges in this context have been outlined, little is known about institution leaders themselves, their daily routines, task distribution, and needs (e.g. Douglass 2019; Strehmel 2017; Schreyer et al. 2014).
Based on the data from the TALIS Starting Strong Surveys 2018 from nine countries with a focus on Germany (OECD 2019), this contribution aims to examine how the actions of leadership are manifested internationally, what specific tasks they undertake, and their own expectations and needs. Additionally, the study explores conclusions for the professional discourse and insights provided by international comparisons. The research delves into the practical implementation of the work of centre leaders and the areas of tasks and responsibilities to which leaders dedicate their time in ECEC centres. The goal is to adequately represent the everyday actions of leadership. Hereby it examines differences in organisational aspects of institutions (e.g. provider affiliation) and personal characteristics of leaders (e.g., experience, qualification). Different social contexts (e.g. urban vs. rural) are also considered to clarify how various areas of leadership tasks interconnect in the daily work and how individual characteristics and overarching characteristics on the centre level structure and influence daily work of leaders and their time distribution across task areas.
Due to the nature of the study and the self-reporting by institution leaders, not only statements regarding structural conditions and activities can be captured but also subjective assessments by the leaders themselves. This provides the opportunity to particularly capture expectations and potentials on the leadership level. Needs regarding specific training and development contents for leaders as well as aspects of workload and job satisfaction are considered. Here data shows that the lack of staff and too much administrative work are main drivers of stress for centre leaders. Not only are these aspects barriers for personal professional development but also limit the effectiveness in their function as leaders.
The contribution therefore sheds light on the perspective of leaders themselves and let them have their say with the help of data from the TALIS Starting Strong study.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe TALIS Starting Strong Survey is the first international large-scale survey of staff and leaders in ECEC and is aligned to the OECD Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS), targeting teachers in primary and secondary education (Sim et al. 2019).
A total of more than 3,000 centre leaders and more than 15,000 staff participated in the study in 2018 including data from nine countries (Chile, Denmark, Germany, Iceland, Israel, Japan, Norway, South Korea and Turkey) in the ISCED 0.2 study and from four countries (Denmark, Germany, Israel and Norway) in the U3 study (OECD 2019a).
More than 2,000 centre leaders took part in the study on the ISCED 0.2 level which is the focus of this contribution. The representative data collection is based on a two-stage, stratified sampling design. The data was weighted to compensate for factors such as design-related differences in the probability of selection of individuals and random non-response (OECD 2019b). The target groups produce self-reported data through paper/online questionnaires, which are specifically designed to the role of leaders and staff to reflect the specific tasks and needs of these roles.
The study covers a broad spectrum of topics covering the whole range of activities of centre leaders and staff in their daily work. The leader questionnaire hereby focuses on aspects such as demographics and qualifications, professional development, working conditions and job satisfaction, characteristics of the ECEC centres, aspects of pedagogical and administrative leadership and the cooperation with stakeholders.
The contribution focuses in particular on the needs and challenges from a German (N~250), but also international perspective. It can describe the needs and barriers in the areas of further training and cooperation, as well as with regard to the leaders’ satisfaction with their own conditions and potentials. Here it can show that the work of centre leaders is negatively influenced by the lack of staff e.g. in Germany and therefore intensifies the workload and burden of their work.
Multivariate analysis with regression models can moreover explain that the leader position is rather supported by shaping it on the centre-level according to the characteristics of the centre including staff and children instead of personal characteristics of the leader.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe contribution looks at what needs and challenges do centre leaders express themselves and hereby can describe the main stressors among ECEC centre leaders and how e.g. a lack of staff or too much administrative work are main challenges. This affects not only the daily work of leaders (looking at their time distribution across tasks) but builds also barriers to professional development, limits the effectiveness as leader and as a consequence can slow down or prevent positive outcomes of leadership within settings.
As an outlook, data from TALIS Starting Strong 2024 will help to improve knowledge about these aspects and make trends between 2018 and 2024 visible for the first time. The described topics are also part of the second edition of the study; at the time of the conference, first insights might be available as well and can possibly be presented for the first time to the public.
The presentation can show with regard to the time contribution of leaders that main differences across settings and countries occur in time spent on interactions with children and administrative leadership, while there is stability in cooperation with families and pedagogical leadership. Individual characteristics (e.g. qualifications or work experience) and community or environmental factors (e.g. size of the city or centre location) play no or little role how the daily work of leaders looks like when one looks at the time distribution among different tasks. How the leader position is shaped on centre-level is crucial, especially with regard to 1) time resources for leadership tasks, 2) size of the centre and 3) composition of children within the centre.
Finally, not only needs but also possible solutions and policy pointers can be identified in order to provide the best support for ECEC leaders and thus further improve the quality in ECEC centres (s. OECD 2020; OECD 2019c).
References• Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend/Jugend- und Familienministerkonferenz (BMFSFJ/JFMK) (2016): Frühe Bildung weiterentwickeln und finanziell sichern. Zwischenbericht 2016 von Bund und Ländern und Erklärung der Bund-Länder-Konferenz. Berlin.
• Douglass, Anne L. (2019): Leadership for quality early childhood education and care. OECD Education Working Papers, No. 211. Paris.
• Hujala, E./Vlasov, J./Alila, K. (2023). Integrative Leadership Framework for Quality in Early Childhood Education and Care. In: Modise, M et al (eds.), Global Perspectives on Leadership in Early Childhood Education. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press.
• Movahedazarhouligh, S., Banerjee R. & Luckner, J. (2023) Leadership development and system building in early childhood education and care: current issues and recommendations, Early Years, 43:4-5, 1045-1059.
• OECD (2019a): TALIS Starting Strong 2018 Database. Paris.
• OECD (2019b): TALIS Starting Strong 2018. Technical Report. Paris.
• OECD (2019c): Providing Quality Early Childhood Education and Care. Results from the
Starting Strong Survey 2018. Paris.
• OECD (2020): Building a High-Quality Early Childhood and Care Workforce. Further Results from the Starting Strong Survey 2018. Paris.
• Schreyer, I./Krause, M./Brandl, M./Nicko, O. (2014): AQUA – Arbeitsplatz
und Qualität in Kitas. Ergebnisse einer bundesweiten Befragung. München.
• Sim, Megan/Belanger, Julie/Stancel-Piatak, Agnes/Karoly, Lynn A. (2019): Starting Strong Teaching and Learning International Survey 2018 Conceptual Framework. OECD Education Working Papers. Paris.
• Strehmel, P. (2017): Professionalisierung der Kita-Leitung zwischen Pädagogik und Management. In: Balluseck, Hilde von (Hrsg.): Professionalisierung der Frühpädagogik. Perspektiven, Entwicklungen Herausforderungen. 2nd Ed., Opladen/Berlin/Toronto, S. 53–74.
• Turani, D. (2022): Leitung und Organisation von Einrichtungen: Determinanten des Leitungshandelns in Kindertageseinrichtungen. In: Turani, D., Seybel C., Bader, S. (Ed.): Kita-Alltag im Fokus – Deutschland im internationalen Vergleich (2022), Beltz Juventa, Weinheim.
• Urban, M./Lazzari, A./Vandenbroeck, M./Peeters, J./van Laere, K. (2011): Competence Requirements in Early Childhood Education and Care. A Study for the European Commission Directorate-General for Education and Culture. European Commission. London/Ghent.
• Viernickel, S./Voss, A./Mauz, E. (2017): Arbeitsplatz Kita. Belastungen erkennen, Gesundheit fördern. Weinheim und Basel.
|
