Search results

Instructional leadership has taken center stage in recent years as the emphasis on school leaders’ role in improving instructional programs and impacting student learning has increased under the pressures of the accountability movement. While there is a growing literature that has highlighted the indirect impacts of effective instructional leadership on student learning, little is known about these effects in the area of special education. Because this direct involvement in instructional and curricular matters has typically fallen outside the traditional roles of principals and other school leaders, the need for purposeful focus on developing these skills is paramount in a climate that is calling for leaders who can facilitate growth and improvement in student learning, particularly in the area of special education. This chapter explores instructional leadership in the context of special education with a focus on small to mid-sized schools. We identify a set of factors that are critical to the effective implementation of instructional leadership in the area of special education which include, communication, teacher evaluation and supervision, staff development, instructional programing, and instructional design. The chapter goes on to discuss how school leaders can cultivate growth and improvement in special education programming through the use of coaching models and distributed leadership. Lastly we explore the implications for practice including discussions of reforming principal preparation programs and shared leadership.

Leadership in higher education has become of increasing importance as the size of the enterprise has grown, and this has naturally led to a growing research interest in the topic. Using systematic review methods, this chapter interrogates and synthesises the research literature on leadership in higher education in terms of its meanings, application and practice, and the issues and critiques raised. It concludes that research into leadership in higher education has been both extensive and global in nature, identifying a variety of understandings, practices and approaches adopted, and the continuing dominance of white men in senior leadership positions. There is clearly scope for more research on this topic, which could both emphasise different issues and give greater recognition to the particular nature of higher education and higher education institutions.

Women who are the primary caretaker of the home, as a choice or as a necessity, have to negotiate an effective work-life balance and many times, the need to take care of their home results in lost opportunities for career development and advancement (Maki, 2015). For most, the opportunity to capitalize on the missed opportunities will occur after childbearing years (Maki, 2015). This study reconstructed the advancement to executive leadership of women who were employed at four-year, public universities using narrative inquiry and guided by the conceptual framework of social cognitive theory (Andrews, Squire, & Tamboukou, 2013; Bandura, 1989). In this study, six women in higher education were interviewed to discuss work-life balance as it pertains to being an executive leader of a four-year public institution. The participants of this study pinpointed family and work-life balance as important factors for their decision-making process. Balancing work and life can be challenging when you are a person in a leadership position and the degree of difficulty increases when children and family are included. Many women believe that they must choose between their careers and their family. Women postponing their careers for their spouses may not seem abnormal because there tends to be an expectation that male's advancement is prioritized over the woman's (Parker, 2015). As more women are taking on leadership roles, the idea and evolution of establishing and maintaining a strategy for work-life balance becomes a very integral topic and one that needs continuous exploration.

The purpose of this chapter is to introduce the role of the doctorate as an investment in education, and to consider whose education is being invested in, how and why. We examine the role of postgraduate research within the doctorate and how this may contribute to a self-improving profession, self-improving educational institutions and self-improving education systems.

The methodology is the representation of different chapters from authors that explore the key themes that we introduce in this chapter.

We present the three main findings from a British Educational Leadership, Management and Administration Doctoral Research Interest Group seminar series funded by the British Educational Leadership, Management and Administration Society (BELMAS). First is the progression of a systemic basis for active educational research, engaged with the mobilization of learning-based and pedagogic knowledge leadership within doctoral scholarship, learning and pedagogy. Second is the continued examination of the internationalization of purpose, structure and function in doctoral study through evidence informed leadership. Third is the provision of opportunities to explore ways in which doctoral study may facilitate educational leaders to recognize ‘minoritised’ and marginalized communities, and disrupt dominant discourses that work within patterns of ecologies that ‘pathologise’ diversity and difference.

Here, a clearly stated focus emerged during the seminar series, emphasizing how leaders engaging with doctoral learning have the opportunity to articulate generative transformative theories of human learning for a civic curriculum, and to apply this new knowledge to work for change for students’ full economic, cultural and political participation in the society.

Standard doctoral preparation includes formal training in a specific academic discipline. In some instances, this training includes experience serving on departmental and university-wide committees. Structured leadership education, however, is most often a peripheral concern of the graduate school experience. For a significant number of doctoral students, formal leadership education is simply not considered to be of primary importance to the careers to which they aspire within higher education. Recognizing a need for increased leadership preparation in higher education, this chapter aims to highlight one systematic model for leadership education at the doctoral student level, the Rutgers University PreDoctoral Leadership Development Institute (PLDI).

In this chapter the authors explore what it means to be an inclusive school leader through a discourse that focuses on “out of the box” approaches in preparing future school leaders to push the envelope of inclusive leadership practice. The purpose of this chapter is to (a) define inclusive education and leadership; (b) describe prevailing theoretical frameworks for leadership in inclusive education and build on emerging theories of inclusive psychology and inclusive pedagogy; (c) identify promising practices for leadership in inclusive education; (d) identify emerging understandings of leadership roles in inclusive education; and (e) suggest recommendations for policy, practice, and leadership preparation. In both the USA and the UK, contrasting and polarizing discourses that focus leaders’ attention on attainment and performance for pupils and appear to compete with the leadership role in including (i.e., effectively educating) those students who are known to have achievement gaps (e.g., those with disabilities). Alternative perspectives are offered that frame leadership for inclusive education in terms of broader concepts such as “leadership for learning.”

This chapter explores sustainable development of leadership strategies as a social framework in higher education to help with defining, implementing, and envisioning a sustainable future. Leaders need to develop a sustainable approach for higher education that involves all stakeholders who benefit from having educated citizens to develop common interests that develop and promote sustainable objectives that focus on shared values. An educationally sustainable approach extends beyond a current leader’s time at the institution to continue stable growth and long-term approaches around making decisions, fostering systemic innovation, developing an engaged workforce, and providing quality services and solutions. Leaders need to link sustainable strategies to the school’s mission, values, and finances to help gain consensus and align the decision-making process. In an effort to develop leaders and programs around educational sustainability, governmental organizations have been established to help develop policies and programs to create a sustainable future. Additionally, professional organizations have formed that allow leaders a chance to connect, grow skills, and lead sustainability initiatives. And, higher education institutions have created offices focused around sustainability on campus and educational programs around sustainability leadership to help develop future leaders that are able to take action based on sustainability values and creating an inclusive and reflective process for decision-making. Sustainable leadership has the power to transform society through reorienting the educational system to help people develop knowledge, skills, values, and behaviors for an ever-changing world.

This chapter aims to examine the ways coaching and mentoring are currently leveraged to deliver leadership development in higher education institutions. By exploring the variety of coaching and mentoring approaches and their deployment at different levels and across different institutions we are able to indicate opportunities for further enhancing leadership development in the sector through coaching and mentoring. The chapter examines peer-reviewed articles, sector reports and insights from key informants crafted into mini case studies. Mentoring emerges as a default approach to leadership development, in particular at early career stages and where inclusivity and diversity feature as part of leadership development programmes. Coaching is evident at the senior levels and offers a wider range of individual leader, senior team and organisational leadership development opportunities. Our cases highlight the range of responses and sophistication of coaching approaches and practices, from the highly embedded to other more piecemeal examples. The findings emphasise the importance of empirical research in this area to better understand and inform the sector of the wider benefits and opportunities of coaching and mentoring in supporting leadership development. Opportunities to support greater inclusivity and diversity in leadership should consider coaching approaches and practices too. This exploration of coaching and mentoring identifies why shifts towards coaching may be evident. It challenges those in the sector – researchers, people management and organisational developers, as well as senior leaders – to adopt more integrated and embedded coaching and mentoring initiatives to support the sector in addressing its current challenges.

The field of educational leadership is very much dominated by studies of process. That is, discourses of best practice, effectiveness, efficiency, accountability, and so on, dominate the landscape. This then feeds into those working in schools in leadership positions and leadership teams coming to value style over substance. Whether a leader is working according to a particular adjectival leadership model matters little if the purpose of schooling and education is not the priority and shared. In this chapter, I argue that leaders need to have issues of social justice and equity as central to the purpose of their work, for those in disadvantaged areas and schools, and also those working in more privileged sites. Schools have unfortunately often been sites where forms of racism and social injustices have been perpetuated. A key aspect then for leaders is to work redress these practices. However, when working with large diversities in many schools, some leaders feel they are often unprepared for such challenges. In this chapter, I explore the difficulties and challenges of this kind of leadership with a particular focus on the Australian context and examine ways that leaders can think about and act in ways that recognize and acknowledge the diversity in their schools and communities, challenge their own assumptions and beliefs, and also work toward alleviating socially unjust practices.

This chapter presents a reflective study on the role of leadership in curriculum changes in Indonesian higher education. It was based on case studies carried out in 2012 and 2014 at Politeknik Negeri Jember (POLIJE), a vocational higher education institution (HEI) that was selected by the Ministry of Research, Technology and Higher Education of Indonesia as a pilot project implementation of the newly established Indonesian Qualification Framework. It describes the theoretical and contextual background of the study that was inseparable with the growing concern on globalization, internationalization, and democratization of HEIs worldwide. Meanwhile, curriculum changes since 1961 demonstrated the dynamic of the curriculum, which signified either the development of national education or instabilities in the individual HEIs. These signify the breadth, depth, and the contexts of ESD curriculum development in Indonesian HEIs, which confronted the leaders or managers with the complexity. This requires effective functions related to the change strategy and shared roles between the top and middle leaders in coping with the leadership, managerial, and academic issues within an interdisciplinary setting. In this top-down change, the intention to adopt the transformational leadership model was obvious in the level of top leaders, while in the middle leadership, practices were less hierarchical. The leaders both in the top and the middle levels had complemented to each other with low attention on the notion of organizational learning. In light of sustainable education, the notion of organizational learning gives the foundation for successful change and sustainable organizational development. It is because the best performance of an institution will strongly be influenced by the quality of investment in the capacity development of both the leaders and staff.