Education Leadership Learning and the Theories of Learning

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

A Well-Defined Theory of Leadership

Orr (2011:120) posits that the first feature common to exemplary education leadership learning programmes is that they are framed by a well-defined theory of leadership that focuses on school improvement. Such a theory, she continues, serves to integrate all the other features of the programme and assists with the creation of a set of values, beliefs and content that make up the core of such a programme. In the same vein, Earley and Jones (2010:x) allude to a clearly communicated and all-encompassing purpose or mission statement around which all education leadership learning programmes should be designed, while Crawford and Early (2011:108) refer in this regard to “a powerful, guiding vision” and Davis et al (2005:8) to a specific philosophy that should underpin ideal education leadership learning programmes. These statements tally with Huber‟s (2010:238) belief that, as a trend in education leadership learning, “an important paradigm shift has occurred: from focusing on managing (own italics) schools with an emphasis on maintenance, to a focus on leading and improving (own italics) schools”.
While many theories of education leadership attempt, as theories do, to predict and explain (McMillan & Schumacher (2014:7) the phenomenon of education leadership, Imants and de Jong (Huber, 2010:673) and Huber (2010:669), when they refer to the complex integration of leadership and management tasks discussed in Chapter 3 as “integrated school leadership” or as “professional school leadership” respectively, are in fact referring to the concept of instructional leadership – school leadership actions and activities that focus on the learning progress of learners and that encompass management as well as leadership-orientated roles, activities and functions directed toward such progress (Southworth, 2002:77, Huber, 2010:673). Jacobson (2011:34) describes instructional leadership as “the linchpin” between school leader practices and learner achievement. The most widely accepted model of instructional leadership was proposed in the year 2000 by Hallinger (2010:332). In this model he proposes three dimensions for this form of leadership – (a) defining the school‟s mission, (b) leading and managing the instructional programme and (c) promoting a positive and enabling school climate (Hallinger, 2010:332). The second of these dimensions – leading and managing the instructional programme, lends credence to both Bush‟s (2007:400) belief that the increasing focus within the education sector on the process of leading teaching and learning as the primary function of schools has led to the emergence and increase in importance of the theory of instructional leadership, and also to Steyn‟s (2008:895) statement that, although international perspectives on educational leadership differ, there appears to be movement away from the traditional perspective that views the principal as primarily a manager towards the perspective of a principal as an instructional leader with a strong focus on leading teaching and learning in schools.
But what does the practice of instructional leadership actually entail? In this regard, Hallinger, Leithwood and Heck (2010:22) paint a comprehensive picture of an instructional leader and instructional leadership with their seven foci for an instructional leader, namely (a) creating a shared sense of purpose and clear goals focused on teaching and learning, (b) advocating, planning and managing the continuous improvement of the school, (c) fostering a positive school climate and a culture of high quality and innovative teaching and learning, (d) coordinating the development and implementation of the curriculum, (e) shaping a rewards structure for the school that suits the culture and vision of the school, (f) planning, organising, managing and controlling a wide range of staff developmental activities and (g) being a visible presence, modeling to all stakeholders (staff, learners and parents) the desirable values and attitudes of the school‟s culture. Botha‟s (2004:240) take on the functions of an instructional leader include (a) defining and communicating objectives, aims and a goal for the school, (b) managing the curriculum, (c) supervising teaching, (d) monitoring and evaluating both the learning programme and learners‟ results, and (e) promoting an institutional climate conducive to effective teaching and learning.
Both Botha‟s (2004:24) and Hallinger et al‟s (2010:22) instructional leadership functions echo the three dimensions of this leadership theory proposed by Hallinger in 2000 (Hallinger, 2010:332) – Botha‟s suggestion that an instructional leader must manage the curriculum, supervise teaching and monitor and evaluate learning programmes and learner results matches Hallinger‟s second dimension (leading and managing the instructional programme – 2010:322), as does Hallinger and his co-authors‟ assertion that instructional leaders should coordinate the development and implementation of the curriculum (Hallinger et al, 2010:22). Both Botha and Hallinger et al also refer to Hallinger‟s (2010:332) first dimension, namely defining the school‟s mission when they mention that instructional leaders should define and communicate objectives, aims and a goal for the school (Botha, 2004:24) and should create a shared sense of purpose and clear goals focused on teaching and learning (Hallinger et al, 2010:22).
Having discussed instructional leadership at some length, attention must now turn to what Hoadley et al (2009:377) state is at the core of this theory, namely distributed leadership. Hoadley et al (2009:337) believe that instructional and distributed leadership together form the ideal foundation for effective leadership in education, a belief substantiated by Hallinger et al (2010:22) when they state that both practical experience and the results of empirical studies suggest that instructional leadership is a role the principal, as the primary school leader, should share with or distribute to school leaders at all the levels of the school. Hallinger et al (2010:19) explain the link between instructional and distributed leadership as the result of the fact that, as the scope of education and the sheer size and complexity of schools increased, it became impossible for the principal to both manage and carry out all the instructional leadership tasks and functions him or herself, and that these tasks and functions therefore had to be distributed or shared with other role players or leaders within the schools. This link between instructional and distributed leadership is further strengthened by Coleman (2003:162), who indicates the existence of two axes of leadership activity – one axis involves leadership activity that is concerned with people and relationships and the other is concerned with the product and results. In the education leadership context, the theory that addresses the axis of product and results, i.e. the teaching and learning which is the core function of education, is instructional leadership. Using the same analogy, distributed leadership theory refers to the axis of people and relationships.
One of the major exponents of distributed leadership is Spillane. He believes that distributive leadership is “about leadership practice (own italics) rather than about leaders and their roles, functions, routines and structures” (Spillane, 2005:143) and that this practice encompasses the manner in which school leaders interact with their followers and any given situation they encounter (Spillane, 2005:144). This leadership practice, he continues, acknowledges that multiple role players within the school must be allowed to take leadership responsibility for various activities and actions within the school (Spillane, 2005:144). Davies, Darling-Hammond, LePointe and Meyerson (2005:165) define distributed leadership as “multiple sources of guidance and direction, following the contours of expertise in an organisation”. These authors further contend that “many people in leadership activity are at the core of distributed leadership in action” (Davis et al, 2005:166). Jacobson (2011:35) summarises this debate about distributive leadership well when he posits that the concept of school leadership no longer refers merely to the leadership role of the principal or headmaster as the official designated or appointed to fulfill the task of leading a school or as “the possession of power and authority based on hierarchical status” (Fitzgerald & Gunter, 2008:336), but rather that the concept of school leadership refers to “a collective construct that can be distributed among teachers and support staff”. Finally, Leithwood, Harris and Hopkins (2008:27), in their seven strong claims about school leadership, claim that “school leadership has a greater influence on schools and students (learners) when it is widely distributed”, and that distributed leadership practice accounted for as much as 27% of the variation in learner performance noted in a 2007 study by Mascall and Leithwood (Leithwood et al, 2008:34). Spillane‟s reference to this leadership practice also having to take place within and being dependent on specific situations links with the concept of contingent or situational leadership described by Leithwood et al (2008:15). Contingent leadership, sometimes referred to as situational leadership, assumes that what is paramount is that education leaders respond to different situations and contexts or organisational circumstances differently and appropriately, thus requiring a leader to tailor his or her response to the specific demands and characteristics of any given situation or context (Bush, 2007:402). In this regard, Coleman (2003:161) states that there should be “a relationship between the appropriate leadership style and the context in which that leadership style is being exercised”. The views of both of these authors are corroborated by Steyn (2008:895) when she suggests that there is a discernable move in leadership and management literature away from a narrow focus on the managerial functions and responsibilities of education leaders towards a broader focus on school leaders as both instructional leaders and as leaders who employ participative and collaborative leadership and management practices. This broadening of the leadership role and the need for school leaders to be adaptable and to act according to and work within different contexts and situations is re-iterated by Brauckmann and Pashiardis (2011:15-16) when they describe the five most important sets of leadership activities (or styles, as they call them) “across the leadership radius”, these being instructional activities, structuring activities, participative activities, entrepreneurial activities and personnel development. Each of these sets of leadership activities acknowledge that school leaders “do not operate in a vacuum”, and that context and situation is, or at least should be, an important determinant of school leaders‟ leadership actions and practices (Brauckmann & Pashiardis, 2011:13).
This concept of participation in leadership and the distribution of leadership roles and functions is by no means new to the South African education milieu – The Task Team on Education Management Development reported in 1996 that “new education policy requires managers who are able to work in democratic and participative ways to build relationships and ensure efficient and effective delivery” (Department of Education, 1996:25). In summation, the instructional and distributed leadership theories prescribe school leaders who focus on and are deeply involved in the core business of schools, namely teaching and learning. The plural (leaders) is used here to indicate the fact that, in effective schools, leadership responsibilities are distributed among competent staff members so that the principal or headmaster is no longer required to run the traditional one-man-show (Steyn, 2008:895, Jacobson, 2011:35) or act as the heroic leader (Spillane, 2005:142). The credibility of the instructional leadership theory has been firmly established by research – this can be seen clearly in the link between the roles of the instructional leader as defined by Botha (2004:240) and Bush (2007:400) and both the core dimensions of school leadership identified by Leithwood et al (2008:29), namely setting direction, developing people, redesigning the organisation and managing the instructional programme”, and the activities described by Robinson and her co-researchers (2008:27-30) as having the greatest impact on learner success and school success, namely establishing goals and setting clear expectations for all stakeholders, planning and using both human and material resources strategically, planning, coordinating and evaluating both the teaching and the curriculum, promoting and participating in programmes that develop teacher and school leader skills and competencies, and creating and maintaining a safe and supportive learning environment at school. It is also important to note in this regard the correlation between Robinson et al‟s (2008:27-30) activities and Brauckmann and Pashiardis (2011:15-16) five most important sets of leadership activities describe – these correlations are set out in the table 4.1 on page 121.
This correlation is further substantiated by the results of research conducted by Jacobson (2011) and by Sammons, Gu, Day and Ko (2011). Jacobson (2011:34) states that research into effective schools shows that school leaders who lead such schools “work(ed) tenaciously to create safe and orderly learning environments; set clear instructional objectives; expect high performance from teachers and students and develop positive home-school relationships”, while Sammons et al (2011:92-93), in their study of the impact of school leadership on learner outcomes, identify, in line with the findings of Robinson et al, (2008) and Leithwood et al (2008), among other leadership actions (a) the strategic provision and allocation of resources, (b) promoting continuous professional development for teachers, (c) improving instructional aspects such as assessment practices and curriculum and (d) monitoring teachers and teaching as practices that have the greatest impact on learner performance.

Curriculum Coherence

Both Orr (2011:120) and Robey and Bauer (2013:264) substantiate the discussion above on the theory of leadership with the greatest currency when they state that exemplary education leadership learning programmes generally feature a coherent curriculum that is underpinned by the theory of instructional leadership, therefore promoting, with a curriculum based on this theory, effective leadership of teaching and learning and the development and improvement of schools.
Davis et al (2005:8) describe a programme with curricular coherence as one where there is a clear link between the aims and objectives of the programme, the learning content and learning activities or instructional applications and the shared values and beliefs encompassed in the underpinning philosophy or theory of leadership. As mentioned earlier, they posit that such programmes often present a logical sequence of course work and learning activities that link theory to practice within a framework of adult learning theory (Davis et al, 2005:9).
Huber (2010:230) identifies the increased degree of coherence in programmes evident in many countries as the result of improved cooperation between universities, educationalists and education leaders at both school and professional organisations level as a global trend in education leadership learning, and posits that this cooperation has contributed to the development of the content, teaching and learning strategies and learning methods of such programmes, promoting improved curriculum coherence.
Any discussion of the ideal curriculum for education leadership learning will naturally lead to a discussion of the content of education leadership learning programmes. The changing nature and responsibilities and the ever-increasing complexity of the role of a school leader has made training of such leaders for a fixed role obsolete (Huber, 2010:236). In order to overcome this problem, Davis et al (2005:8) and others (Mansfield & Carpenter, 2008:4) believe that the curriculum and content of education leadership learning programmes should be based on and reflect the current research on education leadership and should also be aligned with the programme‟s underpinning philosophy or theory of leadership. This is substantiated by Bush and Moorosi (2011:70) when they state that education leadership learning for the future must include “emergent and context-responsive learning” and by Pounder (2011:263) who states that the content of education leadership learning programmes should be challenging and should have a strong focus on instructional leadership.
As early as 2002, Bush and Jackson (2002:412) contended that “the content of educational leadership programmes has considerable similarities in different countries, leading to the hypothesis that there is an international curriculum for school leadership preparation”, an opinion mirrored by Paterson and West-Burnham (2005:110). Bush and Jackson (2002:413) continued to state that most education leadership learning programmes at that stage “focused on leadership, including vision, mission and transformational leadership, giving prominence to issues of teaching and learning (instructional leadership) and incorporating a consideration of the main task areas of administration or management such as human resource management, professional development, finance, curriculum and external relationships”. This substantiates the global trend that sees many education leadership learning programmes globally now including components such as the development of a personal vision for education and the development of fundamental values, as well as components aimed at developing leaders‟ ability to self- and time manage and to reflect on their own practice (Huber, 2010:237). With the global shift in the perception of school leaders as experts in administration to one of school leaders as experts in communication and cooperation (Huber, 2010:237), topics such as communication, collaboration, motivation, cooperation and collegiality have become essential components in modern education leadership learning programmes, with a growing international awareness that the understanding of these components of the school leadership role is essential in becoming a successful school leader (Huber, 2010:237).

CHAPTER 1  Introduction and Orientation to the Study 
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Background and Orientation to the Study
1.3 Problem Statement
1.4 Rationale for the Study
1.5 Purpose of the Study
1.6 Research Questions
1.7 Theoretical Framework for the Study
1.8 Research Methodology
1.9 Ethical Considerations
1.10 Limitations and Challenges of the Study
1.11 Outline of the Thesis
1.12 Summary
CHAPTER 2   The Theoretical Framework of the Study 
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Engeström’s Activity Theory
2.3 Summary
CHAPTER 3  Education Leadership Learning – a Review of the Current Discourse  
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Concepts and Terminology
3.3 Reasons to Study Education Leadership Learning
3.4 The Importance of Education Leadership Learning
3.5 The Ideal Level for Education Leadership Learning
3.6 The Value to Leaders of Leadership Learning in Education
3.7 Summary
CHAPTER 4  Education Leadership Learning and the Theories of Learning  
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Education Leadership Learning in Relation to Learning Theory
4.3 Education Leadership Learning – Ideal Practice
4.4 Summary
CHAPTER 5  Research Approach and Methodology of the Study 
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Research Paradigm and Approach
5.3 Research Methodology
5.4 Trustworthiness and Credibility of the Study
5.5 Ethical Considerations
5.6 Summary
CHAPTER 6  Education Leadership Learning – Data Presentation, Findings and Analysis 
6.1 Introduction
6.2 The Participants
6.3 The Findings of the Study – Format and Lay-out
6.4 Findings – Research Sub-Question 1
6.5 Findings – Research Sub-Question 2
6.6 Findings – Research Sub-Question 3
6.7 Summary
CHAPTER 7  Discussion of Findings, Contribution, Overview and Conclusion 
7.1 Introduction
7.2 Discussion of the Findings
7.3 The Contribution of the Study
7.4 Recommendations
7.5 Recommendations for Further Studies
7.6 Summary
Bibliography

GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT