Session Information
26 SES 01 A, School Leadership, Middle Management and School Context
Paper Session
Contribution
During the past decades, school principals have increasingly been held responsible for the problem and solution of (low) student achievement. This dilemma has prompted educational policies and accountability systems to improve school quality in many countries. Whereas accountability is linked to outcome measures in terms of student achievement and academic progress, responsibility represents a concept linking contextual and personal influences. It includes aspects associated with professionalism, such as job autonomy, position in the organizational network, availability of resources and information, role ambiguity, support, acting proactively, and trust (Ball, 2008; Lauermann & Karabenick, 2011). From a social cognitive career theory perspective (Lent, Brown & Hackett, 2002), school leaders’ decision to take on such responsibility (and to be persistent) in the changing educational system is closely linked to contextual aspects (e.g., educational policy, support structure) and individual components, such as their biography, prior knowledge, previous leadership experience, motivation and self-regulation.
In Switzerland, the implementation of school principals was only introduced in 1997. The development in the state elementary education system, rooted in the reforms initiated in the wake of New Public Management, led to a new legislation in 2005. Principals are responsible for the operational management, whereas the school board leads the school strategically. Swiss principals cannot be judged based on high-quality outcomes because, compared to other countries, no such data is available. Furthermore, effectiveness in terms of student achievement and measurable attainment is only a “necessary but not sufficient indicator of ‘success’” (Day et al., 2016, p. 224). In the Swiss context, therefore, the term needs further clarification even though clear criteria based on robust international data on successful principals exist (Day & Leithwood, 2007; Gurr & Day, 2014).
Against this backdrop, the following Swiss case study, contextualized in the ISSPP-project (International Successful School Principal Project), aims to shed light on dimensions of successful school leadership regarding accountability and responsibility. The research questions are as follows: How can we define “success” in a country without test tradition? How do different actors at a prize-winning ICT-school perceive the term “successful principal”? How does the principal, a former second-career teacher with previous experience in the IT and marketing sector, perceive the concept of a “successful school” and how is this linked to his biography?
For this purpose, we contextualize our case study by focusing on different theoretical perspectives:
1) The “policy dimension” refers to the changing policy landscape of education that has led to a changing profile of school leadership in many countries. Reforms emphasize accountability and decentralization of management and quality functions to schools, while concurrently stressing the role of responsible and effective leaders for change and school autonomy (Ball, 2003; OECD, 2012);
2) The “leadership dimension” incorporates a body of international studies on successful principals, which links, amongst other aspects, student outcomes with principals’ performance (Ärlestig, Day & Johansson, 2016; Day, Gu & Sammons, 2016; Kythreotis & Antoniou, 2015; Marsh, 2014) and aspects of leadership during change management processes (Currie, Lockett & Suhomlinova, 2009; Fullan, 2014);
3) The “learning dimension” includes biographical aspects and workplace learning. It refers to different spaces or places of learning and competence development in the work context (McNamara, Murray & Jones, 2014).
Method
Expected Outcomes
References
Ärlestig, H. Day, C. & Johansson, O. (2016). A decade of research on school principals. Dordrecht: Springer. Ball, S. J. (2008). The education debate. Bristol: The Policy Press. Currie, G., Lockett, A., & Suhomlinova, O. (2009). Leadership and institutional change in the public sector: The case of secondary schools in England. .The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 664–679. Day, C., & Leithwood, K. (2007). Successful principal leadership in times of change. Dordrecht: Springer. Day, C., Sammons, P., Leithwood, K., Hopkins, D., Gu, Q., Brown, E., & Ahtaridou, E. (2011). School leadership and student outcomes. London: Open University Press. 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. Fullan, M. (2014). The principal. Three keys to maximazing impact. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Gurr, D., & Day, C. (2014). Leading schools successfully. In C. Day & D. Gurr, (Eds.), Leading schools successfully (pp. 1-5). New York: Routledge. Kohlstock, B., Bieri Buschor, C., & Brauckmann, S. (2015). Übersetzung und Validierung des ISSPP-Instruments zum erfolgreichen Schulleitungshandeln [Translation and validation of the ISSPP instrument on successful school principalship]. Zürich: Pädagogische Hochschule Zürich. Kythreotis, A., & Antoniou, P. (2015). Exploring the impact of school leadership on student learning outcome. In K. Beyciouglu & P. Pashiardis (2015). Multidimensional perspectives on principal leadership effectiveness. Hershey PA: IGI Global. Lauermann, F., & Karabenick, S. A. (2011). Taking teacher responsibility into account (ability): explicating its multiple components and theoretical status. Educational Psychologist, 46(2), 122-140. Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (2002). “Social cognitive career theory.” In D. Brown (ed.), Career choice and development (pp. 255–311). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Marsh, S. (2014). A model for leadership that improves learning: New insights for schools and scholars. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 14(1), 67-103. McNamara, O., Murray, J., & Jones, M. (2014). Workplace learning in teacher education. New York: Springer. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2012). Preparing teachers and developing school leaders for the 21st century. Paris: OECD. Pashiardis, P., & Johansson O. (2016). Successful school leadership: International perspectives. London: Bloomsbury. Tulowitzki, P. (2013): Leadership and school improvement in France. Journal of Educational Administration, 51(6), 812-835.
Search the ECER Programme
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.