26. Educational Leadership
Paper
The Role of Individual Differences of School Leaders
Ida Malini Syvertsen, Colin Cramer
University of Tübingen, Germany
Presenting Author: Syvertsen, Ida Malini
Researchers have long been interested in possible reasons and differences that make some leaders more effective and which profit their community. For instance, Leithwood and Jantzi’s impact model (2006) is one amongst many models that explore positive effects of school leadership. This model depicts how school leaders predict student outcomes through leadership motivation, commitment, and capacity, as well as school leader’s working conditions and teaching behavior. Research supports these predictions and points to certain common characteristics as predictors of student achievement, such as the leaders ability to manage the school and their time, to create a healthy learning climate and culture, to positively invest in internal and external school relations, to have vision and direction, and to communicate effectively (Barkman, 2015; Daniëls et al., 2019; Osborne-Lampkin et al., 2015; Quadach et al., 2020). Arguably, the positive effects of leadership are vital in ages of uncertainty: the school is dependent on a leader who shares their responsibility effectively with the teachers.
Research on characteristics of effective school management has relationship to the concept of Leadership for Learning and thus shows practical application. This concept describes learning-centered leadership actions and focuses on student outcomes and their knowledge acquisition in the context of school as a learning organization. Moreover, it describes student outcomes not only as a result of classroom teaching, but also from other factors. To give an example, trust and cooperation (i.e., characteristic of effective school management), is linked to learning communities and team orientation (i.e., Leadership for Learning action) which can influence student achievement (Tulowitzki & Pietsch, 2020). Thus, further research on characteristics of effective school management could be beneficial to study one important aspect of the conditions for success of this leadership model in detail.
We argue that many of the investigated school leaders’ characteristics are occupational in nature due to their specific work features and the institutional context of school. On that note, many of the beforementioned characteristics arguably concern leadership strategies and approaches. Those variables distinguish themselves from individual differences in a narrower sense, such as personality traits and motivational characteristics, that also play an important role for attributes of school leaders’ and which is needed to create a more complete picture.
In sum, relatively few findings exist of individual differences in school leaders. Taking up this desideratum, this presentation addresses the research questions of what personal characteristics school leaders possess. In addition, it investigates what potential effects such characteristics have on criteria variables, and aims to systemize the empirical research on individual characteristics. For example, Leithwood, Harris and Hopkins (2019) claimed that a few personality traits can explain a high share of the variation in leadership effectiveness. On that note, the Big 5 personality traits have been investigated amongst school leaders. In this regard results are diverse: school leaders have been found related to high levels of extraversion and openness to experience by some studies (Colbert et al., 2012), others highlight high levels of agreeableness and conscientiousness (Deinert et al., 2015; Benoliel, 2021).Whilst Leithwood, Harris and Hopkins (2019) claim was aimed at traits as “typically defined”, Leithwood (2012) in cooperation with the Ontario Leadership Framework have specified some personal leadership resources that extends beyond the Big Five personality traits. These personal leadership resources are categorized as cognitive (e.g., problem-solving expertise), social (e.g., perceiving and managing emotions), or psychological (e.g., self-efficacy and resilience).
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedWe use the framework given by Leithwood, Harris, and Hopkins (2012; 2019) as a first heuristic and starting point to investigate our research questions. In a scoping review (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005) of empirical articles, we investigate (1) with which individual differences the research on the field is concerned, (2) with which variables it deals with, and (3) what individual differences predict which aspects of school leadership. Scoping reviews synthesize knowledge on a topic and aims to organize evidence and identify gaps in knowledge (Tricco et al., 2018). Essentially, the process consists of gathering evidence and mapping it according to research questions (Joanna Briggs Institute, 2015). A scoping review on individual differences of school leaders is an important starting point for assessing what is known on the field, how their significance for school leadership research as a whole can be viewed, and what open research questions arise in this regard. To illustrate the possible benefit of such a scoping review: one study found that middle school principals commonly were resilient (Bauck, 1987). Another paper reviews evidence of emotional aspects related to educational leaders and found that they usually possess high emotional intelligence and empathetic abilities (Berkovich & Eval, 2015).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe review aims to systemize the current knowledge on the field, and explores the knowledge as possible cognitive, social, or psychological personal leadership resources according to the classification of the framework model given by Leithwood, Harris, and Hopkins (2012; 2019) within a larger framework of effective school leadership. It will begin by locating the literature on the field to provide an overview of individual differences of school leaders used in research to date. After this, we explore the evidence and map the results as related to possible personal leadership resources, and we expect in the end to have a list of resources that are relevant for school leaders based on the gathered literature. To give one practical illustration, we would identify studies on "resilience" in school leaders and categorize it as a psychological personal leadership resource. Understanding individual differences offers information to assess the relevance of such personal characteristics in the overall structure of the determinants of successful school leadership more precisely and could contribute to the field by exploring underlying motivation in leadership.
ReferencesArksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616
Barkman, C. (2015). The characteristics of an effective school leaders. BU Journal of Graduate Studies in Education, 7(1), 14–18.
Bauck, J. M. (1987). Characteristics of the effective middle school principal. NASSP Bulletin, 71(500), 90–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/019263658707150013
Benoliel, P. (2021). Is it your personality, your boundary leadership or both? An integrative approach for the improvement of school management team effectiveness. Journal of Educational Administration, 59(6), 669–687. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-08-2020-0171
Berkovich, I., & Eyal, O. (2015). Educational leaders and emotions: an international review of empirical evidence 1992-2012. Review of Educational Research, 85(1), 3–167. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654314550046
Colbert, A. E., Judge, T. A., Choi, D., & Wang, G. (2012). Assessing the trait theory of leadership using self and observer ratings of personality: the mediating role of contributions to group success. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(4), 670–685. https://doi.org/10.1016/leaqua.2012.03.004
Daniëls, E., Hondeghem, A., & Dochy, D. (2019). A review on leadership and leadership development in educational settings. Educational Research Review, 27, 110–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2019.02.003
Deinert, A., Homan, A. C., Boer, D., Voelpel, S. C., & Gutermann, F. (2015). Transformational leadership sub-dimensions and their link to leaders’ personality and performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(6), 1095–1120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.08.001
Leithwood, K. (2012). Strong Districts and Their Leadership. Council of Ontario Directors of Education.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2006). Transformational school leadership for large-scale reform: effects on students, teachers, and their classroom practices. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17(2), 201–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243450600565829
Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2019). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership revisited. School Leadership & Management, 40(1), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2019.1596077
Osborne-Lampkin, L., Folsom, J. S., & Herrington, C. D. (2015). A systematic review of the relationships between principal characteristics and student achievement. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Florida State University.
Tricco, A., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O’Brien, KK., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., Moher, D.,
Peters, M. D., Horsley, T., Weeks, L., & Hempel, S. (2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Annals of International Medicine, 169(7), 467–473. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850
Tulowitzski, P., & Pietsch, M. (2020). Stichwort: Lernzentriertes Leitungshandeln and Schulen – Leadership for Learning. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenshaft, 23, 873–902. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11618-020-00964-8
Quadach, M. Q., Schecter, C., & Da’as, R. (2020). From principals to teachers to students: exploring an integrative model for predicting students’ achievements. Educational Administration Quarterly, 56(5), 736–778. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X20907133
26. Educational Leadership
Paper
The Prioritization of Leadership Tasks: What a Principal Can Never Miss?
Natalia Isaeva1, Marina Tsatrian2
1HSE University; 2HSE University
Presenting Author: Isaeva, Natalia;
Tsatrian, Marina
Megapolis A, one of the biggest megacities of Russia, experienced major changes in the educational system (starting from 2012) which implied reconstructurisation of the schools and school organizational structure. Today schools of Megapolis A are huge educational complexes, where about 80% of schools comprise 5 and more buildings which can be located in different parts of Megapolis A. School management team consists of a principal and 4 deputies. During the process of reconstructurization there have been launched a variety of studies focusing on leadership and management practices of principals (Kasprzhak, Kobtseva & Tsatrian, 2022, 2020; Kasprzhak et al., 2016; Kasprzhak, Isaeva & Bayburin, 2015 ). With the reform coming to the end, we suppose that there are shifts not only in the practices of principals, their priorities and the level of distribution of responsibility among the deputies but also in the role of a principal. Today a school principal is seen not only as a head of one school but a leader of a huge educational complex whose prior goal is to work for the goals of Megapolis A educational system. In fact, school management which is concentrated in the hands of a principal only became impossible in the existing context. In this study we are basing on the professional standard for school principals (2021) to identify the core leadership practices of the school management team, their focus.
Research questions:
What issues/tasks are in the focus of a school principal within the domains of existing standards?
Is there a correlation between the principals’ background and his/her focus?
How is the responsibility for tasks distributed among the members of the school management team?
We developed a conceptual framework of a principal’s leadership profile to serve as a basis for the research The standard of a Russian school principal (2021) served as a basis for the framework, in this way we picked out the key leadership direction of a school principal: educational process, administration of the school, school improvement, interaction and collaboration with stakeholders. To ensure the sufficiency of the framework that it covers all the leadership tasks:
-
we analyzed existing professional profiles and dimensions of successful leadership of other countries (UK, the U.S., the Netherlands, Finland, Malaysia etc). The analysis allowed us to see the differences and priorities set for school leaders from different perspectives.
-
we carried out interviews with school principals and their deputies to unpack their leadership practice, key tasks and also get their feedback on the framework (is it mirroring the key leadership dimensions of a principal?)
-
we carried out a focus group session with principals and deputies
All this allowed us to develop the framework taking into account peculiarities of the context.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedWe used a mix-method approach to carry out the research. In this way, the study consists of quantitative and qualitative approach:
conducted 10 interviews with principals and 20 interviews with their deputies. The interview helped to unpack the real practices of the school management team within the domains of the Professional standard and served as a basis for development of a survey.
The survey instrument was developed basing on the conceptual framework of a principal’s leadership profile. In this way, the items of the survey were developed in the four main directions: educational process, administration, school improvement, interaction and collaboration with stakeholders. The survey aimed at identifying how tasks are distributed among the members of the school management team. Principals and deputies were asked to prioritize the tasks by their level of involvement and importance.
We sent emails to principals using the database of Megapolis A to reach the sample. As a result 120 principals and 120 deputies took part in the study (24% of schools of the Megapolis A).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe study results will provide us with the information of the tasks prioritized by principals as well of the tasks delegated to the deputies of a Megapolis. Correlation analysis will help to identify the relation of the principals’ background and the tasks prioritization. We assume that depending on the principals background, previous position (deputy of education content, deputy of education quality, deputy of finances) the focus on tasks will differ. What is more, it seems to us that the list of the tasks which principals devote most of their time to and the list of the tasks they mentioned as the most crucial will differ.
References1. Day, C., Sammons, P., & Gorgen, K. (2020). Successful School Leadership. Education development trust.
2. Gurr, D. & Drysdale, L. (2021). International Perspectives on Successful School Leadership. The Palgrave Handbook of Educational Leadership and Management Discourse (pp. 1-28). Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-39666-4_58-1
3. Improving School Leadership - OECD Review Background Report for the Netherlands José Bal, Jos de Jong Zoetermeer, March 2007
4. Kasprzhak A.G., Filinov N.B.,.Bayburin R.F, Isaeva N.V., BysikN.V. (2016) School Principals as Agents of Reform of the Russian Education System / Пер. с рус. // Russian Education and Society - Vol. 57. No. 11. P. 954-978.
5. Kasprzhak, A., Kobtseva, A., & Tsatrian, M. (2022). Instructional Leadership Models in Modern Schools. Образование и саморазвитие, 99(2).
Ministry of Education, Finland. (2007). Improving School Leadership, Finland Country Background Report.
6. National Institute of Education. (2015). Leaders in education programme international. Singapore: National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University. Retrieved from http://www.nie.edu.sg/niei/programmes-courses/leadership-courses/leaders-education-programme-international-lepi
7. Prikaz Ministerstva truda i sotsial'noy zashchity Rossiyskoy Federatsii ot 19.04.2021 № 250n “Professional’nyy standart rukovoditel’ obrazovatel’noy organizatsii (upravleniye doschkol’noy obrazovatel’noy organizatsiyey i obsheobrazovatel’noy organizatsiyey)” [the order of the Minister of Labor and social protection of the Russian Federation, 19.04.2021 №250n “Professional standard of a Principal of an educational organization (management of preschool educational organization and general educational organization)”]
26. Educational Leadership
Paper
Principal Identity: Three Generations of Principals in Three Different Country Contexts
Betty Merchant1, Lucy Wakiaga2, Olof Johansson3, Juan Manuel Niño1, Julio Garcia4
1Univ. of Texas at San Antonio, United States of America; 2African Population and Health Research Center Nairobi, Kenya; 3Centre for Principal Development Department of Political Science Umeå University, Sweden; 4San Antonio independent School Dist., San Antonio, TX, United States
Presenting Author: Merchant, Betty;
Wakiaga, Lucy
We believe that public schools in our respective countries (Kenya, Sweden, United States) are essential to maintaining the democratic societies in which they are located. In addition to an unprecedented global pandemic, the last three years have witnessed increasing threats to democracy. The racially, ethnically, and religiously-motivated hatred, rise in extreme right-wing political violence, and anti-immigrant sentiment provide a challenging context for school leaders responsible for ensuring an equitable education for all children and the continuation of a democratic society. Historically depicted as “apolitical”, principals and superintendents must now contend with enacting their role and responsibilities within highly charged political and social contexts with various constituencies attempting to control public education through such efforts as: banning books, restricting curriculum topics, decreasing funding, and electing anti-public education candidates to school boards.
These threats to superintendents’ and principals’ leadership occur alongside the challenges that accompany teacher and administrative shortages and turnover, as well as the ongoing consequences of COVID. Despite the fact that school leaders are making educational decisions within these challenging contexts, we know very little about how and why they are making these decisions.
In reviewing the research from 1993-2011 on principals’ leadership identity, Cruz-Gonzalez, Rodrigues and Segovia (2019) report that the evidence indicates that “political and contextual factors influence leadership practices and are a source of concern among principals” (p. ). Additionally, they acknowledge that this body of research was dominated by researchers in Anglo-Saxon countries. A notable contribution in this regard is Lopez & Rugano’s (2018) study of the leadership practices of three female principals in post-colonial Kenya.
The study conducted by Antonios & Peshardis (2019) is an also important counterpoint to the lack of cultural diversity in this research, with findings confirming that the contexts in which school principals in Cypriot work are relevant to their personal, personal, and professional identities. A recent study of Swedish principals (Nordholm et al., 2020), however, indicates that principals’ identity is more closely connected to the professional dimension than either the situated, socially located or personal dimensions. It’s interesting that the situated or socially located dimension had the least impact on principals with respect to their identify. In contrast, a study of principal identity by Crow, Day, & Møller (2017) concludes that identity has a strong connection to the context of work.
Our research focuses on how school leaders construct their identities within the current divisive social and political climate, and what factors influence their decisionmaking when responding to the challenges that emerge from the increasingly polarized social and political contexts within which they work. In doing so, we acknowledge the research conducted by Dempster, Carter, Freakley and Parry (2004) which points to the situational and sometimes contradictory nature of principal’s ethical decisionmaking.
In responding to call for a broader range of cultural perspectives in educational research, as well as the theme of ECER 2024, Education in an Age of Uncertainty: Memory and hope for the future, our research includes data from Kenya, Sweden and the United States (Texas). We selected three different groups of school leaders: a) those who retired prior to 2020; b) those who retired within the past 3 years (2020-2023); c) those currently in their position. (a & b = memory, and c = hope for the future). In synthesizing previous studies on principal identity and how it’s constructed, Sylvia Robertson (2017) explores the idea that principals’ professional identity consists of five related and overlapping aspects: 1) values; 2) beliefs; 3) knowledge; 4) understanding; and 5) experience. Our analysis of the ethical dimension of principal identity is informed by the work of Begley & Johansson (2003).
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis qualitative, exploratory, comparative study of school leaders (superintendents and principals) in Kenya, Sweden and the United States (specifically Texas) focuses on how educational leaders in each of these countries define their roles, responsibilities, and their decisionmaking processes when responding to the challenges associated with the divisive and highly charged political and social contexts in which they work. The data collection process is well underway, and we anticipate completing our study by June at the latest.
We’ve used purposeful sampling to select our school leaders who we’ve sub-divided into three different groups: a) those who retired prior to 2020; b) those who retired within the past 3 years (2020-2023); c) those who are current school leaders. Our rationale for including both superintendents and principals in our study and for differentiating them into these three groups was prompted by our desire to explore whether and how their responses to our questions depended, in part upon the time period and related context in which they served, as well as their position in the school organization. (We acknowledge that there are other factors that can be considered, such as gender, but in this initial study, we decided to focus on the context).
In the interviews, we ask questions of the school leaders regarding the role of schools in a democratic society, the social and political challenges that currently confront them, their role in responding to these challenges, and the guidelines or beliefs that informed your decision making in responding to these challenges. We also ask them to give us an example of a controversial issue that they’ve had to respond to, describe their decisionmaking process when responding to the issue, and the result of their decision. We’ve modified these questions when interviewing the retired school leaders, to include not only their retrospective analysis about their time as leader but also their observations regarding the current context within which superintendents and principals are working.
We’re interviewing a minimum of four school leaders in each of the three categories, in person (when possible), or via Zoom. These interviews are between 45 and 60 minutes in length, digitally recorded and transcribed. The transcripts are shared with the participants to verify the trustworthiness of the findings (Creswell & Creswell, 2017). The data are being coded separately by the authors and two research assistants for the purpose of identifying emergent themes within and across our countries. (Saldana, 2016).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe following themes are beginning to emerge for Sweden and Texas (we’ve yet not collected enough data from Kenya to report those findings):
1) Current school leaders generally view their role as apolitical, and limit their efforts to their perceived span of control
2) Retired school leaders are more likely than current leaders, to believe that the democratic mission of schools is under threat
3) School leaders who retired prior to 2020 generally rely upon their professional code of ethics to inform their decisionmaking, but acknowledged that this approach alone was insufficient for addressing current threats to education.
4) Those who retired within the past three years are more likely to have based their decisionmaking on a personal code of ethics, prompting them to challenge efforts to control education, and eventually leading to their leaving the profession.
5) Current leaders who are members of the communities they serve, are more proactive than their colleagues in drawing upon their personal code of ethics to combat threats to education.
Schools, as democratic institutions, are under threat today. Our research draws upon the past to inform the present with respect to leading schools in today’s challenging times. Current school leaders invested in maintaining their positions, understandably focus more on accommodating to, rather than challenging, the threats being directed toward today’s schools. Nonetheless the data we are gathering from retired school leaders indicates that they can be an import resource for much-needed insights into how current school leaders can maintain their focus on educating children, while strategically leveraging support to challenge the undemocratic policies and practices intended to limit their decisionmaking. As such, retired school leaders (“memory”) can play an important role in mentoring current leaders (“hope for the future”) in their efforts to ensure the democratic nature of education.
ReferencesBegley, Paul & Johansson, Olof, (2003) Eds. The Ethical Dimensions of School Leadership. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Campos-García, I. & Zúñiga-Vicente, J. (2022). Strategic decision-making in secondary schools: the impact of a principal’s demographic profile, Leadership and Policy in Schools, 21:3, 543-564, DOI: 10.1080/15700763.2020.1802653
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage Publications.
Crow, Gary, Day, Christopher & Møller, Jorunn (2017). Framing research on school principals’ identity. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 20(3), 265–277.
Cruz-González, C.; Rodriguez, C. & Segovia, J. (2019). A systematic review of principals’ leadership identity from 1993 to 2019, Educational Management Administration & Leadership. 49(1). https://doi-org.libweb.lib.utsa.edu/10.1177/1741143219896
Dempster, N., Carter, L., Freakley, M., & Parry, L. (2004). Conflicts, confusions and contradictions in principals' ethical decision making. Journal of Educational Administration, 42(4), 450-461. doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230410544062
Kafa, A., & Pashiardis, P. (2019). Exploring school principals’ personal identities in Cyprus from a values perspective. The International Journal of Educational Management, 33(5), 886-902. doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-03-2018-0102
Lopez, A.E. & Rugano, P. (2018). Educational Leadership in Post-Colonial Contexts: What Can We Learn from the Experiences of Three Female Principals in Kenyan Secondary Schools? Education Sciences 8, no.3: 99. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci8030099
Nordholm, D.; Arnqvist, A. & Nihlfors, E. (2020). Principals’ emotional identity—the Swedish
Case. School Leadership & Management. 40(4), 335-351.
Robertson, Sylvia (2017). Transformation of professional identity in an experienced primary school principal: A New Zealand case study. Educational Management Administration and Leadership 45(5), 774–789.
Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (Third edition.). SAGE Publishers.
|
