Leadership for Quality Teaching: Indicators for a Continuous Improvement Leadership Framework within School Improvement
Amidst the vast body of research and literature that has emerged since the '70s on school improvement and school effectiveness studies, one significant finding has been the need for strong leadership. The role of leadership as an integral factor in these research findings (Huber, 2004; Fullan, 1993; Van Velzen et al., 1985; Rutter et al., 1979) has led to the conclusion that for any school to be classified as successful, it must possess a competent and sound leadership process. The basic premise of this paper is the integral role that school leadership plays in developing and assuring of quality within its system. The major outcome of the paper is the development of a 4-P Continuous Improvement Leadership Framework, that is, school leadership was characterized within four aspects of continual improvement. The findings from the study substantiate that leadership must be defined in terms of a philosophy, a process, products of the educational process and finally within certain parameters. Using this framework, the researcher has identified a new definition for leadership -- Continuous Improvement Leadership.
Methodology: This study was undertaken as a qualitative case-study using interviews, field-notes on observational sessions, a self-assessment quality checklist and document analysis in a state primary school in Victoria, Australia.
Findings: A major finding of this study is the importance of effective leadership in a continual improvement framework using Total Quality Management as a paradigm. Through the analysis of data the following four aspects of leadership were determined: (i) Leadership as a philosophy: The basic ingredient of a leadership philosophy should be grounded in the vision (Lewis & Caldwell, 2005), the measurable goals, the values and the democratic voice that an educational institution is established on; (ii) Leadership as a process: Leadership is not a role but a process that is undergone by the stakeholders within an educational institution, preferably a learning organization (Britton, 2002). The Continuous Improvement Leadership Framework identifies factors that are involved in this process such as active roles of all stakeholders (Sallis, 1992), evidence-based results (Caldwell, 2004), multi-faceted learning and development (Harris, Busher & Wise, 2001), teamwork (Crowther et al., 2002) and innovation (Mai, 2004), (iii) Leadership and products of the educational process: An educational institution needs to have certain products such as quality teaching, strong curriculum and assessment practices and established linkages within the community to support its main product which is quality learning, and (iv) Leadership and its parameters: There are parameters that govern the leadership process of a school. These parameters include national educational directives (Johansson, 2004), curriculum frameworks, departmental policies and individual school community cultures (Loucks-Horsley & Hergert, 1985).
Recommendations: The Continuous Improvement Leadership Framework supports, through its findings and literature review, that leadership is not a role but a process undertaken by all the stakeholders in an institution. It provides a theoretical route whereby an institution can draw on its leadership initiatives as a process for school improvement.
References
Britton, B. 2002. Learning for change: Principles and practices of learning organizations. Sundbyberg: Swedish Mission Council.
Caldwell, B. J. (2004). A strategic view of efforts to lead the transformation of schools. School Leadership and Management 24(1): 81-99.
Crowther, F., S. S. Kaagen, M. Ferguson, and L. Hann (2002). Developing teacher leaders: How teacher leadership enhances school success. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Fullan, M. (Ed.). (1993). Change Forces: The School as a Learning Organisation. London: Palmer Press.
Harris, A., H. Busher, and C. Wise (2001). Effective training for subject leaders, Journal of In-Service Education 27 (1): 83-94.
Huber, S. G. (2004). School leadership and leadership development: Adjusting leadership theories and development programs to values and the core purpose of school. Journal of Educational Administration, 42 (6), 669.
Johansson, O. (2004). A democratic, learning and communicative leadership? Journal of Educational Administration, 42 (6), 697.
Lewis, J., & Caldwell, B. J. (2005). Evidence-Based Leadership. The Educational Forum, 69 (2), 182.
Loucks-Horsley, S. and Hergert, L.F. (1985) An Action Guide to School Improvement. USA: ASCD/THE NETWORK.
Mai, R. (2004). Leadership for School Improvement: Cues from Organizational Learning and Renewal Efforts. The Educational Forum, 68 (3), 211.
Rutter, M., Maughan, B., Mortimore, P. and Ouston, J. (1979). Fifteen Thousand Hours. London: Open Books.
Sallis, E. (1992). Total Quality Management and Further Education. In T.Simkins, (eds.) Implementing Educational Reforms: The Early Lesson England: Longman, pp. 104-115.
Van Velzen, W.G., Miles, M.B., Ekholm, M., Hameyer, U. and Robin, D. (Eds) (1985), Making School Improvement Work, A Conceptual Guide to Practice. Leuven : ACCO.