Search results

Following Starratt’s (1991) proposed conceptual framework for ethical leadership that is no longer defined as a style or an attitude, but as the basis for moral dimensions and actions that can be developed and based on the ethics of care, critique, and justice, this chapter traces the following questions: (a) How does cultural and social context influence the meaning and practices of unethical leadership in the school? (b) How do principals and vice-principals preserve and interpret their unethical practices? Using Langlois’s interview guide on ethical dilemmas (1997), 10 interviews were conducted with school principals and vice-principals in the Arab education system in Israel. The chapter presents unethical behaviors emerging from content analysis of the interviews such as personal development versus loyalty to others (unethical behaviors that are related to managing staff underperformance or appointing candidate teachers); or loyalty to my minority-society or to the government. The chapter fosters better understanding of both national specificities and universal commonalities associated with unethical leadership, as well as of the cultural and social characteristics that facilitate or hinder the development of ethical leadership, and finally explains some approaches to leadership that would improve the practice.

Since the turn of the new millennia, governments have increasingly moved away from professional models of educational decision-making and turned toward a neoliberal production model in which markets and test scores drive educational decisions. In this “brave new world,” teachers have become “human capital,” and principals, the managers of their productivity rather than leaders of learning. As a result of this changing dynamic, teachers have increasingly turned to teacher unions or federations, and away from local school jurisdictions and governments to protect their salaries, working conditions and professionalism. Principals, in turn, have found themselves in a no-win situation – caught between top-down demands from big governments and local school districts for teacher compliance, and big unions' insistence on fair treatment for all teachers. This chapter, therefore, intends to explore this increasingly fragile role of principals in three international settings, in our rapidly changing world.

In this chapter we discuss the content and process of the Learning-Centered Leadership Development Program for Practicing and Aspiring Principals. In terms of the content, based on extensive literature review the program focuses on seven dimensions of principal leadership associated with student achievement. In terms of process, one pair of practicing and aspiring principals from each school engage in five levels of learning – moving from (a) experiential, to (b) declarative, to (c) procedural, to (d) contextual, and to (e) evidential. The pair of practicing and aspiring principals works with two additional teacher leaders to develop sufficient leadership density in the school to plan and implement renewal activities along the seven dimensions to improve student achievement. We also reflect upon the lessons learned from implementing the program.

This chapter highlights the collaborative efforts of committed partners engaged in four distinct yet inter-related programs designed to build leadership capacity across schools serving rural Alaska. The Rural Alaska Principal Preparation and Support (RAPPS) program has built a comprehensive system of leadership development programs that develop aspiring leaders, induct and coach new principals, promote the professional learning of practicing principals, and support the school improvement efforts of the state education department. Each program is described in detail with special attention devoted to the unique elements of the program designs, including summer institutes; cohort models; distance learning offerings; targeted coaching; blended learning models using webinars; critical friends’ conversations; and a festival of ideas. Lessons learned are highlighted, and impact and evaluation results are also detailed.

This chapter presents an integrated model of principal preparation featuring full-time internships and enquiry-based coursework. The development of the full-time internship component is the result of an award of a US DoE School Leadership Program grant in 2008 to expand and enhance the Ritchie Program for School Leaders, a collaborative principal preparation program between University of Denver and Denver Public Schools. The integration of Shulman’s (2005) model of practical, cognitive, and moral apprenticeships for professional education provided the foundation of the design and implementation of full-time internships through this collaborative partnership for principal preparation. Collaboration among interns, host principals, district leadership, and university faculty provides the focus, means, and structures of learning. This chapter describes the evolution of the Ritchie Program for School Leaders through features and initial impact of full-time internships and offers lessons learned about mentoring aspiring leaders.

The underlying assumption of this chapter is that the pedagogical leadership of school principals is a cornerstone for preservice and practicing teachers’ professional education in schools. The theory–practice divide in teachers’ performance (Koutselini & Persianis, 2000) can be overcome by changing the school ethos and culture from loose associations of students and teachers to communities of learning, a shift which cannot be achieved unless school principals value this effort and support teachers’ leadership in the learning communities of schools. The in-service training program RELEASE, which was funded by the European Committee (Project ID: EACEA-521386: Toward achieving Self-REgulated LEArning as a core in teachers’ In-SErvice training in Cyprus) is presented as an effective project for developing teachers’ leadership, as well as a rewarding experience for student teachers during their School Experience Program or Practicum. The program lasted one school year and aimed to enhance both the school principals’ pedagogic role in supporting participating teachers’ (preservice and in-service teachers’) professional development and leadership for changing teaching routines and enhancing students’ performance. This project productively shaped the life and work of schools, forming a foundation for powerful preservice pedagogies that will follow.

The range of tasks and demands placed on a school principal can seem to change daily, and indeed, this appears to be a defining element of the role. Leadership in an education setting is special. Fortunately there are specific purposes associated with education that school leaders can employ as guides to action. One of these key purposes relates to ideology and socialization. School principals are responsible for defining and shaping the culture of their institutions in ways that will model and reflect the needs and priorities of the community. In recent years, this has come to include recognizing and responding to the ever-growing concern for our environment. One way this social justice issue has manifested itself in schools is through a trend known as the green school movement. To define and further understand how green school leadership might be different from that of traditional school leadership, research was carried out to investigate how principals lead and manage in green schools and how the environmental missions are promoted and advanced on a daily basis by school based advocates in administrative roles. To conduct such an inquiry, five school principals were observed and interviewed on multiple occasions to gain an understanding of how they lead and influence their schools through their role as a principal.