journal articles on leadership in education

• Open supplemental data
• Reference Manager
• Simple TEXT file

People also looked at

Review article, strategy and strategic leadership in education: a scoping review.

• 1 Universidade Católica Portuguesa, Research Centre for Human Development, Porto, Portugal
• 2 Universidade de Évora, Évora, Portugal

Strategy and strategic leadership are critical issues for school leaders. However, strategy as a field of research has largely been overlooked within the educational leadership literature. Most of the theoretical and empirical work on strategy and strategic leadership over the past decades has been related to non-educational settings, and scholarship devoted to these issues in education is still minimal. The purpose of this scoping review was to provide a comprehensive overview of relevant research regarding strategy and strategic leadership, identifying any gaps in the literature that could inform future research agendas and evidence for practice. The scoping review is underpinned by the five-stage framework of Arksey and O’Malley . The results indicate that there is scarce literature about strategy and that timid steps have been made toward a more integrated and comprehensive model of strategic leadership. It is necessary to expand research into more complex, longitudinal, and explanatory ways due to a better understanding of these constructs.

Introduction

Strategy and strategic leadership are critical issues for school leaders ( Davies and Davies, 2006 ; Davies and Davies, 2010 ; Eacott, 2010a ; Eacott, 2011 ). However, strategy as a field of research has largely been overlooked in educational leadership literature ( Davies and Davies, 2006 ; Eacott, 2008a ; Eacott, 2008b ; Davies and Davies, 2010 ; Eacott, 2011 ). Most of the theoretical and empirical work on strategy and strategic leadership over the past decades has been related to non-educational settings, and scholarship devoted to these issues in education is still very limited ( Cheng, 2010 ; Eacott, 2011 ; Chan, 2018 ).

The concept of strategy appeared in educational management literature in the 1980s; however, little research was produced until the 1990s (cf. Eacott, 2008b ). Specific educational reforms led to large amounts of international literature mostly devoted to strategic planning ( Eacott, 2008a ; Eacott, 2008b ; Eacott, 2011 ). For a long period, the concept of strategy was incomplete and confusing. The word “strategy” was often used to characterize different kinds of actions, namely, to weight management activities, to describe a high range of leadership activities, to define planning, or to report to individual actions within an organization ( Eacott, 2008a ).

Strategy and strategic planning became synonymous ( Eacott, 2008b ). However, strategy and planning are different concepts, with the strategy being more than the pursuit of a plan ( Davies, 2003 , Davies, 2006 ; Eacott, 2008a ; Eacott, 2008b ; Quong and Walker, 2010 ). Both phases of plans’ design and plans’ implementation are related, and the quality of this second phase highly depends on planning’ quality ( Davies, 2006 ; Davies, 2007 ; Eacott, 2008a ; Eacott, 2008b ; Eacott, 2011 ; Meyers and VanGronigen, 2019 ). Planning and acting are related and must emerge from the strategy. As stated by Bell (2004) .

Planning based on a coherent strategy demands that the aims of the school are challenged, that both present and future environmental influences inform the development of the strategy, that there should be a clear and well-articulated vision of what the school should be like in the future and that planning should be long-term and holistic (p. 453).

Therefore, it is necessary to adopt a comprehensive and holistic framework of strategy, considering it as a way of intentionally thinking and acting by giving sense to a specific school vision or mission ( Davies, 2003 , 2006 ; Eacott, 2008a ; Eacott, 2008b ; Quong and Walker, 2010 ).

The works of Davies and colleagues ( Davies, 2003 ; Davies, 2004 ; Davies and Davies, 2004 ; Davies and Davies, 2006 ; Davies and Davies, 2010 ) and Eacott (2008a , 2008b) , Eacott (2010a , 2011) were essential and contributed to a shift in the rationale regarding strategy by highlighting a more integrative and alternate view. Davies and colleagues ( Davies, 2003 ; Davies, 2004 ; Davies and Davies, 2004 ; Davies and Davies, 2006 ; Davies and Davies, 2010 ) developed a comprehensive framework for strategically focused schools , comprising strategic processes, approaches, and leadership. In this model, the strategy is conceptualized as a framework for present and future actions, sustained by strategic thinking about medium to long term goals, and aligned to school vision or direction.

Strategic leadership assumes necessarily a relevant role in strategically focused schools. Eacott (2006) defines strategic leadership as “leadership strategies and behaviors relating to the initiation, development, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of strategic actions within an educational institution, taking into consideration the unique context (past, present, and future) and availability of resources, physical, financial and human” (p. 1). Thereby, key elements of strategic leadership can be identified as one that: 1) acts in a proactive way to contextual changes; 2) leads school analysis and response to changing environment; 3) leads planning and action for school effectiveness and improvement in face of contextual challenges and; 4) leads monitoring and evaluation processes to inform decision making strategically ( Cheng, 2010 ). This brings to the arena a complex and dynamic view of strategic leadership as it is a complex social activity that considers important historical, economic, technological, cultural, social, and political influences and challenges ( Eacott, 2011 ).

Along with these authors, this paper advocates a more comprehensive and contextualized view of strategy and strategic leadership, where strategy is the core element of any leadership action in schools ( Davies and Davies, 2010 ; Eacott, 2011 ). Here, strategic leadership is not seen as a new theory, but an element of all educational leadership and management theories ( Davies and Davies, 2010 ). Even so, these concepts can inform and be informed by diverse leadership theories, a strategy-specific framework is needed in the educational field.

Considering all the above, strategy can be identified as a topic that is being researched in education, in the recent decades. Nonetheless, there is still scarce educational literature about this issue ( Davies and Davies, 2006 ; Davies and Davies, 2010 ; Cheng, 2010 ; Eacott, 2011 ; Chan, 2018 ). After 10 years of Eacott’s analysis of literature on strategy in education, it seems that this educational construct is being overlooked as there is still no consensual definition of strategy, different studies are supported in diverse conceptual frameworks and empirical studies about this topic are scarce ( Cheng, 2010 ; Eacott, 2011 ; Chan, 2018 ). Moreover, despite the interest of a multidisciplinary vision of strategy and strategic leadership, we agree with Eacott (2008b) about the need for a meaningful definition of strategy and strategic leadership in education, as it is a field with its specifications. Hence, research is needed for a clear definition of strategy, an integrated and complete framework for strategic action, a better identification of multiple dimensions of strategy and a comprehensive model of strategic leadership that has strategic thinking and action as core elements for schools improvement (e.g., Eacott, 2010a ; Hopkins et al., 2014 ; Reynolds et al., 2014 ; Harris et al., 2015 ; Bellei et al., 2016 ). This paper aims to contribute to the field offering a scoping review on strategy and strategic leadership in the educational field.

A clear idea of what strategy and strategic leadership mean and what theory or theories support it are of great importance for research and practice. This scoping review is an attempt to contribute to a strategy-specific theory by continuing to focus on ways to appropriately develop specific theories about strategy and strategic leadership in the educational field, particularly focusing on school contexts.

This study is a scoping review of the literature related to strategy and strategic leadership, which aims to map its specific aspects as considered in educational literature. Scoping reviews are used to present a broad overview of the evidence about a topic, irrespective of study quality, and are useful when examining emergent areas, to clarify key concepts or to identify gaps in research (e.g., Arksey and O’Malley, 2005 ; Peters et al., 2015 ; Tricco et al., 2016 ). Since in the current study we wanted to explore and categorize, but not evaluate, information available concerning specific aspects of strategy in educational literature, we recognize that scoping review methodology serves well this purpose.

In this study, Arksey and O’Malley (2005) five-stage framework for scoping reviews, complemented by the guidelines of other authors ( Levac et al., 2010 ; Colquhoun et al., 2014 ; Peters et al., 2015 ; Khalil et al., 2016 ), was employed. The five stages of Arksey and O’Malley’s framework are 1) identifying the initial research questions, 2) identifying relevant studies, 3) study selection, 4) charting the data, and 5) collating, summarizing and reporting the results. In the sections below, the process of this scoping review is presented.

Identifying the Initial Research Questions

The focus of this review was to explore key aspects of strategy and strategic leadership in educational literature. The primary question that guided this research was: What is known about strategy and strategic leadership in schools? This question was subdivided into the following questions: How should strategy and strategic leadership in schools be defined? What are the main characteristics of strategic leadership in schools? What key variables are related to strategy and strategic leadership in schools?

Identifying Relevant Studies

As suggested by Arksey and O’Malley (2005) , keywords for the search were defined, and databases were selected. Key concepts and search terms were developed to capture literature related to strategy and strategic leadership in schools, considering international perspectives. The linked descriptive key search algorithm that was developed to guide the search is outlined in Table 1 .

TABLE 1 . Key search algorithm.

Considering scoping review characteristics, time and resources available, inclusion and exclusion criteria were developed. Papers related to strategy and strategic leadership, published between 1990 and 2019, were included. Educational literature has reported the concepts of strategy and strategic leadership since the 1980s ( Eacott, 2008a ; 2008b ). However, it gained expansion between 1990 and 2000 with studies flourishing mostly about strategic planning ( Eacott, 2008b ). Previous research argues that strategy is more than planning, taking note of the need to distinguish the concepts. Considering our focus on strategy and strategic leadership, studies about strategic planning were excluded as well as papers specifically related to other theories of leadership than strategic leadership. A full list of inclusion and exclusion criteria is outlined in Table 2 .

TABLE 2 . Inclusion and exclusion criteria.

The following six electronic databases were searched to identify peer-reviewed literature: ERIC, Education Source, Academic Search Complete, Science Direct, Emerland, and Web of Science. Additionally, a manual search of the reference lists of identified articles was undertaken, and Google Scholar was utilized to identify any other primary sources. The review of the literature was completed over 2 months, ending in August 2019.

Study Selection

The process of studies’ selection followed the Preferred Reporting of Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement ( Moher et al., 2009 ). Figure 1 illustrates the process of article selection.

FIGURE 1 . PRISMA chart outlining the study selection process.

With the key search descriptors, 1,193 articles were identified. A further number of articles were identified using Google Scholar. However, a large number of articles were removed from the search, as they were duplicated in databases, and 231 studies were identified as being relevant.

The next phases of studies’ selection were guided by the inclusion and exclusion criteria presented above. A screening of the titles, keywords, and abstracts revealed a large number of irrelevant articles, particularly those related to strategic planning (e.g., Agi, 2017 ) and with general ideas about leadership (e.g., Corral and Gámez, 2010 ). Only 67 studies were selected for full-text access and analyses.

Full-text versions of the 67 articles were obtained, with each article being reviewed and confirmed as appropriate. This process provided an opportunity to identify any further additional relevant literature from a review of the reference lists of each article (backward reference search; n = 2). Ultimately, both with database search and backward reference search, a total of 29 articles were included to be analyzed in the scoping review, considering inclusion and exclusion criteria. During this process of study selection, several studies were excluded. As in the previous phase, examples of excluded papers include studies related to strategic planning where the focus is on the planning processes (e.g., Bennett et al., 2000 ; Al-Zboon and Hasan, 2012 ; Schlebusch and Mokhatle, 2016 ) or with general ideas about leadership (e.g., FitzGerald and Quiñones, 2018 ). Additionally, articles that were primarily associated with other topics or related to specific leadership theories (e.g., instructional leadership, transformational leadership) and that only referred briefly to strategic leadership were excluded (e.g., Bandur, 2012 ; Malin and Hackmann, 2017 ). Despite the interest of all these topics for strategic action, we were interested specifically in the concepts of strategy, strategic leadership, and its specifications in educational literature.

Data Charting and Collation

The fourth stage of Arksey and O’Malley (2005) scoping review framework consists of charting the selected articles. Summaries were developed for each article related to the author, year, location of the study, participants, study methods, and a brief synthesis of study results related to our research questions. Details of included studies are provided in the table available in Supplementary Appendix S1 .

Summarising and Reporting Findings

The fifth and final stage of Arksey and O’Malley (2005) scoping review framework summarises and reports findings as presented in the next section. All the 29 articles were studied carefully and a content analysis was taken to answer research questions. Research questions guided summaries and synthesis of literature content.

In this section, results are presented first with a brief description of the origin and nature of the studies, and then as answering research questions previously defined.

This scoping review yielded 29 articles, specifically devoted to strategy and strategic leadership in education, from eleven different countries (cf. Figure 2 ). The United Kingdom and Australia have the highest numbers of papers. There is a notable dispersion of literature in terms of geographical distribution.

FIGURE 2 . Number of papers per country.

A large number of these articles were published by Brent Davies and colleagues ( N = 9) and Scott Eacott ( N = 6). Without question, these authors have influenced and shaped the theoretical grounding about strategy and strategic leadership in educational literature. While Davies and colleagues have contributed to design a framework of strategy and strategic leadership, influencing the emergence of other studies related to these topics, Eacott provided an essential contribution by exploring, systematizing, and problematizing the existing literature about these same issues. The other authors have published between one and two papers about these topics.

Seventeen papers are of conceptual or theoretical nature, and twelve are empirical research papers (quantitative methods–7; qualitative methods–4; mixed methods–1). The conceptual/theoretical papers analyze the concepts of strategy and strategic leadership, present a framework for strategic leadership, and discuss implications for leaders’ actions. The majority of empirical studies are related to the skills, characteristics, and actions of strategic leaders. Other empirical studies explore relations between strategic leadership and other variables, such as collaboration, culture of teaching, organizational learning, and school effectiveness.

How should Strategy and Strategic Leadership in Schools be Defined?

The concept of strategy is relatively new in educational literature and, in great part, related to school planning. In this scoping review, a more integrated and comprehensive view is adopted ( Davies, 2003 ; Davies, 2006 ; Eacott, 2008a ; Eacott, 2008b ; Quong and Walker, 2010 ). Davies (2003) defined strategy as a specific pattern of decisions and actions taken to achieve an organization’s goals (p. 295). This concept of strategy entails some specific aspects, mainly that strategy implies a broader view incorporating data about a specific situation or context ( Davies, 2003 ; Dimmock and Walker, 2004 ; Davies, 2006 ; Davies, 2007 ). It is a broad organizational-wide perspective , supported by a vision and direction setting , that conceals longer-term views with short ones ( Davies, 2003 ; Dimmock and Walker, 2004 ; Davies, 2006 ; Davies, 2007 ). It can be seen as a template for short-term action . However, it deals mostly with medium-and longer-term views of three-to 5-year perspectives ( Davies, 2003 ; Davies, 2006 ; Davies, 2007 ). In this sense, a strategy is much more a perspective or a way of thinking that frames strategically successful schools ( Davies, 2003 ; Davies and Davies, 2005 ; Davies, 2006 ; Davies and Davies, 2010 ).

Eacott (2008a) has argued that strategy in the educational leadership context is a field of practice and application that is of a multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary nature. More than a single definition of strategy, what is needed is a conceptual understanding and articulation of its fundamental features, which removes the need to answer, “what is a strategy?” Understanding strategy as choosing a direction within a given context, through leadership, and articulating that direction through management practices ( Eacott, 2008a , p. 356) brings to the arena diverse elements of strategy from both leadership and management. From this alternative point of view, a strategy may be seen as leadership ( Eacott, 2010a ). More than an answer to “what is a strategy?”, it is crucial to understand “when and how does the strategy exist?” ( Eacott, 2010a ), removing the focus on leaders’ behaviors and actions per se to cultural, social, and political relationships ( Eacott, 2011 ). Hence, research strategy and strategic leadership oblige by acknowledging the broader educational, societal, and political contexts ( Dimmock and Walker, 2004 ; Eacott, 2010a ; Eacott, 2010b ; Eacott, 2011 ).

Strategic leadership is a critical component of school development ( Davies and Davies, 2006 ). However, to define leadership is challenging considering the amount of extensive, diverse literature about this issue. Instead of presenting a new categorization about leadership, the authors most devoted to strategic leadership consider it as a key dimension of any activity of leadership ( Davies and Davies, 2004 ; Davies and Davies, 2006 ; Eacott, 2010a ; Eacott, 2010b ; Eacott, 2011 ). Barron et al. (1995) stressed the idea of change. As mentioned by the authors, implementation of strategic leadership means change: change in thinking, change in the way schools are organized, change in management styles, change in the distribution of power, change in teacher education programs, and change in roles of all participants ( Barron et al., 1995 , p. 180). Strategic leadership is about creating a vision, setting the direction of the school over the medium-to longer-term and translating it into action ( Davies and Davies, 2010 ; Eacott, 2011 ). In that sense, strategic leadership is a new way of thinking ( Barron et al., 1995 ) that determines a dynamic and iterative process of functioning in schools ( Eacott, 2008b ).

In their model of strategic leadership, Davies and Davies (2006) consider that leadership must be based on strategic intelligence, summarised as three types of wisdom: 1) people wisdom, which includes participation and sharing information with others, developing creative thinking and motivation, and developing capabilities and competencies within the school; 2) contextual wisdom, which comprises understanding and developing school culture, sharing values and beliefs, developing networks, and understanding external environment; and 3) procedural wisdom, which consists of the continuous cycle of learning, aligning, timing and acting. This model also includes strategic processes and strategic approaches that authors define as the centre of this cycle ( Davies and Davies, 2006 , p. 136).

To deeply understand strategic leadership, it is necessary to explore strategic processes and approaches that leaders take ( Davies and Davies, 2010 ). In this sense, strategic leadership, strategic processes, and strategic approaches are key elements for sustainable and successful schools, which are found to be strategically focused. Davies (2006) designed a model for a strategically focused school that may be defined as one that is educationally effective in the short-term but also has a clear framework and processes to translate core moral purpose and vision into an excellent educational provision that is challenging and sustainable in the medium-to long-term (p.11). This model incorporates 1) strategic processes (conceptualization, engagement, articulation, and implementation), 2) strategic approaches (strategic planning, emergent strategy, decentralized strategy, and strategic intent), and 3) strategic leadership (organizational abilities and personal characteristics). Based on these different dimensions, strategically focused schools have built-in sustainability, develop set strategic measures to assess their success, are restless, are networked, use multi-approach planning processes, build the strategic architecture of the school, are strategically opportunistic, deploy strategy in timing and abandonment and sustain strategic leadership ( Davies, 2004 , pp.22–26).

What Are the Main Characteristics of Strategic Leadership in Schools?

Davies (2003) , Davies and Davies (2005) , Davies and Davies (2006) , Davies and Davies (2010) discuss what strategic leaders do (organizational abilities) and what characteristics strategic leaders display (personal characteristics). The key activities of strategic leaders, or organizational abilities, are 1) create a vision and setting a direction, 2) translate strategy into action, 3) influence and develop staff to deliver the strategy, 4) balance the strategic and the operational, 5) determine effective intervention points ( what, how, when, what not to do and what to give up ), 6) develop strategic capabilities, and 7) define measures of success ( Davies and Davies, 2006 ; Davies and Davies, 2010 ). The main characteristics that strategic leaders display, or their characteristics, are 1) dissatisfaction or restlessness with the present, 2) absorptive capacity, 3) adaptive capacity, and 4) wisdom.

Two specific studies explored the strategic leadership characteristics of Malaysian leaders ( Ali, 2012 ; Ali, 2018 ), considering the above-mentioned model as a framework. For Malaysian Quality National Primary School Leaders, the results supported three organizational capabilities (strategic orientation, translation, and alignment) and three individual characteristics of strategic leadership (dissatisfaction or restlessness with the present, absorptive capacity, and adaptive capacity). For Malaysian vocational college educational leaders, the results were consistent with seven distinct practices of strategic leadership, such as strategic orientation, strategic alignment, strategic intervention, restlessness, absorptive capacity, adaptive capacity, and leadership wisdom.

Other studies were also focused on the characteristics of strategic leadership with different populations and countries. Chatchawaphun et al. (2016) identified the principles, attributes, and skills of the strategic leadership of secondary school administrators from Thailand. The principles identified within the sample of principals included appropriate values, modern visionary, future focusing strategy, empirical evidence focus, intention toward accomplishment, decency, and making relationships. The attributes found were strategic learning, strategic thinking, and value push up. The skills were learning, interpretation, forecasting, planning, challenge, and decision making. Chan (2018) explored strategic leadership practices performed by Hong Kong school leaders of early childhood education and identified effective planning and management, reflective and flexible thinking, and networking and professional development as variables. Eacott (2010c) investigated the strategic role of Australian public primary school principals concerning the leader characteristics of tenure (referring to the time in years in their current substantive position) and functional track (referring to the time in years spent at different levels of the organizational hierarchy). These demographic variables have moderating effects on the strategic leadership and management of participants. These five studies seem to be outstanding contributions to solidify a framework of strategic leadership and to test it with different populations in different countries.

Additionally, Quong and Walker (2010) present seven principles for effective and successful strategic leaders. Strategic leaders are future-oriented and have a future strategy, their practices are evidence-based and research-led, they get things done, open new horizons, are fit to lead, make good partners and do the “next” right thing—these seven principles of action seem related to the proposal of Davies and colleagues. Both authors highlighted visions for the future, future long-term plans, and plans’ translation into action as important characteristics of strategic leaders.

One other dimension that is being explored in research relates to ethics. Several authors assert that insufficient attention and research have been given to aspects related to moral or ethical leadership among school leaders ( Glanz, 2010 ; Quong and Walker, 2010 ; Kangaslahti, 2012 ). The seventh principle of the Quong and Walker (2010) model of strategic leadership is that leaders do the “next” right thing. This relates to the ethical dimension of leadership, meaning that strategic leaders recognize the importance of ethical behaviors and act accordingly. For some authors, ethics in strategic leadership is a critical issue for researchers and practitioners that needs to be taken into consideration ( Glanz, 2010 ; Quong and Walker, 2010 ). Glanz (2010) underlined social justice and caring perspectives as required to frame strategic initiatives. Kangaslahti (2012) analyzed the strategic dilemmas that leaders face in educational settings (e.g., top-down strategy vs. bottom-up strategy process; leadership by authority vs. staff empowerment; focus on administration vs. focus on pedagogy; secret planning and decision making vs. open, transparent organization; the well-being of pupils vs. well-being of staff) and how they can be tackled by dilemma reconciliation. Chen (2008) , in case study research, explored the conflicts that school administrators have confronted in facilitating school reform in Taiwan. The author identified four themes related to strategic leadership in coping with the conflicts accompanying this school reform: 1) educational values, 2) timeframe for change, 3) capacity building, and 4) community involvement. These studies reinforce the idea that school improvement and success seem to be influenced by the way leaders think strategically and deal with conflicts or dilemmas. Researchers need to design ethical frameworks or models from which practitioners can think ethically about their strategic initiatives and their dilemmas or conflicts ( Chen, 2008 ; Glanz, 2010 ; Kangaslahti, 2012 ).

Despite the critical contribution of Davies’ models ( Davies, 2003 ; Davies, 2004 ; Davies and Davies, 2006 ; Davies and Davies, 2010 ) and subsequent works, Eacott (2010a) questions the production of lists of behaviors and traits. This is likely one of the main differences between Davies’ and Eacott’s contributions in this field. While Davies and colleagues include organizational abilities and personal characteristics in their model of strategic leadership, Eacott (2010a , 2010b) emphasizes the broader context where strategy occurs. These ideas, however, are not contradictory but complementary in the comprehension of strategy as leadership in education since both authors present a comprehensive and integrated model of strategic leadership. Even though Davies and colleagues present some specific characteristics of leaders, these characteristics are incorporated into a large model for strategy in schools.

What Are Other Key Variables Related to Strategy and Strategic Leadership in Schools?

Other studies investigated the relationship between strategic leadership and other key variables, such as collaboration ( Ismail et al., 2018 ), the culture of teaching ( Khumalo, 2018 ), organizational learning ( Aydin et al., 2015 ) and school effectiveness ( Prasertcharoensuk and Tang, 2017 ).

One descriptive survey study presented teacher collaboration as a mediator of strategic leadership and teaching quality ( Ismail et al., 2018 ). The authors argue that school leaders who demonstrate strategic leadership practices can lead to the creation of collaborative practices among teachers and thus help to improve the professional standards among them, namely, teaching quality ( Ismail et al., 2018 ). One cross-sectional study identified positive and significant relations among the variables of strategic leadership actions and organizational learning. Transforming, political, and ethical leadership actions were identified as significant predictors of organizational learning. However, managing actions were not found to be a significant predictor ( Aydin et al., 2015 ). One other study establishes that strategic leadership practices promote a teaching culture defined as the commitment through quality teaching for learning outcomes ( Khumalo, 2018 ). These three studies provide essential highlights of the relevance of strategic leadership for school improvement and quality. Nonetheless, it is interesting to note that in a research survey that examined the effect of leadership factors of administrators on school effectiveness, the authors concluded that the direct, indirect, and overall effects of the administrators’ strategic leadership had no significant impact on school effectiveness ( Prasertcharoensuk and Tang, 2017 ). These studies introduce important questions that need to be explored both related to strategy and strategic leadership features and its relations and impacts on relevant school variables. Such studies stimulate researchers to explore these and other factors that relate to strategic leadership.

The knowledge about strategy and strategic leadership is still incomplete and confusing ( Eacott, 2008a ; Eacott, 2008b ). From the 29 studies selected, divergent data and multiple concepts of strategy can be identified which reinforces the confusion about these issues. Some integrative clarification is still needed about the concepts of strategy and strategic leadership as about its core features. In this section, it is intended to contribute to the clarification and integration of the concepts considering the studies selected.

The emergence of politics and reforms related to school autonomy and responsibility in terms of efficacy and accountability brings the concept of strategy to the educational literature ( Eacott, 2008b ; Cheng, 2010 ). It first appeared in the 1980s but gained momentum between 1990 and 2000. However, the main focus of the literature was on strategic planning based upon mechanistic or technical-rational models of strategy. Authors have criticized the conceptualization of strategy as a way for elaborating a specific plan of action for schools ( Davies, 2003 ; Davies, 2006 ; Eacott, 2008a ; Eacott, 2008b ; Quong and Walker, 2010 ). These same authors adopted a more comprehensive and holistic model of strategy. The concepts have been developed from a more rational and mechanistic view related to planning processes to a more comprehensive and complex view of strategy and leadership that take into consideration a situated and contextual framework. Considering the contribution of these studies, strategy incorporates three core dimensions, articulated with a schoolwide perspective 1) Vision, mission and direction (e.g., Davies, 2003 ; Dimmock and Walker, 2004 ; Davies, 2006 ; Davies and Davies, 2006 ; Davies, 2007 ; Eacott, 2008a ) 2) Intentional thinking (e.g., Barron et al., 1995 ; Davies, 2003 ; Davies and Davies, 2005 ; Davies, 2006 ; Davies and Davies, 2010 ): and; 3) Articulated decision-making and action (e.g., Davies, 2003 ; Dimmock and Walker, 2004 ; Davies and Davies, 2006 ; Davies, 2006 ; Davies, 2007 ; Eacott, 2008a ; Eacott, 2010a ; Eacott, 2010b ; Eacott, 2011 ).

Strategic leaders have an important role in strategy but, even considering this comprehensive and holistic concept of strategy, research poses the question of what are the main characteristics of strategic leaders in schools? From the literature reviewed, specific abilities, behaviors, and other characteristics may be identified. Looking for an integrated picture of strategic leadership, Table 3 represents the main contributions of the studies selected.

TABLE 3 . Strategic leadership: Main features.

Despite the contribution of these studies to deep knowledge about strategic leadership, the discussion here considers whether it is worthwhile to produce lists of behaviors and traits for strategic leaders in the absence of an integrated model that acknowledges the broader educational, societal and political context ( Dimmock and Walker, 2004 ; Eacott, 2010a ; Eacott, 2010b ; Eacott, 2011 ). Eacott (2011) argues that strategy, as constructed through analysis, is decontextualized and dehumanized and essentially a vacuous concept with limited utility to the practice that it seeks to explain (p. 426). Without a comprehensive and contextual model of strategy and strategic leadership, supported by research, the topics may still be overlooked and misunderstood. With this in mind, Figure 3 attempts to represent the core dimensions of strategy from a comprehensive perspective.

FIGURE 3 . Strategy and core dimensions from a comprehensive perspective.

As this is a scoping review, we tried to display a general view of the literature that can serve as a basis for a specific strategy theory in education and to more in-depth studies related to strategy and strategic leadership in schools. Nevertheless, we need to identify some methodological limitations of this study. As a scoping review, methods and reporting need improvement ( Tricco et al., 2018 ) and we are aware of this circumstance. Also, our search strategy may have overlooked some existing studies, since grey documents (e.g., reports) and studies from diverse languages than English were not included, that can misrepresent important data. Besides, inclusion criteria focused only on studies specifically devoted to strategy (not strategic planning) and strategic leadership (no other theories of leadership), but we acknowledge important contributions from this specific literature that were excluded. Finally, in our study there is no comparative analysis between the western and eastern/oriental contexts. However, we are aware that these contexts really differ and a context-specific reflection on strategy and strategic leadership in education would be useful. More research is needed to overcome the limitations mentioned.

Besides, the pandemic COVID19 brought new challenges in education, and particularly, to leaders. This study occurred before the pandemic and this condition was not acknowledged. However, much has changed in education as a consequence of the pandemic control measures, these changes vary from country to country, and schools’ strategies have changed for sure. Future research needs to explore strategy and strategic leadership in education considering a new era post pandemic.

With this scoping review, the authors aimed to contribute to enduring theories about strategy and strategic leadership in education. From our findings, it appears that this issue is being little explored. Despite the important contributions of authors cited in this scoping review ( Aydin et al., 2015 ; Chatchawaphun et al., 2016 ; Prasertcharoensuk and Tang, 2017 ; Ali, 2018 ; Chan, 2018 ; Ismail et al., 2018 ; Khumalo, 2018 ), minor advances seem to have been made after 2010. This is intriguing taking into account the leaders’ role in the third wave of educational reform, where strategic leadership pursues a new vision and new aims for education due to maximizing learning opportunities for students through “ triplisation in education’ (i.e., as an integrative process of globalization, localization and individualization in education)” ( Cheng, 2010 , p. 48). It was expected that research moved from rational planning models towards a more complex view of strategy in education ( Eacott, 2011 ). This review brings the idea that some timid and situated steps have been made.

Since the important review by Eacott, published in 2008, a step forward was made in the distinction between strategy and planning. Despite the significant number of papers about planning that were found during this review, the majority were published before 2008 (e.g., Nebgen, 1990 ; Broadhead et al., 1998 ; Bennett et al., 2000 ; Beach and Lindahl, 2004 ; Bell, 2004 ). Also, most of the papers selected adopt a more integrative, comprehensive, and complex view of strategy and strategic leadership (e.g., Eacott, 2010a ; Eacott, 2010b ; Davies and Davies, 2010 ; Eacott, 2011 ; Ali, 2012 ; Ali, 2018 ; Chan, 2018 ). More than identifying the “best of” strategy and strategic leadership, alternative models understand strategy as a way of thinking ( Davies and Davies, 2010 ) and a work in progress ( Eacott, 2011 ).

This also resonates with the educational literature about loosely coupled systems . There is evidence that loosely coupled educational organizations continue to exist and that resistance to change is a characteristic of school organizations ( Hautala et al., 2018 ). Strategic leadership gains relevance since leaders need to consider how to manage their loose and tight configurations and, hence, reinforce simultaneous personal and organizational dimensions related to school improvement. It is time to expand the research into more complex, longitudinal, and explanatory ways due to a better understanding of the constructs. This scoping review was an attempt to contribute to this endeavor by integrating and systematizing educational literature about strategy and strategic leadership.

Author Contributions

MC-collected and analyzed data, write the paper IC, JV, and JA-guided the research process and reviewed the paper.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to the Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (FCT) for the support to this publication (Ref. UIDB/04872/2020).

Supplementary Material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feduc.2021.706608/full#supplementary-material

Agi, U. (2017). School Development Planning: A Strategic Tool for Secondary School Improvement in Rivers State, Nigeria. J. Int. Soc. Teach. Educ. 21 (1), 88–99.

Google Scholar

Al-Zboon, W., and Hasan, M. (2012). Strategic School Planning in Jordan. Education 132 (4), 809–825.

Arksey, H., and O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping Studies: Towards a Methodological Framework. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 8 (1), 19–32. doi:10.1080/1364557032000119616

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Aydin, M., Guclu, N., and Pisapia, J. (2015). The Relationship between School Principals’ Strategic Leadership Actions and Organizational Learning. Am. J. Educ. Stud. 7 (1), 5–25.

Bandur, A. (2012). School‐based Management Developments: Challenges and Impacts. J. Educ. Admin 50 (6), 845–873. doi:10.1108/09578231211264711

Barron, B., Henderson, M., and Newman, P. (1995). Strategic Leadership: A Theoretical and Operational Definition. J. Instructional Psychol. 22, 178–181.

Beach, R. H., and Lindahl, R. (2004). A Critical Review of Strategic Planning: Panacea for Public Education?. J. Sch. Leadersh. 14 (2), 211–234. doi:10.1177/105268460401400205

Bell, L. (2004). Strategic Planning in Primary Schools. Manag. Educ. 18 (4), 33–36. doi:10.1177/08920206040180040701

Bellei, C., Vanni, X., Valenzuela, J. P., and Contreras, D. (2016). School Improvement Trajectories: An Empirical Typology. Sch. Effectiveness Sch. Improvement 27 (3), 275–292. doi:10.1080/09243453.2015.1083038

Bennett, Megan Crawford, Rosalind L, N., Crawford, M., Levačić, R., Glover, D., and Earley, P. (2000). The Reality of School Development Planning in the Effective Primary School: Technicist or Guiding Plan? Sch. Leadersh. Manag. 20 (3), 333–351. doi:10.1080/13632430050128354

Broadhead, P., Hodgson, J., Cuckle, P., and Dunford, J. (1998). School Development Planning: Moving from the Amorphous to the Dimensional and Making it Your Own. Res. Pap. Educ. 13 (1), 3–18. doi:10.1080/0267152980130102

Chan, C. W. (2018). Leading Today's Kindergartens. Educ. Manag. Adm. Leadersh. 46 (4), 679–691. doi:10.1177/1741143217694892

Chatchawaphun, P., Julsuwan, S., and Srisa-ard, B. (2016). Development of Program to Enhance Strategic Leadership of Secondary School Administrators. Ies 9 (10), 34–46. doi:10.5539/ies.v9n10p34

Chen, P. (2008). Strategic Leadership and School Reform in Taiwan. Sch. Effectiveness Sch. Improvement 19 (3), 293–318. doi:10.1080/09243450802332119

Cheng, Y. (2010). A Topology of Three-Wave Models of Strategic Leadership in Education. Int. Stud. Educ. Adm. 38 (1), 35–54.

Colquhoun, H. L., Levac, D., O'Brien, K. K., Straus, S., Tricco, A. C., Perrier, L., et al. (2014). Scoping Reviews: Time for Clarity in Definition, Methods, and Reporting. J. Clin. Epidemiol. , 67(12), 1291–1294. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.03.013

Corral Granados, A., and Granados Gámez, G. (2010). Sustainability and Triple Bottom Line: Key Issues for Successful Spanish School Principals. Intl Jnl Educ. Mgt. , 24(6), 467–477.doi:10.1108/09513541011067656

Davies, B. (2004), Developing the Strategically Focused School, Sch. Leadersh. Manag. , 24(1), 11–27. doi:10.1080/1363243042000172796

Davies, B., and Davies, B. J. (2005). Strategic Leadership Reconsidered. Leadersh. Pol. Schools , 4(3), 241–260. doi:10.1080/15700760500244819

Davies, B., and Davies, B. (2010). The Nature and Dimensions of Strategic Leadership. Int. Stud. Educ. Adm. , 38(1), 5–21.

Davies, B. (2007). Developing Sustainable Leadership. Manag. Educ. , 21(3), 4–9. doi:10.1177/0892020607079984

Davies, B. J., and Davies, B.(2004), Strategic Leadership, Sch. Leadersh. Manag. , 24(1), 29–38. doi:10.1080/1363243042000172804

Davies, B. J., and Davies, B. (2006). Developing a Model for Strategic Leadership in Schools. Educ. Manag. Adm. Leadersh. , 34(1), 121–139. doi:10.1177/1741143206059542

Davies, B. (2006). Processes Not Plans Are the Key to Strategic Development. Manag. Educ. , 20(2), 11–15. doi:10.1177/089202060602000204

Davies, B. (2003). Rethinking Strategy and Strategic Leadership in Schools. Educ. Manag. Adm. , 31(3), 295–312. doi:10.1177/0263211x03031003006

Dimmock, C., and Walker, A. (2004). A New Approach to Strategic Leadership: Learning‐centredness, Connectivity and Cultural Context in School Design, Sch. Leadersh. Manag. , 24(1), 39–56. doi:10.1080/1363243042000172813

Eacott, S. (2006). Strategy: An Educational Leadership Imperative, Perspect. Educ. Leadersh. , 16(6), 1–12.

Eacott, S. (2008b). An Analysis of Contemporary Literature on Strategy in Education. Int. J. Leadersh. Educ. , 11(3), 257–280. doi:10.1080/13603120701462111

Eacott, S. (2010b). Lacking a Shared Vision: Practitioners and the Literature on the Topic of Strategy. J. Sch. Leadersh. , 20, 425–444. doi:10.1177/105268461002000403

Eacott, S. (2011) Leadership Strategies: Re-conceptualising Strategy for Educational Leadership. Sch. Leadersh. Manag. , 31 (1), 35–46. doi:10.1080/13632434.2010.540559

Eacott, S. (2010a). Strategy as Leadership: an Alternate Perspective to the Construct of Strategy. Int. Stud. Educ. Adm. , 38(1), 55–65.

Eacott, S. (2008a). Strategy in Educational Leadership: In Search of unity, J. Educ. Admin. , 46(3), 353–375. doi:10.1108/09578230810869284

Eacott, S. (2010c). Tenure, Functional Track and Strategic Leadership. Intl Jnl Educ. Mg.t , 24(5), 448–458. doi:10.1108/09513541011056009

FitzGerald, A. M., and Quiñones, S. (2018). The Community School Coordinator: Leader and Professional Capital Builder. Jpcc , 3(4), 272–286. doi:10.1108/JPCC-02-2018-0008

Glanz, J. (2010). Justice and Caring: Power, Politics, and Ethics in Strategic Leadership. Int. Stud. Educ. Adm. , 38(1), 66–86.

Harris, A., Adams, D., Jones, M. S., and Muniandy, V. (2015). System Effectiveness and Improvement: The Importance of Theory and Context. Sch. Effectiveness Sch. Improvement , 26(1), 1–3. doi:10.1080/09243453.2014.987980

Hautala, T., Helander, J., and Korhonen, V. (2018). Loose and Tight Coupling in Educational Organizations - an Integrative Literature Review. Jea , 56(2), 236–255. doi:10.1108/JEA-03-2017-0027

Hopkins, D., Stringfield, S., Harris, A., Stoll, L., and Mackay, T. (2014). School and System Improvement: A Narrative State-Of-The-Art Review. Sch. Effectiveness Sch. Improvement , 25(2), 257–281. doi:10.1080/09243453.2014.885452

Ismail, S. N., Kanesan, A., Kanesan, A. G., and Muhammad, F. 2018). Teacher Collaboration as a Mediator for Strategic Leadership and Teaching Quality. Int. J. Instruction , 11(4), 485–498. doi:10.12973/iji.2018.11430a

Kangaslahti, J. (2012). Mapping the Strategic Leadership Practices and Dilemmas of a Municipal Educational Organization. Euromentor J. - Stud. about Educ. , 4, 9–17.

Khalil, H., Peters, M., Godfrey, C. M., McInerney, P., Soares, C. B., and Parker, D., (2016). An Evidence-Based Approach to Scoping Reviews. Worldviews Evid. Based Nurs. , 13(2), 118–123. doi:10.1111/wvn.12144

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Khumalo, S. (2018). Promoting Teacher Commitment through the Culture of Teaching through Strategic Leadership Practices. Gend. Behav. , 16(3), 12167 -12177.

Levac, D., Colquhoun, H., and O'Brien, K. K. (2010). Scoping Studies: Advancing the Methodology. Implement Sci. , 5(1), 69–9. http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1748-5908-5-69.pdf . doi:10.1186/1748-5908-5-69

Malin, J. R., and Hackmann, D. (2017). Urban High School Principals' Promotion of College-And-Career Readiness. Jea , 55(6), 606–623. doi:10.1108/JEA-05-2016-0054

Meyers, C. V., and VanGronigen, B. A. (2019). A Lack of Authentic School Improvement Plan Development, J. Educ. Admin , 57(3), 261–278. doi:10.1108/JEA-09-2018-0154

Mohd Ali, H. b., and Zulkipli, I. B. (2019). Validating a Model of Strategic Leadership Practices for Malaysian Vocational College Educational Leaders. Ejtd 43, 21–38. doi:10.1108/EJTD-03-2017-0022

Mohd Ali, H. (2012). The Quest for Strategic Malaysian Quality National Primary School Leaders. Intl Jnl Educ. Mgt. , 26 (1), 83–98. doi:10.1108/09513541211194392

Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., and Altman, D. G. (2009) Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA Statement. BMJ , 339, b2535–269. doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535

Nebgen, M. K. (1990). Strategic Planning: Achieving the Goals of Organization Development. J. Staff Dev. , 11(1), 28–31.doi:10.1108/eum0000000001151

Peters, M., Godfrey, C., McInerney, P., Soares, C., Khalil, H., and Parker, D., (2015). Methodology for JBI Scoping Reviews . The Joanna Briggs Institute reviewers’ manual . Adelaide, South Australia: The Joanna Briggs Institute .

Prasertcharoensuk, T., and Tang, K. N. (2017). The Effect of Strategic Leadership Factors of Administrators on School Effectiveness under the Office of Maha Sarakham Primary Educational Service Area 3. Kasetsart J. Soc. Sci. , 38(3), 316–323. doi:10.1016/j.kjss.2016.09.001

Quong, T., and Walker, A. (2010). Seven Principles of Strategic Leadership. Int. Stud. Educ. Adm. , 38(1), 22–34.

Reynolds, D., Sammons, P., De Fraine, B., Van Damme, J., Townsend, T., Teddlie, C., et al. (2014). Educational Effectiveness Research (EER): A State-Of-The-Art Review. Sch. Effectiveness Sch. Improvement , 25(2), 197–230. doi:10.1080/09243453.2014.885450

Schlebusch, G., and Mokhatle, M. (2016) Strategic Planning as a Management Tool for School Principals in Rural Schools in the Motheo District. Int. J. Educ. Sci. , 13(3), 342–348. doi:10.1080/09751122.2016.11890470

Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O'Brien, K., Colquhoun, H., Kastner, M., et al. (2016). A Scoping Review on the Conduct and Reporting of Scoping Reviews. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. , 16(15), 15–10. doi:10.1186/s12874-016-0116-4

Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O'Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., et al. 2018). PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann. Intern. Med. , 169(7), 467–473. doi:10.7326/M18-0850

Keywords: strategy, strategic leadership, school leadership, scoping review, education

Citation: Carvalho M, Cabral I, Verdasca JL and Alves JM (2021) Strategy and Strategic Leadership in Education: A Scoping Review. Front. Educ. 6:706608. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2021.706608

Received: 07 May 2021; Accepted: 23 September 2021; Published: 15 October 2021.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2021 Carvalho, Cabral, Verdasca and Alves. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Marisa Carvalho, [email protected]

• Technical Support
• Find My Rep

You are here

Journal of Research on Leadership Education

Preview this book.

• Description
• Aims and Scope
• Editorial Board
• Abstracting / Indexing
• Submission Guidelines

The Journal of Research on Leadership Education ( JRLE ), an electronic peer-reviewed journal, seeks to promote and disseminate rigorous scholarship and provide an international venue across multiple disciplines and contexts to inform the field of educational leadership.

We strongly encourage submissions such as:

• Innovative approaches and techniques for leadership preparation pedagogy, programs, and professional development
• Research on leadership preparation pedagogy, programs, and professional development, including evaluation of impacts and outcomes (e.g., student learning)
• Thorough and critical reviews that stimulate lively, thoughtful, topical, practical, and controversial discussion
• Analysis of current policy trends influencing leadership preparation and development (e.g., political and contextual issues that impact leadership education such as state changes in teacher and principal evaluation systems, impact of Common Core Standards on programs, and/or other timely and relevant policy topics)
• Inclusion of student voice through such mechanisms as the newly formed UCEA Graduate Student Council organization
• International and comparative studies of leadership preparation pedagogy, programs, and professional development
• ERIC (Education Resources Information Center)
• Educational Research Abstracts Online (T&F)
• Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI)
• OCLC: Electronic Collections Online

The Journal of Research on Leadership Education ( JRLE ) uses an electronic submission and review process. Manuscripts should be submitted to JRLE 's SageTrack website at http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jrle where authors will be required to set up an online account in the SageTrack system. For questions about submitting manuscripts, please contact the JRLE Managing Editor at [email protected]

Submitted manuscripts should be 25 to 35 pages in length (including references) and conform to the style of the 7th edition of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (APA). All copy should be typed, double-spaced, in Times New Roman 12-point font. Notes, references, tables should be included in the MS Word file at the end of the manuscript per APA style. Figures may be submitted as TIFF or JPEG images, although we can accept most other formats.

Manuscripts must include an abstract of no more than 100 words. Abstracts for empirical manuscripts should summarize the study’s purpose, research methods or approach, findings, and key conclusions. For non-empirical manuscripts, abstracts should summarize the key features of the manuscript, for example, the purpose, conceptual argument or model, and conclusions. Additionally, five key words or phrases should be listed after the abstract.

Author Identification

Manuscripts should include a cover sheet with the title, author’s name, address, phone number, fax number, and e-mail address, along with a brief biographical statement (2-3 sentences). If the article was authored by more than one person, co-authors’ names, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and biographical statements should also be included. To assure anonymize review, the author’s name or identifying information should NOT appear in headers, footers, reference list, or citations throughout the manuscript. Information in the text or reference list that would identify the author should be replaced with the word “Author” in lieu of the author’s name or identifying information.

Originality of Manuscript

Manuscripts submitted for consideration must be the original work of the submitting author(s), must not be previously published in any form – print or on-line, and must not be under consideration for publication elsewhere.

Submitting authors should ensure that the primary focus of the paper is within the aims and scope of JRLE and compose the paper with the inclusion of cited works from previous issues of JRLE. This will help to ensure that the topic is in alignment with the broader education leadership literature and of interest to the JRLE readership.

Pedagogy and Practice Submissions

In 2015, co-editors Gordon Gates and Sharon Kruse introduced the Pedagogy and Practice feature to the  Journal of Research on Leadership Education  ( JRLE ). Its introduction included a description of its intended design and focus:

Pedagogy and practice is designed as a venue for submissions that provide original and authentic links between pedagogy and practice that are likely to be of interest to readers who teach in leadership preparation programs. We invite authors to submit manuscripts that address (a) how a teaching/learning activity might be structured within the classroom and/or (b) documentation of utility including dis- cussion of student learning outcomes that were achieved by participation in a particular activity. (p. 226)

The purpose of the pedagogy and practice feature is also to understand a variety of evidence-based approaches to leadership education. This typically encompasses the inclusion of theoretical frameworks or theories of practice that include attitudes, knowledge, and skills regarding leadership education (Rosch, Anthony, Guthrie, & Osteen, 2012). It is our intention that the pedagogy and practice manuscripts expand the literature on effective leadership program practices. We welcome a variety of empirically based practices at a variety of learning levels (e.g., individual, system, etc.)

Gordon, G., & Kruse, S. (2015). Pedagogy and Practice. Journal of Research on Leadership Education,  10 (3), 226. doi: 10.1177/1942775115623392.

Review Process

Manuscripts are reviewed initially by the JRLE editorial team and, if approved, are sent out for anonymize review to a minimum of three reviewers. Authors of all reviewed manuscripts will receive copies of the anonymous comments of our reviewers.

Reviewers for Original Manuscripts will use the following rubric: journals.sagepub.com/pb-assets/cmscontent/JRL/Original Manuscript Reviewer Rubric.pdf

Reviewers for Pedagogy and Practice Manuscripts will use the following rubric: journals.sagepub.com/pb-assets/cmscontent/JRL/Pedagogy and Practice Reviewer Rubric.pdf

If you are asked to provide the names of a peer who could be called upon to review your manuscript, please note that reviewers should be experts in their fields and should be able to provide an objective assessment of the manuscript. Please be aware of any conflicts of interest when recommending reviewers. Examples of conflicts of interest include (but are not limited to) the below:  

•    The reviewer should have no prior knowledge of your submission •    The reviewer should not have recently collaborated with any of the authors •    Reviewer nominees from the same institution as any of the authors are not permitted

Please note that the journal’s editors are not obliged to invite any recommended/opposed reviewers to assess your manuscript.

Call for Reviewers

If you are interested in reviewing manuscripts for the Journal of Research on Leadership Education ( JRLE ), please contact the Managing Editor at [email protected] .

Ethics Statement

JRLE editors are committed to following ethical practices for journal publications derived from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (publicationethics.org). These ethical practices include assuring that:

• Article submissions undergo timely, unbiased, peer review by qualified reviewers
• Reviewers provide constructive, useful feedback to authors
• Article submissions remain confidential while under review
• Published research follows ethical research practices
• Article submissions authored or co-authored by JRLE editors or members of the Editorial Board undergo objective review
• Editors respond in a timely and respectful way to author inquiries or appeals of editorial decisions
• Editors follow COPE guidelines and flowcharts in cases of suspected plagiarism or disputed authorship
• JRLE publishes corrections, clarifications, and retractions when needed

Sage Choice

If you or your funder wishes your article to be freely available online to nonsubscribers immediately upon publication (gold open access), you can opt for it to be included in Sage Choice, subject to the payment of a publication fee. The manuscript submission and peer review procedure is unchanged. On acceptance of your article, you will be asked to let Sage know directly if you are choosing Sage Choice. To check journal eligibility and the publication fee, please visit Sage Choice . For more information on open access options and compliance at Sage, including self/author archiving deposits (green open access) visit Sage Publishing Policies on our Journal Author Gateway.

As part of our commitment to ensuring an ethical, transparent and fair peer review process Sage is a supporting member of ORCID, the Open Researcher and Contributor ID . ORCID provides a unique and persistent digital identifier that distinguishes researchers from every other researcher, even those who share the same name, and, through integration in key research workflows such as manuscript and grant submission, supports automated linkages between researchers and their professional activities, ensuring that their work is recognized.

The collection of ORCID iDs from corresponding authors is now part of the submission process of this journal. If you already have an ORCID iD you will be asked to associate that to your submission during the online submission process. We also strongly encourage all co-authors to link their ORCID ID to their accounts in our online peer review platforms. It takes seconds to do: click the link when prompted, sign into your ORCID account and our systems are automatically updated. Your ORCID iD will become part of your accepted publication’s metadata, making your work attributable to you and only you. Your ORCID iD is published with your article so that fellow researchers reading your work can link to your ORCID profile and from there link to your other publications.

If you do not already have an ORCID iD please follow this link to create one or visit our ORCID homepage to learn more.

For more information, please refer to the   Sage Manuscript Submission Guidelines .

• Read Online
• Sample Issues
• Current Issue
• Email Alert
• Permissions
• Foreign rights
• Reprints and sponsorship
• Advertising

Individual Subscription, E-access

Institutional Subscription, E-access

To order single issues of this journal, please contact SAGE Customer Services at 1-800-818-7243 / 1-805-583-9774 with details of the volume and issue you would like to purchase.

Advertisement

Why is school leadership key to transforming education? Structural and cultural assumptions for quality education in diverse contexts

• Viewpoints/ Controversies
• Open access
• Published: 31 October 2022
• Volume 52 , pages 231–242, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Monica Mincu 1 , 2  

9623 Accesses

8 Citations

6 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Failing to recognize the role of leaders in quality and equitable schooling is unfortunate and must be redressed. Leadership is fundamentally about organized agency and collective vision, not managerialism, since it is an organizational quality, not merely a positionality attribute. Most important, if change is to be systemic and transformative, it cannot occur uniquely at the individual teachers’ level. School organization is fundamental to circulating and consolidating new innovative actions, cognitive schemes, and behaviors in coherent collective practices. This article engages with the relevance of governance patterns, school organization, and wider cultural and pedagogical factors that shape various leadership configurations. It formulates several assumptions that clarify the importance of leadership in any organized change. The way teachers act and represent their reality is strongly influenced by the architecture of their organization, while their ability to act with agency is directly linked to the existence of flat or prominent hierarchies, both potentially problematic for deep and systemic change. A hierarchical imposition from above as well as a lack of leadership vision in fragmented school cultures cannot determine any transformation.

Similar content being viewed by others

Curriculum and School Leadership – Adjusting School Leadership to Curriculum

Educational Leadership in the Twenty-First Century

Governance mechanisms, school principals and the challenge of personalized education in contexts

Monica Mincu

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

In recent years, transformation has emerged as a high priority in key policy documents (OECD, 2015 , 2020a , 2020b ; Paterson et al., 2018 ; UNESCO, 2021 ) and been recognized as a major pillar on which the very future of education is based. A galvanized international scene has put transformation at the top of the agenda. One reason is found in the recent Covid-19 emergency and the need to recover, and possibly to “build back better”. Other reasons are longer-term and relate to dissatisfaction with the quality of education in many parts of the world. Major international agencies have been directly involved in reform and have variously endorsed “educational planning” (e.g., Carron et al., 2010 ), systemic reform in highly centralized countries, school autonomy (framed as school-based management or decentralization), systemic adjustment and restructuring (e.g., Carnoy, 1998 ; Samoff, 1999 ), and accountability (Anderson, 2005 ), as well as capacity building and development (De Grauwe, 2009 ). However, in practice, only segments of reforms have been enacted, focusing on one aspect of the school system while neglecting others, without considering the larger governance and school architecture, and local pedagogical cultures. Some agencies have also expressed a renewed interest in innovation and the possibility to measure it (Vincent-Lancrin et al., 2019 ), from a rather managerial perspective.

The transformation of education is a trendy movement nowadays, with the potential to generate lasting change through wide-reaching actions, not just stylistically or in local projects. Transformation of this kind will occur when structural and organizational conditions are in place in a range of different settings. When this happens, transformation as a revamped concept of change can be wholeheartedly embraced. Nonetheless, both academic and development-oriented NGO research has long dedicated itself to and learned from systemic change, improvement, and reform, based on what have been defined as effective practices (Ko & Sammons, 2016 ; Townsend, 2007 ). The school effectiveness findings are typically transversal principles of what has proved valuable despite contextual variation, whilst noting the local variability of such principles (Teddlie & Stringfield, 2017 ) especially in low and middle income countries (Moore, 2022 ) and even in similar areas of education development (Boonen et al., 2013 ; Palardy & Rumberger, 2008 ). Some variability often occurs between consolidated and less consolidated school systems. School improvement has been based on scholars’ findings on school effectiveness, as these two areas can merge up to a certain point (Creemers & Reezigt, 2005 ; Stoll & Fink, 1996 ). Reform at the top and improvement at the ground level have long been trialed in different national and organizational settings and with different school populations, with the aim of establishing generalizability or local variation. Quality teaching (Bowe & Gore, 2016 ; Darling-Hammond, 2021 ; Hattie, 2009 ) or teachers (Hanushek, 2010 , 2014 ; Mincu, 2015 ; Akiba & LeTendre, 2017 ), as well as equitable effective practices (Sammons, 2010 ) have also been classic research topics that have emerged center-stage in any change project.

In order for quality-promoting endeavors such as change, improvement, and reform to produce a transformed education, several assumptions are indispensable: (a) recognize the larger school and organizational context as crucial, alongside school architecture and processes, (b) define what quality education means across a variety of country contexts and with regard to specific structural arrangements and pedagogical cultures, (c) distinguish the degree and type of autonomy for schools and teachers, and estimate the effectiveness of their mixed interactions, (d) understand and cope from a change perspective within a variety of school cultures, (e) recognize the structural limitations faced by school leadership, as well as the margins to produce local, gradual improvement that can pave the way to radical transformation, and (f) start any significant change at the school level, in the interaction of leaders and teachers.

What is school leadership and how can it bring about change? On the one hand, leadership is about a vision of change, collectively shaped and supported. In this sense, radical change—i.e., transformation—cannot occur without leaders and especially school leaders. In addition, an effective vision about a desired change grows from the interactions of the school actors and is stimulated and orchestrated by the school leadership. An imposition from above as well as a lack of leadership vision in fragmented school cultures cannot determine any transformation, nor its subsequent stability or growth, given that some grass roots changes happen accidentally, in limited school areas. In fact, if change is to be systemic and transformative, it cannot occur at the individual teachers’ level, as then it cannot be circulated and consolidated in stable, coherent collective practices. Action at the school level is fundamental for change to occur and last, as well as for individual teachers to be encouraged, supported, and rewarded for their innovative behavior. On the other hand, change is often conceptualized as a gradual process of a series of stages (Fullan, 2015 ; Kotter, 2012 ), carefully incorporating structural and cultural adjustments (Kools & Stoll, 2016 ). Transformation, a less orthodox and robust concept, incorporates the desire for more abrupt and radical change. It is imagined as a possibility to “leapfrog”. This desire to move rapidly forward resonates with the “window of opportunity” phase when big changes can occur more smoothly. However, at the school and even systemic level, complex changes resulting in net improvements are most often gradually prepared and stimulated, since any change is cultural in essence, and as such it needs time to occur. Another relevant aspect is related to leadership as an ingredient and quality, not just a positionality attribute. Both assumptions suggest the inevitability of its role to any change in education as an organized endeavor.

Larger contexts and school organizations are key in any transformation

Education does not occur in an organizational vacuum, since deschooling, mass home-schooling, or online-only paradigms are neither implemented nor envisioned. In addition, a concept of education exclusively posed in philosophical and theoretical terms, especially when aimed at transforming the status quo, neglects to take into account that schooling is enmeshed with different organizational and governance forms, at times in contradiction with its own theoretical bases. Most important, forms of sociality such as those sustained by schools have not declined in relevance but increased, in the aftermath of the global online experiment of the pandemic emergency. At the same time, improvements and even radical changes in education have been embraced and actively promoted in certain parts of the world. For instance, in Norway, renewed weekly timetables are in place, allowing for deep learning as well as better integration with virtual knowledge in high-stakes exams. One should not forget that most pupils around the world are educated in environments displaying significant structural convergences across countries, despite locally diverse values. Such teaching-oriented settings are characterized by the centrality of the adult as teacher, and most often by textbook-based education. The organizational arrangements are linear, based on daily subjects and teachers’ contractual time, mainly dedicated to teaching activities (the stavka system, see Steiner-Khamsi, 2016 , 2020 ) or to ad hoc self-help actions in extreme emergency contexts. Linked to these, school cultures can be both hierarchical (rules are delivered “from above”) and fragmented, since class teachers may be left to themselves without adequate professional support. Whilst the reality is nuanced and school typologies are in any case sociological abstractions, most systems can still be described as basically centralized or decentralized, depending on the level of autonomy granted to schools or local authorities. The larger school contexts as well as the local ones are even today very diverse in these two cases, despite a global increase in diversified combinations of centralization of some aspects and decentralization of others. What Archer ( 1979 ) theorized in her landmark work is still a key valid explanation of how school organizations usually operate and change. With renewed categories, a centralized system is largely characterized by “hierarchies”, real or perceived, and less by “networks and markets”, whilst in the case of decentralized systems, the opposite is true. The same differences can be highlighted in more comprehensive or selective school types, whose visions and ways of functioning are coherent with their structural patterns and influence, and in turn, with how leaders perceive their role and mission.

In terms of leadership, differing configurations will bring differing consequences. Centralized countries with weak school autonomy approach the role of school leaders in a rather formalist way: as primus inter pares or as administrative and legal head. In these settings, the intermediate level is also very weak and largely based on ad hoc tasks. Flat organizations may not support leadership as an essential element in the school’s operational life, and instead focus primarily on teaching, which is mainly viewed as an individual endeavor. School organizations at odds with leadership as a system quality, both in organizational and instructional terms, often exhibit forms of fragmentation (Mincu & Romiti, 2022 ), even in societies that may share a collectivistic or communitarian ethos, such as in East Asia. In countries with significant school autonomy, leadership structures are more manifestly in place, given the increased tasks performed by schools. Often, an excess of hierarchical leadership is a major negative outcome. However, the school context can be characterized by mixed combinations of types of governance (hierarchies, networks, markets) (Mincu & Davies, 2019 ; Mincu & Liu, 2022 ), which have a significant influence on the way leadership is oriented and how it accomplishes its visionary, organizational, and instructional functions within the school and in relation to society. School leadership is both a processual quality and a positional trait, and thus it can be variously performed in high autonomy school systems. In the case of centralized arrangements, it can be much harder to identify leadership as process where there is just some form of leadership positionality: a legal school head or the existence of subject-matter departments. School contexts and organizations around the world are also diverse in terms of leadership configurations and roles: some schools may share the same leader (Italy), some may not provide many leadership positions at all (India), and others may specify a headship position which does not in fact offer any leadership or cohesion in organizational and pedagogical matters. Indeed, leadership may be entirely missing from certain school systems.

To summarize, the way teachers act and represent their reality is strongly influenced by the architecture of their organization, along with the quality, direction, and margins of power that can be exerted by leadership at the school and intermediate levels. Nevertheless, schools are large organizations, and as such a certain amount of alignment and direction is needed, which is what leadership provides.

The autonomy of schools and that of teachers are not mutually exclusive

Closely related to the first assumption, for a functional and dynamic school organization, a certain amount of school autonomy is required to adequately balance teachers’ autonomy. In high school autonomy systems, there is a tendency to assume that teachers’ autonomy is quite reduced, and this is certainly the case if the education model is accountability-oriented and leadership is hierarchical. In less autonomous systems, huge resistance to instill more autonomy at the school level is usually deployed—for example, in strongly unionist cultures, which aim to extend and expand teachers’ independence. This translates into quite radical teachers’ autonomy on pedagogical matters, as is the case in certain European school systems (Mincu & Granata, 2021 ).

An excess of teachers’ autonomy is detrimental to coherence and alignment at the school level and affects both quality and equity. The metaphors of teachers in their classes as eggs in their egg crates or lions behind closed doors, in the words of a ministry official in Italy, are particularly telling about flat, non-collaborative structures. The idea that high teacher autonomy may automatically support collegiality in flat organizations is not supported by the reality on the ground in certain school systems. In sociological terms, any human organization requires a certain amount of hierarchy and collegiality. In fact, a certain quantity of school autonomy is beneficial in many ways and can enhance teachers’ agency: (a) it emphasizes the role of leaders, including the possibility for teachers to act with leadership, (b) it offers a direction that can be shared, (c) it stimulates people to come together in effective ways (communities of practice) whilst presenting the risk of some contrived collegiality, and (d) it encourages teachers to feel more supported in their own work and professional development.

In a nutshell, leadership’s margins of influence are shaped not only by overall system governance, but also by the amount of school autonomy they enjoy. In addition, the extent of organizational autonomy is directly linked to the existence of flat or prominent hierarchies, both potentially problematic for deep and systemic change.

School cultures converge and diverge in multiple ways within and across countries

Pedagogical transformation is about a change in cultural assumptions, which entails a slow process of cognitive and emotional modification that has to be supported beyond school walls by concerted social and economic actions. Structural change will not be successful without an adjustment in people’s cognitive schemes about their practices and values. How teachers conceive of teaching and learning, and of equitable and inclusive approaches, is not essentially a matter of “lack of training”, for which more preparation may be the solution. It is instead a matter of deep pedagogical beliefs, whose roots are shared and societal. How to discipline class misbehavior, for example, and even what inappropriate classroom behavior is, varies widely across societies: it denotes (generational at times) power distance, gender relations, assumptions about individuality and collectivistic entities, as well as merit recognition and social envy avoidance. For Hargreaves ( 1994 ), school culture is the result of the intertwining of attitudes such as individualism, collaboration, contrived collegiality, and “balkanization”, i.e., fragmentation of ethical goals. Stoll ( 2000 ) herself describes schools in terms of social cohesion and social control as traditional, welfarist, “hothouse”, or anomic. In contrast, for Hood ( 1998 ), there are four possible combinations of social cohesion and regulation: (a) fatalistic: compliance with rules but little cooperation to achieve results, (b) hierarchical (bureaucratic): social cohesion and cooperation and a rules-based approach, (c) individualist: fragmented approaches to organizing that require negotiation among various actors, and (d) egalitarian: very meaningful participation structures, highly participatory decision-making, a culture of peer support.

In reality, mixed combinations of two, three, or more types of cultures can be found and supported by a variety of factors within and beyond schools as organizations. Some Southern European realities, as well as some Eastern European systems, belong to the individualist typology: weak collaboration and weak hierarchy, given the absence of a teaching career structure with levels of preparation and strong autonomy of the individual teacher. Some aspects of institutional “fatalism” are present, because a certain culture of respect for rules nevertheless exists, and of egalitarianism of a rather formal type. In fact, while the collegial culture on a formal level may appear robust—given the presence of collegial bodies—in practice organizational coherence remains very weak. The reason lies in the fact that these bodies can also decide not to agree on any systemic solution and defer decisions to the individual teacher, since teacher autonomy is still the superior criterion governing informal culture in schools. In the Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian school systems, for example, schools express more coherent and cohesive cultures that oscillate between very hierarchical and more participatory models, with more diffuse leadership (Seashore-Louis, 2015 ). Even though these latter school systems favor a mostly cohesive ethos, it is not uncommon to find fragmented and inconsistent schools with weak leadership.

As an example of how school cultures work, a culturally well-rooted premise that teachers “are all good” is very much at work in certain flat hierarchical or Confucian-oriented school cultures, meaning they are equally effective because morally oriented for the profession. This is, in fact, a convenient belief allowing those within it to oppose forms of evaluations (including between peers and in the wider community of parents and stakeholders) and to resist more school autonomy and cohesiveness measures that might be envisioned by school or system leadership. Whilst teachers may be reluctant to work together and observe each other (as in a lesson study format) in most countries, this may be particularly the case where teachers’ autonomy is quite radical, where collaboration and mentoring are not common practices, or where stimulated by school arrangements and work contracts (e.g., in Italy; see Mincu & Granata, 2021 ).

Another way to characterize pedagogical cultures is with reference to formalism (respect for rules and social distances, focus on adults’ role and transmissive pedagogies) or to progressivism (more egalitarian interactions and a focus on the learner and their way of acquiring and creating knowledge). There are many ways in which various school cultures can be appropriately characterized, offering plenty of nuances and details of social, economic, and cultural stratifications and contradictions: for instance, in certain East Asian contexts, there is a combination of Confucianism, socialist egalitarianism, and revised individualism of consumption or of possession, based on previous rural forms of it. However, along the lines of centralized/decentralized typologies that are still valid for describing school functioning and structures, the reality of countries around the world allows scholars to characterize school cultures as formalist versus progressivist. It is legitimate to do so in spite of the local nuances and anthropological cultures that may filter and support such pedagogies (Guthrie et al., 2015 ).

Any cultural change imposed from above or from abroad may be doomed to failure if the hardware is that of centralized systems and if school actors are not allowed to engage in a cultural exercise of adaptation, adequately supported with infrastructural measures. Whilst there is no single model, there are some pillars of good teaching and some key lessons about how to produce change. A major premise is that any change must reach the school level and be able to activate and energize its school actors. School systems may be distinguished therefore in terms of formalist/progressivist typologies, which is coherent with other types of systemic characteristics, including lack of leadership (be it hierarchically formalized, legally representative only, or peer-oriented) that may preclude any effort of cultural transformation.

Without leadership, individual teachers may act as a loosely connected group, without vision and motivation to produce an expected and socially praised change. The expectation to encourage reforms from the regional and district level, when not from the top, is purely utopian. Schools remain remote realities in such change models. Most systems in poorly resourced contexts are entangled in hierarchical school models and grounded in traditional power distance and colonial legacies. Without significant leadership processes stimulated by school principals at the very heart of such systems, cultural and new structural processes cannot be expected. To produce cultural change, the top leadership stratum must create the proper conditions, such as salaries, workload, and other incentives for training and knowledge dissemination; but action and cognitive schemes characterize the school level and teachers cannot be blamed for what they cannot do by themselves.

Defining quality for present times education in context

We cannot move toward possible futures without deeply understanding what good education can be in our present societies, in a variety of localities around the world. Research has long dedicated itself to the task of defining quality in education, particularly in the fields of school effectiveness and school improvement. Meta-research has become a bestseller scholarly genre (Hattie, 2009 ), and the drive toward evidence-based knowledge has been equally impressive, across universities, NGOs, and other major international players. Research studies distinguish between quality teachers (their attributes, amount of preparation, and years of experience) and teaching quality, based on dimensions of quality teaching that produce effective learning. Since structures and cultures can be effectively encapsulated in categories (centralized/autonomous, formalist/progressivist, etc.), quality teaching is also condensed (a) in key dimensions, for instance by Bowe and Gore ( 2016 ), subsuming further aspects, or (b) as rankings of most effective factors in terms of learning.

Mistrust of evidence-based and best-practice research traditions is justified when ready-made solutions are implemented without adaptations and the engagement of those involved. Even the adoption of South-South solutions can be ineffective at times (Chisholm & Steiner-Khamsi, 2008 ). Since problems in education are messy and “wicked” (Ritter & Webber, 1973 ) changes must be systemic and cultural.

Anderson and Mundy, 2014 proved that improvement solutions and practices in two groups of countries—developed and less developed—are very much convergent. Both developing and developed countries present a series of common challenges: the need for fewer top-down approaches, for instance, and for approaches less narrowly focused on the basics. Comparative evidence and perspectives on student learning in developing countries converge on a common cluster of instructional concepts and strategies: (a) learning as student-centered, differentiated, or personalized, associated with using low-cost teaching and learning materials in the language which students understand, and (b) the appropriate use of small group learning in addition to large group instruction. This enables regular diagnostic and formative assessment of student progress to guide instructional decision-making, clear directions, and checking student understanding of the purpose of learning activities. It also involves personalized feedback to students based on assessments of their learning, and explicit teaching of learning skills to strengthen students’ problem-solving competencies. With the possible exception of low-cost learning materials, these prescriptions for good teaching are consistent with international evidence about effective instruction (Anderson & Mundy, 2014 ). But quality teaching and teachers equally assume specific contextual meanings. For instance, Kumar and Wiseman ( 2021 ) indicate that traditional measures of quality (teacher preparation and credentials) are less relevant in India compared to non-traditional measures such as teachers’ absenteeism and their attitude/behavior toward their students.

Teachers alone cannot make a better school

Teachers and their actions at the classroom level are key to inspiring learning and students’ progress. Nonetheless, a misreported finding from an OECD ( 2010 ) study that “the quality of an education system can never exceed the quality of its teachers” is only partially correct. In fact, the full quotation said that the system’s quality cannot exceed the quality of its teachers and leaders. The incomplete quote mirrors a common misconception that teachers alone can and should improve the system. Instead, teachers are part of organizations, and as such they behave and respond to dynamics in place in those contexts, and not as individuals, or as a professional group, not even in the most unionized countries. The quality of a public service cannot be attributed solely to its members, but also to their organization and to specific choices made by its leadership, which is responsible for organizational vision and translating theories into action. Launching heartfelt calls for teachers to change their practices is both naive and sociologically inaccurate regarding how people act and behave in social organizations, such as schools. The presence of leadership as a processual and qualitative dimension at the school level also indicates the existence of the structures of school leadership teams and middle managers, in which leadership is robustly in place as positionality.

In this sense, the quote indicates the relevance of teachers’ work in carefully designed organizations, in which hierarchy and horizontal interactions of collaboration between peers are in a functional equilibrium. In other words, schools and teachers’ autonomy reciprocally reinforce one another.

Whenever teachers are required to act with leadership, autonomy, and innovation, the larger system and school culture should be carefully considered. Teachers cannot by themselves be directly responsible for systemic changes. National-level teams of experts cannot blame teachers for a lack of change when the necessary knowledge and resources are not cascaded effectively to the school level. As the end point of the chain of change, teachers cannot be accused for a lack of success and adequate culture to facilitate innovation when decision makers do not consider the school architecture and how leaders are prepared and ready to support a change in culture. This has been the case with reforms in less resourceful countries around the world, often in highly centralized systems, where more progressivist changes are expected from teachers in the absence of proper consideration of the school architecture, long-standing interactions with the school leaders, and the overall pedagogical culture. Unfair blame for these teachers is expressed at times by international or national teams of experts, unrealistically expecting individual teachers to produce significant structural and cultural changes, otherwise they play the part of “those who wait on a bus” for a change to happen. The possibility to develop, to act innovatively, and to be motivated for teaching depends largely on the organizational support received by teachers at the school level from their head teacher and the wider environment. Professional development is a key ingredient that impacts teacher quality (Cordingley, 2015 ), and its effectiveness and provision depends heavily on the school leadership. Without support from the larger school context and leadership, even the most autonomous teachers may not act with the necessary teaching quality that can make a difference, as clearly illustrated by TALIS 2020.

Leadership, as an organizational quality, is indispensable

The final assumption involves the idea that one cannot crudely distinguish between teachers and leaders, especially middle managers and more informal leaders. Obviously, there is a continuum between such roles: teachers themselves can act with agency and leadership, formally or informally, and head teachers may draw upon their experience as teachers.

Since schools are organizations and not collections of individuals, the field of school effectiveness and school improvement has incontrovertibly identified the influence of leadership as vital: “school leadership is second only to classroom teaching as an influence on pupil learning” (Leithwood et al., 2008 ). Through both organization and instructional vision (Day et al., 2016 ), effective leadership significantly enhances or diminishes the influence that individual teachers have in their classes. Regardless of cultural considerations, when teachers’ work is uncoordinated and fragmented, the overall effect in terms of learning and education cannot be amplified and adequately supported. A lack of coherence within organizations is unfavorable to more localized virtuous dynamics that may be diminished or suffocated.

Moreover, unjustified allegations of managerialism and the striking absence of this topic from key policy documents, including those of UNESCO ( 2021 ), should be highlighted. Whilst the “executive” components implicit in any leadership function must be in place in organizations enjoying wide autonomy, this does not necessarily translate into managerialism and quasi markets. It is indeed the larger school context that can make an autonomous school perform in a managerial way or simply, with broader margins of action, that can facilitate good use of teachers’ collective agency, as in some Scandinavian countries. In order to produce even modest change, let alone radical transformation, we must overcome the widely held misconception that leadership has to do with managerial tasks, competition, and effectiveness from a highly individualistic stance. Whilst this can be the case in certain country contexts and with particular disciplinary approaches, educational leadership does not simply overlap with managerialism as a technical ability. It is essentially about vision and collaboration around our global commons, as well as locally defined school goals.

School leadership is correctly identified as a key strategy to improve teaching and learning toward SDG4 (the Incheon Declaration and Framework for Action adopted by the World Education Forum 2015). A specific task assigned to school leadership is an increase in the supply of qualified teachers (UNESCO, 2016 ). At the same time, the need to transform schools is sometimes decoupled from the potential of school and system leadership to ensure such transformation. Failing to recognize the role of leaders in quality and equitable schooling must be rectified. A humanistic vision and a focus on the global public good cannot be at odds, programmatically, with a field dedicated to understanding how contemporary schools are organized and how they operate.

Conclusion: Leadership is about organized agency, not managerialism

Innovations in education are complex because they can often be incremental and less frequently radical, but some have the potential to be truly transformative. The more effective tend to be small micro-context innovations that diffuse “laterally” through networks of professionals and organizations but need facilitation and effective communication from above to be deep and long-lasting. They are never just technical or structural, but rather cultural and related to visions about education. In this context, leadership and leaders are crucial in a variety of aspects, but foremost in shaping a coherent organization and engaging collectively to clarify and make explicit key pedagogical and equity assumptions, which has a dramatic direct and indirect influence on the effectiveness of the school. Most significantly, school leadership at all levels is the starting point for the transformation of low-performing (and) disadvantaged schools.

We should not underestimate the impact that the larger political, social, and economic context has on schools and leaders around the world. A variety of autonomous schools can perform in a managerial way or simply make good use of teachers’ collective agency, and a variety of less autonomous organizations may dispose or not of a certain dose of organizational coherence and leadership (Keddie et al., 2022 ; Walker & Qian, 2020 ).

What has proved valuable in most contexts may not always be effective in every case; a balance has to be struck between cultural awareness related to pedagogies in contexts and lessons learned across cultural boundaries. Available universal solutions have to be pondered, and adaptations are always required. It can be the case that, in certain conditions, we borrow not only solutions but the problems they address, in the way these are rhetorically framed. However, since convergences occur in structures and cultures, problems may also converge across contexts. In addition, micro-changes occur fluidly at any time, but for transformation to emerge, we need to draw on the accumulated wisdom and the potential implicit in system and school leadership. Last but not least, the complexity lying at the heart of learning from others and from comparison should not be assumed to be insuperable.

Akiba, M., & LeTendre, G. (2017). International handbook of teacher quality and policy . Routledge.

Book   Google Scholar  

Anderson, J. A. (2005). Accountability in education . UNESCO IIPE.

Anderson, S., & Mundy, K. (2014). School improvement in developing countries: Experiences and lessons learned . Aga Khan Foundation Canada.

Google Scholar  

Archer, M. (1979). Social origins of educational systems . Routledge.

Boonen, T., Van Damme, J., & Onghena, P. (2013). Teacher effects on student achievement in first grade: Which aspects matter most? School Effectiveness and School Improvement . https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2013.778297 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Bowe, J., & Gore, J. (2016). Reassembling teacher professional development: the case for Quality Teaching Rounds. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 23 (3), 352–366.

Carnoy, M. (1998). Globalisation and educational restructuring. Melbourne Studies in Education, 39 (2), 21–40.

Carron, G., Mahshi, K., De Grauwe, A., Gay, D. (2010). Strategic planning. Organisational arrangements . UNESCO IIPE.

Chisholm, L., & Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2008). South-South transfer: Cooperation and unequal development in education . Teachers College Press.

Cordingley, P. (2015). The contribution of research to teachers’ professional learning and development. Oxford Review of Education . https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2015.1020105 .

Creemers, B., & Reezigt, G. (2005). Linking school effectiveness and school improvement: The background and outline of the project School Effectiveness and School Improvement. An International Journal of Research, Policy and Practice, 16 (4), 359–371.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2021). Defining teaching quality around the world. European Journal of Teacher Education . https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2021.1919080 .

Day, C., Gu, Q., & Sammons, P. (2016). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: How successful school leaders use transformational and instructional strategies to make a difference. Educational Administration Quarterly, 52 (2), 221–258.

De Grauwe, A. (2009). Without capacity there is no development . UNESCO.

Fullan, M. (2015). The new meaning of educational change . Teachers College Press.

Guthrie, G., Tabulawa, R., Schweisfurth, M., Sarangapani, P., Hugo, W., & Wedekind, V. (2015). Child soldiers in the culture wars. Compare, 45 (4), 635–654.

Hanushek, E. (2010). The difference is teacher quality. In K. Weber (Ed.), Waiting for “Superman”: How we can save America’s failing public schools (pp. 81–100). Public Affairs.

Hanushek, E. (2014). Boosting teacher effectiveness. In C. E. Finn & R. Sousa (Eds.), What lies ahead for America’s children and their schools (pp. 23–35). Hoover Institution Press.

Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times: Teachers’ work and culture in the postmodern age . Cassell.

Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement . Routledge.

Hood, C. (1998). The art of the state, culture rhetoric and public management . Clarendon Press.

Keddie, A., MacDonald, K., Blackmore, J., Boyask, R., Fitzgerald, S., Gavin, M., et al. (2022). What needs to happen for school autonomy to be mobilised to create more equitable public schools and systems of education? Australian Education Research . https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-022-00573-w .

Ko, J. & Sammons, P. (2016). Effective teaching. Education Development Trust.

Kools, M. & Stoll, L. (2016). What makes a school a learning organisation ? OECD.

Kotter, J. (2012). Leading change . Harvard Business Review Press.

Kumar, P., & Wiseman, A. W. (2021). Teacher quality and education policy in India: Understanding the relationship between teacher education, teacher effectiveness, and student outcomes . Routledge.

Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, A. (2008). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership. School Leadership and Management, 28 (1), 27–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632430701800060 .

Mincu, M. (2015). Teacher quality and school improvement: What is the role of research? Oxford Review of Education, 41 (2), 253–269. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2015.1023013 .

Mincu, M., & Davies, P. (2019). The governance of a school network and implications for Initial Teacher Education. Journal of Education Policy, 36 (3), 436–453.

Mincu, M. & Granata, A. (2021). Teachers’ informal leadership for equity in France and Italy during the first wave of the education emergency. Teachers and Teaching , Special Issue, 1–21.

Mincu, M., & Liu, M. (2022). The policy context in teacher education: Hierarchies, networks and markets in four countries. In R. Tierny & F. Rizvi (Eds.), International Encyclopaedia in Education . Elsevier.

Mincu, M., & Romiti, S. (2022). Evidence informed practice in Italian education. In C. Brown & J. Malin (Eds.), The Emerald international handbook of evidence-informed practice in education . Emerald.

Moore, R. (2022). Variation, context, and inequality: comparing models of school effectiveness in two states in India. School Effectiveness and School Improvement . https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2022.2089169 .

OECD (2010). PISA 2009. Results: What makes a school successful? Resources, policies and practices (Volume 4) . https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264091559-en

OECD (2015). Schooling redesigned . OECD.

OECD (2020a). What students learn matters. Towards a 21st century curriculum . OECD.

OECD (2020b). Back to the future of education: Four OECD scenarios for schooling, educational research and innovation . OECD.

Palardy, G. J., & Rumberger, R. W. (2008). Teacher effectiveness in first grade: The importance of background qualifications, attitudes, and instructional practices for student learning. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30, 111–140.

Paterson, A., Dumont, H., Lafuente, M., & Law, N. (2018). Understanding innovative pedagogies . OECD.

Rittel, H. W., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4 (2), 155–169.

Sammons, P. (2010). Equity and educational effectiveness. In P. Peterson, E. Baker, & B. McGaw (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (3rd ed., pp. 51–57). Elsevier.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Samoff, J. (1999). Education sector analysis in Africa: Limited national control and even less national ownership. International Journal of Educational Development, 19 (4–5), 249–272.

Seashore-Louis, K. (2015). Linking leadership to learning: State, district and local effects. Nordic Journal in Educational Policy, 3, 7–15.

Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2016). Teach or perish: The stavka system and its impact on the quality of instruction. Voprosy obrazovaniya/Educational Studies Moscow , National Research University Higher School of Economics, 2, 14–39.

Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2020). Prefazione [Foreword]. In M. Mincu (Ed.), Sistemi scolastici nel mondo globale . Mondadori.

Stoll, L. (2000). School culture. Professional Development, 3, 9–14.

Stoll, L., & Fink, D. (1996). Changing our schools: Linking school effectiveness and school improvement . Open University Press.

Teddlie, C., & Stringfield, S. (2017). A differential analysis of effectiveness in middle and low socioeconomic status schools. The Journal of Classroom Interaction, 52 (1), 15–24.

Townsend, T. (2007). International handbook of school effectiveness and improvement . Springer.

UNESCO (2016). Incheon declaration and framework for action for the implementation for Sustainable Development Goal 4: Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning. UNESCO.

UNESCO (2021). Futures of education: Learning to become . UNESCO.

Vincent-Lancrin, S., Urgel, J., Kar, S., & Jacotin, G. (2019). Measuring innovation in education: A journey to the future . OECD.

Walker, A., & Qian, H. (2020). Developing a model of instructional leadership in China. Compare, 52 (1), 147–167.

Download references

Open access funding provided by Università degli Studi di Torino within the CRUI-CARE Agreement.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Philosophy and Educational Sciences, University of Turin, Palazzo Nuovo, Via Sant’Ottavio, 20, 10124, Torino, TO, Italy

Institute of Education, UCL, Centre for Educational Leadership, London, United Kingdom

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Monica Mincu .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

This article is published under an open access license. Please check the 'Copyright Information' section either on this page or in the PDF for details of this license and what re-use is permitted. If your intended use exceeds what is permitted by the license or if you are unable to locate the licence and re-use information, please contact the Rights and Permissions team .

About this article

Mincu, M. Why is school leadership key to transforming education? Structural and cultural assumptions for quality education in diverse contexts. Prospects 52 , 231–242 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-022-09625-6

Download citation

Accepted : 16 October 2022

Published : 31 October 2022

Issue Date : December 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-022-09625-6

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• School leadership
• Transformation of education
• School effectiveness
• Cultural contexts
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Author Rights
• Diversity, Equity & Inclusion

• JOLE 2023 Special Issue
• Editorial Staff
• 20th Anniversary Issue

Effective Leadership Education: Developing a Core Curriculum for Leadership Studies

Willis M. Watt, Ph.D. 10.12806/V2/I1/RF1

Willis M. Watt, Ph.D.

Director, Division of Professional Studies Methodist College

5400 Ramsey Street

Fayetteville, NC 28311-1498 [email protected]

Educators must develop leadership studies programs that prepare students to deal with the reality of a diverse world so they are able to handle constant change as they lead in the 21st century. The purpose of this paper is to consider a variety of questions that need to be answered when developing core curricula for college and university leadership studies programs. The discussion is based many years of researching, developing, and teaching in this area at state universities as well as at private liberal arts and Christian colleges. This paper offers a review of the importance of leadership education, a review of Hosford’s (1973) curriculum development model, and an examination of three case histories. Hosford (1973) has developed a model of instructional design that suggests a strong interrelationship exists between any given curriculum program and the subsequent teaching involved in the program. Hosford’s model challenges the educator to ask a variety of questions concerning issues affecting professional, practical, political, package (i.e., program), organizational, interrelated dynamics, teaching/learning, and implementation. As illustrated by the three case histories, with attention to each dimension of curriculum development it is possible to develop meaningful and successful leadership studies courses and programs at the college and university levels.

Introduction

Living in the 21st century means needing new technologies to deal with challenges such as population growth, food supplies, disease, pollution, waste disposal, urban sprawl, societal unrest, economic crisis, corporate growth, and war. Just as importantly people need leaders who are skilled in critical thinking, communicating, and effective leadership. Leaders are needed who are capable of dealing with family problems, poverty, politics, ethics, interpersonal and international relations as well as many other problems. Effective leaders are needed at all levels of our society. Obviously “understanding leadership has practical importance for all of us” (Hackman & Johnson, 2000, p. 1).

Leadership education must not be limited to discussions in classrooms and think tanks. In 1988 Alvin Toffler (cited in Sawin, 1995) said, “we use the ‘first wave’ to mean the process associated with agriculturalization and the agrarian era; the ‘second wave’ to mean the processes of industrial era; and the ‘third wave’ to mean the changes forming a new society today” (p. xviii). Effective leadership education will need to prepare people to deal with the diverse reality present in a pluralistic world. Leaders must be able to communicate effectively — interpersonally and organizationally. They need to be able to handle constant change. They need to understand human perception, physiology, neurology, psychology, and social behavior. Such individuals need to apply critical thinking, language, and behavior that are appropriate in a myriad of situations. All in all the leaders of the 21st century will need to be able to skillfully communicate with people in order to lead effectively while promoting cooperation and mutual understanding among diverse people.

The good news is that today there is general agreement that leadership can be learned. Few people would deny there is a critical need for effective leadership in human affairs. Certainly a person’s thoughts are shaped by the leaders that individual comes in contact with daily. And, while leadership behavior may appear to be subconscious, such learning is not inconsistent with much of human behavior. People often are not conscious of various aspects of their personalities and behaviors. Yet, because too little about what constitutes effective leadership is known, leadership educators must strive to make the subconscious dimensions of leadership conscious, and thus, at least in theory, enhance the education and training of effective leaders.

The purpose of this paper is to consider a variety of questions that need to be answered when developing core curricula for college and university leadership studies programs. The discussion is based on many years of researching, developing, and teaching in this area at state universities as well as at private liberal arts and Christian colleges. This paper offers a review of the importance of leadership education, a discussion of Hosford’s (1973) model for developing a core curriculum, and an examination of three case histories involving the development of leadership studies courses and programs.

Importance of Leadership Education

The 20th century saw an ideological shift in higher education from the belief that education is a tool of cultural transmission to a more contemporary belief that it should serve the needs and wants of students (Watt, 1980). This shift is reflected in increased accessibility to higher education. It supports the importance of education. College attendance, once only for the well-to-do or rich, is now considered a right that everyone enjoys. While significant social and racial

barriers still exist, higher education is making strides to meet the needs of all citizens in the United States of America.

For over 2,500 years liberal arts education has reflected a basic philosophy of what is needed to adequately educate students to fulfill the responsibilities placed on them (Watt, 1980). Today colleges and universities are involved in preparing students for a wide variety of professions and occupations. In more recent years changes within liberal arts education has included a focus on effective leadership education. Many colleges and universities recognize the importance of including courses and programs that provide education for developing effective leadership.

Leadership education has experienced many theoretical explanations that have shifted from one model to another and then back again (Brungardt, 1996 Summer). Brungardt identified five major theories — “trait, behavioral, situational, power-influence, and transformational” (p. 82). Crawford, Brungardt, and Maughan (2000) note that “leadership theorists have struggled with one basic concept: the definition of leadership” (p. 1).

Brungardt (1996 Summer) points out that “it is important from the outset to distinguish and define the critical and sometimes confusing terminology” (p. 83). “Leadership development” deals with almost all forms of growth or stages of development in the life cycle that promotes a person’s leadership potential. On the other hand, “leadership education” refers to those learning activities and educational situations intended to enhance leadership abilities. Unfortunately throughout history leadership education has been for a select few and not always available to everyone who can and should benefit from leadership development programs (Watt, 1995).

Certainly leadership education can and should achieve a number of goals (Wolfe, 1996 Fall). A function of any leadership education program is to promote both youth and adult leadership as a key component of individual and community growth. Secondly, such programs should enhance leadership by establishing relationships for the exchange of ideas, information, and research. Another dimension of leadership education is to develop an environment that encourages the translation of leadership theory and research into practice. Leadership programs should encourage the creation of new educational partnerships. And, finally, they should provide opportunities for personal and professional development.

According to Quigley (1996 September), there is a clear need for emergent leaders who have the capacity for resolving divergent human problems. These divergent problems require ethically based leaders. In support of this point, Holkeboer and Hoeksema (1998) assert that “leadership should endorse ethical principles and embody moral integrity” (p. 5). “Contrary to popular belief, being ethical makes us more, not less, successful. Being a ‘good’ leader means being both ethical and effective” (Johnson, 2001, p. 138). Woyach (1993) claims that

“anyone can exercise leadership…young or old, assertive or quiet, a man or a woman” (p. xi). Leadership brings together diverse points of view to achieve common goals and create shared visions. Watt (1995) advocates that it is possible to provide students with learning environments that foster the learning and development of leadership skills.

Wren (cited in Watt, 1995) identified seven considerations in teaching leadership development. His considerations include:

• Students must be made to feel comfortable with the concept of leadership.
• Students must be able to recognize the various elements of leadership.
• Students need to know about the process of leadership.
• Students ought to have an increased awareness of the practice of leadership.
• Students should have a sense of the purposes of leadership.
• Students should begin to develop an awareness of their individual strengths and weaknesses as leaders.

In today’s pluralistic and complex world people need to be able to lead effectively in many different settings. What are needed are not masses of intellectuals, but women and men educated to feel, to act, and to think. A curriculum that contains a leadership studies component is better able to provide students with requisite leadership skills. Students so prepared are better able to explore their world, to maximize their intellectual capabilities, and to be life-long learners with an ability to act autonomously. Such people are better able to lead others. Leaders are needed who are well educated in their fields, yet, possess the capability to lead effectively at home, play, and work.

Quigley (1996 September) discusses the “leader as learner” (p. 18). He points out that leaders “must continuously learn the skills of effectiveness to ensure economic survival in a competitive environment” (p. 18). This recognition of the importance of effective leadership skills affirms the need to develop appropriate leadership curricula. Therefore, it is appropriate to consider how educators can develop worthwhile leadership studies courses and programs.

Curriculum Model

Hosford (1973) has developed a model of instructional design that suggests a strong interrelationship exists between any given curriculum program and the subsequent teaching involved in the program. Improving teaching and instruction in the classroom results in a higher quality of education. It cannot be overlooked, however, that the better the curriculum program being taught the better the chance the student will experience a positive learning environment. In Figure 1 Hosford’s model depicts the relationship needed between curriculum, instruction, and teaching. Without attention to each dimension there will be inadequacies in developing any educational program.

The Hosford (1973) model for curriculum development is helpful in developing effective leadership education programs. The model is applicable to meeting the needs for course and program development at any college or university around the nation. It addresses national trends on issues related to the development of leadership studies.

• Will there be a gain in prestige or a loss if the institution is involved in the program?
• Who will teach the new course/s?
• Will those involved in teaching and administering the program receive acceptance from their “client/s”?
• Is the program vocational, technical, professional, or liberal arts?
• Are the personnel too overspecialized to effectively handle the program?
• Will their self-concept allow them to function freely in the new program?
• Is there likely to be a fear of failure?

Instruction

Figure 1. Ideal Relationship Between Curriculum and Instruction

Adapted from An instructional theory: A beginning (1973) by Philip L. Hosford.

• Is the new program feasible?
• Is the new program cost effective?
• Will it require new materials?
• How much will it cost?
• Is the institution going to have to hire new personnel? How many?
• Will someone else be lost because of the new program within the system?
• How long will the program last?
• Is the new program an improvement?
• Will it improve the educational process for students?
• Will it improve the students’ life experiences?
• Is the program such that it is local enough for those wishing to participate in it?
• Will there be enough students interested in the program?
• Can the new proposal be effectively and efficiently evaluated?
• Will the community accept the new plan for teaching their students?
• Will the societal norms allow for instruction in the specific areas covered in the program?
• What about the religious sanctions within the community that might come in to play if the new program is adopted?
• What effect will government have on the proposed curricular development — local, state, and national?
• What about the philosophic value biases that face the new program?
• Is the program creative enough to allow the students to encounter new learning experiences in a meaningful way?
• Does the program include experiential, interactive hands-on types of learning experiences that can enhance the knowledge gained in the classroom?
• Are the students capable of handling this particular series of learning experiences at this time in their education?
• Are the students likely to be interested in learning the program material?
• Are the overall costs and time spent worth the development and adoption of the curriculum?
• Does anyone know who is responsible for the program?
• Does the program fit within the institutional philosophy and mission?
• Is the program a consistent activity or is it haphazard and ineffective?

The sixth consideration deals with the “interrelated dynamics” of the various concerns in the developmental process. In this discussion these will be referred to as – “interaction effects.” One must consider the interactions among administration, curriculum, faculty, governing personnel, and students if new program development is to be successful. During these negotiations it is essential for the participants to recognize the interdependence of these diverse items. Each

entity must listen to the others’ positions concerning the proposed curriculum. Approaching the issues with a win-win attitude will result in synergy allowing for positive outcomes that promote the development process.

• Are new teaching strategies required or will the instructional methods presently in use work in the new program?
• How does the new program fit into the instructional goals and objectives that have been set down?
• Where will the curriculum program fit in the scope and sequence of the overall educational offerings at the institution?
• Will the program require further education and training for faculty who teach in the new program?
• Can the teacher provide alternate settings for learning within the framework of the program?
• How will the program be evaluated and assessed?
• Will the philosophy and values held by the teacher interfere in the effective instruction of students?
• How will the instructional supervisor assess student progress and learning?
• Is the teacher likely to be too dependent on someone else for the effective and efficient completion of her or his task because of the manner in which the program was implemented?
• Does the experience of the teacher allow for effective instruction?
• Will those involved with the program be able to identify with it?
• Are personnel and students likely to accept the course of study?
• Who is going to make the decision to implement the program?
• How can the decision be enforced without alienating everyone involved?
• Will the proposal remain consistent over an extended period of time?
• Does the program fit the overall curriculum structure at the institution?
• Do those involved in the implementation process have the initiative to see the program through to its natural conclusion?

In summary, the Hosford (1973) model focuses discussion on a number of curriculum related questions that must be dealt with in the development and adoption of leadership studies programs at colleges and universities. Developers of new courses and curricular programs will find the work is difficult and time

consuming, but it is worthwhile when it is done correctly. When developers of leadership studies respond to these developmental questions, the answers will likely enhance the development of courses and programs of leadership education offered by various institutions.

Goals and Objectives

Understanding leadership, levels of learning, leadership studies philosophy, figure 2. relationship of leadership curriculum development factors, leadership studies: case histories of program development.

The following discussion focuses on five factors that were a part of the creation and development of three leadership studies programs (refer to Figure 2). These include (a) levels of learning, (b) understanding leadership, (c) leadership studies philosophy, (d) goals and objectives, and (e) assessment. These factors were considered as a result of the writer’s research, teaching, and development of leadership studies courses and degree programs at state universities as well as private liberal arts and Christian colleges.

In each of the three academic settings, three levels of learning were identified: comprehension; analysis and synthesis; and, application. Comprehension deals with the fact that the students should be introduced to theories and concepts through assigned readings, lectures, and audio-visual materials. Students need to

be tested to reinforce their intellectual mastery of course material. Analysis and synthesis focuses on the expectation that students must be able to demonstrate they have critically analyzed course materials, thereby enabling them to synthesize the materials presented in class discussions, oral reports, and written assignments. Finally, students must be able to effectively apply their understanding of leadership behavior in a “relatively” safe environment by participating in structured learning exercises (SLEs) in the classroom.

Understanding leadership is important. In the forward of his book entitled, Developing the Leader Within You , Maxwell (1993) notes that “leadership is not an exclusive club for those who were ‘born with it’” (n.p.n.). Understanding leadership cannot be achieved without recognizing that several factors affect the way actions and leadership potential is interrelated. Maxwell hints at this interrelatedness when he points out that those concerned with leadership must “link the definition of leadership (influence) with the responsibility of leadership (people development)” (p. 118).

Birnbaum (cited in Watt, 1995) claims that leadership is behavior that influences others. This is known as “legitimation.” Legitimacy is a matter of interpretation that depends on the perceptions of those being led. He also stresses the importance of the concept of “intentions” as an important factor in understanding leadership. Birnbaum suggests outcomes must in some way reflect the desires of the leader. Because outcomes are related to human action rather than external forces or chance, the tendency is to search for a connection between events and leadership actions. A third dimension identified by Birnbaum is that of “initiative.” He contends leadership is not “routine.” Leadership involves interpretation. This means that people expect the leader to respond to situations by exercising independent judgment and discretion. Thus, leaders must make choices. Birnbaum correctly identifies another important leadership concept, “morality.” Manz and Neck (1999) support his point. “We choose what we are and what we become” (p. 1). Birnbaum (cited in Watt, 1995) claims as individuals make choices, those very same choices define the moral dimension of the their leadership because they require value judgments outside the bounds of the rules. Finally, Birnbaum claims that leaders must be able to motivate and influence others. Thus, “behavior” is a critical element in understanding leadership. Leaders must be able to evoke changes in followers’ behaviors by changing followers’ perceptions.

With this view of learning and of understanding about leadership in mind, it is possible to set the parameters of the philosophy of leadership courses for concentrations, minors, and degree programs. The leadership studies programs

• Given the complex problems and challenges of today’s world, the need for leadership is as great as ever before. Effective leadership can make a positive contribution to a better quality of life at all levels of society.
• Leadership can be taught. It is possible to develop and provide students with a learning environment that will foster critical leadership skills and capabilities.
• Leadership education is not just for a select few, but rather, all individuals can and should benefit from leadership development activities.
• Develop critical thinking skills.
• Develop increased written communication skills.
• Develop increased oral communication skills, both speaking and listening.
• Develop an understanding of the mental, physical, social, organizational, and emotional factors affecting individuals.

Assessment of leadership studies programs is an important matter. It is essential for verifying that leadership studies programming is effectively accomplishing what it is intended to accomplish. According to Brungardt and Crawford (1996), effective assessment furthers the academic discipline of leadership education.

Leadership education should be assessed based on multiple method strategies and conducted longitudinally as well.

Assessment efforts reflect the fact that the college and university leadership studies programs mentioned in this paper have grown by leaps and bounds during the past decade. While each leadership program is unique to its institutional mission, they have experienced many accomplishments and successes. Indeed enrollments continue to grow in the various programs.

• First, the focus, purpose, and direction of the program must be refined, refocused, and redeveloped over the years on a regular basis.
• Second, consistency between the sections of each course must be ensured.
• Third, the course, concentration, minor and/or degree program objectives and content must be regularly examined in order to evaluate the potential for new course methodologies and content.
• Fourth, it must be ensured that the core programming is aligned to deal with questions within the cognitive, behavioral, and affective domains of learning.
• Fifth, it is a good idea to seek to “grow” the leadership program.

Three Case Histories Concerning Leadership Studies Programs

According to Brungardt (1996 Spring), the leadership studies program at the state university has grown to over 400 majors. The program has continued to grow in size over the past several years.

At the private Christian college the mission is to educate, equip, and enrich leaders. Therefore, college personnel implemented a 10-hour leadership concentration for all of its bachelor degrees. Following the implementation of the leadership studies program the college has achieved regional accreditation and its most recent graduating class is the largest in school history.

The private liberal arts college is offering an interdisciplinary major in organizational communication and leadership. The program is a 30-hour program including course work in business, interdisciplinary studies, leadership studies, mass communication, sociology, and speech communication. The program is growing. The program appears to have strong potential for increased numbers of majors in the degree program.

This paper offers a justification for developing effective leadership courses and programs for training today’s leaders as well as for preparing future leaders in the 21st century. The overview of leadership education literature clearly affirms the need and value of leadership education. The writer examined the development of core curricula for leadership studies courses and programs at the college and university levels. Applying the questions generated by the Hosford (1973) model for curriculum development, it was found through three case histories that the issues raised where instrumental in developing effective leadership education courses and programs. The model addresses important issues concerning professional, practical, political, package, organization, interrelated dynamics, teaching/learning, and implementation matters essential in the development of leadership studies programs.

The discussion of the three case histories involving courses and leadership programs at a mid-western regional university, a private Christian college in the

plains, and an eastern private liberal arts college support the application of Hosford’s (1973) principles of curriculum development in developing leadership studies programs. The success of these three programs underscores the importance of giving proper attention to the educational foundation and curriculum development model used by an institution wishing to develop and implement leadership studies courses and programs.

From this examination, the writer suggests there are five essential elements of successful curriculum development. First, educators need to understand and apply what they know about students’ levels of learning. Second, it is vital for educators to have an understanding of leadership. Third, leadership studies courses and programs ought to be well grounded in an appropriate philosophical foundation.

Fourth, the goals and objectives of any course or program of leadership education must be clearly stated and understood by teacher and learner alike. Finally, assessment cannot be underestimated in importance as part of an effort for continuous improvement of a leadership studies course or program.

The challenge in the decades ahead will be for educators to expand their leadership studies programs. If the current program is a course, expand to a concentration of required courses. Should the program be a concentration, then seek to develop a minor. If it is a minor, go for a major. If it is a major, try to establish a certificate program. If it is a certificate program then you should consider expanding it into a bachelor degree program. If it is already a bachelor degree program, expanding to the next level – a masters degree – makes good sense. Ultimately, if resources allow and it fits the mission of the college or university, the institution may want to develop a doctoral program.

Hopefully educators will consider the issues and questions raised in this discussion in order to provide quality leadership programming for their students. Effective leadership studies courses and programs will help prepare students to deal with the reality of a diverse world. We need trained and educated leaders capable of handling the constant change facing them as leaders in the 21st century.

Brungardt, C. (Ed.). (1996 Spring). Leadership studies – year three – program review . Prepared by the Faculty of Leadership Studies, Fort Hays State University, Hays, KS. Unpublished document.

Brungardt, C. (1996). The making of leaders: A review of the research in leadership development and education. The Journal of Leadership Studies, 3 (3) , pp. 81-95.

Brungardt, C., & Crawford, C. B. (1996 Winter). A comprehensive approach to assessing leadership students and programs: Preliminary findings. The Journal of Leadership Studies, 3 (1) , pp. 37-48.

Crawford, C. B., Brungardt, C. L., & Maughan, M. (2000). Understanding leadership: theories & concepts . Longmont, CO: Rocky Mountain Press.

Hackman, M. Z., & Johnson, C. E. (2000). Leadership: A communication perspective (3rd ed.). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.

Holkeboer, R., & Hoeksemsa, T. (1998). A casebook for student leaders . New York: Houghton Mifflin.

Hosford, P. L. (1973). An instructional theory: A beginning . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Johnson, C. E. (2001). Meeting the ethical challenges of leadership: Casting light or shadow . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications.

Manz, C. C., & Neck C. P. (1999). Mastering self-leadership: Empowering yourself for personal excellence (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Maxwell, J. C. (1993). Developing the leader within you . Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.

Quigley, M. E. (1996 September). Leader as learner. Executive Excellence: The Magazine of Leadership Development, Managerial Effectiveness, and Organizational Productivity, 13 (9) , pp. 18, 19.

Sawin, G. (Ed.). (1995). Thinking & living skills: General semantics for critical thinking. Concord, CA: International Society for General Semantics.

Watt, W. M. (1995 Winter). Teaching essential behaviors of leadership. The Journal of Leadership Studies, 2 (1) , pp. 149-161.

Watt, W. M. (1980). A curriculum model and a cooperative program of study involving religion, theatre and the related arts between the state-supported institutions and the private religious liberal arts colleges of higher education . Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS.

Wolfe, B. (Ed.). (1996 Fall). Newsletter: Kansas leadership forum, 1 (3).

Woyach, R. B. (1993). Preparing for leadership: A young adult’s guide to leadership skills in a global age . Westport, CT: Greenwood

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection

Why is school leadership key to transforming education? Structural and cultural assumptions for quality education in diverse contexts

Monica mincu.

1 Department of Philosophy and Educational Sciences, University of Turin, Palazzo Nuovo, Via Sant’Ottavio, 20, 10124 Torino, TO Italy

2 Institute of Education, UCL, Centre for Educational Leadership, London, United Kingdom

Failing to recognize the role of leaders in quality and equitable schooling is unfortunate and must be redressed. Leadership is fundamentally about organized agency and collective vision, not managerialism, since it is an organizational quality, not merely a positionality attribute. Most important, if change is to be systemic and transformative, it cannot occur uniquely at the individual teachers’ level. School organization is fundamental to circulating and consolidating new innovative actions, cognitive schemes, and behaviors in coherent collective practices. This article engages with the relevance of governance patterns, school organization, and wider cultural and pedagogical factors that shape various leadership configurations. It formulates several assumptions that clarify the importance of leadership in any organized change. The way teachers act and represent their reality is strongly influenced by the architecture of their organization, while their ability to act with agency is directly linked to the existence of flat or prominent hierarchies, both potentially problematic for deep and systemic change. A hierarchical imposition from above as well as a lack of leadership vision in fragmented school cultures cannot determine any transformation.

In recent years, transformation has emerged as a high priority in key policy documents (OECD, 2015 , 2020a , 2020b ; Paterson et al., 2018 ; UNESCO, 2021 ) and been recognized as a major pillar on which the very future of education is based. A galvanized international scene has put transformation at the top of the agenda. One reason is found in the recent Covid-19 emergency and the need to recover, and possibly to “build back better”. Other reasons are longer-term and relate to dissatisfaction with the quality of education in many parts of the world. Major international agencies have been directly involved in reform and have variously endorsed “educational planning” (e.g., Carron et al., 2010 ), systemic reform in highly centralized countries, school autonomy (framed as school-based management or decentralization), systemic adjustment and restructuring (e.g., Carnoy, 1998 ; Samoff, 1999 ), and accountability (Anderson, 2005 ), as well as capacity building and development (De Grauwe, 2009 ). However, in practice, only segments of reforms have been enacted, focusing on one aspect of the school system while neglecting others, without considering the larger governance and school architecture, and local pedagogical cultures. Some agencies have also expressed a renewed interest in innovation and the possibility to measure it (Vincent-Lancrin et al., 2019 ), from a rather managerial perspective.

The transformation of education is a trendy movement nowadays, with the potential to generate lasting change through wide-reaching actions, not just stylistically or in local projects. Transformation of this kind will occur when structural and organizational conditions are in place in a range of different settings. When this happens, transformation as a revamped concept of change can be wholeheartedly embraced. Nonetheless, both academic and development-oriented NGO research has long dedicated itself to and learned from systemic change, improvement, and reform, based on what have been defined as effective practices (Ko & Sammons, 2016 ; Townsend, 2007 ). The school effectiveness findings are typically transversal principles of what has proved valuable despite contextual variation, whilst noting the local variability of such principles (Teddlie & Stringfield, 2017 ) especially in low and middle income countries (Moore, 2022 ) and even in similar areas of education development (Boonen et al., 2013 ; Palardy & Rumberger, 2008 ). Some variability often occurs between consolidated and less consolidated school systems. School improvement has been based on scholars’ findings on school effectiveness, as these two areas can merge up to a certain point (Creemers & Reezigt, 2005 ; Stoll & Fink, 1996 ). Reform at the top and improvement at the ground level have long been trialed in different national and organizational settings and with different school populations, with the aim of establishing generalizability or local variation. Quality teaching (Bowe & Gore, 2016 ; Darling-Hammond, 2021 ; Hattie, 2009 ) or teachers (Hanushek, 2010 , 2014 ; Mincu, 2015 ; Akiba & LeTendre, 2017 ), as well as equitable effective practices (Sammons, 2010 ) have also been classic research topics that have emerged center-stage in any change project.

In order for quality-promoting endeavors such as change, improvement, and reform to produce a transformed education, several assumptions are indispensable: (a) recognize the larger school and organizational context as crucial, alongside school architecture and processes, (b) define what quality education means across a variety of country contexts and with regard to specific structural arrangements and pedagogical cultures, (c) distinguish the degree and type of autonomy for schools and teachers, and estimate the effectiveness of their mixed interactions, (d) understand and cope from a change perspective within a variety of school cultures, (e) recognize the structural limitations faced by school leadership, as well as the margins to produce local, gradual improvement that can pave the way to radical transformation, and (f) start any significant change at the school level, in the interaction of leaders and teachers.

What is school leadership and how can it bring about change? On the one hand, leadership is about a vision of change, collectively shaped and supported. In this sense, radical change—i.e., transformation—cannot occur without leaders and especially school leaders. In addition, an effective vision about a desired change grows from the interactions of the school actors and is stimulated and orchestrated by the school leadership. An imposition from above as well as a lack of leadership vision in fragmented school cultures cannot determine any transformation, nor its subsequent stability or growth, given that some grass roots changes happen accidentally, in limited school areas. In fact, if change is to be systemic and transformative, it cannot occur at the individual teachers’ level, as then it cannot be circulated and consolidated in stable, coherent collective practices. Action at the school level is fundamental for change to occur and last, as well as for individual teachers to be encouraged, supported, and rewarded for their innovative behavior. On the other hand, change is often conceptualized as a gradual process of a series of stages (Fullan, 2015 ; Kotter, 2012 ), carefully incorporating structural and cultural adjustments (Kools & Stoll, 2016 ). Transformation, a less orthodox and robust concept, incorporates the desire for more abrupt and radical change. It is imagined as a possibility to “leapfrog”. This desire to move rapidly forward resonates with the “window of opportunity” phase when big changes can occur more smoothly. However, at the school and even systemic level, complex changes resulting in net improvements are most often gradually prepared and stimulated, since any change is cultural in essence, and as such it needs time to occur. Another relevant aspect is related to leadership as an ingredient and quality, not just a positionality attribute. Both assumptions suggest the inevitability of its role to any change in education as an organized endeavor.

Larger contexts and school organizations are key in any transformation

Education does not occur in an organizational vacuum, since deschooling, mass home-schooling, or online-only paradigms are neither implemented nor envisioned. In addition, a concept of education exclusively posed in philosophical and theoretical terms, especially when aimed at transforming the status quo, neglects to take into account that schooling is enmeshed with different organizational and governance forms, at times in contradiction with its own theoretical bases. Most important, forms of sociality such as those sustained by schools have not declined in relevance but increased, in the aftermath of the global online experiment of the pandemic emergency. At the same time, improvements and even radical changes in education have been embraced and actively promoted in certain parts of the world. For instance, in Norway, renewed weekly timetables are in place, allowing for deep learning as well as better integration with virtual knowledge in high-stakes exams. One should not forget that most pupils around the world are educated in environments displaying significant structural convergences across countries, despite locally diverse values. Such teaching-oriented settings are characterized by the centrality of the adult as teacher, and most often by textbook-based education. The organizational arrangements are linear, based on daily subjects and teachers’ contractual time, mainly dedicated to teaching activities (the stavka system, see Steiner-Khamsi, 2016 , 2020 ) or to ad hoc self-help actions in extreme emergency contexts. Linked to these, school cultures can be both hierarchical (rules are delivered “from above”) and fragmented, since class teachers may be left to themselves without adequate professional support. Whilst the reality is nuanced and school typologies are in any case sociological abstractions, most systems can still be described as basically centralized or decentralized, depending on the level of autonomy granted to schools or local authorities. The larger school contexts as well as the local ones are even today very diverse in these two cases, despite a global increase in diversified combinations of centralization of some aspects and decentralization of others. What Archer ( 1979 ) theorized in her landmark work is still a key valid explanation of how school organizations usually operate and change. With renewed categories, a centralized system is largely characterized by “hierarchies”, real or perceived, and less by “networks and markets”, whilst in the case of decentralized systems, the opposite is true. The same differences can be highlighted in more comprehensive or selective school types, whose visions and ways of functioning are coherent with their structural patterns and influence, and in turn, with how leaders perceive their role and mission.

In terms of leadership, differing configurations will bring differing consequences. Centralized countries with weak school autonomy approach the role of school leaders in a rather formalist way: as primus inter pares or as administrative and legal head. In these settings, the intermediate level is also very weak and largely based on ad hoc tasks. Flat organizations may not support leadership as an essential element in the school’s operational life, and instead focus primarily on teaching, which is mainly viewed as an individual endeavor. School organizations at odds with leadership as a system quality, both in organizational and instructional terms, often exhibit forms of fragmentation (Mincu & Romiti, 2022 ), even in societies that may share a collectivistic or communitarian ethos, such as in East Asia. In countries with significant school autonomy, leadership structures are more manifestly in place, given the increased tasks performed by schools. Often, an excess of hierarchical leadership is a major negative outcome. However, the school context can be characterized by mixed combinations of types of governance (hierarchies, networks, markets) (Mincu & Davies, 2019 ; Mincu & Liu, 2022 ), which have a significant influence on the way leadership is oriented and how it accomplishes its visionary, organizational, and instructional functions within the school and in relation to society. School leadership is both a processual quality and a positional trait, and thus it can be variously performed in high autonomy school systems. In the case of centralized arrangements, it can be much harder to identify leadership as process where there is just some form of leadership positionality: a legal school head or the existence of subject-matter departments. School contexts and organizations around the world are also diverse in terms of leadership configurations and roles: some schools may share the same leader (Italy), some may not provide many leadership positions at all (India), and others may specify a headship position which does not in fact offer any leadership or cohesion in organizational and pedagogical matters. Indeed, leadership may be entirely missing from certain school systems.

To summarize, the way teachers act and represent their reality is strongly influenced by the architecture of their organization, along with the quality, direction, and margins of power that can be exerted by leadership at the school and intermediate levels. Nevertheless, schools are large organizations, and as such a certain amount of alignment and direction is needed, which is what leadership provides.

The autonomy of schools and that of teachers are not mutually exclusive

Closely related to the first assumption, for a functional and dynamic school organization, a certain amount of school autonomy is required to adequately balance teachers’ autonomy. In high school autonomy systems, there is a tendency to assume that teachers’ autonomy is quite reduced, and this is certainly the case if the education model is accountability-oriented and leadership is hierarchical. In less autonomous systems, huge resistance to instill more autonomy at the school level is usually deployed—for example, in strongly unionist cultures, which aim to extend and expand teachers’ independence. This translates into quite radical teachers’ autonomy on pedagogical matters, as is the case in certain European school systems (Mincu & Granata, 2021 ).

An excess of teachers’ autonomy is detrimental to coherence and alignment at the school level and affects both quality and equity. The metaphors of teachers in their classes as eggs in their egg crates or lions behind closed doors, in the words of a ministry official in Italy, are particularly telling about flat, non-collaborative structures. The idea that high teacher autonomy may automatically support collegiality in flat organizations is not supported by the reality on the ground in certain school systems. In sociological terms, any human organization requires a certain amount of hierarchy and collegiality. In fact, a certain quantity of school autonomy is beneficial in many ways and can enhance teachers’ agency: (a) it emphasizes the role of leaders, including the possibility for teachers to act with leadership, (b) it offers a direction that can be shared, (c) it stimulates people to come together in effective ways (communities of practice) whilst presenting the risk of some contrived collegiality, and (d) it encourages teachers to feel more supported in their own work and professional development.

In a nutshell, leadership’s margins of influence are shaped not only by overall system governance, but also by the amount of school autonomy they enjoy. In addition, the extent of organizational autonomy is directly linked to the existence of flat or prominent hierarchies, both potentially problematic for deep and systemic change.

School cultures converge and diverge in multiple ways within and across countries

Pedagogical transformation is about a change in cultural assumptions, which entails a slow process of cognitive and emotional modification that has to be supported beyond school walls by concerted social and economic actions. Structural change will not be successful without an adjustment in people’s cognitive schemes about their practices and values. How teachers conceive of teaching and learning, and of equitable and inclusive approaches, is not essentially a matter of “lack of training”, for which more preparation may be the solution. It is instead a matter of deep pedagogical beliefs, whose roots are shared and societal. How to discipline class misbehavior, for example, and even what inappropriate classroom behavior is, varies widely across societies: it denotes (generational at times) power distance, gender relations, assumptions about individuality and collectivistic entities, as well as merit recognition and social envy avoidance. For Hargreaves ( 1994 ), school culture is the result of the intertwining of attitudes such as individualism, collaboration, contrived collegiality, and “balkanization”, i.e., fragmentation of ethical goals. Stoll ( 2000 ) herself describes schools in terms of social cohesion and social control as traditional, welfarist, “hothouse”, or anomic. In contrast, for Hood ( 1998 ), there are four possible combinations of social cohesion and regulation: (a) fatalistic: compliance with rules but little cooperation to achieve results, (b) hierarchical (bureaucratic): social cohesion and cooperation and a rules-based approach, (c) individualist: fragmented approaches to organizing that require negotiation among various actors, and (d) egalitarian: very meaningful participation structures, highly participatory decision-making, a culture of peer support.

In reality, mixed combinations of two, three, or more types of cultures can be found and supported by a variety of factors within and beyond schools as organizations. Some Southern European realities, as well as some Eastern European systems, belong to the individualist typology: weak collaboration and weak hierarchy, given the absence of a teaching career structure with levels of preparation and strong autonomy of the individual teacher. Some aspects of institutional “fatalism” are present, because a certain culture of respect for rules nevertheless exists, and of egalitarianism of a rather formal type. In fact, while the collegial culture on a formal level may appear robust—given the presence of collegial bodies—in practice organizational coherence remains very weak. The reason lies in the fact that these bodies can also decide not to agree on any systemic solution and defer decisions to the individual teacher, since teacher autonomy is still the superior criterion governing informal culture in schools. In the Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian school systems, for example, schools express more coherent and cohesive cultures that oscillate between very hierarchical and more participatory models, with more diffuse leadership (Seashore-Louis, 2015 ). Even though these latter school systems favor a mostly cohesive ethos, it is not uncommon to find fragmented and inconsistent schools with weak leadership.

As an example of how school cultures work, a culturally well-rooted premise that teachers “are all good” is very much at work in certain flat hierarchical or Confucian-oriented school cultures, meaning they are equally effective because morally oriented for the profession. This is, in fact, a convenient belief allowing those within it to oppose forms of evaluations (including between peers and in the wider community of parents and stakeholders) and to resist more school autonomy and cohesiveness measures that might be envisioned by school or system leadership. Whilst teachers may be reluctant to work together and observe each other (as in a lesson study format) in most countries, this may be particularly the case where teachers’ autonomy is quite radical, where collaboration and mentoring are not common practices, or where stimulated by school arrangements and work contracts (e.g., in Italy; see Mincu & Granata, 2021 ).

Another way to characterize pedagogical cultures is with reference to formalism (respect for rules and social distances, focus on adults’ role and transmissive pedagogies) or to progressivism (more egalitarian interactions and a focus on the learner and their way of acquiring and creating knowledge). There are many ways in which various school cultures can be appropriately characterized, offering plenty of nuances and details of social, economic, and cultural stratifications and contradictions: for instance, in certain East Asian contexts, there is a combination of Confucianism, socialist egalitarianism, and revised individualism of consumption or of possession, based on previous rural forms of it. However, along the lines of centralized/decentralized typologies that are still valid for describing school functioning and structures, the reality of countries around the world allows scholars to characterize school cultures as formalist versus progressivist. It is legitimate to do so in spite of the local nuances and anthropological cultures that may filter and support such pedagogies (Guthrie et al., 2015 ).

Any cultural change imposed from above or from abroad may be doomed to failure if the hardware is that of centralized systems and if school actors are not allowed to engage in a cultural exercise of adaptation, adequately supported with infrastructural measures. Whilst there is no single model, there are some pillars of good teaching and some key lessons about how to produce change. A major premise is that any change must reach the school level and be able to activate and energize its school actors. School systems may be distinguished therefore in terms of formalist/progressivist typologies, which is coherent with other types of systemic characteristics, including lack of leadership (be it hierarchically formalized, legally representative only, or peer-oriented) that may preclude any effort of cultural transformation.

Without leadership, individual teachers may act as a loosely connected group, without vision and motivation to produce an expected and socially praised change. The expectation to encourage reforms from the regional and district level, when not from the top, is purely utopian. Schools remain remote realities in such change models. Most systems in poorly resourced contexts are entangled in hierarchical school models and grounded in traditional power distance and colonial legacies. Without significant leadership processes stimulated by school principals at the very heart of such systems, cultural and new structural processes cannot be expected. To produce cultural change, the top leadership stratum must create the proper conditions, such as salaries, workload, and other incentives for training and knowledge dissemination; but action and cognitive schemes characterize the school level and teachers cannot be blamed for what they cannot do by themselves.

Defining quality for present times education in context

We cannot move toward possible futures without deeply understanding what good education can be in our present societies, in a variety of localities around the world. Research has long dedicated itself to the task of defining quality in education, particularly in the fields of school effectiveness and school improvement. Meta-research has become a bestseller scholarly genre (Hattie, 2009 ), and the drive toward evidence-based knowledge has been equally impressive, across universities, NGOs, and other major international players. Research studies distinguish between quality teachers (their attributes, amount of preparation, and years of experience) and teaching quality, based on dimensions of quality teaching that produce effective learning. Since structures and cultures can be effectively encapsulated in categories (centralized/autonomous, formalist/progressivist, etc.), quality teaching is also condensed (a) in key dimensions, for instance by Bowe and Gore ( 2016 ), subsuming further aspects, or (b) as rankings of most effective factors in terms of learning.

Mistrust of evidence-based and best-practice research traditions is justified when ready-made solutions are implemented without adaptations and the engagement of those involved. Even the adoption of South-South solutions can be ineffective at times (Chisholm & Steiner-Khamsi, 2008 ). Since problems in education are messy and “wicked” (Ritter & Webber, 1973 ) changes must be systemic and cultural.

Anderson and Mundy, 2014 proved that improvement solutions and practices in two groups of countries—developed and less developed—are very much convergent. Both developing and developed countries present a series of common challenges: the need for fewer top-down approaches, for instance, and for approaches less narrowly focused on the basics. Comparative evidence and perspectives on student learning in developing countries converge on a common cluster of instructional concepts and strategies: (a) learning as student-centered, differentiated, or personalized, associated with using low-cost teaching and learning materials in the language which students understand, and (b) the appropriate use of small group learning in addition to large group instruction. This enables regular diagnostic and formative assessment of student progress to guide instructional decision-making, clear directions, and checking student understanding of the purpose of learning activities. It also involves personalized feedback to students based on assessments of their learning, and explicit teaching of learning skills to strengthen students’ problem-solving competencies. With the possible exception of low-cost learning materials, these prescriptions for good teaching are consistent with international evidence about effective instruction (Anderson & Mundy, 2014 ). But quality teaching and teachers equally assume specific contextual meanings. For instance, Kumar and Wiseman ( 2021 ) indicate that traditional measures of quality (teacher preparation and credentials) are less relevant in India compared to non-traditional measures such as teachers’ absenteeism and their attitude/behavior toward their students.

Teachers alone cannot make a better school

Teachers and their actions at the classroom level are key to inspiring learning and students’ progress. Nonetheless, a misreported finding from an OECD ( 2010 ) study that “the quality of an education system can never exceed the quality of its teachers” is only partially correct. In fact, the full quotation said that the system’s quality cannot exceed the quality of its teachers and leaders. The incomplete quote mirrors a common misconception that teachers alone can and should improve the system. Instead, teachers are part of organizations, and as such they behave and respond to dynamics in place in those contexts, and not as individuals, or as a professional group, not even in the most unionized countries. The quality of a public service cannot be attributed solely to its members, but also to their organization and to specific choices made by its leadership, which is responsible for organizational vision and translating theories into action. Launching heartfelt calls for teachers to change their practices is both naive and sociologically inaccurate regarding how people act and behave in social organizations, such as schools. The presence of leadership as a processual and qualitative dimension at the school level also indicates the existence of the structures of school leadership teams and middle managers, in which leadership is robustly in place as positionality.

In this sense, the quote indicates the relevance of teachers’ work in carefully designed organizations, in which hierarchy and horizontal interactions of collaboration between peers are in a functional equilibrium. In other words, schools and teachers’ autonomy reciprocally reinforce one another.

Whenever teachers are required to act with leadership, autonomy, and innovation, the larger system and school culture should be carefully considered. Teachers cannot by themselves be directly responsible for systemic changes. National-level teams of experts cannot blame teachers for a lack of change when the necessary knowledge and resources are not cascaded effectively to the school level. As the end point of the chain of change, teachers cannot be accused for a lack of success and adequate culture to facilitate innovation when decision makers do not consider the school architecture and how leaders are prepared and ready to support a change in culture. This has been the case with reforms in less resourceful countries around the world, often in highly centralized systems, where more progressivist changes are expected from teachers in the absence of proper consideration of the school architecture, long-standing interactions with the school leaders, and the overall pedagogical culture. Unfair blame for these teachers is expressed at times by international or national teams of experts, unrealistically expecting individual teachers to produce significant structural and cultural changes, otherwise they play the part of “those who wait on a bus” for a change to happen. The possibility to develop, to act innovatively, and to be motivated for teaching depends largely on the organizational support received by teachers at the school level from their head teacher and the wider environment. Professional development is a key ingredient that impacts teacher quality (Cordingley, 2015 ), and its effectiveness and provision depends heavily on the school leadership. Without support from the larger school context and leadership, even the most autonomous teachers may not act with the necessary teaching quality that can make a difference, as clearly illustrated by TALIS 2020.

Leadership, as an organizational quality, is indispensable

The final assumption involves the idea that one cannot crudely distinguish between teachers and leaders, especially middle managers and more informal leaders. Obviously, there is a continuum between such roles: teachers themselves can act with agency and leadership, formally or informally, and head teachers may draw upon their experience as teachers.

Since schools are organizations and not collections of individuals, the field of school effectiveness and school improvement has incontrovertibly identified the influence of leadership as vital: “school leadership is second only to classroom teaching as an influence on pupil learning” (Leithwood et al., 2008 ). Through both organization and instructional vision (Day et al., 2016 ), effective leadership significantly enhances or diminishes the influence that individual teachers have in their classes. Regardless of cultural considerations, when teachers’ work is uncoordinated and fragmented, the overall effect in terms of learning and education cannot be amplified and adequately supported. A lack of coherence within organizations is unfavorable to more localized virtuous dynamics that may be diminished or suffocated.

Moreover, unjustified allegations of managerialism and the striking absence of this topic from key policy documents, including those of UNESCO ( 2021 ), should be highlighted. Whilst the “executive” components implicit in any leadership function must be in place in organizations enjoying wide autonomy, this does not necessarily translate into managerialism and quasi markets. It is indeed the larger school context that can make an autonomous school perform in a managerial way or simply, with broader margins of action, that can facilitate good use of teachers’ collective agency, as in some Scandinavian countries. In order to produce even modest change, let alone radical transformation, we must overcome the widely held misconception that leadership has to do with managerial tasks, competition, and effectiveness from a highly individualistic stance. Whilst this can be the case in certain country contexts and with particular disciplinary approaches, educational leadership does not simply overlap with managerialism as a technical ability. It is essentially about vision and collaboration around our global commons, as well as locally defined school goals.

School leadership is correctly identified as a key strategy to improve teaching and learning toward SDG4 (the Incheon Declaration and Framework for Action adopted by the World Education Forum 2015). A specific task assigned to school leadership is an increase in the supply of qualified teachers (UNESCO, 2016 ). At the same time, the need to transform schools is sometimes decoupled from the potential of school and system leadership to ensure such transformation. Failing to recognize the role of leaders in quality and equitable schooling must be rectified. A humanistic vision and a focus on the global public good cannot be at odds, programmatically, with a field dedicated to understanding how contemporary schools are organized and how they operate.

Conclusion: Leadership is about organized agency, not managerialism

Innovations in education are complex because they can often be incremental and less frequently radical, but some have the potential to be truly transformative. The more effective tend to be small micro-context innovations that diffuse “laterally” through networks of professionals and organizations but need facilitation and effective communication from above to be deep and long-lasting. They are never just technical or structural, but rather cultural and related to visions about education. In this context, leadership and leaders are crucial in a variety of aspects, but foremost in shaping a coherent organization and engaging collectively to clarify and make explicit key pedagogical and equity assumptions, which has a dramatic direct and indirect influence on the effectiveness of the school. Most significantly, school leadership at all levels is the starting point for the transformation of low-performing (and) disadvantaged schools.

We should not underestimate the impact that the larger political, social, and economic context has on schools and leaders around the world. A variety of autonomous schools can perform in a managerial way or simply make good use of teachers’ collective agency, and a variety of less autonomous organizations may dispose or not of a certain dose of organizational coherence and leadership (Keddie et al., 2022 ; Walker & Qian, 2020 ).

What has proved valuable in most contexts may not always be effective in every case; a balance has to be struck between cultural awareness related to pedagogies in contexts and lessons learned across cultural boundaries. Available universal solutions have to be pondered, and adaptations are always required. It can be the case that, in certain conditions, we borrow not only solutions but the problems they address, in the way these are rhetorically framed. However, since convergences occur in structures and cultures, problems may also converge across contexts. In addition, micro-changes occur fluidly at any time, but for transformation to emerge, we need to draw on the accumulated wisdom and the potential implicit in system and school leadership. Last but not least, the complexity lying at the heart of learning from others and from comparison should not be assumed to be insuperable.

is an associate professor in comparative education with the Department of Philosophy and Education, University of Turin, and a lecturer in educational leadership with the Institute of Education, University College, London. She has acted as a consultant with UNESCO and other major Italian NGOs. She engages with education politics and governance from a social change and equity perspective.

Open access funding provided by Università degli Studi di Torino within the CRUI-CARE Agreement.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

• Akiba M, LeTendre G. International handbook of teacher quality and policy. Routledge; 2017. [ Google Scholar ]
• Anderson, J. A. (2005). Accountability in education . UNESCO IIPE.
• Anderson S, Mundy K. School improvement in developing countries: Experiences and lessons learned. Aga Khan Foundation Canada; 2014. [ Google Scholar ]
• Archer M. Social origins of educational systems. Routledge; 1979. [ Google Scholar ]
• Boonen T, Van Damme J, Onghena P. Teacher effects on student achievement in first grade: Which aspects matter most? School Effectiveness and School Improvement. 2013 doi: 10.1080/09243453.2013.778297. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bowe J, Gore J. Reassembling teacher professional development: the case for Quality Teaching Rounds. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice. 2016; 23 (3):352–366. [ Google Scholar ]
• Carnoy M. Globalisation and educational restructuring. Melbourne Studies in Education. 1998; 39 (2):21–40. doi: 10.1080/17508489809556316. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carron, G., Mahshi, K., De Grauwe, A., Gay, D. (2010). Strategic planning. Organisational arrangements . UNESCO IIPE.
• Chisholm L, Steiner-Khamsi G. South-South transfer: Cooperation and unequal development in education. Teachers College Press; 2008. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cordingley P. The contribution of research to teachers’ professional learning and development. Oxford Review of Education. 2015 doi: 10.1080/03054985.2015.1020105. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Creemers B, Reezigt G. Linking school effectiveness and school improvement: The background and outline of the project School Effectiveness and School Improvement. An International Journal of Research, Policy and Practice. 2005; 16 (4):359–371. [ Google Scholar ]
• Darling-Hammond L. Defining teaching quality around the world. European Journal of Teacher Education. 2021 doi: 10.1080/02619768.2021.1919080. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Day C, Gu Q, Sammons P. The impact of leadership on student outcomes: How successful school leaders use transformational and instructional strategies to make a difference. Educational Administration Quarterly. 2016; 52 (2):221–258. doi: 10.1177/0013161X15616863. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• De Grauwe, A. (2009). Without capacity there is no development . UNESCO.
• Fullan M. The new meaning of educational change. Teachers College Press; 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
• Guthrie G, Tabulawa R, Schweisfurth M, Sarangapani P, Hugo W, Wedekind V. Child soldiers in the culture wars. Compare. 2015; 45 (4):635–654. doi: 10.1080/03057925.2015.1045748. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hanushek E. The difference is teacher quality. In: Weber K, editor. Waiting for "Superman": How we can save America’s failing public schools. Public Affairs; 2010. pp. 81–100. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hanushek E. Boosting teacher effectiveness. In: Finn CE, Sousa R, editors. What lies ahead for America's children and their schools. Hoover Institution Press; 2014. pp. 23–35. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hargreaves A. Changing teachers, changing times: Teachers’ work and culture in the postmodern age. Cassell; 1994. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hattie J. Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge; 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hood C. The art of the state, culture rhetoric and public management. Clarendon Press; 1998. [ Google Scholar ]
• Keddie A, MacDonald K, Blackmore J, Boyask R, Fitzgerald S, Gavin M, Heffernan A, Hursh D, McGrath-Champ S, Møller J, O'Neill J, Parding K, Salokangas M, Skerritt C, Stacey M, Thomson P, Wilkins A, Wilson R, Wylie C, Yoon E-S. What needs to happen for school autonomy to be mobilised to create more equitable public schools and systems of education? Australian Education Research. 2022 doi: 10.1007/s13384-022-00573-w. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ko, J. & Sammons, P. (2016). Effective teaching. Education Development Trust.
• Kools, M. & Stoll, L. (2016). What makes a school a learning organisation ? OECD.
• Kotter J. Leading change. Harvard Business Review Press; 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kumar P, Wiseman AW. Teacher quality and education policy in India: Understanding the relationship between teacher education, teacher effectiveness, and student outcomes. Routledge; 2021. [ Google Scholar ]
• Leithwood K, Harris A, Hopkins A. Seven strong claims about successful school leadership. School Leadership and Management. 2008; 28 (1):27–42. doi: 10.1080/13632430701800060. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mincu M. Teacher quality and school improvement: What is the role of research? Oxford Review of Education. 2015; 41 (2):253–269. doi: 10.1080/03054985.2015.1023013. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mincu M, Davies P. The governance of a school network and implications for Initial Teacher Education. Journal of Education Policy. 2019; 36 (3):436–453. doi: 10.1080/02680939.2019.1645360. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mincu, M. & Granata, A. (2021). Teachers’ informal leadership for equity in France and Italy during the first wave of the education emergency. Teachers and Teaching , Special Issue, 1–21.
• Mincu M, Liu M. The policy context in teacher education: Hierarchies, networks and markets in four countries. In: Tierny R, Rizvi F, editors. International Encyclopaedia in Education. Elsevier; 2022. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mincu M, Romiti S. Evidence informed practice in Italian education. In: Brown C, Malin J, editors. The Emerald international handbook of evidence-informed practice in education. Emerald; 2022. [ Google Scholar ]
• Moore R. Variation, context, and inequality: comparing models of school effectiveness in two states in India. School Effectiveness and School Improvement. 2022 doi: 10.1080/09243453.2022.2089169. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• OECD (2010). PISA 2009. Results: What makes a school successful? Resources, policies and practices (Volume 4) . 10.1787/9789264091559-en
• OECD . Schooling redesigned. OECD; 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
• OECD (2020a). What students learn matters. Towards a 21st century curriculum . OECD.
• OECD (2020b). Back to the future of education: Four OECD scenarios for schooling, educational research and innovation . OECD.
• Palardy GJ, Rumberger RW. Teacher effectiveness in first grade: The importance of background qualifications, attitudes, and instructional practices for student learning. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 2008; 30 :111–140. doi: 10.3102/0162373708317680. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Paterson A, Dumont H, Lafuente M, Law N. Understanding innovative pedagogies. OECD; 2018. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rittel HW, Webber MM. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences. 1973; 4 (2):155–169. doi: 10.1007/BF01405730. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sammons P. Equity and educational effectiveness. In: Peterson P, Baker E, McGaw B, editors. International encyclopedia of education. 3. Elsevier; 2010. pp. 51–57. [ Google Scholar ]
• Samoff J. Education sector analysis in Africa: Limited national control and even less national ownership. International Journal of Educational Development. 1999; 19 (4–5):249–272. doi: 10.1016/S0738-0593(99)00028-0. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Seashore-Louis K. Linking leadership to learning: State, district and local effects. Nordic Journal in Educational Policy. 2015; 3 :7–15. [ Google Scholar ]
• Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2016). Teach or perish: The stavka system and its impact on the quality of instruction. Voprosy obrazovaniya/Educational Studies Moscow , National Research University Higher School of Economics, 2, 14–39.
• Steiner-Khamsi G. Prefazione [Foreword] In: Mincu M, editor. Sistemi scolastici nel mondo globale. Mondadori; 2020. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stoll L. School culture. Professional Development. 2000; 3 :9–14. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stoll L, Fink D. Changing our schools: Linking school effectiveness and school improvement. Open University Press; 1996. [ Google Scholar ]
• Teddlie C, Stringfield S. A differential analysis of effectiveness in middle and low socioeconomic status schools. The Journal of Classroom Interaction. 2017; 52 (1):15–24. [ Google Scholar ]
• Townsend T. International handbook of school effectiveness and improvement. Springer; 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
• UNESCO (2016). Incheon declaration and framework for action for the implementation for Sustainable Development Goal 4: Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning. UNESCO.
• UNESCO (2021). Futures of education: Learning to become . UNESCO.
• Vincent-Lancrin, S., Urgel, J., Kar, S., & Jacotin, G. (2019). Measuring innovation in education: A journey to the future . OECD.
• Walker A, Qian H. Developing a model of instructional leadership in China. Compare. 2020; 52 (1):147–167. doi: 10.1080/03057925.2020.1747396. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

EL Magazine: By Educators, for Educators

Since 1943, educational leadership has been a trusted source of evidence-based, peer-to-peer guidance and inspiration..

Recent Issues

February 2024, december 2023, november 2023, october 2023, september 2023, featured articles.

Back On Track with Climate Science

Leading for a new vision of science teaching, teaching beyond the single story of stem, featured column, the problem of nominal change.

EL Topic Selects

Free, Downloadable Resources for School Teams

Introducing a new line of free topic packs to address the needs of educators and students. Each collection is curated by Educational Leadership 's editors and designed to provide insight, context, and solutions on a specific area of school leadership or instruction.

Online Exclusives

Listen & learn, write for el magazine.

Share your writing with more than 90,000 educators. Get a feel for our upcoming themes and writing guidelines.

Other Ways to Contribute

  Need advice on an edtech dilemma or challenge? Submit your question to "Ask Our EdTech Expert."  

  Have a practice-related story to tell? Review our upcoming questions for “Tell Us About.”  

To process a transaction with a Purchase Order please send to [email protected]