Search results

The main task of every school is to contribute to student learning and achievement. In the twenty-first century, national and international evaluations and comparisons have focussed on measurable student and school results. Not only teachers but also principals are held accountable for school results, which increase expectations of principals to work to enhance student learning and improve outcomes. In Sweden, a principal's work with a given school's core mission is labeled as pedagogical leadership, a concept that includes diverse activities related to national goals and school results. Aspects of pedagogical leadership include principals’ classroom observations and communication about teaching and learning issues. The purpose of this paper is to describe a model of pedagogical leadership as a base for principals’ experience with the aim to develop their understanding of pedagogical leadership.

The paper builds on data from three groups of principals who participated in a course to learn more about pedagogical leadership.

The participating principals performed their pedagogical leadership in different manners and with varying quality. During the course, there was a shift in what activities and duties the principals prioritized. The findings highlight the importance of democratic leadership and the improvement of teacher capacity and student outcomes.

The paper gives practical examples on how principals can improve their understanding of pedagogical leadership.

There are few articles on how pedagogical leadership is understood and practiced. The paper provides a model for pedagogical leadership and empirical data that shows that the concept deserves to be viewed as a qualitative concept that need interpretation.

The purpose of this paper is to examine four case studies from the International Successful School Principalship Project to explore and highlight how the role of the principal is critically important to sustaining school success. Implications for improving the preparation of aspiring and practicing school leaders are discussed.

Data were collected using multiple sources, including documents and interviews with a variety of people including the principal, other school leaders, teachers, school council/board members, parents and students. Each case study was analyzed to understand how the principal and other leadership contributed to school success.

There were several core dimensions of the principals’ leadership that led to sustained school success. Principals clearly articulated views on education and helped their schools set appropriate directions. They were all concerned with the professional development of teachers to build capacity and teacher leadership. All principals were instructional leaders who influenced teaching and learning and were committed to making a difference. They exhibited other qualities such as resilience and their motivation to sustain their efforts over time. Another important dimension was building community. These principals reached out to their communities. They clearly understood that they could not succeed in isolation.

The notion of sustainability in education remains ambiguous and this paper provides some empirical evidence of how successful school principals maintain school success over an extended period. Importantly, it considers how aspirant and practicing principals can be developed and supported in their efforts to lead and sustain successful schools.

The purpose of this paper is to draw from data collected as part of the International Successful School Principalship Project (ISSPP) and present cases of democratic and heroic leadership from three countries, discussing to what extent successful school principals in each of their research sites (Melbourne, Australia; Umeå, Sweden; Arizona and Texas in the USA) carry old and new perspectives of heroism in their leadership. In particular the paper explores two questions: first, how do school principals describe aspects of heroic and post-heroic leadership in their practices? and second, how do these heroic and post-heroic leadership practices meet contemporary demands such as accountability standards and build inclusive and collaborative school communities in challenging contexts?

Multiple-perspective case studies involving semi-structured individual and group interviews with principals, teachers, students, parents and school board members were used to understand the contribution of principals and other leadership to school success.

The definitions of heroic and post-heroic leadership are inadequate in defining successful principal leadership. The Australian, Swedish and American principals showed characteristics of both heroic and post-heroic leadership. They showed heroic qualities such as: inspiring and motivating others; challenging the status quo; showing integrity in conflicting situations; putting duty before self; taking risks to champion a better way; showing courage to stand up to those in authority; advocating for students in struggling neighbourhoods under the scrutiny of both district and public expectations; and, showing uncommon commitment. Yet our principals showed post-heroic leadership such as involving others in decision making and recognising that school success depended on collective effort, and being sensitive to community needs through a deep respect for the local culture.

The research shows that we may need to redefine and recast our images of who school principals are today, and what they do to generate academic success for students. Both heroic and post-heroic images of leadership are needed to explain successful school leadership.

The purpose of this paper is to analyse the superintendent position, its relation to the local political system and the function as superior of principals in the school district in order to illuminate important district-level conditions for student learning. Influences from historical legacies and policy cultures are investigated by means of cross-country case analyses.

This paper is based on data from national surveys of superintendent leadership in Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Norway.

A key point is the observation of a mix-mode system of hard and soft governance. Municipalities, schools, teachers and pupils are – in different degrees across the Nordic countries – subjected to external evaluation and assessment by central control agencies, where the streams of reports, assessments and performance data are assembled. However, shifts in the governance systems are only modestly reflected in the self-reports on the superintendents’ role. Overall, superintendents in the cases express a self-preferred leadership style as professional learning facilitators who focus on pupil orientation, which positions the superintendent in “crossfires” between conflicting stakeholder demands.

The paper reinforces the importance of superintendent leadership in local school governance. It underscores the importance that superintendents facilitate learning conditions for school leaders, teachers and students, which we see as a promising path for further research.

The paper provides empirical evidence regarding superintendent leadership situated in local social and political contexts within the Nordic countries. The cross-country analysis illuminates how path-pendent historical legacies mediate current reform trends.

Although policy makers strengthen the necessity of “deregulation”, discussions about deregulation vs regulation in Europe still seem to be characterized by a lack of sophistication and require a more differentiated picture of specific forms of deregulation. As a consequence, the analysis of new educational governance approaches should consider the local actor's interpretation of new roles and new responsibilities. Relating actions and reactions of school leaders to their formal environment should lead to more contextual patterns of responsiveness. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

The authors investigate, based on a survey among Cypriot school leaders, whether school autonomy needs deregulation, or regulation towards autonomy, respectively. At the time of research the school system of Cyprus could be characterized as a “centralized” system and hence represented a suitable field of study. Using a factor model followed by a cluster analysis the paper explores the school leaders’ profiles of operative and perceived autonomy in different fields of governance issues and identify different types of leadership.

The authors find that the autonomy school leaders experience is not necessarily related to a “defined” degree of autonomy which is prescribed by educational law and driven by concepts of new public management. Their “perceived” autonomy is also due to factors which can be located at a rather individual level.

The findings provide insight into principals’ motives to adopt certain styles of leading schools, quite independently from new measures of educational governance. The authors conclude that greater emphasis on systematic support programmes may prepare school principals for gains of autonomy as well as for potential sources of conflict.

The paper is about a specific part of the Swedish governing system: the municipality, which has the responsibility of implementing national school goals. The starting point is an identified local governing chain including the chairman of the politically elected school board, the superintendent, principals and head teachers. It is the first link in this chain which is in focus, between chairmen and superintendents. The purpose of this paper is to investigate their role understanding and enactment: what roles do they have, formally and enacted? Is it a clear or blurred line between them? What can be seen as causing conflict or success?

The paper is part of a larger research project focussing on what happens when national policy meets local governing structures. The project as a whole has a mixed method design and includes surveys with superintendents, politicians and principals. It also includes interviews with chairmen of local school boards, superintendents and principals. In this paper the focus is on interviews made with politicians and superintendents in six (of 290) municipalities followed over time (including a political election between the authors visits). The municipalities are spread over the country, with shifting political majorities.

The authors identify that there seem to be a shared formal role understanding in that politicians are responsible for the what-side and superintendents for the how-side of the local work. The roles are, however, enacted in a blurred zone with role intrusion as an active component. What causes a conflict or not is if the two have a shared understanding of how to play the game. This makes the local work sensitive to changes on the positions. Success comes from a relationship built on trust and where there is a mutual understanding of how to work.

The study is built on a small selection of municipalities and must be complemented by further ones to be able to generalize the results. What it can say something about is, however, how actors in six different local settings enact the same kinds of assignments and if there are similarities and differences between their role enactment.

Although the study is built on a small selection of municipalities it is unique in that it follows interlinked actors over time, making it possible not only to discuss municipality stereotypes but study human relationships over time. This also makes it possible to discuss new aspects of governing chains.